Poem: Juan Felipe Herrera

Okay, now how many of you have heard of or read the work of this incredibly talented poet, Juan Felipe Herrera? Show of hands. Of course I can't see them, and I know some are waving. But I do wonder, because despite how outstanding and prolific a poet he is, I rarely see his name mentioned in the same breath as many others of his generation. Born in 1948 in California, Herrera has published about 25 books, which include works for children, a novel in verse, and bilingual texts. One of the things I particularly like about his work is its versatility, of subject matter, voice, and form. While he draws frequently from his life, he will also set aloft a conceit like the one below, flavored by and steeped in his experiences yet resonant far beyond his own biography.

Like May Swenson, he can do a lot of different things well, and has been known to move words in very interesting ways around the page.  Herrera finally received some major props in 2008 when he won the National Book Critics Circle Award, becoming the first Latino poet to receive it. Herrera attended UCLA, Stanford, and Iowa, and has taught at California State University, Fresno and University of California, Riverside, where he directors the Art and Barbara Culver Center for the Arts. He has also taught poetry in California prisons, and works with local schools and community colleges in and around Riverside.

EL ÁNGEL DE LA GUARDA


(The Guardian Angel)


I should have visited more often.
I should have taken the sour pudding they offered.
I should have danced that lousy beggar shuffle.
I should have painted their rooms in a brighter color.
I should have put a window in there, for the daughters.
I should have provided a decent mountain for a view.
I should have nudged them a little closer to the sky.
I should have guessed they would never come out to wave.
I should have cleaned up that mole, the abyss, in the back.
I should have touched them, that's it, it comes to me now.
I should have touched them.

(From Woodland Pattern Bookstore's site) From Lotería Cards and Fortune Poems: A Book of Lives, by Juan Felipe Herrera, Linocuts by Artemil Rodrígues Copyright © City Lights, 1999. All rights reserved.

California Is On Crack

It's official. California is definitely some sort of crack addict who is selling anything and everything that it has so that it can get its next fix. Oh, sure, it will give the state immediate access to some cash that it needs, but that's just the instant gratification part of the deal. In the long run, it will end up costing the state more and probably making things worse for a state that is already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy due to its unwillingness to cut anything at all out of the budget.

Here's the story as reported by the lovely folks over at ABC News and by the ever so diligent reporters over at the LA Times. See, California needs cash because it spends way more than it takes in. I won't even begin to delve into how the extremely large population of folks who are in this country illegally plays into this dilemma, but I will say that there are many areas in which California could trim its budget, yet it chooses not to. Just like a crack addict, California wants what it wants when it wants it.

So, California came up with a way to make a couple of billion dollars. And some of that could even be applied to its debt! California decided to sell 24 of however many buildings that it owns for the whopping total of $2.23 billion. While that sounds like a lot, just keep your pants on (because if California catches you without your pants on, you're going to be in for quite the surprise). Of the $2.23 billion, only $1.2 billion will go into the state general fund. That's because $1.09 billion goes to pay off bonds on the buildings. (I'm not sure what happened to the other .04 billion. Those are the figures that the LA Times gives me.) OK, so problem solved, right? Not so fast.

See, California is still using those buildings. It's not like they were abandoned or anything like that. No, they're fully in use every single day. They sold buildings like the Attorney General Building and the Franchise Tax Board Complex up in Sacramento. Yeah, California still needs those. But that's OK. Now California is just going to pay rent to the people that own them. Wait. What now?

Correct. Whereas before California owned the buildings, now it does not and it must rent them from the new owners. It would be like if you had a car that you owned and, because you needed some crack right that very moment, you sold it to the neighbor. Now you have money, but you have no car. Now you have to take that money that you got and you turn around and lease the car that you just sold your neighbor. How smart does that sound? Not very? Welcome to California.

According to the estimates from the California Legislative Analyst's Office "...It will cost the state $30 million more in the first year to remain in those buildings and that differential will increase to almost $200 million over the course of the 20 year leases." But do it now because you need crack now! What a bunch of morons.

Tell me something. What good is the Legislative Analyst's Office if no one listens to them? This state is already in a financial freefall into the abyss of bankruptcy, what say they trim a little bit off of the budget by eliminating the Legislative Analyst's Office. No one listens to them anyway. They just do what they want because why? They're addicted to crack, that is correct.

We're so doomed. And now we're screwed. We're totally scroomed.

