A Delay in Enforcing Ethics

The Republican Party leadership in Congress has me confused. I can't tell if they are bent on committing political suicide or if they just swallowed the entire bottle of stupidity pills now that they have control of both the House and Senate.

There is no other possible explanation for the decision by the Republican leadership to reverse a decade old rule that any member of the House leadership who is under indictment must relinquish his or her leadership position until such time as the indictment is resolved one way or another. Originally designed to embarrass former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski who was indicted for corruption and forced to step down, this rule would have required current House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to step down from that post if an ongoing investigation of him results in an indictment. Seems that DeLay may have violated fund-raising laws and he may be indicted for it. Or maybe not. In any event, his fellow Republicans don't want him to be forced out of his leadership role if he is indicted.

I am beginning to think that these people have lost touch with reality and are thinking that Bush is going to be crowned King, not inaugurated for a second term come January. Changing rules to ignore ethical standards, after making names for themselves back during the Clinton years by pushing those same ethical standards is the epitome of stupidity.

DeLay should do the ethical thing by voluntarily relinquishing his leadership post, temporarily while the questions that are swirling around his fund-raising activities are investigated, and once any alleged improprieties have been investigated and been proven to be just allegations, then he can resume his position with no further tarnishing of his reputation. That is what a wise, ethical man would do. That is not what Tom DeLay will do. Like many Texas politicians, he thinks he is not just above the rules, but as an author of the rules, he is completely and totally exempt from them and they exist only for others and not for himself.

There is an old story told about former President Lyndon B. Johnson that may help to illustrate just how powerful Mr. DeLay thinks of himself as. One of President Johnson's staffers was talking to another, lamenting over the conditions under which they both toiled and the other staffer said "You know, sometimes I wish that LBJ was the Pope." The first staffer looked up and asked "Why in the world would you wish that?" The second staffer smiled wryly and replied "Because then we would only have to kiss his ring."

Facing The Toughest Foe

When I awoke this morning, I looked the toughest foe I've ever faced in the eye and he almost stared me down.

I was of course staring at myself, in the mirror and that foe was and is me. It was just before five in the morning and I was getting ready for my first day back in the gym. I have had a number of first days back in the gym since recovering from knee surgery last year, but for some reason this one feels different. Maybe because I stared down my foe and actually got out the door and went. Perhaps because I am slowly but surely realizing that this is a battle about making a choice where I have everything to lose and everything to win and no one else is going to influence the outcome but me.

Oh yes, the doctor is involved here and her lectures have had some effect. I did lose 30 lbs over the summer without exercising in order to reduce the stress on my enlarged heart, but that is not enough and I know it. If I want to live the quote long and healthy life unquote that I still can have, then I have to make the right choices and one of them is to do the exercise work that is required.

It was cold outside. My bed was warm. There were good things to watch on television. Any one of a number of excuses would have done the trick. Or even just that old stand-by, postponing the start for just one more day. After all, what is one more day against the rest of your life? The answer is that it could cost you your life if it isn't just one day but an indefinite series of one day postponements. I told you that the foe in the mirror was a tough one and it is.

My goal was to do 30 minutes on the stationary bike and I managed to crank out those minutes and five more for cooldown to boot. Then, after stretching out my now very tired and sore legs, I drank some more water from my water bottle and headed for the door.

Today, I won the battle. The first skirmish. Oh, the day is hardly over and that foe of mine has other skirmishes and battles in mind. He will tempt me with fried foods at lunch and dinner. He will tempt me with sweets throughout the day. He will tempt me to skip the afternoon constitutional that I know will needed if my legs are to be able to make it through tomorrow's ride on the stationary bike on day two in the gym.

For from this point forward every day is a new day of battling that toughest foe. What makes today and the days from this point forward is that I have a better idea of the foe I face and that better idea is going to make it just a little easier to win the battles and skirmishes that will lead to an ulimate victory. The victory won't be when I fit into a pair of jeans I haven't been able to wear for years, or when I can shop for clothes without having to visit the "Big Man" aisle.

