Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
Discussing "THE" Debate
from Dictionary.com
de·bate (d
-b
t
)
I'm beginning with the formal definition of debate here. Seems like there are many who have no comprehension of what the word means. Sadly,it is supposedly intelligent people who lack this understanding of the definition. Newscasters, reporters, editors.
There was a Presidential Debate the other night.
Not, as the name implies, a debate between presidents. Nor was it a debate about presidents, except tangentially. It is a pre-election debate for presidential candidates. One of the candidates is the current president.
A debate, as you can see from the definition, is basically a discussion -- just like the one we're having here. (Not exactly, since you lack the ability to respond as I'm speaking.)
Discussion of this, of that -- it can even be considered an argument, but that usage has, until now, meant in a formal sense. Not petty kindergarten squabbling.
This is important, at least to me, because there was very little attention paid to or reported on any actual debate topics. The debates had barely started when the media morons began trumpeting "Romney is winning!"
How the Blankety-blank blank does anyone win a discussion?
How do they win a discussion when that discussion has barely begun?
It didn't get any better, folks. I don't know what the debates were about. I don't know what subjects were introduced, what answers either candidate had, or whether either had a solution that was markedly different from the other guys.
As a matter of fact, I don't know if there were any other candidates present or if it was just the two Mr. BigBucks BigMouths running. They were the only two mentioned. There are other candidates, voters. Some of them have great ideas and reasonable policies. Look them up.
I don't know because no one reported on this. No one cared to do straight reporting for those who couldn't/didn't watch the live event.
And if it were a matter of winning -- so what? If winning a discussion means anything at all, I'm pretty sure it does NOT mean winning the election, although Mainstream Media would like you to think it's in the bag now for their guy.
Mitt Romney won the primaries because he could beat Obama -- not on issues, performance, promises, or politics -- just because he breathes higher class air, I suppose. I have yet to figure that logic. See previous blog:http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7971544013891065437#editor/target=post;postID=8130718494167114723
Now he has 'won' a debate -- what does that mean?
It means he talks faster ?
There's the solution to our problems! A slick fast-talker. He must be made to be President! He out-talked the man who was actually working at running the country (possibly badly, but trying) while he was rehearsing his party lines and preening in his mirror.
I'm saving my vote for the election. That's the only WIN that counts.
de·bate (d
-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms atdiscuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.
I'm beginning with the formal definition of debate here. Seems like there are many who have no comprehension of what the word means. Sadly,it is supposedly intelligent people who lack this understanding of the definition. Newscasters, reporters, editors.
There was a Presidential Debate the other night.
Not, as the name implies, a debate between presidents. Nor was it a debate about presidents, except tangentially. It is a pre-election debate for presidential candidates. One of the candidates is the current president.
A debate, as you can see from the definition, is basically a discussion -- just like the one we're having here. (Not exactly, since you lack the ability to respond as I'm speaking.)
Discussion of this, of that -- it can even be considered an argument, but that usage has, until now, meant in a formal sense. Not petty kindergarten squabbling.
This is important, at least to me, because there was very little attention paid to or reported on any actual debate topics. The debates had barely started when the media morons began trumpeting "Romney is winning!"
How the Blankety-blank blank does anyone win a discussion?
How do they win a discussion when that discussion has barely begun?
It didn't get any better, folks. I don't know what the debates were about. I don't know what subjects were introduced, what answers either candidate had, or whether either had a solution that was markedly different from the other guys.
As a matter of fact, I don't know if there were any other candidates present or if it was just the two Mr. BigBucks BigMouths running. They were the only two mentioned. There are other candidates, voters. Some of them have great ideas and reasonable policies. Look them up.
I don't know because no one reported on this. No one cared to do straight reporting for those who couldn't/didn't watch the live event.
And if it were a matter of winning -- so what? If winning a discussion means anything at all, I'm pretty sure it does NOT mean winning the election, although Mainstream Media would like you to think it's in the bag now for their guy.
Mitt Romney won the primaries because he could beat Obama -- not on issues, performance, promises, or politics -- just because he breathes higher class air, I suppose. I have yet to figure that logic. See previous blog:http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7971544013891065437#editor/target=post;postID=8130718494167114723
Now he has 'won' a debate -- what does that mean?
