just a gurl in the world . . .

Winkflash SUCKS!

2008-12-12T00:35:00.000-08:00

I went for the cheap, 23 cent, photo Christmas Cards from Winkflash.

BIG mistake.

Not only did they not ship my order until 8 days after it was placed, they chose to only refund my payment 3 weeks later after I had already disputed the charge with my credit card company for non-receipt.

With customer service like this, they'll find themselves falling victim to the downturn in the economy. Customers won't put up with that shit -- and neither will I!

BUY FROM SHUTTERFLY -- THEY ROCK!!!

Thankfulness . . .

2008-12-03T22:54:00.000-08:00

Thankfulness for what we have, for the obstacles we do not face, for the family and friends we do have.

I am counting my blessings for all the good people and things in my life. We are very blessed with our health and each other.

To thank the Troops serving our country during the Holiday Season, grab the widget at:

http://www.clearspring.com/widgets/47d6d01110aa5765?p=47d6d0112dde28cb

and send them a personal, or pre-written, message.

Oh, since I'm so techno-not, if you figure out how to add the widget to your blog -- let me know ;)

M 641 Giveaway!

2008-12-01T23:03:00.000-08:00

Ok, for those of you who don't know, get to know Madras 641 !

Clothes are amazing - I know one of the owners and she is FANTASTIC!!! AND -- I have the Navy Copper Tunic from the Spring 08 Collection . I have gotten a TON of compliments on it. It is now my favorite blouse to wear -- hands down ;)

To get a chance for a free shirt of your own, or to get 20% off -- go to Bloggy Giveaways and dish your favorite item ;)

For 20% off:

Special Offer for Bloggy Giveaways Readers:Receive a 20% discount from Madras 641 Clothing by using discount code bloggydec in any text field at their store

Mayflower myths . . .

2008-11-28T13:26:00.000-08:00

I love the History Channel :)

I had some off-line comments about the post regarding the Pilgram/Indian costume tradition in my last blog. So, I did a very quick search to verify that, in fact, the first "Thanksgiving" (tradition of sharing and eating) did in fact include Native Americans:

Mayflower
Myths

"The reason that we have so many myths associated with Thanksgiving is that it is an invented tradition. It doesn't originate in any one event. It is based on the New England puritan Thanksgiving, which is a religious Thanksgiving, and the traditional harvest celebrations of England and New England and maybe other ideas like commemorating the pilgrims. All of these have been gathered together and transformed into something different from the original parts."
– James W. BakerSenior Historian at Plimoth Plantation
Myth: The first Thanksgiving was in 1621 and the pilgrims celebrated it every year thereafter.
Fact: The first feast wasn't repeated, so it wasn't the beginning of a tradition. In fact, the colonists didn't even call the day Thanksgiving. To them, a thanksgiving was a religious holiday in which they would go to church and thank God for a specific event, such as the winning of a battle. On such a religious day, the types of recreational activities that the pilgrims and Wampanoag Indians participated in during the 1621 harvest feast--dancing, singing secular songs, playing games--wouldn't have been allowed. The feast was a secular celebration, so it never would have been considered a thanksgiving in the pilgrims minds.
Myth: The original Thanksgiving feast took place on the fourth Thursday of November.
Fact: The original feast in 1621 occurred sometime between September 21 and November 11. Unlike our modern holiday, it was three days long. The event was based on English harvest festivals, which traditionally occurred around the 29th of September. After that first harvest was completed by the Plymouth colonists, Gov. William Bradford proclaimed a day of thanksgiving and prayer, shared by all the colonists and neighboring Indians. In 1623 a day of fasting and prayer during a period of drought was changed to one of thanksgiving because the rain came during the prayers. Gradually the custom prevailed in New England of annually celebrating thanksgiving after the harvest.

During the American Revolution a yearly day of national thanksgiving was suggested by the Continental Congress. In 1817 New York State adopted Thanksgiving Day as an annual custom, and by the middle of the 19th century many other states had done the same. In 1863 President Abraham Lincoln appointed a day of thanksgiving as the last Thursday in November, which he may have correlated it with the November 21, 1621, anchoring of the Mayflower at Cape Cod. Since then, each president has issued a Thanksgiving Day proclamation. President Franklin D. Roosevelt set the date for Thanksgiving to the fourth Thursday of November in 1939 (approved by Congress in 1941)

No Thanksgiving Feast in Costume?!?

2008-11-26T07:49:00.000-08:00

CNN reported this story about a school district who had to stop a 40 year tradition because of the racist sentiment that the tradition of the Indian (Native American) costumes evoked. Critics likened the costume wearing to the children dressing up like Nazis/Jews or Slaves/Slave Owners.

Although I am only about 1/8 Cherokee, I am sensitive to any racial slur. However, in this case I'm finding it difficult to see the racism. The children are not commemorating the Trail of Tears, but a more wholesome relationship the English settlers had with the Native Americans when coming to the New World. Native Americans at that time wore feathers in headbands, vests, moccasins, etc. ; Pilgrims wore hats, stockings, and a lot of black.

I do think it's important to fight slurs and racism, and maybe there is more going on there than I know, but having the children learn the importance of giving thanks, accepting others as they are, of meeting new people and sharing -- in this simplistic form, these are the traditions we should be teaching our children. We should focus on the good relationships and the good things that America has done with 5 year olds. By starting with the positive, it's much easier when the children are older, and can better understand, the mistakes America has made in it's history and continue to help find ways to improve our country, to improve the world, to leave their mark in a positive way and make the world a better place.

Is the costume the problem, is it some sort of implied inequality, or is it symbolism of how the world should work. How innocent 5 year olds can come together, knowing that they are reenacting an idealized form of the Thanksgiving Feast which brought different people from different cultures together to share the bounty of the season. For children to have this idealized memory of how the way the world SHOULD work, we can work on having them continue this tradition as they get older and become the future leaders of our nation and our world.

Much Ado about Nothing

2008-11-18T22:31:00.000-08:00

So the G20 Summit was said to bring a hell-storm on DC . . . that the US would bear the brunt of the World's anger for our (USA) apparent demise of the entire Global economy . . . Sarkozy touted the USA was brought to it's knees . . . whatever . . .

. . . it was SO IMPORTANT to call the EMERGENCY meeting that they postponed everything until the spring . . .

SO, Obama wanted to take over this mess, G20 and the world is expecting him to take the global economic situation under his protective wing 101 days into his term. Of course, since he is in agreement with many other countries to take the edge off of free markets by imploring more government involvement, regulations, and stimulus packages; it's anyone's guess as to how this will turn out. We could be agreeing to economic policies by the global community ("Do you like me? Circle "yes" or "no" -- as the old notes of middle school would say).

Some say the G20 is a joke, a failure . . .

I say that although the USA must be sensitive to the global economy, we must focus first on our own. Bailouts galore, corporate storefront closures, unemployment rising . . . CNN ran a story this weekend that the "safest" jobs to be in, in terms of job security, are:

Education
Energy
Environmental Sector
Health Care
Security

Of course, I thought it also said government work, be it wasn't in the article (maybe just a thought on the aforementioned President Elects promises for bigger government?!?).

So the G20 summit was "Much Ado about Nothing" . . . just hold on tightly for what's coming next . . .

A very astute point regarding the BIG 3 Bailout . . .

2008-11-16T20:42:00.000-08:00

Astute point indeed . . .

As I watched the pundits rant about the bailout, how now it's all GW's fault, not the democrats who pushed it down the throats of most republicans (and a few democrats who held out) the bailout is going to AIG corporate getaways . . .

As I watched as Harry Reid and Pelosi are no where to be found, while these banks who were supposed to preserve our way of life are really just doing business as usual with our taxpayer dollars . . .

As I watched the (for the most part) Liberal Leaning CNN state that Bush's administration is to blame (again?!?) for the lack of transparency in the bailout money distribution and management . . .

I see a shining beacon in the fog (and that's quite literal here in the Pacific Northwest):

Why are we bailing out big corporations who invest in God knows What?!? Why aren't we bailing out AMERICAN companies that employ REAL AMERICANS who don't earn fancy bonuses and special getaways; no foriegn-made luxury cars, no private jets. Most of these current and former UAW employees, my father is included, worked their entire life - slaving for a company with the expectation of a good pension and good benefits.

And what do they get? They get shit. They get a good, "Screw you and your loyalty through the years. Because foreign car makers have been given so many tax abatements, not had their imports unfairly taxed (like ours are to other countries), and because our employees have unions that protect their rights and benefits . . . our guys get screwed.

Thanks for all the trade agreements by both parties that improved Global Trade, but the USA took it up the ass allowing our goods to be taxed much more unfairly than others because of we are SO WEALTHY . . . look where we are now . . .

Are we really on the brink of disaster or is this another trumped up charge by Wall Street to get more "free" money to gamble with?!?

More Bailout Bullshit . . .

2008-11-12T18:25:00.000-08:00

So now US automakers want to be bailed out.

Seriously?!?

Of course, I'm sure the Democrats knew this was coming. They all but hand-delivered millions of votes for Obama and other candidates through Union Organization (which I'm all about, and Unions historically urge their membership to vote for Democrats). Now these US automakers want a freebie from the government too.

Ok, this is the problem. This is why I didn't want a bailout of the financial industry in the first place:

1) Hello?!?

Can we say, FREE MARKET?!?

2) Everyone has their hand out
3) It's a slippery slope, where do you draw the line and say NO MORE ?!?

And I'm not alone, the Washington Post agreed.

