Clearly Nebulous

Teachers are asking the Wrong Questions

...of the wrong people.

A former classmate I've mine posted a link to a blog post in which a Kansas teacher was expressing his discontent over what he felt was the overreach and unreasonable expectations of the federal government in regards to school systems and teachers.

I don't mean to invalidate all of his queries. He raises some very good points. It is very difficult to make assessments when it comes to teachers -- one can't know exactly what each and every teacher faces every day with each individual child and their specific needs.

Sincerely -- no offense to the 90% of good teachers who are working so hard and for whom I am extremely grateful, but I think he is asking the wrong questions to the wrong target audience. The main question, which should be asked of the teachers' unions, is: In what other profession do you not have to pay consequences for poor results?

 

This commentary by Bill and Melinda Gates -- champions of effective education -- is a worthy read regarding this topic...

Yes, teachers all are dealing with so much, and can only do so much -- the fact remains: If school districts were able to fire the worst 10% of instructors, we wouldn't be posing these questions -- because our students' performance would be back at globally competitive levels.  That is, good teachers would have easier jobs -- would be able to achieve their goals more easily -- without having to first "fix" the damage/neglect done by the bad teachers.

Now, of course, this is not an easy task, evaluating which teachers need to go. Teaching is a noble profession, but it is not for everyone. We all need to stand up to the unions' refusal to accept any kind of standards in order to remain employed. Don't allow good teachers (who happened to be hired after the bad teachers) to lose their jobs -- let go of the "lemons" first, not the ones with the shortest employment. 

It's a win-win for the students -- and the good teachers that are so essential to their success!

Oh, So *Now* BO's Interested in Fair Campaign Funding

 

Isn't it interesting that the President -- who I'm sure everyone believes is in favor of campaign finance reform (you know, because those poor Democrats have to figure out a way to fight those mean ol' Republicans and their pocket-lining fat cats) -- is now throwing up his hands and saying that he'll just have to (ow, ow, twist his arm) take super pac money in order for things to be "fair"? 

Obama supporters received an email from his re-election staff saying:

"[W]e can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm. Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC....

It's my hope that by making this decision and doing what we can to neutralize the onslaught of special-interest money, we can ensure that the decisive factor in this election won’t be an unprecedented flood of special-interest spending, and the outcome will be back in the hands of ordinary Americans."

As if.

Obama 2008 wasn't the least bit interested in fairness. In 2007 he vowed to accept public financing and to cooperate with his opponent to make sure that they both ran campaigns within those limits. John McCain took that promise to heart and accepted the public funds -- and then Obama broke his pledge. In that way, Obama was able to raise as much money as he pleased (at least $700 million, some of it under shady circumstances) and outspent McCain by at least 5 to 1.

Most sources are saying that Obama could raise over $1 billion -- with a "b" -- for this campaign. I dare say he'll easily surpass that now with this super pac money and once again employing the sketchy tactics that were used last time without consequence.

And who said there should be two sets of rules? Why hasn't the Great Obama Brain Trust figured out a way to off-set super pac spending? One of the left's biggest targets -- who I'm sure they scoff at in the smarts department -- was able to figure out a way to deal with attack ads by outside groups.

 

Senator Scott Brown put his thinking cap on and came up with a way to deal with outside attack ads -- why hasn't President Obama come up with a solution to super pac money in the presidential election?

Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts knew that super-rich outside sources would be trying to influence his re-election race. So he and his people came up with a brilliant solution which (after some tweaks) was eventually agreed to by his opponent. The deal reached has each campaign agreeing to donate half the cost of any third-party ads to charity if an ad either supports their candidacy or attacks their opponent by name.

Though there have been complaints of "loophpoles," they are really only about on-line websites. The bulk of attack ads are on television, radio, and by mail/email, which are all covered in the agreement.

So why can't the GOBT figure out something similar with regard to super pacs? Because Team Obama is not interested in fairness. Once again it will be no holds barred, take no prisoners, win at all costs. No "change" just "more of same."

 

 

Mind Over Manners? Not in Our House

They keep saying how ugly the upcoming presidential election campaign is going to be.

Why?

Why do so many accept this premise? Believe me, I know first-hand exactly how bad it got in 2008. But don't they see the potential for a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Perhaps they were disheartenend by how short-lived the truce was, which President Obama called for after the shooting in Tucson, AZ. Both sides point fingers at who ended the "new era of civility" before it really started. Seems to me that everyone is guilty of letting it continue.

So how do we counter these senseless acts of unkindness? I believe that, like charity, civility begins at home. Parents need to "teach their children well" that they should mind their manners in the political arena as well.

This is all too real in our house. While there is no love lost for the current man in the White House around here, we have instructed our children that they are to refer to him as President Obama. This has proven to be a challenge to our sixteen-year-old. Her obvious animosity may have taken root when she -- like so may others -- was called a racist simply for stating her support for John McCain in 2008.

Despite our guidelines, I know that she will slip up occasionally. And I also know that she is a part of a generation that feels an unreal sense of anonymity in social media that allows them to be extra rude, thinking it's "funny." But we monitor her accounts, and she has been prompted to delete posts that are disrespectful to anyone.

