As you may have already heard, a fanatical far, far, FAR right wing extremist in California has decreed that tomorrow (or possibly, yesterday or a few days ago, if you don't check your e-mail every day) is supposed to be the end of the world.
For a million little reasons, we're just not buying into the hype today.
For starters, even if you’re Christian and even if you believe in the rapture (or this particular model of the End of Days – there are many ), there are many different Bible verses that - as clearly as any other christian bible verse - lay out that the second coming will occur when pretty much no one is paying attention.
Since you're reading this, and since we put today's Daily Felltoon together, we're pretty sure we're all paying attention - which we think at least gives us all partial credit for saving the world today. So... Mazel Tov and thanks to you! Good job.
There's also the question brought up by a discussion of our staff members earlier this year: exactly WHEN is the end of the world supposed to occur?
Most Western media sources we've looked through seem to say it's supposed to happen on Saturday. But as far as we can tell, the insane maniac/devout fool who began this rumor thinks the rapture will happen at exactly midnight, Jerusalem time.
That puts the rapture square in the middle of the afternoon for basically all of the Western Hemisphere.
On FRIDAY afternoon - not Saturday.
Those of you that have to do end-of-week reports may be rejoicing at that news - but we really think you should hold onto your paperwork and hold off on doing your best Keith Olbermann impersonation. After all, the rapture may be tomorrow, but the end of the world isn't technically until October 21st, according to the California extremist.
Whatever you believe, we hope you live life every day as though there won't be another.
For all of us - like former Nebraska teacher and poet Bill Kloefkorn - that will eventually be the case.
Bill was a teacher, a poet, and a lover of words, all things that we admire and respect. He loved life, and enjoyed humor as much as anyone. We're fairly sure he'd agree with our advice, cliché though it is. He passed away Thursday, and we send our condolences to his friends, family, and all who knew him.
Not a single one of us truly knows when we're going to go, whether we get hit by a bus, or get yanked into the clouds by the rapture. [We're not Baptists, and at least one of us is Catholic, so we're pretty sure the folks who think the world is ending this weekend also think we're all going to Hell.]
We hope that, if nothing else comes from this non-event event, it at least brings to your attention that pithy, if not trite phase, to live life like you were dying. It may be a cliché, but someday that phrase will actually be correct for all of us.
We hope it's not this weekend though, as we have so many more things we'd like to experience in this world.
If we're wrong, and the rapture happens later today - or Saturday, midnight local time if you're in Jerusalem - we may be a bit delayed in getting out Monday's edition. Then again, since there will be fewer people on the internet and most of the internet techies we know are also likely to still be around, we could even get finished with our work early.
Guess we'll have to wait until Monday to see how it all turns out.
We hope you enjoy your weekend. Live a little. Or live a lot, if you get the time.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Cleaning Up
It's nearing the end of the legislative session for 2011, at least for the statehouses in Lincoln and Des Moines.
We've been watching both state legislatures carefully this year, as examples of what to do, what not to do, and what can't - or shouldn't - be done at the state level.
In Nebraska, in spite of the ranting and raving of far too many on the political right that ANY increase in taxes would be too much, more revenue has been found. In fact, legislators in Nebraska overrode the governor's veto in order to ask Nebraskans to spend five bucks more a year for state park entry fees. The threat of a second veto override also cowed Nebraska's governor into signing a larger roads funding bill than had initially been expected.
Both bills gained bipartisan support, which surprised many observers from both sides of the aisle.
In Iowa, the theme of this year's legislative session seems to have been partisanship.
The legislature there remains at a standstill, on many key issues, with neither side willing to budge. Technically, the Iowa legislature is now past its original scheduled ending date. Most legislative staffers have already been released, as most people did not expect the session to continue this long. Still, three key bills have yet to be passed: the school funding bill, a proposed tax relief bill, and the Iowa state budget.
Extreme gridlock notwithstanding, we have seen significant compromise on some issues in Iowa this session.
Iowa's congressional redistricting efforts went extremely well, considering the state will be losing one member of its U.S. house delegation. Of course, Iowa also had the foresight over 25 years ago to install a nonpartisan redistricting process - so that issue was really a non-issue, even before this year's legislature met.
In comparison, Nebraska, which is losing no seats, appears to have its congressional redistricting headed to Federal court - incurring unnecessary expense for taxpayers - due to a highly partisan and illogical redrawing of the Nebraska congressional map.