A Bailout We Don't Need

By James K. Galbraith
Washington Post; Thursday, September 25, 2008; Page A19

Now that all five big investment banks -- Bear
Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- have disappeared or morphed into regular banks,
a question arises.

Is this bailout still necessary?

The point of the bailout is to buy assets that are illiquid but not
worthless. But regular banks hold assets like that all the time. They're called
"loans."

With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear the
loan book is bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that. So why not eliminate the
pointless $100,000 cap on federal deposit insurance and go take inventory? If a
bank is solvent, money market funds would flow in, eliminating the need to
insure those separately. If it isn't, the FDIC has the bridge bank facility to take care of that.

Next, put half a trillion dollars into the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp. fund -- a cosmetic gesture -- and as much money into that agency and the FBI as is needed for examiners, auditors and investigators. Keep
$200 billion or more in reserve, so the Treasury can recapitalize banks by
buying preferred shares if necessary -- as Warren Buffett did this week with Goldman Sachs. Review the
situation in three months, when Congress comes back. Hedge funds should be left
on their own. You can't save everyone, and those investors aren't poor.

With this solution, the systemic financial threat should go away. Does that
mean the economy would quickly recover? No. Sadly, it does not. Two vast
economic problems will confront the next president immediately. First, the
underlying housing crisis: There are too many houses out there, too many vacant
or unsold, too many homeowners underwater. Credit will not start to flow, as
some suggest, simply because the crisis is contained. There have to be
borrowers, and there has to be collateral. There won't be enough.

In Texas, recovery from the 1980s oil bust took seven years and the pull of
strong national economic growth. The present slump is national, and it can't be
cured that way. But it could be resolved in three years, rather than 10, by a
new Home Owners Loan Corp., which would rewrite mortgages, manage rental
conversions and decide when vacant, degraded properties should be demolished.
Set it up like a draft board in each community, under federal guidelines, and
get to work.

The second great crisis is in state and local government. Just Tuesday, New
York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced $1.5 billion in public spending cuts.
The scenario is playing out everywhere: Schools, fire departments, police
stations, parks, libraries and water projects are getting the ax, while
essential maintenance gets deferred and important capital projects don't get
built. This is pernicious when unemployment is rising and when we have all the
real resources we need to preserve services and expand public investment. It's
also unnecessary.

What to do? Reenact Richard Nixon's great idea: federal revenue sharing. States and
localities should get the funds to plug their revenue gaps and maintain real
public spending, per capita, for the next three to five years. Also, enact the
National Infrastructure Bank, making bond revenue available in a revolving fund
for capital improvements. There is work to do. There are people to do it. Bring
them together. What could be easier or more sensible?

Here's another problem: the wealth loss to near-retirees and the elderly
from a declining stock market as things shake out. How about taking care of
this, with rough justice, through a supplement to Social Security? If you need a
revenue source, impose a turnover tax on stocks.

Next, let's think about what the next upswing should try to achieve and how
it should be powered. If the 1960s were about raising baby boomers and the '90s
about technology, what should the '10s and '20s be about? It's obvious: energy
and climate change. That's where the present great unmet needs are.

So, let's use the next few years to plan, mapping out a program of energy
conservation, reconstruction and renewable power. Let's get the public sector
and the universities working on it. And let's prepare the private sector so that
when the credit crunch finally ends, we'll have the firms, the labs, the
standards and the talent in place, ready to go.

Some will ask if we can afford it. To see the answer, don't look at budget
projections. Just look at interest rates. Last week, in the panic, the federal
government could fund itself, short term, for free. It could have raised money
for 30 years and paid less than 4 percent. That's far less than it cost back in
2000.
No country in this situation is broke, or insolvent, or even in much
trouble. For once, Wall Street's own markets speak the truth. The financially
challenged customer isn't Uncle Sam. He's up on Wall Street, where deregulation,
greed and fraud ran wild.

If the government is giving out low-interest loans to companies, large corporations, why not take advantage of that? Notice, I said: TAKE ADVANTAGE of it. You see what AIG has done: spent OUR tax dollars on a corporate retreat. Others are rewarding executives with big bonuses to " . . . retain quality people."

Surely you jest.

These "quality people" to which you refer are the same assholes that allowed their companies to be driven into the ground by greed and power. These same "quality people" were sure to be winners in a bullish economy. However, on the way up, these "quality people" weren't able to uphold standards in which their investment portfolio was secure. They were gambling with investor money, and down the tubes they went.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's where they should have stayed. To allow forgiveness and then free reign with OUR TAX DOLLARS is ridiculous. To think these guys won't take home their multi-million dollar bonuses, salaries, access to corporate jets, and all the other bells and whistles - you are simply dreaming.

And now that Congress has ignorantly passed this bill, other corporate groups are clamoring for their "fair share" of the government bailout money. Now it's the automakers, the airlines are already getting bailouts through government bankruptcy restructuring . . . are the tobacco companies next?!? (Just throwing it out there, who knows which lobbying group has enough clout to push their way into Congress . . .)

My answer will still be no - however, you see that my no is not emphatic. I have a dog in this race, so it's easier to see why people whose livelihood was affected by the bankruptcies of the huge corporate financial companies were on-board with the bailout. My father is a retired employee of a US automaker. He's already seen his health benefits decline sharply over the past few years, and if the automakers don't get what they want -- I'm sure there's more to come.

So, this begs the question: Why not bailout Lehman Brothers? What about Bear Stearns? Why wait until it was Merrill Lynch to allow some sort of deal? Is it the close association that Paulson has with Goldman Sacs, Freddie and Fannie?

Seriously, boys . . . Palin is an idiot? What does that say to Alaskans?!?

2008-11-06T22:39:00.001-08:00

So, if I understand correctly, Sarah Palin is an idiot. Is that the talk of the town? McCain's team couldn't deliver him a victory, so now they place all the blame on Palin? Is it fair? No. Are they playing the gender card? Yes. Will we fall for it? No.

Seriously, boys - and listen up:

SHE IS A WOMAN, NOT STUPID!!!

What does it say about the guys in McCain's camp that are leaking these rumors? It says they are incompetent. It says that they themselves are too entrenched in the Washington bullshit to take responsibility for their own failed campaign. They want to blame Obama for not taking public funding - which may have leveled the playing field some, but not entirely. They want to blame the liberal media for basking in the Obama glow - which the liberal media did bask, but they also basked for Gore and Kerry and GW was still able to win. They want to blame McCain for going more right of center by choosing to support more strictly conservative values and choosing Palin as a running mate who embodied those values - which may have contributed to the loss.

But here's the thing, boys . . . and listen up, because I don't want to have to beat a dead horse:

YOU FAILED

You failed to deliver a victory to the Republican Party, to the McCain/Palin ticket. Although no one person or group can control every aspect of a campaign, and this cycle was not in the Republicans favor, when it comes down to it -- the very people bitching unnamed in the shadows are surely the ones to blame for the failure of the McCain/Palin ticket succeeding.

If you fellas bitching weren't the ones to blame, you wouldn't be pointing fingers. If you fellas weren't the ones to blame, you wouldn't be running scared with your tails between your legs - knowing your career is in the shitter for the near future, if not longer. You pansy-ass pussies are name calling and throwing out accusations as if the rest of us are either dumb enough to believe you, or that we are angry enough about Obama winning (or are happy enough about Obama winning) that we'll roll with it.

WE WON'T FORGET YOUR COWARDICE

So, just remember: the next time a Republican runs for office and is looking for a team, we hope they don't put the cowards spreading negative rumors about Palin on the team. We hope the Republican party doesn't categorically dismiss everyone in the campaign, but does identify those cowards placing blame and hold them accountable. McCain should also hold these cowards accountable. It doesn't have to be in a public setting; blackballing them for their behavior is justice enough.

And for the record, although I voted McCain/Palin, I didn't agree with either of them on everything. Admittedly, I liked the McCain ticket much better with Palin on it -- ultimately deciding to vote for it because I preferred the McCain/Palin stand on issues to Obama's. it took up until the week or so before the election before I was ready to really get behind the ticket.

SO ARE YOU SAYING ALASKANS ARE IDIOTS FOR VOTING IN PALIN, WHO YOU SAY IS AN IDIOT?!?

I THINK THEY'LL BEG TO DIFFER, AND THEN KICK YOUR ASS WITH THEIR BIG BURLY ALASKAN BOOTS FOR BEING SO DISRESPECTFUL.

The Alaskans are lucky to have Sarah Palin as a their governor. She appears to be a straight-talker. I watched her land in Alaska last night live on FOX (I don't think CNN bothered to even mention her arrival), Her positive demeanor; her continuing to state her "love" for McCain and adoration for him; her stating that politics are just politics, get a thick skin and get over it; her stating that she is there for the people of Alaska and has been throughout her campaigning; her offering her support, Alaska's support, to Obama and his administration; she is a admirable woman. She has handled herself like a gracious, and graceful, loser.

It's not like Obama received an overwhelming "mandate"; the last time I looked, he was definitely the winner, but only by like 3% (forgive me, I haven't watched or read the news except a little around Sarah Palin landing in Alaska last night). Obama definitely won. Obama definitely brought out new voters, fired up a new aggregate of people that previously had not been united behind a singular candidate. However, in the popular election, it was still close. Nearly half the voters voted for McCain.

