Project Runway - Arizona Style

No one can accuse my wife of not being bold and adventurous. She has swam with the dolphins and the sting rays; she has volunteered to "disappear" on stage with David Copperfield; and she has even mustered the courage to ride the "Tower of Terror" ride at Disney World. But to walk the runway in a fashion show? Wearing a dress?

Diana does not wear dresses for reasons you might intuit if you know her. She is a skirt and blouse type, or maybe jeans and denim shirt type. But a dress, with a waist, uh....no way.

But when she was asked to model some clothes in a fashion show in our resort in Arizona, she didn't hesitate to say, "Yes!" Of course, she didn't know one of those dresses would be involved.

Each model was asked to walk the runway with two outfits. Diana chose a top with jeans, along with a nice big handbag for her first. The other ladies who were present for the rehearsal then suggested a dress for her. Despite her protestations, they convinced her to at least try on the dress. It was a light fabric with a uneven hem, and a light matching jacket. She was overwhelmed by the positive comments so she said, "What the heck!"

The male folk were not allowed to attend so I asked her to take the camera along for her walk down the runway (actually, a stroll through the tables at the community building).

When she returned home, I asked her how it all went.

"I twirled!" she responded with a dreamy air I hadn't seen in some time.

"That's nice", I said. "Did you like the dress?"

"I twirled", she said again, "I twirled at each end of the aisle". I was so happy for her. Not only did she risk it all and wear a dress, she managed to twirl at the ends of the aisle...twice.

"How did the other ladies look?" I asked to be polite.

"Fine," she said softly. "But I twirled."

Sometimes it is amazing what can make your day.

What Were They Thinking?

Cut-rate Irish airline Ryanair's CEO announced this week that the no-frills airline might start to charge for using the on board loo, the water closet, the toidy. The CEO, in all seriousness, said that costs had to be covered and that it would not break anyone to stick a coin in the door slot to use the facilities.

Many travellers use the discount airlines to save that penny, that dollar, that euro, thinking that they don't need the frills of meals, drinks, snacks, blankets, and pillows. Some may rethink that economy when it comes to having an outlet for a sometimes urgent need. It's not like you can just go to the business next door to use their restroom, or failing that, go stoop behind a tree on the highway (don't tell me you haven't at least considered that at one time or another).

This is the same kind of thinking, with no forethought, that Microsoft was guilty of last week when it asked some of its laid off employees to return some of the severance money the company had apparently overpaid them. Let's see, you go back to the employees you just fired and ask them to reimburse you for the overpayment. Sure, right after the mortgage, the car payment, and the food bill. Microsoft, or some sane person in the board room, came to his senses within days and realized what a public relations faux pas they had made. They rescinded the request for the overpayment and with egg on their face, tried to put the dirty little incident behind them. But people may well remember Microsoft's Scrooge-like behavior for some time to come.

So with Ryanair, I suspect the CEO will reverse himself (say he was just kidding) and decide that the PR hit was not worth the "free advertising" this little scheme provided. I'm sure some future passengers were getting ready for Ryanair's move. Just as they now bring on fast food and drinks these days, we might have seen a few urinals, and yes, even bedpans whipped from the carry-ons when nature called. And we think those seats are cramped now.

Closing Guantanamo - Is That a Good Idea?

During the presidential campaign accusations were flying about the use of torture and other unsavory tactics against the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison, at the U.S. Naval Station in Cuba. There were records of complaints of mistreatment there as well as some forms of torture used during "rendition" elsewhere.

President Obama, in keeping with his campaign promise, has announced that he will close the infamous prison within one year. He did not offer, nor is there one forthcoming, about where these prisoners, some of whom are terrorists, will be housed.

Already there has been a flurry of activity to look at each person's case, probably in the hope that some can be sent to their home countries without charges. There is little doubt that even if the population is culled, there will be some prisoners, some pretty bad ones, who would have to be housed in the United States. One wonders which state will offer to "keep the light on for ya" in regard to these gentlefolk. I suppose a bribe might work for some hard pressed state.

While I agree we need to treat all prisoners with humanity and compassion and torture is NOT acceptable, why do we have to close a facility that is built for this type of incarceration? This week, new Attorney General Eric Holder visited the prison and found it to be a "well run and professional facility". He also was a little silly when he went on to say that he didn't see any mistreatment of detainees while he was there. Duh.

But to the bigger point. We need to spiff up our detention policies and not hold those who do not need to be. We need to afford them minimal prisoner rights that do not jeopardize anyone's safety. But once we do that, what is wrong with leaving them at the U.S. at Guantanamo? It meets all the security requirements and with proper oversight will be a model prison.

The critical issue is not the location; it is the treatment of the detainees and whether they are to be given constitutional rights of all U.S. citizens. Give them the rights, hold hearings and trials to present the evidence, and either convict them or not. Top secret information can be given in closed hearings to protect its sensitivity there as well as in the middle of Kansas. All of this, if necessary, does not change by housing the prisoners at our base in Cuba. What does change is that no state and no American citizenry has to worry about their own safety that might be compromised by having a terror suspect living in their midst.

Is there a downside?

Just Who Are These "Taxpayers"?

We hear much lately about the "taxpayer funded" bailouts for GM and Chrysler, Citibank and Wells Fargo, and myriad other financial institutions. The TARP funds, the Recovery Act -- all are funded by these mysterious taxpayers. That is one heck of a lot of money. Trillions, in fact.

