When cheap was cheap...

Anyone of a certain age, who grew up in Chicago, remembers a furniture store called Polk Brothers.  For about $599.99, you could buy a complete living room set, including couch, (which was usually a 2-piece deal known as a "sectional"),  easy chair, end tables, coffee table, lamps, maybe even a rug.   They were rather ugly, but it was an instant room full of furniture.  A gold plaid and/or hideous floral comes to mind when I try to visuallize the old ads.

Now fast forward 50 years or so, and you can get almost the same deal, at some of the "discount" furniture stores that have popped up. 

My question is "How good can this furniture be, if it's the same cost 50 years later?"    Think about it...take inflation into account...was Polk Brothers rather expensive, or is this "new" stuff made out of balsa wood, and paper mache?

I'll just stick with my old furniture, that did not from Polk Brothers, on Day 207!

Downsizing...

...seems to be hitting everything.  A few years ago I believe Andy touched on the fact that candy bars were getting smaller, but the price stayed the same or increased.  But then, do we really need oversize candy bars, since so many of us seem to be "oversized" from eating all that "extra" candy??!!!

It's also hitting other foods in our lives.  Half-gallons of ice cream are now 1 and 3/4 quarts (1.75 qts.)  Orange juice is no longer a half-gallon either, but is being reduced from 64 ounces to 59 ounces, although the cost appears to be stable, for the time being. 

What I did see that really through me for a loop was what was boxed up as "ultra thin diapers."  Now folks, I don't have children, but I've seen and been around them, and I cannot understand why someone would want a thin diaper on a pooping/peeing machine!  I would think that the average parent would prefer something as large and absorbent as a bolster pillow for catching the "mess" as opposed to an ink blotter!

Standing waaaaaaay back, and shaking my head on Day 206!

Your vote DOESN'T count!

Really!  And all these years we've been told that it's our "duty" to vote.  Of course I'm talking "primaries" in this case.  But if THEY don't count, why should we be expected to vote when the "real" election comes about?

Okay, let me explain all this angst.

Yesterday, February 7th, were the presidential primaries in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri.  My state of Missouri is also holding a "caucus" which will determine which candidate gets the state's delegates.  Many people in the state thought the "primary" was unnecessary since it has no bearing on the caucus.  I found myself telling voters that their vote should influence who the caucus gives our delegates to.  I may be dead wrong about that!

From what I heard on the news, even though three states went heavily for Rick Santorum, he's not necessarily going to get those state's delegates.  Huh?  If he wins the states, but doesn't get their support, why should he even bother?  And no wonder the "other candidates" didn't bother to campaign here.  Why one didn't even bother to get his name on the ballot!

When I was a kid, growing up, I used to love watching the political conventions.  One never knew until the bitter end, which candidate would get enough delegates to put him over the top, and get the presidential nomination nod.   Now it would appear to be decided behind closed doors, and be a "done deal" before the convention even starts.  So what's the convention?  Just a party hearty sort of event?

I talked to a friend of mine who said he has never voted because he's never heard a candidate tell how he was going to fix things.  He only hears one candidate telling how bad the other candidate is.  I can uinderstand his thought process.

Call me disillusioned yet again, on Day 205!