Victory will come when I no longer stare into the mirror and see an opponent. It will come when I look into the mirror and just see myself. A self I can be happy with. Until then, I will do battle, and seek victory in each and every skirmish. I will not cry or berate myself when I lose a battle. I will pick myself up and move forward, ever onward.

To those of you fighting the same fight, I wish you strength, courage, and victory!!

What does NBA stand for, really??

After the "basketbrawl" in Detroit this past Friday evening, perhaps the meaning of the acronym NBA needs changing.

You've heard the jokes. The National Football League, better known as the NFL referred to as the National Felony League, due to the proliferation of criminals among its player ranks. A Los Angeles area sportscaster on radio makes reference to his "Athlete Arrest of the Day" during his afternoon drive-time sportscasts and we all chuckle at hearing which overpaid professional athlete has screwed the pooch this time and gotten himself or herself arrested. But with the actions of Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson going into the stands to chase fans who definitely crossed over a line, professional athletes have sunk to a new low. A low that can be found somewhere beneath the belly of a pregnant slimeworm.

Until last Friday, my joke about NBA was that it stood for National Babymaking Association, referring to the proclivity of a number of NBA players to find time to father children out of wedlock, often to more than one woman. An April 29, 1998 issue of Sports Illustrated took an in-depth look at this problem, pointing out that then New York Knick Larry Johnson was supporting five children by four women, including two he had with his wife. The same article made reference to Shawn Kemp who at that time had fathered seven children although he was not married. Patrick Ewing, Jason Kidd, Juwan Howard, Scottie Pippen, Stephan Marbury, Hakeem Olajuwan, Gary Payton, Larry Bird and Isiah Thomas are all NBA stars, and all were mentioned in that article as having been the subject of paternity lawsuits. Not much has changed with the passage of time. The league's newest star, LeBron James is only 19 years old and he already has fathered one child.

But the plethora of paternity suits will no longer be at the forefront of the media's mind after what happened Friday. Instead we will all wonder what in the world went wrong that sent Ron Artest into the stands to chase after a fan who had doused him with a beverage. Imagine the temerity of that horrible, awful Detroit fan. Ron Artest, star player of the Indiana Pacers had just backed down from a confrontation with Detroit Piston star Ben Wallace and had chosen to lay down on the scorer's table and this fan chose to throw his beverage at Artest.

The real problem here is that the NBA's response isn't going to solve a thing. The league has suspended Artest for 73 games, and others involved for lesser amounts of games. This will probably ruin the Indiana team's chances of reaching the post-season. It will cost Ron Artest some $5 million in salary. Oh, the Players Union will appeal and an arbitrator may reduce the suspensions, but the damage is done to the season of the Pacers.

Worse yet, the overreaction of the NBA reached an even lower point last night. In Detroit security was tightened and a fan who was voicing his displeasure was told by a security guard that doing this was a "no-no." Now I can understand that it was wrong for fans to dump their beverages onto the players. Totally wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that the purchase of a ticket doesn't mean that the fan has abrogated his right to freedom of speech. He or she has every right to shout at the players, criticize the players and even insult the players and David Stern and the rest of the NBA have no basis on which to try to restrict or reduce that right.

When all is said and done, Artest and the others will be back. The fan who was punched will sue and win some kind of cash settlement. But the game of basketball, and the real fans are the losers here, as we watch the game we love sink lower and lower into the sunset of its declining years.

I is for Infernal or Infuriating or what?

The letters IRS strike fear into the heart of even the mightiest of men and women. I am sure that even Superman himself would tremble while opening an envelope containing a certified letter from the IRS, as I did this past Monday morning.

Now I knew that I owed them money, back taxes from 1997 and 1998. It had been a much larger amount, but my 2002 and 2003 returns had been filed earlier this year, both of which contained substantial refunds that would greatly reduce the balance I owed to the IRS, or the "service" as it is referred to by those in the know. I even had a plan. I would be getting an even larger refund from my 2004 return, which I would file in early February of 2005 (I've been preparing the 2004 return now, while I am out of work) and that refund would more than satisfy the rest of what I owed the IRS, bringing my balance to zero and ending my fear of receiving certified mail from them.