It means he talks faster ?
There's the solution to our problems! A slick fast-talker. He must be made to be President! He out-talked the man who was actually working at running the country (possibly badly, but trying) while he was rehearsing his party lines and preening in his mirror.
I'm saving my vote for the election. That's the only WIN that counts.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
FYI: A caftan is a DRESS
I recently bought myself a caftan. A nice, long, floaty, silky new dress. I haven't really had any new clothes for a long time -- in my size, they are hard to find. Once found, even harder to afford. So I was really happy to find this dress in a catalogue of inexpensive stuff.
The long flowy lines are a favorite of mine, and were before I got so very fat. Probably something to do with growing up during the hippie era. It should, properly, have a sash of scarves or a belt made of lamp pulls or swing chains, I suppose. And feather earrings and headbands, too, I suppose.
I have been choosing to wear mine plain, to enjoy the freedom of something that fits on me, that moves freely, and is slinky soft sliding across my skin.
That decision is going to have to change, though. I'm going to have to wear a belt. If I had any dress shoes, I supposed I'd have to wear them, too. I do have sandals that hurt my hips after twelve steps and my back after a dozen. I'll pass on the headbands -- my head comes with a built in headband, especially on stormy days.
Everyone thinks I am wearing a nightgown. Even the people in my own home think I am wearing a nightgown.
It's a DRESS, people! A fat lady dress, a hippie dress, but still a dress.
The long flowy lines are a favorite of mine, and were before I got so very fat. Probably something to do with growing up during the hippie era. It should, properly, have a sash of scarves or a belt made of lamp pulls or swing chains, I suppose. And feather earrings and headbands, too, I suppose.
I have been choosing to wear mine plain, to enjoy the freedom of something that fits on me, that moves freely, and is slinky soft sliding across my skin.
That decision is going to have to change, though. I'm going to have to wear a belt. If I had any dress shoes, I supposed I'd have to wear them, too. I do have sandals that hurt my hips after twelve steps and my back after a dozen. I'll pass on the headbands -- my head comes with a built in headband, especially on stormy days.
Everyone thinks I am wearing a nightgown. Even the people in my own home think I am wearing a nightgown.
It's a DRESS, people! A fat lady dress, a hippie dress, but still a dress.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
What is a Cashier?
I've been trying to find work, like most of America. There are jobs out there, but the hoops we must jump through get stranger and stranger. More and more places are accepting online applications only , or online primarily. Translation: your paper in-store application and your written resume are dropped into the trash can as soon as you are out of sight.
It would be nice if there was some standard form or procedures for online applications. Or a way to copy your filled out application to multiple store locations, for places like McDonald's. For now, you have to fill out the same forms over and over again for jobs under the same corporate umbrella. Please, why can't we just CC the applications? Or better yet, why must we select one location only? Why not allow an applicant to apply at multiple stores with one application? Isn't that the sort of thing computerized applications are supposed to do for both employer and hopeful employee? Eliminate repetition and sort by keywords (keywords being the locations)?
Some sites you have to 'create an account' and log in and out of complete with password and your secret identity Really? I just want a job, not an account. And you'll know who I am as soon as I start the application process. My name IS the first thing you'll ask for, isn't it?
Once we get to the application (if we're lucky) we'll be asked what position we'll be applying for.
'Any' is not one of the options.
Do we want to be a BOU? A QST? A CRR? Aren't there any two or four initial jobs? How about a store team member? Well, since I want to work at your store, I want to be a member of the store team. I'm pretty sure that's a minimum requirement.
What kind of team member? Which spoonful of alphabet soup would we like to be? The better sites have a what-is-this drop down menu that will explain what the initials are. Many won't. I always figure that if I don't know what the letters are, I'm probably not qualified for the job.
But wait -- that means these stores no longer use cashiers! No floor service people!
I'm pretty sure I am not going to shop there, with no one to help me find things.
After much searching and thinking I find a couple acronyms that may qualify as cashier: Customer Service Specialist and Customer Relations Representative. There's also Customer Service Representative.' Customer Relations' and 'Customer Service' seem to be ways to pretty up the job title. And everyone is expected to be a specialist -- or at least called one -- these days. It supposedly makes them feel more appreciated. (Please and Thank You are an easier way to achieve that outcome.)
