Wondering on Wednesday, 6/15/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

So, what's wonder-full tonight? 

The folks over at Fox Entertainment continue beating the drum about the 'assassination attempt' on Justice Bret Kavanaugh and how, if he were a liberal instead of a conservative, the Dems and the media would be apoplectic over the whole thing. That was one of the featured topics of a Fox News Sunday interview this week., in case you missed it.

That got me wondering how the network covered the 'workup' on Justice Sonia Sotomayor the FBI found when investigating Roy Den Hollander, the man who killed the son of a federal judge in New Jersey a while back in 2020. 

Would you be surprised that I found only one article about that threat, which is the same number of articles as there were about Justice Sotomayor's children's book, and about her mangled pronunciation of the vice president's name? You shouldn't be. 

We've got another January 6th Committee hearing tomorrow; it was postponed from today to allow the team to get the multi-media presentation ready. Rep Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said the postponement "is not a big deal. It's just technical issues." and that's fine. I mean, it's not like someone was having a baby or anything; that happened with Monday's hearing, when former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien had to miss his in-person testimony when his wife went into labor. 

We did get to hear from fired Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt, who was in on the decision on election night, when Fox was first to call Arizona for Donald Trump. "We were able to make a call early. We were able to beat the competition" he testified. Not only that, but as Deadline reported, 

After Nov. 7, when networks called the race for Biden, Stirewalt said, Trump’s chances of winning were “none,” barring something totally unexpected from happening. He said that Trump was “better off to play the Powerball” than betting he would win the election.

And, there's this 

Stirewalt said that they “knew it would be significant” calling the state, but “we already knew Trump’s chances were very small and getting smaller” based on the data they saw. 

So, what's the wondering on this? First, did anyone get Trump a Powerball ticket? Did he win anything? And finally, is anyone surprised that the guy from Fox was bragging about beating the competition?

What else? Well, there were some primaries yesterday, and there were some Trump-endorsed candidates who lost (but not many) and some who won, including all the races in Nevada where Trump made an endorsement. And, Sarah Palin will be one of four candidates moving ahead to the special election to finish the term of the late Rep. Don Young, who passed away in March. 

What's fascinating about the Alaska votes this year? It's not Palin; it's that Alaska moved to ranked choice voting this year. And if you're wondering, here's what it means: 

The special primary, where voters chose one of 48 candidates on the ballot, was Saturday; the special general, where voters will rank the top four candidates from the primary, is set for Aug. 16. 

Simultaneously, two more elections — a regular primary and general — are scheduled to elect Alaska’s member of Congress for the next full two-year term, which starts in January. The regular primary election is scheduled for Aug. 16, on the same day and same ballot as the special general. That means voters will be asked to rank the four candidates in the special election, then pick one of 31 candidates in the regular primary. 

The regular general election, where voters will rank the top four of the 31 candidates, is Nov. 8.

Now, I'm a fan of ranked choice voting; it was used in the NYC elections last year, but the rest of our state doesn't have the option, and I wish we did. I don't relish having to choose from over 30, or over 40 candidates for a single race, but being able to send someone to office who earns at least 50% of the vote would be a treat. I wonder, how do the rest of you feel about ranked choice voting? Have you used it? Do you want to? Drop me a message or leave a comment.

Finally, on tonight's broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight, David Muir repeatedly mentioned that Dolly Parton had done something newsworthy. He had it in his opening 'here's what we're talking about tonight" segment, and teased it at every break. When it was finally the last minute of the broadcast, we got the scoop: Parton had donated $1M to Vanderbilt University Medical Center. "I love children..." Parton said; and we love you, Muir said, to close the show.  

Parton's great, Muir's the host of "the most watched show on all of television" so, what's to wonder about on this? Going back to the first story in the post, and the "fanboy" comment about Kimmel, I can't help asking, is there any more "fanboy" news anchor than Muir?

What's got you wondering tonight?

Sunday School 4/10/22

 I spent time in three classrooms today.; let's start with Dana Perino, who hosted Fox News Sunday, and her conversation with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Where The Grim Reaper Lives). 