Now perhaps a college student is too old for such supervision. But I would hope that I will have taught my children better than the young woman who tweeted a rude comment about Sen. Sam Brownback at a Youth in Government program. She tried to portray it as a freedom of speech issue and refused to write the apology her school was demanding.

 

Like too many policians these days, Sen. Brownback conceded to a lack of decorum. 

 

Of course she had a right to say it. And the school should not have required an apology to be sent. But when something gets back to someone -- even if it was only intended for your friends, and it was only a "joke" -- a truly conscientious person would know that some kind of redress was called for. I know I would tell my children it's the right thing to do.

But instead, this young girl stood her ground, supported by her mom who said she raised her kids to be "independent, free thinkers." And then Sen. Brownback backed down from expecting an apology, and instead apologized to her(!). 

 

Ahmir Thompson -- obviously a friend of #44 -- thought it was "tongue in cheek" to play "Lyin' A-- B----" when Michele Bachmann appeared on a latenight show. This is the attitude we must direct our children to reject.

So as long as being a free thinker is more important than being a decent human being -- especially by those who support the man who called for that new era of civility in the first place -- this will be an uphill battle that Sisyphus would not have preferred.

As for me and my house -- we will choose the path of propriety.

Pottymouth's Apology to Palin Falls Short

So Bristol Palin had a run-in with a kinda drunk guy at a bar in Hollywood. He started calling her mom names, and Bristol stood up to him. She asked him to say specifically why her mom deserved such a verbal attack. Of course he had no response and continued with the insults, eventually throwing some Bristol's way.

In the aftermath, Palin-haters called it staged and gave Bristol a lashing for bringing up the man's sexual orientation. But Bristol explained on her Facebook page, that she only brought it up because of the rampant misconceptions by those in the gay community regarding her mother. She said the main reason she chose to confront him was to make him see that

"You can disagree with her politics without vilifying her or lying about us. Isn’t it time for this crazy hatred to stop?"

Bristol had guts, standing up to this guy who is pretty buff, and she kept her cool as she did it.

Well, apparently the guy has sobered up and is feeling some remorse... sort of. In a statement, he apologized to Bristol, but fell short of apologizing for what he said about her mom. (He also said that this was not staged.) 

" ...I have come to the conclusion that no matter what my feelings are towards Sarah Palin, I should not have expressed them towards her daughter, Bristol Palin... I expressed my feelings in an improper manner in the heat of the moment, and allowed my emotions to get the better of me."

I'm sorry, but that falls a little short.

Sure the guy is entitled to his feelings -- and at least he acknowledged that he expressed them in an improper manner. But no direct apology for the names he called Sarah? Don't make him question and face exactly what those feelings are based on? Does having a differing political opinion entitle you to think someone is "a whore" and "the Devil"?

I try to challenge people all the time, even when they use less crude language. Hillary did not deserve to be called "a b*tch," Obama does not deserve to be called "a communist," and Sarah Palin (and Michele Bachmann) do not deserve to be called "dumb."

But amazingly, over and over, I hear mature adults defending these types of comments with "Well, they act like that" and that they are "entitled to their opinion." Really?

If you heard your child calling their principal, their teacher, heck even their sibling such names and they presented those same arguments to you -- would you say "Yep, you're right."

Vilifying someone is never right, and in the political realm, all it does is confound an already highly contentious atmosphere. By all means, express your opinions about issues, policies, and any politician's positions on them. But leave out the name-calling -- if it ain't right for the school yard, it ain't right anywhere else.

Liberal Dictionary Entry #1: Hypocrisy = Palin?!

As I go about my daily reading of media that lean left or lean right, through the lens of someone who herself does both (depending on the issue) -- and being a bit pedantic (I was a proofreader in another lifetime) I occasionally come across a glaring misuse of a simple term.

Today I have to take issue with the Left's use of the words "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy." I'll skip the overdone citing of the Webster entry, and just point out that the definition applies to saying one thing while doing another.

To those in the liberal camp however, it applies to anyone's past behavior, too. Correction: Any conservative's past behavior. (For we all know that fellow liberals' pasts are not subject to scrutiny.) Both Bristol and Sarah Palin are currently being labeled by the Left as hypocrites for advocating abstinence.

 

Liberals failed to see the impact of this ad, and all the positive publicity that Bristol brought to the great work by the Candie's Foundation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpHlztPeHf8

 

In Bristol's case, her campaign with The Candie's Foundation  was attacked mostly saying that she was a hypocrite for telling girls not to have sex when she did. Liberals -- I imagine wanting to protect their sexual agenda -- failed to realize that the perfect spokeswoman is someone who has been there and regretted it and is telling a cautionary tale.

No, they think the story is how much Bristol was paid. (And where are the stories about how much liberal celebrities get paid for liberal causes? Nowhere). 

 

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin -- apparently because she supported abstinence education (which as Ramesh Ponnuru reported is often misrepresented) means that her personal sex life is on the table. So much for all the cries that such topics are none of our business (see Clinton/Lewinsky scandal).