Fakeroversy In The Governor's Race

It must be tough when you're running for governor and you have no idea what you're doing, so you figure that, since every candidate needs to start some sort of a scandal against their opponent, you'll just do that and see how it goes. While I don't recommend that approach, if you're going to take that route, might I suggest coming up with a scandal that people would give a fat rat's ass about? Acting all indignant because someone referred to you as a whore is really not going to do much to help you. It will be great fun for those who enjoy mocking you, however.

See, Meg Whitman is running for governor of California. For some reason, her being at the helm when eBay kind of rode itself to its own success is supposed to give her some sort of credibility as the Republican candidate. Well, that and the $140 million of her own money that she has poured into her campaign to get the nomination. (Apparently, she thinks the governor's seat is some sort of Buy It Now dealio.) And lately, she's been rocked by allegations of a former housekeeper that she...um...well....it's not real clear to me exactly what it is that she's being accused of doing. It might be that she didn't treat the hired help all that well, but I'm not totally sure about this. The fact that her ex-housekeeper was in this country illegally, used a fake Social Security number while Meg employed her and was then fired when Meg found out somehow plays a part in all of this, but again, I'm not quite sure how. It's definitely a fakeroversy (fake controversy), but I still have trouble grasping all of the straws that it contains.

Now, after that became the hooplah du jour (complete with Gloria Allred, the world's most awful human being, at the housekeeper's helm), Meg's campaign needed to have someone on her opponent, Jerry Brown. What did they come up with? I guess they had a hard time coming up with anything of substance because apparently, one of his staffers referred to her as a whore, so that's what they went with. Wait. What?

Yep. According to ABC News, Jerry Brown "...left a phone message in early September for a union official whose endorsement he was seeking, but apparently forgot to hang up...And either Brown or a staffer -- there is some dispute -- uses the word "whore" to describe his Republican rival Meg Whitman." Hmm. How about a little context to go with all of that nothing-ness there?

OK. The first part of the conversation that Brown has with one of his staffers after he thought that he had hung up goes something along the lines of Brown saying: "Do we want to put an ad out? … That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be – that they'll go to Whitman, and that's where they'll go because they know Whitman will give 'em, will cut them a deal, but I won't." So what he's saying (behind closed doors and totally off the record, as he didn't know that he didn't hang up) is that he's not going to cut a deal with the unions, but Whitman is, despite her saying publicly that she's not beholden to any group.

It's after that question that the staffer (or someone else) says, "What about saying she's a whore?" That's quite the idea. Call your opponent a whore in your ads. I don't know that I think it's the most politically savvy move, but Jerry Brown seemed to love it, as he responded, "Well, I'm going to use that...It proves you've cut a secret deal to protect the pensions." I don't know if calling her a whore would prove that, per se. But it would show that you're not afraid to call someone a whore!

Once Whitman's side became aware of this colorful depiction of her, they immediately issued a pansy-ass response. "The use of the term 'whore' is an insult to both Meg Whitman and to the women of California. This is an appalling and unforgivable smear against Meg Whitman. At the very least Mr. Brown tacitly approved this despicable slur and he himself may have used the term at least once on this recording,"

Really? It's an insult to the women of California? How is that? I'm a woman of California and I'm not insulted by Jerry Brown's staffers calling Meg Whitman a whore. It's hard to say if I'd be insulted if they called me a whore. Then again, I don't get insulted easily. That's a weak response. You know what would have been a better response? To DENY that you're acting like a whore by being in bed with the unions and promising them deals in exchange for their endorsements. Now THAT would have been something!

Did she dispute the essence of why they were calling her a whore? Not that I can find. No, she just decided to take the "You hurt my feelings" angle on it. And that seems to be how this is being reported. Why is it that we're focusing on the alleged name calling instead of the fact that she seems to be cutting back room deals with unions? Why aren't we focusing on the fact that Jerry Brown said in private (or what he thought was private) that he wasn't going to make deals with the unions? For him to have said that in private seems to lend credibility to him really meaning that. After all, why would you say something like that if you didn't mean it? It's not like you knew the whole world was going to hear you. It seems pretty credible to me.

But no. Instead, Meg Whitman wants to us to be all up in arms that Jerry Brown's staffer called her a whore. Well, I'm putting down my arms, as they are not up. This is ridiculous. Her allegedly cutting deals with the unions in order to win their support is the real story here. But she's not mentioning that. She's just whining about being called a whore. And by the way, if she is cutting back room deals with the unions in exchange for their support, then she absolutely is a whore. A big, big whore. Whore.

