In a shocking display of behavior contradicting the lip service given to "No Child Left Behind" the Bush administration proposes deleting funding for Reading is Fundamental (RIF), a program funded since 1975 to help improve literacy. If Laura Bush knows about this, I can't imagine that as a former school librarian, she's taking it lightly.
A mere "$25.5 million in funding for this program, RIF would not be able to distribute 16 million books annually to the nation’s youngest and most at-risk children." What a bargain!
Read the RIF press release on this blow to children and reading here:
Reading is Fundamental Home Page - with link to campaign for funding reinstatement:
If the links do not appear, please see them in the Sites/Links list on the right side of the page.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Photo of the Day - Roofs at the Forbidden City
The yellow glazed tile roofs in the Forbidden City in Beijing created many interesting compositions with their angles, upswept ends and marching animals meant to keep out bad spirits.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Watch out! Your bank may be out to gouge you
Take a close look at your bank statements. Check all transactions online. Make sure you look at every line of your credit card statement. If you don't, you may end up losing significant amounts of money.
I got a shock this morning. My bank subtracted a "monthly maintenance fee" of $20 from my savings account. This has never happened before, though when I called to protest it, I was told there was no change in the rules for my accounts.
No change? I've had this account for several years and never been charged $20 a month for the "privilege" of having this bank keep my money and invest it for themselves, paying me a small interest rate, nor have I greatly reduced the amount in the account. This account has always had a healthy amount in it, and is not one of those accounts that incurs a fee from lack of activity.
The explanation from the bank? I must have this account "linked" to a particular kind of checking account, and maintain a combined daily balance of over $15,000, or I will get this fee. This checking account incurs its own fees. I've had a checking account at this bank for over three years with none of these fees or problems.
What a rip-off. Banks, including this one, are advertising how they are helping people save, but then they turn around and subtract $20 a month of those savings if they aren't maintaining large amounts at low interest rates. Most passbook or money market accounts won't even earn that much interest in a month, so it's a net loss to the customer and a great net gain for the bank.
In my 45 years of banking, I have never encountered such usury until recently. First it was the excessive fees and interest rates on credit cards, which I luckily haven't had to pay, though I have canceled two cards from this same bank just on principle, but I know they are hurting others who have far less than I do and can little afford it.
The first time I encountered this kind of "disincentive" for savings was several years ago when a young person I knew opened a small savings account(at a different bank in a different state) . . . and found out that unless he had at least $100 in it at all times and at least one transaction a month, the bank was going to subtract $5 a month as a "maintenance fee." Maintenance of what? How much work was it taking their computers to keep track of that account? How can banks "encourage" saving that way?
Protest. I called the bank and complained. They took the $20 charge off "this one time," but I told them I will be taking my money elsewhere . . . that is, if I can find a decent bank without such policies.
On top of the annoyance and loss of funds, I hate the time it takes to deal with these things, and they probably count on that to keep people right where they are. Moving my money market account will be an inconvenience to me, but $240 a year in excessive charges are not worth "conveniennce" to me.
I got a shock this morning. My bank subtracted a "monthly maintenance fee" of $20 from my savings account. This has never happened before, though when I called to protest it, I was told there was no change in the rules for my accounts.
No change? I've had this account for several years and never been charged $20 a month for the "privilege" of having this bank keep my money and invest it for themselves, paying me a small interest rate, nor have I greatly reduced the amount in the account. This account has always had a healthy amount in it, and is not one of those accounts that incurs a fee from lack of activity.
The explanation from the bank? I must have this account "linked" to a particular kind of checking account, and maintain a combined daily balance of over $15,000, or I will get this fee. This checking account incurs its own fees. I've had a checking account at this bank for over three years with none of these fees or problems.
What a rip-off. Banks, including this one, are advertising how they are helping people save, but then they turn around and subtract $20 a month of those savings if they aren't maintaining large amounts at low interest rates. Most passbook or money market accounts won't even earn that much interest in a month, so it's a net loss to the customer and a great net gain for the bank.
