Posse Incitatus

Disparate Impact

Disparate Impact, aka “disparate treatment,” is a common term in employment law. It figured into yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Ricci v. deStefano) regarding Connecticut firefighters who charged the city of New Haven violated civil-rights law when it threw out promotional exam results because more whites than blacks or Hispanics had passed the tests.

Disparate impact basically means that a certain requirement for a job — possessing a high school diploma, for example — may have a more deleterious effect on minorities than whites by disqualifying greater percentages of them.  But the intent of the employer was not to discriminate.  Maybe the job really does require some reading comprehension and the ability to work with numbers, for instance, and hiring people without those skills would be setting them up for failure.

The greater percentage of minorities who do not fare as well on written tests may have a lot to do with inadequate K-12 education in minority communities, greater dropout rates among blacks and hispanics than whites, a higher incidence of teen pregnancy, and chaotic family situations not conducive to studying and absent the long-term stability needed to ensure a student shows up for class consistently.

Indeed, the deplorable state of so many urban schools — drugs, gangs, and utter chaos  — may well be a major disincentive to sticking it out and earning a diploma.

But if bad schools, bad parenting, and corrupt, inept school boards (as in Detroit) are the problems that contribute to disparate impact, then these problems need to be addressed.  The testing process ought not be dumbed down or unfairly rigged to benefit minorities.

So bravo to the Supreme Court for overturning a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in which nominee Sonia Sotomayor was one of a three-judge panel that ruled unanimously for the minority firefighters.  It should be noted that even the four justices voting against reversing the lower court ruling acknowledged they had reservations about the appeals court’s handling of the case.

One of the untenable positions liberal Democrats attempt to defend time and again is affirmative action that appears to be based primarily on skin color.  “Diversity” is often a misnomer. How about some ideological diversity in academia. Hint: Don’t hold your breath.

Throwing out test results that help determine firefighter candidates’ knowledge, qualifications and level of experience, just for the sake of getting a few more darker-skinned candidates on the staff, is pure folly.

In college admissions, as we’ve seen at the University of Michigan time and again, middle-class or wealthy blacks have been admitted over whites with higher test scores, just to appease the diversity gods.

It should be obvious that those black students are intelligent and hard working, and typically come from stable, supportive families not lacking in resources.  They would go to college somewhere if it weren’t U-M. So it’s not like the university’s diversity policy is opening new doors to minorities who otherwise would be denied opportunity.  But then again, that’s rational and logical.  It means nothing to those whose ideology is based on guilt, feelings, idealism, and good intentions.

Identity politics flies in the face of Martin Luther King’s plea that we judge people by the content of their character (and by extension, their qualifications/experience/intelligence/attitude/work ethic) rather than the color of their skin.

Good to know there are at least five U.S. Supreme Court justices who apparently think so.

Appeasing the Green Gods (at average Joe's expense)

The gutless wonders of our esteemed U.S. House of Representatives have just passed the cap-and-trade bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  You know a bill is bad when the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman are extolling its virtues, and a significant bloc of 44 Democrats voted against it.  As for the eight Republicans who voted for this disastrous bill, let’s just say they are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).

This was a 1,200 page monstrosity, including a 300-page “amendment” hastily introduced at 3 a.m. It is pathetic that lawmakers so often cast votes on complex bills riddled with nefarious language and larded up with pork bellies.  Oh well, at least there's guaranteed employment for a new army of bureaucrats, lawyers, accountants and auditors.

No one knows for sure how much consumers’ electric bills will rise due to utilities being required to use more renewable sources (20 percent by 2020), and mandates for a 17-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020; 83 percent by 2050.

But make no mistake, utility bills will rise, and this will force producers and retailers to pass the cost along to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

Perhaps even more damaging is the job losses that will result when industries decide to take manufacturing overseas to countries uninhibited by pie-in-the-sky green pipe dreams.  Does anyone really think India and China will reciprocate with their own cap-and-trade bills? If you do, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you in Alaska.

The same Democrats who complain bitterly about NAFTA and corporations taking jobs overseas, ardently supported this “kneecap-and-trade” bill, as talk show host Laura Ingraham calls it.