Some writers have had back-handed defenses of Palin -- Nick Gillespie, in his WashPost review of the McGinnis book,  said he "fails to [see] the significance of Palin’s premarital sexual history (one wonders if and when male politicians will be subjected to the same examination)."

Of course he opens that review reminding everyone that "a whopping 66 percent of adults hold an unfavorable view" of Palin, and it seems his only purpose for taking McGinnis to task is for not hitting Palin for the real reasons one should, which Gillespie then goes on to list in detail.

 

Apparently enjoying the wild outdoors means we get to know what happens behind closed doors.

 

Another WashPost writer seems to take the same tack -- telling everyone to stop all the Palin bashing, as she also reminds us of her unelectability, ridicules her hairdo (I thought that was off-limits -- oh wait, that was for Hillary), and lists all the other bad things people say about her.

But it is this female writer who comes to this conclusion (yes, those capitalized words are annoyingly used):

If there is one thing that is true about Sarah Palin, it is that Her Private Life Is Not Off Limits. I’m sorry. Once you have a reality TV series, once you invite the cameras in, the blinking red eye never turns away.

So you sign up for a show that displays the state you live in and its astounding beauty, and you have a crew film your family as they enjoy the wonders of Mother Nature -- and that entitles the world to know your sexual history?!

The true hypocrisy is in the double standards that the Left practices every day regarding what they expect from their conservative opponents vs. their liberal compadres.

Too Busy to Condemn Misogynist Slurs? N.O.W. That's "Ridiculous"!

Well Bill Maher had me on his team for about a day with his condemnation of Islamist fundamentalism. But then he just had to open his big mouth and use another misogynist slur in reference to Sarah Palin on the March 18th broadcast of his show. He couldn't settle for "dumb twit" -- he sunk to the lowest and bought a different vowel instead.

Supporters of Palin immediately jumped to her defense the next day, wondering where those calls for civility had gone. And then we waited for the castigation from N.O.W. ... and we waited, and we waited.

Come on, in this day and age? A quick tweet? A brief, perfunctory statement?  Nope. Four days later a "communications director" (who may want to review her job description) put up a backhanded chastisement on the organization's website blog telling liberals to:

"Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don't like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs. OK? Can you do that, please? ....keep their sex out of it. Sexist insults have an impact on all women."

But of course, there are the words that I omitted with those ellipses:

"If you think someone's an idiot or a danger to the country, feel free to say so"

Classy.

 

Sarah Palin also got no respect with the way the MSM ignored her trip to Israel.

But it didn't stop there. Three more paragraphs admonishing conservatives, with complaints about how we're trying to distract them from the real important work of ensuring that the ability to kill a pre-born child for any reason, at any age of gestation remains the law of the land. That they have defended Sarah Palin, but they'll only do it when they feel like getting around to it.

And then the usual canard of, where were conservatives when Hillary was being bashed? Well, the worst I remember in the mainstream was the infamous "beat the b*tch" incident. Although that occurred before I began blogging, I decried that statement (and others about Hillary's anatomy). But today I tried for several minutes to find any hits about N.O.W. defending Hillary for anything -- ok, I'm not the best Googler, but I came up with nothing. You would think that there would be a ton of references.

Well, there are a ton of references for how faux-feminists defended Bill Clinton. And then of course there is the deafening silence from N.O.W. on how conservatives are the ones who have brought about progress in the plight of women in Afghanistan and Iraq. They also fail to acknowledge the prominence of women in the Bush administration over the current one.

But we all know that N.O.W.'s irrelevance grows as its only true goal -- laying the lives of millions of pre-born women (and men) on the altar of abortion -- becomes less and less popular.

But Palin herself said on March 24th that she doesn't need N.O.W. to defend her:

“Let’s keep pivoting around media bias, and not get distracted with the vulgar personal shots. Call out lies and set the record straight, but always keep the ball moving. No one ever won a game only playing defense.”

I would add: Take the ball and take your shot. Don't wait for the self-appointed refs to decide whether or not you "deserve" to be in the game. 

 

No MSM Baby Joseph Stories because it Shows All-Too-Real "Death Panel"?

I have not seen this story at all myself on any network other then FOXNews, and they are correct in calling it an "exclusive" today -- while I was able to find a few older stories (not any from the WashPost or MSNBC) no one but FOX is reporting the victory in this end-of-life case.

Could it be because this story shows exactly the types of decisions that are reached by government-controlled panels under national health care systems? Whereas, of course there should be a review of cases by professionals, when the conclusion reached denies a family the right to carry out their own wishes in how their child will be cared for in their final days, how can such a group be called anything but a "death panel"?

Baby Joseph has a rare disorder that Canadian doctors say will end his life very soon. They wanted to remove his respirator, leading to what would appear to be an immediate death. The family asked that instead, the doctors perform a prodedure that would allow Baby Joseph to be taken home to live out his last days.

 

Father Frank Pavone fought hard to allow Baby Joseph's dad to bring him to a facility that will listen to his family's wishes.

 

But the single story I found on ABC News (from 10 days ago) amazingly recounted that the Consent and Capacity Board, an independent body created by the government of Ontario, refused to allow this. In other words, a board knows better than parents how a child should die.

