I read the Washington Examiner every morning in the Metro. Generally speaking, I pay most attention to the political news and commentary. This paper is decidedly right of center on the whole. There are, of course, some liberals on the commentary and editorial pages, but it is what it is, which is why I read it. I believe listening and learning from the other side makes me a more effective thinker and better prepared to present my side of things when the time comes.
Usually, I find the reading stimulating, entertaining, and it occasionally gets my blood boiling. Today, however, I read a piece that mystified my logical reasoning. Gregory Kane's commentary entitled, "If a blizzard stumps government, won't health care do the same?", was a perfect example of a weak analogy. In case you are not aware, the Baltimore/DC area experienced over 40 inches of snow over a 7 day period earlier this month. The whole area was gridlocked. The Federal government offices in DC were closed, and schools were out. Even today, a week after the snow event, many of the roads in DC remain is poor shape and walking to work from my Metro stop has resulted in snow covered pants and a wet briefcase (I use a rolling briefcase. Yes, I am that guy. My back will thank me someday, I hope.) In any case, the snow removal here in the Baltimore/DC area has been less than stellar.
Kane claims that the poor snow removal is a good indication that the government would fail at healthcare. Of course, local governments are smaller, and the snow event was an emergency, which was not planned for, and was a once in a decade event. It is akin to comparing a Toyota to a tank. Yes, they are constructed of metal, have moving parts, and can be used to kill people. But I would never use a Toyota on a battlefield (especially after these recalls). A local snow removal situation which requires local citizens to shovel out their street has exactly nothing to do with healthcare delivery.
Kane must have thought of this about half-way through his column. His second point is that while waiting in line behind some WIC recipients attempting to use their benefits, he had to wait for a long while. I can totally attest to the truth of this situation. I have waited for several minutes while the cashier and recipient attempted to sort out the WIC benefits. It does take a while. An the truth is, this does raise concerns about the Feds working in health insurance. However, the source of this trouble is debatable. Is this from failed government management? What is the reason the WIC program is so difficult to use? Is it due to over regulating the program to prevent the kind of fraud so many are worried about? Kane never says. The point is, government complexity and mismanagement is not always due to the so-called innate incompetence of government.
Here is the core thought to take away from this. Folks like to remind the American People that government is wasteful when it spends money inefficiently. People love to rant and rave about how government is terrible at doing what we pay them to do. I don't mind hearing it, and I join in on occasion. But when you deride the government for not doing something well, at least get your analogy right. A Toyota is not a Tank.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Middle Class and the Deficit
The Democrats in the Senate joined the House Democrats in passing "pay as you go" budget rules. These rules are meant to require the adding of new revenue to cover the cost of a tax cut or a spending increase. That is: you can't cut taxes without making up the revenue and you cannot increase spending without doing the same. Personally, I think the "pay as you go" rule is not only a silly display of faux-fiscal discipline, it imperils economic recovery.
Generally speaking, I am a for fiscal responsibility and only spending what the government takes in. That means, if we cut taxes, we cut spending. Not just non-defense spending either. We cut spending across the board. If we want to spend more on an entitlement, such as Health Care Reform, we either raise taxes or cut spending in another area to achieve a balanced budget. These are good ways of governing in a time of financial stability, and necessary to enable the government to do come to the aid of the People in times of economic crisis.
During times of economic crisis the government needs the flexibility to spend and create a deficit. Government spending does prop up demand in the short term, and proper government spending in the private sector can aid in staving off losses and encouraging growth. There are two ways that the Federal Government could do this immediately, with success. Of course, with pay as you go in place, this becomes more difficult.
1) Offer to refinance every homeowners mortgage at 3% and have the government pay off the difference between the current value of the home and the balance of the loan. This would not require the creation of a state bank. The government would pay off the balance of the mortgage value/home value difference to the bank that holds the mortgage in return for a fixed rate 3% mortgage through that bank. This would finally burst the housing bubble, put more cash in Americans pockets than any tax cut, and recapitalize the banking industry. I am not an economist, but this seems to me to be a potential way of returning cash to the bankers while easing the load on middle America.