Neither state legislature passed many bills this year, though not for lack of trying. Both states also passed some legislation which, in our opinion, is both questionable and offensive. Regardless of our opinion on the content of those bills, we think it's obvious what worked in both legislative bodies this year: compromise.
It's also obvious what didn't work, for both state legislatures: extremism, primarily from the political right.
In Nebraska, the insane insistence that no more revenue could be had - when it's obvious that was not the case - was a stupid, petty, and ultimately failed strategy by those who claim to be fiscally responsible. Their hypocrisy on that issue has now become disgustingly clear.
In Iowa, the hypocrisy continues, with a state strapped for funds, and a governor and Republican-majority house still insisting on massive tax cuts for businesses - while not allowing for any growth of budgets for schools. If no budget deal is made before Iowa's new fiscal year begins in July, the Republican governor and Republican House of Representatives (which is responsible for all spending bills), could be responsible for closing Iowa state parks on the Fourth of July, as well as the layoffs of thousands of workers during the height of summer.
Attempting to hold back a state's fiscal liabilities while not collecting enough revenue for its responsibilities is akin to trying to hold back the ocean while trying to hold down every grain of sand on a beach.
Doing so will only make you look foolish - and ultimately leave you all wet.
We've been watching both state legislatures carefully this year, as examples of what to do, what not to do, and what can't - or shouldn't - be done at the state level.
In Nebraska, in spite of the ranting and raving of far too many on the political right that ANY increase in taxes would be too much, more revenue has been found. In fact, legislators in Nebraska overrode the governor's veto in order to ask Nebraskans to spend five bucks more a year for state park entry fees. The threat of a second veto override also cowed Nebraska's governor into signing a larger roads funding bill than had initially been expected.
Both bills gained bipartisan support, which surprised many observers from both sides of the aisle.
In Iowa, the theme of this year's legislative session seems to have been partisanship.
The legislature there remains at a standstill, on many key issues, with neither side willing to budge. Technically, the Iowa legislature is now past its original scheduled ending date. Most legislative staffers have already been released, as most people did not expect the session to continue this long. Still, three key bills have yet to be passed: the school funding bill, a proposed tax relief bill, and the Iowa state budget.
Extreme gridlock notwithstanding, we have seen significant compromise on some issues in Iowa this session.
Iowa's congressional redistricting efforts went extremely well, considering the state will be losing one member of its U.S. house delegation. Of course, Iowa also had the foresight over 25 years ago to install a nonpartisan redistricting process - so that issue was really a non-issue, even before this year's legislature met.
In comparison, Nebraska, which is losing no seats, appears to have its congressional redistricting headed to Federal court - incurring unnecessary expense for taxpayers - due to a highly partisan and illogical redrawing of the Nebraska congressional map.
Neither state legislature passed many bills this year, though not for lack of trying. Both states also passed some legislation which, in our opinion, is both questionable and offensive. Regardless of our opinion on the content of those bills, we think it's obvious what worked in both legislative bodies this year: compromise.
It's also obvious what didn't work, for both state legislatures: extremism, primarily from the political right.
In Nebraska, the insane insistence that no more revenue could be had - when it's obvious that was not the case - was a stupid, petty, and ultimately failed strategy by those who claim to be fiscally responsible. Their hypocrisy on that issue has now become disgustingly clear.
In Iowa, the hypocrisy continues, with a state strapped for funds, and a governor and Republican-majority house still insisting on massive tax cuts for businesses - while not allowing for any growth of budgets for schools. If no budget deal is made before Iowa's new fiscal year begins in July, the Republican governor and Republican House of Representatives (which is responsible for all spending bills), could be responsible for closing Iowa state parks on the Fourth of July, as well as the layoffs of thousands of workers during the height of summer.
Attempting to hold back a state's fiscal liabilities while not collecting enough revenue for its responsibilities is akin to trying to hold back the ocean while trying to hold down every grain of sand on a beach.
Doing so will only make you look foolish - and ultimately leave you all wet.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
This Ain't Gonna Be Pretty
Like it or not - and there are many people, including us at times, who don't - the U.S. really has only two major political parties. We'll agree that there are many other minority parties, including the Tea Party. However, like the old Big 8, American politics is dominated by two groups that take most of the energy, money, and attention, while everyone else is mostly relegated to the sidelines
That binary alignment in American politics often leads Americans to act more like fans of a particular sports team than citizens involved in solving the problems of our society, something we've decried many times before.
Today though, we're going to take the sporting approach for a reason.
