Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Dining in the Dark?

I have been amused in the past by various stereotypes involved with the sighted and the blind. I have found this amusing article particularly helpful in aiding me to laugh.

event however brings it to a whole new level of dark amusement, if you’ll pardon the pun. The chief highlights are the following:

•Coffee, tea and other hot drinks are not served in the dark, for safety reasons, but are available in the lighted lounge at the end of the experience. •Wine is served with a special sleeve to prevent the bottle from breaking.

Now the last time I checked drinking hot beverages did not require sight, and although I love iced coffee I don’t drink it for the safety. Although I may or may not have been known in my college days for breaking a wine bottle or two with my head, my friends assure me that my blindness had absolutely nothing to do with any such events. I understand the need to have those who are not trained in alternative techniques to be careful, and in our sue happy society one can never be too careful, but I wonder how much of this can be chalked up to the need to cover one’s donkey and how much points to a misunderstanding about blindness. Thoughts?

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Are the Rich Patriotic?

In this article the President makes the argument that having the rich pay more tax is patriotic. He suggests that with this "modest" amount added to the federal income we can invest in things that create jobs like education. I would suggest to the President that education that results in a job at the end is indeed a good thing, but why then shouldn't the families and individuals who would benefit from this education not be willing to make that investment themselves? Additionally, the President seems to think that education, regardless of the goal of said education, is of value. I think that a degree in underwater basket weaving, while fun, is not worth investing in. Then again I have come to appreciate eating on a regular bases.

In regards to the President's larger point on it being patriotic for the rich to pay more, if they wish to do so they may without being forced. All those wishing to pay off the public debt, and here I particularly look to my liberal friends who believe so much in the goodness of big government and its ability to fix problems, may do so by the following.

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

•You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at •You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to: Attn Dept GBureau of the Public DebtP. O. Box 2188Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

So why should the rich, or anyone else for that matter, be forced to pay more when they may do so voluntarily?