This is more feel-good legislation for the liberals, who allow emotion, feelings, and idealism to control so much of their legislative agenda.  It will have a negligible effect on alleviating the effects of climate change.

We’ll hit consumers with higher prices, put more burdens on industry, and hamstring our economy, while India, China, and other economic competitors will snicker behind our back, rubbing their hands in glee and rolling out the welcome mat to industries fleeing the hope and change agenda.

On the positive side, the Senate is unlikely to go along with this atrocious bill.  At the very least, it will adopt something far more reasonable, and some of the most egregious aspects of this legislation will be eviscerated in conference committee.

A Tortured Soul

I hesitated to blog about Michael Jackson, because I usually shy away from the celebrities. Don’t we get more than enough of that stuff with People magazine, Entertainment Tonight, and the celebrity-worshiping culture reflected in TV news and print journalism?

Yes, we do.  But Michael Jackson, love him or hate him, was enormously popular.  He was far more of a significant cultural icon than 99 percent of the Hollywood airheads who command so much attention these days.  His death, to millions of fans, is as traumatic as John Lennon’s death nearly three decades ago.

I must admit, I still enjoy listening to Jackson 5 songs, and although not a fan of Michael Jackson in his solo career, find his music to be far more palatable than much of today’s fare — especially the rap crap.  Credit where credit is due: “Thriller” was an extremely well crafted, well written and performed album — a slick production, and the biggest selling album of all time. Jackson's dancing was incredible.

Jackson turned into an odd character in the last 20 years or so.  His associations with children at Neverland Ranch (opened for kids who were disadvantaged or had terminal illnesses), admission to sharing his bed with youngsters, and out-of-court settlements in cases of alleged child sexual abuse, were disconcerting and disturbing.  (Just as disturbing were the parents who allowed their children to spend time alone with Jackson after all that had been publicized about his alleged pedophilia. Did they hope to be able to sue him and tap into his "deep pockets"?) 

Then there was the infamous baby-dangling incident, a short marriage to Lisa Marie Presley, and repeated plastic surgeries and pigment treatments that made Jackson look ghastly.

Jackson suffered scalp burns while doing a Pepsi commercial in 1984, and in another incident fell off a stage, incurring a broken leg and broken vertebrae.  Many people believe he had become addicted to painkillers in recent years, and some reports state he received a Demerol shot the day he died.

It would be easy to simply condemn him and callously say, “Well, it serves him right.” But like most controversial figures, Jackson was complex and had good qualities as well as bad.

By all accounts, he had a messed up childhood.  His father was a domineering tyrant, and he was under constant pressure to adhere to a grueling performance schedule that robbed him of his youth.

Jackson generously gave of his time, talent, and treasure to charities.  He died leaving a mountain of debt, partly due to his generous heart, also because of lawsuit settlements and lawyer fees.  He probably was conflicted about his sexuality, and he undoubtedly didn’t do a good enough job of fending off the hangers on, groupies, and manipulative sharks that inevitably foist themselves into celebrities’ lives.

So-called “friends” and advisors should have tried harder to get him the help he needed if it was apparent he had become an addict.  His bizarre image altering surgeries betrayed some deep-seated psychological turmoil, and it’s too bad Michael wasn’t honest with himself about his need for help, on so many levels.

Maybe he did get away with felonious child abuse, or perhaps he was the victim of golddiggers and witch hunts. No one knows for sure what went through the psyche of this troubled soul, or how much anguish he may have endured.  Let’s leave the judging to God.

If there’s one point Jackson’s untimely death drives home, it’s that celebrity, despite its apparent glamour and charm, can be painful, destructive, and fatal.  It’s also awfully easy to become hedonistic when millions of people fawn all over you. 

Yes, we already knew that.  But perhaps Jackson’s demise will send a message to up-and-coming artists, as well as those who’ve already established themselves: Life is fragile, handle with care.  And true friends occasionally tell you things you don’t want to hear, but their value is enormous.

Lyrics Freak

Let's take a break from politics.

Something I've had on my mind of late is how bizarre lyrics of popular music can be — especially if you never paid any attention to them or never gave it much thought, but then suddenly discover what those lyrics are.