Let's be honest, many of us that voted for McCain didn't do so because we were in LOVE with his plans, ideas, or the thoughts of him being president. Many of us voted for him because we found more of what we wanted in him than Obama. I actually voted for Obama in the OHIO primary. Many of us had a feeling that the Republicans wouldn't win regardless of who was on the ticket, and I was inspired by Obama -- oh, and didn't want to see another Clinton in the White House. Others that ended up voting for McCain really wanted Hillary in the White House and wouldn't vote for him based on that fiasco.

Obama simply had a better campaign. He ran on ideas, much like what I perceive John Kennedy ran on in 1960. Although I didn't agree with all specific points of what Obama laid out, he is my President-Elect too. I love the United States of America. I want him to be successful, to work toward uniting the nation, to build our trust that he will work for the voters, not special interests. I want to believe he will bring the "Change We Need" . . .

Yet, I digress once again . . .

The point is, those of you spreading negative rumors about Sarah Palin, trying to make her look bad, just make you look like crybabies. You appear to the public like crybaby Gore in 2000 with the hanging chads; like the crybaby Kerry in 2004, with the recounts. Let Obama have his moment. Let Obama try to begin healing the divisive wounds of the country.

LEAVE SARAH PALIN ALONE AND DO AN INTROSPECTIVE AS TO WHY YOU COULDN'T INSPIRE AND RUN AS SUCCESSFUL A CAMPAIGN AS OBAMA.

Congratulations, President Elect Obama

2008-11-04T22:00:00.001-08:00

Congratulations Senator and President Elect Obama. You have ran a very strong campaign and I pray for your strength in leadership, as well as your ability to unite the country.

I was disheartened when McCain supporters booed McCain's concession to Obama. I know they were disappointed, I know they probably wanted a fight to the end, but Senator McCain is a very fair and evenhanded man. When he asked his supporters to rally behind Obama, to support him in his Presidency, he did the right thing. He could have pulled a Gore, or a Kerry, and sulked and cried in a corner when the votes didn't turn in his favor. He didn't. He's a stand-up guy.

Thank you, Senator McCain, for conceding in a timely manner and not putting the nation through any further turmoil -- to allow Obama and his supporters their night of celebration unmarred by partisan politics.

I am hoping that Obama unites us as a nation, reaches out to everyone, like he said he would do in his eloquent speech tonight. Either candidate would have a difficult road ahead, and in the heat of the moment, either sides supports would be disappointed at a loss. Disappointed they didn't win and that there wasn't a long drawn out delay in recounting votes and investigations into voter fraud. However, as I said, McCain did the right thing conceding in a timely fashion; in encouraging his supporters to get behind Obama, which I will; in stepping out of the way and allowing this to be Obama's night.

Obama was gracious in his speech to the hard fought battle with McCain and noting McCain's service to this country. Obama stuck to uniting the country in his acceptance speech which I both admire and appreciate. He stated that the change may not happen in a year, or in one term, but they will be listening especially to those whose views differ, and work together. I want to believe that will happen. I know he will be able to implement change as his Democratic Party has control of Congress as well. Now that he has the presidency, the Congress, and the ideas -- I want to see what he will do. I want to see the change he will bring.

Although I'm ready to set aside my differences with him on several issues, I'm not sure the nearly 50% of the popular vote is. I hope that after taking a night to sleep on it, they will.

VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2008-11-04T10:50:00.000-08:00

I've voted for McCain/Palin -- and I would encourage you to do the same . . .

However, the most important thing is that you get out and VOTE - don't be fooled.

ONE VOTE DOES COUNT - YOUR VOTE COUNTS!

Get out and do your patriotic duty, your right, your obligation -- if you're going to bitch about the country, this is your way to influence it.

Not only is there the presidential election, but also many guvenatorial, senate, issues, as well as EVERY HOUSE SEAT.

Every election is important -- make your impact TODAY!!

I've outlined my opinions in voting for McCain/Palin -- please read yesterday's post if you are still undecided.

Moms for McCain: Worth The Fighting For#links

2008-11-04T10:23:00.000-08:00

Moms for McCain: Worth The Fighting For#links

Why YOU SHOULD vote McCain/Palin 2008

2008-11-03T09:53:00.000-08:00

(Thanks to Moms for McCain blogspot for the logo above)

There are many reasons I voted for McCain/Palin in this Presidential election cycle. Listed below are my top reasons - and why I can't vote for Obama (even though he's HOT!):

1) The Economy/Taxes

Although Obama says he won't raise taxes on "middle class", the dollar amount keeps lowering in who it will affect. It started out that it was going to be $250,000 and under; then it was $200,000 and below. Joe Biden said in a rally it would only affect households making $150,000 and under. Then, last week, Governor Richardson said it would only affect households making under $120,000. With all these different numbers, and the fact that Obama voted in Congress to raise taxes on households making more than $46,000, none of us will escape the raised taxes. Oh, except those not paying taxes.

In addition, this whole "spreading around the wealth". I know that the liberals have hammered Joe the Plumber - a guy who just asked a question, not a guy being vetted to run for public office (yet). I think the government doesn't necessarily know what my money will be best used for. Just look at the recent bailout; blatent disregard for what most Americans wanted in the crisis. Ok, maybe not the Wall Streeters, but those of us who KNEW the money wouldn't go to bailout individual homeowners . . . and those of us who didn't agree that individual homeowners should be bailed out (yet, I digress . . .).

2) The War in Iraq and Afganistan
Here's the deal: Liberals don't want the war. Simple as that. It's not on the liberal agenda, so anything having to do with our country going to war will be fought by liberals. I think most of us can agree that War is Hell - literally. I think most of us agree that War isn't the first answer, but I think we all can also agree that we are already in Iraq and Afganistan. Whether you are or were for or against the war, we're there NOW. Our men and women are there NOW. We have a moral obligation not only to our men and women in uniform, but also to the indigenous people of the area to leave the region stable - not in chaos.

Thankfully, October 2008 saw the least amount of US casualties since the inception of the War. This is a clear indicator that the ramped up increase in troops is making headway. There are provinces being handed over every couple of weeks to Iraqi control. Thank God. Thank God that our troops have been able to help the Iraqi people take back thier own country! Thank God that they have the financing that they are able to do thier jobs and come back home successful. Let us not allow this to be another Vietnam where soldiers were jeered and mocked for serving thier country and preserving OUR freedom, OUR way of life.

Thank you Soliders!!!

However, Obama and his Liberal crusade is pushing for a commitment date when all troops will be out of Iraq. Obama's liberal friends in Congress, like Barney Frank who are promising they'll not only push more taxes through Congress, but also Defense cuts. Seriously? You're going to cut the defense budget and leave our soldiers hanging? Leave the Iraqi people hanging? Leave the region without a clear path for recovery? That's not only a serious lack of moral judgement, but a serious defense concern -- that you will be underfunding!

3) Health Care Plan

Three words: Universal Health Care - hell no. We do better than that for the Congressmen, we can do better than that for the people of this country. I love that McCain wants to provide people with an option to purchase thier own health care -- what works for them and thier situation. I don't like government thinking they know what's best for me and my family. I don't like that Obama and his liberal friends think they can best spend my money. They certainly know how to spend it, but I wouldn't say that it aligns with my best intersts.

4) Experience

Seriously, I can't believe that people are foolish enough to believe that Sarah Palin does not have the experience to lead the country if, God forbid, something happened to McCain. Sarah Palin has be an executive to not only a small town, but to an entire state. She has had executive experience. Period. Obama has not had executive experience; he has been campaigning most of his adult life - much of which we don't have a lot of details about. Even Joe Biden said he wasn't ready to lead when campaigning against him for the Democratic nomication for President. Now, as his Vice Presidential pick, all of a sudden Barak has the "experience" we need.