Who cares? Most people looking for cashier's jobs are looking for cashier's jobs. They don't want to be Representatives. They don't want to be specialists. They want to be EMPLOYED.
Online applications are Okay.
If I were an employer, I'd rather do a walk in so I could see who I'm getting and gather important 'first impression' details, but I can see that online will eliminate a lot of personal prejudice eliminations.
But quit with the initials and the fancy sounding names for common positions! I want to come and help your customers find what they want to buy, and I want to help them buy it and get out so they will come back again. And I want a paycheck. Not an empty title made of fancier words.
I want to be a cashier and shelf-stocker and coffee-maker. No Representing Specialist or Specialized representative.
I am a lifelong (although currently unemployed) cashier and proud of it. It is you who are missing a good employee because I don't know what you call me.
.
It would be nice if there was some standard form or procedures for online applications. Or a way to copy your filled out application to multiple store locations, for places like McDonald's. For now, you have to fill out the same forms over and over again for jobs under the same corporate umbrella. Please, why can't we just CC the applications? Or better yet, why must we select one location only? Why not allow an applicant to apply at multiple stores with one application? Isn't that the sort of thing computerized applications are supposed to do for both employer and hopeful employee? Eliminate repetition and sort by keywords (keywords being the locations)?
Some sites you have to 'create an account' and log in and out of complete with password and your secret identity Really? I just want a job, not an account. And you'll know who I am as soon as I start the application process. My name IS the first thing you'll ask for, isn't it?
Once we get to the application (if we're lucky) we'll be asked what position we'll be applying for.
'Any' is not one of the options.
Do we want to be a BOU? A QST? A CRR? Aren't there any two or four initial jobs? How about a store team member? Well, since I want to work at your store, I want to be a member of the store team. I'm pretty sure that's a minimum requirement.
What kind of team member? Which spoonful of alphabet soup would we like to be? The better sites have a what-is-this drop down menu that will explain what the initials are. Many won't. I always figure that if I don't know what the letters are, I'm probably not qualified for the job.
But wait -- that means these stores no longer use cashiers! No floor service people!
I'm pretty sure I am not going to shop there, with no one to help me find things.
After much searching and thinking I find a couple acronyms that may qualify as cashier: Customer Service Specialist and Customer Relations Representative. There's also Customer Service Representative.' Customer Relations' and 'Customer Service' seem to be ways to pretty up the job title. And everyone is expected to be a specialist -- or at least called one -- these days. It supposedly makes them feel more appreciated. (Please and Thank You are an easier way to achieve that outcome.)
Who cares? Most people looking for cashier's jobs are looking for cashier's jobs. They don't want to be Representatives. They don't want to be specialists. They want to be EMPLOYED.
Online applications are Okay.
If I were an employer, I'd rather do a walk in so I could see who I'm getting and gather important 'first impression' details, but I can see that online will eliminate a lot of personal prejudice eliminations.
But quit with the initials and the fancy sounding names for common positions! I want to come and help your customers find what they want to buy, and I want to help them buy it and get out so they will come back again. And I want a paycheck. Not an empty title made of fancier words.
I want to be a cashier and shelf-stocker and coffee-maker. No Representing Specialist or Specialized representative.
I am a lifelong (although currently unemployed) cashier and proud of it. It is you who are missing a good employee because I don't know what you call me.
.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Lower the numbers; raise the profits
This is the latest strategy of the health industry. Everybody is sick and needs us -- and our products. Whenever the numbers start to decrease, we'll go back into our laboratories and jiggle some statistics around and we can PROVE that a lower number for the same high-number illness is just as bad for you. Therefore, the lower number indicator means you have the higher number illness and you MUST have our medicine to survive.
I've seen this happen with hypertension. It happens every few years. People, I am sorry to tell you this, but no one has normal blood pressure anymore. It is either low or high, according to the professional experts. The parameter for normal has become so narrow as to be nonexistent.
