Michael_the_ArchAngel

Life's twists and turns

2011-07-24T10:14:00.001-07:00

Wow, it's been a long time since I last posted. True to my prediction, Obama has turned out to be THE worst president in the last 100 years (maybe longer). He endorses all the things that a real Christian (he claims to be one, but his actions show that he lies) would be against. He is for abortion and more abortion, he is for gay marriage, at this point in time he has done away with 'don't ask, don't tell' in the military and has ended the federal government's 'DOMA' - defense of marriage act which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. He continues to want "equal" everything - so doesn't matter if you study your brains out, if you work long hours to make a better life for you and yours - nope, he wants to take more and more of your money as tax money and give it to the low-lifes who DON'T want to study in school, who DON'T want to work long hours. THAT is what Obama considers fair; all it really does is show how out-of-touch with reality the man is - purely delusional. Enough for rants about our whacked out president.

I've been in Houston now for two years; that means I'm two years older. Something 'strange' has happened in those two years, I'm starting to look older, even to myself. My energy, drives and ability (physical) have only slightly diminished (in my opinion) but people now perceive me as older, and typically they give me credit for experience (some of which I deserve, some of which I do.

Houston is MUCH different than Oregon, I've been living in a place, an area where there is a high population of blacks. In Oregon, I typically didn't interact with blacks, I was raised in a way that I just tried to treat them like everyone else until the point in time that they showed me that they needed/wanted to be treated differently (like if they tried to shine me on). In Houston, the blacks down here seem to WANT to be treated differently. They talk different, they are loud and to be honest a bit stupid, they don't really want to interact with whites all that much and seem much happier just staying with and socializing with other blacks. I know this sounds racist, but it's just my observation - I'm not saying that they need to stay there, I'm just saying that if that is the way that they want to be, then they need to understand that indeed they will be looked at differently.

God - my understanding, my relationship, my fellowship with Him, well, I'm working on it. I see and understand more and more how much I didn't understand and still don't understand (boy that seems like I just said something and took it back). The idea that His ways are not our ways is more and more apparent. The fact that we ARE NOT suppose to question his laws but are to just follow them is more and more apparent. The fact that so many people miss what it's all about is more and more apparent. The fact that so many, many, many people are and will end up in HELL is more and more apparent. Speaking of which, if you can get a copy of "23 minutes in Hell" - get it and read it, THEN decide that you still know better that God and that YOU won't end up in HELL - not worth the gamble, not worth the gamble.

One final note, we had to put my wife's dog down the other day. She had had him for 15 years, I lived with him for the last 6 years. Like any other dog there were good things and bad, but in the end you do miss him. We had 'gotten' a replacement dog about two years ago, he'll do, but he certainly isn't the old pooch. It's hard to watch and old companion pass away (we had him put down, his hearing was weak, his eyesight was bad to the point of walking into walls, he was in some kind of pain that made him whine almost constantly even when laying on a soft foam mattress). I will miss Marco, happy he is out of his misery.

I will try to post more often.

Why Obama's Health Care is a Lie

2009-08-23T16:29:00.000-07:00

I don't know, I could enumerate about the pork in the bill - did you know it contains millions for bike paths and walking paths? Hey, nothing wrong with those items, but you don't stick them in a health bill; it's called pork. And hey, didn't Obama say he was going to get rid of pork - guess he just hasn't figure out how.

I know we can keep our own health insurance - but that is ONLY if you employer still offers it AND if it meets the standards which the federal government has set. Otherwise, you'll end up on the public program. What is so wrong with the federal program. View the clip below and get back to me.

Oppose Obamacare - PERIOD!!!

Time to Fire It Up Again

2009-08-09T05:45:00.000-07:00

Time to fire up what??? Well, this blog. I started this blog when I was last in a period of unemployment and I was scared of who might be the next president. That was the contest between Bush and Kerry. The right man won, but the Republicans in general screwed up badly when they had power. So we had the 2006 election which rolled the congress to the democrats where they (the democrats) started to screw the country. Then we had the 2008 election where we got the worst president EVER - Obama.

I've sat and stewed a bit about Obama. I've written a couple blog pieces about Obama, but now I'm just ticked off enough to fire up the blog and put Obama and the POS democrats on the Bar-B.

Obama shoved through a 'stimulus package' within weeks of being sworn in. He swore that the package was needed. We'd have unemployment over 8% without it. Don't read the bill, don't slow down, don't hesitate, just pass this bill. So the bill, filled with pork-galore, got passed and unemployment climbed and climbed and climbed. We hit a high of 9.5% and as of this posting we've 'contracted' to a mere 9.4% - boy, that stimulus bill really helped, didn't it? Obama didn't have a clue and he still doesn't. His ideas were wrong and they are wrong - but that doesn't stop him from trying to jam them down our throats.

His next 'idea' was a 'cap-and-trade' bill to cut down on 'greenhouse gases'. Unfortunately Obama has thrown in with the CO2 is a greenhouse gas crowd. So to pay back all the environmental groups that helped to elect him, he put forth a bill that would double our electric rates within five years. It would add an extra cost on almost anything that produces any kind of power, and that cost ends up where??? Yup, in the prices that you and I pay for everything. In truth, the bill will do NOTHING for the environment. Even if Obama's punitive measure was passed, the 'scientists' agree that we wouldn't see even one degree of temperature decrease. Again, this was a bill that HAD to be passed, don't read it, just pass it - warp speed y'all. Well, thankfully, a few people actually did read it. Thankfully, it wasn't passed; at least not yet. But our naive president still wants it passed and the POS democrats are still dancing to his tune so the reality that it will get passed still remains very viable.

Now Obama is trying to shove 'national health care' down our throats. Again, using Obama's rhetoric, this bill has to be passed today. Well, there are a couple of problems - first, the bill really isn't even written yet. There are apparently two versions of the bill, one in the house and one that is still being written in the Senate. Once those two bills are passed by their respective bodies, then they will have to compromise and come up with a bill that they both agree on and go from there. But even without a final bill, Obama and the democrats want to pass this idea and they want to do it as fast as possible. The house bill is over 1000 pages long and is pure legaleze, meaning that no one but a lawyer can possibly understand it (trust me, I downloaded it an tried to read it - hopeless). Parts of the bill have be 'translated' and "we-the-people" don't like what we've seen. We've been told that we don't know what's good for us. What???? Wait, aren't these clowns in Washington suppose to be working for us? Are they really suppose to tell us that we are stupid? Obama is out stumping for this not-really-a-bill and he gets stumped when asked about parts of it. Obama has a 'plan' to fund this bill, but he is the only one stupid enough to believe that it will actually raise enough money to run the program. Sorry Obama, we don't live in your fantasy land, we do know how to do math and we see that your math doesn't add up; plus we really don't want government anymore in our health care system than it already is.

Well, I told you that I started this blog during a time of unemployment; I'm not unemployed now, but I just recently got employed after a four month period of being unemployed. Bottom line, is that in the first six months, Obama has shown himself to be - THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER; and to take that title away from Jimmy Carter takes some work.

Do you disagree? Let's hear it.

The 9/12 Project

2009-03-20T11:04:00.000-07:00

Are you happy with our new President? I'm sure not! Amazing how his policies continue to NOT do anything except put us further and further in debt. I didn't like the man before he was elected and he is even less than the low expectation that I had for him. Sorry America, you voted for him.

Have you heard of the 9/12 project? I know our president hasn't - or if he has he doesn't abide by it. I can't take all the credit, I heard about it from Glenn Beck; if you're not listening to him on radio and TV - do it.

Quick post - I've taken this from the 9/12 project, which stands for 9 principles and 12 values.

First the 9 principles:

1.	America Is Good.

2.	I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
	God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the external rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.

3.	I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
	Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington

4.	The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
	Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson

5.	If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
	Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson

6.	I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
	Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson

7.	I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
	Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington

8.	It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
	On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington

9.	The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
	Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson

Now the 12 values:

Honesty
Reverence
Hope
Thrift
Humility
Charity
Sincerity
Moderation
Hard Work
Courage
Personal Responsibility
Gratitude

If you agree and abide by these principles and values, then check out the site.

Oh, and pray, pray, pray

The Archangel

Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

2009-02-13T12:18:00.000-08:00

So things DO change. How much? Well, as of 1/9/09 I was placed in a 'laid-odd' status. This status was to stay until 2/9/09 when I was to call in and find out if work had picked up enough to bring me back on board.

We didn't wait, we've seen what is going on nationwide and we've seen what is going on here in Oregon; and none of what we've seen installs any type of confidence in us. So we got moving, we put the mobile home up for sale. On the one hand, I had been wary about buying the mobile home, it served a purpose but I was concerned that we would never see our money back out of it (for the record, my wife swore when we bought the home that we would get our money back). Throw in our national economic situation and I was very concerned that selling the home would be difficult (a cross between no one will want it because it's in a park - meaning that we don't own the land, on the other hand, the price is cheaper since we don't own the land). Bottom line, the home sold in about 3 weeks (big shout out to St. Joseph) for more money than we bought it for (we bought it for cash and we sold it for cash).

So now that the home is sold, now what? Well, we do have a place to live, temporarily, but what if my employer calls me back? So on 2/9/09, holding my breath, I called in - and was told the lay off was permanent. Since we've decided to get out of this state, it was a good thing.

Where to? Well, I have a nephew down in Texas and I've filled out more applications in the Dallas-Ft Worth area in the last 3 weeks than I've seen available in Oregon-Washington in the last year. So yeah, we are looking to move to Texas. We have a couple places to stop and hang out at while we are looking, but we are tired of getting screwed by Oregon.

Obama's stimulus plan is a disaster. The economy is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. And I'm out of this liberal hell-hole. Obama, the democrats and the state of Oregon are an abomination. It's going to be a nasty four years, hunker down, lock and load and hang on to your hat because this is going to get a whole lot uglier.

Pray like you've never prayed before.

Obama and the Dems - True to Form

2009-01-24T09:31:00.000-08:00

So here we are a mere four days since Obama took the oath of office and he (and the Democrats) are falling right in step. In four days Obama has signed a bill to give more (tax) money to organizations that promote or provide abortions in foreign counties. So we not only will have more abortions here in the USA but we will help kill millions worldwide; I guess he is a citizen of the world. This in a point in time where the economy in the USA is failing badly, all government bodies are sucking wind when it comes to budgets - but we're going to give more money so we can kill infants world wide.

In addition, he has told republicans (and I guess anyone else who listens to Limbaugh) that they need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh; my guess is that this is a precursor to signing the 'fairness act'. The message is clear, agree with me or I will do what I can to silence your voice (I told you the man was narcissistic).

Now it's being reported that Obama and democrats are going to pass the 'children's health care bill' - sounds good on it's face, doesn't it? I mean who doesn't want to help the children (except those that you kill in the womb)? Well, the devil is in the details, or maybe we should say it's with the democrats. You see, not only will the bill increase the funding by an additional $31.5 Billion over the next 4 1/2 years; but it will cover children of legal immigrants immediately (the law now requires the legal immigrants to be in the country for five years before they get the government coverage). It has (virtually) no income cap, meaning it makes no difference how much your family earns or how large or small your family is, if you have a child, you will be able to get them in the program. Oh, by the way, they plan on 'funding' this program with a 61 cent a pack increase on the tax on cigarettes - you know, that 'sin' habit that the various governments are trying to stamp out with ordinances that make smoking more and more difficult with fewer and fewer places that you are allowed smoke. That habit that is harmful to your health so fewer and fewer people do it. That habit that they keep raising the taxes on which encourages people to not smoke - yeah, that one, that's the one that will 'raise' enough money to pay for the increase in this program ... NOT!!!

He has signed documents to close Gitmo - maybe he can house those prisoners somewhere in the White House. How's that working for you Obama. He has signed a document allowing 'only' interrogation per the Army field manual. Which is NOT a manual for interrogation, it is a manual for handling uniformed enemy combatants when captured on the battlefield (Obama is an idiot).

And, of course, he keeps talking about pumping more and more money into the economy. Including a proposal to increase benefits (tax credits and refunds) to low income workers who don't pay any federal income taxes.

America, you voted for this man. How's it working for ya?

Pray for America, the country needs your prayers in light of the pinhead we voted in as President.

Can't make stuff like this up

2009-01-08T06:20:00.000-08:00

Sometimes life is too funny -
Here we are on the 9th day of a new year and the following has happened and is true.

The country of Mexico is telling citizens to swallow your gum when you are done chewing it. Turns out that Mexico introduced chewing gum to the world (I didn't know that, did you?). Someone also thinks that, Mexico City in particular, has a problem with used/discarded chewing gum. I can't comment, I've never been there (although I do know that sometimes these things are exaggerated). It also seems that some companies have invented machines to try to remove used gum from sidewalks (go figure). Anyway, here is a link to the story.

This is also a time for US government bailouts, one of the worst ideas to come down the pike. Yes, without them the economy would be in the dumper, but with them we are merely increasing our national debt and watching the economy slowly go down the dumper. Would you rather pull the band aid off fast or pull it off slowly? We are pulling it off slowly. First we bailed out 'financial' institutions. Then auto manufacturers lined up to ask for money. Then cities and states have gone begging. The latest?? The porn industry, gotta link to this story. It's probably as much a publicity stunt as it is anything else but it does point out (to me) the abject stupidity of this 'bail out' process that the government is putting us through.

And finally, as though porn didn't already grab some headlines, there is this. Seems that the publisher of Hustler magazine is suing his nephews because they started some porn companies using the Flynt name (which is their last name) and Larry (Hustler's publisher) feels the 'products' are inferior and doesn't live up to the 'standard' that Flynt is known for. Standard? Inferior? Okay, some folks have lot track of reality ... again, I recognize it as more of a publicity stunt as anything else.

However, considering the fact that Obama has just come out with a terrible pick for head of the CIA (Leon Panetta), another terrible pick for Attorney General (Eric Holder) and just made a new office of Chief Performance (Nancy Killefer); maybe we need (or want) these kinds of distractions. So as we watch our country fade into the night, just remember all the moonbats who voted for this President-Wanna-Be.

Your opinion is welcome.

God Bless

Merry Christmas

2008-12-25T08:46:00.000-08:00

And Happy Birthday to the True Messiah.

According to Him, I am suppose to have love in my heart and soul for everyone including the fake messiah who will soon ruin my country - as you can see, I'm having trouble with that one.

All it show is that I'm still a sinner, so I'm extra glad that the one, the only, the True Messiah did come down long ago to save me from my sins (which are numerous).

Merry Christmas to all, even our incoming phony leader.

May the Lord's Blessing be on each of you.

Obama - King of the World

2008-12-24T07:01:00.000-08:00

Reminds you of the scene from the Titanic, at least that one memorable line. However it also summarizes Obama's view of himself, of this country and of the world.

Let's go over some of what Obama has promised and in many cases is moving towards making come to fruition.

1) The UN Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This takes away our country's sovereignty and gives control of the ocean floors and riches to the UN. The 'committee' which controls LOST is dominated by corrupt dictators (think Castro) and socialist countries. Despite our size, our vote would be equal to that of Cuba. In addition the LOST policy allows the UN to tax the USA and spread those taxes to countries that find us an abomination.

2) Obama has agreed to sign the 'Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty' which will effectively stop the development of nuclear weapons in this country while Iran and North Korea continue to move full speed ahead with their weapons programs.

3) Obama is eager to sign the new 'Global Warming Treaty' which is being written at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Poland in order to replace the Kyoto Agreement. This treaty will establish "strong international norms" that Obama seeks.

4) Obama wants to radify the 'U.N. Treaty on Women', known as CEDAW. This treaty would require us "to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women," to follow U.N. dictates about "family education," to revise our textbooks to conform to feminist ideology in order to ensure "the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women" and to set up a federal "network of child-care facilities." Like all U.N. treaties, the U.N. Treaty on Women creates a monitoring commission of so-called "experts" to ensure compliance. The monitors of the Treaty on Women have already singled out Mother's Day as a stereotype that must be eliminated.

5) Another U.N. Treaty on the list is the U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which was signed in 1995 by Bill Clinton but wisely never ratified by our Senate. This is a pet project of the people who believe that the "village" (i.e., the government or U.N. "experts") should raise children rather than their parents.

This treaty would give children rights against their parents and society to express their own views "freely in all matters," to receive information of all kinds through "media of the child's choice," to use their "own language," and to have the right to "rest and leisure." This treaty even orders our schools to teach respect for "the Charter of the United Nations."

6) The signing and radification of these treaties would be supplimented supplemented by trade agreements negotiated by Obama's trade representative, Ron Kirk. He is an enthusiastic supporter of the "global economic community" (which means open borders for "free" trade), of NAFTA and even of the NAFTA Super Highway, which he calls the "true river of trade between our communities."

All of the above has been thwarted in the past by the Senate. However, with our Senate being almost split the ability to stop Obama is slim, at best. His policies, the things he believes in will push us towards a one world currency, a one world government. About the only thing I can say is that he told us that he leaned that way before he was elected; I just hope his supporters enjoy what they have put in office.

May God Bless you and yours - when Obama comes into office you will need all the blessings that you can possibly get. Go to church and pray, pray like you never have before.

Gas Prices

2008-11-30T20:38:00.000-08:00

When I last left you, I was singing the praises in my life. And I meant them. However, I'm not a Pollyanna, so the fact that we have a figure head who is as narcissistic as they come as our new president hasn't escaped me. The more I see and hear the man, the less I like him. I've come to a point to where I can't stand to hear him, if he comes on the TV or radio I change the station or turn him off. Whatever he thinks is so important I'll read about it later - THAT is how much I dislike this man. Yes, I readily admit a bad case of Obama derangement syndrome.

However, this post was just to slam Obama, it was to talk about something that I find amazing; gas prices. Yes, we all know how the prices have declined; and we are all very happy about it. But did you notice that prior to the run up in prices and all during the run up in prices the difference in gas prices from station to station were very small? Typically the stations in my area were within 2 to 3 cents of each other; that was until now.

We typically buy our gas at Cosco where we have a membership. Cosco is typically 2 to 5 cents lower than the neighborhood gas station. But with this price drop one station will be selling for $1.98 a gallon, the station down the block has it for $1.93 a gallon, the ARCO station will be selling it for $1.86 a gallon and Cosco came in at $1.71 a gallon. What is going on? A difference of 27 cents between Cosco and the highest price neighborhood station? Unheard of - in the past if the difference was 5 to 7 cents difference it was considered good.

I don't expect gas prices to remain low, I'm a realist, I just don't expect it. If it does I'll keep the price as one of the many things to thank God about. I'm just wondering, does anyone out there know why there is SUCH a difference in prices now?

God Bless you all.

Happy Thanksgiving

2008-11-27T12:16:00.000-08:00

While there certainly is much that we can (and do) complain about, today is NOT the day for that kind of noise. No, today I will concentrate on all the good things in my life. Today I will offer up a prayer of thanks to my Lord and my Savior.

I am thankful for my job. A job that I really like, a job that I enjoy doing, a job that I DO get up in the morning and look forward to. I am thankful for my daughters, both of whom are in the Army and I'm proud of them. I'm thankful that the one in Iraq is safe and sound, and the one in Texas is also safe and sound. I'm immensely proud of both of them, proud that they are serving their country and proud that they are making themselves into young adults that make me look better than I am.

I'm thankful for my wife. It's my second (and last) wife, it is the one that I should have had many years ago when I started my adult life. I'm thankful that I found her, I'm thankful for all the insights that she brings to me and my life.

I'm thankful for my friends. Thankful for the times that we've spent together and the times that I've been helped by them and vice-versa; I'm thankful for the times in the future that we have yet to spend together.

Most of all, as stated above, I'm thankful that I'm a child of God and I'm thankful for my Creator and my Savior.

May God Bless all.

Well He'd better be a messiah

2008-11-20T08:14:00.000-08:00

Is Obama the 'new' messiah? Certainly a lot of his 'followers' believe so, personally, I already have the real messiah in my life as my Lord, my savior and (yes) my master (although I don't do too well when it comes to measuring up to his standards). However, the new president of my country (notice he is NOT my president) has his work cut out for him. The country continues to fall on so many levels, more unemployment, more companies closing, increased government spending and an increase in foreclosures.

Here in my part of the world (Oregon) we've moved up to the 16th highest state for foreclosures; my wife (and I) had kept wondering how house prices kept moving up. Yeah, we're hurting, oh yeah, this country is hurting. To my mind, Obama is the worst person to have as a president during these times. All he knows is tax and spend, the problem is the money isn't going to be there for him to tax. We DON'T need new government programs during a time of high unemployment. We DON'T need more taxes on energy, during hard times. Basically, we DIDN'T need Obama as president; but time will tell.

My wife had a theory that the Republicans DIDN'T want the presidency or control of the congress during these times, just so the blame couldn't be stuck on them. Right now the economy is coming apart at the seams and people don't remember that in 2006 the economy was okay, in 2008, after two years of a democrat congress we are falling apart. I agree with my wife, let the democrats continue to kill the economy, by the time 2010 comes around we could see a real turnaround in the American people; of course it would help if some of them actually had a clue as to who has had their hand on the till as we've fallen into this waterfall.

I pray God keeps you and yours safe and sound.

Live Like You Were Dying

2008-11-17T06:49:00.000-08:00

I could go on and on about how the future of this country looks fairly bleak to me, but what good would that do beyond getting it off my chest? Yes, I think Obama is pretty much on par with the top mass murders that the world has known, based on what he will do regarding abortion, and what good will that rant do? No, instead, for me, I've decided to work on a new mental outlook; both for our world at large and my life in particular. Don't take this posting wrong, I'm not dying. I've had no terrible news regarding my life or my health, aside from the pathetic man that got voted in to run the country. However, sometimes a song touches you, this one has touched me, it gives me pause to think about how I act. Pause to think about where my priorities are. Lately I've been starting my day with it. I hope it touches you too.

May God's Blessing go with you.

The election is done, the question is - is the country done?

2008-11-09T10:11:00.000-08:00

So Obama won, while I clearly think that he was a pathetic choice for this country, he was elected. As one posting (not on this blog) put it, in a 5th grade class election (for class president) one kid put out ideas on how to make the class better, the other candidate merely said, "Elect me and everyone in the class will get ice cream." The 'ice cream' person won; although the teacher did question her (before the class election) as to who was going to pay for the ice cream, how much was each student going to get, what flavors would be available. The 'ice cream' candidate didn't have any answers to any of those questions but, regardless, the 'ice cream' candidate won in a landslide. In our country we have now elected the 'ice cream' candidate.

Which brings up another point, the media (aka Obama's cheerleaders) claimed that Obama won "by a landslide". Actually, no he didn't. You want to see a landslide look at the Carter versus Reagan election where Carter only won 7 states. Look at the McGovern versus Nixon, where McGovern only won 2 states. Those were landslides, in this election Obama won 28 states and McCain won 22, do you REALLY call that a landslide??? I don't think so!

So I really think we are in for four years of ... hard times. Please note that I had trouble figuring out if I wanted to use the words, terror, tragedy, depression or exactly what phrase or term I wanted to use. Bottom line, no matter who was elected this country is going (and will be for some time) through some pretty hard times. No matter who was elected, neither man had any real good answers; although the one who did get elected had fewer answers and fewer specifics than the man who didn't get elected.

This is being posted only four days after the election has been held and Obama has given two speeches. One right after getting elected and one a couple days later (supposedly) addressing the economy. In both speeches he gave us exactly what he gave us during the campaign which is to say he put out a lot of pretty words, lots of 'feel good' words, but absolutely no concrete ideas and plans.

Overall, I think this will be a hard time for this country. Obama is the president of my country, but it will take a lot for me to declare him as MY president; there is certainly a difference. The left suffered (or at least they believed that they did) under the Republicans for 8 years, now I get to catch the Obama derangement syndrome.

Pray for America because I think we made a terrible choice.

Yet another reason I wouldn't vote for Obama

2008-11-02T08:18:00.000-08:00

If you look at all the posts below, you KNOW that I despise Barrack Hussain Obama. I loathe the man! I can't think of a candidate in the last 30 years who would (or did) make a worse president. He will be worse than Jimmy Carter, I lived through Jimmy and he was and unmitigated disaster.

I'm not gaga over McCain (although I am over Palin) but McCain is not a bad republican candidate; he's just not the best. Compared to Obama, he is a conservatives dream. Had Rudy been the republican candidate against Obama, I would have not voted for the first time in my life. Rudy is being a loyal republican, but he is pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage; basically he is Barrack lite.

But I digress, even if there had been no other reasons why I would not have voted for Hussain, the press would have given me one. I was brought up when the news was the news. The role of the press was to report an incident, good, bad or indifferent, they were merely suppose to report "the facts" and let the chips fall where they may. Let the people decide what they (the American Public) thought of the situation. Now I've known for a very long time that that ideal for the press is gone. I've known that the press has such a liberal bias that it's not even funny; but the way they have acted during this campaign has been deplorable. The press did everything but move him into the white house prior to the primaries being over. Their treatment of Barrack was been obscene, the way the continually shower him with praise and gloss over (or pay no attention) to the various problems with the man.