You know, if she can't handle being called a name, I'm not real confident in her ability to lead this ridiculously corrupt state out of the s***hole that it has been in for years. And if she's being a sneaky weasel and saying one thing to the public, but doing another thing in private, I'm absolutely positive that she won't be able to get anything done. Please don't take this as an endorsement for Jerry Brown, however. While the real story might be whether or not she is actually cutting deals, I think that the secondary story might be that Jerry Brown can't figure out how to hang up his phone after leaving a message. It doesn't do much to distract folks from the fact that he's a little old.

Separated at Birth From Meg Whitman

Since I don't plan on voting for either Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown for governor of California, I'm just going to take this opportunity to point out the various different people that they each resemble. OK, fine. Jerry only resembles one that I can think of and this entire post is just an outlet for how frustrated I am with how Meg Whitman has ran her campaign. Hopelessness tends to make one trivial.

The only person that I could find that looked like Jerry Brown was that guy from the Geico commercials. (As a side note, I'd like to point out that Geico has way too many mascots. The cavemen. That cute little lizard. The money with the eyeballs on it. The deep talking guy. I can't keep up. Everyone loves the gecko. Why not just have him carry the ball? He's not real, you know. It's not like it would be animal cruelty or anything.) Behold!

I had absolutely no trouble what so ever in finding folks that Meg Whitman looked like. Mind you, I just said "folks". I did not say "attractive folks". I also didn't alude to anything that would indicate that these comparisons will be anything flattering. Good Lord, no. Far from it, in fact. Up first, Meg Whitman and Vigo the Carpathian of Ghostbusters 2 fame. Behold!

Don't cross the streams, Meg. I just realized that the majority of my comparisons are with people who pretty much had their heydays back in the days of yore. The most modern one that I could come up with might be surprising at first. But I'm telling, you put a blonde wig on Ricky Gervais and they would be more identical than those Olsen twins.

See? Now let's go back to the days of vintage television to see several other folks with whom she could have been separated at birth from. Take the Skipper from Gilligan's Island, for example. He's almost a dead ringer for the woman. Or she is for him. I'm never sure how you're supposed to word comparisons like that. Whatever. Behold, anyway!

Next up, from The Andy Griffith Show, please note the incredible resemblance to a one Aunt Bea. It's eerie is what it is.

My personal favorite in the vintage TV category would have to be the one below. She really does look like Fred Mertz! She could have been married to Ethel. Although, in the days when I Love Lucy was on, she would have had some 'splaining to do if that had been the case. Would the Ricardo's have been cool with a couple of lesbians living next door? Oh, sure, if it had been a couple of gay guys, they would have got along just swimmingly with ol' Ricky (who probably dabbled in the gay on the side). Two lesbians wouldn't have had much in common with them, though.

Now, I realize that with the exception of an ancient and prudish actress from the 1960s, the only folks that I have compared Meg Whitman to are men. Does that mean that I think that she should pay a little more attention to her image? Not necessarily. I mean, after all, her image was good enough to sport on the front of the hundred dollar bill, right?

Oh. Wait. That's...that's...yeah, that's not her. Hmm. Awkward.

Welfare on the High Seas

If you don't live in the state of California, should you be concerned about what is going on over here? I'm thinking that you should. I say that because this state is going to go broke and it is the rest of the country that is going to end up bailing out this failed experiment at trying to create a utopia. And when you hear of some of the reasons that contribute to the state going broke and then you learn that nothing is being done about them, you're going to be angry that your taxes will (likely) go up to help straighten out this fuster cluck at some point in the future.

Let's take a look at a situation that makes me so angry that I want to take all of my money out of the banks and bury it in the backyard of my walled off compound so that no one else can piss it away like they are. According to an awesome story by the fine folks over there at the LA Times, you will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn that between January 2007 and May 2010, "More than $69 million in California welfare money...has been spent or withdrawn outside the state in recent years, including millions in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands in Hawaii and thousands on cruise ships sailing from Miami." Um...wuck?