He feels the administration is doing better on Ukraine, but feels there's a lack of focus on the goal, which he said is for the Ukrainians "to win, to win, to defeat the Russians, the Russians to withdraw from the country."  And, he thinks they're too focused on being green, causing us to ask others to ramp up oil production. He said "we were energy independent as late as 2019. "

We can be energy independent again. The administration needs to take the shackles off domestic production. We can meet our own needs, and we can export and help the Europeans as they wean themselves away from Russian oil and gas, which I think clearly now they realize is the best and safest path forward. 

No one mentioned the ten-to-twenty thousand barrels of Russian crude oil and other products we've imported each month - for the past 20 years or so - or the last president asking OPEC to produce more oil, which he did in 2019. I wonder why?

McConnell says the administration "just can't seem to get their act together on the economy," but that's only part of why "the American people are so down on the president."

The economy, the precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the domestic energy issue we've already been discussing, crime, problems in public education, this administration has really got its hands full and I think they're headed toward a pretty good beating in the fall election.

And if the Rs retake the majorities in the House and Senate, all those issues will be part of the agenda, as will increasing military spending; Biden's current request "doesn't even keep up with inflation." And, McConnell said, "We've got a war going on in Ukraine." 

Well not really: the world has a war going on in Ukraine. All of NATO, all the EU, and most of the UN have skin in this game, too. The Rs complain about domestic spending; if we limit that, we should limit what we spend in Ukraine.

Ultimately, if they win, they'll work to make Biden the moderate he ran as. And even though there's bipartisan polling sentiment that we're headed in the wrong direction, McConnell has faith in us. We've hit rough spots before, he said, and we always figure out how to get back on track.

We are the most important country in the world, the freest country in the world, and let's remember that this Easter. We have a lot to be grateful for and thankful that we are in this wonderful, wonderful country.

Over in the CNN State of the Union classroom, Jake Tapper talked with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Here's the key piece of their discussion that Tapper carried over to his talk with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Courage of her Convictions).

Sullivan said what we call the horrific acts the Russians have committed is "less important than the fact that these acts are cruel and criminal and wrong and evil and need to be responded to decisively." He outlined some of how we're doing that, before saying

And we will continue to take every step we possibly can to help the Ukrainians succeed on the battlefield and to improve their position at the negotiating table and to make the Russians pay also through increasing costs of sanctions for what they are doing to the people of Ukraine. (Emphasis added)

Cheney was not satisfied with that. In her view, we shouldn't even be talking about Zelenskyy and negotiations. 

We ought to be moving much faster, much more quickly recognizing that the Ukrainians now, given what they have been able to do and how long they have been able to fight and what they have been able to inflict upon the Russian forces, they need advanced weaponry. 

She thinks we should consider both offensive and defensive military support, we should be ensuring shipping lanes in the Black Sea remain open, and we should be giving Zelenskyy "whatever he said he needs."

Hanging up her hawk wings and turning to the January 6th Committee,  Cheney told Tapper no decision has been made on a referral of president Trump to the DOJ for criminal charges. It is, however

it's absolutely clear that what President Trump was doing, what a number of people around him were doing, that they knew it was unlawful. They did it anyway. 

She called it a "massive and well-organized and well- planned effort," and pointed to the 'statement of offense', part of the plea deal with a leader of the Proud Boys, saying it "lays out in really chilling detail" about the planning, the violence, the rally, and, she said,

 -- and, don't forget, Donald Trump tweeted out that message: Be there. Be wild."

The 'statement of offense' Cheney referenced is something we all should read. I encourage you to do that.

Denying a "dispute" on the committee, she said it's the "single most collaborative committee" she's been on, and expressed confidence that they'll come to agreement on "all of the issues we're facing." And, the mere fact that Ivanka Trump testified, without claiming executive privilege, made it clear how contemptuous Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro were in not cooperating.

Asked about politicians going to Eastern Europe and pledging to support another country's democracy, she said this about supporting our own.

But, if we don't stand for our Constitution, if we don't stand for democracy, if we don't stand for freedom, if we -- if we forget that our oath to our Constitution is an oath to a document, it's not an oath to an individual, we have got to always remember that, or our democracy is in peril.  

And finally, a quick visit to Jon Karl, hosting This Week with George Stephanopoulos. This week's segment from Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight was about Sarah Palin entering the race to replace the late Rep. Don Young, her getting Trump's endorsement, and her chances of winning.