No he doesn't. He has the backing of big wig liberals. Period. He personally doesn't have the experience to lead the country without the pursuasion of his friends. Biden has more years in Congress, more than McCain, but he has no executive experience either. I'm most concerned about the person leading the country. Although as divisive as this election has been, every person involved should be vetted, asked the tough questions, and made to stand the test. Obama has been treated with kid gloves by and large.

~~~~~~~~

If you'd like to see what the McCain Campaign thinks -

Here is the information in the link above for McCain/Palin (in case you're too lazy or too time constrained to click the link):

Taxes
John McCain believes we must keep taxes low to reward hard work and create jobs for all Americans.

Barack Obama wants to "spread the wealth around" and is more interested in controlling who gets your piece of the pie than he is in growing the pie.

Economic Plan
John McCain has a comprehensive economic plan that will create millions of good American jobs, ensure our nation's energy security, get the government's budget and spending practices in order, and bring relief to American consumers

The Obama tax increase would come at the worst possible time for America, and especially for small businesses like the one Joe the Plumber dreams of owning. The small businesses Senator Obama would tax provide 16 million jobs in America. And a sudden tax hike for those businesses will kill jobs at a time when we need to be creating more jobs.

Energy
John McCain will break from the past to lead a great national campaign to put us on a course for energy independence. No problem is more urgent today than our dependence on foreign oil.

Barack Obama voted for the same policies that created the problem. He voted for the energy bill promoted by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, which gave even more breaks to the oil industry.

Health Care
John McCain will make health care more available, affordable and responsive to patients and he will give families more choices over their care.

Barack Obama's plan will harm employer coverage, continues the push toward government-run health care and will damage private coverage.

Reforming Washington
John McCain has a record of working to end Washington's stagnant, unproductive partisanship. He will end wasteful government spending and put the government back on the side of the American people.

The American people have not seen Barack Obama forsake partisanship for progress. In his short time in the Senate, Congressional Quarterly shows he voted with the Democrat Party 97 percent of the time.

Government Spending
John McCain is committed to and has long fought for restoring fiscal discipline by eliminating wasteful government spending. Out of control spending has resulted in a weaker dollar, raising the cost of groceries and gas and killing jobs. John McCain will rein in federal spending to help our families in tough economic times.

Barack Obama plans to increase spending by nearly a trillion dollars. Already in three short years in the Senate, he has requested nearly a billion dollars in pork projects for his state and has been an eager participant in this corrupt system.

Education
John McCain will shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers.

Barack Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies.

Iraq
John McCain had the judgment to understand that America's strategy in Iraq was failing and the courage to call for a dramatic change. That strategy is now working, and America is succeeding in Iraq

Barack Obama opposed the new strategy and predicted wrongly that it would fail. He voted to deny critical funds to our men and women fighting in Iraq.

GO AND VOTE!!!!!

2008-11-03T09:42:00.000-08:00

Ok, you may not agree with me and my POV, but here it is:

IF YOU ARE A REGISTERED VOTER - GO, VOTE!!! IT'S YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY!!!

You have the ability to impact change. One vote DOES matter - One vote DOES make a difference. If you haven't already voted, like myself and many other early voters, DO IT TOMORROW . . .

better yet, DO IT NOW!!!

Don't know where to vote? Look here

Need more information on candidates or issues? Look here
(this is comprised by both conservatives and liberals, so it won't help you if you are looking at other party views for President or other groups issues leaning, but Google it ;) )

Of course, I have plenty of opinions about the Presidential Election - I haven't blogged about the issues and other elections in my local area, but feel free to ask if you're interested ;)

I will outline my main reasons for voting the Republican Ticket in my next post -- the McCain Palin ticket CAN STILL WIN if you GET OUT AND VOTE FOR IT!!!!

Seriously, Barak -- you need MORE money ?$?

2008-10-30T08:08:00.000-07:00

So, with Barak paying for a 30 minute infomercial prior to the last game of the World Series last night on 7 television stations, now he wants even MORE money? Are you kidding me?!?

This is the email I received from his campaign:

The next 6 days are going to be the toughest we've seen, and I need your support
to reach as many voters as possible. Donate $5 or more today to strengthen this
movement for the final push. This campaign is in your hands.
Thank you for everything you're doing,
Barack

No problem, Barack -- let me spread the word . . .

I seriously don't think you need any more of MY money -- maybe some more of those donations made anonymously with pre-paid credit cards since you went back on your word to not take public financing for your campaign. Of course people are evading limits with these options and trickery; is this how your White House will work Mr. Senator?!?

I wonder how many other things he'll go back on his word about . . . Barney Frank (D-MA) has already said that it's basically an inevitability that taxes will have to be raised in this economic environment. So there's that, of course . . .

Then there's all his unchecked potential spending with having a Democratic Congress who has done nothing but put the country in more debt . . .

Oh, and of course, the answer to all our prayers (I say with significant sarcasm), Universal Health Care . . .

Oh yeah, did I forget to mention that he'll also be cutting defense spending, Barney Frank says by 25% . . . great timing . . . (again, let me tell you that it was *said* with GREAT sarcasm) . . .

The polls are tightening, as they do in the final days of many presidential elections . . . let's hope these "revelations" of Obama's spreading the wealth resonates with those of us who are tired of working hard, paying tons in taxes, and not encouraging everyone else to do the same.

Great Bumper Sticker/Keep the "Change"

2008-10-29T07:56:00.001-07:00

So my mom forwarded me an email with this as a thought for a McCain/Palin bumper sticker:

"I'll keep my freedom, my guns, and my money. You can keep THE
CHANGE."
Vote for McCain/Palin

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this "change" that Obama insists he brings. Sure, we all know he's hot, but a pretty face does not necessarily make a good leader - a good executive - of the free world. This "change" that he says he brings looks like it will come at a high price for most of us.

The new allegation - a report from the LA Times (who won't show thier alleged video of the event) no less - is that Obama has past ties to Khalidi; a former PLO leader . . . a two-part series, part 1 and part 2, highlighted by Timmerman from Newsmax also highlights these associations. What the hell is going on? Is Fox News correct to assume that there are many, many parts of Obama's past that we simply are not aware of? Has he not been as vetted as the Republicans on his associations and his past? Where does he get his inspiration and drive to lead our country?

Do we simply not know enough about Obama to make him our commander and chief? Are Americans simply blinded by his young, enthusiastic, well-spoken mannerisms to truely examine the content of his statements? To see where he stands on the issues?

He's promising everyone everything. Period. He is telling everyone everything they want to hear; but is it really? Do we really want to think about Universal Health Care where you would have to stand in line to see a doctor. You won't be able to take your children until your number is up? I think about the reports of when I lived in Cincinnati of people abusing the ambulances in the area -- abusing the ambulance services by calling 911 for an emergency, the ambulance getting there, and finding out the person is looking for a free ride to a doctors appointment or doesn't have insurance and can't just see a physician.

Does something need to be done to address these issues, of course. Can we do better, with less government involvement, OF COURSE! Can we trust that Obama will do what's best for the whole versus pandering to his liberal left -- is that the change we can trust? Is that the change that we need?

Obama, you can keep your "Change" . . .

McCain vs. Obama Health Care Plan

2008-10-28T15:13:00.001-07:00

I was happy to see that when McCain's camp sent me an email, they sent me ISSUE information. Unlike Obamas camp, who sends daily solicitations for me to donate to thier campaign (which already outspends McCain in advertising 4 to 1). Granted, I signed up to both campaigns to attempt to get balanced information from both, unfortunately the emails I receive from Obama's camp are always begging for more money (sounds like his "spreading the wealth" tax plan) and slamming McCain (not big on the personal attacks).

All that being said, some people question McCain's Health Care Plan and think Obama's is better from all the hype regarding Universal Health Care. Questions regarding the Health Care Plan are here, straight from McCain's Camp:

The Truth about the McCain-Palin Health Care Plan

Barack Obama And Joe Biden Have Consistently Lied To Americans About
John McCain's Plan. Their claims have failed every fact-check - from CBS to the
Washington Post. John McCain is not going to raise taxes on middle class
families. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the only ones in this race that plan to
raise taxes.

OBAMA
FICTION
John McCain Will Tax Health Care Benefits For The First Time And Will Be
the Largest Middle Class Tax Increase In History.

THE FACTS
This Obama charge is a blatant mischaracterization of the McCain Health
Plan. It only focuses on the fact that the value of the employer provided
insurance will now show up as additional income for the employees – what he
fails to mention – is that John McCain’s generous refundable tax credit ($5,000
for families and $2,500 for individuals) will not only shield millions of
families from a tax increase but will actually give them MORE dollars to invest
in their health care needs.
The McCain Plan DOES NOT tax:
Premiums paid
by families and individuals
Employers for providing health care
coverage
Medical expenses like the cost of a procedure or medication
Insurance claims

Approach Supported By Obama’s Own Advisor:
This is an approach supported by Barack Obama's own Senior Economic Advisor
Jason Furman who wrote that "we could scrap the current deduction altogether and
replace it with progressive tax credits that, together with other changes, would
ensure that every American has affordable health insurance."

Better Than "Members of Congress":
Under the McCain Plan, your employer can provide you with health insurance
as good as a "Member of Congress" (approximately $12,000), and you would
pay no more in taxes – regardless of your tax bracket. In fact, you
would have additional money left over from the McCain tax credit to put in a
health savings account.

(see bracket for specifics here)

Where Is The Middle-Class "Tax Increase"? If you or your family is
in the 28% bracket, with an income of $180,000, you could receive employer
provided health insurance even better than a Member of Congress, with a
cost of almost $18,000, with no increase in taxes. Even the liberal leaning
Tax Policy Center, agrees that the McCain proposals will result in a "net tax
benefit" of more than $1,200 for an average tax payer. A recent Lewin Group
study estimated savings of more than $1,400 per American family – almost three
times the savings as under the Obama plan.

OBAMA FICTION
The McCain Plan Will Reduce Medicare Spending By Billions By “Cutting
Benefits, Eligibility or Both.”

THE FACTS
John McCain believes that we can achieve savings in Medicare without
reducing benefits or eligibility. He has proposed common-sense reforms that will
not only put Medicare on a path of financial stability but ensure access to
quality care for millions of Americans. Some of the policies proposed by the
McCain plan include:

Promote payment reform that allows us to move away from the current
fragmented and volume-based service to a system which rewards coordinated and
quality focused care.
Eliminate Medicare fraud and abuse to ensure that
nearly $60 billion a year, almost 10 percent of total Medicare spending, that
goes to line the pocket of criminals instead of providing quality care for
seniors.

Ensure that drug premiums for the wealthiest Americans are not being
subsidized by the middle class.

Promote a new generation of treatment models that better manage chronic
care conditions while rewarding prevention and wellness.

Greater use of Health IT and medical homes to promote greater co-ordination
of care.

Reduce drug costs by allowing greater use of generics (including
bio-generics).

The Obama Spin: If some of the proposals above sound familiar to
Senator Obama’s proposals including – better managing chronic care diseases,
greater use of health IT, promoting prevention and greater use of generic drugs
- because they are. Only the liberal media and the Obama campaign would
characterize similar proposals as “savings” in the their plan and “cutting
benefits, eligibility or both” in the McCain plan.

OBAMA FICTION
John McCain Will Tax Health Care Benefits For The First Time And Send The
Money Straight To The Insurance Companies.

THE FACTS
Another desperate attack by the Obama campaign. Here is what they
purposefully fail to mention – the credit goes to the insurance company that the
American family chooses to get coverage from, anywhere in the nation. The power
of choice lies with the family – not government bureaucrats or insurance
companies.

Putting Families In Charge:
Under the McCain Plan American families will not only decide where the tax
credit should be directed for their coverage needs but any additional money left
over after purchasing coverage will be controlled by the family in a portable
health savings account. Ridiculing this line of strange attack, The Associated
Press stated, "Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance.
That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car
dealer."
Obama Criticizing His Own Approach: Most importantly, Senator Obama
is criticizing an approach that is used by his own HOPE credits – where tax
payer money simply goes from the federal government to colleges.

OBAMA FICTION
Americans With Pre-Existing Condition Under The McCain Plan Will Not Find
Coverage.THE

FACTS
John McCain believes that no American should be denied access to quality
and affordable coverage simply because of a pre-existing condition. As
President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model
that states can follow – a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP – that would reflect
the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health
coverage. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be
available for Americans below a certain income level.

OBAMA FICTION
The McCain Health Plan Will Damage Employer Provided Insurance For Millions
of Americans.

THE FACTS
The McCain health plan builds on the employer-based system. Employers will
have the same incentive to provide health insurance as they do today since they