I have a good brain, I use it. I don't need the press to tell me who is the better candidate, I need the press to tell me the FACTS surrounding the candidates. A job that they failed on and failed miserably. If I had to grade the press on this presidential campaign, I'd give them a "G" only because it's the letter lower than a "F".

On the plus side, if Hussain wins (and I'm praying like crazy that he doesn't), I get to enter into the Hussain derangement syndrome. It's similar to the Bush derangement syndrome that the liberals have been in for the last eight years; but this time there will be reasons behind it.

Save America, vote McCain/Palin.

The Obama Infomercial

2008-10-29T20:54:00.000-07:00

Did you see it? Did it make you swoon, like it did for all the Obamaites out there? Me? No, I had much better things to do, clean the litter box, take the dog for a walk, take a shower, pretty much anything but watch a socialist on TV. However, after the infomercial, I did run across something that surprised the heck out of me. It seems the AP actually (and finally) checked up on some of the 'promises' that Obama made; it seems 'The One' ... is lying (gasp).

Here is the article, I copied it verbatim.

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are -- beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years -- and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals -- the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more -- cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged -- although not in his commercial -- that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

Here is the link to the actual posting from an ABC affiliate. Could this mean that Americans are finally waking up to the fact that this man doesn't really have a plan? Could we Americans finally be shaking off the pied piper tune that this man plays? I can only hope and pray.

As I've shown in all my previous posts, the man is bad for America. The man is full of promises without any idea how he will carry out those promises. Basically an emperor with no clothes, but finally the media has noticed that he has no clothes.

You want to keep America strong - vote McCain/Palin.

Obama is a Killer

2008-10-27T21:30:00.000-07:00

Let's see, we get pretty words, we get a man who can read from a teleprompter, REAL well (but is a stuttering individual without it). We get a man who touts socialist credos and ideas but is loath to admit that he is a socialist.

We also get a:

Killer of Babies with his promise to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act".
Killer of America as a nation in favor of 'another member of the UN'.
Killer of jobs in the form of higher taxes for businesses which will result in fewer jobs and layoffs.
Killer of Energy in refusing to drill for oil or site nuclear reactors for energy.
Killer of Security by wanting to take away guns and allowing illegal aliens to have drivers licenses
Killer of Prosperity by favoring higher federal income taxes, higher social security taxes, higher capital gains taxes, tax credits for those who don't already pay taxes, new taxes on energy (cap and trade) and a Global Poverty Tax, to name a few.
Killer of the 1st Amendment with the promise to revive the "Fairness Doctrine".
Killer of Israel via his comments and his many anti-Israel 'advisers'.
Killer of Traditional Marriage with his promise to revoke the 'Defense of Marriage' Act.
Killer of Defense as he will cut the military and moral and re-enlistments will decline under him.
Killer of Dreams as a socialist country it will make no sense to work harder and try to improve, you won't be able to.

Barrack Hussain Obama will be the Killer of America.

For my sake, for your sake, for the sake of this country, Vote McCain/Palin.

Absolute PROOF that Obama is a Socialist

2008-10-27T06:45:00.000-07:00

Here is an NPR interview with Obama, done in 2001 where he dismisses whether the redistribution of wealth is within the scope of the Constitution (in fact he basically admits that it's not what is written in the Constitution); but he discusses how the government can circumvent the Constitution to force the redistribution of wealth.

Be careful what you wish for and be careful who you vote for, Obama is poison.

Vote for McCain/Palin

Obama is an honest liar

2008-10-26T09:24:00.000-07:00

Since the man talks out of both sides of his mouth, he is an honest liar, if there can be such a thing. What amazes me is that not only does he talk out of both sides of his mouth, he pretty much does it at the same time. The man is a socialist, pure and simple, the ONLY thing he will not own up to is the actual title of being a socialist.

Here is a video that shows him saying I will and I won't pretty much at the same time; the video says it better than I can.

If you want this country to survive, vote McCain/Palin.

Obama - a bad choice, he will raise your taxes

2008-10-24T05:46:00.000-07:00

Let's see, not only will he help to kill millions and millions more of the unborn, not only will he encourage the gay lifestyle (via killing the defense of marriage act) but he will raise taxes when he claims that he won't. Oh, you don't need to believe me, because I have someone who is much more in tune with the numbers who shows that Obama WILL raise your taxes.

Stanford professor Michael Boskin ran the numbers and here is an excerpt of what he wrote,

"Obama would raise the top marginal rates on earnings, dividends and capital gains passed in 2001 and 2003 and phase out itemized deductions for high income taxpayers. He would uncap Social Security taxes, which currently are levied on the first $102K of earnings. The result is a remarkable reduction in work incentives for our most economically productive citizens. The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phaseout and Obama’s new Social Security tax increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.3%.

People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.7 cents, a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage! Despite the rhetoric, that’s not just on “rich” individuals. It’s also on a lot of small businesses and two-earner middle aged middle class couples in their peak earnings years in high cost-of-living areas."

Here is the address of the Professor's website so you can read the entire paper. http://www.stanford.edu/~boskin/

To be fair, the professor was pointing his analysis at states with high state income taxes like his own, California. However, despite having low or no state income taxes, your take home will shrink from 55.4 cents on the dollar to ???? After you add all the new programs that he wants to add ... then I guess he will be able to keep another of his promises, to simplify the tax forms. They will truly turn into the old joke, line 1, how much did you make? Line 2, send it in.

Yeah, thanks Americans who want Obama - be careful of what you wish for, you might just get it (because Obama doesn't get America).

Keep America, America. Vote for McCain/Palin.

Obama the Socialist

2008-10-13T15:41:00.000-07:00

Many of us have cried out that Obama is a socialist. That he wants to re-distribute the wealth throughout America. If you've worked your ass off and are doing okay, get ready, Obama wants to take from you and give to the worthless, dregs on society who want to party and contribute nothing to society. Proof that Obama is a socialist can be found here:

Here are people on the left and right discussing the interview. Please notice that the democratic stragitice almost slipping with the term 'wealth re-distribution'.

Again, Obama shows that without a script, without a teleprompter he is lost, LOST. Or maybe he isn't, maybe he's just honest without a script.

Vote for America, Vote McCain/Palin

Obama will ruin this country

2008-10-12T08:30:00.000-07:00

The more I study this man, the more I'm sure he will absolutely ruin this country with his policies. This country's economy is faltering, stumbling the last things that we need are exactly what Obama proposes - more money for national health care, more money for education, more money for abortions, more money for international poverty, more money, more money, more money.

I went through his website looking at what he proposes - if he gives $ numbers, I will note them, if not I'll just say that he says he is going to increase funding.

His site says that he is going to increase the the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. He will create a Military Families Advisory Board to provide a conduit for military families' concerns to be brought to the attention of senior policymakers and the public. He will provide greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft. He will will add the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises. He will create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): An Obama-Biden administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad. And those are just the promises outlined under his policies for Defense. Each and every one of them requires money, in some cases quite a bit of money; he never says where this money will come from (wanna guess?).

His policies regarding the economy are truly scary to me, let's go over them. Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief. Provide $50 billion to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs: This relief would include a $25 billion State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education, housing, and heating assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. The Obama-Biden relief plan will also include $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund school repair - all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut. Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000: Barack Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This proposal will eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors and provide these seniors with an average savings of $1,400 each year. Under the Obama-Biden plan, 27 million American seniors will also not need to file an income tax return. Invest in our Next Generation Innovators and Job Creators: Obama and Biden will create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies. The Fund will have a peer-review selection and award process based on the Michigan 21st Century Jobs Fund, a state-level initiative that has awarded over $125 million to Michigan businesses with the most innovative proposals to create new products and new jobs in the state. Double Funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership: The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) works with manufacturers across the country to improve efficiency, implement new technology and strengthen company growth. Invest In A Clean Energy Economy And Create 5 Million New Green Jobs: Obama and Biden will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama-Biden plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will address the infrastructure challenge by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. This independent entity will be directed to invest in our nation’s most challenging transportation infrastructure needs. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation. These projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity. Invest in the Sciences: Barack Obama and Joe Biden support doubling federal funding for basic research and changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology. Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will eliminate all capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses to encourage innovation and job creation. Obama and Biden will also support small business owners by providing a $500 “Making Work Pay” tax credit to almost every worker in America. Create a National Network of Public-Private Business Incubators: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will support entrepreneurship and spur job growth by creating a national network of public-private business incubators. Business incubators facilitate the critical work of entrepreneurs in creating start-up companies. Obama and Biden will invest $250 million per year to increase the number and size of incubators in disadvantaged communities throughout the country. Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave: As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama and Biden will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers. Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama and Biden will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve a million more children.

Okay, I can't go on, at least for now, the expenses that he highlights, will just break this country. The bold facetype was his taken from his website. On just the ideas that he has put a price tag on the price is $46 Billion without taking into account things like his million dollar programs or programs where I can't fathom the costs (like $1000 energy rebate to each family - and was that each year or a one time thing, whatever). Later I will go through some more of his programs but for now, I'm exausted.

If you LOVE America, vote McCain/Palin.

Obama the Used Car Salesman

2008-10-07T20:37:00.000-07:00

We had the second debate between the presidential candidates tonight, Obama claimed he came from modest means, well I guess it's how you classify someone's 'means'. He went to private schools, his grandmother (whom he lived with for quite some time) was a vice-president at a bank in Hawaii and was able to put him in a very private school. I don't know about you, but to me this isn't 'modest'.

Obama classified health care as a right. McCain classfied it as a responsibility. News to Obama, no where in the constitution of this great country does it make health care a right. I agree that the health care system needs some work; but Obama's solution is much worse than the system that we have now (and a lot more expensive - see yesterday's posting).

One person asked Obama how the bail out bill was going to help him (the voter). Here is the exact question, "Well, Senators, through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out." Obama starts out by saying, "Well, Oliver, first, let me tell you what's in the rescue package for you." He then talks about credit markets, about companies not being able to make payroll, about companies closing. He finishes with this remark, "So it could end up having an adverse effect on everybody, and that's why we had to take action." Excuse me Obama, we KNOW that it COULD adversely affect us, not all of us sit and play video games all day, but you still didn't answer the question or even tell Oliver what was in the package for him. Yup, Obama the used car salesman, he'll tell you lots of words and they don't carry any real meaning or weight.

Another question was, "How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?" So how does Obama answer it? "When George Bush came into office, our debt -- national debt was around $5 trillion. It's now over $10 trillion. We've almost doubled it. ... So here's what I would do. I'm going to spend some money on the key issues that we've got to work on. You know, you may have seen your health care premiums go up. We've got to reform health care to help you and your budget. We are going to have to deal with energy because we can't keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children's future. We've got to have a different energy plan. We've got to invest in college affordability. So we're going to have to make some investments, but we've also got to make spending cuts. And what I've proposed, you'll hear Sen. McCain say, well, he's proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I'm cutting more than I'm spending so that it will be a net spending cut." So he admits that he is going to spend, spend, spend some more and where will he find this money?? He will cut some spending, but no where, not in this debate, not on his website does he tell us what programs he'd even consider cutting.

Barrack was his usual, 'I'm going to tell you something but I didn't tell you anything' self. Take the next question, "Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?" And as usual, Barrack dances all around the question and never actually answers it. "And let's take the example of energy, which we already spoke about. There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy." That was basically his answer, he 'fleshed it out' by talking about how we need drilling, but harped on oil companies not drilling on land they have - excuse me, how relate to the question of 'sacrafice'? He talked about 'clean coal', again, that relates to the public making sacrifices how? He then brought up winterizing our buildings/homes and fuel efficient cars - WHERE IS THE SACRIFICE BARRACK???? He finished by talking about volunteering in the military or the Peace Corp - noble goals, but sacrafice?? The man just can't answer a question.

And so the questions went and so Barrack refused to answer them. It is just one stump speech after another with that man. He is full of platitudes and painfully short on details.

If you want America to become Amerikka - then vote for Obama.

If you want America to be the proud and noble country it's alway been, then vote McCain.

Which of these men would you buy a used car from - if you want to be able to drive it further than one block from the lot, you better NOT buy from Obama. If you buy from Obama the only way it makes it off the lot is when he is pushing you.

Obama the Sly

2008-10-05T21:44:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I'm sitting there watching TV, minding my own business when this ad comes on TV. I don't really know who it's for, but I'm pretty sure it's a political ad because it's talking about healthcare. It shows what it typifies as the two, extremes I guess, ends of what it (the commercial) wants us to believe the extreme views of healthcare are. At one end it shows government run health care, higher taxes and the other end is insurance companies without rules, denying coverage. Then it portrays the messiah, er I mean Obama, as being between the two, the man's plan is in the happy middle. Excuse me, but I don't think so.

Let's look at Obama's 'plan' - his plan is to "establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage." But Obama says, if you like your current insurance, and current doctor, nothing would change. The senator claims that Americans could save up to $2,500 on their premiums.

Several problems Mr. Obama, while it sounds good, it misses several major points - not the least of which is how he intends to pay for this; especially in the face of a whithering economy. How are you going to pay for it Mr. Obama, get down to the brass tacks, tell me where this money is coming from??? Another 'problem' Mr. Obama, is that once your 'public plan' is in place where is the incentive for a business to get a different plan than the one 'offered' by the government (the public plan)? As a business owner I know I'll have offer my employees a health plan which (to use terms from your own campaign site) "Employers who do not offer meaningful coverage to their employees will have to contribute a percentage of their payroll to help offset the cost of providing coverage to all Americans." So why try to find an insurance company, just pay the percentage of my payroll (aka a tax) to the government and have all my employees get on the 'public plan'. It saves me time, hassle, headaches and all I have to do is pay the government a bit more money. Obama foolishly thinks that employers won't go this direction, but they will; and when they do we suddenly have millions and millions on the 'public plan' roll and medical care ends up a lot like the DMV. Not good.

Another problem, a large majority of people who presently don't have health care are either unemployed or are illegal aliens. I notice that his plan doesn't specifically address either of those cases. No, there would no reason for an employer to keep private plans, we would end up with a bankrupting system that would do a very poor job of serving everyone.

Hey, I'm not thrilled with the system we run now, but getting rid of illegal aliens would be one way to start cutting the present costs of health care. No Mr. Obama you are singing the promises without telling us where the money is coming from or how you are going to handle the 'unforseen' consequences (at least unforseen by you).

Save America vote for McCain/Palin.

Obama and the Supreme Court

2008-10-04T09:35:00.000-07:00

How often have we had issues, laws, statutes, bills, actions that end up in front of the supreme court? Making the killing of innocent babies legal, the recent decisions that reaffirm gun rights (which Obama would take away - his mouth says different, but his record shows that he will), property rights - the Kelo decision (which Obama loved, in a socialist society the government owns and runs everything), the decision to allow prisoners of of war (held in Gitanamo Bay) to have the same rights in court that an American citizen gets (Obama was happy with the decision - in typical fashion he is wrong). All these issues and more find themselves in front of the Supreme Court. At the end of the day, the court not the people, not the legislators, not the president, the court is the body that decides what is and isn't law.

Liberals love to chant that the constitution is a living document. As Justice Scalia said in a recent interview, 'No it's not. It's a dead piece of paper that just sits there.' If you wish to change the constitution then go through the steps to add or delete an amendment; however in the minds of too many people, that process takes too long, so they put it before the Supreme Court with the hope that the 'change' will be made there.

The Supreme Court has a difficult task, it needs to take this 'dead' document and try to apply it to situations and circumstances that didn't exist when the Constitution was written. Abortion, electronic email, electronic survallience, intellectual property rights, copywrites to name a few. The Justices need to look at the Constitution, look at previous lower court rulings put common sense into the mix and come up with a ruling. Ideally, the justice will do this without any bias, but in an ideal world we also wouldn't have any crime, so this ideal falls short - thus the picking of a justice for the court has to include the person's ideology.

For me, and for John McCain, the closer the justice is to following the Constitution the better; that is the kind of person I want on the bench. Not so Barrack Obama. No Mr. Obama wants "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." (the link to this quote is http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexmaccallum/CtN5).
One would assume that Obama will also consider someone's record and background, but did you know there are no actual 'requirements' to become a justice. Granted, whomever the president nominates needs to pass a congressional review before he/she is sworn in; but with a democratic congress, Obama would pretty much get whatever he wants.

Obama has a few chances to vote, as a senator, on the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, let's look at his record and his remarks. He voted against Justice Alito, his comments were "In sum, I've seen an extraordinarily consistent attitude on the part of Judge Alito that does not uphold the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for the United States citizen, and for that reason, I will be voting against his confirmation." (link at http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060131-supreme_court_n/). Excuse me? The Supreme Court is a 'bastion of equality and justice for the United States citizen'? Since when? I always thought they merely interpetted the law via the Constitution. Does anyone wonder why I fear this man becoming president? Obama also voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts with the following explanation, that deciding the "truly difficult" cases requires resort to "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." In short, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." In a word the man is wrong, not just wrong but seriously flawed in his thinking.

Again, if you want to save America (and I sure hope you do), do not vote for Obama.

Vote for McCain/Palin.

The VP Debate

2008-10-03T19:05:00.000-07:00

It seems only right that since the VP debate between Palin and Biden was last night that I should comment on it; so I will. If you read my previous post you know that I think the world of Palin but was concerned about the way that she had been coming off in various interviews. My belief was that if she were allowed to be herself, if the folks advising her would get out of her way that she would turn in a stellar performance. Last night she proved me correct.

When the debate started I groaned. The first few questions that she was asked, she looked like she was reading wrote items off cards for the answers. She would also side-step or brush by a question and end up answering with something from her cards; it wasn't fun to watch. But then, all of a sudden, it was like she either got angry (not sure if it was anger at herself, at the moderator, at Biden or exactly who) or got over the lights and big crowd but suddenly a switch flipped and Sarah came through. She used the cards throughout the rest of the night to answer questions when she had to refer to some facts, but her words flowed smoothly and her thoughts were very coherent. She was talking to the American people, to regular people using 'regular people' talk rather than that 'Government speak' that Biden and that all career politicians speak. They don't speak like we speak to each other, oh, some of it sounds like it but in the end it's pretty much gibberish, which is the way the want it to be. No, Sarah spoke to us like we speak to each other, from the heart, with feeling and minus the smoke and mirrors that politicians like Biden speak in.

The debate was semi-meaningless, except for the lies that Biden told (14 documented ones). It was a non-debate. It certainly wasn't debate as I'd learned it. But it did put Palin back on track and it did help the McCain/Palin ticket. Biden hurt his ticket today when his lies were exposed, but Obama (aka the world's biggest liar) is the top of his ticket so it was no surprise.

Will McCain/Palin win, I don't know. I can only hope that they will because I know how horrible it will be in the country if Obama/Biden wins.

Vote for McCain/Palin.

Obama - what a horrible man

2008-10-02T07:45:00.000-07:00

Let's take a look at how pro-abortion Barrack Obama is. He is quoted as saying "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." He said this in a July 2008 speech, so what is the 'Freedom of Choice Act'? The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

Besides making abortion on demand a "fundamental right" throughout the United States, FOCA would effectively nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods, health safety regulations for abortion clinics, etc.

Furthermore, medical professionals and institutions that refused abortions also would lose legal protections. FOCA would expose individuals, organizations, and governments - including federal, state, and local government agencies - to costly civil actions for purported violations of the act.

In case you doubt that Obama made such a proclamation, here is a clip of him addressing the baby killing organization NARAL

In addition, Obama supports infanticide without (of course) using the word; however you certainly don't need to use the word to show your intent and your meaning. He has consistently voted against bills (both at the state level, when he was a state senator and at the national level as a US senator) that would recognize an infant, born, living and breathing from a botched abortion as a human being. For the record, I recognize an entity as a human being from the moment of conception, the reason being that this embryo, this zygote would grow into a human being and nothing else, given the chance to grow. If you abort, you are killing a human being, not just any human being but your own offspring. Here is a Washington Post article outlining Obama's extreme views.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html

Here is a discussion regarding Obama and infanticide

Finally, if you really had any questions about how he feels about infants, children and abortion listen to him talk about if one of his daughters became pregnant (when they are older)

So babies are a punishment. No Senator Obama, I think you running for president is God's way of punishing America.

God Bless America = Vote Against Barrack Obama

Sarah Palin

2008-09-29T07:35:00.000-07:00

I noticed that I hadn't posted since the candidates picked their VP nominees. I'll start with Joe Biden, mainly because he is so forgettable. Outside his gaffs, like when he talked about Roosevelt getting on TV during the depression, sorry Joe, Hoover was president when the depression started AND that TV hadn't been invented yet, well Joe is Joe. He obviously couldn't win at the game show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader' and he has no real notable accomplishments despite being in the Congress for 35 years and it appears (to me) that his biggest accomplishment is that he's kept the seat warm. He seems like an okay guy, but as a VP candidate he doesn't impress me, he certainly doesn't make me feel like I want to vote for the democrat ticket because of him.

Now let's look at the republican VP nominee. McCain chose Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, basically a great pick from any angle that you want to look at it. First, she is a woman, second, she is a mom of 5 kids, third, one of her kids has Downs Syndrome, fourth, she is not a lawyer (come to think of it, neither is McCain - we have two non-lawyers versus two lawyers). Sarah comes across as an 'every mom'. She has fought her own party (as has McCain), she does not 'toe the line' (as do Obama and Biden), she looks at the picture as it is made available to her and tells you honestly what she thinks (unlike Obama and Biden). She is a hunter (pro 2nd amendment - yeah!), she is an avid outdoors woman, she is a fisher woman, she knows the wilderness and like those of us who have grown up and lived with the wilderness, she knows that the environmentalists are wrong about so many of their ideas. Did I mention that she wasn't hard on the eyes either. She has been described as Truman in a skirt and I would concur with that idea. The interviews that she has done, up to now, she has been criticized for, but in my never-to-be-humble opinion, the criticism is unwarranted and would be cast upon anyone of the opposite party (the criticism has come from the democrats, what a surprise).

I believe that the McCain camp has been holding her back, coaching her which she really doesn't need. During the Curic interview, she kept looking at 3X5 cards (or so it certainly seemed) and her answers were less than ... candid. That is NOT Governor Palin, turn her loose. Educate her on the issues, make sure she knows McCain's stand, but let Sarah be Sarah. She is at her best when she is just being honest.

I don't pretend to know who will win the election. I don't pretend to like or really even respect Obama (I don't). I do know that McCain is twice the leader that Obama is and that Palin has has energized the base and gained the support of thousands of women who see themselves in her. The ticket has also gained the support of many in the democrat party who supported Hillary and thought she got a raw deal (she did).

Pretty much only the liberals whined about Palin as McCain's pick; and pretty much they whinned because they were ready to dump dirt on the other leading contenders. McCain showed his wisdom, which comes with experience when he picked Palin. She is a great candidate, she is an everyday person and she is three times as qualified as Obama to run the country should it come to that.

Vote for McCain/Palin

Obama = America is a disaster

2008-09-28T08:55:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I've been following the campaigns and the various goings on in the world; mainly the US. I watched the Saddleback forum and the first debate. I've heard all the various spin-artists crow that their candidate won. As Bill O'Reilly put it, 'their man could have a seizure, have laid there comatose with drool dripping from his mouth and their camp would claim he won the debate because he was stoic'; how true.

To me Obama has come across as a Manchurian Candidate. Not in the sense that in the film where he became an assassin; but in the sense that Obama seems to be a bit brainwashed and is painfully politically ambitious. He is hugely lacking on details and hughly grandious on his ideas. Without prepared statements he stumbles, constantly. He appears unsure of how he is going to do things when pressed for the details; not a good thing for a president.

Take for example his promise to (from his website) - 'Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.' - Notice something missing? How about a couple somethings. Hey the statement sounds good, doesn't it? But let's analyze the statement. First, where is he going to get the $150 Billion dollars? Break it down, it's suppose to be over 10 years, so that's $15 Billion dollars a year; quite a bit of money that is suppose to mysteriously appear. Second, he has the government investing the money in 'private efforts'???? Notice he doesn't clarify if he is talking about large companies or private individuals. He doesn't say what this 'clean energy future' is, are we talking hydrogen fuel, or solar, or wind? How much money goes to each of those and how much money goes to someone (or corporation) who is developing something that hasn't even been thought of yet? Notice his program is a 10 year program, even though the maximum amount of time that he can be president (God Forbid) would be 8 years; how is he able to guarantee that whoever the next president is will carry on his program? No, the man is a talking head with only talking points.

Here is another one of his platform points - 'Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal.' Excuse me, there is another $25 Billion (as it states that we will be doubling the amount) that he has miraculously pulled out of the thin air. You know what they say, a Billion here and a Billion there and pretty soon you are talking about some real money. No, Obama is the typical spend, spend, spend liberal who eventually finds that we need to tax the crap out of people later to fund all these uber ideas.

