In his March 14 column, "Art of good writing is slipping from our culture," George Will shares with readers (tells readers): "Then there is sharing, 'the word I most loathe in the feel-good lexicon.'" (quoting William Zinsser, "On Writing Well").
I find it very interesting that Will, a shill for Big Biz interests, puts forth an unconscious suggestion that sharing is in some manner loathsome. It certainly does fit with the past 40 years of observing corporate business interests dictating how business profits shall be divided.
I use the word "divided" because shared implies fairness, equality, practicality and consideration for the welfare of others. During this period, these principles have been gradually jettisoned -- now being considered naive, foolish and poor business practice.
A preference for using the word "tell" rather than "share with" is exactly what is exemplified in the current business paradigm that so strongly informs us in these times of scarce well-paid positions: "This is what you get; take it or leave it. There are plenty of other people who would be happy (read: desperate) to do this job for less."
BART officials are not very smart
The new and once-again issue of letting bikes on BART always puzzles me.
BART officials spend lots of money on surveys instead of just making a good decision and getting the work done. I think they should get someone with a Ph.D. from Stanford to help make smart and simple decisions for us passengers, whether we walk onto BART or take our bikes.
The simple solution is to take out seats on both sides of, say, the last car and reserve it for people with their bikes. That way passengers won't have to juggle their way in and out of cars around the bikes and the bikers will have a good place to move their bikes and stand.
There, I probably just saved BART at least $100,000 in surveys. Use the money to replace the old station signs that you can hardly read after 40 years. Also, BART should install some sort of cover at open platforms, with heaters for the winter. But then again, one would need that Ph.D. to figure all that out.
Sequester has served purpose
It may prove to be painful, but the fact is there's no way American taxpayers can withstand another tax increase on the wealthiest so that we can all be paying our "fair share."
Now that it's been analyzed, we know people in the government working five days a week will be furloughed one day weekly for seven months. In short, those living off the ever-shrinking taxpayer-based funds are going to need to adjust to the "new economy" under President Barack Obama.
Obama figured out that we know he and John Boehner signed off on this deal to legally reduce spending. Obama doesn't like the fact he cannot get out of the trap he set for the Republicans and now has to live with it.
Clearly, this is the only way we're going to reduce the level of spending. The past four years have been horrible.
Obama badly misplayed this card. People aren't buying it. They want jobs, not welfare. Thus, it will expose the "doomsday" scenario as a steaming heap of lies.
It is confusing when President Barack Obama claims the right to kill anyone at will, including Americans, if they are terrorists, because we are at war.
In the next breath, he says the nation must try terrorists in a civilian court, because they are just criminals.
Can anyone explain it?