Clearly Nebulous

O Little Charities of 2010: Military Edition

There are so many good charities out there who help the military, and there are so many ways to honor our brave men and women.

My family and I will once again make a donation to Operation Homefront, a relief fund for Illinois military families. We also bought a couple wreaths from Wreaths Across America  which will place them on the burial sites of fallen military. 

 

Wreaths Across America wants to remember all the fallen military at Christmastime...

 

The Wounded Warrior Project does great work across our nation helping veterans who may be struggling upon their return home. They also provide support for wounded troops who are still hospitalized at the air-evacuation hub at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany.

It's not too late to purchase the “CD For the Troops IV,”  a compilation put together by John Ondrasik, the voice of Five for Fighting, which benefits various military charities. There's also "My Country: Smash Hits," a country music compilation album that benefits the Fisher House Foundation, which is like the Ronald McDonald House for families of hospitalized servicemen and women.

If money is tight this year, you can always send a free seasonal ecard to a member of our military by going to the website  "Let's Say Thanks."

As we celebrate the season, let's not forget those who celebrate far away from their family and friends, and to support them and their loved ones as best we can.

We Know You're Not that Dumb, Jon Stewart...

...so you're not as clever as you think. And neither are the Dems in Congress.

Jon Stewart took the opportunity the other day to slam the GOP for voting against the Zadroga Act which is intended to help out those suffering from ailments related to their service at Ground Zero on 9/11 and the days after. He declared that the Republican Party could no longer use 9/11 as a political argument. Boy did he get this one backward.

Does he really think most folks are going to buy what he's selling, and that they're going to fall for the political ads that the DNC is already salivating over, based on this vote? Is he just in denial about the impact that the Tea Party had on the last election? Or does he really think everyone will once again forget about how the Dems put fancy bows -- in this case ones with the faces of the suffering 9/11 responders emblazoned on them -- on legislation with super-sized price tags in order to try and sneak them past the taxpayers?

There were very good reasons why most of the GOP voted against this bill, as reported in the NY Daily News. It was rightly labeled a "slush fund" that would be pounced upon by anyone clever enough to pass themselves off as someone who had suffered from the events of 9/11. It also included medical payments to NY hospitals at a rate higher than Medicare -- essentially another totally unnecessary earmark.

 

The latest tactic by Pelosi & Co. got John McCain all riled up -- now they're trying to cram a deliberately last-minute 1900+ page appropriations bill laden with pork -- which Prez Obama promised would not happen.

 

The White House proposed a less expensive program that the Republicans were more willing to support. But Pelosi and Co. took their bill to the floor anyway. I guess they felt it was a win-win:  If it passed, they were successful in creating new ways for them to control lots more of our money -- and if not, they could use the vote in political ads down the road.

"[Insert GOP Congressman's name here] voted against funding to help 9/11 responders and victims' families"  in that scary voice-over with the distorted black-and-white photos floating on-screen.

What Jon Stewart is getting wrong -- and the Tea Party is getting right -- is that Americans are not going to stand for these games anymore. We've caught on to all the parliamentary tricks. We want to help people who need it, and we are willing to pay our taxes to do so. But it has to be done in a straight-forward way, keeping unnecessary costs down.

No more congressional theatrics -- and that means the Democrats should not use 9/11 for political maneuvers, not the GOP.

The Bravest Woman in America... or the Craziest?

When the citizens of Washington, D.C.,  shot themselves in the foot,  doomed their children to another decade of hopelessness in education,  ousted their current mayor, it also meant that Michelle Rhee was going to be looking for a new job.

And the feisty reformer could have had her pick of jobs. Mayors and governors across the country were falling over themselves, trying to nab the woman who had stood up to unions to create a better system. There easily could have been a bidding war to land this trailblazer to head their education departments.

Or Rhee could feasibly have chosen to take a position in the private sector, easily earning millions. So which high-paying, prestigious job did this affluential activist choose? None of the above.