will continue to deduct the cost of health insurance they provide to employees.

Millions With Employer Coverage Will Do Better Under The McCain Plan:
Millions of American families with employer sponsored coverage in all tax
brackets with the same coverage as a "Members of Congress" will now come out
ahead with additional funds going into a portable health savings account.
Importantly, younger and healthier employees with the McCain health care tax
credit will have a bigger incentive to stay with the employers. For example, a
25-year-old employee in the 25 percent tax bracket with a $2,500 tax credit
could either purchase a policy in the individual market for the same amount or
stay with his employer plan and receive a $5,000 policy with an additional
$1,250 to invest in a portable health savings account.

Why would people choose fewer benefits for more money?

So Why Is Barack Obama Hiding Details About His Plan?

Barack Obama's Plan Will Harm Employer Coverage:

The Obama plan includes a $179 billion a year employer mandate. The
mandate requires employers to either provide "meaningful" coverage or pay a tax
towards the government plan. Faced with tough economic conditions and
rising health costs this creates a clear incentive for employers to drop
coverage and move families into the new government plan. A Lewin Group study
which examined a similar employer mandate combined with a national plan, like
the Obama plan, concluded that almost 52 million individuals would lose their
private employer coverage. To maintain their competitive edge, others employers
will follow - spelling the demise of the employer coverage system.

Barack Obama's Plan Continues The Push Toward Government-Run
Healthcare

The Obama plan will create a brand new government-run health plan at the
cost of $243 billion a year – a financial burden of more than $3,000 a year on
American families.
Barack Obama's Plan Will Damage Private CoverageThe
government-run plan will have a clear advantage over private insurance since it
will be subsidized by American taxpayers. A recent analysis of both plans by the
nonpartisan CATO Institute concluded that the Obama government-run plan will be
able to "keep its premiums artificially low…since it can turn to the U.S.
Treasury to cover any shortfalls" resulting in "undercutting the private
market." According to Wall Street Journal, the goal of the Obama plan "…like
HillaryCare in the 1990s, is to displace current private coverage and switch
people to the default government option."

Moms for McCain: Resources for Undecideds: Endorsements, Faith

2008-10-27T21:33:00.000-07:00

Moms for McCain: Resources for Undecideds: Endorsements, Faith

Attack ads . . . ISSUES BOYS!

2008-10-26T21:19:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I'm a little frustrated with all the personal attacks on the McCain/Palin ticket. It's pathetic that the democrats can't rest on thier issues, but have to attack a wardrobe (I saw that Obama's suits are like $2K each) or the "real" reasons behind Palin having 5 children and "keeping" the fifth child with Downs Syndrome.

Are these people just salivating at the thought of power or are they seriously thinking that people with compassion and common sense will think these are issues that should decide the Presidency?!?

Let's talk ISSUES boys . . .

The issues that Obama has taken a stand on that I don't agree on are the tax cuts, the economy, his thoughts on international relations, the war in Iraq, the war in Afganistan, and his health plan. Period. I won't vote for him based on these issues.

The fact that he has voted 97% of the time with the Democratic Leadership also worries me. If he voted as a Senator 97% of the time with Harry Reid, it'll be a clean sweep if he's in the White House. Gone will be in the partisan society, the checks and balances we've come to expect between the White House and Congress. The democratic Congress hasn't done shit in the last two years -- I don't see any big changes with Obama as President . . .

Oh, that is, of course, unless you want to talk about all the pork barrel projects they've pushed through and the out-of-control spending they're discussing. The extra "stimulus" package in a lame duck session. Are you fucking kidding me?!?

Hello?!!? Great Depression, the new century version?!!?

Yet, I digress and must take my leave . . . my soft, sweet bed is calling me . . .

Boehner gives us a "heads up" on Pelosi's Spending Spree . . .

2008-10-21T13:09:00.000-07:00

Not that I agree with all the possible solutions, but my former Congressman John Boehner wrote an article a few days ago outlining the spending spree the Democrats - headed by Pelosi - plan on implementing.

If you're ok with the government "spreading the wealth" around, as Obama would say, then be a proud, informed, Democrat. Otherwise, consider other options!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Beware of More Government Spending Hiding in “Economic Stimulus” Clothing

Oct 17, 2008Washington - It’s bad enough that Congress had to pass a $700 billion economic rescue bill to clean up the mess that originated with Democrats’ coddling of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But it turns out that Democratic leaders were just getting started on emptying your wallets for more big government spending. They are now threatening to pass a $300 billion spending bill on, vowing that more spending is necessary to provide “stimulus” for our flagging economy.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says Congress must make more “harsh” decisions to further address the economic challenges we face. To that end, she and a small group of like-minded economists held a photo-op in the U.S. Capitol to discuss the unsavory options. After their meeting, the Speaker emerged to make a somber announcement: Democrats have no choice by to spend as much as $300 billion more of your hard-earned tax dollars.

This is not a “harsh” decision. This is more of the same: a business-as-usual approach to using your tax dollars to make the government bigger, less accountable to you and, in the end, not coming up with a single solution to our problems.Nothing being discussed will stabilize our economy or ease our nation’s uncompetitive tax rates.

Nothing being discussed will bring a single dollar of private capital into our markets to help stabilize and restore Ohio families’ savings and retirement accounts. And nothing being discussed will help small businesses create more jobs.

However, there are immediate steps that we could take to turn the corner toward real economic growth and real economic stimulus, not more government programs and more government intrusion into private business.

• Enact a comprehensive “all of the above” energy strategy that allows new drilling in Alaska and deepwater ocean zones, promotes alternative and renewable fuels, and encourages efficiency and conservative. Such reforms would create 1 million new jobs.

• Suspend the capital gains tax (currently 15 percent for individuals and 35 percent for corporations) for equities purchased during the next two years to encourage investment.

• Enact tax relief to encourage home purchases. Currently, people can exclude up to $250,000 of capital gains ($500,000 for married couples filing jointly) on the sale of a home used as a primary residence in at least two of the last five years. We should allow a similar exclusion for other homes purchased in the next 18 months and held for at least 5 years. This could help take foreclosed properties off the market, raising home values.

• Bring home American jobs by lowering the tax rate on profits companies bring back to the United States. Currently, the nearly 10,000 U.S. companies that have overseas subsidiaries must pay a 35-percent tax (the second highest tax rate in the world) on profits earned overseas when they bring those profits home. This encourages companies to leave their earnings overseas, meaning less money is available to keep Americans employed and to create new American jobs.

• Lower tax rates for companies that purchase distressed assets to encourage American companies to assist with the financial recovery. Corporations that agree to purchase some distressed assets should receive a temporary 10-percent percentage point cut in their tax rate.

• Help seniors by suspending minimum Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) withdrawal rules. Currently, individuals are required to being withdrawing from their IRAs six months after they reach age 70. We should suspend this requirement to spare investors from being forced to sell their stocks when the market is low.

Hard-working American families and those who have earned their retirements are hurting. They’re not asking for pork-barrel spending masquerading as “stimulus.” They’re asking for real reforms that will create jobs, lower energy costs and let them keep more of their own paychecks. House Republicans stand ready to work to enact such reforms. We also stand ready to fight any frivolous and irresponsible “stimulus” schemes devised by politicians and bankrolled by taxpayers.

Boehner represents Ohio’s 8th District, which includes all of Darke, Miami and Preble counties, most of Butler and Mercer counties, and the northeastern corner of Montgomery County. He was first elected to Congress in 1990.
-ee-

McCain Talks Socialism . . . thanks STU!!!

2008-10-21T00:06:00.001-07:00

From Stu's Blog - seriously, I couldn't say it better, or without profanity, myself!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stu BlogStu Show Blog

McCain talks socialism
10.20.2008 10:27:23

"At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives," McCain said in a radio address.

"They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway."

---

The media had a problem with this logic, saying McCain wanted to do the same thing:

---

McCain, though, has a health care plan girded with a similar philosophy. He proposes providing individuals with a $5,000 tax credit to buy health insurance. He would pay for his plan, in part, by considering as taxable income the money their employer spends on their health coverage.

---

These people don't understand what redistribution of wealth is. Here's the major difference between Obama's long series of ideas and McCain's healthcare plan.

McCain takes my money, and then hands it back to me.
Obama takes my money, and then hands it to someone else.

McCain's tact on healthcare is closer to an accounting issue, to give you the same tax benefit for buying your own insurance that you would get if your employer gave it to you.

Obama is saying "Let me decide who has too much, and who has too little, and then I'll even it out. That will be better for everyone!"

You might like that philosophy, but it's not at all comparable to McCain's health care plan.

Obama "saves" the children . . .

2008-10-19T22:02:00.000-07:00

Ok, let's face it: I'm in a liberal haven in the Pacific Northwest. And although I knew many of my views would be challenged, I was literally slack jawed when I read the recent "Parent Map" magazine article giving "tips" for how people should vote if they want to, " . . . Put children and families first at the polls on Nov. 4. ". Of course, the liberals here are advocating a straight Democratic Ticket.

I was literally speechless when I read the title of the article was Vote for Us! (meaning the children) and they support Obama because he supports family planning through abortion, I about shit a brick. I've always been pro-choice because I recoil at the thought of some old, wrinkled white guy in Washington DC telling me what I can or can't do with my body (I don't like to be told what to do, period!), but I have never considered it an option for me. But now Obama is the great Child Advocate, though he supports killing unborn children?!?!?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Not surprising liberals advocating themselves. What is surprising, at least to a Midwesterner like me, is that a publication that generates revenue from advertisers and (IMHO) should show some sort of fairness - doesn't. I mean, doesn't care that it doesn't show credit from what Republicans have offered or any redeeming qualities from anyone other than their beloved liberals.

I have a problem with that. I have a problem with telling readers if they don't support Obama, they don't support children.

Seriously?!? (see: Obama's Hot)

The author refers to the apparently infamous bumper sticker campaign (I haven't seen it, but I've only been here 6 months) “I’m Voting for Kids.” (Am I the only one hearing the tumbleweeds on the desert?!?)

Never-the-less, the first point discusses the No Child Left Behind Act. I must confess, as an independent voter, I'm not a huge fan of NCLB. There are a number of reasons including teachers being forced to teach to the tests in order for the schools to get children to get high enough scores to sustain funding. These teachers are forced to teach to the test because their students have been allowed to rise through the grades without learning the material. Period. Although some people think "teaching to the test" isn't bad, and maybe it isn't in the Nirvana of Washington State. However, in other parts of the country, it's a problem. Teachers have to put off their normal materials in the weeks leading up to the standardized tests and seriously teach to the tests for these children.

(and this isn't even the part that sickens me . . .)

The biggest problem that we found with NCLB IMHO is this: although unionizing teachers is great for the teachers, not so great for the kids. The quality of teachers may be iffy in some cases, in others the teachers just become complacent and want the kids moved on. However, is it all the fault of the teacher? EMPHATIC HELL NO!! The teachers are just where the buck stops. Children who are not properly supported in their education efforts at home are at risk. The parents are either too busy with their own lives or simply don't have the resources to adequately provide assistance to these children. The kids fall through the cracks, we want that to stop, Bush puts forth a bill to try to ebb the flow and it didn't work exactly the way it was intended.

Not a huge surprise, but he did much more than Clinton on that front.

So, NCLB is questionable and can be debated, but without teachers being able to foster a relationship with the child and the child's parents to provide a web of accountability to the student, and the parents - not only the schools and teachers - nothing will change.

But back to what has me really fired up: Obama cares SO much about children . . . well, the ones who aren't viciously decapitated and vacuumed out. This is what was stated in the article,

You’re either pro-choice or pro-life and ne’er the twain shall meet. But we
can agree the next president will influence reproductive rights for at least
the next four years. In the so-called “Compassion Forum,” held on Aug. 16 of
this year at a California megachurch, John McCain and Barack Obama shared
their contrasting views on abortion. Sen. McCain stated flatly that life
begins at conception; Sen. Obama reiterated his support of abortion rights.
Obama said he would limit late-stage abortions, unless the mother’s health
was in danger.

Obama voted "present" for many of his Illinois State Legislature, including a vote on partial birth abortion claiming it would criminalize many different types of abortions. I'll be honest, I haven't read the fine print (can't find a link, but lots of links to paid subscription sites and hate sites), but we know how the riders go. Democrats and Republicans alike packing as much pork as possible into each and every bill possible (Check out this: talk about accountability - or lack thereof).

Yet, I digress . . .

What I'm really pissed about is that this so-called community magazine is endorsing a straight Democratic, liberal left ticket touting Obama as the keeper of children -- oh, of course not the ones he ok'd for abortion because those aren't worth protecting.

