Confessions of a Cat Lady

Having more than one cat in your house may earn you the appelation of "Cat Lady". Actually, I think having two cats, or perhaps three cats, would cause one to be called a "Cat Fancier". Having four or more cats rightly deserves the title of "Cat Lady", provided of course, that the cat owner is female. If not female, I guess you'd call a male multiple meower maven a "Cat Guy". That's beside the point. What I am about in this blog is relating an interview that I had with a "cat lady", a keeper of six of the critters. I was interested in knowing where the obsession with feline house guests came from. I was lucky enough to find out from an avowed "Cat Lady" in a conversation that went like this:

Q. When did you first realize that you liked cats?
A. When I was just a toddler. My first pet was a dog. It wasn't very nice to me. My next pet was a cat. It was nice to me.
Q. How was it nicer than the dog?
A. Nicer isn't the right word to use. The dog bit me when I held it. The cat let me hold it and purred when I did. The dog wasn't nice. The cat was.
Q. Well, that figures. That is, I can see why you would prefer a cat. But, isn't one cat at a time enough?
A. It was for me at first, but I had two sisters and they liked cats, too. I had to share my cat with them and my parents usually wouldn't let us have more than one cat at a time. Occasionally, we had two cats, but that didn't feel satisfying.
Q. Besides being dissatisfied, how did you react to sharing one or two cats with someone else?
A. I went along with the idea of one cat at a time, but I promised myself that when I grew up and didn't have to share with my sisters anymore that I would have as many cats as I wanted.
Q. When did this multiple meower manifestation materialize?
A. After my first child was born. I found that I had to share a cat with another person again.
Q. Didn't your husband count as someone with whom you had to share a cat?
A. Of course not. The cat didn't pay any attention to him.
Q. How many cats do you have now?
A. I don't keep count, because I don't own them. They just choose to stay around the house and eat here. They are free to leave anytime they want.
Q. You have taken photos of them and given them names. Doesn't that assert a relationship beyond mere house guest?
A. Only to someone who is hung up on control. Anyone knows that you can't control a cat. They abide you, not obey you.
Q. Anything else you want to say about having multiple cats?
A. Yes, get a really absorbent cat litter and keep the litter box in the garage.

So, there it is. A "Cat Lady" is the product of unrestrained volition when it comes to harboring cats. Can't say it's a bad thing, it's just the way some people are.

Ammo and Gun Shortage

The morning TV news reporter was interviewing a gun store owner about an alleged shortage of guns and ammo. The store owner said that what he called a "shortage" was caused by fear of economic hard times where self-defense could become a priority and fear of government action that might end or restrict gun rights. The store owner claimed that the stockpiling of guns and ammo is due to people being motivated by fear. Does merchandise leaving a store create a real shortage in the traditional sense where demand exceeds supply? Stockpiling only causes a temporary shortage in one link of the supply chain. The store will restock as soon as its suppliers can deliver goods. In the short term, the "stockpilers" have a window of opportunity for profiteering, if others are sucked into the hysteria of irrational fear and create a greater demand. In the long term, should future government action indeed restrict the type of weapons and ammunition available, the stockpilers will be positioned to profit as others seek to obtain proscribed weapons and ammunition. For example, it is rumored that assault weapons will be banned and that each round of ammunition will have to bear a serial number to trace ownership. In this case, buyers would be forced to turn to a clandestine or "black" market to acquire banned goods, which would benefit "gun rights advocates" who stocked up on ammo and guns they had no intention of using personally. Frankly, I've got another name for them: entrepreneur. As always, follow the money.