Michelle Reee has listened to the children and is now ready to speak for them nationwide. She admits this ambition "is not for the faint-hearted."

Rhee instead has decided to start her own advocacy group to overhaul school systems nationwide. As she explained in her cover story for Newsweek:

"There is no big organized interest group that defends and promotes the interests of children... School boards who are beholden to special interests have created a bureaucracy that is focused on the adults instead of the students... The rationale for the decisions mostly rests on which grown-ups will be affected, instead of what will benefit or harm children... What that means is that the reform community has to exert influence as well. That’s why I’ve decided to start StudentsFirst, a national movement to transform public education in our country. "

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rhee said the organization will donate to candidates who agree with her policies. Her group will also give funds to local school districts to further her vision -- for example, boosting teacher pay while agreeing to make it easier to fire under-performing teachers. The article includes this quote:

“We are trying to shift the balance of power in the education landscape away from the powerful groups who want to keep the status quo,” Ms. Rhee said, referring to organizations such as the teacher’s unions. “We are going to be the group that is advocating on behalf of kids.”

Well, Oprah is on board, and I have a feeling that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg will not be far behind.       If all of us who agree that there has to be a seminal change in our education systems across the nation -- if we also hop on the train, we can only go up from here.

Learn more about the organization or make a donation on their website.

 

O Little Charities of 2010: Sisters of Life

Well, if you recall, even Mother Teresa had her detractors -- ridiculous as this criticism was (from an atheist, albeit my "favorite" atheist) it showed that some people can really get it twisted and find fault even with the most saintly.

So it was a shame that another righteous charity came under attack from a dogmatic pro-abortion writer. Penning an article for a site that claims to present a "reality check" for "reproductive health," the author once again shows the true colors of those who claim to be for "choice." As usual, it is obvious that this crowd only supports one choice.

The Sisters' big crime? Offering alternative options for those who do not want to abort their pre-born children and offering non-judgmental support for those who suffer the aftermath of already having done so.

I mean, seriously, what is to be found objectionable in the belief that each and every one of us is "a unique, beautiful unrepeatable person" that is valued "not for what we can do but for who we are"?

 

The Sisters of Life are walking the walk in helping to offer real choices to pregnant women.

And what is so outrageous about this approach to an unplanned pregnancy? 

"...An unanticipated pregnancy can seem like your life is over.  Especially if it seems like no one but that little voice deep in your heart hopes there is any possibility for making this work.  Well, what if that little voice is right?  What if this pregnancy isn’t the worst thing possible?  What if everything will again be all right, and even better than all right?...

You have a lot of dreams yet to accomplish.  The powerlessness you feel now is not who you know yourself to be.  There are so many unanswered questions, so many seeming impossibilities.  But the passion that has already given shape to your hopes and ambitions in life is what reveals the strength you are capable of as a woman, even in the most confusing of circumstances.

YOU CAN DO THIS, AND YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

The Sisters are eager to listen to you, your hopes and your struggles.  We can help find real possibilities during a difficult time.  We want to walk with you and see you thrive.  Take that first step. Call us."

Well, we know what the pro-abortion mob dislikes -- that the pro-life feminist approach to the challenges of unplanned pregnancies is gaining traction. Women across this country are questioning what truly is "empowering" -- and it isn't having an abortion.

And the Sisters of Life are actually there for the majority of women who want to bring their child into the world. If you want to make a donation to this worthy cause this holiday season, click here to learn more...

 

Vegetarians Love Sarah Palin...

 

... or, at least, this one does.

After reading The Time Machine at age 16, I stopped eating red meat and poultry. (Not The Jungle as more than a few people surmised...) The way I saw it, I wasn't going to wait until the 8028th century to decide whether or not I was an Eloi or a Morlock. But I have never been militant about it, just encouraging others to consume less meat for the health benefits.