It's been happening about every five years with diabetes. Numbers that were low-normal just a few years ago are now borderline high. Diabetes can now be diagnosed by one high reading in a doctor's office, instead of making a patient undergo that intolerable glucose tolerance test, or instead of tracking the blood sugar levels over an extended period of time.
I read a study yesterday that says that "over 60% of people are obese"
Now, I'm not a scientist, nor have I studied health. Another thing I am not is a math genius. But I vaguely remember things about averages and norms and suchlike. When something is in the 60% range, that, mathematically, means it's pretty much the average, the norm.
Just because someone educated drew a line on a paper and said everyone above this line is sick doesn't mean they are.
There are still doctors who go by the older numbers if their patients aren't in distress. They are few and far between and often work in isolated, rural areas. They don't go along to get along with the insurance companies. They ask "Why?"
When they ask "Why?" they become estranged and ostracized.
They generally don't want to practice that kind of medicine anyway, so they go to where they are over-needed and where they are listened to.
What really bothers me about medicine by the numbers is that it leaves out the element of change. Evolution, or mutation, or whatever you want to call it. Humans began as five-foot tall bipeds who could live thirty years.
Science and scientists have had no problem with embracing our growth and evolution from that standard.
Imagine if some nearsighted observer in the Whatever-ithic era said that anyone over 5'2" was an aberration, and had an illness and needed to be treated for it. Maybe had the afflicted eating weeds known to stunt the growth. Would we still be five foot and old at thirty?
No, we would not. Change and growth are not aberrations. At first as those numbers begin to trickle in, they are an anomaly, and yes, worthy of study. Worthy of tracking. Maybe even worthy of treatment, until it reaches the point where there are more 'anomalies' than there are 'normals'.
Once that point is reached, it is the duty of responsible scientists, researchers, and statisticians to take another look at a new definition of normal, a new average. Not to hit the panic button and start name-calling those they are trying to help.
We're not getting sicker -- we're getting different. We're changing, evolving, mutating.
We are growing.
I've seen this happen with hypertension. It happens every few years. People, I am sorry to tell you this, but no one has normal blood pressure anymore. It is either low or high, according to the professional experts. The parameter for normal has become so narrow as to be nonexistent.
It's been happening about every five years with diabetes. Numbers that were low-normal just a few years ago are now borderline high. Diabetes can now be diagnosed by one high reading in a doctor's office, instead of making a patient undergo that intolerable glucose tolerance test, or instead of tracking the blood sugar levels over an extended period of time.
I read a study yesterday that says that "over 60% of people are obese"
Now, I'm not a scientist, nor have I studied health. Another thing I am not is a math genius. But I vaguely remember things about averages and norms and suchlike. When something is in the 60% range, that, mathematically, means it's pretty much the average, the norm.
Just because someone educated drew a line on a paper and said everyone above this line is sick doesn't mean they are.
There are still doctors who go by the older numbers if their patients aren't in distress. They are few and far between and often work in isolated, rural areas. They don't go along to get along with the insurance companies. They ask "Why?"
When they ask "Why?" they become estranged and ostracized.
They generally don't want to practice that kind of medicine anyway, so they go to where they are over-needed and where they are listened to.
What really bothers me about medicine by the numbers is that it leaves out the element of change. Evolution, or mutation, or whatever you want to call it. Humans began as five-foot tall bipeds who could live thirty years.
Science and scientists have had no problem with embracing our growth and evolution from that standard.
Imagine if some nearsighted observer in the Whatever-ithic era said that anyone over 5'2" was an aberration, and had an illness and needed to be treated for it. Maybe had the afflicted eating weeds known to stunt the growth. Would we still be five foot and old at thirty?
No, we would not. Change and growth are not aberrations. At first as those numbers begin to trickle in, they are an anomaly, and yes, worthy of study. Worthy of tracking. Maybe even worthy of treatment, until it reaches the point where there are more 'anomalies' than there are 'normals'.
Once that point is reached, it is the duty of responsible scientists, researchers, and statisticians to take another look at a new definition of normal, a new average. Not to hit the panic button and start name-calling those they are trying to help.
We're not getting sicker -- we're getting different. We're changing, evolving, mutating.
We are growing.