I will talk about the Supreme Court and his support for infanticide among other topics later. I've been gone too long on this blog, I will post daily until the election.

Feel free to comment.

A Dichotomy

2008-07-06T09:35:00.000-07:00

Dichotomy - definition - A division into two (usually) contradictory parts or categories.

A dichotomy is what I see members of both political parties are in, and I truly wonder what will happen and why voters will vote as they will. Lets go over it by the numbers.

Republicans - as we all know, the candidate is John McCain. What are his major pluses? He is a war hero. His time in the military (and the background of his family in the military) makes him a VERY strong candidate when looking at commander-and-chief. He has a lot of time as a senator and as such has a good feel and experience with foreign relations. He is pro 2nd amendment (of course if you are an anti-2nd amendment person this would be a negative, but I'm going to list it as a pro). Values, McCain supports, what I will call, traditional values, including marriage being defined as between one man and one woman (again, if you think differently you would see this as a negative, for me it's a positive). McCain supports strict constructionists for judges (again if your view is different then this is a negative for you). He has a proven track record of reaching across the isle and working with the democrats.

What are his negatives? One of the first things that typically come up is his age. Based on that I personally believe that his vice-president mate will be an important choice and MAY have an effect on the election. His stand on climate-change has the cap-and-trade idea tied to it (if you think this is a good idea, again you would count this as a plus). Illegal Immigration, while he gets points for wanting to build the fence and increase border enforcement, he gets negative points for essentially ignoring (to some degree) the millions of illegals already here. Health Care - while he acknowledges that the system is broken, his ideas for reform have been proposed before and not really had much traction; my fear is that (especially in light of a democrat congress).

Democrats, as we all know the candidate is Barrack Obama. What are his major pluses? He is an excellent speaker when giving a written speech. He is young (which some see as a plus). He talks about change and about hope. He has a national health care plan, it's relatively specific but it's not totally inclusive - and the ways to fund it are a bit hazy (however it is a plan so many look at it as a plus). He has promised to make college more affordable by providing a $4000 tax credit for everyone. He has promised to invest $150 Billion over the next 10 years in clean energy. He promises to increase the rights of unions and to increase miniumum wage and establish 'family living wages'. He promises to expand and extend unemployment insurance. This and so much more he promises.

What are his negatives? He has NO experience in or with the military; making his choice as commander-and-cheif less than positive for many people (to be fair, we have had other presidents with no military experience but many look at it as a negative). He has VERY limited experience in the government (some look at that as a postive, many look at it as a negative). He is a horrible improptu speaker, meaning one who can speak without a prepared speech - once he is outside a script the man is totally lost (giving people an idea that he doesn't have a real good grasp of the topics). He does NOT have a track record of reaching across the isle. He does have a track record of being the MOST liberal senator in congress. He has lots and lots of ideas but has very little in the way of plans to fund those ideas.

So where does this leave the typical voter? If you are a hard core democrat you will vote for whomever the democrats put in front of you. If you are a hard core republican, you will hold your nose and vote for the republican nominee. Outside of those two extremes, we have the democrats who are ticked off because Hillary didn't get the nomination. Fully 40% (or more) will not vote for Obama - however, I believe only half of that 40% will vote for McCain. They will either withhold their votes all together (from the presidential race) or will stay home and not vote at all. The moderate republicans are caught been a rock and a hard place. They are not keen on McCain at all, however when they look at the alternative the question they have to answer is ... should I vote for a psuedo-republican or let the democrats get the office and allow the country to see how bad it can get in the next four years?

So far, as of this posting - Obama is running a strong campaign but continually puts his foot in his mouth (57 states, I'll pull troops out of Iraq ... well, I may have to look at that, I defend Reverend Wright ... I disavow him, etc) and the press continually gives him a pass. McCain has been almost invisible, part because he isn't as well funded (another place that Obama did an about face) and partly because ... well, I guess because he's John McCain.

As for me, I will be voting for McCain - partly because I have a 'dog-in-this-fight' as I have two daughters who are proudly serving in the US Army. Partly because Obama's lack of experience in life, in government and in fleshing out his promises scare me. I'm not thrilled about John McCain but I'm scared stiff about Obama.

I feel that no matter who gets elected this country is in for a rough four years. However the road with Obama will be a rougher road than with McCain.

Just a note ...

2008-02-25T21:41:00.000-08:00

Hello, anyone miss me?? Ah, I thought not - no matter, the blog is just as it's always been, a place to express some thoughts. Goodness, over a year since I posted last ...

Many things have happened since then, both to me, to my family, to the world as a whole. We are approaching another election. Again, for me, it will be a choice of the lessor of the bad guys. Again, I will end up choosing the Republican because the Democrats have some very socialists for their choices.

At this point McCain is the Republican nominee, and I have many issues with him. The real odd turnabout was with the Democrats; a year ago Hillary had a lock on the nomination and now it looks like Obama will win it.

Obama is an odd fellow to my way of looking at it. He reminds me (and I know many of you won't understand this) of the show Steinfeld, which I watched rarely. The reason I watched it rarely was when I did watch it, it was a show about ... nothing. When I pointed this out to the enthusiastic followers of the show, they all exclaimed "Exactly, that's why we like it, it's a show about nothing." (aside from the supposed lives of the characters). Obama reminds me of the Steinfeld show, to me, he is ... nothing. He is this era's answer to the political slogan, 'a chicken in every pot' - Obama is promising all things to all people. He is going to provide jobs, provide housing, provide education, wages, tax cuts (unless you make over $100,000 a year), healthcare, green power - damn, there isn't anything this man hasn't promised. If you asked him for a pony or a cure for cancer it wouldn't surprise me if he promised that too. The problem with all his promises is that he is VERY weak on exactly HOW he is going to do it.

I don't care that Obama is black, I don't care that Hillary is a woman. I'd much rather have a person - black, white, blue, green, male, female, I-don't-care - just a person who can really do the job and has a clue how to make things happen. Okay so I'll admit that I'm asking for too much, but I'm also wise enough to know that Obama flat doesn't have a clue. Unfortunately, so far he hasn't been pushed to having to provide answers, and even when he attempts (and typically fails) to provide some details his supporters don't really hear what he says. You don't believe me? Ask 10 of them how he is planning on providing 'affordable housing'? Not one of them has a clue, but they love him for saying it.

What do you think?

Why It Will Be Tough For Me To Ever (again) Be A Liberal

2007-01-15T21:39:00.000-08:00

Again? You ask? Yes, WAY back in my youth, before I had truly tasted what life had to offer, I was a liberal. When I was more concerned with ME instead of the real world - what it held, what it had to offer, what I had to do to make it a better place for my children and others ... back then I held the liberal view point. I've changed as I've grown and experienced the world and the following is just one more example of how I can't quite grasp the liberal mindset (any more).

The following are excerpts from a news story talking about the death by hanging of two of Saddam's cohorts. One was the head of the Revolutionary Court, the other was Saddam's half brother who was the former intelligence chief. Both were found guilty of the murder of 148 Shiite Muslims after a failed assassination attempt on a former leader of a town (the leader of the town was a Saddam buddy). The story was noted not merely because of the hangings (liberals hate those things) but because Saddam's brother had his body and head separated when it happened. The following are excerpts from the story and my thoughts and comments after the excerpt.

After the trap doors opened, al-Bandar could be seen dangling from the rope. Ibrahim's body was lying on the floor, chest down, his severed head yards away. Okay so his head and body separated, so ...? He's dead, he's just as dead as if his body had been 'dangling' - what difference did it make? The results were the same!

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the gallows were built to international standards and in accordance with human rights organizations. Uh, excuse me, what was that again? The human rights organizations have standards for how a gallows is built? News to me, as a construction inspector I wonder if the gallows were inspected - maybe that is where they went wrong. Human rights organization standards, sorry I laughed over that one.

The two men were to have been hanged along with Saddam on Dec. 30, but Iraqi authorities decided to execute Saddam alone on what National Security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie called a "special day." Boy I couldn't agree more with that statement, the day that butcher died was indeed a special day and I saluted it.

As head of Iraq's Mukhabarat intelligence service, Ibrahim was one of the most feared men in Iraq, who had personally supervised torture sessions with electric shocks in Baghdad in the 1980s.

One witness at the Dujail trial said Ibrahim had eaten grapes while the man screamed in agony. Another witness described how he beat her and broke her ribs after she was hung naked from the ceiling by her feet. And this puke is one that liberals and human rights organizations (who's standards were followed to build the gallows) would want to save from death because why??? Death was too good for him, he should have been turned over to some of the folks he tortured and allowed them to do to him what he had done to them; but the liberals would have had a stroke if we allowed that to happen so killing him was the next best thing.

Last week, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani urged the government to delay the executions.

"In my opinion we should wait," Talabani said Wednesday at a news conference with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. "We should examine the situation," he said without elaborating. Glad they didn't listen, in my opinion while the justice is swift, it's not swift enough, I liked the justice of the old West, found guilty and out to the nearest tree. Don't mess around, it just lets liberals stir up nonsense.

Saddam's execution ... showed the former dictator being taunted on the gallows. So? It's not a golf tournament, we don't all have to be quiet while the scene unfolds. Considering what he did to his 'people' this was entirely appropriate.

A lawyer for the two men told The Associated Press recently that they were taken from their cells and told they were going to be hanged on the same day Saddam was executed.

Al-Bandar and Ibrahim were taken back to their prison cells nearly nine hours later, according to Ghazawi.

"Their execution should be commuted under such circumstances because of the psychological pain they endured as they waited to hang," he said. Hahahahaha - THEY endured psychological pain? What about the psychological pain they inflicted on an entire country over many decades; let's add in the physical pain they also inflicted on thousands and thousands of their own countrymen and again I say death came too quickly for these two.

After Saddam's execution but before Ibrahim and al-Bandar's, Human Rights Watch released a report calling the speedy trial and subsequent hanging of Saddam proof of the new Iraqi government's disregard for human rights. Uh, excuse me? You want to see two buffoons who had NO regard for human rights, it would be these two warts on the face of humanity. Of course to the liberal mindset, they were lives - no, they were scum and deserved a death worse than the one they got.

"The tribunal repeatedly showed its disregard for the fundamental due process rights of all of the defendants," said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program. No dude, they tried and executed them according to their own laws, you don't like it then I suggest you don't live there. Please let me know what country you rule, one can obviously be the worst kind of human being and still know that not even a slap on the wrist will be forth coming.

Yup, reading about the liberals whining over the death of these two slime bags only makes me more sure that it will be a very cold day when I agree with this kind of shallow thinking.

Am I wrong?? Let me know why?

Democrats with a New Direction For America

2007-01-11T19:40:00.000-08:00

I lifted this from another source, it makes one think.

The Democrats new promise: “A New Direction For America”.

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America’s 401K’s are back.
A new direction from there means what?

Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Oil prices are plummeting.
A new direction from there means what?

Taxes are at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
A new direction from there means what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.
A new direction from there means what?

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.
A new direction from there means what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means what?

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
A new direction from there means what?

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he’s alive at all, while 95% of Al Queda’s top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
A new direction from there means what?

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
A new direction from there means what?

Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made “ground zero” for the war on terrorism — and just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means what?

Now let me see, do I have this right? I can expect:
The economy to go South;
Illegals to go North;
Taxes to go Up;
Employment to go Down;
Terrorism to come In;
Tax breaks to go Out;
Social Security to go away;
Health Care to go the same way gas prices have gone.

But what the heck, I can gain comfort by knowing that Nancy P, Hillary C, John K, Teddy K, Howard D, Harry R and Obama have worked hard to create a comprehensive National Security Plan, Health Care Plan, Immigration Reform Plan, Gay Rights Plan, Same Sex Marriage Plan, Abortion On Demand Plan, Tolerance of Everyone and Everything Plan, How to Return all Troops to the U.S. in The Next Six Months Plan, A Get Tough Plan, adapted from the French Plan by the same name and a How Everyone Can Become as Wealthy as We Are Plan.

Please share this good news….

Living Wage <======> Family Wage

2006-12-27T22:51:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I've been remiss about posting - I've been busy, the country has been going to hell in a hand basket and the democrats have taken power which means we'll now be running to hell rather than just skipping towards it. However, I keep hearing the above term(s) and it's driving me nuts.

For quite some time I heard the term - "Living Wage". I never was able to get someone to tell me exactly how much that was. I mean to me, a living wage pretty much varied, doesn't it? From what I've seen it costs less to live in Baker Oregon than it does to live in New York City. So I never could get anyone to tell me what the term meant in the form of dollars (for ANY area). Do you know?

Recently "Living Wage" seems to have been replaced by the term - "Family Wage". Again, a rather undefined term and one that is even more confusing to me. If a living wage varied from location to location then certainly a "Family Wage" would too. Even more confusing, when we talk "Family Wage" are we saying that a person's wages need to go up just because they have one more kid? Welfare use to work like that ... and it didn't work! Yes, I feel for kids who are born into families where the 'family' doesn't bring home enough money, but there are programs out there to help those folks. Help them not only with rent and heat assistance but also help them get training and education to get jobs that pay more. It doesn't make sense to give them more money for the same work merely because they had another kid.

Which brings us to the increase in minimum wage. Does anyone really think that raising the minimum wage is going to help the poor? If you do please go back and take economics 101 over again. All raising the minimum wage is going to do is make a few jobs go away and it will also raise the price of ... everything. If I have a business and I have to pay my workers more money the only way I see to do that will be by raising the prices of my goods. If I rent to you and any of my costs go up (property taxes, garbage, water, whatever I provide) I WILL raise your rent. It's a simple pass-through of costs. Raise the minimum wage, my costs (as a business owner) go up, my prices go up and your 'raise' isn't buying you any more than it did than before the 'raise'.

As my wife said - "Minimum wage never was suppose to be a wage you could live on. It was suppose to be a wage that a you could get started in the work world with. It never was intended to be a wage or a job that you make a career out of."

You don't want to live on minimum wage - then do something about it. DON'T go home and sit on the couch and watch TV, instead take some night college courses that will add to the skills that you can offer an employer and get a better job. DON'T waste your time sitting in bars drinking and partying, shift your present work to happen at night while you do something like go to a beauty school or business school during the day so you can get a better job.

But hey, this is merely common sense and practical knowledge speaking - what do I know.

Do you disagree? Then point out how and why I'm mistaken - go ahead, make my day.

New Generation getting screwed - or maybe it's just me.

2006-09-09T09:56:00.000-07:00

A non-political moment here, a moment to pause and reflect, because that is what happened last night.

My wife and I have recently learned how to C&W dance, we're not real good at it yet, but anyone who dances any kind of steps will tell you that it's all about floor time. Unfortunately places with dance floors (at least in the area) are become more and more scarce; when you try to add the constrant of it being C&W, the choice narrows further - but we went in search of one anyway.

The following is a rant that goes in many directions but I'll try to link it in the end.

We look up C&W dance places on the internet - turns out that several of them have shutdown (plus I think the site info was old). We come across one and went there, it's half a step above a tavern but not quite as nice. Add to that the fact that rather than C&W music, they are raving about how they are the best 'blues' place in town. Now I like the blues, especially when I'm in the mood for it, but NOT when I'm looking for C&W. Maybe it's changed hands or venues (although they still had signs talking about C&W) but we were disappointed and left.

We went looking for a place that I'd passed on some of my jobs, never been in the place but it had the right name, well, sort of. We passed the place and didn't even bother to get out of the truck - it appeared to be a C&W version of Coyota Ugly. Had I been by myself and wanting to oogle some women, it was probably the place to be, but it certainly didn't look like a place to go dancing.

Well, we were also hungry (we'd hoped and planned to eat at the dance place prior to dancing), however, since we hadn't found a place to dance (yet) we opted to get dinner. There was a place that I had heard lots of radio commercials about, and again, I'd passed it going to jobs, so I thought it might be the place to try. A new restaurant and it was being hyped as posh, great, etc. etc. etc.

Time to go into my restaurant rant - we've tried the 'new' popular places (and yes, I'm going to name names here) - we've tried PJ Changs, Macaroni Grill and last night a place called Spice (I know the first two are chains, I think the last one is homegrown). I've found all the above places to be SO pretentious that it almost made my skin crawl. PJ and Macaroni Grill greets you with the waiter trying to impress you with a sauce or spread or something that they prepare at your table. Sorry, a combination of grease (olive oil) and spices (italian seasoning) mixed together in front of me really doesn't impress me. To me, a restaurant is really about the food; my bad I guess as the above two establishments sure didn't come through on those counts. PJ was ... okay, but for what I was served I thought the price a bit high and the portions marginal. I can name off dozens of chinese places that beat the pants off PJ and for a lot less money; yet the lines to get in to PJ's are extreme. Macaroni Grill was even worse, we got poor service, my daughter ordered spaghetti and meatballs, it's hard to screw up spaghetti and meatballs, but they did. It tasted like they had dumped a bottle of fennel into both the meatballs and the sauce, it was ... terrible. I ordered a 3 cheese lasagna, it tasted very similar to what you get when you buy and fix lean cuisine; and unfortunately I'm familiar with that particular product. My wife ordered some chicken dish and between the chicken being semi-cold/frozen in the middle and having a weak, watered down tomato sauce dribbled over the top of it ... well, it left MUCH to be desired. And again, Macaroni Grill has long lines waiting to get in. Let me finish the review with this restaurant, Spice, which I believe is a local establishment (if it is a chain let me know). It appears that they tried to renovate an old building for this restaurant, problem is they left too much of the old building. My wife said it looked (to her) like they were trying to give the 'adapted warehouse' look (which is REAL POPULAR around here). The walls had chips and cracks in it, that had been painted over - complete with paint drips. Up near the ceiling I saw where they had put in new beams and put firestops in - they had used strand board as the firestop material (rather common) - BUT, they didn't even paint it, you looked up and saw the strand board; not exactly the attractive or a finished look (at least in my book). Add to that that the silverware was spotted as were the glasses, it looked alot like they weren't as clean as you'd like to see. The service was okay, but not exceptional. The prices were okay, not real high unless and until you got into something like ... a meal. The prices for sandwitches and some real basic things were okay but when you moved to steaks and chicken dishes the prices rose fairly rapidly - the menu was also VERY limited. The wife and I ordered the fish and chips, the price was moderate, the fish was halibut and was firm. However, the fish was a bit overcooked (deep fat fryer) and tasted like it had been done in the same oil that they had deep fried chicken in. By the same token, the fries were underdone, severely underdone. All the dishes were square, which (I think) was suppose to be part of the ambiance - it wasn't. I can say that they did make a decent cup of coffee and a large one at that, although they also charged $2.25 per cup. So here are these three restaurants, all promoted and folks buying the promotions and the product is ... pathetic. Heck, Applebees or Red Robin or TGIF are better than these Yuppie joints.

Which brings me to the next bit of smoke and mirrors that the younger generation is buying into and just plain buying. I've been working on many, many condos that are all the rage in this town, since city hall is pushing it. Ummm, there isn't much there folks and they are charging a small fortune for it. Example, a ground floor condo, studio, approximately 600 square feet is going for approximately $300,000. For this princely sum, you get cabinets that are equal or less than what you find in a mobile home. You get the view of a wall or a casement window. The hall going to your "home" is just a long hall with doors on each side, not real different than many jails or hotels. Yet, folks are buying these things like crazy, partly because it's the only thing available for that price range and partly they are buying it because ... well, because I don't know why.

To finish the night, the wife and I headed to one last place that was suppose to be C&W dancing. We did find it, it did have a dance floor - but no one was dancing. It had one of those mechanical bulls, the patrons seemed to be having fun with it. However, does someone want to tell me when 'Jump' by Van Halen was classified as C&W? When was AC/DC classified as C&W? Those songs were intertwined with normal C&W. The place was basically a meat-rack for those below the age of 30 - we didn't belong there (it's okay we do know of one place that we can go and get some 'floor time').

The bottom line of this rant is to ask the question: Is the younger generation getting ripped off? Do they even realize it or have them been so indoctrinated that this medicore garbage is being accepted as a good? Or maybe I'm just too old - in many ways I'm happy that I won't be around to see what happens to this world in 50 years. All I can say is that from my perspective, it's not going in the right direction.

Your comments are welcome.

Global Warming - yeah, right!

2006-09-02T10:59:00.000-07:00

Click on the headline to link to the original article!!!

However if you're a lefty and/or a tree hugger you won't like the article; because it's from NASA and it shows (rather than baseless claims) that the Ozone is actually healing itself. Shoot, another greenie theory shot to hell.

Oh, and it's not just NASA, no take a look at this article (link) about Alfred Slone a professor of meteorology at MIT. He too, doesn't toe the screaming greenies line - gee, they will have a hard time getting rid of him too.

Bad day for the "sky is falling" crowd, maybe if I look around I can find other news to ruin their day.

More Later

Shift Gears

2006-07-15T23:29:00.000-07:00

Gotta keep writting till it come natural again.

My daughter (turns 17 in a few more days) got her first real job this year. An amazing turn of events - started with step-mom suggesting that during spring break, daughter takes a lifeguard course at the local pool. Daughter likes to swim, it's a natural and it did keep her busy and occupied all spring break (it was an 8 - 5 course the entire week); and she passed. So with her new found credentials she applied for and was hired as a lifeguard at that same pool, at a goodly rate above minimum wage - really great for a girl's first every real job. But wait it gets better - the pool job for the summer was good, but it wouldn't be full time, step-mom and daughter get talking and thoughts of summer camp abound. A quick phone call later and she's hired (last position available) as a lifeguard/camp aid/counselor in training position. This is work? Take a look at some of these pictures of where she's "working".

I'll post more shots later, but I keep telling her that while we are calling this a job, and although she is getting paid - she is in for SUCH a shock when she actually has to work. No pretty places to walk, fun things to do, nope it'll be work. On the other side of things she has seen what this extra education (the lifeguard course) has done for her. Opened doors that wouldn't have been opened, more pay than many other kids her age make.

God works in wonderous and mysterious ways.

More Later

Right On Israel

2006-07-14T06:39:00.000-07:00

Okay, I've been silent for too long - sorry about the lack of posting but between life keeping me pretty busy and being disappointed with the Republicans (don't get me wrong, the democrats keep showing what the definition of stupid is) I've been silent. However, being silent doesn't help, just because I shut up, it doesn't stop the stupidity - I'm thinking of it as a bit of vacation, time to bring out the sword of justice and light 'em up.

Israel - God, I love 'em. A little country, surrounded by a ton of nations who hate their very existance; and they succeed. It doesn't matter to me that the nations that surround them are 'Muslim' - they could be atheist, Hindu, Protestant, it's not a religious question; although the press and some others would like to make it so. Yes, it is a component, but it's not (in my mind) the bottom line, the bottom line is just a hate of a certain race of people, but let's view the ignorance - the ignorance of both the world and of the countries that surround Israel.

From a story on today's Fox News page, from Lebanon -

"... A young man with blood pouring down his face was shown on Lebanese TV walking out of a damaged apartment building.

"I have huge debts and now my store is damaged," said Fadi Haidar, 36, cleaning away broken glass at his appliances shop, which he said had taken up to $15,000 in damage from the airstrikes.

Still, he supported Hezbollah and its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, in their decision to snatch the soldiers. "Israel is our enemy and every Muslim must make a sacrifice," he said. "As time goes by, they will all realize that Sayyed Nasrallah is right and is working in the interest of Muslims."

Okay, there you have it, stupidity on parade - I'm hurting, my shop got damaged and all because a group of idiots (Hezbollah) run my country. However, I still support the idiots - AND - I'm going to try to make this a religious thing.

Yup, as long as you have terrorists running your country, sooner or later the forces of good get a gut full and hammer the forces of evil. We did it in Afganistan and in Iraq; Israel is doing it to Lebanon and soon Syria will be next.

The U.N. and the E.U. are objecting - like they have anything to do with anything. They are not the ones who are having soldiers kidnapped. I support Israel 120% and I'm certainly not Jewish. I'm just sorry that we are playing patty-cake with what goes on in Iraq, the way Israel is handling it's enemies is the EXACT same way that we should handle things when a soldier gets killed in Iraq or Afganistan.

Your opinion is welcome, but if you disagree I'll argue with you till the cows come home on this one. Israel is right, the boneheads who don't see it that way are wrong - PERIOD!

Oh yeah, the ArchAngel is back ... and with a vengence.

More Later.

Member of the Lost Party

2006-05-28T07:22:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting discussion with a man that I worked with last week. I should preface this by saying that in my line of work, I 'work' with many people that I probably will never see again. My job has me working quite closely with these folks, usually for a span of 3 to 4 hours and then my job (with them) is done and I move on to my next job. As a result, I've learned to hone my skill to listen and 'feel out' the people I work with - in other words, I quickly figure out if the person I'm with is one that I can talk about issues with, or someone that I just need to talk about the weather with. For the record, the majority of folks are ones that we merely talk about weather, tell jokes, talk fishing/hunting, etc.