Noting she's "an important figure historically," he said there are "reasons to be skeptical" about her chances. On the one hand, she's got "high name recognition and popularity" in the GOP.

A recent Economist/YouGov poll found 62% of Republicans nationally had a favorable view of Palin, compared to just 23% who had an unfavorable one. But within Alaska, she isn't all that popular. Although Palin was a well-liked governor, her approval rating before she left office was 56%.

Alaskans didn't like that she quit on the job in 2009 before serving out her term. In fact, her favorability rating in a poll last October was only 31%. She's also getting a late start on a race that is chock-full of other candidates, almost 50 of them, in fact.

Silver named several of her key rivals, including one who was in the race before Young's death, a former aide to Young, and an indigenous woman who served in the Trump administration.  And, he said

Palin's polarizing image also won't help her given Alaska's new ranked choice voting system where the top four primary candidates advance and then voters rank order them in the general election. Palin's name recognition may help in the first round, but she could be overtaken later by other candidates,...

I don't know exactly what odds I'd put on Palin. It's safe to say her chances are above zero but below 50 percent. But, overall, I'm not really buying her comeback. 

I'm not buying it either, but we'll have to see what happens in June. 

In the meantime, here are highlights of her endorsing Trump back in 2016. And here's a reminder of how she tried to leverage her endorsement of Trump to raise funds so she could travel around the country in support of other candidates. Or, you know, just blow the money. Fun times - fun times, for sure.

See you around campus.  

My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective: A Special Place in Hell

There are probably lots of special places in hell, for all kinds of special people.

People who harm children. People who kill animals, like the two most heinous recent cases in my neck of the woods one involving a horse, another a family's dog. Pedophile priests. The folks who put Bruce Springsteen and Beethoven on Muzak. The people who 'gummied' the world. Those who prey on senior citizens. The people who make up drug names. Whoever it was who decided that sagging pants and side boob are fashion statements.

And now, there might be a special place for me; I'm seriously on the fence about Hillary Clinton (that's a subject for another post), but I've been put on notice by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, on the stump for Hillary in New Hampshire, who told us,

Just remember - there's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women.

The crowd roared, as it was supposed to -- after all, the folks who were there were most likely already in the bag for Hillary, as Albright said she was, back in November. She also noted, referencing Bernie's stump speech line

So people are talking about a revolution. What a revolution it would be to have a woman president.

A 78-year old successful woman, a trailblazer, tells us there's only one kind of revolution, and there's only one vote a woman can make and go to heaven.

If I were 30 or so years younger, and a Bernie Sanders supporter, it would be even worse: I'd not only have a special place in hell, but I'd be supporting a candidate simply because of a penis. Not the candidate's penis, heaven forbid - the penises of his supporters.

Just listen to Gloria Steinem, in response to a question from Bill Maher on Hillary's gender gap with young women.

And when you're young you're thinking 'where are the boys?' The boys are with Bernie.

And she said it after noting the exact reason many young women actually say they're Feeling the Bern:

I did not say 'thank you for the vote.' I got mad on the basis if what's happening to me. And I think that's true of young women too. So they're made as hell because they're graduating in debt and they're going to earn a million dollars less in their lifetime to pay it back. You  know, they're mad about what's happening to them.

An 81-year old, trailblazing feminist, telling us that young women are just in it for the boys.

This is the same Gloria Steinem who, back in 1996, endorsed Bernie Sanders, a progressive and a feminist, according to people who spoke on his behalf, in his Congressional race against a woman. At a college where the audience is not surprisingly young, and appears to be mostly women.

Steinem began her talk by saying

I'm only here today to make Bernie Sanders an honorary woman.

That was a close as she came to mentioning a penis.

Now, I don't think that Madeleine Albright really thinks that Gloria Steinem should rot in hell for supporting Bernie Sanders in a race against a woman 20 years ago. And I don't think that Gloria Steinem really believes that young women support male politicians because they're looking for boys.

That may have been the case back in their day, but it's specifically because of women like Steinem that women don't need to be thought of as being involved in something just to hook up with guys, or, heaven forbid, to find a husband.  And it's specifically because of women like Albright that young women and even middle-aged white ladies like me can see themselves as more than just a wife, just a mom, just a low-paid worker in the service sector, and actually be more than that if they choose.