Adventures in Freeloading: Don't be an Ashley Carter.
Adventures in Freeloading: Don't be an Ashley Carter.: Many years ago, I picked up a couple books at a yard sale. They were "Taproots of Falconhurst" and "Scandal of Falconhurst" by Ashley Carte...
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
What drugs to test?
There's been so much garbage floating around (and some information) about drug testing for welfare benefits. I've been trying to avoid the topic, but the shouters are getting louder all the time. I'd like to get my two cents worth in while someone may still be listening.
First of all, drug testing is not cost effective at this time. Each test will cost more than benefits collected per individual. The counter to this argument is that if testing becomes more common, price will drop. The law of supply and demand and all that. Generally if everybody wants it, it goes to the highest bidder, not the lowest, but then again, if you can sell at a high price to a few or a low price to many, you probably end up with the same amount of other people's money in your pocket.
In this case, it would be (again) government money and it will go into the pockets of the pharmaceutical and other Health Care Bandits already-rich-people's pockets. Be wary of anyone suggesting this argument. It's likely the money will, one way or another go into their pockets.
And then they'll want more.
Next, the "I have to take a drug test to get a job, so you shgould have to take one, too" argument. First heard in the back yard when I was about three, later heard many times in the playground. Haven't you people learned anything yet?
Life ain't fair.
Deal with it.
Also, who says you have to take a job where you need a drug test? If you don't want to take the test, find another job. I've been working for nearly forty years and never had to take a drug test. If I had to, it wouldn't be a problem for me. But if I choose to take it to get the job, that will be on me, not on the rest of the world.
Not on you.
None of your business.
Third, I would like all these Hallelujah Hollerers to ponder what they are calling drugs. Are they going to shout about legal vs, illegal drugs?
These days doesn't that depend largely on where you live? Can a state that has legal medical marijuana, for example, then deny someone benefits because according to federal law marijuana is an illegal substance?
What then about their own laws?
What if a person is taking something for a chronic condition that somehow skews the drug test results?
Should they have to do without because 'the test says so'?
And let's talk about the legal drugs. Here, I can speak from personal experience. My siblings and I went just a little hungry more than once because money was spent on cigarettes. A two pack a day habit could pay for a lot of spaghetti. Heck, it could even buy a few days worth of Baloney, although even that has become increasingly expensive.
Cigarettes kill. They kill the imbiber: slowly, painfully, over many years and many hospital stays and treatments and procedures that raise health care costs for us all.
It kills or creates illness with secondhand smoke. Not to be allowed, and now illegal in public places.
Alcohol kills. It kills the imbibers, slowly, painfully, over many years and many hospital stays and treatments and procedures that raise health care costs for us all.
It kills innocents. Beaten children, casualties of drunk driving, etc. Not to be supported.
Will you test and test and retest for alcohol in the system? Or nicotine? Will you deny children housing benefits because dad can't stay off the bottle? Will you deny them food because Mom needs a beer every hour?
I'm NOT saying that recipients are beer-guzzling, cigarette-smoking drug addicts.
I am an intelligent person and I know that it is only worst-case stories that make the newspapers, television, and politicians' tongues. For everyone that fits that stereotype there are (probably) a half dozen people -- families -- that are quietly going about their business, wondering if they should pay the water bill this month or maybe they had better refill a prescription or have some necessary but expensive medical test done. There are families that have had their food benefits reduced and they are reduced to having to buy canned vegetables now, with possible lead and sodium content, because the cost of fresh produce in groceries is too high and farmer's markets can't accept the food assistance.
What I am saying is drug testing is either too broad or too specific a weapon, and as with most weapons the ones most damaged will be the innocent.
I am saying that if we do away with financial free will -- well, once they start taking away money from one group, what is to stop them from making more and more and more laws to take it away from more and more and more individuals?
They have already started with taxes and have you ever seen this process reverse?
First of all, drug testing is not cost effective at this time. Each test will cost more than benefits collected per individual. The counter to this argument is that if testing becomes more common, price will drop. The law of supply and demand and all that. Generally if everybody wants it, it goes to the highest bidder, not the lowest, but then again, if you can sell at a high price to a few or a low price to many, you probably end up with the same amount of other people's money in your pocket.