I grew up with a Dad who went hunting a couple times a year, and relatives with a long tradition of hunting regularly. I was never thrilled about their stories, but I didn't give them a hard time. I found the argument about controlling animal populations hard to swallow -- but I matured and realized that the argument is valid. (Better for Bambi to starve/get hit by a car and die in vain, rotting on the ground -- or feed a family?) 

I am now married to a man who usually chooses meat for dinner, but doesn't mind veggie chili over con carne. We have raised our children the same as he, although one chose to go vegetarian on her own. Another has sworn off pork products (which I almost never serve anyway) since she saw the movies Charlotte's Web and  Babe. (Hmmm... maybe we should watch Chicken Run again...)

So when Sarah Palin talked about the hypocrisy of those who may have found her hunting adventure in last night's "Alaska" episode -- the ones who still eat meat and wear leather -- I heartily agreed with her. But I also believe that there are those among us who don't eat meat that do not have a big problem with her recreation of choice.

 

Sarah wears her "Girls with Guns" hat out on the tundra -- hunting looks boring to me, but to each her own...

 

For as much as I personally dislike the notion of killing another living thing for my consumption, I still recognize that they are animals, lesser beings that are not on the same level as humans. And whereas, of course, I "refudiate" any blood sport -- if the hunters put the food on their dinner table, then that is making good use of a natural resource.

Sure it makes more sense if there are few options due to one's geographical location, or if one has a limited income and supplements the Wal-Mart groceries with some of Mother Nature's bounty. But if a family that could go vegetarian -- who have the means and opportunity to -- decide not to, that is their choice. We are talking about animals here. (Don't get me started on the notion of how ridiculous it that many of those vegetarians who object to the killing of an animal have no problem with the killing of a pre-born human.)

Just as I personally chose not to be a surgeon (because I would suffer the loss of a patient too hard) or a soldier (because it would be difficult to pull the trigger), I personally choose not to hunt. But I would do all three if I felt I had to, and I'm not going to find fault with those who have the gumption to do so.

 

Buyer Beware -- Thyself

It appears there are signs that Americans are ready to spend again. The Washington Post ran a story that pointed out that home sales are up, the big three carmakers have seen a spike in sales, and Black Friday and Cyber Monday were much better than expected.

And as much as I want to root for the American economy, I hesitate to believe that everyone should get out there and spend, spend, spend!

Anyone who knows me will tell you I encourage thriftiness. Not at the sake of generosity, mind you. But I was raised not to live beyond my means. I'm not always perfect, and one can say that the size of my family has made it a necessity, but I always try to be mindful when making purchases.

Tis the season to shop 'til you drop -- or not.

I'm afraid that too many people out there have not learned lessons from the past. Although crippled with debt, so many Americans will come across a windfall of some kind, and instead of paying off some bills, they instead feel it is a ticket to another shopping spree. 

Others will watch their spending for a while, but then tire of the austerity and feel they deserve to splurge. Well, sure, a little treat is nice now and again -- but not so much that you end up right back where you started.

I saw this great quote in another article called "The Happiness Business":

"The consumer society is constantly tempting us to spend money we don't have, to buy things we don't need, for the sake of a happiness that won't last."-- Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi.

We need to be patient. We need to delay gratification. We need to grow up and be responsible. 

Ugh! Do I have to? No, you don't. But save the whining and the tears when you can't pay the piper. 

 

Jennifer and Brandy Keep it Classy, Amidst Further Palin Attacks

Maybe I'm wrong about this -- but isn't being classy easier than being jerky? I mean, to be classy all you have to do is say something nice -- or nothing at all. Sure, there is always something to criticize, but you have to go out of your way to open your mouth and say something offensive.

Jennifer Grey -- despite prodding from the hateful press -- has truly kept it classy re: her win on DWTS. Of course, most chose only to exploit Grey's comment that it "felt damn good" to beat Bristol Palin -- totally taking her graciousness out of context.