I think both of them know better than to say what they said, even if they were kidding. Because we know, you and I, that anyone - male or female - who had made that kind of statement to either Albright or Steinem would not have been thought funny by these women.

There's a great definition of 'feminist' about six minutes into the video that contains Steinem's endorsement of Bernie, which starts around 15 minutes in.  The definition was provided by Sally Conrad, a former Vermont state senator.

To be a feminist, a person doesn't have to be a woman. A feminist is  person who challenges the power structure of this country. A person who realizes that every decision whether made by government policy makers or corporate executives, is colored by the race, class, and gender of the people in power. A feminist is person who tries to shift that imbalance of power away from those who have it all, to those who don't have any.

By that definition, and by his own words, Bernie Sanders is a feminist, and he's been a consistent feminist all along. In fact, absent references to specific dates and people, you'd be hard-pressed to know that the speech he makes in the 1996 video is not the speech he gives on the stump today, 20 years later.

We women can support any candidate we want, for whatever reason we want, and we shouldn't be shamed by other women who hold different viewpoints. After all, blindly following the female candidate back in 2008 could have led us to a two-term-VP Sarah Palin presidential campaign today.

Had I contributed to that, I'd surely deserve a special place in hell.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v46)

Out, out, damned spot.

I mean, "out, out damned citizen-threatening, car-stealing-and-crashing, go-to-town-and-get-drunk-on-the-donations, snack-eating government-property-destroying, gun-toting terrorists". Get the heck out of Oregon, and don't let the door hit you in the behind on the way out.

That's pretty much where things ended up today out there in Burns where the Bundy Gang has been holed up on our property, keeping our employees (the ones who work at the Refuge) from going to work for three weeks or so, begging for snacks (and getting dildos instead), and so on. Our other employees - the FBI and the rest of them - had taken a hands-off approach, until yesterday, that is, when they stopped a convoy -a convoy! - of Bundys and Bundys-lite on their way to a meeting in a nearby town.

I had been wondering why, when these terrorists left the 'compound' to go drop in on meetings, they weren't picked up. Seems the FBI had plans to get them in a quiet spot, to reduce the risk of harm, and that appears to have been a good plan. I'm glad they arrested the ones they did, but I don't believe those who are left at the Refuge should get off Scot-free. I wonder again what it would look like if they weren't white ranchers, and if folks would be so quick to label a martyr a member of a different group.

Speaking of "out, out damned fill-in-the-blank" I'm also wondering, this Wednesday, how I'm going to change up the GOP Debate bingo board now that the Artist of the Deal has painted himself into a corner and will be out of the mix?. Unless, of course, he capitulates, which would of course lend a whole new meaning to Sarah Palin's Capitulator in Chief line.

Do you think I might win with this card and my lucky dauber?

I sure hope so!

Wondering, on Wednesday (v20)

Be honest -- how many of you really thought that 60 million people would be 'devastated' by the "Blizzard of 2015" also known as Winter Storm Juno, or as I've heard if referred to, the Fizzle of  '15?  I get that there are lots of cities in the path of these storms, but I personally am getting tired of all of the hype.  The news readers, the 'official' weather reporters and the photogenic people who read the weather ad nauseum during all of the new shows, shouting from the rooftops about the potential carnage aiming straight for New York City, and then? Nothing.

The blizzard was so bad in Manhattan, the street sweepers were out.

And did you see that there was a $200M negative impact from governmental and weather forecaster intervention  - closed roads, travel bans, company closings, many of which turned out to be for naught? Not sure about you, but to me it seems 'weather reporting' is getting way out of hand.

What's also getting out of hand is the hype about Super Bowl commercials - and the fact that they don't even wait to put them on TV during the game any more.  Over $4M per 30-second spot, and some of them have already aired on You Tube or news shows or TV shows.

Today we had the almost certainly fake 'controversy' about a Go Daddy ad where a woman makes a website and sells a puppy online.  Animal rights activists got involved, some 40,000 signatures were added to a petition and the Big Daddy of Go Daddy has had a change of heart and says they're not going to show the ad... except on the national news, and the entertainment shows, and who knows where else. I don't think they ever necessarily planned on running the ad; and, not for nothing, it seems a little odd that they're going to be ready in really only hours with a new $4M replacement. You tell me: real issue, or pure PR stunt?