Supporters of the Canadian system would argue that the child's death is inevitable, so there is no sense in prolonging his life. This, of course, is the conclusion reached by doctors whose job it is to think about bottom lines.

Thankfully, as FOX reported today, through the efforts of Priests for Life and other anti-euthanasia groups (including Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby) Baby Joseph was flown to SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri on a specially equipped air ambulance. The Center provides medical care for no cost to children in need.

It will be interesting indeed to find out what the doctors at this Center determine about Baby Joseph's condition.

It's no wonder the MSM has shied away from this story. Not only does it show what is essentially a "death panel" decision, but it shows the compassion of pro-life group's that are willing to care for a dying child to allow him to live out his natural life. And he will be cared for by those who are truly interested in his well-being -- not balancing a budget. This tale clearly reveals scenarios that would be all-too-real here in the U.S. unless we stop Obamacare.

The New Egyptian "Democracy": Women and Christians Need Not Apply?!

Buried on page 14 of the Washington Post today was a story that is a bad omen for women in post-revolutionary Egypt. A march of about 300 women in Tahrir Square on International Women's Day ended when men began attacking the women, shouting at them and sexually groping them. (Apprently Egypt is second only to South Africa in the sexual molestation of women.) 

The article stated: "Gone was the spirit of equality and cooperation between the sexes that marked most of the historic mass gatherings in the square." Although a chain of men had surrounded the women to protect them, they were overpowered by those who feel that women should not have a place at the table as Egypt forges a new constitution.

But at least this story made the pages of WashPo -- there was no mention of another clash between Muslims and Christians, who make up only about 10% of the Egyptian population, that killed one Christian man. (We'll see if a story on their website today about a clash that killed 13 Christians will be fit to print tomorrow.)

UPDATE: That story did make the front page and the article extensively reported on the struggles of women and Christians in the new era in Egypt. They listened to me!

 

On March 9, there was turmoil that left 13 Christians dead. It started from a feud involving a modern Romeo and Juliet -- animosity between the families of a Muslim and Christian who have fallen in love escalated and a Christian church was torched leading to further clashes.

 

While all media were saturated with front-page stories about the protests that led to the ousting of the old regime, tales of the growing pains of the nascent "democracy" (that conservative outlets forewarned would more than likely occur in the predominantly Muslim nation) are not worthy of prominence.

Is the mainstream media afraid it would be anti-Muslim to mention the oppression? Sure, go ahead and ignore the plight of Christians as usual -- why should that change? But to relegate stories about the blatant sexual harassment and domination of women to the back pages?

We have the opportunity to lead the rest of the world in setting high expectations for the new government. Let's not fail the women of Egypt -- and all the emerging newly-led nations.

HuffPo Thinks Palin Family Threats are a Joke

While BBC News had a fairly even-handed story about Sarah Palin (although they mistakenly used the word "cross hairs" when it should have been "surveyor marks" -- a distinction liberals reject, but only if it pertains to Palin and not Democrats who used actual cross hair targets on maps -- but I digress...) the Huffington Post chose to report on just one part of that story, with a mocking headline.

If this were a liberal family, say the Kennedys, the headline would have been "Kennedy family stalked by gun-toting lunatic."  But the part of the story where the Heaths explain why they keep their firearms so handy was left out:

"Palin's father Chuck said a man recently had sent the family photocopies of a receipt for a gun he had bought, together with a photocopy of a one-way ticket to Alaska.

The family had laughed it off, but the man subsequently turned up in the state and was arrested by the FBI, Chuck said.

'We sleep with the guns,' Palin's father admitted. "

And from that disturbing passage, the HuffPo pulls out the liberal-snicker-inducing "we sleep with guns." Classy.

 

While the Palins and the Heaths seem to take threats in stride, and they know that being in the public eye makes you a target, does that mean the media should ignore a very real danger and make a mockery of how the family chooses to protect themselves?

Where is the uproar? Is not every public figure who has received a very real threat -- not just anonymous letters and phone calls, the vast majority of which are just spurious tomfoolery -- worthy of our concern? Would the media have made jokes and ignored the very real peril if Loughner had sent the threatening letter the authorities found in his safe and was then stopped near the Tucson Safeway with his gun?

Nope, Sarah Palin and her family are just a big joke to them. The liberal media will keep making fun of her, hoping to wipe out what they seem to think is a bigger threat -- Palin herself. Childish.

 

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.

 

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.

 

The Paradox of Portland

Of course I'm glad that the people of Portland were kept safe by the valiant efforts of the FBI. The town's tree-lighting ceremony proceeded without incident. But I almost wish that the "alleged" terrorist had succeeded in carrying out his plot undetected -- and that the bomb had gone off prematurely, en route close to the site, killing no one but the terrorist himself.

Because maybe that's what would have woken up the citizens of this country, especially those like the people of Portland. Sadly, they still seem in denial.

 

The attendees of Portland's tree-lighting ceremony had no clue that the very efforts rejected by their town leaders saved their very lives that night. 