Case in point: "Lookin' Out My Back Door" by Creedence Clearwater Revival.  This is a group that had a lot of hits in the early 1970s, and many of them were such catchy tunes that it didn't matter so much what the lyrics were, I just enjoyed the melodies, beat and guitar riffs. 

Lots of times I've sung in the shower: "Down on the corner; out in the street; Willie & the Poor Boys are playing; bring a nickel, tap your feet"...da-da-la-da-da-dum-da-dum-dum-dum-da-dum.... (lame imitation of rhythm guitar).

Well, for some reason, I got to thinking about that song "Doo-doo-doo, lookin' out my back door." I decided to go to lyricsfreak.com, one of many web sites with supposedly accurate lyrics. (My guess is these web sites have a fairly high inaccuracy rate, as many artists never release their lyrics, and it's often difficult to understand what they're saying.)

Anyhoo, after reading the lyrics, I realized how naive I had been.  All these years, I thought it was just a catchy tune about an average Joe from the Midwest who's just relaxing at home after returning from an exhausting trip, and reveling in the thought that, as Dorothy proclaimed, "There's no place like home."  Now I suspect this guy might have been into the acid or 'shrooms. Check this out:

Just got home from Illinois, lock the front door, oh boy!
Got to sit down, take a rest on the porch.
Imagination sets in, pretty soon Im singin',

Chorus:
Doo, doo, doo, lookin out my back door.

Theres a giant doing cartwheels, a statue wearin' high heels.
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn.
A dinosaur Victrola listning to Buck Owens.

Chorus

Tambourines and elephants are playing in the band.
Won't you take a ride on the flyin' spoon?
Doo, doo doo.
Wondrous apparition provided by magician.

Chorus

Tambourines and elephants are playing in the band.
Won't you take a ride on the flyin' spoon?
Doo, doo doo.
Bother me tomorrow, today, I'll buy no sorrows.

Chorus

Forward troubles Illinois, lock the front door, oh boy!
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn.
Bother me tomorrow, today, I'll buy no sorrows.

Chorus

A giant doing cartwheels? A statue in high heels? STRANGE. But it fits the mood of the early 70s to a "T".

I've always had an appreciation for  quirky, oddball lyrics, and one of my favorite lines is from The Cars' debut album (1978). In "I'm in Touch with Your World," Ric Ocasek proclaims: "I'm a psilocybin pony;
You're a flick fandango phony." In another verse, Ocasek references a "weisenheimer brainstorm."

Bizarre. Twisted. Out of the ordinary. So many lightyears away from 8-to-five and sitting behind a desk. That's why I love it.

Why Andrew Sullivan needs to give up blogging

The Posse yields to none in our disdain of Andrew Sullivan.  Once, when we had more energy and time, we would amuse ourselves with fisking him.  Oh yes, we've been there, done that.

Via the Hated Instapundit, we have found the ne plus ultra of Andrew Sullivan takedowns.  I've never come across Christopher Badeaux, but man, the guy can write.

This is no mere fisking; it is not about a single instance or a particular set of issues - no, it is a full-scale demolition.  Andrew Sullivan's walls have been pulled down and his wheat fields sown with salt.

Actually, that overstates things.  Badeaux is almost surgical in his precision.  He does his work with skill, dignity, cleverness, and - dare I say it - class.

Read it two or three times.  It's that good.

Never a Dull Moment

NICE GOING, GUYS — Republicans did a lot of damage to themselves during the G.W. Bush years with excessive spending, corruption, and hypocrisy.  (Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, and ol’ “Happy Feet,” Idaho Senator Larry Craig, to name a few.) Those reasons, as much as the Iraq War going badly in the 2005-2007 time frame, are why the GOP got trounced in 2006 and 2008.

But now, five months into the Obama administration, Republicans had just started looking pretty good when stacked up against the statist opposition party, including Barack Obama’s hypocrisy, lack of transparency, cronyism, obscene spending, and heavy-handed efforts to take over the economy.

Republicans were just beginning to gain traction and credibility when along came a couple of extramarital affairs to tarnish the GOP image once again. 

