Presidents Delegate. Good President's Delegate Well. That's why Obama's cabinet picks have won such acclaim from both conservatives and liberals. And that's why the village idiot from Crawford does not deserve the P-word used in conjunction with his name. 'Nuff Said!

And now, a word about why Johnny can't read. I've long blamed the advertising industry for this problem, starting with Burger King's "Herb" advertising campaign from about 30 years ago. It seemed that EVERY point-of-purchase poster from that campaign contained errors in grammar and puntuaction. It seemed obvious to me that B-K had hired a minority advertising firm, possibly for the tax benefits that might yield. well, now it is getting far worse--and some of the problems seemed to come when GWB appointed Tomlinson to head the public broadcasting corporation. I started to hear the long "A" sound when newscasters were talking about a thing or an event. In fact, I once heard a newscaster pronounce the word "another" as if it were "a nuther"--with the long "A" sound--instead of "an other"! One reason why I always use the short "A" sound is that it does allow me the option of using the long "A" sound when I want to emphasize that I mean one and only one of that item. Same argument applies to pronouncing the word "the" as if it were "thee." The long "e" sound should be held only for emphasis. And it dawned on me that there was one well-known person who always talks that way--GWB!

But lately, it has gotten much worse. I saw  a T-shirt presumably licensed by the University of Florida recently while in gator country. It was an obvious takeoff on Miller Brewery's "It's Miller Time" ad campaign, and this shirt read "It's Meyer Time." That had a beer bottle cap alongside it, while under it were two more lines which read "Great Coach" and "Less Losses." Any damned fool knows that the word "less" applies only to indfinite quantities, and when the quantity becomes specific--even if the speaker does not know  the exact number involved--you have to switch to the word "fewer." For instance, if you turn over an hour-glass, and sand starts to pour from the top to the bottom, you have less sand in the top, but fewer grains or ounces of sand. How could a university--even one known as one of the top party schools in the country, allow their school to be associated with such an obvious error in grammar???? Similarly, I heard a newscaster from the ABC affiliate in the same town, say "we are dedicated to be your home team." How can a TV station--a network affiliate--hire someone who does not know that while you can be PROUD to BE something, you have to be dedicated to BEING that same thing? The difference, of course, is that proud is an adjective, while being is a verb form. But our schools are either simply not teaching proper lingual skills anymore (many children left behind under the GWB administration) or the children are simply refusing to learn those skills.... And the fact that our television and radio stations are using such horrid grammar only reinforces poor speaking skills on the part of our students. Another thing that gets to me like chalk screeching on a blackboard is the use of an appostrophe to indicate plurality, which was one of those errors seen in the Burger King "Herb" ad campaign. An appostrophe indicates either contraction or possession, but NEVER plurality. That is, if you write "the television's," you are referring to something that belongs to the television, but NEVER does that refer to more than one television set! Yet more an more, our children are not learning this, even at the college level!

This is simply a national disgrace!!!!

Did you know that GWB paid for his illegal war in part on the backs of people who draw Social Security? I know of one case where a person who was on SS retirement got a $33 or so Cost of Living Adjustment at the start of 2005. He then got less--about $26--in 2006, about $22 in 2007, and about $16 in 2008. Yet his 2009 COLA is much higher--about $47! Assuming that the cost of living jumped by an equal percentage each year, the COLA should have been higher each year, simply because the base amount was higher. And we all know that the actual cost of living, which varies with the price of oil, among other things, jumped by a higher percentage each year. Even if this person received a roughly linear increase each year, between the $33 and the $47, he'd have had an increase of, say, $37 in '06, $41 in '07, and $44 in '08.  To do equity in this case, they would have to give him about $9 for 48 months, $11 for 36 months, $19 for 24 months, and $28 for 12 months, for a total of about $1600 as a one-time payment, plus a monthly increase for the rest of his life of about $67. Since most of the people involved are poor, that would have gone right into the economy, since they would buy needed things with the money as soon as they get it. What an economic stimulus program that would be, and it would go to deserving people who got screwed by GWB and his illegal war!!!!!