Everyone knows the best sports match-ups happen when you have two teams who put their best players on the field - and the players on each team are a good match for their opponent's strengths and weaknesses.
Unfortunately, the match-ups we're beginning to see take shape for the 2012 political season are nothing like that. Frankly, for one of the two major political parties, they're embarrassing.
Take Newt Gingrich, for example.
A one-time power player for the Republican Party during the 1990's, Newt has returned to attempt to run for President in 2012. Even before he announced he was officially running this year, it was clear that Newt's stats would never match up well with the current GOP fan base.
For a party that continues to attempt to claim the mantle of family values party, Newt's record is a disaster. Three marriages, multiple affairs - including his affair with his high school teacher (who became his first wife), and serving divorce papers on ill women twice in his life make it incredibly unlikely that Newt will be the GOP's chosen star next year.
It hasn't helped that Newt's been blasting nearly everyone lately, Democrats and Republicans alike, on both sides of the field.
Another major GOP star, Mitt Romney, increasingly looks like this year's Wrong Way Corrigan.
Romney proudly held a position formerly held by most of the GOP, that Medicare for all Americans was unacceptable and socialist, but that universal health care with an individual mandate (which allows private health insurance companies to still be part of the system), was a great idea. In fact, Romney built his signature political achievement as Massachusetts governor on that idea.
Of course, Mitt is now running from his own healthcare plan as fast as his political legs will carry him. Don't even ask what Mr. Romney's position on abortion is. His answer will likely depend on which end of the political field he's running toward.
All this while the Democratic nominee for President in 2012 is the current President, who is primarily responsible for preventing an apocalyptic economic collapse (so far), who created or saved more jobs in 27 months than his predecessor did in eight years, and under whose watch and leadership the most wanted terrorist in American history was eliminated.
Some of our readers may think we're reveling in these potential matchups. They'd be wrong.
We'd rather see the two best individuals - evenly matched - debate fairly, cleanly, and solidly, and have the best candidate win.
Right now, it appears one side is bringing in the pros, while the other side is bringing in the rejected players from the local high school YMCA team.
We'd hide our eyes if we weren't so afraid we might miss something.
That binary alignment in American politics often leads Americans to act more like fans of a particular sports team than citizens involved in solving the problems of our society, something we've decried many times before.
Today though, we're going to take the sporting approach for a reason.
Everyone knows the best sports match-ups happen when you have two teams who put their best players on the field - and the players on each team are a good match for their opponent's strengths and weaknesses.
Unfortunately, the match-ups we're beginning to see take shape for the 2012 political season are nothing like that. Frankly, for one of the two major political parties, they're embarrassing.
Take Newt Gingrich, for example.
A one-time power player for the Republican Party during the 1990's, Newt has returned to attempt to run for President in 2012. Even before he announced he was officially running this year, it was clear that Newt's stats would never match up well with the current GOP fan base.
For a party that continues to attempt to claim the mantle of family values party, Newt's record is a disaster. Three marriages, multiple affairs - including his affair with his high school teacher (who became his first wife), and serving divorce papers on ill women twice in his life make it incredibly unlikely that Newt will be the GOP's chosen star next year.
It hasn't helped that Newt's been blasting nearly everyone lately, Democrats and Republicans alike, on both sides of the field.
Another major GOP star, Mitt Romney, increasingly looks like this year's Wrong Way Corrigan.
Romney proudly held a position formerly held by most of the GOP, that Medicare for all Americans was unacceptable and socialist, but that universal health care with an individual mandate (which allows private health insurance companies to still be part of the system), was a great idea. In fact, Romney built his signature political achievement as Massachusetts governor on that idea.
Of course, Mitt is now running from his own healthcare plan as fast as his political legs will carry him. Don't even ask what Mr. Romney's position on abortion is. His answer will likely depend on which end of the political field he's running toward.
All this while the Democratic nominee for President in 2012 is the current President, who is primarily responsible for preventing an apocalyptic economic collapse (so far), who created or saved more jobs in 27 months than his predecessor did in eight years, and under whose watch and leadership the most wanted terrorist in American history was eliminated.
Some of our readers may think we're reveling in these potential matchups. They'd be wrong.
We'd rather see the two best individuals - evenly matched - debate fairly, cleanly, and solidly, and have the best candidate win.
Right now, it appears one side is bringing in the pros, while the other side is bringing in the rejected players from the local high school YMCA team.
We'd hide our eyes if we weren't so afraid we might miss something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)