In my 45 years of banking, I have never encountered such usury until recently. First it was the excessive fees and interest rates on credit cards, which I luckily haven't had to pay, though I have canceled two cards from this same bank just on principle, but I know they are hurting others who have far less than I do and can little afford it.
The first time I encountered this kind of "disincentive" for savings was several years ago when a young person I knew opened a small savings account(at a different bank in a different state) . . . and found out that unless he had at least $100 in it at all times and at least one transaction a month, the bank was going to subtract $5 a month as a "maintenance fee." Maintenance of what? How much work was it taking their computers to keep track of that account? How can banks "encourage" saving that way?
Protest. I called the bank and complained. They took the $20 charge off "this one time," but I told them I will be taking my money elsewhere . . . that is, if I can find a decent bank without such policies.
On top of the annoyance and loss of funds, I hate the time it takes to deal with these things, and they probably count on that to keep people right where they are. Moving my money market account will be an inconvenience to me, but $240 a year in excessive charges are not worth "conveniennce" to me.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Photo of the Day - Lychees
When I was growing up in landlocked Kansas, the only time I saw lychee "nuts" was the canned variety, rarely at home or in a Chinese restaurant. By that time, their prickly reddish rind had been peeled off and the small seed removed leaving only the white fleshy fruit in the canning syrup. I had no idea why anyone would call them "nuts" or what they looked or tasted like when fresh.
When I was in China, I saw fresh lychees for sale in the Guilin area . . . on the baskets of street vendors on bicycles, on carts, in markets. It was a treat to peel them and eat them fresh. I still found it odd that they are called nuts and not fruit, since we can't eat the slightly poisonous nut. After all, we don't eat peach pits but we don't call peaches "peach nuts."
I had a similar experience in Japan. I grew up only knowing mandarin oranges as the canned product, but in Japan, I went "mikagari," or mandarin orange picking. How wonderful, fragrant and tasty the fresh ones were!
The Horse Race
It was greatly satisfying to hear Brian Williams read email from viewers disgusted with the media coverage of the election, nailing them for treating it like a sports event and reporting only polls, campaign strategy and commentary like calling Hillary Clinton's passionate and emotional reaction a "near breakdown" (hardly!), and asking where the real reporting on the issues, candidates stands on them, and plans is.
The media got their comeuppance in the new Hampshire primary. Kudos to the people of New Hampshire for not allowing media polls to tell them how to vote! Whether you're for Hillary or against her, you should applaud and welcome this scenario in which all the pollsters and pundits will be forced to reevaluate. NO ONE should be "anointed" as the nominee this early in the process. Let the voters have their say without being told their candidate is already out of the running or bound to win. Make them rethink polling that fails to take into account that people change their minds, that events can change minds, and that candidates continue to evolve. Do not let them hijack the process!
While we're at it, let's remember this campaign as something special in the history of American politics, where a woman, an African American and a Hispanic all ran as serious and creditable candidates for the presidency of our nation, and realize that among the voters, there may be more pulling us together than pulling us apart. Let's hope the policitians get it.
Let's hope whoever wins the nonimations will be up to the job and truly understand the important problems facing our nation and the world.
The media got their comeuppance in the new Hampshire primary. Kudos to the people of New Hampshire for not allowing media polls to tell them how to vote! Whether you're for Hillary or against her, you should applaud and welcome this scenario in which all the pollsters and pundits will be forced to reevaluate. NO ONE should be "anointed" as the nominee this early in the process. Let the voters have their say without being told their candidate is already out of the running or bound to win. Make them rethink polling that fails to take into account that people change their minds, that events can change minds, and that candidates continue to evolve. Do not let them hijack the process!
While we're at it, let's remember this campaign as something special in the history of American politics, where a woman, an African American and a Hispanic all ran as serious and creditable candidates for the presidency of our nation, and realize that among the voters, there may be more pulling us together than pulling us apart. Let's hope the policitians get it.