This last week I ran across a fellow who was willing to discuss some of the issues, although we found ourselves on opposite sides of the fence - sort of. What made our discussion VERY interesting was some of the aspects that he would spout and I found myself without a 'good' answer - although he didn't have an answer either.

The situation first showed itself to me when he espoused a need for universal health care. When I asked if he were willing to have his taxes raised to pay for it, he responded with a very hearty, "If it was assured that it would pay for health insurance for everyone, I would." I then asked him if he wanted the government to run the program and I was very surprised by his response - "Hell no, everything that they've touched, with the exception of the military, it screws up everything!" So I asked him how or who should impliment a national health program and he admitted that he didn't know; he was clear that the government was the wrong entity to run such a program, he was also clear that he didn't like the way that healthcare is presently being handled but he didn't have a real answer. And I found myself agreeing with him - somewhat.

I used to be a democrat, I started out as a democrat because my parents were democrats and at the time, the democrats stood for the 'common man'. At the time, the democratic party seemed to encompass and embrace the values of the common man - by the time my father passed away (almost 10 years now) he had given up on the democratic party (as had my mother). The democratic party has continued to go further and further to the left, further and further from what I believe in as values, morals and ethics of the common man. I've watched the democrats embrace and champion positions that I could never agree with - THAT is what drove me to the republican party.

While compared to the democratic party the republican party does embrace (or claims to embrace) the values that I hold - in practice what they do isn't what they preach. While the democratic party stands (in my mind) for socialism and communism, the republican party hasn't/doesn't stand for what it claims to stand for. I found myself in somewhat the same quandry that the fellow I was having a discussion with found himself in. I KNOW that the democrats have no real answers, but the republicans have failed to deliver on their promises. So what am I to do? I personally don't think any of the 3rd parties have/hold or ever will hold any kind of political weight - I could be wrong.

So what are the answers? I don't really know - I know that the democrats don't have any good ideas (IMHO). The republicans have shown me that they can't/don't/won't carry out their promises (like smaller government). I will continue to vote for the man rather than the party but that leaves 99% of the democrats as people that I won't vote for and now 66% of the republicans as people that I won't vote for. Yes, in some cases I may very well leave my vote blank if my only choices are a democrat or a republican and I find I can't vote for either man. I know that won't change my government. I know that leaving a race blank won't make the government uphold the values that I (and millions like me) hold near and dear; it won't make my country any more secure, it won't make life any better for anyone in this country. But I feel abandon, the fellow who I shared my conversation with feels abandon, we don't want the socialist country that the democrats want but the republicans aren't helping us either.

Do you feel abandon? Do you feel that either party has some real answers? Does either party actually carry out the actions necessary to put those answers to work?

Your ideas and opinions are welcome and encouraged.

More Later

Plan to Destroy America

2006-05-12T11:21:00.000-07:00

Bet you thought I'd quit blogging - not quite, life has been busy and the folks who claim to want to lead this country (both democrat and republican) continue to amaze and disappoint me.

I heard about this today and decided to post it, in case you (like me) had never seen/heard it before. It's from a speech given by Richard Lamm, former governor of Colorado.

I Have A Plan To Destroy America

I HAVE A SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. IF YOU BELIEVE, AS MANY DO, THAT AMERICA IS TOO SMUG, TOO WHITE BREAD, TOO SELF-SATISFIED, TOO RICH, LETS DESTROY AMERICA. IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO. HISTORY SHOWS THAT NATIONS ARE MORE FRAGILE THAN THEIR CITIZENS THINK. NO NATION IN HISTORY HAS SURVIVED THE RAVAGES OF TIME. ARNOLD TOYNBEE OBSERVED THAT ALL GREAT CIVILIZATIONS RISE AND THEY ALL FALL, AND THAT "AN AUTOPSY OF HISTORY WOULD SHOW THAT ALL GREAT NATIONS COMMIT SUICIDE." HERE IS MY PLAN:

I. WE MUST FIRST MAKE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY. HISTORY SHOWS, IN MY OPINION, THAT NO NATION CAN SURVIVE THE TENSION, CONFLICT, AND ANTAGONISM OF TWO COMPETING LANGUAGES AND CULTURES. IT IS A BLESSING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE BILINGUAL; IT IS A CURSE FOR A SOCIETY TO BE BILINGUAL. ONE SCHOLAR, SEYMOUR MARTIN LIPSET, PUT IT THIS WAY:

THE HISTORIES OF BILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT ASSIMILATE ARE HISTORIES OF TURMOIL, TENSION, AND TRAGEDY. CANADA, BELGIUM, MALAYSIA, LEBANON-ALL FACE CRISES OF NATIONAL EXISTENCE IN WHICH MINORITIES PRESS FOR AUTONOMY, IF NOT INDEPENDENCE. PAKISTAN AND CYPRUS HAVE DIVIDED. NIGERIA SUPPRESSED AN ETHNIC REBELLION. FRANCE FACES DIFFICULTIES WITH ITS BASQUES, BRETONS, AND CORSICANS.
II. I WOULD THEN INVENT "MULTICULTURALISM" AND ENCOURAGE IMMIGRANTS TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CULTURE. I WOULD MAKE IT AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF THAT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL: THAT THERE ARE NO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES THAT ARE IMPORTANT. I WOULD DECLARE IT AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT THE BLACK AND HISPANIC DROPOUT RATE IS ONLY DUE TO PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION BY THE MAJORITY. EVERY OTHER EXPLANATION IS OUT-OF-BOUNDS.

III. WE CAN MAKE THE UNITED STATES A "HISPANIC QUEBEC" WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT. THE KEY IS TO CELEBRATE DIVERSITY RATHER THAN UNITY. AS BENJAMIN SCHWARZ SAID IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY RECENTLY:
...THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF OUR OWN MULTIETHNIC AND MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED NOT BY TOLERANCE BUT BY HEGEMONY. WITHOUT THE DOMINANCE THAT ONCE DICTATED ETHNOCENTRICALLY, AND WHAT IT MEANT TO BE AN AMERICAN, WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM TO HOLD US TOGETHER.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL IMMIGRANTS TO KEEP THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE. I WOULD REPLACE THE MELTING POT METAPHOR WITH A SALAD BOWL METAPHOR. IT IS IMPORTANT TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE VARIOUS CULTURAL SUB-GROUPS LIVING IN AMERICA REINFORCING THEIR DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN AMERICANS, EMPHASIZING THEIR SIMILARITIES.

IV. HAVING DONE ALL THIS, I WOULD MAKE OUR FASTEST GROWING DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP THE LEAST EDUCATED - I WOULD ADD A SECOND UNDERCLASS, UNASSIMILATED, UNDEREDUCATED, AND ANTAGONISTIC TO OUR POPULATION. I WOULD HAVE THIS SECOND UNDERCLASS HAVE A 50% DROP OUT RATE FROM SCHOOL.

V. I WOULD THEN GET THE BIG FOUNDATIONS AND BIG BUSINESS TO GIVE THESE EFFORTS LOTS OF MONEY. I WOULD INVEST IN ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND I WOULD ESTABLISH THE CULT OF VICTIMOLOGY. I WOULD GET ALL MINORITIES TO THINK THEIR LACK OF SUCCESS WAS ALL THE FAULT OF THE MAJORITY - I WOULD START A GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY BLAMING ALL MINORITY FAILURE ON THE MAJORITY POPULATION.

VI. I WOULD ESTABLISH DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND PROMOTE DIVIDED LOYALTIES. I WOULD "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY." "DIVERSITY" IS A WONDERFULLY SEDUCTIVE WORD. IT STRESSES DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN COMMONALITIES. DIVERSE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ARE MOSTLY ENGAGED IN HATING EACH OTHER-THAT IS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT KILLING EACH OTHER. A DIVERSE," PEACEFUL, OR STABLE SOCIETY IS AGAINST MOST HISTORICAL PRECEDENT. PEOPLE UNDERVALUE THE UNITY IT TAKES TO KEEP A NATION TOGETHER, AND WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS MYOPIA. LOOK AT THE ANCIENT GREEKS. DORF'S WORLD HISTORY TELLS US:
THE GREEKS BELIEVED THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE SAME RACE; THEY POSSESSED A COMMON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE; AND THEY WORSHIPED THE SAME GODS. ALL GREECE TOOK PART IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN HONOR OF ZEUS AND ALL GREEKS VENERATED THE SHRINE OF APOLLO AT DELPHI. A COMMON ENEMY PERSIA THREATENED THEIR LIBERTY. YET, ALL OF THESE BONDS TOGETHER WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERCOME TWO FACTORS . . . (LOCAL PATRIOTISM AND GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THAT NURTURED POLITICAL DIVISIONS . . .)
IF WE CAN PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE "PLURIBUS," INSTEAD OF THE "UNUM," WE CAN BALKANIZE AMERICA AS SURELY AS KOSOVO.

VII. THEN I WOULD PLACE ALL THESE SUBJECTS OFF LIMITS - MAKE IT TABOO TO TALK ABOUT. I WOULD FIND A WORD SIMILAR TO "HERETIC" IN THE 16TH CENTURY - THAT STOPPED DISCUSSION AND PARALYZED THINKING. WORDS LIKE "RACIST", "XENOPHOBE" THAT HALTS ARGUMENT AND CONVERSATION.

HAVING MADE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY, HAVING ESTABLISHED MULTICULTURALISM, HAVING THE LARGE FOUNDATIONS FUND THE DOCTRINE OF "VICTIMOLOGY", I WOULD NEXT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS. I WOULD DEVELOP A MANTRA - "THAT BECAUSE IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN GOOD FOR AMERICA, IT MUST ALWAYS BE GOOD." I WOULD MAKE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IMMIGRANT SYMPATRIC AND IGNORE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT.

VIII. LASTLY, I WOULD CENSOR VICTOR HANSON DAVIS'S BOOK MEXIFORNIA — THIS BOOK IS DANGEROUS — IT EXPOSES MY PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA. SO PLEASE, PLEASE — IF YOU FEEL THAT AMERICA DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED — PLEASE, PLEASE — DON'T BUY THIS BOOK! THIS GUY IS ON TO MY PLAN.
"THE SMART WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE PASSIVE AND OBEDIENT IS TO STRICTLY LIMIT THE SPECTRUM OF ACCEPTABLE OPINION, BUT ALLOW VERY LIVELY DEBATE WITHIN THAT SPECTRUM." — NOAM CHOMSKY, AMERICAN LINGUIST AND US MEDIA AND FOREIGN POLICY CRITIC.

This is the 'plan' that I believe that the democrats have bought hook, line and sinker (the mantra appears to be 'free speech is fine as long as it agrees with me - otherwise ...). The republicans have NOT stepped up to the plate and I'm ashamed.

Comments and Opinions welcome.

Is it SMART GROWTH or COMMUNISM???

2006-03-26T15:33:00.000-08:00

Here at Moscow on the Willamette (Portland Oregon) - the city is renowned (well, sort of) for it's "Smart Growth" policies; which are actually very anti-person, anti-business, anti-freedom of rights (property rights in particular). The city is also well known (sort of) for it's system of light rail - a huge cash cow and boondoggle (the money should be spent on roads).

One of the main ideas regarding "Smart Growth" is the implimentation of 'multi-use' buildings. Where they build retail (usually) at street level and build apartments and/or condos above these 'shops' with the idea that folks can 'live and work in the same area, without having to rely on cars to get around. Ignoring the fact that many folks (especially those with children) don't really want to raise their kids in high rises, or have to use parks as their main source of outdoor entertainment. Ignoring the fact that getting a kid to a soccer game or swim practice (which usually ISN'T on the light rail line) the city planners have encouraged with various tax breaks the implimentation of these ... places to live.

So how does that equate to communism, you might ask? Well, it's not entirely the old Soviet Union, as I realize there is more to communism than merely the place(s) that you have people live in. However, I recently ran across a rather interesting piece of information - it seems that back in 1959, President Eisenhowser invited the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to come to the United States for a visit. Eisenhower arranged for Khrushchev to be transported by helicopter from the White House to Camp David during the busy, afternoon rush hour. Eisenhower believed this aerial view of bustling mobility and vast tracts of home ownership would impress his Soviet counterpart and help prove the superiority of the capitalist system.

Far from being impressed, the Premier ridiculed what he viewed as a tremendous waste of fuel, land and resources.

"In the Soviet Union," Khrushchev explained, "the workers live in apartment buildings near the factories so they can walk to work. If they have to leave their districts they take the train or the subway".

An examination of planner's maps for the greater Portland metropolitan region prove the prophetic nature of Khruschev's words. Although most apartments have been replaced by condominiums and factories by office buildings, the intention is clear. We are intended to live where we work. If we have to leave our districts, we are intended to ride light rail.

So is it a case of "Back to the Future"? I've rallied against light rail, the "urban growth boundary", the various tax breaks and abatements given to people to try to get them to embrace this "New Future" only to find that this new future is part of the old Soviet Union; and it didn't work too well back there either.

So, is this indeed a throw back to the old Soviet Union, just in a different guise? Was this one of the 'good' points that the Soviet Union had and we are just cherry picking some of their better ideas? Are the folks who are embracing these ideas in Oregon (and those around the country who TRY to encourage them) unaware, uncaring or merely doing one of those "those who don't read history are bound to repeat it" things? Don't get me wrong, I believe in zoning, I agree that some things like garbage dumps and mining operations need to be regulated to certain areas - but the level that our 'leaders' have implimented it feels very ... communistic.

Your turn - am I all wet? Have the "Smart Growth" people come to you area? If so how successful are they? Has your city/town swallowed the ideas? Comments welcome!!

Why the Liberals are WRONG!!!!

2006-03-09T06:09:00.000-08:00

Lordy, I could count the ways but let's go to a favorite hot button issue - the Iraqi war. First, I don't like war any more than most folks do; the only guarantee that war brings is that some folks are going to die one way or another (although this has been the 'cleanest' war in history - not that that makes it any better).

A very good blog writer from my hometown, here at Moscow on the Willamette (aka Portland Oregon) is presently on a tour of the middle east, including Iraq. The man's name is Michael J. Totten, he is/was pretty liberal in his attitudes and views. He lives in an artsy-fartsy part of town, he thinks high density is a good thing, likes light rail, likes urban growth boundaries, basically all the stuff that the liberals in my home town think is good (and in my opinion are wrong about). For quite some time he had the basic liberal mantra of "Liberal is good, Conservative is bad" thing going; until now.

He has been visiting various places in the middle east - Egypt, Lebanon, Cyprus, Arabia and other areas. His eyes become more and more open each and every day, open to who and what is trying to topple the United States and what they would like to replace it with. Open to the fact that those who are on the liberal left in this country are just as much enemies of this country as are Al Qaeda.

One of his most recent posts was from the Kurdish area of Iraq. He documents what he is seeing and has many pictures - I STRONGLY suggest you use this link and look and read his posting of March 3rd (link). What he is seeing justifies our being in Iraq. It's slightly interesting to see the liberals try to spin his article and pictures (if you read the various comments) but the liberals words are hollow and their so-called facts are quickly proven false - doesn't slow them down though.

I use to comment on Mr. Totten's blog when he was in Portland and wrote about local and national politics and policies. In my humble opinion, he was as far left as I am far right; he is getting an education that I'm sorry that not all liberals can be given. He is stating and showing the facts as he finds them and shows how the MSM is lying and spinning regarding the news it chooses to present and how is chooses to present it.

I really don't need to say much more, Mr. Totten's story says it all. Please wander on over and take a look at that March 3rd posting and tell me what you think. Are we still an oppressor nation? Do you still think this whole war was about oil?

Comments welcome.

More Later

Only The Brain Dead Need Not Apply

2006-02-27T07:55:00.000-08:00

Okay, sometimes life is too funny to believe, this situation would qualify in my mind. My wife, who has 20+ years of experience in bookkeeping and office management has been looking for a job for the past two months. She has a variety of experiences including working in a government departments; in keeping with that experience she browses government openings. She recently ran across a local city government (not the biggest city in Oregon) with a position open. As she read the "Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities" section of the job opening she went from amused to rolling on the floor laughter - and here is why (comments in italics are mine).

- Ability to communicate effectively with others, both orally and in writing, using both technical and non-technical language. (what other kinds of language are there?)

- Ability to use logical and creative thought processes to develop solutions according to written specifications and /or oral instructions. (as my title says, the brain dead need not apply - and what other types of 'thought processes' are there besides logical or creative? I guess there are the "automatic" processes like breathing but this difficult job obviously requires that you expand your mind beyond that level).

- Sufficent vision or other powers of observation, with or without reasonable accommodation, which enables the employee to review a wide variety of materials in electronic or hard copy form (okay, maybe it's just me, but outside vision, what are the other powers of observation - I really thought we were kinda limited to that, but that must be my narrow field of vision at work)

- Ability to set up and maintain accurate alphabetical, numerical and chronological filing systems (now while I know that there are numerous recent public high school graduates who wouldn't be able to qualify on this one qualification - it does seem to me to be a 'given' when dealing in an office enviroment - dang, what letter comes after B).

- Substantial knowledge of principles and pracitices of English grammer, spelling, and punctuation (again, many recent public high school graduates won't be able to qualify - however, I do agree that they are very good skills to possess when writing official city letters to the public).

Yes, all those abilities and more were required for this job which had a starting pay of over $2500 a month. Trust me, the job requirements basically sounded as though if you could see and speak that you qualified. To tell us all about this job and it's qualifications took 6 typed pages. In addition there was the regular city employment application (4 pages) and a supplemental questionnaire (1 page).

Am I wrong, or is this/was this overkill? Has this come about due to the PC attitude in this country where if everything isn't spelled out directly then it doesn't count/doesn't exist? Or am I just showing my shallowness here and what the city has written makes sense?

Opinions and comments welcome.

More Later

Impeach Bush Now !!!!

2006-02-18T09:14:00.000-08:00

That's right, I know you never thought that you'd read it on this blog, but I want to impeach Bush now!!!! I really don't care what charges you want to do it on - lying to the American people about WMD's (which he didn't); spying on Americans in this country (which he didn't); the fact that his ears stick out too far or the fact that he can't say the word "nuclear". I don't care, go to any lefty blog, pick a reason and let's impeach him.

Why? Well, with Bush gone we get Cheney - and all he has to do is bring his trusty 28 gauge with him to any and all negotiations. I'd love to see him in negotiations with ANY of the democratic clowns. He could invite Pelosi, Kennedy and Reid out for a quail hunt; heck, while he's at it he could invite Dan Quayle too (he never was good for the republican party).

Later he could go down and have a hunt and talk with Chavez from Venezuela, then maybe he could thaw the spat between Cuba and the U.S. - This tactic can get some real legs under it!!!

So what do you think? Was the story about Cheney much ado over nothing? As one reporter suggested, should the VP resign over this (although this was the same reporter that asked would the incident be more important if the person shot died - duh)? Was it just a real slow news day and the press had nothing else to do? Was it the liberal press hoping and praying for something that they could smear the Bush administration with?

Opinions and comments welcome.

More Later

A light hearted moment

2006-02-08T22:18:00.000-08:00

I received some rather sad news today - an aunt of mine, whom I loved passed away. I have many wonderful memories of her, the news threw me into a funk, until I found this - it made me laugh, I hope it makes you laugh too.

Soon, Wal-Mart customers will be able to sample a new discount item:
Wal-Mart's own brand of wine. The world's largest retail chain is teaming
up with Robert Mondavi Winery of California, to produce the spirits at an
affordable price, in the $2 - $5 range.

Wine connoisseurs may not be inclined to throw a bottle of Wal-Mart brand
into their shopping carts, but "there is a market for cheap wine", said
Kathy Micken, professor of marketing. She said: "The right name is
important."

So, here we go:
The top 10 suggested names for Wal-Mart Wine:

10. Chateau Traileur Parc
9. White Trashfindel
8. Big Red Gulp
7. World Championship Riesling
6. NASCARbernet
5. Chef Boyardeaux
4. Peanut Noir
3. I Can't Believe It's Not Vinegar!
2. Grape Expectations

And the number 1 name for Wal-Mart Wine:

1. Nasti Spumante

The beauty of Wal-Mart wine is that it can be served with white meat
(Possum) or red meat (squirrel).


More Later

Standardized Testing - Right or Wrong???

2006-01-31T20:26:00.000-08:00

One particular pickle that keeps showing up on the radar of society is the funding of education. Presently, in the large nearby city (that I thankfully don't belong to), a county-wide income tax is about to expire (it was suppose to be a temporary tax) and the schools are making noise about how losing that money will hurt education. There were several "fixes" that the school district and teachers were suppose to hammer out during this three year long income tax; but oddly enough, very few things (especially items which would have saved money - i.e. teachers getting a cheaper health insurance and paying part of the premium) got taken care of. So, instead, we have a local mayor advocating for a city-wide income tax (also temporary) to replace the expiring county income tax.

Despite that situation, this posting isn't about how much money is spent on education or how it is obtained; no, it's about what we are purchasing with our money. Regardless how much money is sent to the classroom, all taxpayers would like to know that we are "getting what we are paying for". This is the same idea that brought about "No Child Left Behind" which was and is, standardized testing to make sure that the kids are being educated. We (the public) are asking for accountability and a way to measure what money was spent on. In turn, this has brought about a charge that teachers are now "Only teaching to the test". Is that good, or bad? I guess that would depend on how the test is designed and what it is exactly testing.

My feeling is that the education machine has lost it's way and doesn't have a clue. Things like 'whole word reading' (link , link) and 'fuzzy math' (link, link) are failing our students and until the 'progessive' educators get a strong kick our children will continue to be short changed. I don't believe that I'm different than any other parent when I ask that my child be able to read papers and magazines and understand them. I want my child to be able to do 4 X 8 in their head, without having to rely on a calculator. More, I want any child, educated in any state in the union to be able to do that. So what other way is there to measure that goal, ensure that all those children in all those states ARE being educated to the same standard EXCEPT through testing? If the teacher is "teaching to the test" then let that test be one that a person passing it will be able to do the simple tasks outlined above.

We have, and have had functional illiterates "graduate" from our high schools (link), a function of social promotion - meaning that they pass you on to the next grade merely because you are a year older, not because you know your subject matter. The constant dumbing down of standards and grades to make sure that all students will 'feel good' about themselves and how they are doing. For decades (pretty much prior to the 60's and 70's) our children were taught the basics, skill sets that would make them functional, productive citizens. When they graduated they WERE able to write and do simple multiplication in their heads. Now instead of demanding that the students come up to a standard, we've dropped the 'standard' and have made even that lower standard 'fuzzy'. The emphasis has been on touchy-feely techniques rather than demanding that basic fundamentals be mastered (which includes memorization).

The basics were taught for years and years and we had millions of people pass through the system and become productive citizens - why change something that works? Is the way you get an answer more important than if the answer is correct or not (see the first link regarding fuzzy math). NCLB set some standards and like all 'one-size-fits-all' items, it really isn't a good fit for most, but it was a starting place.

So yes, I believe that standardized tests ARE needed. I also believe that the standard that students have been held accountable to is very low and needs to be raised and that line needs to be hard and fast; but that is my opinion, what's yours?

Are we graduating semi-functional illiterates? Is/was "drill-and-kill" a bad method of teaching certain basics like multiplication? Are standardized tests necessary?

I'd love to know what you think - comments and opinions are welcome.

More Later

An Example of the difference

2006-01-25T08:38:00.000-08:00

The difference between people who support ideas and causes taken up by the right versus the people who support ideas and causes taken up by the left has never been more striking and apparent (to me) then at this particular point in our country's history. So too, the difference between how that difference is displayed and shown. I've been trying for some time to figure out a way to discribe what most of us have seen (on TV) or witnessed; but I could never quite get the words to flow in a way that would express what I was seeing and feeling - I've come across something that does it for me.

First, for those who don't know, I'm very pro-life and anti-abortion; in the past I was just the opposite. Second, most of you know that we just passed the 'anniversary' date of Roe vs. Wade and there were many demonstrations, both pro-life and pro-abortion, held in many cities. Third, I was directed to the site I'm going to link to from Belmont Club (link).

The tactics used by both sides in this demonstration, which took place in San Francisco, looked to me to be a shining example, of the types of people on both sides and the tactics used by people on both sides. To be fair, yes, there are some whackos on the right, they are shown (since they showed up) in this pictorial report. However, they are far and few between compared to the whackos on the left that appeared to be the backbone of the left wing protesters. I acknowledge everyone's right to dissent, but that right does not mean destruction of property (which DIDN'T happen at this demonstration). Does the right to dissent include calling those who disagree with you names? Cursing at them, throwing things at them? Etc?

In closing, I encourage you to click on this link (link) and view the pictures for yourself. The author adds very little commentary as the pictures pretty much speak for themselves. He (or she) tarnishes his entry with his 'last page' - although I found it interesting and amusing. The link is only 3 pages long so I encourage you to see what I'm talking about.

When you've gone there, come back and comment - please.

The folks pictured, are they typical examples of who's on the right and who's on the left? Or do they only represent pro-life and pro-abortion advocates? As you read through the pictures and commentary, do both sides appear to be exercising their right to demonstrate, or do the tactics of one seem correct versus the tactics of the other side?