 

What is not being widely reported is that the city of Portland soundly rejected anti-terrorism efforts:

"In 2005, leaders in Portland, Oregon, angry at the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror, voted not to allow city law enforcement officers to participate in a key anti-terror initiative, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.  On Friday, that task force helped prevent what could have been a horrific terrorist attack in Portland.  Now city officials say they might re-think their participation in the task force — because Barack Obama is in the White House."

Might re-think it?! Now that Barack "Hmm-let's-overthink-this-before-we-take-action-oops-too-late" Obama is Prez?! Clearly, these people have no clue what is going on in the real world.

I read this observation about the reaction of one resident of the city. It related in part:

"We have a neighbor who was at the lighting and who today dismissed the significance of this incident, saying, 'So, he never really had a bomb. The FBI got him to do it.' Sure, the FBI framed him. Or maybe this Somali did it as revenge for Black Hawk Down. Or maybe it is because I have a banana in my freezer. Enough with the excuses, already. How many Americans must die before we as a people take seriously this Islamic terrorist threat?"

The FBI didn't make the Somali-born terrorist do anything. He expressed regret that the bomb was not going to kill more people. He didn't care that there would be many children present. He pressed the button of his own free will, and when it didn't work, they suggested he step out of the car and try it again. He did -- not hesitating for a moment.

This wasn't New York City. This wasn't Washington, D.C. This was Portland, Oregon. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. No one is safe. And the FBI can only do so much. Especially when towns refuse to cooperate.

Time to wake up, Portland -- and every city, every citizen across America that thinks we are not in peril. This is not about fear-mongering. This is about being aware. Not deflecting true threats as being created by those doing their dandiest to keep us from harm. There is a threat and we must stand up to it -- not stand in the way of those working hard to protect us. 

 

 

A Solution for the Bodyscanner/Pat-down Dilemma?

You are probably sick to death of this story. If you have been watching the news lately, it seems this story leads all newscasts. In all that coverage, you would think you heard everything, right? Wrong.

A friend of mine who feels very passionately about not subjecting passengers to bodyscans or pat-downs posted this link on his facebook page. It is the homepage of the manufacturer of ISCON Thermo Conductive Infrared bodyscanners -- technology that doesn't use radiation but can distinguish between flesh and contraband. No pictures of one's privates. And as you can see on the site, there are portal and handheld versions of the scanners.

Infrared can't penetrate clothing, but can easily present an image that shows all hidden items.

Why haven't we heard about this? My friend says that while they have been put to use by some authorities in this country -- prisons and such -- they have been stonewalled by the TSA for almost 2 years. What's the deal? I did a search on 5 of the websites for cable and network news and only found this one hit on MSNBC from almost a month ago.

According to that article, the technology can also be used for facial, fingerprint, even iris recognition that can be cross-matched on databases for i.d. verification.

In all the coverage, why hasn't this seemingly perfect solution been mentioned? (Seriously, I don't know, and I want to know why?!)

The Bigger Lesson Lost on the Anti-Bristol Crowd

The kerfuffle is all about stuffing the ballot box. People on websites have bragged about inventing fake email addresses and voting up to 300 times. They say they want to teach a lesson about voter fraud. Those who don't like Bristol Palin have cried foul, claiming that the integrity of the show is threatened.

Seriously? Ok, whatever -- here's my take:

I believe that ABC's voting fraud control is probably far better than that of any typical urban area in the U.S. (which more often than not are controlled by the likes of whom would not vote for anyone named Palin). Bristol has not made it to the finals because of voter fraud, but because her fans (who more likely than not also happen to be Sarah Palin fans) have made it a point to vote her in. They have spread the word about how to vote and have actually voted (unlike the many complaining reporters etc who, when questioned by the producer of DWTS, admitted they did not vote).

 

The producers have had a lot of fun playing up who Bristol's mom is -- and both Bristol and Sarah have been very good sports about it.

The bigger hypocrisy that Bristol's haters won't admit is found in their very own words. When they say in essence that "this is not a popularity contest" and "the most qualified should be voted for" and "the integrity is being called into question" -- I'm sure they have no clue how familiar those words sound.

Two years ago, when we were trying to pick the winner of a contest that did not involve a mirror-ball trophy, but the selection of the leader of the free world, to a position that had been esteemed for 219 years, to lead a nation of over 300 million -- they had no problem with voting for someone with no experience that they liked better, who they could relate to more, who they felt deserved it.

As for myself, I didn't actually vote during this season of DWTS either, but I would have split my votes between Bristol and Jennifer Grey. I'm thinking I will vote tonight, choosing a single winner and basing my vote on several factors, not just likability.

 

Many made comments that Jennifer Grey became unrecognizable after her nose job, but she was unmistakingly stunning in her performances on DWTS. Not bad for a mom who just qualified for AARP membership this year!

 

Whereas Jennifer Grey has experience with performing (point Team Bristol), the only other way she loses points in my book would be because she was in that movie that liberals think was pro-access-to-abortion. But it wouldn't be fair to hold that against her in a dance contest. She has overcome some tremendous health scares, danced while injured, and shown such tenacity for a 50-year-young woman. And she has danced like an angel.