First, Arizona Senator John Ensign admitted to an affair with a campaign staffer (some suspect she and/or her husband were attempting to extort the senator, prompting him to come forward); and now South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford admits to an affair with a woman in Argentina.

He even left his wife and four children alone on Father’s Day and was out of touch with everyone for several days while he saw the woman apparently for the last time in Argentina.  Both Ensign and Sanford were considered serious contenders for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.  Not any more.

Look, we all know there’s been a boatload of Democrat politicians with illicit affairs (Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Gary Condit/Chandra Levy, et al), dalliances with prostitutes (Elliot Spitzer), and sordid gay affairs (James McGreevey).  Not to mention Barney Frank’s lover’s male prostitution ring, and Ted Kennedy, whose drunken womanizing was immortalized in the Paul Shanklin parody, “I’m a Philanderer.”

But most of the mainstream media is enamored of Democrats, and perhaps the libertine lifestyle is just considered part and parcel of the hip 21st century Democrat.  Republicans, because they are more closely associated with religious conservatives, must tread carefully.  They must be beyond reproach.  Obviously, many of them are not up to the task. (John McCain also admitted to cheating on his first wife; ditto for Newt Gingrich.)

The point is, the liberals own academia, the mainstream media, much of the public school system, and many of the courts.  They are ensconced in government at all levels.  Trying to run for president as a conservative is a major uphill struggle.  Members of the GOP who honestly think they have what it takes to be a legitimate presidential contender need to keep their noses clean.  The kind of recklessness we’ve observed of late just won’t cut it.

There must be something about the massive ego it takes to run for high office and serve in the public eye, that goes hand-in-hand with the love of getting sex on the sly and thinking you’re going to get away with it.  Somehow I don’t think Michael Steele knows the answer.

GET USED TO IT — One thing I’ve notice about Barack Obama is he’s so accustomed to media types sucking up to him, and to being the charismatic charmer who sweet talks his listeners, that he really bristles when someone challenges him.

Yesterday’s White House press conference was a case in point.  Fox News’ Major Garrett and NBC’s Chuck Todd peppered the celebrity-in-chief with questions about his reaction to developments in Iran and attempted to get him to be specific on what he plans to do.  He sounded and looked annoyed as he answered their questions, and finally blew them off with an “I’ve answered the question/let’s move on” type response.

MEMO TO BARRY: You’re less than one fourth through your term.  You’d better develop a thicker skin or you’ll go nuts.

DISINGENUOUS — Regarding the health care debate, the President seemed miffed at having to address private insurance companies’ concern that a government-sponsored health insurance program would drive many of them out of business.

He said something to the effect of, “The same people who charge the government cannot run anything now say the government will run the private insurance companies out of business.  There’s no logic there.”

This is what’s called sophistry: It sounds like a logical, legitimate, and dispassionate argument — to the untrained mind.  But to anyone who opposes a government takeover of the health care market, and has solid reasons for doing so, it is badly flawed.

First of all, the government is a not-for-profit entity.  That gives it an automatic advantage vs. private companies when it comes to setting rates and fees.  We don’t know to what extent Uncle Sam will stick its tentacles into health care, i.e., will it become a provider as well as a payer? Will it directly employ physicians, nurses, physical therapists, etc., as with the Veterans Administration? Or will it pay private sector providers?

If the former, that automatically gives the government an unfair advantage over private sector insurance companies.  And even if it is the latter, when an entity commands a HUGE segment of the market, e.g. the government and Medicare, it carries a lot of clout when it comes to setting reimbursement rates.

This segues into the second part of the case against government health care: Cost shifting and possible long waiting lines.

Here’s how it works: Medicare reimburses for certain procedures at a lower rate than a patient would pay out of pocket, or a private insurer would pay.  So doctors, hospitals and clinics must make up for being deprived those revenues by passing it along in the form of higher fees for their customers with private insurance or who pay out of pocket.

This is cost-shifting, and is one of the reasons private health insurance is so expensive. (Liability lawsuits, smothering insurance regulations that inhibit competition across state lines, and a lack of uniformity in the paperwork and forms are among other reasons.)

