Presidential Vacations

Peeps, yesterday I spent 14 hours a the polls, and while there had a chance to look at this week's TIME magazine, including a short article about how our President is going to take a little vacay to Martha's Vineyard and how presidents in recent times have taken more "working vacations" than actual straight-up, turn-off-the-phone-leave-the-computer-at-home-and-go-relax vacations.

So, assuming that all the presidents we are going to consider have taken or are taking, these working vacations, and just calling that good, like if you are POTUS, you take working vacays, sorry, let's take a look at some of these presidents' vacation times in terms of vacation like We the People for the most part know vacation: you get a couple weeks off a year (those weeks being 5-day work weeks.) Maybe you get more if you have been on the job longer, or if you are a teacher, or whatever, but you get what I am saying.

Here's a breakdown of two presidents mentioned in the article: George W Bush and Jimmy Carter.

I took the number of vacation days Bush took over his 8 year tenure as President (533) and cut them up into 5-day vacation weeks. Then I divided those weeks by the years in office. What I came up with for Mr. Bush was a total of 13 1/3 weeks of vacation a year, which is a little more than a week a month, which when one figures there are 4 weeks in a month, or 52 in a year, means that W spent one quarter of his time as Prez on vacay. Yup.

Doing the same for Mr. Carter, I figured that his 79 days in 4 years equated to just shy of 4 weeks a year, or about a week every quarter.

Now, there has been some grousing by some Republican friends of mine about Mr. Obama's preference for golf and how much time he has taken off during his tenure as President thus far. As of July 10, after a CNN story in which it was noted that Obama had taken 65 vacation days during his time in office thus far, we can figure now that over 18 months, that is 13 weeks, or 8 2/3 weeks per year, more than twice as many as Mr. Carter and about two-thirds those of Mr. Bush. Of course, we have to take into account that this particular presidency is still in its infancy, relative to the other two, and that the number of weeks may increase or decrease over the length of the term.

But why stop here? All that said, here is a comparison of a bunch of recent presidents' vacation days taken during their first year in office, a letter to the editor of the Tennessee Opinion. (Thanks, Sarah Webster, for doing this little bit of research so I don't have to; I am out straight with other things I should be doing, but this little topic is reeling me in.)

Math ends debate over President Obama vacations

Aug. 11, 2010, Letter to the Editor

Published on August 10, 2010 in Letter to the editor and Politics. 39 Comments Tags: Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Presidential Vacations, Ronald Reagan.

A few facts and a basic under­stand­ing of “more” and “less” will clear up the sub­ject of pres­i­dents’ vaca­tion days.

Dur­ing his first year in office, Barack Obama took 26 vaca­tion days. Dur­ing their first years in office, George W. Bush took 69, Bill Clin­ton 21, George H.W. Bush 40, Ronald Rea­gan 42 and Jimmy Carter 21.

Trips to Camp David, which were not included as vaca­tion days, were: Obama 27 days, George W. Bush, 78 days.

I leave the reader to deter­mine more and less.

Sarah Web­ster, Franklin 37064

I guess the next question would be whether those first years set precedents? Yesterday the Democrat and Republican sitting at the table with me were very interested in this subject and thought it would be good to go back as far as JFK to determine how much time recent presidents have spent on vacation. Please, if you have information to add to this little investigation, regale us with it. Your participation is welcome.

Thanks. Back to the grind.

Failures

OK, peeps, I am not scared any more. The Idaho girls are a trip, and I will go out on the town with them tonight... to the Wild Women on the Range party... hmm...

I have about 2 seconds- or minutes, if I am not guilty of the kind of run-on the FFM chides me for and for which I was reprimanded this morning while asking the keynote speaker a Q at the end of his presentation. Well, I take it as this society has failed in yet another way: Older men still do not appreciate women who speak out.

And in other ways, has society failed...
Here is an OpEd by Joe Klein from last week's Time magazine, speaking to the folly of our teachers unions in this country, and particularly in New York.

Indeed, well put. Thanks for doing that, Joe.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1957277,00.html

Rudy Giuliani has a math problem.

I know we all have probably seen or heard this comment by now, but I looked at it again this morning, next to a photo of Giuliani's face, in which he looks... well, either smug or somewhat incredulous, and I don't know whether to laugh at the sheer ludicrous nature of the false statement, or to worry about him having Alzheimers or a problem figuring simple math.