A Bow, A Smile

The right-wingers are livid. They say that President Obama bowed to a foreign potentate, something an American never does. They say that President Obama smiled while shaking the hand of Chavez of Venezuela, something an American President should not do. The truth about the "bow" is that Obama bent over in front of the Saudi king to get a better look at the hem of his gown. Obama was trying to see if the tips of the cowboy boots sticking out from beneath it were the ones that W. had described (snake skin) and asked him to see if the king was wearing, as he promised he would the last time our favorite Texan was in Riyadh. I don't blame President Obama for not telling the news media what he was really doing. He wouldn't want to reveal a confidence he had with Bush II. As for the truth about the smile when greeting Chavez, who can keep a straight face when you feel a hand-buzzer. That Chavez guy is a real clown.

So, you don't buy these "truths". Then how about these reasons for-- The bow: Obama was amused when he saw the Saudi king in his native dress and bent over to keep from laughing in his face. The smile: On meeting Chavez, he smiled to show his pleasure at meeting someone who shared his opinion of George Bush.

One can make up many, many truths about why President Obama did what he did. Whatever the real reason or motive for his behavior, the one incontrovertible truth is that whatever Obama does is going to upset, outrage and inflame the right-wingers. So, who cares?

Kansas Trivia - Wierd Law

The El Dorado Times published a special section of its paper to celebrate Kansas Day called Kansas Facts and Trivia. Among the 50 entries, was this jewel: "At one time it was against the law to serve ice cream on cherry pie in Kansas." The law was repealed, probably due to its un-Americanism. But, why was it enacted? Could it have been the cherry purist's lobby? or the ice cream crowd's equivalent. Was it a public health issue involving ice cream made with un-pasteurized milk? Whatever the reason, it's a good example of what legislatures do. We have an offender "branding" law on the books today that is every bit as goofy as this wierd law.

More on Legalizing Drugs

If drugs became legal to sell and consume, like alcohol, the question arises about what to do with the people who've been making their living by selling drugs on the street. My War on Drugs discussion friend (see earlier post of April 8, 2009) points out that wars always end with some violent, aimless men, especially on the losing side -- such as the Jameses and Youngers after the Civil War -- inflicting themselves on society and that the same problem would emerge with the end of the Drug War. On the bright side, my friend has a theory that more young people might stay in school, if they weren't drawn by the possibilities of selling drugs, Admittedly, my friend recognizes that the transition might be a difficult one. I think this is especially so, if other illegal pursuits were attempted in transition.

The book, Freakonomics, has an interesting slant on drug dealers. The author writes that the street pushers barely earn minimum wage and that they can only score financially by being at the top of the drug distribution chain. If that's the case, the pushers may find it more remunerative to pursue other employment. So, I agree with the idea that more young people might stay in school as a result of legalization of drugs. In case of the drug king pins, I imagine they are smart enough to find another illegal pursuit they can pursue without too much heat from the law or to go legitimate. It is possible that the legalization of drugs will have lasting positive consequences in spite of some transitory negative ones.

Nationally, there are several movements underway with the goal of legalizing drugs and ending the insanity of a hopeless war. I suggest that we should all consider the arguments on both sides of this issue before condemning the idea of legalization of drugs. This is the first step in public education. Eventually to convince Congress and the Kansas Legislature that drug laws should be changed, the focus of any legalization movement would be public education. Only if the public is overwhelming in favor of something will the legislatures be convinced to act. As for Kansas -- when changing laws is the goal -- this state is always last or next to last in adopting laws that the rest of the country embraces.

Tax Disconnect

I am amazed by conservatives (and even some liberals) who, throughout the protracted Iraq War, have advocated tax cuts. How can anyone in their right mind support spending for a foreign war without paying for it? If one approves of government expenditures for whatever reason, then it follows that they should support taxation equivalent to the expenditures. Case in point: Tax refunds are obviously money that the recipient has been able to do without. If tax rates were higher to support the cost of the Iraq War, the amount of refunds would be less. This tells me that people can afford higher taxes, while all along they are claiming the need for a tax cut. Let's get real and put our money where our mouth is.