Comments and opinions welcomed.

More Later

Confused ...

2006-01-17T08:23:00.000-08:00

Click on the above headline to link to the article

The article I refer to is regarding schools in the city of Medford Oregon, one of our larger cities in the southern region of Oregon; however the 'problem' is statewide if not nationwide. Basically it's the neverending cry of "more money for schools".

In the article there are several places where there appears to be (to me) a bit of an oxymoron or at the least a discrepancy in what is being reported. For example, at one point in the article it tells us that "Jackson County school districts have some of the highest class sizes in the state with growth in every district but Rogue River since 2001 -02.

Medford has the largest class size in the county, set at 29.6 in 2003-04."

Yet a bit later in the article is states, "The Medford School District's student body has declined by 510 pupils since 2002 ..."

The article talks about how, in Oregon, schools are funded based on the number of students attending, so the bottom part was trying to show how much money the district 'lost' due to the loss of students; but didn't the first part tell us that the district was growing? Also there should be a 'question' about that 'lost' money. If you have fewer students, then shouldn't you be able to do the same job with less money? Simple math here - it costs you a dollar a day to teach a student, if you have 20 students it will cost you $20. However if your student population drops to 10 students then it will only cost you $10 - did you lose money? Yes, in terms of how much money comes through the door you have, but in terms of the number of dollars to do the job, there has been no loss.

It is the same cry throughout this state and in many other states (from what I've read) - cries of "more money for education, more money for education", as well as another favorite mantra of the left, "it's for the children". Yes, even we cold-hearted conservatives are willing to fish into our wallets 'for the children' but as a cold-hearted conservative we want to see what our money is buying and want to see results and accountability for the money spent. To me this article is typical of the problem; they have lost students, but instead of being able to keep the same (or similar) student/teacher ratio - evidently they've cut more teaching positions than they should have. The article does point out that student/teacher ratio includes music, speech and Title one teachers - but weren't they counted and considered prior to the cuts as well?

Also for the record, the article states that the state funds each child at a rate of $5200 per year, actually this is a misnomer. Schools have what they call an "all funds" budget which includes building maintenance, security, administration costs, etc. - that number is almost double the published rate; and it too is based on your student population.

Bottom line, if you have fewer students you should be able to do the job with less money. Personally, I'd slash the heck out of the overhead (administration, counselors, etc.). I'd totally break with the teacher union, giving the teachers excellent pay and benefit packages but tie it with results. I'd give the classrooms back to teachers rather than have the teachers union or the administration tell them what to teach and how to teach; but again hold the teachers accountable for results on standardized tests. I'd re-introduce respect and discipline in the class room, those who can't/won't conform would be sent to a school designed to hover over them to make sure they do all their work and behave.

Your turn, what say you? Do the schools need more funding? Is it right and/or reasonable to see your student population decline, yet demand more money? Should taxpayers pay more every time the schools cry out for more money? Are the schools doing a good job of teaching? What part do unions and/or the school administration play in the way school is taught?

Opinions and comments welcome.

More Later

Free Speech???

2006-01-10T07:24:00.000-08:00

Recently a battle has re-emerged that has been fought in many places with various solutions; the battle regarding public libraries and access to porn sites on thier computers by adults. This argument has always swung towards the 1st amendment and the issue of free speech - but is that really the question that we should be debating/arguing?

Libraries in my part of the country have been having a difficult time trying to get money to run them; this is actually a fairly recent phenomenon, only within the last 5 to 10 years. Prior to that time frame, bond measuries or any other form of funding for the library was typically a shoe-in.

Yes, times have been tough and many 'institutions' have found it tough to find enough money from the public, but the biggest issue for libraries has been the porn and freedom of speech issues. The librarians usually come out against what they see as censorship, and I understand that issue/idea/argument.

However, there is the other side, not just the "protection of minors" with regards to porn, but more recently the old idea of "public decency". Think about the library prior to the time of computers and the internet (if you are old enough) - there were certain books and magazines that the library didn't buy. They didn't buy them for two reasons (usually), one reason was that the library had limited funds, so they had to research which books to buy, how many copies, was the book being sought by the public, etc. Another reason that certain books and magazines weren't purchased amounted to what we call "public decency" and or "public standards". As pornography became more and more available, we didn't see public libraries buying those magazines and/or movies and putting them out for public check outs - why? Yes, there was a very limited, protected amount of 'adult material', most libraries would subscribe to, for example Playboy magazine; but who we checked it out to and where they were allowed to read it was fairly closely monitored - why? With Playboy an argument could be made that there was other material in the magazine beyond the pictures of naked women; but not so with pure porn. Why weren't there racks and racks of purely pornographic material, similar to what you can see in your local porn store? Magazines that were 90% (or more) just pictures, little if any writing, just pictures of people engaged in sex - why weren't these magazines purchased for the public and put out for the public, or at least the adult public, to read and view?

My argument would be that our society has a "standard of decency" - even though that standard has been watered down and compromised in recent times, it still exists. We have freedoms but should you decide to engage in sexual intercourse on your front lawn, you will probably be arrested. Should you decide to go grocery shopping naked (stay away from the frozen food isle) you'll probably be arrested. Should you decide to sit outside a school and give away pornographic magazines, you will be popular with the kids right up to the moment that you are arrested.

So too, just because porn is available on the net, does it mean we HAVE to allow the viewing of it in public libraries? Is it our (society) duty to make sure that access to any and all material, reading or viewing, is available to the public?

I believe that the public libraries giving access to pornography via the net has helped in the drying up of funding for this once noble institution. It can also be argued that since the advent of the internet that libraries are less necessary than they once were, but I think that is a weak argument.

Bottom line - the question - should libraries allow access on the web to pornographic sites? Is it really "freedom of speech"? If it is "freedom of speech", is it compromised just because porn would be banned in the library? Is the funding of libraries being affected by the librarians (typical) position of insisting that certain computers allow the accessing of porn within the library?

Opinions and Comments more than welcome.

More Later

Bringing a knife to a gun fight

2006-01-05T05:39:00.000-08:00

Allow me to start by apologizing for the big delay in postings - as I stated last time, I did move over the holidays and it was the typical pain-in-the-butt moving situation. Even as I write this we are not completely done moving, let alone settling down, but we are 95% of the way there (a move out garage sale occuring in the next couple of days).

As those who read this blog know, I classify myself as a conservative, a proud conservative; however, I also like to try to be honest and fair and try to look at both sides of an issue. A liberal friend once said that she thought I wanted to be the next Rush Limbaugh, to which I replied that I didn't really like Rush's style and didn't listen to him much. However, I volunteered that I'd LOVE to be the next Bill O'Reilly. My lord, you would have thought that I'd said that I wanted to destroy the world; that comment brought about a tirade of complaints about Mr. O'Reilly, 99% of which I was able to logically counter without even having to dig for the facts.

Yes, I'd classify Bill O'Reilly as one of my heros and if I had anyone that I'd love to emulate from the right, it would be Bill. Which brings us to this posting - did you happen to see Bill on the Letterman show last night? Personally, I didn't, the hours that my job requires keeps me from usually staying up that late; plus I just don't watch that much TV. However, here is a link to an article posted on Newsmax.com (link) describing the "discussion". Apparently, David attempted to discuss the attacks of the secularists on Christmas followed by a VERY ill advised discussion about the Iraqi war. The fact that Bill tore Letterman a new one isn't a surprise, I do that every time I have discussion with most liberals. The fact that the liberals insist on attempting a debate is something that I have yet to understand. Letterman even ended up admitting that "I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this." In the end, the points for the war, the reasons that we are there trump the emotional pull that there be no wars and no deaths; but war is a fact of this world and if you do not fight those who seek to kill you, you will not be able to seek anything else in this world.

I like Bill, I really feel that he has been and is a journalist in the true sense of the word, meaning that he attempts to seek out both sides of an issue and find the facts. His TV show is called the "No Spin Zone" and when I watch it, that is what I usually see him doing.

Questions for today, did you see Bill on Letteman? What do you think of Bill O'Reilly? Have you read any of his books? Do you catch him on either the radio or the TV? Comments welcome.

More Later

Global Warming???

2005-12-13T09:54:00.000-08:00

I'm in the middle of moving so that, combined with all the stuff that Christmas involves is keeping me from this blog. So, this posting is going to be fairly short -

While I do believe that we (the human population on this earth) have polluted and caused some damage to our enviroment; I also know that we've done plenty to try to repair much of the damage. I've seen far too much evidence against the theory that human's are causing "global warming" (a recent study has really caused some damage to folks who hold that view).

I will tell you this much - in this area, we are (and have been for over a week) in the grips of one of the coldest snaps in recent memory (going back a good 5 to 10 years). Based on what this nation appears to be suffering under (via looking at weather throughout the nation), global warming would be welcomed right about now.

How is the weather in your area? Are you convinced that carbon dixoide (the stuff we exhale) is polluting our enviroment?

Comments and opinions welcome

More Later

Intolerance???

2005-12-06T05:46:00.000-08:00

Sorry I haven't written much, but life has been busy; posting will be sporatic during this holiday season - so let me wish each and everyone a very merry Christmas.

Recently I got in a conversation with a friend who thought I was intolerant. She said that in describing some folks that we recently met, that I pointed out (when talking about these new folks) that they were gay. Not that they told us they were gay, not that there was any posters or slogans announcing that they were gay - BUT - based on the conversation ("My life partner"), referring to situations where it was made obvious that they did things together that most same sex friends would never do together (take baths). Add to those indicators the fact that their actions and expressions definitely gave the impression that they were gay.

I did not make light of this fact (at least seemingly obvious fact), I did not denigrade them or belittle them. Just when talking about them, I would typically add the "fact" or adjective that they were gay. I defended my description by stating that if I were talking about someone who was overly "fundemental", someone who used the term "God bless you" or "God willing" after each sentence; that when describing them to a stranger, I would use the term fundamentalist. If I encountered someone who was into the "Goth" scene, complete with black hair, black clothing, black lipstick, too much black eye shadow and eye liner; when talking about them with someone I'd include that "fact" when talking about them. To me, if a person is going out of their way to show a particular side of themselves to you - be it gay, goth, fundamentalist, neo-nazi, alcoholic, whatever - when describing the person, I will be using that term.

To me, being intolerant is developing a "HATE" when you see/realize what a person is (or portrays themselves to be). I do not HATE these gay men, they are not going to be my best friends either. If they were neighbors and I was having a neighborhood BBQ, they would be invited over. By the same token, while I might want to make friends with another hetrosexual couple my own age and invite that couple over for a private dinner; I probably wouldn't invite the homosexual couple over for a private dinner. If they were neighbors and had a problem/situation - a tree fell on their house, or one of them was in some trouble; I would not hesitate to offer help. I would never seek to cause them harm (slash tires, set something on fire, cause bodily harm) but knowing that they are gay also tells me that our values are not the same, we don't have a lot in common, I don't feel a great reason or need to get to know these folks any better than I presently do.

BTW - while they haven't openly announced to us that they are gay, we both agree that if they were asked (by us) that they would openly admit it and probably be proud of it. I am letting you know that so you don't think that I'm over stating how obvious these fellows are making it that they are gay.

At this point I won't tell you if my friend still thinks I'm intolerant or not - I will later in the comments section. My question to you - Does my behavior come across as intolerant? What is tolerance and intolerance in your opinion? If someone makes a concerted attempt to show a particular side of themselves to the world, do you include that "side" of them when describing them to someone who hasn't met them?

Opinions and comments welcome.

More Later

Is This REALLY A Surprise???

2005-11-21T21:15:00.000-08:00

Click on the headline to link to the report

It seems that CNN decided to place a large black X over the face of the Vice President while he was giving a speech live; Drudge picked up on this insult. It was a quick video overlay, but they did it several times during his speech. In addition when they ran the X over his face, they also ran a caption below that read, "I do not believe it is wrong to criticize".

CNN has, thus far, not responded to any and all requests as to what happened (anyone surprised?). I also expect that when (and if) they finally do respond, they will be blaming some poor intern (or the like), claiming that it was just a joke; something that the person taking the blame thought would only air in the studio.

Just another reason that I quit watching CNN years ago. Just another example of liberal bias, this time more obvious than ever. I dislike the MSM more than the MSM dislikes the present administration. This is what the MSM calls news reporting??? Long live the Fox News network, closer to fair and balanced than anything else on the air waves.

Your comments and opinions are encouraged.

More Later

Now For Something a bit Lighter ... well, sort of

2005-11-16T05:04:00.000-08:00

Click on the headline to link to the actual article

All I can say is Thank God she lives in Britain!!!!! I'm thinking that the insurance rates over there will be going up soon.

It seems that a 50 year old woman in Britain finally passed her driving test after trying and flunking it for 33 years. One article says that she took it 40 times before she finally passed it (link) the article I linked to above is from England and it moves the number of times up to 104 - I'm guessing that there must be a bunch of different tests that you have to take to pass and she goofed up on one or the other as she tried and tried again.

Regardless, it's a very long time to try and a ton of failures; plus a ton of money (she did take lessons during this period of time) before she finally passed. She blamed her failures on nerves, claiming that the stress and pressure of the test itself made her forget the majority of what she had learned. I want to believe that - for both her sake and the sake of the population in Britain.

No matter, I'll bet the stock in a "learn to drive" company just went down and the car insurances rates now have a great chance of increasing. As a final note, this much can be said - first, she is a great example of striving towards something until you finally achieve it, she should be congratulated for that. Second, the examiner who passed her will probably be mercilessly ribbed for the forseeable future. I congratulate her and wish her well, I'm also glad that she's an ocean away.

Your comments and opinions are welcome.

More Later

Gotta Love It ... or do you?

2005-11-14T06:36:00.000-08:00

Click the headline to be taken to the article.

You know, on the one hand, since this is an article from California where they just voted down things like informing parents if you daughter is having an abortion; I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It also shows me why, as long as my kids are minors and live under my roof, I'd have to be starving to death to move to California.

It seems that Berkeley High School, a school that doesn't even allow certain textbooks to be taken home, has started a new school club (much like the chess club, the debate club) called the condom club. Yup, not only has the school started such a club, but by joining, each student get 12 condoms per week, FREE!!!!

Great idea, the public schools are still failing in teaching the subjects for which they are suppose to teach, like math, english, history - but hey, we (the school district) will give a dozen condoms per week to our students. Yup, our 'progressive' society is really taking off - I'm sure that taking the concern of 'where we are going to our condoms for this week' will help those grades reach new heights.

Your opinion and comments are welcome.

More Later

Okay, Where Do I Start???

2005-11-06T09:56:00.000-08:00

Click on the Title to link to the story -

To me (disclaimer there, it's my view on things) - there is/are so many things wrong with this that finding a starting place is almost difficult. At the University of California San Diego, a student aired on public Student run television a show, last year, showing people having sex. Okay, if you want to do that in the privacy of your own home or whatever, fine do it. However, having the taxpayer dollars supporting this is wrong (think PBS airing "deep throat"). Well, last year the school did stop this bozo from airing any more of his shows - that was last year.

He's back, and he has the student station manager backing him. This year he has aired a program showing him having sex with an adult actress. He claims that to bar the program is stepping on his 'freedom of expression' right (if he was in Oregon, the supreme court has already made this kind of thing legal - he's not in Oregon, thank God).

However, the student council opposed the program, finding it obscene and forbad anymore airing of the program. In direct defiance, the station manager not only allowed the show to be aired again, but this time the student actor/director had gone to the editing room and superimposed the face of a female student senator who had opposed his program, on the face of the female porn actress.

The student television station manager defended the program saying, "If we didn't air everything that someone found objectionable, we wouldn't have any programming." She also claimed that those objecting were in the 'minority'. The student actor/producer said, "... none of my friends find it objectionable ..." - well, duh, I can pretty much guess what his friends are like (can you?). He also viewed his actions (and those of the station manager) as a form of civil disobedience.

So the questions -
Was/Is his right to freedom of expression being trampled on?
Do we as a society have the right to set lines and indeed have a say on what is aired on a publicly supported format, or not?
Were his actions (and that of the station manager) an act of civil disobedience?
If so, should there be a price to pay for it?
How would you feel if your child were going to that college and you (and the state) were paying for it?

Opinions and comments welcome.

More Later

When Is It Enough?

2005-10-24T08:22:00.000-07:00

I've been assaulted recently by news articles and personal incidents that make me question what it is we are trying to do in our society. We gave $2000 cash, to certain victims of Katrina; these people were cast in the MSM as "the poor who were left behind". While that classification might have fit 20 or even 30% of these folks, the vast majority just failed to leave; they took a gamble and lost. Please don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping folks who've had a bad situation happen to them, even those that took a gamble like this and lost. However, many of these folks took the money and showed exactly why they are in the position in life that they are in - there are documented incidents of men taking the money and buying 'lap dances' in topless bars with it. There are documented incidents of people buying nothing but booze and cigarettes with the money and drinking themselves into a stupor. Yet despite all this, Error America on the radio rails that we need to give these folks even more money. The liberals on Capital Hill keep trying to find more money, jobs and training for these folks.

A friend of mine recently had a conversation with someone that he use to work with, during the conversation he found out that this former work companion had only worked 2 hours the week before; he claimed that that was all the work he had been assigned. I was shocked, I knew the area where this fellow was working and was sure that he could get 40 hours plus per week and asked aloud how this could be. My friend said that although this fellow had a fair amount of experience and other qualifications, he was lazy, a slacker and did not do the job for which he was hired (when he was on a job). His reputation and work record had caught up with him and he wasn't called on to work much any more.

What are we as a society to do with folks like these? What about the kids who are in high school who don't want to be there? They are disrupting classes and the learning experience for others. They are using extra funding in the way of the amount of time that the staff and admin must spend dealing with them and their antics. What are we to do with them?

The liberals keep talking about "fairness" - taken to an extreme it would mean that someone who is a doctor, earning $200,000 a year shouldn't make that much because a high school dropout isn't making that much a year (heck, he probably isn't even employed). It's socialism at it's best, it's the idea that we're all human beings and we're all worth the same; wherein lies the problem, we're NOT all worth the same. If I have a certain talent, education, knowledge or strength that not too many other people pocess, then I AM more valuable than those who don't have whatever I have. If I've bothered to better myself, then I AM more valuable than those who'd rather smoke crack and watch MTV.

So what DOES society owe people who don't want to go to school? What does society owe people who would rather do drugs? What does society owe people who don't want to work?

Your opinions and comments are valued.

More Later

And So It Has Come To Pass

2005-10-12T20:39:00.000-07:00

Click on the Headline to link to the story

Well, I've argued against gay marriage, many others have argued against any kind of recognition by society beyond traditional marriage. I've had many arguments on this blog and I've always asked (as have others) - "If we extend the line to two people of the same sex as being "married" then where does the line stop? Is polygamy next? Communal marriages? Beastiality? Necrophilia?

Those arguments were always given the brush by gay advocates, I never understood why and my disbelief in their dismissal is being vindicated. Click on the headline to see the first legal "civil union" between a man and two women; recognized by the Netherlands. Ah yes, the Netherlands where they've legalized drugs, hand out needles, have socialized ... well, everything. You know, the place that, along with Belgium, legalized gay marriage. Yup, they showed what's next, the legalization of polygamy.

Ever wonder why you don't/didn't see more about this in America's MSM? Could it be that they don't really want you to see how it goes in those liberal (falling off the edge liberal) countries? Could it be that they are afraid that news like this will turn even more Americans against the idea of gay marriage and/or gay civil unions?

As the old joke goes, nothing is a total waste, sometimes a bad thing serves as a bad example. That is how I would classify the Netherlands. If you want legalized prostitution, legalized drugs, huge taxes on individuals, socialized medicine and age pensions. If you want an anything goes society, then the Netherlands is an excellent example of what your country will look like and act like. Maybe you like that picture - my suggestion, move there. Personally, I like the United States just the way it is and will continue to fight to keep it that way.

Your opinions and comments are welcome.

More Later

White Legislator Wants to Join the Black Caucus

2005-10-09T13:37:00.000-07:00

Click on the headline to link to the story

Hmmm, interesting concept, eh? A white legislator from Tennessee wants to join the Black Caucus of that state. His reason is that he wants to better serve the black segment of his district. Not surprisingly, the black caucus has refused admission to it's caucus because of the man's race. Hmmm, sounds like racial discrimination to me - what say you???

Is it a ploy? Is it someone just trying to push the limits? I don't know, but I do know that I'm rather tired of being told something (a 'club') can't hold on to certain limits (like a men's club that allows only men, or a organization that has certain requirements like pledging to a higher power like the boy scouts) yet allowing other groups to have 'clubs' that have limits; such as gyms that allow only women (Curves), black or hispanic 'clubs' including the various 'black caucus's'.

According to the article, the black caucus admits 'honorary members' and it's meetings are open to the public - BUT - only blacks can become full members, full and equal members. The article goes on to say that this dilemma pits the 1st amendment - freedom of association; against the 14th amendment - equal protection clauses. Which will win? Which should win?

In my view, this is back to the old "equality" thing. If you provide for a special set of contracts to be set aside for a certain segment of business, then it has nothing to do with equality, it's quotas. If a certain number of students admitted to college have to be a certain ethnicity, then it's not equality, it's quota. If you can't join a club, a caucus, a group unless you are a certain gender, race, religion or sexual preference should be fine, but if it's fine for blacks, hispanics, gays and women's groups (to name a few) then it should be fine if it's a group of white men as well. Why is it fair for the 'minority' groups to join and exclude but not for white males.

Opinions and comments welcome.

More Later

Huge News

2005-10-02T06:47:00.000-07:00

Fantastic news that MSM and liberals (in general) won't like - a woman in Korea, older patient, who has been a paraplegic for 19 years regained feeling, limited movement and showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the site of the injury after she was infused with stem cells. What do you mean you haven't heard of this huge breakthrough - I found it on Ogre's blog (link here) and here is the link to the story itself (link here). Gee, could it be because the stem cells used adult stem cells? Could it be that if adult stem cells continue to show positive results that another reason for killing babies (abortion) would be taken away from the liberals?

We need to raise awareness of this medical breakthrough; granted she is not walking and movement of one centimeter isn't much - but it's more than what they've been able to do using fetal stem cells. No, the MSM has overlooked this one because it doesn't fit in with their 'progressive' agenda. We need to contact whoever we can to raise the awareness of this - personally I plan on contacting Bill O'Reilly. Spread the word - should you care to comment, feel free.

More Later

When is Enough Too Much??? Huh???

2005-10-01T11:52:00.000-07:00

Click on the headline to link to the news story.

When is enough too much - at least that is the question that came to my mind when I read the story that I've linked to above. The story is in regards to some court cases that ended up before the state supreme court regarding sex shows in this state.

Oregon is a VERY liberal state, it's liberal in a number of ways not the least of which is sex shows. We have more strip clubs per square mile than probably any other state in the union. I guess that's okay in that you do have to be an adult to go in one. However, where they place strip clubs and adult bookstores has always bothered me a bit.

The two cases that the state supreme court looked at were regarding strip clubs. One case was in regards to a city ordinance that said the dancers had to be a minimum of four feet away from a customer. It was struck down - I don't have a problem with the ordinance or with the fact that it was struck down. Again, if you're an adult and you go into one of those places ... well, as I said you're an adult.

The other case was regarding masturbation and girl-on-girl sex acts being performed. It appears that the court said the masturbation act was okay, the girl-on-girl wasn't. However, here is the finding of the court, see if you are as confused by it as I am. The court ruled that live sex shows are protected free expression, but it also upheld the promoting prostitution conviction of Roseburg club owner Charles R. Ciancanelli because he profited from having two women perform sex for money. So the question arises, if a sex act (between two girls, a man and a woman, whatever) is performed for free then it would be okay, but if someone gets paid then it's not? If the act is being performed for free but then there are tips given by patrons, is it legal or not? If two people are being paid to perform for a video but not on a stage, is it prostitution or an 'act'?????

Oregon defines prostitution as being an act between two people - soooooo, huh? I'm confused and I'm confused how the state supreme court made this ruling. It also brings in the question of what if three or more people are involved in the 'act' then where and how does this ruling effect it?

Comments, opinions??

More Later

Why???

2005-09-28T18:31:00.000-07:00

Okay, I've heard some theories, some ideas, heck I'll even share the few I've heard with you but here is the situation. I had to venture into downtown Portland during the past few weeks due to assignments given to me by my work. Downtown Portland is someplace that I usually avoid like the plague, mostly due to how unfriendly they have made it for cars. As a result I typically go downtown once a year or less - so the makeup/culture of downtown can (and does) easily escape me.

As stated previously, work has given me assignments which have put me there approximately a dozen times within the last couple of weeks; or in otherwords, the same number of visits that it would have taken me over a decade to do on my own. What I view with my own eyes is truly ... scarey.