Furthermore, some doctors elect to avoid taking new Medicare patients, or opt out of the program entirely because of the low reimbursement rates.  Ditto for Medicaid.  The result: Longer waiting times and health care rationing, both of which will jeopardize the health of some patients.

Obama and his fellow left wing dreamers have an ivory tower, pie-in-the-sky, pipe dream vision of how health care should work.  It’s obvious they do not have a clear understanding of how markets function.

"Anything good that happens, I did that"

There is only one word that can now describe the Obama Administration’s policy on Iran:

Incoherent.

Okay, maybe another word comes to mind:

Idiotic.

For almost a fortnight, the people of Iran have faced down tear gas, beatings and bullets in an inspiring uprising against the brutal theocracy that has shackled them for 30 years.

The White House was caught totally off guard, and as the Posse amply documented last week, had almost nothing substantive to say.

As the chorus rose to at least match France’s level of moral stature, President Barack Obama spoke again. And again.

Yet there is still no clarity to be found. We stand with the people, but only in a non-interventionist, non-committal way. We deplore the violence, but fully recognize the government. We hate the sin, but will eat hot dogs with the sinners.

Perhaps the most stunning display of this tangled logic is this bit from the Washington Post quoted by Jonah Goldberg over on National Review:

Obama's approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president's words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic's Islamic authority in its 30-year history.

One senior administration official with experience in the Middle East said, "There clearly is in the region a sense of new possibilities," adding that "I was struck in the aftermath of the president's speech that there was a connection. It was very sweeping in terms of its reach." [Emphasis added]

To review: The popular uprising is entirely something we had NOTHING TO DO WITH, but our president is quietly PROUD that it happened, but DON’T expect us to do anything to help.

Oh, and would the Supreme Leader’s ambassador like some relish with his American weenies?

(Goldberg has some choice words as well.  If you didn't click on the link before, do so now.)

Like the “jobs saved or created” formulation, the Obama White House is setting the stage to take credit for whatever happens, so long as it is good. If it is bad, hey, he had nothing to do with it.

What will be interesting to see is how a successor regime will treat the president if the people of Iran successfully overthrow the mullahs. I don’t expect there will be warm handshakes and smiles from this crowd after they’ve been hung out to dry so often over the last few days.

Long-time readers know that one of the things that really irritates me is how modern liberal “realists” are such colossal wimps. Realism, classically defined, is a set of assumptions about how the international system works.

“Realists” assume that states are run by rational actors who are trying to maximize the power an influence of their state.

One of the weaker criticisms of George W. Bush was that his administration was not run by “realists” but rather neocon idealogues. As a result, they screwed everything up.

But consider what the Obama realists have in mind: they want a grand bargain with a bloody, terrorist-sponsoring theocracy and the moment that government wobbles, they cease putting pressure on it.

This isn’t “realism,” its lunacy.

A true realist, a cool-headed, clear-eyed strategist, would look at the mullahs’ predicament and hammer them 24/7. If not by sending actual arms and advisors to train rebel forces, at least by stridently speaking out for the demonstrators – maybe offering billions in aid, diplomatic recognition, unfreezing assets – there are myriad things we can do for Iran in terms of development.

Would it be “meddling?” Hell yes! It would also be using our “soft power” to utterly destroy a regime that has been implacably hostile to us for 30 years. Otherwise, what the heck is the point of being a superpower?

A true realist would jump all over this situation.

Instead, our incoherent geniuses at State figure that some beans and brats will heal the fissure. This is realism?

Realists don’t figure out how to have picnics with their enemies, they DESTROY them. They can do this through open warfare or by undermining them at every turn. If you look at the great diplomats of history – Richelieu, Metternich, Bismarck – they were many words that you could use to describe them, but “squeamish” would not be one of them.

Ah, I can already sense the complaints – “But we need to have a moral foreign policy.” Fine. Let’s start with, oh, I don’t know, siding with people against a brutal theocracy that shoots girls in the street. Is that moral enough?

This bring us back to the incoherence. The Obama Administration is failing here, failing no matter how you want to score it. If they are trying to be brilliantly savvy and nuanced realists, they have blown it, big time.

A moral realist would have supported the people because it was the right thing to do.

