Tuesday

Don't forget to get out and vote on Tuesday. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm voting NO. If they had a space for HECK NO, I'd vote that way. This city does not need another tax; it needs politicians who will handle the money already given to them instead of misspending it then asking us for more. We also need leaders who know the meaning of the word "prioritize." Wouldn't you just love to go to these people's homes and look at how their budgets are handled? Are they spending their money on "wants" instead of "needs"? Isn't that what they're asking us to do? I don't fall for the idea that our city, nay, our region will completely fall off the face of the earth if this tax doesn't pass (sarcasm fully intended). Also, who's to say they'll actually spend the money on the river? They'll probably spend King George's 117 million then use the actual tax they take in on the arena or some other "need" they see fit. I'm thinking we need to buy our politicians a dictionary for Christmas.

On an upbeat note...

BYE BYE YANKEES!!!!

I'm not upset in the least to see the Yankees beaten by the Indians. I've been a Yankee hater for as long as I can remember. Why? I think it's because my mom liked them, so I felt the need to create a rivalry and have hated those da** Yankees ever since. Since my Cubs didn't make it, I'm rooting for the Rockies since I've seen several of them play when they were with the Drillers.

A New Talent

Apparently the Yes crowd has a new talent - they can see the future. The quote is that "we won't have this chance again for a long, long time." Bull hockey. I'm sure if/when this one doesn't pass, they'll reorganize and try to shove it down our throats again and again and again until it passes; look how many times the Vision 2025 ideas were thrown at us until we fell for it. I admit it, I was guilty and fell for the "it's better than nothing" mentality that was fed to me by the local media. Thankfully, since then I have discovered the alternative forms of media since then and have become better informed.

Guess what? I can see into the future as well. I predict that, if/when this tax passes, they'll come back to us sometime soon with a road tax/bond proposition...and, we'll fall for that, too.

On a happier note - OU 28, Texas 21

BOOMER SOONER, BABY!!!!

I know, my Cubs are down 2 games to none...don't remind me. I'm starting my "Go Rockies" chant...and the Yankees are down 2 games to none as well, so we're in good company.

Latest Goings On

I was attempting to put together a computer desk (more on that in a bit), when I overheard the latest begging to get us to vote Yes for the river tax. Actually, the only statement that I can remember dealt with a child attempting to guilt me into voting yes. Is this what that side has stooped to? I am sometimes ashamed to admit I live in Tulsa - this would be one of those times.

As for the aforementioned computer desk...I finally was able to purchase a desktop computer (HP, for those of you taking notes) and purchased a desk for it. I'm ashamed to say it, but I was bested by the desk. Who knew it was so difficult to keep screws straight? Thankfully, DH has a friend who loves putting things together, so he'll be over tomorrow evening to put it together.

Commonalities

KOTV had a story tonight about how the River Tax Yes people were going to have a hard road to travel to convince people outside Tulsa to vote yes for the tax. They showed a 23 year old male who had returned to Tulsa after graduating from OU. He made a statement that there was nothing exciting to do here; that there weren't any young people here. When I heard that statement, I thought of the seeker sensitive church movement. Isn't that there same claim? That the only way to get younger people in is to have programs for them, to play with and manipulate their emotions? We know there's no substance in the seeker sensitive churches; could we say the same thing about the Yes River Tax movement?

Just Say No

I'm already fed up with the ads trying to guilt us into voting "Yes" for the river tax. If these philanthropists want to improve the river, why don't they pay for it themselves and not expect the government to subsidize their "donations"? I guess that they don't have to drive on our roads; they can just use their hovercrafts to get from point A to point B. What am I thinking? They have people they pay to do that for them!



Before anyone gets the idea that I all I do is rant and rave about things I don't like about Tulsa, let me tell you, I love Tulsa! I'm originally from OKC and have been here since 1988. I missed the MAPS Projects, so I can't shed any light on those. I would much rather live up here than down there; at least here I can get the brown dirt out of my clothes.



I've heard a figure of 9,000 jobs floated around, but it sounds like those would only be temporary jobs and they would disappear as soon as all the work is done. Has anyone from the Yes crowd been able to substantiate the numbers they keep throwing at us? I haven't found anyone that can.



In their latest commericals, they use the old standby idea "do it for the kids." I would rather have smooth streets, or at least passable streets for my DSD (darling stepdaughter) then a river that she might not ever go to. Besides, if the streets stay in the shape they're in, no one will be healthy enough to enjoy the river. Everyone will be on pain meds for their injured backs and necks.



On a side note, and a much happier note, it's September and my Cubs are in first place!