I see people who talk to the sidewalk, followed by one talking to a street sign. I saw folks with so many tattoos and piercing that I fear even a tatto/piercing parlor wouldn't hire them (they certainly didn't seem to be working). I saw people with mohawk haircuts, dyed pink (didn't that go out of style years ago?). I saw scads of people begging for money, all the way from sitting there with their signs to ones who were almost physically accosting people and demanding money.

I saw a woman who finally fit the definition (at least from her outward appearance) for the term that Rush Limbaugh coined - "feminazi". She had an attractive figure but had her hair cut so short that the only way it could have been shorter would have been to shave it. She was wearing a combat army hat like soldiers do. She was wearing a sports bra with cut-off army fatigues with nylons under that and combat army boots. Thankfully I was in my truck heading out of town so I didn't have to actually deal with her.

My question is why, how does a downtown area draw all these kind of folks? You certainly don't see them in the suburbs. You don't see them in the country. You ONLY see them in the city - why???

They gather in numbers that tend to run the city's politics and agendas. If they were to try some of their ideas and tactics in the suburbs (or the country) they would be laughed out of the meeting; but they gather in the city in numbers that must be dealt with. This is where there is a huge disconnect between those that live in the city and those who live elsewhere.

Why do they gather there? One idea I was given was that they get 'free' stuff from the city, they get it BECAUSE they congregate and demand it. They get housing that is subsidized, they travel in downtown via 'fareless square' (to travel beyond it in this city actually costs you some money). The downtown is working on supplying free 'wireless internet' to the downtown. There are many places to get free or cheap clothing and food downtown. The odd thing is that downtown is also catering to the very rich - folks who have no problem coughing up $350,000 for a condo (1000 sq. ft.) with a view of the polluted river (course you'd have to do something besides stare at the river to care if it's polluted or not). The city recently bought a commerical storage building for the tune of $9 million dollars to install a park - two blocks over there was already some vacant land that the city owned that it could have installed the park in.

Why do you think downtown areas attract these people that you don't see many other places?

Opinions and comments welcome.

More Later

We Failed Our Marriage License Application

2005-09-19T20:44:00.000-07:00

If you haven't read my previous posting, please do so before reading this one, it will allow this one to make so much more sense.

So we filled out our marriage license application, turned it in ... make that, tried to turn it in - they wouldn't accept it. Here are the reasons why:

First, I used the abbreviation for inspector, I wrote - insp. - the lady at the counter said I had to write the word inspector; even though she obviously knew what the abbreviation stood for.

Second, my bride listed her occupation as 'unemployed' - which is true. She has a job lined up, but when she was filling out the application she was indeed unemployed. Sorry, they didn't like that 'occupation' - they settled on clerical.

Next, we listed dates as 9/11/01 - sorry, you have to spell out the ninth month as September. No, you don't have to spell out eleven or two thousand and one, but evidently the geniuses that they employ as typists don't know that the ninth month is indeed September. Even though later on the form where it asks for the date of your divorce writting the date as 9/11/01 WAS acceptable.

We live in the state of Oregon, typically abbreviated as OR or Ore - nope. Even though this IS Oregon, we live IN this state and we are trying to get a license IN this state; the abbreviations OR and/or Ore are unacceptable; we have to spell out Oregon. What idiots are in charge? Sheesh, even if they are outsourcing this nonsense to India, even THEY have the sense to where they could figure this out.

At the present time we are seriously, VERY seriously looking at a weekend flight to Vegas.

Comments welcome.

More Later

They Need to Know Because Why???

2005-09-19T05:26:00.000-07:00

Most of my readers know that I rarely post personal items, for the most part I don't consider this a venue for things going on in my personel life. However, on this particular posting I'm about to make an exception.

I about to get married, it is only my second marriage, she is a wonderful lady and we're planning on getting old together. If you're like me, you rarely fill out an application for a marriage license; the last time I did it was over 25 years ago. So, I found the questions that they asked ... interesting.

Please remember, I live in a state where a year ago we added to our state constitution that a marriage could ONLY be between one man and one woman. With that background in mind, I need to ask, why does the marriage application ask the sex of the husband and the sex of the wife? Could it truly be that they would allow a license if you put the sex of the husband as female and the sex of the wife as male? Or would that be grounds to withhold the license? Afterall, in that situation it would still be one man and one woman - I do believe in the amendment that was voted in, that it does spell out that the husband has to be male and the wife, female - so why the question?

A bit later in the application they ask for occupation - what??? Why??? If I put down "street person" would they deny me the marriage license? If I put down communist or anarchist, would they deny me my license? What about "drug dealer" or if she put down "prostitute" - I mean WHAT are they trying to find out? Why ask THAT question? Is there an occupation that they would deny someone a license for doing that occupation?

One last annoying question is that they ask which marriage this is for you - first, second, whatever. For record keeping issues I can see the sense of that one, although for some folks it might be difficult to keep track of.

The question should be so much simpler, the government doesn't need to know all these little details about me. Comments and opinions welcome, in fact encouraged.

More Later

I Wonder What Color His Beads Are???

2005-09-10T22:21:00.000-07:00

Robert W. Funk died, a name that probably doesn't mean much to most folks until I jog your memory in regards to what he is famous/infamous for - he founded/started the "Jesus Seminar". A group of very liberal scholars who set out to discredit the Bible and twist it to what they wanted it to be.

The folks that were 'invited' to the Jesus Seminar were folks who were already critical of the Bible and in most cases, critical of Jesus and who he was. They "voted" on if they thought/believed in what the New Testament atests to Jesus. They tried (in vain in my opinion) to research and justify their statements - uh, yeah, like they were able to uncover or discover material that hadn't been looked at in the past (and no, they didn't find anything like that). However, based on what appears to be their various biases, these so-called scholars then 'voted' on if they thought the accounts and/or sayings attributed to Jesus were indeed true. They 'voted' by casting colored beads - red for undoubtably true, pink for probable, gray for passages containing some historical truth and black for passages that they without historical basis. Turns out that they rejected 80% of the passages attributed to Jesus - yeah, no bias there.

No surprise, I'm in total disagreement with these folks and with this individual who started and promoted this 'seminar'. I'm not a literalist regarding the Bible because I understand the way in which it was written, however, I also believe that it's true and that it DID record what the Lord did and said. So this fellow, Mr. Funk, never did make my 'likeable' list. In my mind, I see him standing before the Lord and the Lord is about to reveal His chosen bead for this fellow's eternal future - I'm thinking that Mr. Funk will be lucky if the bead is even gray.

Your opinion and comments are welcome.

More Later

The Supreme Court

2005-09-05T09:20:00.000-07:00

RIP Chief Justice Rehnquist, a fine man who helped the court navigate through difficult times. Granted, opinions and judgements came down that ticked off both conservatives and liberals, but what that really means is that that institute did it's job (although that nonsense about 'imminent domain' is still hard to swallow). The Chief Justice said (just a few weeks ago) that he was appointed for life and intended to serve out his term - he kept his word.

So now Bush is faced with having to appoint two positions to the supreme court. One thing that has become even more clear to me, since the Katrina disaster is that no matter what Bush does he will be demonized. Since that is the case, I'd LOVE to see Bush appoint the most conservative judges that he can find to the court.

Sure the democrats will howl, newsflash - no matter WHO Bush nominates the democrats will howl. Since democrats/liberals/progressives will make noise no matter who is nominated then let's give them something to howl about ... and then let's appoint them anyway. I'm sick and tired of the republicans and Bush in particular being cast as the devil incarnate. If the democrats won't pull together and help to unite the country when the country is in need (as the case with Katrina) then ditch them (the democrats). The average Joe in this country, the middle-of-the-road citizen sees the disaster of Katrina and wants to help. The average Joe in this country is willing to help, it's a Christian value and this country (the vast majority of us) still practice those values. The average Joe DOESN'T want to hear whinning and finger pointing when there is work to be done. We don't want bickering when people are in need. Fix the problem(s) and figure out who is and isn't responsible when the problem is fixed.

My own opinion regarding Katrina is that if you know a class 5 hurricane is coming and you stay - then white, black, brown or purple, you deserve whatever comes your way. Those who didn't 'hear' the warning - my question is "What rock were you hiding under?" When the government pulls out the EMS people, that is the biggest warning alarm of them all. If you get a warning and you stay, whenever a disaster is coming, you deserve whatever happens to you. Yes, we should come in and pick up the pieces but we shouldn't blame anyone for what happened to you. If you are caught in the flood, you DON'T go to your attic where there is no exit - THAT is a stupid move; white or black, that is a stupid move.

The liberal press has complained about the black and poor - I heard one reporter describe the 'victims' of Katrina as "too black and too poor". My first question would be what is "too black"? My next comment would be to ask if the reporter knew what the racial makeup of New Orleans was? Turns out that New Orleans was 66% black - wanna guess that the number of black 'victims' will be higher than the number of white 'victims'? Again, I put the word victims in quotes because in my opinion all these people who were victims, they were victims of their own stupidity.

As usual, you comments are welcome - thoughts regarding the supreme court and/or Katrina, comment away.

More Later

*** Update *** Just found out that the levies that broke were STATE levies, NOT federal ones, meaning that all the howling about the feds cutting funds for levies was nonsense - it's not Bush and the feds - quit blaming Bush!!!!

Code Pink or Code Puke???

2005-08-27T22:13:00.000-07:00

Click on the headline to link to the story ...

Code Pink is a group that claims to be against the war, as are other groups. They are liberal, as are other groups; and they claim to support our soldiers but ...

They hold anti-war protests on Walter Reed Hospital grounds, where many injured soldiers are treated for wounds inflicted in Iraq and Afganistan. They are holding signs that tell the soldiers that they were "Maimed for Lies", that their buddies died for no reason.

These soldiers and their families that are very vulnerable and are hurting. If you are against the war is a hospital the proper place for that protest?

This is the same group that supports Cindy Sheehan and her protest in Texas. Thankfully the counter-protests have begun and have proved to be bigger than the anti-war protests.

I find Code Pink's tactics to be uncivil and improper. Their actions basically make me sick.

Your opinions are valued.

More Later.

They're Going To Do It Anyway

2005-08-22T16:30:00.000-07:00

Watched 60 minutes last night, a program that I use to watch but it has gone so far on the left side of the political spectrum that I don't TRY to watch it anymore - it just happened to be on. They did an interesting story about parents trying to save their kid but ...

It seems that this couple heard/knew that their son was going to go to a party where drinking was going to be involved. They made a concious decision and told their son that they would prefer the party be over at their house where the parents could make sure that no one who drank left the party and tried to drive home. They told their son that they would not provide the alcohol, but that they would welcome one and all with the understanding that once a person entered the home they surrendered their car keys which would not be given back until the next morning. The gist of the story was that they got caught by the police when the party got rather out of hand and too noisy attracting the police. The police conviscated the alcohol, the teens stayed at the home, a ruckus was made regarding if that was being responsible or not. Of course the parents said that the kids "... would have drank alcohol anyway, so this way at least no one was going to died via drunk driving." On the surface it sounds pretty sane, almost like a good idea - until you take it to it's logical conclusion.

They are going to have sex anyway, right? So I guess we ought to provide them with beds and rooms and condoms. They are going to be exposed to and possibly try drugs, both hard and soft ones - so I guess we should provide rolling papers, clean needles and a place to crash - right?

This is an argument that I've heard for years - "Well, they're going to do it anyway, so ..." so what? Gee, they will probably steal something from a store at sometime in their lives too, should I provide cover from the survalence cameras to make sure they get away with it? To me knowingly allowing something like underage drinking to occur is giving your blessing to it. It is abdocating your responsibility, your job as a parent. To answer the question of what would I do, if I'd heard there was going to be drinking, my child wouldn't have gone out that night. If my child comes home with alcohol on his/her breath, they're grounded and not going anywhere for an extremely long period of time.

But maybe I'm too old-fashioned, what do you think, kind reader? I mean "they are going to do it anyway" - is that enough reason to provide a safe place to do "it", whatever the "it" is? If you think what the parents did was smart, then should we apply/allow it for sex and drugs? Why or why not? I'm curious.

More Later

Gentlemen - Start Your Engines

2005-08-17T17:47:00.000-07:00

The picture says it all - if I'd had one of these growing up, that lawn would have been cut down to the roots. Enjoy.

More Later

Maybe It's Just me - Princess Diaries (part II)

2005-08-10T14:54:00.000-07:00

Folks who read my blog know that I can and do get offended - one of the things that our right to free speech almost assures us of, that we will be offended daily. However, when the target audience is young people (girls in this case) ages 12 and up I feel I have the right to say something - again, this is evoking MY right of free speech.

Do you remember the movie and/or book "Princess Diaries"? It was the typical fluff piece, I believe the movie was by Disney; about a girl who finds out she is the next in line for a throne in some obscure country. In the movie, she was taught about being 'royalty' by her grandmother played by Julie Andrews. At this point I will admit that I never read the book and only saw snippets of the movie. I saw snippets because both my daughters LOVED the movie, bought it and watched it several times. One of my daughters is an avid reader, she purchased the book and read it as well. So far, so good.

As could be expected, after doing so well both in book sales and at the theater, that kind of success will inspire the author to write a sequel; no surprise she's written several of them. The series didn't really gain that much popularity until the movie, again not a real surprise. So I'm expecting that any and all of the books in this series are going to (more or less) be like the first one - time for the surprise.

The second book entitled, Princess Diaries, Volume II - Princess in the Spotlight starts out with the following on page one; remember, this is page one. In the first paragraph we see the word 'premenstrual' - uh, okay, yes it is supposed to be targetted to girls ages 12 and up, many of them are menstrating by that age but ... reading on, at the bottom of page one her mom (unmarried) admits that she's (the mom) is pregnant. The next few pages talk (calmly) about birth control and how her mom had had her outside wedlock, blah, blah, blah.

Now I know some folks won't think anything of this writing, they may or may not see anything wrong with it (by the way here is a link to Amazon.com for the book, when you get there click on the book and you can read the first few pages for free - link). However, to my way of thinking that is NOT what I want my 12 year old (or even 13, 14 or possibly 15 year old) to be reading and thinking about. You know if it's targetted for 12 year olds there are kids as young as 8 who will be reading it.

Look I don't care what the author wrote, I do care that in my humble opinion this kind of material is NOT suitable for pre-teens and young teens. I do care that this woman's work was given a boost by a suitable movie and then she writes this prose while her young female audience is still looking for what was in the first book and the movie. To me it would be akin to the Harry Potter author writing about Harry having a smooching and feeling out session in one of the Harry Potter series. Is it in keeping with the series? Is it necessary? Is it being true to your audience?

Hook into the link and take a gander, then come back and leave a comment. Is this type of writing appropriate for pre-teens and young teens? Did the author pull a fast one on her audience? Or am I just all wet?

Your comments are appreciated.

More Later

Intelligent Design???

2005-08-01T21:43:00.000-07:00

There's been a controversy brewing for sometime in various parts of this country dealing with what is taught to students regarding the beginning of life on this planet. Evolution has been the defacto standard, but most folks will agree the theory is flawed. Yes, micro-evolution exists (personally I call micro-evolution adaptation) but micro anything does not necessarily translate to macro anything; in some cases it does, in some cases it doesn't. There are gaps in the fossil records that scientists just can't explain (although they certainly try). As leading evolutionist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould stated: "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Then of course, there is the obvious fact that no one, nothing exists to show absolute and exact proof of exactly what happened back then.

Enter the argument of Intelligent Design. While there is no more or less proof that this theory is better than the theory of Evolution - THAT is my argument in a nutshell. There is no real, undeniable, undisputed proof for EITHER theory. Since school is suppose to be a place of learning, a place to see, decifer and examine evidence then why do so many people have anguish when it's suggested that the theory of Intelligent Design be presented along side the theory of Evolution? Could it be that there is a fear that the theory of Intelligent Design will make more sense in light of the facts that we know and find? Is there a fear that the flaws in the theory of Evolution will become even more evident?

I do not fear someone from the 'Flat World Society' teaching their theory next to someone who holds that the world is round - because I believe that when all the facts are presented to a child they will (usually) end up concluding that the world is round. I do not fear someone trying to teach my child that 2 + 2 = 5 versus someone teaching them that 2 + 2 = 4, because when they examine the evidence I believe that those with the answer 4 will be shown to be correct.

School is a place to learn. Some facts are beyond dispute, I can place 2 objects next to 2 other objects and we can all count them and come up with the number 4. However, when there are major, unanswered and unanswerable questions such as "How did life start on this planet?" I feel that all sides of the question should be looked at. President Bush recently backed the teaching of BOTH theories for the origin of life in schools. He'll catch hell for it but that's one reason I like him, on many issues he doesn't do the PC thing, he takes a stand and goes for it (again I have some real problems regarding his immigration policies but that aside ...).

So what do you think? I don't necessarily care if you are for one theory or the other (although it will probably color your opinion) - should both theories be taught and discussed? There are obvious holes in the theory of evolution, does the theory of Intelligent Design close and or answer some of those questions or address them in a different way? Why should or shouldn't both theories be taught in school?

Your opinions and comments welcome.

One Way to Express Your 1st Amendment Rights

2005-07-18T23:59:00.000-07:00

I have no problem with this drawing or what it says.

Your comments and opinions are appreciated.

More Later

The New School Prayer

2005-07-14T16:05:00.000-07:00

This was sent to me by a friend, it is different than many I've seen what do you think of it????

The New School Prayer

Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rules
For this Great Nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd

If scripture now the class recites
It violates the Bill of Rights
And any time my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now

Our hair can be purple, orange or green
There's no offense, it's a freedom scene
The law's specific, the law's precise
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice

For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate
God's name is prohibited by the state

We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks
They would like to outlaw guns, but first the Bible
To quote the Good Book makes me liable

We can elect a pregnant senior queen
And the unwed 'daddy' our senior king
It's inappropriate to teach right from wrong
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong

We can get our condoms and birth controls
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed
No word of God must reach this crowd

It's scary here, I must confess
When chaos reigns the schools a mess
So Lord, this silent plea I make
Should I be shot; my soul please take
Amen

Something that too many liberals and atheists seem to forget regarding the first amendment - it guarantees the fact that you probably WILL be insulted and or upset sometime today. I know that I am everyday, I see no reason that they too shouldn't share in having things get their noses out of joint.

Your thoughts, opinions and ideas are welcome.

More Later

Immigrants - the folks I've met

2005-07-11T22:11:00.000-07:00

Immigrants – 99% of us had ancestors who were immigrants. Even in this ‘modern’ age we have immigrants; I’m not talking about the illegal immigrants, I’m talking about the legal ones. Every legal, first generation American that I’ve met seems to lean to the right and I wanted to know why.

The answer was fairly common in the various folks that I talked with and I tried to make it a wide variety of immigrants (legal). I talked with Hispanics from Mexico, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. I talked to Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodian, Korean, even Chinese. I spoke with Egyptians, Iranians, Syrians, and Iraqis. I asked for the ideas and opinions of people who immigrated from Russia, Germany, Italy and Spain. The common theme that they expressed was that one could make something of themselves in this country that their country of origin didn’t offer. The capitalistic system offers them opportunities that the systems in their counties didn’t offer. Our freedoms, which the liberals use to libel our country (witness flag burning), are freedoms that they couldn’t even dream of in their native countries. The harder and more that they worked, the further ahead they found that they could get. The educational opportunities surpassed anything that was offered in their countries because here, all one had to do was pay the money and get the grades. In their countries, the government decided who could and did get higher education opportunities as well as WHAT you would study – ask around, it’s common in other countries (even in those ‘advanced countries’ like Germany).

Another common theme that I heard was that the legal immigrants didn’t like the illegal immigrants. While they had sympathy and empathy for illegal people from their native countries, they felt that they (the legal immigrants) had done everything legally and proper and believed that everyone should. They were escaping from countries where the government did everything for them, and to them and don’t want our country to turn into another socialist nightmare.

They had seen and lived under ‘other’ governmental philosophies and to a person preferred this living under this one; no contest. They know what it’s like to have limited rights compared to what we have in this country. They know what it’s like to be thrown in prison for speaking out against the government. They know what it’s like to stand in lines waiting for medical care. They know what it’s like to have to bribe police to stay in business and/or to keep you and your family out of jail. Yes, they expressed to me all these thoughts and emotions and without exception they disagreed with the position that the democrats keep trying to push. They understand family and family values and disagree that people who are gay fit under that heading. They understand what freedom of religion means and they realize that it does NOT mean freedom FROM religion as the liberals would like it to be. They epitomize the reasons, the values and logic that made this country what it is and they don’t believe that the democratic position supports this country.

I would like the president to do something about the illegal immigrants; it’s something that he just hasn’t stepped up to the plate on. It’s something that the legal immigrants would like to see something done about – but they realize that the democrats have even fewer ideas about doing something the illegal’s than the republicans do.

Have you had different experiences? I’d like to hear about it. I’ll be posting the synopsis of talking with illegals next. Stay tuned – in the meantime, speak out. Is this what you hear and see or … ?

More Later

Another Example of Bad Government Spending

2005-07-07T04:15:00.000-07:00

In my home state (Oregon) the legislators are trying to finish their session so they can go home. Per usual, there are several bills that still need some work and the gap between the house and senate don't seem to be getting closer. Of course you'd think, the governor, shouldn't he step up and show some leadership and try to pull the two sides of the legislature together? Uh, sorry, he's been bought and paid for by the unions and has all the backbone and leadership qualities of a wet noodle.

Here in Oregon, as in most of the country, our economy is rebounding so tax collections are up (we rely heavily on income taxes so the more folks we have working the more taxes we collect). In that spirit, the spirit of "Yeah, we have more money to spend" the democrats just can't find enough stuff to support, prop up or buy; they just have a hard time keeping the spending down. A prime example is Amtrak service.

Yes, here in this state, our state contributes to Amtrak, even though it's a federal entity (a quasi-governmental service) - to keep certain runs here, the state has to pony up some money. We have 3 daily runs that go through, well sort of through our state. The first is the daily long run train, called the Coast Starlight run which runs from somewhere in California to Vancouver B.C. - I have only a slight problem with this run and most of this run is subsidized by the Federal government (still my taxes, just coming from a different pocket, spent in a different way). No, on the more local level we have two other runs that go from Eugene to Portland about a 100 mile trip, twice daily (it makes stops in 3 other cities along the way). It is a favorite barrel of pork that the democrats LOVE to fund. The present legislature has the senate agreeing with the governor to subsidize the Portland - Eugene run to a tune of $9 million dollars while the house wants to cut the service to one train a day a give Amtrak a mere $3 million dollars.

Greyhound runs 6 trips a day between the two cities and the state (and the feds) doesn't subsidize them at all, and the cost is cheaper per person per ride. The math figures out to be that each trip on Amtrak costs the Oregon taxpayer $91 per person/per one way trip. The only arguments for the subsidy is that "taking the train is relaxing" - seriously, that is the only real argument for the subsidy. Hey I agree, taking the train is nice, it is relaxing but so is taking a limo or to make the trip really quick, jump in a plane. Should the state pay for your relaxation? If so, I want to relax at a resort somewhere and maybe the state should pay for that too.

Look rather than fund every nice idea that comes along, how about keeping our budgets in check. Rather than acting like a kid who 'found' another dollar in his pocket and has to run to the store to buy candy with it; why don't we act like adults and maybe cut our taxes if we have THAT much money to spend. We are crying in this government for more money for state police, more money for prison beds, more money to help the poor, the needy and the elderly but somehow the democrats don't want to use $6 million to do that, no, they want folks to have relaxing commutes instead.

To me this is just another example of 'government gone wild' - they have gotten so far away from the basics of government that the humor has gone out of it. If they don't want to cut taxes or refund that money back to the taxpayer then how about funding programs for the needy, last I looked those riding the train didn't qualify as needy.

However, you take might be different - is it? Sound off, tell me what you think.

More Later

Our Old Friend - The Spotted Owl

2005-07-05T21:53:00.000-07:00

Do you remember the Spotted Owl? He was at the center of some huge enviromental battles that seemed to pit logging interests against the enviromentalists. The enviromentalists tried to paint the loggers as the bad guys, making themselves the good guys. In truth, both had a point but in the court of mainstream media (MSM), those were the roles assigned to each group.

Here we are several decades later and guess what? Those little imps, the spotted owls, seems they like to nest and live in areas that are tailor made for forest fires. Oddly enough, when a good size forest fire breaks out, we lose a lot of those spotted owls - kinda of a 'catch 22' wouldn't you say? In fact "Spotted owls have declined for at least the past 15 years, said Eric Forsman, a biologist with the Pacific Northwest Research station in Corvallis.

That population drop has been dramatic in Central Oregon, largely because of wildfires. In 2003, the B&B Fire burned 92,000 acres on the Sisters Ranger District. In 2002 the Eyerly Fire burned about 24,000 acres on the Sisters Ranger District and the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. South of Bend, on the Crescent Ranger District, the Davis Fire burned 21,000 acres in 2003.

At least 18 of the 24 known spotted owl nests in the Sisters District went up in smoke during those fires, ..."