An effective realist would have undermined the mullahs because they are geopolitical rivals.

A ruthless realist would have just sided with the mullahs from the get-go, told the people to go home, and offered diplomatic recognition of Iran in return for the nuke facility. I sometimes get the sense that Obama would like to do that, but doesn’t have the stomach for it.

So thus we have these contradictions, which mean we achieve nothing, go nowhere and broadcast to the world that we fear our enemies and cannot be counted on to help our ideological allies. Human rights are a bargaining chip that we will give up in exchange for a vague, non-committal IOU.

And none of it, of course, is Obama’s fault.

By Grace Are Ye Saved

PETER Grace, that is...and in this instance, we need to be saved from the inflationary pits of monetary and fiscal hades, where the double-digit interest rates dieth not, and the inflation holdeth a pitchfork...

Sorry if you were expecting commentary on Ephesians 2:8; I don’t consider myself enough of a theological expert to explain scripture; besides, I’m not the preachy type.

Now, back to Pete...

It was 25 years ago that the late industrialist headed up the Grace Commission, which at the request of President Ronald Reagan came up with dozens of recommendations for eliminating waste, fraud, inefficiency, and duplicate services in the federal government.

According to this Wikipedia article, if all of the Commission’s recommendations were followed, Uncle Sam could have saved $424 billion in just three years, and $1.9 trillion per year by 2000.  With the reforms, the national debt would be $2.5 trillion in 2000, the Commission projected. Without them: $13 trillion. (The actual national debt in 2000 was $5.8 trillion, which seems like the good ol’ days now.)

Not surprisingly, the Democratic Congress did not act on the recommendations (too many sacred cows to be gored, lobbyists and campaign contributors to tick off).

But the national debt ended up being less than half what the Commission had predicted by the start of the new millennium, in large part because of robust growth in the Gross Domestic Product.

Vastly improved efficiencies resulted from the Internet, faster computers and servers, data bases, and sophisticated supply chain management and inventory techniques.  Increased trade (NAFTA and GATT) also helped reduce prices of consumer goods and create foreign markets for American products. 

The point is, the deficits and national debt did not threaten us nearly as much in the Pet Shop Boys era as they do now, despite what Reagan-bashing reporters and anchormen repeatedly said (Think Sam Donaldson).

Today, we have a celebrity-in-chief who is running us into the debt ditch even faster than G.W. Bush did, and that’s saying something. Oh, but he’s so cool, erudite, suave, sophisticated, and hope-inspiring....Oh, and did I mention: He’s for change!

Between TARP, TALF, TIP, CAP and umpteen other bailout acronyms, my head is spinning.  Funny money is going out the Treasury door so fast, accountability seems to be a forgotten word.

I know, we’ve got Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and 10 percent national unemployment to deal with.  But wouldn’t it be nice if a bipartisan group of senators and representatives would join together and say, “HEY! Wait a minute! We want a more prudent accounting of where this money is going, who’s getting it, and how they’re spending it!”

We will set up a task force or commission to monitor the money, and heads will roll if the taxpayers’ money is being squandered. Fat chance.

But if hell freezes over (I DO know that nothing in scripture says it will), there's a great acronym to describe this fiscal oversight: PAP (Pork Accountability Program.)

Tattoo You

NOTE: This blog starts out talking about the Great Lakes, beautiful beaches, resort towns, etc., then segues into tattoos on young women. Take 2 Dramamines with water before reading.

One of the major benefits of living in Michigan is being able to enjoy the Great Lakes.  For those who have only seen them on a map, Lakes Michigan, Huron, Superior and Erie vary in width from roughly 40-50 miles to well over 100 miles. (I won’t discuss Lake Ontario, since Michigan does not touch its shores).

People who are from other regions of the country and see one of the Great Lakes for the first time often exclaim, “Wow! It looks just like the ocean!”

But the great thing is, it’s fresh water, not salt water.  There are no jelly fish, sharks, tides or (for the most part), wickedly huge waves that can knock you on your arse and scrape your skin against the rocky bottom. Great Lakes waves typically are one to three feet in size.