Let's hope whoever wins the nonimations will be up to the job and truly understand the important problems facing our nation and the world.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Photo of the Day - Bamboo Raft on the Li River
Beautiful tall stands of bamboo grow along the Li River near Guilin, China, and local people craft rafts from the long poles. This man was poling his raft near our riverboat in hopes of selling his wares.
The Law of Unintended Consequences
It's an ultimate irony. George W. Bush insists "we" brought freedom to Iraq by deposing Sadam Hussein's government, but have we unleashed and given freedom to a spirit of hate and persecution? Tonight, 60 Minutes showed a report on the persecution and murder of Christians in Iraq. We've seen reports of terrible treatment of women, those women that Bush was so proud of having liberated, who are now worse off than under the dictator Sadam. We have liberated the sectarian violence. If freedom were only the freedom to live a good life and respect one's neighbor, it would be a desirable outcome, but if "freedom" means violence, hatred, death and destruction, anarchy and chaos, what have we wrought?
We keep hearing that the news out of Iraq is "better." Better because there is less killing, not because it has stopped, not because the Iraqi government has risen to the occasion to unify the country, not because the country is pulling together to find a common, peaceful future. Well, it's a start . . . but will it lead anywhere? Anywhere we can be proud of? It looks grim to me.
We keep hearing that the news out of Iraq is "better." Better because there is less killing, not because it has stopped, not because the Iraqi government has risen to the occasion to unify the country, not because the country is pulling together to find a common, peaceful future. Well, it's a start . . . but will it lead anywhere? Anywhere we can be proud of? It looks grim to me.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Photo of the Day - Hong Kong at Night
Hong Kong has changed immensely in the 25 years since I was last there. The number of skyscrapers in such a small space is astounding, just as it is in Shanghai. This photo was taken from the Star Ferry about 10:00 PM.
Disgusted with the lot of them - and us
They talk a good game about working together bipartisan to solve problems. Then they turn right around and call each other names, misstate each other's positions, and stymie any progress. The lot of them. When did it become more important to block the other party than to govern the country? When did it become more important to misrepresent the facts and the opponents than to work on real solutions? When did it become acceptable to spend wildly and act as though taxes to pay for it was irresponsible? Have they all gone completely nuts?
When did causing anarchy in a country, killing its citizens, ruining its infrastructure, and trying to engineer disruptive, fast social and economic changes equate to bringing freedom? Is freedom really, as the song says, "just another word for nothing left to lose"?
Where is a real statesman, stateswoman, who looks at all the immense problems facing our country and the world and is more interested in truth and solutions than playing word games to win?
Where are real voters who care more about truth and issues than reassuring platitudes, more about major issues than symbols, emotional issues, and avoiding paying their fair share? Where are people who realize that American can't and shouldn't rule the world, who respect other countries and cultures, who realize we can't change them to fit our specifications? Where are Christians who even recall the Golden Rule?
Even if a real statesperson ran and won the presidency, the opposition party would see to it that he or she could not govern, could not get a program through Congress. They are more interested in a political football game than in our country. They all talk a good game, sure, love to throw in what they think Americans want and how patriotic they are, but when do they look at the big picture? When do they look at what will WORK?
We love to quote Harry Truman, but what politician today is willing to let the buck stop with him or her? Willing to talk plain truth and tell it like it is?
Where is it written in the Constitution that political parties have this kind of power? Did our founding fathers have any clue that we would have politicians running up unimaginable debt and not be willing to pay for it? Would they be horrified at the attempts to create an imperial presidency and negate the carefully crafted checks and balances? Would they be rightfully frightened at a president that encouraged the formation of private armies, paid more than our military, to avoid keeping the military we need?