I'll say it again, Obama is hot, but just because he looks good, just because he sounds good, doesn't mean that his proposed policies will be good for America.

When I have another minute, I'll write about how I don't want him to spread the wealth around because I can do it my damn self, thank you!

Obama, Acorn, and Stimulus Checks for Welfare Recipients

2008-10-14T10:08:00.000-07:00

Ok, so Obama is hot - smokin' hot - but it takes more than a hottie to run the country and not run our finances into the ground.

First, if you haven't done so, brush up on the Great Depression. Check out the "stimulus" packages and the trickle down effect of taking money away from those making the money. Oh yeah, that's right, it took World War II to get us out of that one . . .

YIKES!

So, Obama is going to give "tax cuts" to 95% of the population. But, did you read the fine print? This probably isn't going to be for you. Unless you are receiving welfare benefits, you probably won't be receiving a "tax cut" check. Too bad for you, because you continue paying your bills, scrape to get by, you will be afforded the luxury of continuing to do so without assistance from the government.

Oh, except that in Obama's White House, which he may win not only because he's hot, but also because of Acorn's phony voter registration (you see, not only did Obama used to represent Acorn as thier attorney, but also was a trainer for Acorn, and also made a contribution to Acorn which helps them "get out the vote"). Have you seen the midwest States being ravaged by voter fraud cases?

Scary.

So, will Obama's White House go to the lengths that Hoover and Roosevelt did during the Great Depression? Will there be rations? Are the rumors that Martial Law may have to be instilled in the next few years - the rationale for many congressmen consenting to the obscene bailout - are these rumors true? Will you be asked to look for the blue eagle symbol stamped on price regulated home goods and food items as was done during the Depression?

These are scary economic times. Even scarier, is having a Democratic Congress wanting to spend money that our government doesn't have, and a potential Democratic President who will rubber stamp every bit of that spending.

What happens when China wants thier loans paid up? What happens when the government is forced to live within thier means like most of us Americans? Will entitlements still be the name of the game, but in that instance we will no longer live in a pseudo-Democracy, but in a Socialist State? Will we be like Russia was not so long ago, waiting in line for soup, essentials, economy crumbled because of bad economics forced on us by the government. Redistribution of wealth?

WE HAVE A CHOICE!!

Let the FREE MARKET be FREE! The big crash is still on the horizon. Instead of letting it happen 5 or 10 years from now, which is what happened in the Great Depression (look it up, you'll wish you paid more attention in History Class). If the markets had been allowed to crash once big in the 30's, the prolonged and continued Depression could have been a rebuilding period. What we're doing now is more of the same.

Don't worry, you'll be witness to this second American Great Depression -- let's just hope that we don't need a World War to pull us out. Let's hope that on the other end, because as with most things in life the economy is cyclical, that we're still a Democratic Nation and not a Socialist State.

Obama Out of Context!!

2008-10-07T22:27:00.000-07:00

This is my email rebuttal to the Obama email regarding the "McCain/Keeting Video" . . . which is just absurd.

I tell you, we're screwed with either candidate. But, we're really screwed if Obama is elected and we have a Democratic Congress AND a Democratic President BOTH who want to spend like there is no tomorrow - see BEND ME OVER A PORK BARREL with the bailout bullshit . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow! I can't believe you guys (campaign) taking things so far out of context! McCain was exonerated of any wrong doing. I would prefer to see how Obama plans to get us out of this economic mess rather than hear more smear tactics.

I look forward to more informational emails, not petty partisan mess. If you're going to get my swing vote, I don't want to hear what McCain did 20 years ago, I want to hear what Obama will do tomorrow. I want to know he will cut government spending in some capacity to fund all these projects he's proposed. I want to know he will take care of us here in America before sending more aid along to tyrants and dictators who plot against our country and our people every day. We don't have to win any popularity contests in the world, we have to take care of our own house first!

My main reasons for not wanting to vote for Obama is all the entitlements he's proposed. We work hard, we pay our bills, we haven't filed for bankruptcy, we try to live within our means, we didn't get in so deep over our heads in debt that we couldn't pay our mortgage taking out a ridiculous loan - so this whole idea of going to court and having your mortgage reduced pisses me off.

It pisses me off that these people who got in over thier head because they were greedy, now get a golden ticket to keep thier homes while my family continues to scrimp and save to pay off our debts. I'm looking for a reason. I liked Obama more when he began campaigning and wasn't crucifying his opponents . . .

Simpson, did it again . . .

2008-10-07T21:23:00.000-07:00

Karma's a bitch, isn't it OJ?

My husband and I spoke about the guilty ruling when it came down a couple of days ago. Although he'll appeal, I hope it sticks. For once I'd like to see so called celebrities get punished for thier foolish behavior instead of it being brushed under the carpet because they're *famous*.

Let the Market fall FLAT ON IT'S FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!

2008-10-02T23:57:00.000-07:00

I wrote this in response to my husband's ranting blogspot regarding my flurry of pissed off letters to my elected representatives; both those elected for me in WA state and those I elected (or were elected) in OH:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I saw that the reason the FDIC limit was pushed to $250K is for MUTUAL FUNDS because the banks were pissed off about legislation earlier passed . . .

So, it's all about helped the banking industry to continue thier tyranny of selling the "American Dream", but unfortunately, Americans don't want to WORK for the dream. They want to continue, like the government, to use someone else's money to live above thier means and get pissed when it doesn't pan out . . .

HELLO??????

Is anybody IN THERE?!?

The simple fact of the matter is that Clinton and Congress pressured banks, which I'm sure didn't need too much convincing if the government had it's back, to issue sub-prime mortgages. To give people what was too good to be true. These people, knowing the deals were too good to be true, using over 1/2 thier monthly pay for mortgage, should have realized they wouldn't be able to put food on the table or pay utilities, let alone live a life, by undertaking these huge payments for mortgages they should have never been given and couldn't afford.

All that being said, these Congressman/women still want the taxpayers to foot the bill.
Didn't something like this happen in the Great Depression? Wasn't there government bailouts that literally lengthened the Depression by giving it not quite the push it needed, giving the companies some cash, and giving the public the shaft? Isn't that what led to the Great Depression lasting until WWII?

So, are we gearing up for WWIII? Does this mean since we live on credit, not like the majority of the rest of the world who actually has to save and pay as they go . . . does this mean that the US is going to have to get involved in another World War in order to "save" themselves for another 80 years or so?

Let the market fall flat on it's face. It sucks. It sucks for everyone, but the market will even out. And I think it'll even out more quickly if we just get it over with versus dragging it out for years.
You can thank Clinton for pushing the sub-prime mortgages. Oh, and don't forget to thank Clinton for NAFTA and not protecting American companies - Wal-Mart now has the lions share of Made In China merchandise that used to be made by Americans, but with our labor laws, environmental standards, and lack of tariffs doesn't quite make it "Fair Trade" . . .

We're fucked either way . . .

Dear Rep. Boehner . . .

2008-09-24T21:46:00.001-07:00

This is what I emailed to Rep. Boehner, he is the minority chair in the House of Representatives from the 8th Congressional District in Ohio - where we used to live . . . if I had more than 5 minutes to write, I would have liked to add more detail, cite sources, et. al . . .

However, since I am a busy mom and have more elected officials to write, this is my core argument and discussion. If you agree, please feel free to cut and paste into an email to your own elected representatives. See either the government link or Vote Smart Project.

I plan on tweaking this version and telling my elected officials in my new Washington State District that I will not be voting for those who vote for the bailout - and I don't think I'll be alone . . .

Enjoy!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rep. Boehner,

I voted for you in the last election and was proud to do so. However, we have since then (the election) moved from West Chester to the State of Washington.

With this whole Wall Street crisis, I was gravely concerned when I saw your comments from this week. You stated that we needed the bailout to help people keep thier way of life. My concern is that since the government has been living outside of it's means, Wall Street has been compensating by living outside of its means, which has trickled down to individuals living outside of thier means.

Don't we have to have a reality check, not a bailout check? Don't we need to go ahead and take the financial hit now versus providing a proverbial scotch tape solution -- one that is surely not going to really assist individuals and will only serve to assist the banking industry, thereby endorsing thier activity?

Since most Americans see this as crossing the line into a more socialist state, isn't it more wise to allow the market to work it out versus putting ourselves, our children, our grandchildren into more national debt; thereby relying on more and more debt instruments to be bought up by foreign countries, like China and Japan, who - because of thier labor practices, if nothing else - put us at an economic disadvantage. Thereby sending even more jobs overseas and putting the country more in debt with entitlements we can't, and shouldn't afford?

Mr. Representative, we cannot continue bailing everyone out. This isn't a free lunch market, it was set up as a free market. Please, rethink your position on this matter. Please, do not allow politics and re-election pressure, Presidential pressure, party pressure push you into making a fundamental mistake of gigantic proportions. Americans want to see heads roll over this, but I think that we also need the reality check that life simply cannot go on the way it has in this country.

No wonder the rest of the world despises us; we're in debt up to our eyeballs and here's our government bailing out the rich, giving speculators a pass, again!

Thank you,

Bailout? Seriously, we trust Wall Street with MORE money?!?

2008-09-23T06:11:00.000-07:00

The Bailout . . .

I'm surprised how few people are really concerned not only about the market standstill last week, but also this multi-billion (soon to be TRillion dollar payout) that by all accounts will not SOVLE the problem -- just EBB the tide of failures.

I think Newt Gingrich said it best last night in his appearance in On The Record with Greta Van Susteren: "I'm opposed to the whole concept; you have capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down". Newt also appeared on NPR yesterday, and said essentially that Paulson obviously has a stake in this because . He said:

"So I think part of the question is, why can't this be done out in an open
debate, have an openly marked-up bill, have the American people know what's
being asked of them?

I was just reading an analysis by a very sophisticated
person who said that there's been at least one leak from a congressional staff
briefing by Secretary Paulson, in which he clearly indicated he intended to buy
assets at above their market value. And that — why should the taxpayer do that?
I mean, why are we not saying, 'We'll provide enough capital to avoid collapse,
but we're not going to provide enough capital to guarantee the profits of Wall
Street people' — who, after all, last year, at Goldman Sachs alone had three
people each earning $73 million a year. Now, why should we bail them out?"

So where does this leave us, the taxpayers? Those of us who play by the rules, pay our taxes, pay our mortgages, pay off our credit card debt, medical debt, etc. Those of us who live within our mean and don't have the sense of entitlement to being 'bailed out' by the government for taking mortgages we can't afford and getting credit card after credit card, racking up debt we know we'll never be able to pay back. Why should those of us who work hard, pay our bills, make sacrifices to stay out of financial disaster -- we get SCREWED!

Fiscal responsibility seems to be an oxymoron in the US Economy. Of COURSE this was going to happen sooner or later; of COURSE the economy is going to suffer for people living beyond thier means, altering the accounting practices to ensure the appearance of profits (like Wall Street), or by simply taking debt off the "real" books (like the US Government) and creating additional books of debt which aren't really transparent either. It's ridiculous!!

If I were to have different "books" of debt, I'd be able to live a ridiculously lush lifestyle, too! Like I've been blogging about -- people continue to live outside of thier means, the government continues to give out entitlements like it's Halloween candy, and we the taxpayers get to foot the bill. We get to pay taxes on our income, we get to pay again on the earning from the money we earn, we get to pay local, state, and federal government - PLUS income tax, PLUS sales tax, PLUS gas tax -- seriously?!? And you think taxing us MORE will help?!?

Greed has been the word thrown around and I can't agree more. Greed of individuals, corporations, and politicians. Living outside thier means and demanding more for thier pet projects.

And oh, for the love of God, now the democrats want the US government to take ownership in these companies -- get in bed with them? Socialism at work? I've read a couple of blogs where people think we should be moving toward this, and of course that's something that the democrats lean toward anyway -- but now the other major party is as well?!? Seriously?!?

If a directly unelected official like Paulson can now have say in "public" companies, isn't that socialism at work? If this Democratic Congress decides to push through the (initial) $700 billion, what's going to keep them from adding on entitlements for them and thier friends . . .

I think they all see this as a free for all. The American public isn't going to make a peep because we're all so "scared" or blindly indifferent thinking this won't affect our way of life. It will, you'd better believe it.

Newt thinks the bailout is a bad idea, Peter Cohan, Jim Cramer, Ron Paul among others . . . but back to Newt's assertion -- why don't the taxpayers get a say? I know we have representation, but they're the corrupt ones that have allowed the market to drift this far, bailing out friends and colleagues, and generally fucking everything up . . .

Hurricane Ike thoughts . . .

2008-09-22T21:01:00.000-07:00