Somali Pirates

These Somali pirates are a pest. Swatting at them as they attack shipping in the open seas is a temporary fix of the problem. How do you get rid of a pest, permanently? That's easy. You eradicate the pest's nests by attacking them at their source, Somalian ports from which they operate with impunity. Immediately, if this solution is pursued, objections would arise, claiming that such action would be a violation of the sovereignty of Somalia. However, does Somalia qualify as a sovereign nation? It is said that Somalia hasn't had a functioning national government since 1991. If that's the case, who can profess sovereignty? I would say that a land area without sovereignty is fair game for conquest by any force, be it a neighboring state, an international force or an aggrieved party like a victim of the piracy efforts. There can be no objection to the use of deadly force against the pirates by any group claiming control of Somalia, because they have not controlled the pirates. International and maritime law needs to prevent piracy by permitting the use of force against the pirates, rather than protecting them.

Legalizing Drugs

A friend and I talked at lunch the other day about legalizing drugs. What my friend had to say about it made a lot of sense. Leonard Pitts made a good case for the same conclusion in yesterday's K.C. Star. Perhaps, in these two events, there's an omen that more people will become aware of the need for a movement toward legalization. Doing so could certainly reduce our law enforcement costs, perhaps freeing up resources we could use more effectively to control illegal immigration or some other compliance problem. Other problem areas that could be addressed besides drugs are child pornography, identity theft, car theft, securities fraud, or home burglaries. Putting all those narcs on the street wouldn't be good for the unemployment figures. But wait, if we keep fighting crime, we won't save the money wasted on the War on Drugs or reduce our prison population. How do we get out of this mess? Perhaps, dumping the War on Drugs would leave enough money to bear down on some crime problems and still reduce costs for enforcement and prisons. Hopefully, the narcs could qualify as air marshals, teachers, counselors or other jobs that would be useful in improving society. More people need to weigh in on this and something has to change. Our drug "problem" isn't getting solved and we have too many people in prison with too many adverse consequences for them and the rest of us.

Countering Islamic Extremism

Retired General Abizaid, in an AP interview, said the United States has done a poor job of fighting Islamic extremism. Quoting Abizaid, "I don't blame it on any people. I just blame it on a bureaucratic system that has been unresponsive thus far to the challenges of the 21st century. We need to change that as a matter of national priority."

The "bureaucratic system" that the general refers to can be overcome. The Obama administration should bring together our foremost experts on all aspects of the Middle East, counter-terrorism, religious fundamentalism, economic development, and any other pertinent subject that could contribute knowledge to the development of an overall strategy to fight Islamic extremism through economic, educational, political, diplomatic, social, and other means. There are signs in both overt and subtle foreign policy changes that the Obama administration is leaning in this direction. Let's hope the effort gains momentum and some progress can be made toward making the world safer.

Take Back Our Country

A conservative Republican told me that, in the next Federal election, "We will take back our country". Maybe that's where their idea that individual freedoms can be curtailed in the name of national security originates comes from. If this country indeed belongs to the Republicans, does that mean that non-Republicans have to get their permission to travel in it? Are all non-Republicans, even if they arrived here via the birth canal, alien immigrants without civil rights? Does exclusive Republican ownership of this country explain the importance that Republicans place on patriotism. This attitude of prior franchise on this land that many conservative Republicans exhibit may be the culprit behind their seeming desire for Obama to fail. Obviously, many Republicans don't consider him as a legitimate occupant of the White House, either by birth or political party.

General Motors

So far all I have seen and heard of General Motors management initial response to its need to restructure is marketing changes. They're now offering a payment protection plan that's better than Hyundai's. They're emphasizing On-Star as a singular feature of GM cars. Payment protection isn't going to sell more cars. If your job is shaky, the last thing you'll do is add to your debt load. On-Star sounds great, but it's free only for the first year. When it comes time to start paying for On-Star "security", a car owner with a cell phone will think twice before paying a second cell phone (On-Star) bill.