And speaking of pure PR stunts, I offer this:

You can absolutely say that I'm seriously interested. 

Those were the words of Sarah Palin, she of the 'servant's heart' who was recently photographed with a sign telling Michael Moore exactly how she felt about him.  Although it wasn't her sign, she apparently doesn't know that f-bombing someone is not really 'presidential'.  Those were the words of the one who, over the weekend, rambled her way almost unintelligibly through a speech in Iowa, offering up stuff like this:

And GOP leaders, by the way, ya know the man can only ride you when your back is bent. So strengthen it then the man can’t ride ya and America won’t be taken for a ride because so much is at stake and we can’t afford politicians playing games like nothing more is at stake than maybe the next standing of theirs in the next election.

Even conservatives were confused; even the Republicans must have some other woman who can run in 2016?

And there's also this:

A lot of people think I have fun with (talking about running for president) and I enjoy the process, but the country is in very serious trouble so I am considering it seriously. 

Those were the words of His Hairness, Donald Trump. Who has threatened us many times before that he was going to run for office. And has, of course, bailed, leaving his poor fans starved for more.  Which, of course, he'll give us the next time he pretends to run, when he'll remind us that, had he really put up a fight, he would have won.

I'm wondering, this Wednesday, if the Republicans will ever stop humoring these two?

Knock Knock. Who's There? Angry Voter

Angry voter who?

An angry voter who is already sick and tired, and getting even more sick and tired, of politicians wasting precious time (and oodles of taxpayer dollars) on things that simply do not matter, instead of focusing on the clearly obvious things that do matter.

I've spoken many times on these pages about being a middle-of-the-roader, one who believes, like these folks do, that we can be a bit more fiscally conservative and a bit more socially moderate - and be successful. My sense continues to be if we can't figure out how to do that, if we insist on living life on the fringes, we're in for a very rocky road ahead.

I've also asked Republicans in particular to stand for something, rather than standing against everything that is suggested by the other side, whether the ideas come from President Obama (someone they've committed to obstructing for the past few years) or someone they've known for far too long on the other side of the aisle.

Sadly, I'm no happier with them now than I was in January, when I scolded them for comments on rape, and begged them to get out of our bedrooms and clinics and doctor's offices, to get the church out of their legislation, and to stop treating women and gays so poorly.

We don't need a bigger safety net they've told us; we don't need to make the 47% even larger, they said. We need jobs. We need to fix the economy. And they're just the ones to do it. They're right -- we do need jobs, lots of jobs.

And now I'm back, imploring them to do what they swore they would do. Republicans, the party of jobs, I can assure you that

• denying people their right to vote, or infringing on it, does not create jobs
• insisting that women undergo unnecessary medical procedures does not create jobs
• establishing state-sponsored discrimination (or attempting to), does not create jobs
• refusing to vote on presidential appointees does not create jobs
• investigating Benghazi and the IRS does not create jobs
• shutting down the government does not create jobs
• reducing SNAP benefits, or carping about how the money is spent, does not create jobs
• insisting that climate change is fake because it's cold out does not create jobs
• denying marriage equality does not create jobs
• voting over four dozen times to repeal the Affordable Care Act does not create jobs
• closing health centers that provide services to women does not create jobs
• reducing taxes on the wealthy does not create jobs
• inserting religion into schools does not create jobs
• laughing along with Sarah Palin does not create jobs
• sucking up to Donald Trump does not create jobs

In fact, most of what you're spending your time on does not create jobs. It may perpetuate your own, but it doesn't help the rest of the country.

If you are a politician in Washington DC, remember that almost no one thinks you're doing your job well. A significant majority of Americans believes that we would be better off if all of you were no longer in office. We don't like you, even when you are our own representative. Think about that the next time you walk into your office.

Please -- I beg you -- start devoting your energy to creating jobs. Real jobs.

Because when people have jobs, they are substantially better equipped to buy their own groceries, pay for their own health insurance, pay their own rent, help pay for their own education, buy their own school lunches, pay for their own day care, and so on.

They are able to spend money on travel, tourism, arts and culture, sporting events, clothes, cars, toys, computers, houses.

They are able to save money for a rainy day, invest in their future, participate in their communities, support their favorite charity, send their kids to charter schools, tithe to their church, and pay taxes.