Anyhow, Lake Michigan is my favorite, because of the many beautiful beaches and sand dunes on Michigan’s western shore. Its temperature is far more moderate than the frigid Lake Superior, and its beaches much nicer than Lake Huron’s.  The resort towns on Lake Michigan are also decidedly more upscale than most of what Lake Huron has to offer. (No offense to our neighbors on the eastern shore.) The sand under the water takes on a nice rippled pattern, and is soft and soothing to walk over.

Every summer since we moved back to Michigan from Atlanta, GA, where we lived for nine years, I have made it a point to spend some time lounging on the beach at state parks near Holland, Grand Haven, Muskegon, and extreme southern Michigan near the Indiana border (Warren Dunes State Park). 

When my son (now 17) was younger, we would build sand castles, play catch with the frisbee, and frolic about in the water. I still like to frolic about, and sometimes even build sand castles if I am with nephews or godchildren.  But my son has a life of his own now, and probably won’t be accompanying us 100 miles or so west on Sunday afternoons anymore. (He has a part-time job and a girlfriend.)

Yesterday was our first visit to the beach this summer — specifically, Holland State Park.  The Weather Channel promised completely sunny skies and a high of 83, but it was a bit hazy most of the afternoon with temps probably in the high 70s and a breeze.

Just being there is always a treat.  Taking a nap, reading a preseason college football magazine or good book, sipping Gatorade or enjoying an ice cream cone...It’s all wonderful on the shores of Lake Michigan. (The eye candy is an added benefit, but we middle-aged married men must view discreetly!)


Which leads me to the whole point of this blog: I had been aware for a couple of years that more and more young women are getting tattoos.  Yesterday I was appalled and disheartened to see an alarming number of otherwise nubile and attractive young females whose bodies had been defaced with trashy looking tattoos.  My younger goombas tell me if the tattoo is on the lower back, right above the buttocks, it’s known as a “tramp stamp.” Nice.

Some comedian hit the nail on the head when he observed, “In 30 years, there’s gonna be a whole lot of old ladies running around with tattoos!”

I hope that today’s teen girls and young women will think twice before getting a permanent tattoo.  It’s more than just a fashion statement that can be discarded 5 or 10 years down the road when it’s hopelessly passe.  It will stick with you, honey, until they lay you in the ground.

The hideous clothes of the 1970s are laughable and ridiculous — leisure suits, wide lapels/collars/ties/belts, polyester print shirts, bell bottoms, platform shoes.... But at least those were temporary and can be packed away for some future “70s Night” party or night club special event.

Not so for tattoos.  Think long-term, young ladies.

Corrections & Clarifications

Hey, I'm not perfect. I make mistakes.  And frankly, I've corrected them "on the fly," without making a note of it. Despite having proofread my "TEHRAN-amen Square" post last night prior to posting it, I later re-read it and found SEVERAL errors:

First, I just guessed on the spelling of "Tiananmen".... Got the last four letters wrong in my headline.  So I promptly corrected the headline.  Second, I referred to President George H.W. Bush urging Shiites in southern IRAN to rise up, then abandoning them to Saddam's killing machine. It should have been IRAQ.  Spell-check czar, anyone? Mistake corrected.

It also occurred to me that I wrote "Republican Guard" when referring to the elite troops that protect the mullahs' theocracy. So I went in and changed it to "Revolutionary Guards."

Since this is just a hobby and no one is paying me to do it, I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MISTAKES! Only kidding. I just mean that I probably don't devote as much "focus-like-a-laser" attention to the Posse as I would if it were an actual job.  So forgive me for my shortcomings, and don't be surprised if I make a correction without ever bringing it to anyone's attention. Don't know whether that jibes with Posse etiquette, but I'm a-gonna do it anyway!

And on that note, I urge our six readers (or is it up to eight now, K.N.?) to post a response to my blogs if you find inaccuracies or misspelled words. I'd rather stand corrected (and make the correction) than let an inaccuracy stay posted for weeks & months & years, only to be discovered by anthropologists in 4450 AD who decide to let their students see the errors and inaccuracies of one of the neanderthal bloggers back in the Paleo-Internet Age.

Thank you for your support. (Bartles & Jaymes, 1988).