Easy Money: Limited Government

Just heard the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union speech. Governor McDonnell of Virginia again pushed the Republican mantra of limited government, running away from big government, whether it's state or federal.

I agree with McDonnell. And I think the first place to start with limiting government is to eliminate the governorship of Virginia. Any politician pushing for limiting and eliminating government should look no further than his own office to delete from the political landscape. None of the governors -- or congressmen, for that matter -- is necessary. Who would miss any of them, either party?

What a great way to cut the budgets of state and federal government. In my state, the small legislature meets only every other year. We think that's enough for them to do harm to us. If they didn't show up for their jobs, we'd all be better off.

You've only been in office 11 days, Gov. McDonnell, but that's enough. See ya.

Do You Hear Us Now?

Tone-deaf Democrats whine and moan about this week's Massachusetts loss for Senator. Their excuses range from them (the majority in both houses of Congress) not passing health insurance reform to Martha Coakley being a poor candidate to voters simply not understanding the issues. While it's true that some of those reasons are plausible, there are other more important ones.

Listen up, Democrats, starting with President Obama. YOU HAVEN'T DONE A DAMN THING FOR ANY OF US IN THE PAST YEAR!!!!!!!! That's why Coakley lost and Republican Scott Brown won. How can you expect anyone to vote for you when you do nothing? I believe that many voters in that state really didn't want to vote Republican. But what other choice did they have? With the two parties controlling everything, a vote for a third-party candidate would have been wasted.

I'll list a few things you, the Democrats, haven't done, but which voters elected you to do:

1) End two wars. The day President Obama announced sending more troops to Afghanistan was the day I knew we weren't going to get the change we believed in.

2) End Don't Ask, Don't Tell. What kind of a disgusting, bigoted law is that?

3) Protect the environment. Naming Colorado rancher Salazar was plain stupid.

4) Not bail out big banks. Coming out this week with rules for the banks is too little, too late because you've done everything for them for a year.

5) Not bail out Detroit automakers. We don't want their cars. Let them fail.

6) Consider, even briefly, making an attempt to do something for your base. You lost your base in Massachusetts. It was all about the base for the previous administration and Congress and it worked for them for quite some time.

7) Do what you could to help people save their houses. After all, your friends in the banking and mortgage industries were largely responsible for people getting loans they shouldn't have in the first place. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd share major blame in this area.

8) Do something about jobs. The stimulus program was too slow and covered everything from simply giving raises to government employees to installing insulation. I mean, what the hell?Where are the jobs? It's a year late, but doing something now would be a start.

President Obama, it's time to stop with the speeches and get to work. Like your predecessor, you spend too much time out on the golf course. The difference, however, is that Bush had Dick Cheney to do his work. For some reason, you've shoved Vice-President Biden back to his Naval Observatory residence and you rely on speeches to keep voters in line. We're tired of speeches.

If you and the Democratic Party don't change your way of doing business in Washington this very instant, you've only just seen the beginning of a complete revolt come November. It's not a possibility, it's a certainty. Will you hear us then?

Fixing a Fault in Quake Reporting

There's a major scientific error in a side article on the Fox News page about the Haiti earthquake.

In one section of the article ("Earthquake Science: The Haitian Quake Explained"), the following statement is given about earthquake magnitudes: "Since magnitudes are given on a logarithmic scale, a 7.0-magnitude earthquake would release 10 times as much energy as a 6.0-magnitude temblor."

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Somebody -- geologist or (more likely) reporter -- is asleep at the switch. The increase in energy released from a 6.0 to a 7.0 (or any single whole number on the magnitude scale) is about THIRTY-TWO (32), not 10.

You see this mistake made a lot in news reporting after a big quake like the one in Haiti. The AMPLITUDE of the measured waveforms is what increases by a factor of 10 with each magnitude step. But the energy release -- and therefore the destructive capacity -- is much greater.

Easy Money: Thrift Store Shopping

I used to be a thrift store shopper, always looking for an item to finish off or add to a collection. I tend to wear my clothes until they are almost threadbare, therefore I always bypassed the clothing aisles. Then again, I'm not sure the selection would have been as good as it is now. So many of today's consumers seem to buy so much more than they need. Depending on how you look at it, that's unfortunate for them but fortunate for stores like Goodwill, Salvation Army, St. Vincent dePaul, and independent thrift stores.

Have you shopped at a Goodwill or Salvation Army store in recent years? If you haven't, you're wasting your money, especially if you like to buy designer clothes or even well-known, less-expensive brands. Of course, the majority of clothing at such stores might not fit into these categories, but an increasingly larger portion of it does these days.

Just in the past month, my son bought the following at Goodwill stores in Southern Oregon: Bruno Magli wallet, new (99 cents); Pendleton long-sleeved shirt, new ($3); Bostonian black dress shoes with full leather lining, look new ($8); and Eddie Bauer long-sleeved shirt, new ($3). He bought some great-looking items with a value of more than $300 for less than $15 paid out. And even though it isn't a famous label, he also bought a great-looking, new Leather Works jacket for $5.

Yes, you must check frequently to get such buys. And occasionally you'll find a flaw when you get the item home. Still, anyone looking for real bargains, trying to budget wisely while wanting name and quality, can find thrift stores offering something new every day. For myself, I don't find shopping to be as much fun as it once was. But if those cravings ever return, I'll be hitting such bargain-wise stores.

One more thing: My son visited friends in Sacramento recently. While there, he browsed area Goodwills, which sold what he described as "beautiful suits and ties."

Fatty, Fatty, Two-By-Four

A dating site for beautiful people has dropped thousands of those looking for love because they gained weight over the holidays. When the registered "beautiful people" posted their new photos, with the extra pounds easy to see, the founder expelled those he called "the fatties."

It's his site, therefore he can do with it what he wants. But I must ask, why would beautiful people need a dating site? Wouldn't they be able to simply walk down the street and potential mates would fall at their feet? If people are using beauty as the only criterion for finding a partner, wouldn't this bunch of gorgeous folks be the first to be chosen and in no need of such an impersonal dating mechanism?

Tell me why this dating site exists. What am I missing here?