In this case, it would be (again) government money and it will go into the pockets of the pharmaceutical and other Health Care Bandits already-rich-people's pockets. Be wary of anyone suggesting this argument. It's likely the money will, one way or another go into their pockets.
And then they'll want more.
Next, the "I have to take a drug test to get a job, so you shgould have to take one, too" argument. First heard in the back yard when I was about three, later heard many times in the playground. Haven't you people learned anything yet?
Life ain't fair.
Deal with it.
Also, who says you have to take a job where you need a drug test? If you don't want to take the test, find another job. I've been working for nearly forty years and never had to take a drug test. If I had to, it wouldn't be a problem for me. But if I choose to take it to get the job, that will be on me, not on the rest of the world.
Not on you.
None of your business.
Third, I would like all these Hallelujah Hollerers to ponder what they are calling drugs. Are they going to shout about legal vs, illegal drugs?
These days doesn't that depend largely on where you live? Can a state that has legal medical marijuana, for example, then deny someone benefits because according to federal law marijuana is an illegal substance?
What then about their own laws?
What if a person is taking something for a chronic condition that somehow skews the drug test results?
Should they have to do without because 'the test says so'?
And let's talk about the legal drugs. Here, I can speak from personal experience. My siblings and I went just a little hungry more than once because money was spent on cigarettes. A two pack a day habit could pay for a lot of spaghetti. Heck, it could even buy a few days worth of Baloney, although even that has become increasingly expensive.
Cigarettes kill. They kill the imbiber: slowly, painfully, over many years and many hospital stays and treatments and procedures that raise health care costs for us all.
It kills or creates illness with secondhand smoke. Not to be allowed, and now illegal in public places.
Alcohol kills. It kills the imbibers, slowly, painfully, over many years and many hospital stays and treatments and procedures that raise health care costs for us all.
It kills innocents. Beaten children, casualties of drunk driving, etc. Not to be supported.
Will you test and test and retest for alcohol in the system? Or nicotine? Will you deny children housing benefits because dad can't stay off the bottle? Will you deny them food because Mom needs a beer every hour?
I'm NOT saying that recipients are beer-guzzling, cigarette-smoking drug addicts.
I am an intelligent person and I know that it is only worst-case stories that make the newspapers, television, and politicians' tongues. For everyone that fits that stereotype there are (probably) a half dozen people -- families -- that are quietly going about their business, wondering if they should pay the water bill this month or maybe they had better refill a prescription or have some necessary but expensive medical test done. There are families that have had their food benefits reduced and they are reduced to having to buy canned vegetables now, with possible lead and sodium content, because the cost of fresh produce in groceries is too high and farmer's markets can't accept the food assistance.
What I am saying is drug testing is either too broad or too specific a weapon, and as with most weapons the ones most damaged will be the innocent.
I am saying that if we do away with financial free will -- well, once they start taking away money from one group, what is to stop them from making more and more and more laws to take it away from more and more and more individuals?
They have already started with taxes and have you ever seen this process reverse?
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Tree Aid: Concert in the Park.
I've had a hard time figuring if when and how to write about this, and I hope I haven't left it until too late to reach an audience. Preferably a large audience with deep pockets, but I don't think I know anyone like that.
The biggest drawback to my whole-hearted support is the venue. The Village of Bethel has reacted with prejudice to other events held in Burke Park. They somehow found it appropriate to blame the misconduct of individuals on the the hosts of the events, and closed down the party. So far as I know, they have also NOT refunded any of the money paid by said hosts. Win/Win for Bethel. They get to keep the money and NOT have the event through no fault of the party providers.
Yes, if you have a party at your home, and people get drunk, you are responsible for the damages, and it is your responsibility to ask the offenders to leave.
But you haven't paid out your money to have the party in your own home. When you pay someone else, the problems become somewhat theirs. If they don't want to handle the problems, and cancel the party, they need to refund the money. You see this on The People's Court every few days.
But, when all is said and done, the issues of Saving the Trees and Property Rights is more important than the venue.