~~~~repost from my alternate blog~~~~~~~

So, I'm a little late posting this blog, but it suffices to say that I'm still really irritated. And at the request of my husband, I'm posting my thoughts -- albeit not so fresh on everyone's mind . . .
My beef is with the residents in the path of Hurricane Ike who chose to stay, even though the government warned people of certain death - a dire warning - they said. Yet, people stayed.

Why?

One guy said that "God would protect him" -- Now, I'm a christian woman, but did you ever hear the one about the guy who tried to ride out a flood saying God would protect him? A friend in a truck offered to take him out, a guy in a boat tried to take him, and a guy in a helicopter tried to rescue him -- all the time in this "joke", the man said God would save him. When he died, he was angry with God asking why God hadn't saved him. Of course, in the "joke", God said, "I sent you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter - what more would you like me to do?!?" . . . moral of the story, if you have a warning, adhere to it. God IS going to protect you - you have to heed his angel's warnings!

Duh!

Another article outlines that others stayed to save what they could once the storm had passed - many had left during Rita and had had thier farm animals die because they had to wait a week to get back into thier homes. Others wanted to ensure they were able to mitigate damage to thier homes once the storm had passed. At last count I saw, 50 people are confirmed dead.

Regardless, the people who rode out the storm may indeed be fiercely independent, but they are also hampering efforts for everyone who did receive the warnings to come back in. Because officials have to continue search and rescue missions, provide assistance to those who stayed, and enforce curfews, again the people who played by the rules get screwed. Efforts shouldn't have to be focused on those who stayed - if the states weren't going to enact martial law and force people to leave, then they shouldn't worry about helping them and focus on getting the areas ready for evacuees to return.