You know, all of the things that a smaller government aims to achieve. All of those things the 47% are not able to do today, much to your disdain.

Do these things, and maybe, just maybe, you'll give me a reason to vote for you. 

Channeling Andy Rooney

Andy Rooney

Did you ever wonder...

...if the Hobby Lobby folks (who are suing because having to provide certain contraceptive medicines as required under the Affordable Care Act violates their religious beliefs) should interview potential customers to see what the customer's beliefs are before allowing them to spend money in the store?

Because I'm kinda thinking that if the religious beliefs of the company's owner by extension also apply to all of the company's employees, I would think that they would also extend to the customers.

And there certainly would be no reason for a moral business to accept money from people who don't subscribe to the same beliefs, right?  I mean, if I don't agree with the business, why would they want my money?

Here's what that interaction would look like if I was the customer:

HL employee:  Thank you for coming to our store today.  Before I give you this shopping basket, I'd like to ask you a few questions, is that OK?

Me: Uh, sure, go ahead, but I really just wanted to pick up a couple of cheesy picture frames.

HL employee: No problem, we have lots of those.  But first, do you believe that it's OK for a woman to receive the morning after pill if she needs it?

Me:  I don't really think it's any of your business, and I'm not sure what that has to do with me getting a couple of cheesy picture frames from your store?

HL employee: Well, our owners believe that those medications are morally wrong, and we want to make sure that we don't take money from anyone who doesn't share the same beliefs. So to make it possible for our company owners to sleep at night, we need to ask this question of all our customers. Your money is important, of course, and we'd love to take it, but our company owners' beliefs are more important. 

Me: No problem, I completely understand.  I'll go get my cheesy picture frames from the Christmas Tree Shops. I think I remember seeing them right near the Christmas tampons and Christmas toothpaste. You have a nice day.

HL employee: Thanks for almost shopping at our store. You have a nice day too.

Yeah, that would be fun to do, wouldn't it? Or maybe instead of asking customers the question, the store could just post a sign on the window?  Let me know if that's happening at HL now, will you? I went to the store once, long before this whole 'my religion is your religion' issue came up, and finding nothing to buy, haven't gone back.  Although I certainly would give them credit for honesty if they did something like this.

Speaking of honesty, remember the wing-flapping over Chik-fil-A and their support of anti-gay programs and charities over the years? Here's a compilation of issues if you're interested. There's been a lot of noise about these folks, particularly when the head of the company tweeted his thoughts last summer after the SCOTUS released its decision on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8.

In a refreshing burst of of honesty, here's what the company said about the (now-deleted) tweet:

Yesterday, President and COO of Chik-fil-A Dan Cathy tweeted a personal comment upon hearing the Supreme Court decisions on DOMA and Prop 8.  Dan recognizes his views do not necessarily represent the views of all Chik-fil-A customers, restaurant owners, and employees so he removed the tweet to eliminate any confusion. At Chik-fil-A, we are focused on providing great-tasting food and genuine hospitality to everyone. 

Good for Chik-fil-A for appreciating the difference between the owner, the people who work there, and the customers who eat there.

And, did you ever wonder...

...why so many of us, particularly those who scream and shout about getting government out of business, and letting the free market rule the world (with corporate welfare contributions, of course) get so up in arms when a business does what it wants without a lot of interference from the government?

We all know about the Duck Dynasty case, where the A and E Network decided to put the main Duck Dude on suspension because of his intolerant comments about gays and happy black people in the deep south. Suspension, while the show was on hiatus. Which is kinda like the fraternity on Animal House being on double secret probation or something. Or, as I noted previously, like a baseball pitcher being suspended and having games they were officially scheduled not to pitch count towards their suspension.

cvs.com

I'm guessing you've heard the news from CVS/pharmacy, the nation's second-largest well-stocked corner store that happens to have a pharmacy in the back. Like any good corner store, they have all the stuff we need -- sunglasses, sugary and salty/crunchy treats, personal hygiene items for folks of all ages, beer, cigarettes and what not.

Oh yeah, and they have that pharmacy, and they also do flu shots and the like, which in their business model qualifies them as a health care provider. And if you're a health care provider, it doesn't make sense to sell cigarettes. So, CVS  has announced plans to phase out tobacco products by October of this year. Let the games begin, folks.