2) Fix health care in four ways:
a) End the existence of the pre-existing condition. Simply put, this is an unfair practice that places people who are sick in the position of bearing the burden of health care alone. Insurance aids those who are sick by banking that most people will be well. Those with conditions may face a higher premium, but this would be offset by:
b) A health insurance voucher for each citizen. Every American would receive a voucher amount based on their current income. This voucher would entitle an insurance company to a check from the US Government to help offset the cost of health insurance. In addition, health insurance would no longer be tied to employment, which is bad policy. Every individual would pay for individual plans. Places of employment would be required to offer health insurance vouchers to employees as part of their salary package, which could be turned over to a health insurance company for payment. This would ensure competition because consumers could move to better benefits and lower rates while not being penalized for pre-existing conditions.
This would work along these lines: The average premium for a family in the US is between $6,000 and $12,000. For our sake, let's take $8,000. The government offers $3,000 for the family in the way of a voucher, leaving the employer to contribute any amount negotiated by the employer and employee in a salary and benefits package. The person insured would take their vouchers, buy insurance, and the insurance company would receive checks from the place of work and the government and then bill the individual for the balance on a one year contract.
c) Encourage doctors to enter the general practice field by forgiving all loans from medical school and any undergraduate school for a certain number of doctors to enter the general practice field for 15 years on a state by state basis, with special attention to localities that are under served, such as rural areas.
I do not claim to be an economic genius, but I am curious as to what you think of these ideas and why you might perceive they would work or not work. If you have ideas of how the government should, or should not spend money, feel free to comment and add them below.
Generally speaking, I am a for fiscal responsibility and only spending what the government takes in. That means, if we cut taxes, we cut spending. Not just non-defense spending either. We cut spending across the board. If we want to spend more on an entitlement, such as Health Care Reform, we either raise taxes or cut spending in another area to achieve a balanced budget. These are good ways of governing in a time of financial stability, and necessary to enable the government to do come to the aid of the People in times of economic crisis.
During times of economic crisis the government needs the flexibility to spend and create a deficit. Government spending does prop up demand in the short term, and proper government spending in the private sector can aid in staving off losses and encouraging growth. There are two ways that the Federal Government could do this immediately, with success. Of course, with pay as you go in place, this becomes more difficult.
1) Offer to refinance every homeowners mortgage at 3% and have the government pay off the difference between the current value of the home and the balance of the loan. This would not require the creation of a state bank. The government would pay off the balance of the mortgage value/home value difference to the bank that holds the mortgage in return for a fixed rate 3% mortgage through that bank. This would finally burst the housing bubble, put more cash in Americans pockets than any tax cut, and recapitalize the banking industry. I am not an economist, but this seems to me to be a potential way of returning cash to the bankers while easing the load on middle America.
2) Fix health care in four ways:
a) End the existence of the pre-existing condition. Simply put, this is an unfair practice that places people who are sick in the position of bearing the burden of health care alone. Insurance aids those who are sick by banking that most people will be well. Those with conditions may face a higher premium, but this would be offset by:
b) A health insurance voucher for each citizen. Every American would receive a voucher amount based on their current income. This voucher would entitle an insurance company to a check from the US Government to help offset the cost of health insurance. In addition, health insurance would no longer be tied to employment, which is bad policy. Every individual would pay for individual plans. Places of employment would be required to offer health insurance vouchers to employees as part of their salary package, which could be turned over to a health insurance company for payment. This would ensure competition because consumers could move to better benefits and lower rates while not being penalized for pre-existing conditions.
This would work along these lines: The average premium for a family in the US is between $6,000 and $12,000. For our sake, let's take $8,000. The government offers $3,000 for the family in the way of a voucher, leaving the employer to contribute any amount negotiated by the employer and employee in a salary and benefits package. The person insured would take their vouchers, buy insurance, and the insurance company would receive checks from the place of work and the government and then bill the individual for the balance on a one year contract.
c) Encourage doctors to enter the general practice field by forgiving all loans from medical school and any undergraduate school for a certain number of doctors to enter the general practice field for 15 years on a state by state basis, with special attention to localities that are under served, such as rural areas.