So here we are on the brink of another forest fire season and the debate rages on regarding the thinning of the forest; or at least the clearing of some of the underbrush. There are rules and regulations even when it comes to salvaging timber from a fire, turns out they have to carefully survey (after a fire) to make sure there are no owl nests (shouldn't be any nests, I'd guess that the suckers burned up - ya think?). Now they are trying to make safe zones around known nests and again there have to be surveys to make sure there are no nests in the areas that they are thinning or doing away with the underbrush. Unless the thinning and clearing takes place, the forest fires could be bigger, more intense and be harder to fight - but if we clear, we MIGHT run the owl out of some of their habitat.

So what should we do kind reader? Thin and clear the forests to cut down the chance of fires and make them easier to control once they get started? Or let nature take it's course, fight them when and however we have to but save the spotted owl habitat (until the fire destroys it)? The link to the story that got me thinking about this is here. What are your thoughts?

Opinions and comments welcome.

More Later

Would I ... ?? (School Vouchers)

2005-07-04T11:58:00.000-07:00

Ran across an article that talked about the fact that Ohio is expanding it's voucher program to more than triple it's present size (link). It will give funds to students who attend schools that persistently fail academic tests. It will give a voucher of $4250 to students who are in K - 8th grade and $5000 to students in high school.

It is no surprise to anyone who reads this blog with any degree of regularity that I have a very poor opinion about public schools. While I realize that the school experience has to do with parental involvement with the child and the school; I also admit that much of the 'experience' lies within the child and how much responsibility they take in their own experience/education. Still, I strongly disagree with the politics that the public school system is shoving down our student's throat and I have some strong issues with the lack of the school holding the students responsible for certain standards and expectations.

By the same token, most private schools are VERY expensive. A local private non-religious high school (actually it also includes a grade school) is well over $10,000 per year. Most of the private religious high schools go from over $5000 a year to over $12000 a year. Obviously a huge huddle to overcome, especially when you're income is low/limited. I'm presently struggling with trying to find a private high school for my sophomore after her freshman year confirmed (to me) what a disaster the public school system has become.

Sooooo - after reading about the Ohio situation I found myself thinking, "If Oregon had the same situation, would I place my child in a failing school - on purpose - with the end idea in mind that the next year we could use the voucher to put her into a decent school?" My, the idea is certainly tempting - of course in this liberal/socialistic state (Oregon) I'll be dead and buried before such an idea (vouchers) EVER would pass here, but what if? I admit, I would be VERY tempted - in fact I'd probably do it. There are/would be some moral issues that I would have to deal with and I can't tell you what would finally happen if I were confronted with this situation but I thought I might bring it to you the readers.

Question of the day: If your state gave vouchers to students who attended schools that consistantly failed academic tests; would you enroll your child into one of those schools for one year with the goal being to garner a voucher and transfer them to a private school the next year?

What is your take on that question? Of course an easy idea (Buffalo not withstanding - Buff, we know where you stand on this one) would be to just give every parent the money the state spends on a child's education and allow them to place the student wherever they believe the student is getting the best education - but in this land of freedom, we can't allow THAT particular freedom.

Comments and opinions are welcome.

More Later

Freedom of Speech ... as long as you don't use the G word

2005-06-30T22:06:00.000-07:00

Click on the heading to link to the story.

Oh yeah, the liberal bias in colleges raises it's ugly head again. The above is a story about a woman who wrote a paper for her English 101 class. She chose to write about the affect of Christianity on the development of the United States; her paper was titled "In God We Trust". Because she used the word "God" rather than god, she received and "F" on the paper.

When you read the story you see that there was alot of discussion that took place between the teacher and the student prior to her turning in her paper. The bottom line appears, to me, to be that the teacher doesn't like to see the word "God" and refused to allow it in a paper. The woman stands pat on her right to free speech.

The student took the situation up through the channels but for some reason even the head of the department stood by the teacher and informed the student that she had three choices to choose from: Hand in the report with the "G" word or revise, edit or re-write the paper. Several emails had gone back and forth between the teacher and student, one of the emails stated that the teacher "wrote her back an e-mail approving her topic choice, but at the same time cautioning her to be objective in her reporting. "I have one limiting factor," Shefchik wrote, according to the ACLJ. "No mention of big 'G' gods, i.e., one, true god argumentation." She said, "He told me you might as well write about the Easter Bunny; he wanted to censor the word God."

The woman's husband is supporting his wife's cause and case (yes she is taking this to court). She is demanding that the paper be regraded on it's english merits rather than it's subject matter. She is demanding an apology by the teacher and she is asking that the teacher "receive some kind of training to sensitize him to the constitutional dimensions of his employment in a public educational institution, including his duty to respect constitutional freedoms of expression."

As usual the liberals make me see red, it's akin to the "social mathmatics" that some schools are teaching. Again I ask, aren't schools for teaching of subjects NOT teaching of social/political agendas (unless THAT is the particular course that you signed up for)? More and more students are getting sick and tired of having political (and religious) biases forced upon them.

I hope the woman wins her case, I'd LOVE to see that teacher fired - what is your take on this?

Comments and opinions welcome.

More Later

Sorry

2005-06-30T05:14:00.000-07:00

Life has gotten hectic and I got behind, lots of stuff to post about see if you can hang with me.

First on a local front - my state legislature is nearing the end of it's session (they meet every two years). As usual there are a ton of bills that won't see the light of day (in many cases that's a good thing) as well as other important issues that they (the house and senate) have to come to an agreement on to close the session. One of those points of (presently) disagreement is the state budget - typically a good thing to have an agreement on prior to ajournment (grin). One of the main sticking points is how much money our state will fund the schools with. Here is where things get stupid, in my humble opinion.

The state house of representatives is majority republican (let's out a small cheer), the state senate is majority democrat (let's out a huge boo). Per usual, the divide between the two is huge, especially when it comes to spending. The house has put forth a plan to fund schools, now and in the future to the tune of 51% of our personal income taxes. When you remember that Oregon has no sales tax and we tax income at 9% (only other tax is property tax) you quickly figure out that it's a huge number. I can't quote you an exact number because (obviously) that number changes as more or less people are employed and pay income taxes. However, it is a huge piece of our state income pie. The reason for her proposal is that every two years there is a huge fight over how much money to give the schools; case in point, this year the house wants to spend $5.125 billion and the senate wants to spend $5.3 billion. The idea of the plan would be to take school funding off the table in future years/sessions.

'Not good enough' - cry the democrats in the senate. To quote the news report (link), "... Democratic legislators say the Minnis plan amounts to a spending limit on schools ..." (Minnis is the speaker of the house). Imagine that, having a limit on how much you can spend on schools ... or ANYTHING!!!! This is why I dislike the democrats sooooo much, I swear, drunken sailors have more sense than democrats do.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike politicians in general - I view what President Bush has done with the national economy with some degree of distain. I realize that there needs to be some level of short term deficit spending due to the war; but think things have gone overboard. I have seen how this type of spending has helped to turn the country around under Reagan and how the economy is turning around (and the deficit is getting smaller) under President Bush - but I hate the idea none-the-less.

However, in this state we don't allow deficit spending (it's in our state constitution) - which means if the money doesn't come in like the lawmakers expect it to that they meet to cut budgets.

So the question - do YOU think there should be a 'limit' on government spending? If you read the report it talks about a commission, the commission is a shill for the education lobby so it's beyond bias. Really, the question is - should there be a vehicle or plan in place to ensure that something as important as school funding is stable and not a pawn every two years? In this state 95% of the stuff other states fund without question IS questioned every two years. School funding, state police (how many), state crime lab (has been shutdown due to lack of money), level of help to the elderly and more is on the table every two years and here is a plan to place one of those in a little less vulnerable position.

In the end, I doubt the bill will fly - the house and senate will split the difference between what they want to spend on schools this coming year; and as is typical each side will blame the other.

Do you have an opinion on this one?

More Later

The Downing Street Memo

2005-06-17T11:14:00.000-07:00

Since I answered a question from one reader, I'll happily answer another reader. Lawryde asked why I haven't commented on the so-called Downing Street Memo.

What would you like me to say? First, the memo hasn't been verified, even USA Today stated that as a reason for not pursuing the story stronger (link). Both leaders listed/talked about in the so-called memo have denied the contents. The memo was "leaked" a few days before the British elections, strongly suggesting that it was an effort (be it true or false document) to undermine and sway the election against Blaire (remininscent of the so-called National Guard documents that were leaked - and ultimately proven false - during our 2004 election). For a further examination of the 'memo' I would refer you to Liberty Post (link) rather than rehash all of it.

Finally, allow me to close this post with the following observations/facts - Did the Bush administration have a 'after the war' plan? I'm sure there was one, but it didn't play out very well. Did we have a reason to invade Iraq? I've pointed out many, many times that all their violations of the peace treaty (Desert Storm I) justified an invasion - had Japan or Germany violated the peace treaties that were signed at the end of WWII, do you really think we would have just established 'no fly zones' or 'sat on their borders'? No, their countries would have been re-invaded and those governments either overthrown or forced to live up to the items in the peace treaty. Finally, we're over there, information as to how and why we're there is water under the bridge. Most folks realize that to pull the troops out would leave the country open to massive chaos. So to me and the vast majority of Americans the 'Downing Street Memo' is not a smoking gun, it does have credibility problems and it has little if any affect on our present situation. I hope this addresses your question.

More Later

Terry Schiavo - Post Mortem

2005-06-17T10:19:00.000-07:00

One of my readers (and I appreciate all of them), Cammo posed a question or maybe a demand that I comment on Terry Schiavo case in light of the autopsy that was recently performed. However, this reader made this statement in his request/demand - "... how it proved pretty much everything written on here durring that time wrong."

Cammo, I went back and looked at my posting regarding Terry. I only made two postings both were done in March 2005, feel free to go back and look for yourself. Nowhere in either of the postings or in the feedback/comments did I ever accuse her husband of doing wrong. The only things that I argued was taking about "living wills" and how the majority of the liberal blogs were pro-death for Terry while the majority of conservative blogs were pro-life.

I still feel that since her parents were able and willing to take over her care (meaning no cost to taxpayers, no more weight on her husband) that her husband should have allowed them to take over the custody/guardianship. The autopsy showed that she was NOT suffering, indeed she was merely living on "automatic" meaning that she could breath on her own, etc. Indeed, the autopsy showed that she would never have gotten better. The question is/would be, is it better that she's dead? If she had continued to live, would it have affected your life? Her death affected the lives of her family.

Basically I'm kind of upset that Cammo seems to have implied that I made statements that (as far as I can tell) I didn't make. I strive very hard to be fair. I strive very hard to back up things with facts. There were no 'facts' that showed that her husband had caused her harm, I had and still have some questions regarding his motives - but I did not cast accusations. Cammo, I urge you to look at my postings and if I'm in error please point it out; otherwise I believe an apology might be in order.

More Later

Have Labor Unions Outlived Their Purpose?

2005-06-16T11:40:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting experience recently, I had a discussion with a friend regarding labor unions. She belongs to a union and worked directly for that union (rather than for a company that bargains with the union) for a period of time. Her reality is that unions are not just a necessity but an excellent idea and that most segments of the working public would benefit if more of them belonged to a union.

I've been on both sides of this fence. I worked for many years for several companies that were unionized. One knock against them in that particular situation was that I HAD to join their unions to work there. Yes, I understand the entire concept, but if you really think about it, if the union was such a great deal then couldn't they just have a company to where if you wished to be a union member then you get these benefits, but if you don't then you get these benefits? Giving the people a choice? Yes, I know the arguments, by having the company being all union then there is strength in numbers, etc.

I've worked for several years, several companies that were non-union. I've never been mis-treated by any of these non-union companies. My pay and benefits have always been on par or better than anything that any union ever provided for me and it didn't take an extra fee out of my paycheck to pay for a negotiating entity to get these benefits. Heck, the person that I was having a discussion with even admitted that one company (in their line of work) which was non-union paid more than what the union companies were paying. She admitted that that company had better benefits than what the union had bargained for from the other companies. She admitted that the union stood zero percent chance of bringing the union into these stores because this chain of stores treated their employees right.

I love the capitalistic system, I love it more each and every day because it gives us choice, it makes people and companies respond or die. If a company treats their employees poorly (wages, benefits, hours, etc.) they will have trouble attracting and holding employees. That company won't have good employees and in turn those employees won't give good customer service which will hurt the bottom line of the company. Companies are not stupid, they are in business to make money. Bad employees and poor customer service kills business and eventually the business goes out of business (public service jobs withstanding).

I pointed out that while in a union I saw and knew of employees who were ... well, in a word, pathetic. Employees who consistantly turned in less than a full day's work; heck, in some cases what they accomplished barely qualified as a quarter day's worth of work. Yet these companies were so saddled with rules, regulations and restrictions from the union that it was almost impossible to get rid of them. I pointed out that in companies which had been non-union I had never seen a person fired that the vast majority of the rest of the employees agreed deserved to be fired.

So my question to you - are unions still necessary? Are they beneficial or not? Do they still do what they were originally set up to do? Do you favor unions or not, and why?

Your comments are welcome.

More Later

One of the Faces of Socialism

2005-06-10T10:28:00.000-07:00

Click on the headline to link to the original story -

I have a new reader who evidently believes that a socialistic government/country is a better way to go. As chance would have it, I ran across an article talking about a 'family' in Britain where the 3 daughters, ages 12, 14 and 16 have all given birth to children. Their mother, twice divorced (never married to any of the fathers of her own three daughters) is blaming the school system for the position that her daughters find themselves. I would have almost thought I was reading this off the Daily Onion (a website that does satire) if I didn't check and double check this. Here are some excepts from the article - oh, and by the way, the entire family is living off the government and contributing ... kids?

"... Currently, including the council-provided house, the Atkins family is estimated to be costing British taxpayers around £650 -- $1,178 -- a week, or around $60,000 a year. Mrs. Atkins, though, has expressed herself dissatisfied with current arrangements, complaining to the papers that now her three daughters have babies, she is finding her three-bedroom house "cramped", and is requesting larger accommodation from the local council.

In stark contrast to many British parents, Mrs. Atkins feels there isn't enough sex education in the schools and thinks what there is is of poor quality. "Girls are becoming pregnant earlier and earlier," she complains, as though this was a natural disaster it was impossible to avoid. She makes no connection between the fact that, 20 years earlier, there was less emphasis on sex education at a very early age in schools and infinitely fewer teenage -- and nowadays, child -- pregnancies. She herself had her first child at a respectable 20.."

and there is more

"Thus, today's degraded society in Britain, under a socialist government which has intentionally pulled up the underpinnings of marriage and a home and a family with two married parents living in it, lumbers on in all its unloveliness.

The British National Health hospitals, where most British mothers give birth, now instructs its doctors and nurses to enquire about the mother's "partner" rather than her husband. One can't be judgmental, after all, and, with 49 percent of British births now being outside marriage, they're not too far off. (This is in the context of a new, intrusive Labour government directive which requires OB-GYN staff to ask the mother if her "partner" has ever engaged in physical abuse. This impertinence alone is a towering argument against socialized medicine.)

Meanwhile, married couples with children no longer get preferential tax treatment, as Tony Blair's government has declared that no one form of "family" should have a tax advantage over another. Anything anyone chooses, however temporarily, to regard as a "family" is as good as any other. Given that the family is the basic unit of human society all over the world, this typical Labour perversity is not unintentional. Tony Blair gave a speech a few years back, in which he vowed to "destroy the forces of conservatism" -- meaning everything that binds society together -- and he has laid about him with a wrecking ball ever since. Middle-class British parents, meanwhile, are mortgaging their futures to keep their children out of state schools, or to buy homes in areas where the local state school has a civilized reputation."

It should be noted that none of the fathers are involved in the lives of their babies, the two youngest ones have not seen the father since announcing to them that they were pregnant. None of the 'fathers' has been charged with rape.

In true socialistic style one of Britain's socialitic hero's speaks out -

"Blair's old confrere, Roy Hattersley, a creepy socialist ex-MP, lost no time in dashing off an article for The Guardian, in which he castigated the opprobrium and japery being heaped upon the Atkins household. "Why," he spluttered in outrage, "they're being treated like characters in a Victorian morality play!" The Victorians were notably continent and family-oriented, so one can understand his repulsion. Regarding the £650 the family takes from the taxpayers, Hattersley opines, "Shocking? It certainly is. But not for the reasons that have excited tabloid passions. Despite their 'rent free, three-bedroom council house', the Williams [the daughters' surname] family is expected to survive on less than £70 ($127) a head. The three babies are being brought up in poverty. And society does not care."

This, of course, is our old friend bait 'n' switch. It is doubtful that even very greedy 4- to 10-month old babies could pack away $127 worth of food each per week, and as they grow older, their government benefits will grow along with them -- in perpetuity, as undoubtedly the three new babies will repeat the family pattern."

So am I against socialism, that would be an affirmative.

I'm VERY interested in hearing your views about this particular situation - comment away.

More Later

NCLB and Vouchers

2005-06-08T09:08:00.000-07:00

I've been looking for something to write about for a while, it took a bit before my last posting raked in some comments, so I wasn't going to write about education again except - not much has been going on (democrats trying to block EVERYTHING that Bush wants, nothing new there) and then I ran across this article (link).

Basically it's a story about a poor black student in Florida, who was doing poorly in school and going to a poorly run school. He took the voucher that the state provided and started attending a Catholic high school; the school accepted the voucher as full payment (many private secular schools cost more). The child is now earning B's and is preparing for college. Now before you decry how the public school lost that money, consider these facts. The voucher was for $4400 a $1000 less than it costs to educate the child in a public school. With other children taking advantage of both NCLB and vouchers, the student/teacher ratio at the child's old high school has gone from 30 to 1 down to 22 to 1. Under threat of NCLB and vouchers, the new principal has revamped the administration and replaced half the teachers in the school. That particular high school has seen a dramatic increase in it's testing scores. It is not an isolated case, three different studies have found that test scores almost always rise in schools where vouchers and/or NCLB transfers are imminent. The reason NCLB in and of itself is not enough of a threat, is because in many cases kids are merely moving from one bad school to another one. When the added threat of the kids leaving the public school system is added, things change.

So we have a system in place that saves the taxpayer money ($1000 less to educate the child), the end results are that all the children (those in public schools and those in private schools) seem to benefit, so what's the problem? The problem is that in the Florida State Supreme Court a case is being heard which is attempting to disallow vouchers to Catholic schools based on the Florida version of the Blaine amendment. The Blaine amendment was a prohibition on aid to religious schools that was added to many state constitutions in the 19th century thanks to campaigns by nativist politicians against the "Catholic menace." Catholic schools usually cost less than secular private schools and are often located closer to the areas that poorer students live (i.e. urban areas). Yet this is the "higher moral ground" upon which lawyers for the Teachers Union are trying to strike down vouchers.

Yes, again it's tied in with the democratic party (because the union supports the party and vice-versa), the party that talks diversity and tolerance until it's diversity and tolerance in regards to something they disagree with. You can be as diverse as you want, as long as there is nothing regarding religion in any way, shape or form; then the democrats can't tolerate it.

Basically the voucher program teamed with NCLB has changed education for thousands of students in both Florida and Michigan; yet year after year those states find themselves in court fighting for the right to allow vouchers. Who wins in these situations? The taxpayers save money, the kids (both in the private and ultimately public schools) end up with a better education, so the reason that Teachers are fighting these vouchers is? Well, the fact that the head count of the teacher unions in Florida and Michigan has been shrinking might be one reason, although I'm sure the unions would deny that.

Bottom line, parents want choice. Yes, even poor parents would like some choice. They would like more choice than between a bad school and a bad school. They would like all the students to do well, regardless of if they are in public or private schools - does fighting vouchers and NCLB accomplish that?

I see this as a total win-win situation. So I ask my readers, where is the downfall? Is it the fact that the 'religious' school is getting some money to educate a child? Does providing that money really break the church-state separation? Especially since the voucher can be spent on ANY private school, Catholic, Jewish, secular. It just happens that the Catholic one will accept the voucher as full payment; many other private schools charge more money than what the voucher pays.

What is our goal? Is it to educate our children? Or maintain a church/state semblance of separation, damned the cost? Is giving choice to parents really wrong? In real life examples everyone wins, yet the teacher's union continues to fight against something that is getting results.

Your comments are very welcome.

More Later

The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling

2005-05-28T10:27:00.000-07:00

That's right, prepare for the end of the world, get your diaster kits ready, it must be very close to judgment day. Why you ask? Well the New York Times, that basion of liberalism, the paper who's views coincide with socialism, has had to concede that Bush's NCLB and that charter schools seem to be making a difference. To read the times online requires a free registration which is a pain but here is a link to the article admitting that NCLB is showing some very positive results; and here is a link to the article comparing charter schools to public schools.

Yes, this same paper that decried NCLB as under funded, it's not, schools will always cry for more money, they just need to prioitize and teach rather than dabble in nonsense like 'new math', group think and 'whole word' english. The same paper that said that NCLB was a mandate, it's not, the only reason your schools have to follow it is because they take federal money. Turn down the money and you are not under NCLB; in case you fear the money is too much, on the average the amount of money coming from the feds is 5% of the school district's budget. The same paper that denounced the NCLB testing, now admits that indeed, the scores have gone up, those most in need, the poor, the disadvantaged, the minorities are making better and faster progress than prior to NCLB.

The Times has also been VERY critical of charter schools, complaining that 'those are funds that should be used in public schools' - ignoring the fact that charter schools ARE public schools; just with a twist. Now the tests show that kids in charter schools are doing better than those in the 'traditional' public schools. Some of the reasons cited were, "... the schools' flexibility on scheduling and instruction, their ability to hire and fire staff based on performance "and a relentless focus on student outcomes," said Kristen Kane, chief executive of the office of new schools in the city's Education Department." Gee, imagine that, focusing on the student's outcome and the ability to hire and fire based on performance, who'd a thunk it.

So after years of bashing Bush, NCLB and charter schools the proof came out in the wash. I've been supporting Bush for years (except that he needs to do something about our borders). I've supported NCLB, not the best solution, but a solution in the face of constant public school failures. We've gone rounds on this blog regarding charter schools, again not a panacea for all our ills, but another tool and a useful one that should be given credit where and when it's due.

My guess is that the liberals are trying to spin this anyway that they can. Several editors at the times must have been jumping from the ledges. This is NOT what they would have liked to see, they want their 'progressive' agenda's to be the toast of the town, we've seen what 'progressive' agendas have wrought, and it's not pretty.

What's your take on this? Am I wrong, has the NYT reported fairly and justly all along? Do you think the editors at the Times are having heart palpatations over having to issue these reports? Opinions and comments are welcome.

More Later

Memorial Day and a Slap In the Face

2005-05-26T11:28:00.000-07:00

Lest we forget, Memorial day (the holiday that we celebrate this weekend) was set up to remember all the service men and women who gave their lives for our freedom. 99.9% of those were in some branch of the service, without our armed forces we could be speaking German or Japanese. Without our armed forces, there would have been many more 'World Towers' incidents; don't kid yourself. All too often, the only answer to force is force - if you're one of those folks who thinks that we can talk 'nice' to the folks that disagree/don't like us; I just ask you to look back at how all the countries in the world (sorta like the U.N. is now) talked to Hitler as he invaded country after country.

So today the Ashland newspaper reported that Southern Oregon State University student senate has passed a resolution banning military recruiters from the student union (link). Now let's see, in our society a person is considered an adult at age 18. We fight for the right (one of our many freedoms) to make up our minds. We believe that at age 18, people can make their own choices and they are responsible for those choices. So why is the student council attempting to take that choice away from students on the campus?

Here are the facts of the case. The military recruiters visit that college once a month, they set up a table and they pay a fee to the college for use of that space. It is a state college meaning both the state and the federal governments give money to this college so that it can run. The reason that the student senate objects to military recruiters is the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that the military has, and the fact that there are a few jobs in the military that females are barred from holding. The student senate's 'bills' are not binding, but are looked at as recommendations; however, the vice president of student affairs who oversees the student senate has said that she doesn't see a problem with the bill/recommendation. Finally, while the recruiters are being barred from the student union, there is a possibility that they might be able to work out a deal with the library to set up a table there.

So my questions are as follows - since it's government money that helps support the school and the school is considering barring the recruiters, should we continue to fund that school? Why if colleges are suppose to be bastions of education and free speech, why do they want to bar military recruiters. If the students are suppose to be grown up enough to be considered adults, then why aren't they given the right to hear all the facts and make up their minds on their college campus?

What do you think? Should the college carry out such an action but still get government money? Is there some kind of agenda being carried out when you can't allow all points of view to be expressed on a college campus? Do you consider this action to be a slap in the face of all those who fought for this country?

Your opinions are welcome.

More Later

Clean Jokes

2005-05-25T05:24:00.000-07:00

The first joke will be okay in most situations, the second joke will work in any situation.

Why do married women seem to gain more weight than single women?
A single woman comes home, sees what's in the fridge and goes to bed. A married woman comes home, sees whats in the bed and goes to the fridge.