Instead I stood there in the post office, reading that worst of bad possibile pieces of mail from the IRS, notice of a lien. What that means is that the IRS is placing a "hold" on any and all property, including bank accounts that a person owns, and they have the absolute right to seize any and all of that property in order to satisfy the debt owed to them.

But I wasn't worried. I have 12 years of experience preparing tax returns, I've dealt with the IRS before, I'll call them and work it all out. I will set up an arrangement, they will wait until the 2004 return is prepared and processed and everything will be fine.

Unfortunately it didn't happen that way. I got on the phone, and waited on hold for an hour without getting through to anyone. So I hung up and dialed the number again, in spite of the warning that you shouldn't do that, it will prolong your wait. But nineteen minutes later, I was on the line with a revenue agent (known as an assistor, although considering how little assistance she provided, using that label is ridiculous) who told me she'd be happy to help me set up an arrangement, but that the lien couldn't be lifted until the balance was paid in full and that the service might seize my bank accounts at any time, even though I had worked out an arrangement with her. I shook my head and asked how I could go ahead and pay the balance in full, and she told me that I should call the Official Payments Corporation where I could pay my balance by credit card.

One little problem. The nimrod I spoke with either didn't know, or completely forgot that the Official Payments Corporation's contract with the IRS limits them to accepting payments for only the 2003 and 2002 tax years and the balance I owed was from a year before 2002. So I couldn't pay by credit card. Thusly I had to call the Infuriating Revenue Service yet again, spend another 23 minutes on hold before I reached yet another revenue agent who told me to go get a cashier's check from the bank and take it to the nearest IRS office, a 35 minute drive from my apartment in traffic.

The cashier's check cost me nothing, thanks to a sympathetic teller. Parking at the Federal Building where the IRS office I had to go cost me six bucks. But the big cost will come in the near future. I had to use money from my retirement plan rollover to pay this balance. Because of that fact, unless I find some way to replace that money before the rollover period expires in December, I will pay an extra $4,000 in income taxes and penalties in 2004. They were and are holding a large refund that I will get in 2005 and I had to use my retirement plan rollover to pay them now, instead of in February? You bet I'm infuriated.

Who will benefit from this? My clients this coming tax season. Because I will be taking a little extra satisfaction this year in saving them money on income taxes.

Permissible Bigotry

Welcome to the era of permissible bigotry, where there is still one group that is fair game for bashing from all sides even in this era of ever-increasing political correctness.

That group is of course Born-Again Christians, and they are considered even more of a target after President Bush's reelection earlier this November. The host of "Prairie Home Companion", Garrison Keillor gave a speech the day after the election and he took his shots, some of which he repeated on his weekly broadcast the following Saturday.

"I am now the chairman of a national campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians. My feeling is that born-again people are citizens of heaven, that is where there citizenship is, is in heaven, it's not here among us in America."

He also said, "If born-again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?"

Now while he may have meant these comments with his tongue in cheek, all in good humor, they are completely inappropriate and that inappropriateness is simple to illustrate. Re-read those quotes again, but substitute the words born-again Christians with Hispanics, change heaven to Mexico and Canadians to Mexicans. All of a sudden, those funny little jibes just don't seem so funny, do they?

Keillor's ability to make people laugh is well-known and he need not stoop to this kind of vile garbage slinging in order to elicit chuckles from an audience, either in person or on-air. That he is a very liberal Democrat who is unhappy with the results of the election is obvious. But does it give him the right to take cheap shots like these? Particularly on National Public Radio? I guarantee you that if he had made these same comments directed toward any group other than born-again Christians, there would have been a loud, long protest heard all over this land. For some reason, that protesting doesn't go on when liberals attack conservatives. This is definitely permissible bigotry and it needs to be exposed for its true ugliness.

An Offer I Could Easily Refuse

So, here it is election night and I was taking a break from the election coverage and early speculation about who was going to win which state by tuning into AMC which is showing "The Godfather", which I consider one of the best movies ever made. Then the phone rang and it was definitely an offer worthy of refusal.