I do not claim to be an economic genius, but I am curious as to what you think of these ideas and why you might perceive they would work or not work. If you have ideas of how the government should, or should not spend money, feel free to comment and add them below.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Return to the Gallery
It was one year ago today that I posted my last here at the Peanut Gallery. Time flies. Two days later, August was born, and my world went from playback to fast forward. Jessi and I moved to the DC area so I could go to law school. I am currently working full-time in addition to going to night classes. So, I am making a concerted effort to post three times a week, at least. Look for some this weekend. Hope you will stay tuned.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Packaging a Stimulus
The Peanut Gallery is buried under 8 inches of snow and ice this morning so it is a perfect time to do some posting. The Courier-Journal reported earlier this week that the Kentucky unemployment rate is at a 20 year high. Indeed, there the rate stands at 7.8%. One can debate the possibility of ever achieving full employment, but these numbers speak loudly and clearly that we have a job problem in Kentucky. Without explaining the deeper merits of economics (mostly because I am a novice at economics) more people unemployed means less money that we as a general public have to spend on products. Smaller spending on products means that many companies will cut jobs to meet the lower demand and lower profit margins. Then we have more jobless Americans starting the cycle over again. No amount of tax cuts will increase spending if the person who gets the cut has no job. A tax cut in income tax will not increase jobs and even a tax cut on small business will not improve demand, which is what drives production. Simply put: tax cuts put money in pockets in the short run but do not, in the long or short run, create jobs.
Enter the GOP. They are claiming that demand side economics does not work. Although there is a preponderance of evidence that it does (see the New Deal). They want less spending in the stimulus on infrastructure. They want less government spending, period. They do want tax cuts for Americans of most all tax brackets. I understand the principle. The Republican Party has long ties to Federalists, which want to limit the scope and spending of the Federal Government. I am sympathetic to this way of thinking. The problem is, Republicans on the state level want to do the same to the state budget. The slash and burn principle the Republicans of our era seem to love won’t provide essential services. I am completely fine with states individually providing the services in competition with one another. We can reduce the Federal government if states will do so. The problem is Republicans in Kentucky want to cut our budget as well, thereby reducing government on both the state and national level. This is not currently possible nor is it logical.
What is really puzzling is that Mitch McConnell can stand in front of a camera and advocate for a stimulus package he knows won’t work. It won’t employ more Kentuckians. The evidence is ample. Still, he wants to mainly cut taxes and reduce spending. That kind of rhetoric earns you point with some Americans, but it is a dereliction of duty as a Senator for people who are out of work. What Mitch ought to do is cut the rhetoric and pass this stimulus package. Give it a chance to work so that all Kentuckians might be able to work. Anything less is failure and obstruction for ideals that aren’t practical at this moment in history.
Tomorrow I will be blogging about Right to Work laws and Labor unions.
Enter the GOP. They are claiming that demand side economics does not work. Although there is a preponderance of evidence that it does (see the New Deal). They want less spending in the stimulus on infrastructure. They want less government spending, period. They do want tax cuts for Americans of most all tax brackets. I understand the principle. The Republican Party has long ties to Federalists, which want to limit the scope and spending of the Federal Government. I am sympathetic to this way of thinking. The problem is, Republicans on the state level want to do the same to the state budget. The slash and burn principle the Republicans of our era seem to love won’t provide essential services. I am completely fine with states individually providing the services in competition with one another. We can reduce the Federal government if states will do so. The problem is Republicans in Kentucky want to cut our budget as well, thereby reducing government on both the state and national level. This is not currently possible nor is it logical.
What is really puzzling is that Mitch McConnell can stand in front of a camera and advocate for a stimulus package he knows won’t work. It won’t employ more Kentuckians. The evidence is ample. Still, he wants to mainly cut taxes and reduce spending. That kind of rhetoric earns you point with some Americans, but it is a dereliction of duty as a Senator for people who are out of work. What Mitch ought to do is cut the rhetoric and pass this stimulus package. Give it a chance to work so that all Kentuckians might be able to work. Anything less is failure and obstruction for ideals that aren’t practical at this moment in history.
Tomorrow I will be blogging about Right to Work laws and Labor unions.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama pulls a Jeb Bartlett
I am referencing here the real life President doing today what President Jeb Bartlett did on West Wing. President Obama went to the Hill today to attempt to attract more Republicans to his stimulus package that will soon come up for a vote. Several political bloggers and television commentators have asked what Obama has to gain from this move. Many believe that he has the votes to pass the package today. That may be true in the House, but Obama does need the Blue Dog Dems in order to pass his stimulus bill. The Senate is tight, but the Dems have a majority there and would probably pick up a few Republicans. Basically, I think Obama has the votes. So why is he meeting with the Republicans and giving them an opportunity to paint the Congressional Dems as partisan and bitter?