The Concert is to help raise funds for the legal team. Now, there's been some talk about the legal team not doing much for "all" the money that's been raised. First of all, litigating against the government is time consuming and finicky, nit-picking work. It is done behind the desks and in the libraries and through paper after paper in the courthouses. Quite simply, it is not visible.
If you want to see visible proof that the legal team is making a difference, I suggest a drive around Bethel. In Burke Park itself stand several trees that were inoculated, not eviscerated, amputated, mutilated, and finally removed. They are still there, standing tall, helping to make today's event a success.
Drive the long lane past the schools and ball parks. See that line of trees? Every year, those trees burst or bloom into color in the autumn, creating a colorful backdrop for the return to school. This year, and for many years to come, the display of Fall Colors will not be as bright nor as varied as it has been, but there will be Fall Color.
It will be there in part because the legal team for the BethelALB group has so far preserved these trees. Had the USDA and ODA had their way, followed the original plan, there would be few of those background trees still standing.
Drive through Bethel itself. Don't you love the cool shady streets? That is, where they still exist. Compare the north side of town with the south side, where the tress have been coming down. And that's only the infested trees!
Again, had there been no legal defense team, there would be NO shaded street left in Bethel.
Look in your own yard. How many of your trees are maple? Box elder? Birch? Willow? If the Asian Longhorn Beetle is on your neighbor's property, are YOU ready to let the government remove your trees because of your neighbor's problem?
That's what it's all about, folks.
So, go to the concert today or not. That's up to you. You don't need to attend the concert to support the defense fund. You can make a donation through the web page www.bethelalb.com . You can buy any of the many products being sold to increase funding and raise awareness. You can approach a member of the ALB group and hand them cash, saying it's for the Defense of Trees.
The biggest drawback to my whole-hearted support is the venue. The Village of Bethel has reacted with prejudice to other events held in Burke Park. They somehow found it appropriate to blame the misconduct of individuals on the the hosts of the events, and closed down the party. So far as I know, they have also NOT refunded any of the money paid by said hosts. Win/Win for Bethel. They get to keep the money and NOT have the event through no fault of the party providers.
Yes, if you have a party at your home, and people get drunk, you are responsible for the damages, and it is your responsibility to ask the offenders to leave.
But you haven't paid out your money to have the party in your own home. When you pay someone else, the problems become somewhat theirs. If they don't want to handle the problems, and cancel the party, they need to refund the money. You see this on The People's Court every few days.
But, when all is said and done, the issues of Saving the Trees and Property Rights is more important than the venue.
The Concert is to help raise funds for the legal team. Now, there's been some talk about the legal team not doing much for "all" the money that's been raised. First of all, litigating against the government is time consuming and finicky, nit-picking work. It is done behind the desks and in the libraries and through paper after paper in the courthouses. Quite simply, it is not visible.
If you want to see visible proof that the legal team is making a difference, I suggest a drive around Bethel. In Burke Park itself stand several trees that were inoculated, not eviscerated, amputated, mutilated, and finally removed. They are still there, standing tall, helping to make today's event a success.
Drive the long lane past the schools and ball parks. See that line of trees? Every year, those trees burst or bloom into color in the autumn, creating a colorful backdrop for the return to school. This year, and for many years to come, the display of Fall Colors will not be as bright nor as varied as it has been, but there will be Fall Color.
It will be there in part because the legal team for the BethelALB group has so far preserved these trees. Had the USDA and ODA had their way, followed the original plan, there would be few of those background trees still standing.
Drive through Bethel itself. Don't you love the cool shady streets? That is, where they still exist. Compare the north side of town with the south side, where the tress have been coming down. And that's only the infested trees!
Again, had there been no legal defense team, there would be NO shaded street left in Bethel.
Look in your own yard. How many of your trees are maple? Box elder? Birch? Willow? If the Asian Longhorn Beetle is on your neighbor's property, are YOU ready to let the government remove your trees because of your neighbor's problem?
That's what it's all about, folks.
So, go to the concert today or not. That's up to you. You don't need to attend the concert to support the defense fund. You can make a donation through the web page www.bethelalb.com . You can buy any of the many products being sold to increase funding and raise awareness. You can approach a member of the ALB group and hand them cash, saying it's for the Defense of Trees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)