In an interview on MSNBC, Grey did not let Lawrence O'Donnell get the better of her. While he tried to elicit slams against the Tea Party and the Palins, Grey would not buy into it, and said that Bristol was a lovely girl who came a long way and "bully for her."

 

Jennifer Grey has had nothing but nice things to say since she won DWTS.

While Sasha and Malia deservedly remain unscathed, Keith Olbermann is out naming Bristol as the "Worst Person" because of her abstinence advocacy. But Bristol showed her own class -- and fortitude -- when she answered back:

"To Mr. Olbermann let me say this: you can attack me all you want. But you will not stop me from getting my message out about teen pregnancy prevention. And one day, if you ever have a daughter, you may change your mind about me."

Well, we can dream, can't we? And we can choose not to tolerate such abominable treatment of a politician's children, right? Sure Bristol is practically a grown woman who has gone out on her own -- but we know the vitriol hurled her way is simply because of who her mother is.

 

Brandy has made it clear: "Y'all leave Bristol alone!"

 

Maybe it's because Jennifer really got to know Bristol -- same goes for Brandy, who also has come to her defense, saying she formed a bond with Bristol. (Meanwhile the forgettable Margaret Cho -- who I'm guessing did not get too chummy with the daughter of her sworn enemy -- joined in the chorus of contempt).

It's so childish to make such odious swipes just because you disagree with someone politically -- even worse to refuse to recognize their humanity. Too many people desist looking at the Palins as anything other than the caricatures created by those who are out to bring them down at any cost. They all could learn a thing or two from Jennifer and Brandy.

What is Wrong with Cait O'Riordan?

Even considering what a sucker I am for a love song, I do not think I'm overstating the sublimity of the lyric masterpiece She by Elvis Costello.

Like many folks, the first time I heard the song was in the soundtrack for Notting Hill. Had Costello written it for the film, he surely would have won the Oscar, and perhaps it would be better known today. Instead, I can only presume he wrote it for his wife at the time, Cait O'Riordan.

And I have to ask, what is wrong with that woman?!? For if indeed my presumption is correct -- how could she ever not be in love with the man who wrote that song for her? (Okay, who can know what is truly behind a break-up except for the couple themselves...)

But it so eloquently states a love most resplendent, yet imperfect, that has shaken his very soul. The lyrics are uplifting, yet haunting --

She 
May be the love that cannot hope to last 
May come to me from shadows of the past 
That I'll remember 'til the day I die 

-- were they sung for me, I know that they would have inspired me to be the woman who deserved the honor of a love so profound. (Alas, Costello and O'Riordan split up a few years later.)

Seen here live on Late Night, although the video quality is not that great, Costello is in as fine a voice as ever, accompanied by a string ensemble and pianist, impressing even an old "softie" like Dave.

 

O Little Charities of 2010: The Sparkle Effect

At the end of every year, families are looking to make charitable contributions -- either in lieu of a gift (I gave my siblings a goat one year!) or just because they are in the spirit of the season.

In my house, we started a tradition a few years ago that each member has to find a charity to present to the rest of the family. Then each person is given "monopoly money" that they can divvy out as they please to each charity. (I then arrange the actual donations.)

Our family is just like everyone -- we all have our favorites, and some of us like to stick to them. But I would like to feature a few this month that you may not have head about before. Maybe your family will find them worthy of a donation this year.

First up is a group featured in this video shown on Oprah. It started with two teenage cheerleaders in Iowa who approached their coach and asked if they could include some girls with special needs on the squad. Two years later, these two young ladies have helped teams across the country start up Sparkle Effect Squads of their own.

 

The Sparkle Effect supported this squad that formed in Sterling, Illinois.

 

The organization provides start-up kits that gives students the tools they need to begin their own youth-led, youth-staffed, and youth-driven squad that is fully integrated into the high school sports program. They group also has uniform grants and on-site training available.

As you can see on the Oprah video, it has made an impact in the lives of both the high school girls and the younger girls. [To donate to this "little charity that could" click here.]