I assume that Obama is not a fool. He has long stated that he wants to cut the partisan rancor in Congress. He was clear today that he knows there will be a time for partisan politics according to emails from inside the meeting, and he joked about the criticism coming on Fox News. It is clear that Obama knows there is going to be a fight. It is clear he will win. The question for OBama is, how much will I listen to the Republicans?
This meeting on the Hill and the courting of Republicans is the keeping of a campaign promise to be more bipartisan. Make no mistake, this spirit of listening and bipartisan friendliness will not stop Obama and the Dems from passing this package as is. Obama will turn around and say, "I listened, I offered tax cuts and the Republicans wouldn't budge. I care more about the people of the United States, than I do about being friendly. This stimulus is the right thing to do, and we are going to do it."
The real question here is what do the Republicans hope to gain from this? So few of them are fiscal conservatives. They give money away, Bush style, every year. They are great tax-cut and spend conservatives. Our deficit ballooned under a Republican President, not under Clinton. When it didn't balloon it was due to a bipartisan aim and balancing the budget. The best strategy for the Republicans is to go along with this, maximize the tax cut, and claim some responsibility for the good the stimulus does. That is a gamble that will help restore public confidence in the party of McCain and Bush. Of course, they are too "principled" for that kind of thing. Funny, they weren't so principled when they were voting to send money to Iraq. There are no more cowboys in the Republican party, save Tom Coburn. They ought to give it a rest.
Blog Exchange
My brother Zac posts over at Those Crazy Liberals and Conservatives. Starting in the next few days he and I will be having a blog post conversation. He and I will cross post in response to one another. Although we are not total ideological opposites, our conversation should result in some good growth and sharper thinking. Stay tuned.
Aversion to Competition?
Yesterday, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe said that Obama's decision to allow states to 14 states to regulate their emissions standards with more stringent regulations than the federal government was "political thuggery". He argued that this move would hurt the automobile industry and require more bailout money. There are at least a couple of problems with his statement.
The first being that the auto industry will be on the Hill in March or April asking for more money. Once again, they will hold the proverbial gun of thousands of workers without jobs to the Congressional head. The forthcoming bailout requests will have nothing to do with future state based regulations which will not come into effect for at least a year and would, as many of these regulations are, be phased in. While I am not aware of the severity of the regulations, the time frame for their overall effect on the auto industry is up for debate.
Second, there is no question that reducing emissions is a good move for humanity and our environment. There is no debate that in major metro areas, like Louisville where I live, emissions from cars have caused severe respiratory stress for adults and children. Additionally, climate change is happening and it is being contributed to be the release of carbon through the burning of fossil fuels. I am certainly not an advocate for ending all fossil fuel use as of this year. That is a silly proposition considering most of our energy is produced using these fuels and we need this energy to survive. However, taking a long view and beginning to change our energy habits is wise and forward thinking.
Perhaps the most contradictory part of Inhofe's trouble with this change is his Party's commitment to the Federal system. I am generally accused of being a liberal, but in truth, I favor a system that extends states more ability to regulate their territory except in cases where the Constitution allows regulation. Areas of interstate trade, treasury, and national defense. Because I consider the use of energy a national defense matter as well as a major interstate economic matter, the Federal government does have the right to regulate it. However, if states desire more stringent regulations, so be it. Competition among the states ought to demonstrate whether or not these regulations will improve the lives of the citizens of those states or cause them to deteriorate. Shouldn't the party of "state's rights" and federalism advocate for this? This is exactly the kind of short-sighted politics that appears to be special interest related. I do not presume to know Senator Inhofe, but whether or not he believes in climate change is not the issue. The issue is, whether or not he believes states have a right to regulate their own emissions controls. It is a small victory in allowing states regulation control, but an important one.
More on this later when I review Article One, Section Two, and Rule 2. I think it may bring something to bear to this argument.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
An Extraordinary Day
Today was an extraordinary day. Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. This is an incredible moment and part of a movement in this country toward hope, progress, and civility. I do not consider myself a cynic by any stretch of the imagination, but I am overwhelmed at this moment. The beauty of the day, the majestic speech, and the peaceful transition of power captivates me.
On this day of hope and anticipation, I hope that days like these are far more ordinary than extraordinary in the future. I do not mean that we don't celebrate when history is made, but rather that we make history more often. That we continue to elect Presidents, Senators, Representatives, and Governors who understand that we are citizens of the world and have a great burden as the most powerful economic and military nation in the world. That leaders will be as civil, well-spoken, and honorable as Obama. I hope that his example will inspire a generation of decent and honorable women and men to pursue their dreams and become public servants. I hope that one day we will look back on this extraordinary day and recognize that it began a series of extraordinary days that transformed our country and world. That one day extraordinary days will be ordinary.