That's right. Folks on welfare spending their benefits in Vegas, Hawaii and on freaking cruise ships?! Are you dry shaving me?! What the WHAT?! OK. Calm down. Calm. Down. Breathe. Breathe deeper. OK. Now...let's look at what the benefits were spent on and maybe that will shed some light on this that won't make it seem quite so bad, shall we? Sure. Great idea. It can't be as outright fraudulent as it sounds...can it? CAN IT?! Why aren't you answering me?!

Because you know if you answer me, I'm going to have a stroke. Let's see...in Hawaii, we have folks spending MY money by dropping "...$12,433 spent at the upscale Ala Moana shopping center, $3,030 spent at a group of gift shops next to Jimmy Buffett's Beachcomber restaurant on Waikiki Beach and $2,146 withdrawn from ATMs on the island of Lanai, home to a pair of Four Seasons resorts and little else." Breathe, Mare. Breathe....

What else? Oh, Vegas! Vegas took in almost $12 million of taxpayer money in benefits. What was that spent on? Well, there was "...more than $1 million was spent or withdrawn at shops and casino hotels on, or within a few blocks of, the 4.5-mile strip. The list includes $8,968 at the Tropicana, $7,995 at the Venetian and its Grand Canal Shoppes, and $1,332 at Tix 4 Tonight, seller of discount admission for such acts as Cirque du Soleil." Breathe, dammit. Seriously, I don't know if I can take much more. What else is there? "The data also show $16,010 withdrawn from 14 cruise ships sailing from ports around the world — Long Beach, Rio de Janeiro, Beijing. Eight sail primarily from Miami." That's IT!! I've had it!

CRUISE SHIPS?! For those on WELFARE?! Now, now. Calm down. Let's listen to an alleged voice of reason on this whole matter. Let's turn to a legislative advocate for the Western Center on Law and Poverty, a one Jessica Bartholow, who tells us, "I think when somebody hears it's in a fancy hotel in Hawaii or Vegas, it's too easy to assume the [welfare recipient] is visiting that place and it wasn't somebody who stole their card." ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Are you freaking kidding me?! YES! Yes, that is EXACTLY what we think! We do NOT think that their card was stolen! That is correct! We KNOW that we, the taxpayers, are getting screwed! And now we KNOW that we, the taxpayers, are getting screwed with the help of Jessica Bartholow and her Center for Sending the Impoverished to Hawaii!! See, this is why you have to believe in God because otherwise, you wouldn't get the pleasure of believing that these folks will go to hell one day.

But what about others in California? Aren't there folks whose job it is to track down this sort of abuse? Of course there are, silly. But, as explained by a one John Haley who is the commander of the financial crimes division of the San Diego County DA's office, "...If it's a one-time thing in Miami, we would never check that out...We look for patterns of abuse." WHAT?! If you are in California and you are ON WELFARE, ANY time in Miami should be checked out! How the hell did you get there and why did you take MY money with you?! Is it because this sort of thing is rare? Uh, well....not exactly. See, Mr. Haley also told the LA Times that "...24% of all new welfare applications in his jurisdiction contain some form of fraud." One in four. But they're never going to catch you if you don't repeatedly go to Miami?! What in the hell kind of a system is THAT?!

Is it just in San Diego? It's not everywhere, is it? IS IT?! Well, um...see...it's like this..."A state audit last year found that none of California's 58 counties was adequately following up on information that could help root out fraud, including monthly computer matches that list clients who are receiving duplicate aid from other states, those who are ineligible because they're in prison and others who have died." Holy. S***.

Remember this when you hear that California has gone bankrupt and your Federal taxes are going to increase to help bail out this mess. And the next time you're going to work, remember that welfare recipients on the public dole are going to Hawaii and Vegas. And finally, remember that constructing a walled off compound is never a bad idea and it's never too late to start.

The No-Platform Platform

Yesterday, I discussed the importance of not sounding like a crazy person if you're attempting to run for public office. Today, I'll be discussing the importance of sounding like something if you're running for public office. You can't keep things a secret. Oh, sure, you can try, but how long is that really going to work for? Those second and third wives and going to catch on eventually. Ah, but I kid. About the wives, that is. Not about not keeping things secret. Seriously, you're going to have to let people in on what it is that you're going to do to, say, balance a budget. You can't say "I'm not going to tell you." Or can you?

Whether you can or not, Jerry Brown (who is running for governor of California against Meg "My Money Grows On Trees" Whitman) has taken up just that strategy. According to SF Gate, Jerry Brown "...recently visited The (San Francisco) Chronicle's editorial board, he brought with him a large three-ring binder with his ideas on how to bring state spending back into the black." Oh, good! "But he wouldn't tell us what was in the book." Wait. He what now?