I have thumped my chest and pounded my fist with the best of us "taxpayers" in the past few months so very irritated that my hard-earned money was being sent to liars, cheats, and thieves, plus a few good companies as well. I wasn't sure just how much of this huge bill was mine, but today I heard that maybe I wasn't the hero I thought I was. Giving my hard earned bucks turns out to be a pittance compared to the burden paid by those in the upper incomes.

I found out that the top 1% (that's one percent) of taxpayers pay about 40% of the income taxes. The upper 5% of taxpayers cover about 60% of all federal income taxes, and when you get to the upper 10% of those "taxpayers", they pay about 70% of the total income tax (Fortune, April 2008).

In fact, I found out that the bottom 40% of Americans who file tax returns have a negative income tax. With deductions, earned income credit and the like, some actually get back more than they pay in. Can you believe that?

I am not in the top 1, 5 , or even 10%. I am not in the bottom 40 % either, but my contribution to the treasury is certainly puny compared to those in the upper brackets. So while I still might pound my fist at the money pit we seem to have created in the U.S. government, I understand that there are many others who could pound harder and yell louder. No wonder they get irritated when politicians say the rich "aren't paying their fair share". What the hell does that mean?

Stimulus or Chump Change?

Once, when I loaned a friend $500, he said he would repay me $10 a week from his pay check. I thought about it and then replied that I would rather he paid me the $500 in full in a year than get $10 a week that I would fritter away, or worse, hardly notice as part of my own weekly income.

President Obama's stimulus plan includes a $400 tax rebate for single, and $800 for married, that will not come in one check but will come as an average of $13 fewer dollars per week of federal withholding tax deductions. I might have taken the $400 and bought a Blu-ray disk player, or more cat treats, or gotten my car detailed a few times, thus adding to the needed consumer spending. I am afraid that now I will not only barely see a difference in my paychecks that I direct deposit, I may never really notice that I have a little more pocket money.

I understand the reasoning and I might enjoy the extra money, but a lump sum would have been more helpful. It was not quite enough to invest but was enough to buy a simple pleasure that would have had to wait otherwise.

I am about to be blasphemous, but I would rather not even get the $400. There is strength in numbers and with the multiplier effect, all of these paltry rebates aggregate into a lot of money to really make a difference in schools, health care, research and so on. Taken as a whole, the proposed rebate money could have made a big difference instead of little or no difference to each of us taxpayers. The rebate does only go to those who actually pay taxes, doesn't it?

The Greater Good - Is It Great and Is It Good?

The stimulus package and the second half of the TARP has generated no end of discussion of their pros and cons. Of interest to me and others who have managed to cut corners and still pay their mortgage payments despite eroding values, is the idea of rewarding risky and opportunistic behaviors.

The question often is, "Where is my share of the bailout when my property values have decreased, even though I am still making my payments as agreed?" If the bailout et al is going to help those who borrowed far more than they could afford, took "interest only" loans, or signed up for a ridiculously low payment on an ARM (adjustable rate mortgage), then where is the relief for responsible people?. It is clear that some people got greedy, or "bet on the come", or just didn't even think to look a few years into the future when the piper would have to be paid. So today, some of those irresponsible people want the government (read U.S. Taxpayers) to rescue them.

The same could be said of the bank bailout, some of which will surely go to banks that lent money recklessly to less-than-credit-worthy customers on less-than-reliable mortgages. Greed is the word. And foolishness, and of course, just plain stupidity.

So should those of us who have lost a large share of our retirement nest eggs, a good chunk of home values, and who knows what else, now have to bear the additional burden of "saving" those who did not plan, did not think, and maybe did not even care?

The problem, some economists and others will tell you, is that if we don't save the foolish home buyers, the greedy banks, and reckless investors, the economy will get worse and therefore harm us all even more. What a Hobson's choice that is!

For the record, I am in favor of helping those who, through no fault of their own, had their jobs evaporate, or their families suffer illnesses or death of the breadwinner. We must help those people as we always have. It just grinds on many of us to subsidize the excessive risk-takers, the grifters, and the opportunists who now want to amble up to the public trough and beg for "more please".

Yet, I know that we need to hope for a rising tide soon, that will lift all ships, and if this shot in the arm of government money will do the job, then I guess we have to hope for the best. I don't want to see foreclosures erode home values even more or for banks to tighten lending so that even I can't get a car loan without proving I don't need it. I worked hard to build my credit and now guard it as a "sacred trust". I just wish others would do the same, or if they choose not to, to only take themselves down, and not the rest of us with them. I guess that is my American Dream.

Millions Pocketed in Iraq Reconstruction - By Our Own Military Leaders?

We read today that investigations may show that much of the wasted money that was poured into Iraq early in the war was stolen and pocketed. Not by war lords or local thieves but by the very men who were to keep track of the reconstruction efforts. A pair of U.S. Army and Air Force colonels (and maybe more) are being investigated for the theft of millions in U.S. cash.

Of course, the first problem was that some bright mind in our government, in their judicious wisdom, thought it best to send actual dollars, greenbacks, Benjamins, to pay off the contractors as work was done. Apparently a check from the U.S. Treasury would not have been enough. Shrink-wrapped packages of U.S. currency was sent in bulk to Iraq to be stashed in one of Saddam's palace basements, to be doled out as needed.

And doled out it was, apparently delivered to some of our own military leaders in pizza boxes. Talk about free delivery, hot and fresh.

Someone needs to clean up this mess and see that our hard-earned tax dollars are not being wasted, but if these allegations turn out to be true, then some of our U.S. military colonels and others deserve to be treated as the traitors they really are. This is conduct "unbecoming an officer and a gentlemen" to say the least. Gentlemen they are not; war profiteers would be more apt.