I sit awash in the amazing events that have transpired over the past year, and indeed over all of history, and I thank God that I am alive to witness this moment. My prayers are with the Obamas, and my hope is that we as a country can rise to this occasion. Most of all, I am proud that my soon to be born son August will be born and grow up in a nation that reached beyond its hurtful past to move toward the future. I am proud to work for that future with the same determination that those in the past gave so that we might enjoy this moment. This day was for all of us, and it was for August. Yes we did, yes we will, yes we can.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
An Open Letter to Rick Warren
Dear Pastor Rick,
It has been quite a few weeks for you hasn’t it? Being invited to pray at the inauguration is quite an honor for you. Unfortunately, you were only able to savor the pleasure of being invited to pray on such a historic day for roughly 20 seconds. That is about the length of time it takes for an opponent of your selection to fire off a missive about your praying. I have no doubt there has been a steady stream of diatribes mingled with a smidgen of support. You sir, are officially in the spotlight of the ongoing, so-called, culture wars.
To be clear, I have no problem with you praying at the inauguration. I completely disagree with you on several points of theology and find no common ground with you on your stance on same sex marriage. I think you are wrong about same sex attraction being a sin. I just can’t get with you on these important questions of the day. Still, I have admired how you have built a church that does good in the world. You have taken bold risks for a person in your position by inviting Barack Obama to speak at your church concerning HIV/AIDS. I believe that you are a person of integrity. You want to live out your faith in Jesus with compassion and believe that social justice is part of faith practice. Moreover, I think President-elect Obama’s commitment to disagreement with civility matches your demonstrated commitment to that principle. Your choice makes a statement and, oddly enough, makes sense to me.
You may be wondering when the other shoe is going to fall in this little note. Well here it is. You posted a video to the members of Saddleback Community Church concerning your praying at the inauguration at Pastor Rick's News and Views. I watched the message and you said some interesting things. You were clear you loved America and wanted to honor the best traditions of American civility in politics. You called the backlash against you “Christophobia” which is the fear of Christians according to you. Then, in a real gem, you said "A lot of people think that because they can sit in the quietness of their own home and hide behind a screen, they can hurl all kinds of bombs at people and get away with it, well no, they're just being rude."
As I sit in a quiet apartment (I am listening to John Mayer sing “Free Fallin”, so it isn’t totally quiet) hiding behind a screen I wonder just what you meant by that statement. America values the freedom to speak openly about beliefs and views. No doubt, some people have said some hateful things about you. You may have received threatening letters and read some threatening blog posts, and that is completely inappropriate. However, disagreeing with you and being bold and firm about it is not hate speech. Calling you a bigot is not hate speech; it is a point of view. You reserve the right to call same sex attraction sin, and others reserve the right to call you a bigot for that. That seems fair to me.
Your attack on bloggers was disturbing. Bloggers are not people who have no lives. In fact, they are a living embodiment of the American dream. They share their views openly in the public forum and invite commentary. Some bloggers are total jerks and many do not shower regularly, but most are people who live their lives and want to share their point of view. They lack the pulpit you have but are no less entitled to their beliefs. Your characterization of bloggers was unfair and lacked the civility you are attempting to create. You can make up for some lost ground by continuing to blog, as you already do. Engage those who will have conversation in the blogosphere, and recognize that blogs provide a level of engagement not seen in the world before. Last, thank you for being willing to take hits from friend and foe alike in the name of civility during disagreement. It is a good example for your fellow evangelicals.
Grace and Peace,
Josh Bailes
P.S. You might know this information, but according to a National School Climate Survey conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, almost 38 percent of GLBT students experienced physical harassment at school on the basis of sexual orientation and 26 percent on the basis of how they express their gender. Nearly one-fifth, almost 18 percent, of students reported being physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation. If you want to make a strong statement that you are for equality consider leading the people of Saddleback, especially your youth, to stop this overwhelming hate action. You have major influence with the evangelical community and can make a difference in the lives of young people who are suffering. It is the right thing to do, no matter what you think about same sex attraction.