A classic 'you can't win for losing', they are getting hammered as much as they're being supported, in some cases by the same subset of the population: doctors, business experts, college students, and of course the anonymous chatterboxes on social media.

• You've got the "I'll never shop there again, the bastages, since they took my cigarettes away" theme, as if there weren't a gazillion places to get smokes if you need them. Some 90% of all cigarette sales happen at convenience stores, people, not at CVS and Walgreen's.  And probably some 90% of CVS customers don't get their cigs at CVS.
• Then there's the "what about beer and junk food?" contingent, as if a person (and by person I mean corporation, of course) who makes one positive step deserves to be chastised for not making a million positive steps at the same time.  Can you even imagine the audacity of them, the bastages, not emptying their shelves EVERYTHING? Right NOW?!
• Then there's the 'Nanny state' group, those who believe this is some kind of black-helicopter, NSA-type plot, part of the government take-over our lives. As if this was done by law, edict or fiat, by some Obaman stroke of the pen. This was a business decision, not a government regulation. This was a company decision, not a Bloomberg big gulp chomp out of your personal freedom.
• And that of course leads to the next contingent, the people who question the real motive of CVS in making the decision. Some folks don't believe that this has anything to do with 'health care' and totally has to do with marketing and trying to be more competitive.  

Um, does it really matter why they're doing it?  I mean, if they had come out and said, "after much soul-searching, we bastages at CVS have decided to change our business model and stop selling cigarettes so we would look more like Target" would that make you happy?

If you think they're bastages for stopping selling tobacco, you have the right to stop shopping there, just as a person has the right to stop buying lunch at Chik-fil-A or shopping at JC Pennney or Abercrombie or  watching the Duck Dudes or stop buying knick-knacks at Hobby Lobby.

And that leads me to wonder about the deafening silence from the folks who are always Right There in support of businesses making changes on their own, without being forced to make them, without the government getting involved. Where the heck is Sarah Palin on this?  I checked her Facebook page, but she's pretty busy promoting her new TV show and wishing Ronald Reagan happy birthday, so she probably doesn't have time to jump in here in favor of free enterprise.

Where's John Boehner, chest-thumping and sobbing his eyes out, championing the 'certainty' that CVS has put out there in the market? That's what the Republicans in the House have been crying about for the past five years, isn't it?  The 'lack of certainty' that Democrats made happen?  Well, Crying John is focused on immigration, and the IRS, and the Keystone extra-large pipeline, not on free-market business certainty, apparently.

And Mitch McConnell? He supports "insurance policies tailored to those with preexisting conditions, promoting wellness and reigning in junk lawsuits" in this post on his website. I think the CVS move hits all three of those right on the head, don't you? Smokers with lung disease, cardiovascular disease and other smoking-related health issues fall right in his first bucket, and stopping cigarette sales is in the second bucket, and everyone knows that tobacco lawsuits are junk, right?  This is right up his alley, but he's a little busy focusing on getting the IRS to stop investigating 501(3)(c) organizations and on getting support for hemp-growing in Kentucky to pay attention to CVS right now, I guess.

Did you ever wonder if some of these folks are really just self-serving opportunists? Here's a thought: if CVS had made even the remotest connection to religion in their decision, these three would be all over this.

Let me know what's got you doing the Andy Rooney thing these days.

The Poetry of Sarah Palin

Sarah from Wasilla has published more poetry; most of this collection is from her Facebook page and covers what everyone but Fox News is calling a government shutdown, healthcare.gov and her husband's hunting prowess.

Cure for Belly Fat.
Republicans in Congress
are attempting to fund... essential functions
but Democrats are blocking them because
they want to make any slim down
look as awful as possible
in order to deflect
from what this
whole slim
down thing
is all about

An Apple a Day
The White House is now
comparing Obamacare's
numerous "glitches"
to Apple software
updates.

Cool. As. A. What.
Yeah.
Todd
bagged a moose.
Dinner.

Obama kills Navy SEAL.