Yet, GM still has a marketing problem. They are pushing the wrong products. The Cadillic Escalade SUV, that turns you on when you turn it on, may be the ticket for over-sexed drivers, but unfortunately they're a small segment of the market. And by the way, so are Hummer owners. The only way these models can justify their marketing expense is the sizable profit per unit from their sale. A comparatively fat profit on a small segment of the market doesn't come close to a comparatively slim profit on a large segment of the market.

GM's real problem is the attractiveness of their products. GM needs to lower prices and improve profitability of manufacturing its various models, while improving fuel economy for all models. GM needs to improve its hybrid car offerings. One of the dumbest things GM did was to spin off Delphi with all its technical expertise in batteries and electric motors just before hybrids were going to get popular. GM should buy Delphi back and dump all of its marginal model lines and convert their assembly lines into producing hybrid cars, pickups and local delivery trucks.

Running a tighter ship with a leaner crew will do more to improve GM's bottom line than all the hype. It's going to be a hard sell to all levels of GM's work force who act like they have a sinecure instead of a job.

Proof of Bloated KU Staffing

The 20% ticket discounts for faculty and staff at KU events (sports, Lied Center, etc.) are being discontinued, ostensibly to save jobs. The University's administration claims that the discounts cost KU $451,000 in lost revenue, which would provide funds for 11 employees. This claim is disingenuous, because sports revenue goes to the Athletic Department and other event revenue goes to special funds. Neither is affected by the state budget limitations. The claim of saving 11 jobs is nothing but propaganda. If retaining 11 jobs was the true motive, revenue enhancements could be sought in other areas: parking fees, library charges, rents, etc. Better than diminishing the benefits of employment, the University should reduce the workforce, an alternative that this administration is trying to obfuscate. If reducing a bloated work force wasn't possible, there would be no need to create a defense of non-essential jobs.

Unread Political Email

During the Kansas Senate's debate on the 2009-10 budget, the Kansas University Alumni Association asked me to contact my state senator and urge that KU's budget not be cut. I used the Association's Web site to send an email with a subject line that read "Kansas Higher Education Budget" to react to their request. Rather than parrot the Association's line, I took a contrary approach, telling my senator that KU was over-staffed and could do more to reduce spending in a time of funding scarcity. Shortly after sending my email, I received a thank you email from the Association for my support of KU's budget needs.

This week I received a follow-up email from my senator informing me that "The legislation which emerged asks higher education to cut its budget by eight tenths of one percent (0.8%). Higher education and K-12 are essentially held harmless in the current budget bill." The senator's email ended with, "Thank you for your email in support of funding for higher education. I appreciate your taking time to share your comments with me." Obviously, the senator's office didn't read my email, else they wouldn't have thanked me for supporting funding for higher education, which I did not.

What is the lesson taught by this sequence of events? In an email to elected representatives, all that counts is the subject line. So, put your opinion there, up front in an unambiguous way. Then, be really brief in your comments. You'll have a better chance of being read.

Shawnee-Mission Park Deer Over-crowding

Shawnee-Mission Park has a problem. It's 1,250 acres has 8 times the number of deer that the habitat can reasonably support. The solution is really obvious: expand the park to 10,000 acres. O.K., you scoff and say there's not enough land left around the park for that. Well, in a way there is. Between the park and the Kansas River lies a huge landfill of around 600 acres and along the Kansas River to the west and south of the river is a large undeveloped area. Check it out on Google Earth. The secret would be to provide a route for the deer to use to traverse the area between the park and the river and along the river to the north-south swathe of open land East of Desoto and North of K-10. That would take a lot of money, but preserving the open space would be a good thing. It would allow the deer population (and other wildlife) a habitat with access to open areas.

Shawnee-Mission Park is attractive to deer that enter the metro area, but once there they are somewhat trapped. I can't imagine that they are any more thrilled by the overcrowding that the park-goers are. I hope the biodiversity study the Park Board plans to do will come to the conclusion that more land area is needed.

Solving the world's problems, one at a time.