Correct. He wouldn't tell them what was in the book. He wouldn't tell them much of anything, really. Let's look at a few examples.

When asked what he, as governor, "...would do that state employee labor unions, which are spending millions to get him elected, won't like. He answered, "Well, I'm certainly not going to tell you now." Hmm. Granted, I agree that if you plan on doing things to people that they're not going to like, it's probably not the best idea to mention that ahead of time. But don't you have to come up with a better answer than, "I'm not telling"? I think you kind of do.

But Jerry Brown apparently did not. Not only was he not telling anyone about that, he also wasn't telling anyone about how he plans to negotiate with various groups, stating, "I'm not going to reveal my negotiating strategy now. I'm going to try to push everybody together." Soooo...that's not his strategy? The pushing together? It kind of sounds like a strategy. Is he trying to fake us out? The ol' Statue of Liberty play? Something like that? What?

When a one John Diaz, who is the Editorial Page Editor for the Chronicle, asked "...what tough calls Brown was willing to make, he answered, "There's only a process that will lead us to where we're going." Oh, OK. See...wait. There's only a....and it will...huh. Yeah, those are just words. They don't seem to be strung together to say a whole lot. Hmm.

Look, California is facing a 19 billion dollar deficit in the budget. I don't know that you can run for governor and insist that you can solve the budget problem, while at the same time keeping it a secret. As it stands right now, I'm not voting for either one of them. Meg Whitman is out of touch with reality (as evidenced by her spending $108 million of her own money just to get the nomination to run). And Jerry Brown is playing "I've Got A Secret" and sounding a bit like a doddering old man, which is causing me to use a Grandpa Simpson voice in my head whenever I read anything that Brown has said. (It's fun. Try it!) And I know that not enough people will vote third party for it to make a difference. So either way, we're screwed. With Meg Whitman, we'll know right away how we're being screwed and with Jerry Brown, we'll just have to wait a while until he wants to tell us how we're being screwed. Either way, nothing is going to be getting better any time soon.

The Governator's All A-Twitter

I need for November to hurry up and get here so that everyone can freaking vote and will stop being subjected to the incessant barrage of campaign ads and literature which are seemingly endless. After that, then I need for January to hurry up and get here so that Arnold Schwarzenegger can get the heck out of the office of the governor of California and go about trying to get some cushy job in the Obama administration (which seems to be what he's angling for lately, even though he hasn't said anything about it). Not that his replacement is going to be any better, mind you. We're faced with the abhorrent choices of either Meg Whitman (who has already spent over $108 million of her own money, so you can only imagine how she'll be pissing away mine if she's elected) or Jerry Brown (who might be in the early to middle stages of dementia, depending on the time of day and if he's speaking publicly or not). But I'm so ready to get rid of the Governator right now that either one almost looks appealing.

Arnold hasn't always put being governor first. No, if you've ever heard him talk, you know what his first priority and his first love is. Laughter. That man loves to tell a joke. Making an audience laugh is what he seemingly lives for. He thrives on one-liners. His enormous face just lights up if he can make a crowd laugh with one of his silly jokes. Like back in May, when he was at Emory University in Atlanta to give the commencement speech, and he said, "I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend, but with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me." Or in July when he said that "...while BP appears to have contained the Gulf oil leak...no one has figured out how to contain Mel Gibson.” Oh, yeah. He's a riot.

If the state wasn't in the complete s***hole that it is (that could say sinkhole; you don't know), I don't know that I'd give a fat rat's ass what he does or said. But the state isn't exactly thriving, so I guess that's why he irritates me so much lately. And after I read that he was on his way to Asia, the irritation continued. I guess he's going over there to bid on having the World Expo in California in 2020. Whatever. We have problems NOW, Arnold! There a little thing called a 19 billion dollar budget deficit that needs tending to now! (Just four more months. Just four more months. Just four more months.)

But just because he's on his way to Asia, don't let that make you think that he is no longer worried about getting laughs, because they are just as important to him when he's flying in the air as they are when he's doing nothing on the ground. The Governator likes to take to Twitter when he's feeling particularly joke-y and there's no one around to pretend to laugh. He tweets quite a bit when he isn't feeling joke-y, but mark my words, if there's no one around to hear his one liner, it's off to the Twitter he goes!