If she outdances Bristol tonight like she has every time before, Jennifer will get my vote. Bristol's Pistols have proven their point. I hope the better over-all contestant will be awarded the prestigious title-that-Bristol-doesn't-need-but-will-certainly-mean-something-to-a-lovely-but-aging-and-therefore-hard-to-get-cast-in-Hollywood-star.

And that's the way it should be -- in La-La Land. 

CEDAW? Pshaw!

Think living in Beverly Hills would get you sick of the celeb-centric news coverage? Try living in the D.C. area. We get all the Hollywood news and all the Hill sightings, however obscuro they may be. (What is with these towns and their star worship?)

The WashPost has this "gossip" column that gives us all the latest scoops:

No, this is not an ad -- I just wanted you to see the questionable name of this column! 

Celebrities have really been hitting the Capitol lately. What gets me is when stars who seem very intelligent and earnest get involved with what they think is a no-brainer, but actually has a lot more to it than meets the eye. The latest example: Geena Davis and her attachment to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Who doesn't look at Davis and feel she is a thoughtful, trustworthy person? It's no wonder she portrayed the first female POTUS on the tv series Commander in Chief. And it didn't surprise me at all to learn that she has founded an organization, the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, that really seems to be doing great work.

In fact, its tv programming arm, See Jane, "uses research, education and advocacy to engage the entertainment industry and recognize the need for gender balance... in media aimed at children 11 and under." They conducted a study that found that that in the top-grossing G-rated films, there were three male characters for every one female. I would agree that is a stat that needs to change, so more power to them.

But yesterday, the Reliable Source bestowed the nauseating portmanteau "Celebvocate"  on Davis for her appearance on the Hill to speak for the passage of CEDAW. 

Geena Davis and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) try to shame the U.S. Congress into ratifying the CEDAW resolution by linking our country with evil-doers and the obscure. Well, as she reminded us, "I was the first woman President of the United States. So, I have some authority on this issue." Really?!

Now, of course it sounds like a great resolution. Who isn't for an end to all discrimination against women? But of course, this is the U.N. we're talking about. While the resolution has many good aspects to it -- seeking to end the barbaric practices of child marriage, dowry burnings, genital cutting, and honor killings -- it goes too far. And while all the other countries who have signed on are feeling all fuzzy-warm and good about themselves for ratifying this resolution, the U.S. Congress has been very prudent to stay away.

In an article for the National Review, "The Case Against the U.N. Women's Treaty," the author points out that American law is based on the ideal of equal opportunity while CEDAW demands equal outcomes. She also dispels all the myths that supporters of this resolution are claiming as fact. Among them, that ratification will not compel the U.S. to have to abide by the U.N. rulings about the provisions in the resolution. (If no one has to abide by the rulings, then why would they have them?)

The author says: "A close look at the content of the treaty shows that the Senate has been wise to resist ratification for 31 years. Though CEDAW contains many worthy declarations, its key provisions are 1970s egalitarian feminism preserved in diplomatic amber. Releasing those aged provisions into 21st-century America would be strange at best, and would risk seriously compromising the privacy, well-being, and basic freedoms of Americans."

As citizens we must always be vigilant. Even if there was a resolution called "Convention to Declare the Cuteness of Puppies and Kittens" I would want to know exactly what was in that resolution. (For all we know it would call for the mutilation of all other cute baby animals to assure canine and feline prominence.) Our representatives in Congress should not let the seemingly sound name of a resolution -- or a famous trusting, beautiful face -- lead them to ratify questionable resolutions.   

 

 

Illegal is AZ Illegal Does

The question of what to do about illegal immigration in this country has come to a boil over a new law signed in Arizona. I think the facts of this legislation have been lost in the coverage by liberal media outlets. Many incorrect assumptions have been made. Those who support immigrant rights shouldn't be so fast to condemn Gov. Jan Brewer without knowing the truth. 

Jan Brewer with the Governor of Sonora -- the governor of Arizona has been working hard to have good relations with Mexican officials during her administration. No one seems to be reporting that...

 

The truth is -- this state legislation is no different  than the federal laws already on the books. It merely makes a federal crime into a state crime as well. 

Here is the actual, pertinent language: 

“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state... where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”

Lawful contact. Sorry, but the comparisons to Nazi Germany asking to "zee if your papers are in order" are just not accurate. No one will be arbitrarily pulled aside simply based on how they look. 

Reasonable suspicion. Campbell Brown declared that Latinos in Arizona are going to be afraid to be on the streets. Why? The governor has already declared there will be training to avoid profiling. If you aren't doing anything wrong, and you are here legally -- what is there to fear?

Determine the immigration status. Just like anyone who is stopped by an officer, they will ask for a driver's license or some other form of identification. If the offender can't produce any, they can -- just like anyone else -- be detained. This is in accordance with federal laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

"Abolish Borders" -- seriously?!!

What's really going on here is that Arizona and the GOP are being labeled by liberals as "draconian"-- simply for asking what is already national law to be enforced.

Rather than calling names and posturing -- or boycotting Arizona as lawmakers in San Francisco are considering and other groups are calling for -- those who oppose the legislation should keep the debate where it belongs. 