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama."

When you're finished ROFL, consider Giuliani's spokesman's assertion that he was "clearly talking post-9/11"
(from TIME, January 12, 2010)

Clear as a good cup of morning coffee. Bullcrapola, Giuliani and your stoolie. You said that to make people forget 9/11 happened, along with other attempts, just like the underwear dude's presumed attempt, during W's reign.

And this is exactly the kind of spin that makes the war between the Dems and Republicans make me nauseous.

Here ya go if you want to get sick, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3W602XxqXA

Weigh in on the Scales of Justice

First frustration of the day: The Wyoming State legislature is considering passing a law that would consider a person who refused a breathalyzer test guilty of drunk driving.

OK, peeps, I understand those of you who have weighed in on the "don't drink and drive if you don't want to face the penalty," and "give our police officers all the tools we can to keep drunks off the road" and the "people die because of drunk driving and those who have been affected want drunks put away" messages.

But, you are missing my main point: This country is one in which the justice system presumes innocence until guilt is proven. Sure, if you commit a crime, you are guilty. But we don't automatically lock you up or kill you or whatever unless you are proven guilty. We all know this doesn't always work, right? That innocent people have been locked up for life, or killed, for crimes they did not, in fact, commit. Still, presumably we give a person a fair shake.

So, technically speaking, to me it seems that if a person says "no" to a breathalyzer, that person is not necessarily pleading guilty. Nor should that person be assumed guilty. That tool that could help the cops get a drunk off the road is not necessarily accurate. And although someone in this state has noted that the breathalyzer has yet to be shown to be inaccurate, that may be true in this state, but there are places in which the machine has, in fact, been proved inaccurate.

I also recognize that Wyoming is one of a few states that do not yet have on the books the law that says you are as guilty if you refuse as if you fail. None of this alters the fact that machines do not always work, nor does it alter the fact that in this country one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, yet refusing a breathalyzer, FOR ANY REASON, in the future in this state, and currently in several other states, can be used as an admission of guilt.

Boo hiss, guys. I could refuse a breathalyzer test out of the sheer pissed-offedness at being pulled over for speeding, the officer smelling alcohol on my breath because I had a beer with lunch two hours ago, and deciding because I was driving over the speed limit and have the scent on my breath, I am drunk. Come on!

With all due respect to Tim, my friend former cop who busted me for my stance earlier today on Facebook, there are officers out there who are not as goodhearted as he is. Really! Believe it? I've experienced this fact on occasion. But, to put the good cop- bad cop argument to rest, I have also experienced the kindness and helpfulness and humaneness of local, county and state law enforcement. So, for all you cop-haters out there, that's not the argument. They are people, just like the rest of us, prone to good days and bad days, and with the same human frailties we all have, which sometimes include giving someone a hard time who doesn't deserve it, just because we are in a bad mood.

I'm going to leave the subject of the breathalyzer now because there is ample room for debate on this one. I know my stance, and I have made it clear, I think. Lemme know if not, OK? If you've got this far.

Here is the next frustration over the concept of justice and human rights that I have had in the last 24 hours: Last night I read a blurb in TIME mag, and followed up today, about a French ban on the burka for Muslim women. French President Sarkozy supports such a ban, claiming the burka is not welcome in a society that values sexual equality.

What equality is that? If a lady wishes to wear a burka so she doesn't feel naked, as one Muslim woman claimed would be the effect of such a ban, then why can't she? What's really going on here? Where is respect for a person's preferred mode of dress? And I realize I step out on a limb here, because the counter to this question could be, "Is it OK, then, for a 20-year-old man to wear his goddam pants down around his knees so we can all see his plaid boxers? "OK?" OK, while I can't count the times I've told one of my students to haul his britches up so I wouldn't have to look at his underwear, technically speaking, I could look the other way, right?

On that note, my last comment for the day- I'm on a tear- is that I also read all these complaints in TIME's letters about how the aging generation can't find decent young people to hire and that "kids these days" are slackers without any respect for real work. Well, you dumb shites, who brought them up- or, I'm sorry, DIDN'T bring them up- to lack fundamental respect for people and work and the world. What the hell do you think they're trying to say? Duh.

I have to get off here and back to work before I blow a fuse. Before I leave, though, I love when people weigh in. Please do.

BTW, I totally missed my chance to yap with Bill Gates yesterday. Huh