And tweet he did. Ready for his sky-high snark? He twat tweeted "Over Anchorage, AK. Looking everywhere but can't see Russia from here. Will keep you updated as search continues."

And he even included a lovely photo of him looking for Russia. Behold!

::: sigh ::: Well, I'm glad that he's kept two year old SNL skits in mind for just such an occasion. Now if he would just pay a little more attention to things that are happening now instead of things that might happen ten years from now, I'd relax a little bit. In the meantime, I can't wait for January; after which the only time I'll have to hear from him (hopefully) is when he's doing the talk show circuit for Terminator 12 or Conan The Barbarian 14 - Conan Goes To College.

Casino Benefits For Welfare Recipients

I don't get up every morning just looking to brand someone a moron. I certainly don't get up every morning hoping that I can find someone to outright despise because of what they stand for and how they're going to contribute to the fall of society as we know it. It's not like I'm trying to be annoyed. But when I find out that in "California and Michigan, welfare recipients have been using their Electronic Benefit Transfer cards to withdraw state-funded payment from ATM machines in casinos", I tend to get a little testy.

According to something called Daily Finance, this absurdity that should not be occurring has been surprisingly recognized by politicians who (theoretically) can do something about it like make it so that the ATM machines in the casinos are programmed to not accept the EBT cards (which work like an ATM card does). And look, I realize that someone that is going to spend their money...oh, wait. I said that wrong, didn't I? I realize that someone that is really wants to spend MY money at a casino is going to. They're going to go to some other ATM, withdraw money that my taxes have funded, and then hop their sorry ass to a casino and piss away my money. I get that. But I don't think that the process needs to be made any easier by having the damn ATM AT the freaking casino be capable of giving them MY money.

In California, the surprisingly on the ball Los Angeles Times learned that "...79 out of the 148 tribal casinos and state-licensed poker rooms have welfare-friendly (aka, MY money friendly) ATM machines on the premises." That's over half. Not to mention that it's about 79 too many. And if you're thinking that maybe not a lot of people actually take advantage of this situation, you'd be wrong because "$1.8 million in state welfare revenues were withdrawn from ATMs in gambling establishments over an eight month period." Nice system, California. Whose freaking idea was this to begin with?

Now, you'd think that everyone would be able to be on the same page with getting something like this stopped, wouldn't you? You might think that, but again, you'd be wrong. And that brings me to the woman that I spent today simply loathing. A one Maureen Taylor is the state organizer of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization advocacy group (that's in Michgian). She has a problem with a bill that was introduced by Michigan Senator Bill Hardiman which would "...stop casino ATMs in his state from processing welfare payments." You know what the problem is that she has? Guess. Go on. Guess. You know what? It's so asininely ridiculous, you'll never get it. So, allow me...

Ms. Taylor "...feels that Hardiman's bill singles out welfare recipients unfairly." What? Singles them out? Well, yes. That's what it's supposed to do. You can't not single out a group that is already singled out. If you want to stop casino ATMs from processing welfare payments, that is automatically going to single out the group of people that are on welfare, that is correct. So, what is the problem that Ms. Taylor finds with this intentional and necessary singling out? She claims, "This is a way to corral low-income welfare recipients, put a red mark on their face and say, 'You're not welcome.' " ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Um, Ms. Taylor? Yeah, see, that's right! They're NOT welcome to take MY money and go spend it at a CASINO! They're on freaking WELFARE! They shouldn't HAVE any money to spend at a casino! If they did, they wouldn't be on WELFARE! What part of that do you not understand? It's not like we're trying to stop them from spending their money at a grocery store! It's a G-D casino, for cryin' out loud!

I'm glad that Ms. Taylor isn't in politics because that would be cause for alarm. I have no idea what the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization does exactly, but the fact that they use the word "Rights" in their title does not bode well with me. How come there is a "right" to be on welfare, but there isn't a "right" for those of us who pay for it to opt out? Oh, that's right. Because all of us would, that's why. I really wish that she had elaborated on that statement, but she didn't. And in a way, I think I'm glad. I don't know if I could have taken her explanation without needing an entire bottle of gin.

Side note: Against my better judgment, I went to the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization website to see what they were all about. I got as far as what is apparently their mission statement: "You get what you are organized to take!" I couldn't read any more after that, as I kind of think that says it all, don't you? Now, where did I put that gin?