I personally believe that the U.S. is a great land of opportunity that can accommodate a vast number of those seeking the American dream. AND you have to come here legally.

I have no patience for those who want to keep all immigrants out and who complain about them not learning the language. We are a magnanimous nation. There is plenty of room at the table, and we can work around language barriers.

The state of Arizona is struggling to deal with the estimated billion dollars it costs them to deal with the nearly half-million illegals amongst its 6.6 million legal residents. Violence has spilled across their border. The feds have let them down, so they are taking action.

Perhaps the governor's approach is not the best way to deal with this issue. Rather than frijole swastikas and yelling in the streets, let's get back to a reasonable debate about how we can secure our borders and stop the violence while allowing entry to those in search of a better life.

Meanest GOP ever? Good!

It's funny how some sermons really resonate -- even if the message is really simple. One that has stuck with me for several years was about being a "mean" parent.

How many of us have heard more than a few times from our kids -- "You're so mean!" 

Well, a preacher taught me the proper reply to such outbursts -- "You think I'm mean? Gooood!"

Because if it's mean to say no to my children in order to protect them, or if it's generally in their best interest, I'm going to say no. I don't care about being popular with them, I don't care how much of a fuss they make.

Because more than sometimes "no" is the best call.

"But everybody else agrees with me."

"No."

"All of my friends get to do it."

"No."

"Come on, I never get to do anything."

"No."

I'll throw in some levity "I know, I know. I'm the Meanest Mom in the World -- I won't let my kid go see a trashy movie/ watch another hour of tv / hang out at them mall again / what-have-you..."

They get the message. They don't like it, but they are learning it's my job.

This lesson can be used in all sorts of extrapolations, in interpersonal relationships and in greater context.

It's a lesson that a certain sector of the electorate and elected officials in this nation need to learn.

Meanest minority in Congress? Gooood!

                                    

Waiting for Obama to Decide, People Died

Gee, should we distill the complex issue of dealing with our military decisions to simple phrases?

As if the burden of making decisions about the ramifications of war can be summed up in a single "clever" sentence. But liberals seem to think that Bush twisted the truth in a rush to judgment and still use a similar phrase about him. Even though Congress agreed with Bush and supported his decisions, they have to throw it on him, suggesting he deliberately misled everyone to force their hands.

Why shouldn't we now do the same to Obama, suggesting that his languid indecision is leading to more deaths than necessary?  Of course there should be astute analysis before he acts -- but when does forethought become procrastination? When does worrying about what this group or that country will think give way to the fortitude to commit oneself to a course of action?

Should we also suggest that the President stop playing so much golf and start concentrating on the matters at hand? Michael Moore made a big deal about it in Fahrenheit 9/11 -- Bush eventually saw the light on that one, and stopped playing. Meanwhile, Obama has hit the links more times in 10 months than W. did in eight years (technically 33 months -- Bush stopped playing in October 2003). Will there be a documentary from Moore suggesting that Obama cares more about his short game than the troops? Why aren't we hearing a roar of disapproval for BO's time on the fairway?

Sure a President needs to decompress -- how about sticking to jogging and leaving the clubs idle?

And when will the MSM utter anything remotely resembling disapproval? Very few supporters of the President have criticized his indecision on Afghanistan. While continuing to delay -- while searching for improbable "off-ramps" out of the mess -- while trying to find his way out of the conundrum of winning the war he said we could and should (during the campaign), but also keep favor with those who want an immediate pull-out...

While 86 days have passed since McChrystal requested more troops -- the quagmire persists, and our troops remain vulnerable.

Sarah Palin said that Obama needs to make a simple decision. Liberals jump all over the word simple -- misunderstanding that she is not saying it's an easy choice. But it's one he knew was coming, and one that is expected of the President of the United States. It's part of the job description. It's all about having the guts to make these hard decisions, and facing the fallout.

Candidate Obama said he would take care of the situation in Afghanistan. It's long past time for President Obama to do so.

I am not a Verb! I am a Human Being!

Historical figures lend their names to all kinds of allusions -- from Oedipal to Kafkaesque, we have seen how the famous can easily illustrate a comparison in contemporary times. You know me, I'm all about short cuts. Any way to find more minutes in my day. It's so much easier to say "They gave him the Three Stooges treatment" than to go into details.

But now, I have to stand up and say no to the latest political trend: The tendency of writers and pundits to use a politician's name as a verb has got to stop. I don't think we're ever going to stop folks from using "Boycott" but let's call for an end to using "Bork" as a verb.

Sure it's punchy, and it sounds like a verb -- but it's a lazy way of describing a nefarious course of action and it demeans a brilliant man I have had the pleasure of meeting. He's a real person whose judicial credentials were considered impeccable until he happened to face the wrath of abortion supporters when he was nominated for the Supreme Court.

Now gentleman that he is, Judge Bork can be gracious about this distinction.  "My name became a verb. And I regard that as one form of immortality," he has quipped. But I would be willing to guess that he would much rather be remembered as the brilliant legal mind who tried to emulate his hero, Sir Thomas More.

But this has to be bipartisan -- the WashPo had an article today that said Dede Scozzafava fears that now she will be the new verb in politics. That pundits will declare that conservative Republicans will Scozzafava any candidates they view as too liberal.