Retired Navy SEAL and author Chris Kyle was killed Saturday at a Texas shooting range by another former soldier, Eddie Ray Routh, who reportedly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Until this morning, I I had never heard of Chris Kyle, never heard of his storied military career, never heard of his book, "American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in US Military History" and didn't know that he had over 150 confirmed kills.  Highly decorated (two Silver Stars and five Bronze Stars with Valor), after leaving the military Kyle formed Craft International (a security training company) and helped start the FITCO Cares Foundation to help fellow former service men and women who suffer (ironically) from PTSD.  He also apparently was one of the favorites on the TV show "Stars Earn Stripes" (which I didn't watch).

I learned about Chris Kyle this morning when a friend shared Sarah Palin's Facebook post on his passing. Here's her heartfelt post, which at the time I read it this morning had around 41,000 likes and now has over 77,000:

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family and many friends of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle tonight. Todd and I first met Chris in Pella, Iowa, when he helped out with security for the premiere of the film "The Undefeated."  And later we became friends with Chris when he was on "Stars Earn Stripes" with Todd.  Chris was a wonderful man, a good friend, and a true American hero who loved our country and served honorably.  He was loved and admired by so many, and he will never be forgotten. -Todd and Sarah Palin 

There was nothing political in Palin's comments. Not so, however, some of the comments posted in response. There are apparently a number of people who are convinced that Kyle's murder was a government action, ordered by President Obama (and his faithful sidekick Hillary Clinton).

I'm going to protect the people who made these comments, but you can see them for yourself on Palin's page.  There were a whole mess of general conspiracy theory posts, and then there were these specific to Obama and Clinton:

Obama minions at work they are prepping us. Tell us about all the military actions across the U.S in cities. It's coming!

And he was murdered by a President and Secretary of State.

Someone needs to check into whether this was a hit from the Obama administration. Sounds like Chicago to me. 

I agree I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's administration had something to do with it.

Probably one of Obama's Islam hit men. 

I feel this is a conspiracy by the Obama administration.

I agree Obummer had his hands on this somewhere.

Do we have another Whitewater scam going on here?  

Some folks went a little more into the weeds with their comments, men (and women) offering these gems for our consideration: 

We need an investigation into these executions of so many anti-Obama Patriots. Breitbart, Noveske, gun shop owner of FPSRussia, and now Kyle.  

I'm proud of all the soldiers past and present and future they stand for what this country is and OBAMA is ruining it which is I feel all these deaths of these soldiers are all because of him if he ain't behind it he knows something about it or its because of what he is doing to our country we as AMERICANS need to stand up and fight together just as our military does to get this so-called president out of our country where he belongs. 

Governor Palin, you seem to be the only one with balls in this pussified nation anymore. The SEALS are being murdered and I believe it has to do with the fake Bin Laden job and Obama and Clinton are behind it.  

Our Navy SEALS are being murdered, who do you think has ordered these murders? I am sick to think that our own government is probably behind these events. Think about how many have been killed and how many generals are being relieved of their duty. We need answers.  

I agree...sounds like another planned killing from the Feds...too many people getting killed lately.  Makes me wonder if Sandy Hook and that movie theater was in that planned killing from the Feds to have everyone agree with them to eliminate our guns.

I'm not so sure this was accidental. He was heavy against the government and they are really digging in on those who speak against the current administration. Just sayin.

His family deserves to know who the shooter met with prior to the incident and his political affiliations.  Too many SEALS are being eliminated.  

As I stated on a veteran's site, sounds like a set up to me with this Gun Ban issue. A top lethal sniper just killed on a Saturday practice at a Gun Range... Come ON.

Clearly this man along with other outspoken Americans have been gunned down in the last two months. What are YOU and the rest of the Tea Party going to do. ENOUGH already...take a real stand...call for action Sarah PLEASE.  The American people need someone to bite the bullet and stop what we all know is going on.

His death is very suspicious with the very timely opening of the movie just out...smells like a hit to me and our government is not above doing just that. The truth will probably never come out.  

Right. "The truth will probably never come out." Nor will a statement from me announcing I understand what the hell these people are thinking. 

The Poetry of Sarah Palin

Alaska and I

Yeah, I did say
in Alaska you can see Russia
from our land base
and I was making the point that
we are strategically
located on the globe
and

when it comes to transportation corridors
and resources
that are shared and fought over,
Alaska and I

as the governor
had known what
I was doing
in dealing with some international
issues that had to do with
our resources

that could help
secure the nation