A couple celebrate their 50th anniversary, a week later the woman gets deathly ill and is lying on her death bed. This couple was amazing, in all their years of marriage they never had a fight, not even an argument. They were totally honest with one another except for one item. Shortly after they were married the woman brought a shoe box (with lid) into the house, placed it on the top shelf of the closet and made her husband promise that he would never open it. He had kept that promise all these years. So now on her death bed the woman asks the man to go get the shoe box. When he brings it to her bed side she asks him to open it. There inside were two doilies and $250,000 in cash. He asks, "What is all this?" She replies, "My mom said one of the secrets to a long marriage was to never argue. Mom told me that whenever I got angry at you that rather than argue, I should sit down an knit a doily." Her husband was touched, she had obviously only been angry at him twice in all their 50 years together. "But what about the $250,000?" he asked. "Oh, that's what I got from selling the doilies." came her reply.

More Later

Diversity

2005-05-19T12:35:00.000-07:00

The phrase brings up many ideas (at least to me). To me it is one of the things that this country addressed - but not in the way that some people want to address it now. We agree that this country was built on a diverse group of people. Each group of people brought with it, elements of their own culture. As time marched on, some of those elements became more mainstream and a part of what we call American Society. Please note that I said those elements became part of the mainstream rather than we tried to change society to include those diverse elements as part of the American society. This has been a society of assimilation (kind of like the Borgs in Star Trek) where folks from other countries have come here and adapted our culture. Not unlike an American going to France, China or Brazil - they would be fools to whine that those countries aren't respecting, supporting and holding that American's values and views. Yet here we are, this great melting pot of a county and a certain segment of us seem to think that we need to bend and split rules, regulations, teaching methods, manner of dealing with people - based on the individual person. Why?

A school board in my state recently drafted a document regarding the protections that school children should expect when in school. This document included the following sentence (please note, it IS a sentence, only punctuated by commas) - "All students regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, gender, age, ethnicity, culture, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical ability, mental ability, physical attributes, ancestry, political party preference, family status or any other condition that makes students diverse or different are entitled to be free from student-to-student bullying and harassment while a student in the School District."

Now, I agree with the idea, but to me it is again PC gone overboard. My sentiments fall along the lines of what one board member said when he asked why the writer didn't just use the word "all". I thought the answer provided by the writer gives insight to how the PC crowd (mostly liberals) think - the document author stated, "It's a growing knowledge, that the interpetation of the word 'all' as it has been used in the constitution where it states that 'all men are created equal' has been changing. 'All' is a very inclusive term, but it is also a very vague term."

Huh? Is this like Bill Clinton asking what the meaning of the word 'is' is? You wanna find out what the word 'all' means, look it up in the fricking dictionary. Folks, there is no vagueness regarding the word 'all'. All means everyone and/or everything depending on what/who you are talking about. If you use the word 'all' you don't need to spell out all the differences, the diversities, it's covered by that one word 'all'.

If you are a citizen of this country you and your rights are the same as any other citizen of this country. You are free to do what our laws allow you to do, regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. It's illegal for me to deny service to someone based strictly on their race, etc. because under our laws that citizen is a member of 'all' and enjoys the same rights as any other 'all'. In our society, in most states, 'all' members of our society can marry one person of the opposite sex, 'all' members are not allowed to marry a member or the same sex or multiple partners of either sex. These rules apply to 'all'. 'All' members will receive a ticket and a fine (possibly jail time) for driving too fast in a car. Your ticket and punishment aren't based on your race, religion, sex, etc.

So am I off base here? Or is the PC crowd trying to poke it's head in where it doesn't belong? Does 'all' mean 'all'? Or do we need to spell out every nuance of every human being that is a citizen in our country? What about the one legged, near-sighted, bi-sexual, one-glass eyed pygmy who became a citizen in the U.S.? Do we need to make sure he is spelled out in various rules? Or does the word 'all' cover him too?

Your opinions and comments welcome.

More Later

Well, This Was No Surprise

2005-05-12T12:55:00.000-07:00

I found and took the Conservative/Liberal Test and the Results were NO surprise -
Try It Yourself

Your Political Profile

Overall: 90% Conservative, 10% Liberal

Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Ethics: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

How Liberal / Conservative Are You?

Civil Unions - Are they fair???

2005-05-11T00:52:00.000-07:00

In my very liberal state, one set of county commissioners made same sex marriage legal for a per of time (before a judge stepped in and stopped it). During that period of time 3000 same sex marriage licenses were granted. Since that time my state added a clause to the state constitution stating that marriage can only be between one man and one woman; and the state supreme court stepped in and said the 3000 marriage licenses were illegal (they used common language, common meanings and common sense to justify their opinions).

Saddened, but undanted, the supporters of the gay agenda are now pressing my state legislature to legalize "civil unions". Many of the supporters of this measure agree that it's just a way around the new language in the state constitution - the old, "A rose by any other name is still a rose" idea.

I have many issues with this legislation, beyond my moral objections, so I won't even use morals as one of my arguments, I really don't have to.

My first objection is what was stated above - the people in this state have spoken, they don't want "gay marriage" and to merely circumvent it by calling it something else is circumventing the will of the people. My second objection is the basis for a "civil union" - in the bill it specifically states it is to be between two people of the same sex AND it specifically prohibits the "union" status for relatives and for two people living together who are of the opposite sex. So let's see, doesn't that sound like massive discrimination? I constantly hear that it's all about love, but it appears to me that it's really all about sex (or a perceived sexual situation). Let's talk about love and rights. Why should this "civil union" be given to a homosexual couple but not to a son and his elderly mother? I'm not talking incest, but I am talking about a loving relationship where the son would dearly love to put his mother on his group health insurance plan. However, under this bill it wouldn't happen because these two are both related AND they are of opposite sexes. What about two elderly aunts who are saving money by living together? They are of the same sex, but they are related and for the sake of this argument we will assume that they are not having sexual relations. Under this bill the fact that they are related will not allow them to have those so-called rights that every "loving relationship" should have (according to the gay rights folk). What about a man and a woman who live together, they are young and in love but for whatever reason just don't want/aren't ready for marriage. Under this bill, they may be 'in love' but the fact that they are not both of the same sex (thus they have hetrosexual relations instead of homosexual relations) means that the "civil union" status is denied them too.

We won't even go into the question of group or communal living - I mean those are also relationships where the people involved will tell you that they love each other and are committed to each other - but of course, under this bill, those "civil rights" would be denied to them.

When will the gay activists admit what they are really trying to do? Basically they are trying to elevate 'gay relationships' to the same level that 'hetero relationships' are on. Society has said no, so they couch the argument, they attempt to circumvent the argument. They always throw up the idea that it's about people in love, that it's about people who are in a committed relationship and that society shouldn't care about what those two people do in the bedroom. Yet the very bill that they are trying to pass does everything BUT explictly point out what must probably be happening in the bedroom for these folks to get certain "rights".

Yes, I object on my own moral grounds elevating and/or promoting gay relationships - but this bill can easily be objected to on grounds other than the moral ones. Talk about setting up a special class, talk about setting up a situation where discrimination is the rule. Sorry, while I realize the legal ramifications of living together and not being married, either we put forth something that helps all people living together without being marriage (which would truly hurt our economy, another story for another time) or we live with the laws that the people in this state enacted.

What's your take on this? Gay marriage and civil unions remains a hot button item, but is this law the solution? Is it just another form of discrimination?

Comments and opinions welcome.

The Song That Wouldn't Die

2005-05-09T02:02:00.000-07:00

Click on the Headline to link to the story.

You've got to love it, some things just never die and the controversy that surrounds them just gets bigger. Harken back to the sixties, before the Beatles, a little known band (at the time) records an old Chuck Berry tune entitled "Louie Louie". The song goes to number one, kids are crazy about the song, eventually it becomes a standard that most people know in the U.S. if not the world. When the song came out, there was a nagging suspicion that it contained some raunchy lyrics. At the time the concern was so great that the FBI launched a two year investigation which concluded that the lyrics were not only not obscene but were "unintelligible at any speed."

Now fast forward to 2005, Benton Harbor Superintendent Paula Dawning sends home a letter to the parents of the students attending McCord Middle School ordering that the school band NOT play "Louie Louie" cited the song's allegedly raunchy lyrics - even though the band was not going to sing the song. The reason that she cited for the ban was "... a parent called, concerned about the song being played."

Okay, so here we have a person (the Superintendent) whom I would strongly suspect is quite educated; has probably heard the song in her lifetime and maybe even mumbled along to the lyrics of it. She certainly has access to various means of research and could have done some investigating - but apparently not. Instead, a parent calls, one, singular in nature and evidently uninformed his or herself, and talks through their hat regarding a song with unintelligible lyrics. The Superintendent doesn't research the situation, she doesn't stand up and realize that the band isn't and won't sing the song. No she does what many knee-jerk school officials do and institutes a ban against the song.

Funny, schools can put on plays like the "Vagina Monologue" and get hundreds of calls and complaints but the district will allow that to go on. They can get calls asking that Christmas be observed versus a relatively few who clamor against it and they will cancel it. However, one parent calls regarding this inane song, that won't even be sung, and it's banned?

In fairness, the Superintendent has "... said that if a majority of parents supports their children playing the song, she will reconsider her decision." Mighty big of her if you ask me.

Whadda you think? Is this Superintendent uninformed, silly or just plain stupid? Or, is she in fact acting in a way that is fit and proper and just looking out for the kids?

Your comments and opinions are welcome.

More Later

What Happened?

2005-05-05T20:53:00.000-07:00

Hmmmm, Michael seems to have disappeared - well, never fear, I'm back (just when you thought you'd gotten rid of me). I moved last weekend and my internet didn't get put back up until today. So do I have some "stuff" to deal with? You bet, stay tuned, we've got lots to talk about.

Thanks for dropping by.

More Later

I'm About To Lose It

2005-04-29T11:17:00.000-07:00

Click the headline to link to the actual article:

I'm going to make this short and sweet because there really isn't much to say or argue about. It seems that in the state of Florida, a state that does allow children to have an abortion without notifying anyone, there is a child who is a ward of the state, age 13, who is pregnant and wants to have an abortion. However, since the child talked to her case worker about being pregnant and wanting have the abortion, the DCF (Department of Child and Family Services) was able to site a state law prohibiting the department from consenting to an abortion for a minor in state care. So it should be an open and shut case, right? Nope, enter stage left, the ACLU (Associated Criminals and Lawyers Union) which is citing the state law allowing children to have the abortion without notifying anyone. The ACLU the same group that is representing NMBLA (National Man Boy Love Association) pro bono.

Granted, when you read the story, the kid is a handful and the state really needs to lock her down, if only to keep her under control - but, the crime here is twofold. First, the abortion happening to such a young girl, what this will do to this girl in her later life is untold. Second, who made her pregnant needs to be pursued and prosecuted.

Just one more reason to oppose the ACLU, one more reason to require all states to have laws where some one in a guardianship role over a minor needs to be informed prior to a minor having an abortion.

Your take, opinion? Read the article (it's short), and try to figure out why the MSM (Main Stream Media) hasn't picked up on this story? Why isn't it blasted all over the news? Opinions and comments more than welcome.

More Later.

Working

2005-04-28T10:31:00.000-07:00

As some of you (who read this blog regularly) know, I've started back to work after being unemployed for over two years (I was going to school during that time). I've come to realize just how busy people's lives are which helped me to figure out why people don't think out the issues of the day.

I'm presently working 12 hour shifts (3 days on, 4 off, 4 on, 3 off) so add to my twelve hour days an hour to get ready, a 30 minute drive and I've effectively chewed up 14 hours out of my day. This leaves me 10 hours to do whatever else I have to do (help the kids with homework, make lunch for the next day, deal with whatever problems that come up) and get some sleep. What this does is it effectively limits my ability to track down stories and facts, it puts me at the mercy of what clips I can hear on the radio and/or read during my breaks at work from the local liberal newspaper.

Even folks who work 8 hour shifts (which adds 4 hours to their personal time) easily have that extra time sucked up by 'normal' activities. It had been a while for me but now I see why so many folks don't understand whats going on around them. I've come to understand that since the liberals pretty much dominate the media, their views are the views that the common man sees and hears.

A good example is right now (I can only speak for my local area) but the local and national liberal media (that the working 'Joe' has access to) is talking about the senate fillibuster while the 'conservative' media is talking about the illegal immigration problem. Are they both important? Yes, but I believe that both issues should be talked about through the media. Did you even know that the conservatives were making an issue about the illegal aliens? You may have heard about the 'Minuteman' project, but many of the liberal media labeled those folks as being vigilantes (which they weren't). Did you see or hear about the rally where several thousand people went to capital hill to confront their congressmen about securing our borders? If I wouldn't have know about it except that I have some weekdays off and my local 'conservative' talk show host was one of about 20 national talk show hosts who went back to D.C. to confront our government.

So what can/should be done? When I was young, I remember my dad coming home, sitting down and watching "Uncle Walter" on the CBS national news. Since the mainstream media has become so liberal, it's time to tune into some of the non-traditional sources of news. Instead of coming home and tuning in ABC, CBS or NBC, I'll tune in Fox. We have a couple of non-traditional newspapers in my area, those will be the ones that I'll be reading. I would really love it if news was unbiased and fair - but the reality of it is that it isn't. IMHO Fox news is about as close to unbiased as it comes (if there is a liberal vs. conservative issue, they will usually have a spokesman from each side).

What is your opinion? What would you like to see?

More Later

CIM and CAM

2005-04-23T10:05:00.000-07:00

AKA in my book as dumb and dumber, the problem is that that is what they (the state education board) is trying to escape from, but sort of like a tar baby, they are getting stuck in it.

A very quick history - prior to NLCB, my state decided that it needed a way to show (I'm not sure who they wanted to show) that the students coming out of the state educational system were well educated. Rather than use some of the "off-the-shelf" programs that were out there, we spent billions of dollars designing our own testing program. They called them, CIM for certificate of initial mastery, and CAM for certificate of advanced mastery. They had hoped for years that these certificates would become 'benchmarks' by which students were judged. It hasn't turned out that way - we've been saddled with these programs (millions of dollars spent each year to impliment them) since 1991. Colleges don't recognize the certificates (not even the ones in this state), employers don't recognize them; basically they have become a ton of extra work for any student (and the teacher who is helping/monitoring that student) to do while the student is in school. The certificates have never been mandated as a requirement to graduate. I've seen the work that is required, how the students get there and basically I think it's a load of nonsense that has very little to do with academics or living in the real world.

CIM and CAM have drawn lots of heat over the years and every two years, when the legislature meets there are bills to try to kill the program. Somehow, it stays on life support. Earlier this session, CIM and CAM again seemed on the verge of becoming extinct; that is until yesterday. All of a sudden, the state educational board (which is separate from the legislature) is making noise that they are considering making it mandatory for students to graduate. Great, the legislature is about to axe the program and all it's funds, while the educational board suddenly wants to make it mandatory - talk about the right hand not knowing (or caring) what the left hand is doing.

Here is my take - kids should be required to take a certain number of years of math, english, science, foreign language, etc. They should be required to pass a standardized final for whatever course they've taken (a state standardized final - the same for all schools throughout the state for students having taken that course). They should be required to score a "C" on the course and a 75% (or better) on the final test to be credited with having passed that course. If they fail on either one of those counts they will not be deemed as having passed and will have to take the course over again. We don't need more criteria to judge them on beyond the courses. Why pump more money into something that NO ONE recognizes or cares about?

Anyone else have a take on this? My bet is in the end, when the dust has settled, CIM and CAM will still not be mandatory (thank God) but it will still be funded (at about $20 million plus per year).

Comments welcome. BTW - click on the headline to link to the story.

More Later

The "rights" of Children

2005-04-21T12:13:00.000-07:00

My state house of representatives judicial committee has just passed a bill (it now goes to a vote for the whole house to vote on - it will pass there and then have the liberal senate stop it) to require parental notification 48 hours in advance if a girl under the age of 18 is about to have an abortion. It should be noted that 34 other states have laws requiring that parents consent or at least be notified before a daughter has an abortion.

This posting isn't about abortion, that is another discussion for another time. This posting is about a parent's right to know what is happening to their child. A child that you (as a parent) are deemed by society (and the courts) as having responsibility for. If the child causes some damage, who is held responsible for it? The parent. If the child runs up some expenses, who ultimately is held liable for those expenses? You, the parent are.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled that children under a certain age can not be sentenced to death because their powers of reasoning and thought are not mature enough. Yet these same kids have been given power/'rights' to make their own medical decisions. How is it that society (the legal system) can feel that they are not mature enough in one situation, yet believe that they are mature enough in another situation. BTW - did you know that if your child has medical treatment without your notification/consent that you are still responsible for those medical bills? The bill does have exceptions for medical emergencies and allows a teenager who does not want to tell her parents about her pregnancy to make her case to a Department of Human Services administrative judge.

Again, the democrats (read that the liberals) in my state senate have already declared the bill dead on arrival (the full house vote seems likely to pass the bill). Statewide the bill seems to have the support from the majority of citizens in the state, but again, the liberals believe that they know what is good for us, rather than allowing the people to decide for themselves.

So what is your take? Should parents be notified before any medical procedures are done on their child? Should it be limited to abortions? Is it right that the senate can (and will) kill the bill rather than referring it to the citizens? Your comments are welcome.

More Later

Equal Pay Day

2005-04-19T19:40:00.000-07:00

On the heels of my last posting, I was reminded in the newspaper, that today was/is "Equal Pay Day". Where we are suppose to be reminded that when a woman does the same job as a man that they should be paid the same, an idea I whole-heartedly agree with - I just don't like to see the concept twisted.

In my local, liberal newspaper, there was a story about a local female news anchor who had sued her employer and won. I'm not really going to bring up that case because I don't know all the details, but I do feel that it should help us frame the case; plus I'll throw in some real world experiences from my many years in the working world.

Should a person be paid the same wage for the same job, the basic answer is yes - but there are alot of details that the statement ignores. For example, I've worked for many years in positions that were classifed as 'technician' jobs. Even within that classification we were grouped as a Tech I, Tech II, III or IV (with IV) being the highest level. There were 'milestones' that you had to show expertise in, plus (usually) a period of time as a certain level Tech before you were eligible to be promoted. In addition, there were pay ranges within those levels - (taking numbers out of the air) a Tech II might have a pay range of $1500 a month to a top of $2000 a month. A Tech III range might overlap to a low of $1800 a month to a high of $2600 a month. So based on your experience and your expertise, they could place you in a position and give you raises without necessarily having to upgrade your position (one time they wanted to promote me but had already promoted too many other people, I ended up getting 120% of what the top of the range was - accounting can be a wonderful thing).

So in the above situation a man and a woman, hired as Tech II's would typically progress along roughly the same wage and promotion pattern - IF - the two of them were equal in what they were mastering along the way. It was fair, I saw it work, it was a good system. I saw folks (men and women) who didn't care to learn more and they progressed at a much slower pace. This type of system was not what the anchorwoman's lawsuit was about.

There is another typical situation, very capitalistic, fair (because you get to decide) and I've worked many jobs under this scenario too. Basically, it's contract work - you are offered a contract to do job X for Y amount of cash and/or these benefits. You negotiate, you bargain, if you don't like their final offer, you don't sign the contract - this appears to be what the anchorwoman's job was.

As I said, the nice thing about contract jobs is that if you don't like what they want to pay, you can continue to bargain until a certain impass has been reached; then one or both parties can agree that they can't agree and you go your way, they go theirs. When you sign a contract, you know what you've agreed to. If later you find out that another person (man or woman) is doing similar or exactly the same job but making more money, who do you have to blame?

Again, I can't speak to the details of the anchorwoman's contract because the details weren't given, but basically she was complaining that the men anchors were making quite a bit more money than she was. She tried to bargain at a proper negotiating point to make the same amount, but for some reason, the station didn't seem to want to do that - so she sued.

Should she have sued? On the face of it (and in my own personal cases) if she didn't like what was being offered, she could have counter offered and/or offered her services to other stations. When I found that other's were doing the same work via contract for higher wages, I waited until time to renew the contract and tried to negotiate higher. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, but did I have the right to sue if they balked at my wanting a higher price?

That is why I love capitalism, it is (or should be) bargaining at it's finest. If the employers offer is too low, he won't be able to fill the job and obviously he needs it filled or else he wouldn't be trying to hire someone. He will have to continue to increase his price until he finds a qualified person, who will do good work, willing to do it for an agreed upon price. That is why I hate 'minimum wages' - it's a false bottom and takes away a degree of negotiation that both should have.

Was the anchorwoman right (granted we just don't know all the details)? Have you ever negotiated for a job (price, benefits, etc) and found out later that someone else had negotiated better? What did you do? What do you think about Equal Pay?

Comments welcome.

More Later

Fairness, Discrimination or ????

2005-04-18T01:57:00.000-07:00

My state (Oregon) is presently wrestling with a question that many states have dealt with and many states are pondering - Should the state allow children of illegal aliens in state tution?

On the surface it certainly seems the compassionate thing to do. Afterall, most of the parents (the original illegal aliens) are working hard, sometimes at bad jobs, making minimum wage (if that) and often with the dream that their children will be able to do better if they can get a better education and escape the financials burdens that they themselves have gone through. Yes, to help those people and their children certainly seems the right thing to do.

However, there is another part of the question to consider, lost opportunities for legal citizens and higher taxes that all of us must pay to support such a system. We also must add into the equation looking at how other nations would treat us if the roles were reversed (if we were illegal aliens in their country).

Our system of higher education is limited, only so many people can attend a school because it's 'full'. Meaning, that fire safety limitations, administrative limitations, work loads on teachers, they all play a part in limiting how many people can be admitted to any of our colleges. So for every illegal alien (or child of such) that gets admitted, that is one less legal citizen or their child that the institution has room for. Allowing illegals (I will use this term from now on and mean either the illegal immigrant themselves or their children) to attend college also means turning away legal aliens and/or out-of-state citizens who would like to attend college in a certain state, pay the higher out-of-state fees, but can't because that seat is filled with an illegal.

Arguments are made that not allowing illegals in college amounts to turning away a talent pool of young people - but there is no certainty that once those illegals receive a degree, that they will stay in the state that helped to pay for that degree. They are free to move to any other state and/or move back to their native land.

California has been granting instate tuition to illegals for almost 10 years so we have some numbers to check (however, since we are talking illegals, some numbers are very hard to get). One number we can check is actual costs - a legal immigrant paying out-of-state tuition would pay $15,000 a year to attend UC at Berkeley. While in-state tution to residents and illegals costs $4000 a year. The California taxpayer is subsidizing $11,000 per year for every illegal that is admitted to the state colleges.

In a recent discussion I had heard that when California originally thought to include illegals under in-state-tuition, that it believed it would be serving a fairly small number of students (the number I recall was 300 - but I don't have time to find the supporting documents), instead it served approximately 3000 students. A ten-fold increase with no assurances that the public or our country will benefit from this action.

Yes there are hoops that illegals have, many that are harder to jump through than what a citizen living at poverty levels have to jump through but ask yourself this, if YOU were an illegal alien in a foreign country (Canada, France or Germany) would they allow your children to go to their state colleges for the same price as their citizens. The answer is no, beyond the fact that most folks would never want to set up residence in another country legally or illegally (compared to living in the U.S.) if you are discovered in any way, shape or form in those countries you are not allowed to use their schools like their citizens do.

While some states have passed these laws, others like New York have repealed them or like Virginia have not passed them.

What's your take on this issue? Do we as a country benefit by allowing illegals in-state-tuition? Even though other countries don't "do-as-we-do", should America continue to take the "higher moral ground"?

Your take on this issue is appreciated and welcome.

More Later

Do You Really Want to Shut the Computer Down?

2005-04-16T20:30:00.000-07:00

I seem to have gained another option when I get ready
to shut my computer down - anyone else having this
problem since upgrading to Service Pack 2?

Which choice would you make?

More Later

Religious Freedom or Class Disruption?

2005-04-14T22:40:00.000-07:00

Click on the Headline and link to the actual article - there is video at the original site too.

Okay, this fellow was suspended, he was suspended for disrupting school activities and defying authority; oh and for wearing makeup (the printed story talks about the makeup, the video talks about the other two charges).

In the meantime, he claims that he wears the makeup because one - it makes him feel better about himself. Two - he claims that his mother is a priestess in a wiccan and it is part of his and her religion; that it is part of their beliefs.

For the record, he is repeating his second year of high school and he plans on continuing to wear the make up when his suspension is over. Also for the record, his mother claims that he has been wearing makeup since he's been enrolled. There is nothing in the school rules disallowing makeup (on boys or girls). He believes that if he has to remove his makeup then any and all girls (including teachers and administrators) should have to remove theirs.

So what's your thoughts? Is this a case of religious freedom? Is it a case of class disruption (which gets my vote)? Was the school right? Opinions are welcome - oh, this is in San Bernardino, California.

Whadda you think?

More Later