It has been quite a few weeks for you hasn’t it? Being invited to pray at the inauguration is quite an honor for you. Unfortunately, you were only able to savor the pleasure of being invited to pray on such a historic day for roughly 20 seconds. That is about the length of time it takes for an opponent of your selection to fire off a missive about your praying. I have no doubt there has been a steady stream of diatribes mingled with a smidgen of support. You sir, are officially in the spotlight of the ongoing, so-called, culture wars.
To be clear, I have no problem with you praying at the inauguration. I completely disagree with you on several points of theology and find no common ground with you on your stance on same sex marriage. I think you are wrong about same sex attraction being a sin. I just can’t get with you on these important questions of the day. Still, I have admired how you have built a church that does good in the world. You have taken bold risks for a person in your position by inviting Barack Obama to speak at your church concerning HIV/AIDS. I believe that you are a person of integrity. You want to live out your faith in Jesus with compassion and believe that social justice is part of faith practice. Moreover, I think President-elect Obama’s commitment to disagreement with civility matches your demonstrated commitment to that principle. Your choice makes a statement and, oddly enough, makes sense to me.
You may be wondering when the other shoe is going to fall in this little note. Well here it is. You posted a video to the members of Saddleback Community Church concerning your praying at the inauguration at Pastor Rick's News and Views. I watched the message and you said some interesting things. You were clear you loved America and wanted to honor the best traditions of American civility in politics. You called the backlash against you “Christophobia” which is the fear of Christians according to you. Then, in a real gem, you said "A lot of people think that because they can sit in the quietness of their own home and hide behind a screen, they can hurl all kinds of bombs at people and get away with it, well no, they're just being rude."
As I sit in a quiet apartment (I am listening to John Mayer sing “Free Fallin”, so it isn’t totally quiet) hiding behind a screen I wonder just what you meant by that statement. America values the freedom to speak openly about beliefs and views. No doubt, some people have said some hateful things about you. You may have received threatening letters and read some threatening blog posts, and that is completely inappropriate. However, disagreeing with you and being bold and firm about it is not hate speech. Calling you a bigot is not hate speech; it is a point of view. You reserve the right to call same sex attraction sin, and others reserve the right to call you a bigot for that. That seems fair to me.
Your attack on bloggers was disturbing. Bloggers are not people who have no lives. In fact, they are a living embodiment of the American dream. They share their views openly in the public forum and invite commentary. Some bloggers are total jerks and many do not shower regularly, but most are people who live their lives and want to share their point of view. They lack the pulpit you have but are no less entitled to their beliefs. Your characterization of bloggers was unfair and lacked the civility you are attempting to create. You can make up for some lost ground by continuing to blog, as you already do. Engage those who will have conversation in the blogosphere, and recognize that blogs provide a level of engagement not seen in the world before. Last, thank you for being willing to take hits from friend and foe alike in the name of civility during disagreement. It is a good example for your fellow evangelicals.
Grace and Peace,
Josh Bailes
P.S. You might know this information, but according to a National School Climate Survey conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, almost 38 percent of GLBT students experienced physical harassment at school on the basis of sexual orientation and 26 percent on the basis of how they express their gender. Nearly one-fifth, almost 18 percent, of students reported being physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation. If you want to make a strong statement that you are for equality consider leading the people of Saddleback, especially your youth, to stop this overwhelming hate action. You have major influence with the evangelical community and can make a difference in the lives of young people who are suffering. It is the right thing to do, no matter what you think about same sex attraction.
Welcome to the Peanut Gallery
When I was younger and living at home with my parents I was often caught in the act of making smarty-pants comments if my parents said or did something I found silly or funny. My father would invariably say in those moments, no comments from the peanut gallery. It drove me nearly insane to hear that. First, I had no idea what it meant. Second, since I had no idea I could not respond in kind. Thanks to Wikipedia, I learned later in life that the peanut gallery “originated in the days of vaudeville as a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater; the cheapest snack served at the theater would often be peanuts, which the patrons would sometimes throw at the performers on stage to show their disapproval.” I had no idea the honor my dad was bestowing on me.
With that said, welcome to the Peanut Gallery on the web. I hope that you find prescient commentary mixed with wit and levity. It is possible you will not find these things here in the Peanut Gallery, but I hope you will, and I hope you enjoy. Most of all, I invite your conversation because what fun would the peanut gallery be without fellow hecklers. Welcome to the Gallery and I hope you enjoy the show. And, please pass the peanuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