And what about the "free press" that is supposed to keep us informed? What passes for "news"? They report on the the political campaign as though it were a football game or a horse race. They focus on who is ahead in the polls, who spends the most money, who has the best television ad, who made a mistake or misspoke, but NOT ON THE ISSUES, not on whether any of them have plans that work, not on their previous records, other than to make passing mention of it here and there. It's like a long beauty contest, reality show, or sports event. Where is the serious reporting?
The so-called debates give us a little bit of a chance to see the candidates in action, but it's really a series of farces. None of them have time to really explain any answer, or to actually DEBATE each other. It's more like a spelling bee. A bunch of would-be presidents standing up there answering shotgun questions with very short time limits on the answers. About all you really find out is how fast they think and how well they can position themselves.
If you really want to know about them, you have to go and dig, spend a lot of time, and hope you aren't getting a bunch of biased "information" put out by someone with an axe to grind.
We've had eight years of bad government. The saying is, we get the government we deserve. Let's hope we don't continue to deserve anything like this!
And, let's hope we quit looking for miracles and voting to avoid paying for what we want . . . or give it up and decide we don't want our government to do it. Until the public uses some sense, we can't expect Washington to do it. They want to get elected, and they will do just about any damn fool thing we want to get what they want. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
When did causing anarchy in a country, killing its citizens, ruining its infrastructure, and trying to engineer disruptive, fast social and economic changes equate to bringing freedom? Is freedom really, as the song says, "just another word for nothing left to lose"?
Where is a real statesman, stateswoman, who looks at all the immense problems facing our country and the world and is more interested in truth and solutions than playing word games to win?
Where are real voters who care more about truth and issues than reassuring platitudes, more about major issues than symbols, emotional issues, and avoiding paying their fair share? Where are people who realize that American can't and shouldn't rule the world, who respect other countries and cultures, who realize we can't change them to fit our specifications? Where are Christians who even recall the Golden Rule?
Even if a real statesperson ran and won the presidency, the opposition party would see to it that he or she could not govern, could not get a program through Congress. They are more interested in a political football game than in our country. They all talk a good game, sure, love to throw in what they think Americans want and how patriotic they are, but when do they look at the big picture? When do they look at what will WORK?
We love to quote Harry Truman, but what politician today is willing to let the buck stop with him or her? Willing to talk plain truth and tell it like it is?
Where is it written in the Constitution that political parties have this kind of power? Did our founding fathers have any clue that we would have politicians running up unimaginable debt and not be willing to pay for it? Would they be horrified at the attempts to create an imperial presidency and negate the carefully crafted checks and balances? Would they be rightfully frightened at a president that encouraged the formation of private armies, paid more than our military, to avoid keeping the military we need?
And what about the "free press" that is supposed to keep us informed? What passes for "news"? They report on the the political campaign as though it were a football game or a horse race. They focus on who is ahead in the polls, who spends the most money, who has the best television ad, who made a mistake or misspoke, but NOT ON THE ISSUES, not on whether any of them have plans that work, not on their previous records, other than to make passing mention of it here and there. It's like a long beauty contest, reality show, or sports event. Where is the serious reporting?
The so-called debates give us a little bit of a chance to see the candidates in action, but it's really a series of farces. None of them have time to really explain any answer, or to actually DEBATE each other. It's more like a spelling bee. A bunch of would-be presidents standing up there answering shotgun questions with very short time limits on the answers. About all you really find out is how fast they think and how well they can position themselves.
If you really want to know about them, you have to go and dig, spend a lot of time, and hope you aren't getting a bunch of biased "information" put out by someone with an axe to grind.
We've had eight years of bad government. The saying is, we get the government we deserve. Let's hope we don't continue to deserve anything like this!
And, let's hope we quit looking for miracles and voting to avoid paying for what we want . . . or give it up and decide we don't want our government to do it. Until the public uses some sense, we can't expect Washington to do it. They want to get elected, and they will do just about any damn fool thing we want to get what they want. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN
What happened to Cheney's sense of reason after 1994?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