These "fiercely independent" people why stayed in the path of Hurricane Ike, who refused to heed warnings of certain death, shouldn't delay all those who did heed the warnings from returning to thier homes, to pick up the pieces of thier lives. Evacuees are staying in shelters, hotels, or even sneaking back into the area.

So, what ramifications should happen to those who stayed, impeding restoration of services and sanitation? Community service. Plain and simple, the people who stayed behind and are causing efforts to be diverted from immediate issues to get the masses back into the area should be given mandatory community service directly related to the recovery efforts once the rest of the people can return. The people complaining they can't get bottled water, food, fuel, and other necessities in the damaged areas who rode out the storm should be paying back thier neighbors by helping relief efforts in the aftermath. I'm sure that all services can be used from continuing clean-up efforts, to cleaning toilets at help centers, to reading to children at the library or whatever they are capable of giving back to thier communities.

I had written Glenn Beck about it after he had made a comment echoing my concerns of people who rode out the storm costing so much more time, money, and effort in getting the areas back opened versus if they had left as instructed (I didn't hear back from him . . . yet!). BTW: If you missed his series this week, Exposed: America's Broke -- I highly reccomend you take a look.

The economy is an entirely different issue . . . I'm really fired up about that . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bailout good? We'll see . . . we'll see what they come up with . . .

WTF: The Economy Shakeout . . .

2008-09-18T04:20:00.000-07:00

We all knew this was coming . . . people living beyond thier means, corrections in the market, it always all shakes out. I think the surprises are who is getting shaken out.

Where is the corporate responsibility? Why are we, the American taxpayers, having to bail out another failed company? Why aren't the CEO's being hung out to dry -- liquidating thier assests, requiring them to repay billions collectively in bonuses, paychecks, and stock options (ok, won't get much for that NOW) . . . Believe me, I understand that they'll cry and say it wasn't thier fault.

BUT LISTEN: CEO -- THE BUCK STOPS WITH YOU -- IT IS YOUR FAULT AND YOU OWE THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS INTEREST ON THE MONEY WE'RE FRONTING YOU!!!

And where do the candidates stand on this? Well, Obama says we'll enact more regulations for Wall Street and expand the scope of government to control everything more tightly. Seriously? Have you ever even WORKED in a government regulatory job? The regulations on the books by and large aren't followed to the letter, not because the regulators are giving companies passes, per se . . . the problem is the number of regulators out there for most regulatory positions are spread WAY too thin. The regulated companies know this and take advantage of it. Without properly funding and staffing current regulatory positions, it's a joke to think more regulations will help.

I'm not an authority, but I did work for a few local government agencies and my association with the goverment regulators was tight. In this, I found the regulators took thier jobs very seriously and went after offenders. The problem was that they were given scopes large enough for at least 5-10 people to cover full-time. Even with summer interns, it was still focusing on the big stuff and leaving the rest to local governments.

**************brief intermission********************

Ok, so I started writing this post Tuesday morning around 4:30am PST. I haven't re-read what I wrote . . . but are you fucking kidding me?!? Corporate bailouts galore and we don't want to punish the CEO's to risk others not taking risks?!?

Seriously . . . .

Anyone who has taken accounting knows it's pretty easy to get everything to balance IF you're doing everything above board; IF you're not screwing the taxpayers; IF you're not broadening the scope of government . . .

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD --- IT'S CALLED A FREE MARKET SYSTEM -- IF I WANT SOCIALISM I'LL MOVE ELSEWHERE!!!

So, this all goes back to living outside your means. It began in 1971 with the US starting to print money that it no longer backed with gold. Yes, I understand it's because US currency was considered to be "as good as gold", but it's the beginning of a slippery slope . . . . It continued by taking certain debts "off the books", and transferring them to "new" books -- but it's all the same debt owed by the American Taxpayers.

I, for one, feel really sorry for the people who are invested in these companies, who work for these companies, who have thier retirement and insurance through these companies. However, investors are speculators and with any speculation, you take risk. People working at these companies, those who were honest and stuck to the books, they'll get jobs -- there are people out there already probably trying to figure out how they can hire you (for the ones who let this shit slip through the cracks, fudged numbers, screw you).

People with thier retirement and insurance -- those are the people I feel for. Even when you research a company, if they aren't putting forth truth in numbers, the elusive 'transparency', fudge numbers -- how can a normal Joe make an honest assessment? Even if they are more 'honest', most of that shit is in fine print and is written by lawyers who want to make sure to add more red tape, ensuring thier own futures, screwing the rest of us.

I'll tell you, the candidate that I was most interested in when the Presidential Race began was Mike Huckabee and for one reason alone -- one sheet tax code. Although I was raised a Southern Baptist and am still very spiritual, I do not agree with all associated religious beliefs -- but I'll save that for another post . . .

Taxes with a new administration . . . really ?!?

2008-09-14T07:54:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I saw on the CNN crawl this morning that former US Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, questioned the proposed tax cuts of the McCain Camp. Greenspan said that cuts in spending would need to accompany any sort of tax cut; McCain stated cuts in pork barrel spending, programs, etc. would meet this gap. Obama, on the dl, looks as if he's the messiah by only taxing the rich. Oh the changes they promise . . .

Ok, I have all kinds of problems with the the economy, tax cuts, and spending . . . let me elaborate:

McCain wants to cut taxes; the immediate thoughts for the masses is, "Hurray!" --- but hey, wait a minute, what does that mean to us? What does that mean to the country? Are we going into more debt financed by China and Japan? Isn't this problematic for the American people? How does this play into public policy, the elusive change? More bailouts?

Obama says that he'll tax the rich; I have heard him in speaches state that the *magic* line of delineation is $250,000 of, what I assumed, was earned income -- and now it's $97,000. However, the abc.com news article, and WSJ commentors, ponder what the hell he is thinking! I wonder what he is thinking -- and I'm not the only one worried about Obama's taxation policies. Redistribution of wealth? So, since I worked hard, literally am paying my dues, I should pay more in taxes for someone who has lived beyond thier means or never learned to live within them? Environmental sustainability? (yes, there are better references for environmental, but I'm working on a toddler deadline!)

Unfortunately, we're stuck with the two major parties and thier partisan politics -- at this point, the American public is not engaged enough to realistically have a majority vote outside these parameters. We are at the point where we must choose between the lesser of the two evils . . .

. . . and on it goes . . .

Rising Gas Prices, Rising Frustrations . . .

2008-09-13T22:04:00.001-07:00

People are getting hit hard with the rising price of gasoline -- especially in the southeast. I saw this morning on the news that the price of gas in ATL is around $5.50!! What they said was that Georgia and Florida have anti-price gouging laws in place, but the gas stations are saying that although the cost per barrel of crude oil is actually down under $100, the refineries (25% of which are in the US are located in the Gulf Coast region) cannot keep up with demand. In anticipation of shortages (which are already happening), gas stations are hiking prices. They know when refining is back on track, they will have to pay more for the gasoline they buy and pass that increase on to consumers.

Although I feel your pain, not the $5/gallon (yet) thank goodness, but the "pain at the pump" the media likes to refer to; Americans are still spoiled. The last numbers I looked at, Europeans pay around $12 US dollars/gallon of gasoline. All other consumables are slighly higher as well due to transportation costs. What they don't tell you, or at least mention, are the differences in emissions standards and build-out of cities.

Emission standards are straight-forward (or pretty much so). I personally believe we should have high emission standards to not only keep our environment clean, but to be a leader in environmental awareness and protection. However, the build-out of cities, or urban/suburban sprawl is an entirely different issue. The US built roads like crazy to connect people all over the country -- driven by automobile manufacturing lobbyists -- to build more roads and necessitate more vehicles, more vehicle maintenance, etc. (think: conversion to HDTV, another consumer rip-off). You find more dense populations in Europe based on, if nothing else, lack of real estate!

Real Estate - another kick in the ass . . . I digress . . .

So, in the end, it's all based on a simple supply and demand model. The less the supply, the more they demand we pay. Conversely, the less we demand, the more supply available for purchase. We, as a society, must make serious changes in our lifestyles (easier said than done!) in order to decrease demand for prices to go down for everyone.

Check out my blog, "Never Forget" . . .

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" -- Mahatma Gandhi

Never Forget . . .

2008-09-11T21:16:00.000-07:00

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" -- Mahatma Gandhi

Those of us who were witness to the events of September 11, 2001 will never forget - we all bore witness to the enormous loss of life and for our safety, some loss of presumed liberties as well.

Never Forget September 11, 2001 - when you're pissed off having to wait in an airport; when you're pissed off about regulations sending packages in the mail; when you're pissed off about Iraq . . . never forget that although it may be an imperfect system by nature, there is a method for the madness: to attempt to thwart future attacks of our citizens in our country.

The war, economics, politics, presidential candidates, issues, causes, lobbying, environment, children in need, the housing crisis . . . it's all imperfect and there is no one absolute truth, no absolute perfect solution or answer to these and many other issues. We have to make the best decisions we can make right now with the information we have at hand. Update, change, move forward as facts and figures pour in.

However, be sure to really look at these "facts" and "figures". Data analysts can easily parse figures and numbers; skew them to advance thier own agenda versus relaying the truth . . .

We have many important decisions to make in the coming months with the presidential election, among other topics.

Whatever you think, try to be informed; look at BOTH sides of the situation. Whatever you think, choose to vote - make your voice heard.

If you want CHANGE; real change comes from getting involved. Be part of the solution. If you can't pick up shovel and help dig us out, get the fuck out of the way to make it easier for those of us who will.

Never Forget . . . things will NEVER be the same.