The caller had a very pleasant, perky voice and she was calling to let me know that I was going to be entered into a sweepstakes because I just happen to carry a Visa card. My internal scam alarm went from stand-by to red-alert immediately, but I continued to listen. Then she asked me some survey questions about my interests and hobbies.

When the survey was complete, she told me that I was going to be the lucky recipient of three free magazines "Computer Gaming World", "Playboy" and "Premiere" and all I had to do to get these free monthly magazines for the next 60 months was to pay for the subscription to U.S. News and World Report I was going to also receive as part of the package, and all for the low, low price of only $3.84 a week.

That seemed odd, so I went quickly to the website of U.S. News and World Report to check their subscription rates and found that for $20.00 you can get 53 issues (4 free and 49 paid). Assuming that you can renew for $20 per year over the four years that follow, you can get five years of U.S. News and World Report from their website for $100.00 instead of paying $199.68 a year for five years, or almost ten times the actual cost.

I was almost incredulous that someone had the nerve to make this kind of offer to me and try to make it sound as though this was a great offer that I shouldn't turn down, but not wanting to sound impolite, I said "Thanks, but I think I'll pass." Ms Perky replied "Well, what part of the offer are you uncomfortable with? Tell me and maybe I can help you work through the problem."

When I told her that my problem with the offer was that I refused to pay almost ten times the actual cost of something, just because someone with a cute voice happened to dial my phone number, she thanked me for my time, wished me well in the upcoming sweepstakes and then said "good night".

It was indeed a good night. Good, because I said, "No thanks".

The Problems of the California Ballot

Voting is difficult enough when your choice at the top of the ballot is between the two worst choices in any presidential race in the history of our nation. It gets much harder if you live in California.

That is because of California's obsession with the legislation via Proposition method of enacting law. Back in 1973, the first Proposition, Prop 1 was an iniatitive to lower state income taxes. Ironically, it failed because of a well-run opposition campaign.

Twenty-five years later, in 1998, the elections held that June included propositions numbering as high as 227 and a decision was made to start re-using the numbers beginning again at 1 in November of that year. That was six years ago today and on the ballot I will fill in later this morning, I must decide on Propositions 59 through 72.

For the mathematically challenged, that means an average of a dozen new ballot propositions each and every year. Petitions must be circulated in order to get these propositions on the ballot, and this is almost always done by paid signature gatherers. That means money and money means special interests. It also means that if you want to be an informed voter in California, you have some reading to do. The official 2004 voter's guide for today's election is 162 pages of small text.

Some of these are easy decisions. Prop 59 is nothing more than an attempt to prevent government agencies from holding meetings in secret when sunshine clauses in laws allow them to do so. That's an easy "Yes decision. So is the Yes on Prop 62 and No on Prop 60, which will attempt to fix the stupid primary election and district drawing systems currently in existence that were created by incumbent politicians to make holding onto their current offices easier.

Other decisions are tougher. One proposition on the ballot is a surtax on millionaires specifically to fund mental health programs. It sounds good on the surface but raiding the treasury for single-issue purposes is bad public policy on a basic level (as proven by a former proposition, Prop 98). A proposition to fund stem cell research has the Gubinator breaking ranks with the conservative members of his own political party.

I will end up spending a couple of hours in total having studied the issues and the various candidates I have to made decisions on (President, Senate, Congress, State House, Judges, Propositions) before I can go to the polling place and make an informed decision. It shouldn't be this way. The attempt to legislate by proposition is nothing more than a clear indication that the State Legislature has failed in its job to represent the needs of the people in passing laws. The special interest groups that can just spend money to get their proposition onto the ballot should have to go to the Legislature to present their ideas, so that the people's elected representatives can do just that, represent us.

What we end up with is a broken system, where the person with the most money is able to enact legislation by proposition, as long as what they want to do isn't too far over the top and they are willing to spend the money to finance the advertising campaign it will take to convince enough of the apathetic voting populace that their idea is sound, and in the best interest of those voters.

California. Best propositions money can buy.