Not quite as punchy -- doesn't really roll off the tongue too easily -- but neither does Blagoevich, and I think lots of folks learned how to pronounce that name, which could also be a contender for the next political verb. Yes, I made fun of her name at the end of the campaign, but the campaign is over. Time to let her be.

And while we're at it -- a similar, yet much darker use of a political figure's name emerged recently. Sad to report that it was suggested by a liberal blogger (I won't name the sleaze ball) that a good man's name, Bart Stupak, should be made synonymous with the sepsis that can occur with an illegal abortion.

Never mind that such sepsis occurs in legal abortions too, and never mind that it's the sector of society that tells women an abortion is their "best" option and drives them to take desperate measures -- not men like Stupak who are standing up and saying that every woman and her child deserves to be cherished -- that cause women to experience such an infection.

Enough already. Stop being lazy, stop trying so hard to sound clever. Talk about the issues, but leave people their dignity.

Election 2009: Lessons for a Krystal Ball

My head is awhirl from all the political spin this morning! My thoughts:

1) McBollinelli sweeps in Virginia

There's more to this story, as many other Republicans at lower levels were also voted in, including 5 more seats in the Virginia House to increase their majority. Was it Deeds fault for not embracing Obama? Well, that didn't work for Corzine. Was it because voters simply wanted to clean house? Probably, since exit polls indicated that jobs and the economy were their #1 concern. (Despite the fact that VA's unemployment rate is only about 6.4%, far below the national average.)

But wouldn't you know it -- while just four years ago, the Democrat's win was declared a referendum on GWB by the NYTimes -- for some reason that same publication says the success of the GOP in this election is only a reflection on Democrats, not the President. I think it truly was a rejection of the politics of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, and that a better run campaign by Deeds would not have made a difference -- and embracing BO might have made the defeat worse.

One last thing -- it was verrrry interesting that the attempt to beat down McDonnell based on his beliefs expressed years ago was not successful. McDonnell's actual record won over the electorate. The Dems did not learn the lesson that BO won the state of VA in spite of his social liberalism, not because of it. So much for a socially conservative Republican not being able to win.

2) Christie over Corzine

Obama and other prominent Dems went there several times, and Corzine still lost. Not a referendum on BO, but it shows that if you follow the Democratic recipe for dealing with a financial crisis as Corzine did (raising taxes and increasing spending) not even a popular Democratic President -- past or present -- can save you. Voters of all parties are sick of the exorbitant tax rates and spending.

Christie actually didn't run a very good campaign, was outspent by at least 3 to 1, and still beat an incumbent from a Democratic state. So much for a socially conservative Republican not being able to win.

3) Hoffman just misses in NY-23

The Dems are spinning this to say that a Democrat pulled off an upset in a traditionally Republican area.

Said a frequent commenter on my site: "Owens won in a district that hadn't gone to a Dem since the Civil War! I'm over the moon about it. It seems Mrs. Palin's endorsement went over like a lead balloon! I guess she'll have to find redemption elsewhere, because thousands of Facebook followers do not a successful presidential candidate make."

What?! How about this analysis: Owens didn't even get half of the vote (and that 49% might be even less with absentees counted), and that was after he was given a few points by DS's endorsement. You can also add the folks who didn't want to vote for a third party candidate. (I know that I am loathe to encourage them in general, although this case was entirely different.) And -- how do I say this? I think some Owens voters just went for the more "charismatic" guy. I mean, have you seen and heard Hoffman? Anyway so much for a socially conservative Republican not being able to (almost) win.

A lead balloon? Seriously? Hoffman was a blip on the radar just 30 days ago. He took off like a rocket in the polls once Palin and others got on board. Another 30 days and the result could easily have gone the other way. (And I hardly think a win by Hoffman would have meant anything about Palin's presidential chances -- a loss doesn't either.)

Over the moon? About a special election that will more than likely be corrected a year from now when the local GOP -- which I believe has learned it's lesson not to put in a DIABLO (even worse than a RINO -- a Dem In All But Label Only) -- chooses a candidate even better than Hoffman and blows Owens away? More like, get over yourselves.

The interesting 2010 race that I now look to locally involves the most unfortunately named woman since the owner of Lear Jets named his daughter Chanda. Krystal Ball is running for Congress. She kicked off her campaign 18-months ahead of time earlier this year under the hubris of the Obama win, imo.

Gee, if it weren't for her politics, I'd love to support her. I mean, I'm glad she's running because more young women need to. And she is very young -- only 27, which would make her the youngest member of Congress. She is also very charismatic, and has a ton of money (and I imagine EMILY's List will throw a ton her way) but I knew right away this pro-choice Democrat looking to unseat a Republican was living in Obama-LaLa-Land.

Maybe yesterday will give her pause, but knowing the DNC, they will figure she just needs to tinker with her message, and she will prevail. Can't wait 'til it's proven that this election cycle was not just a correction, not just throwing the bums out, but the people of this country showing that they realized they were hoodwinked last fall -- and they won't be fooled again.

Is Shunning Halloween Ammunition for Quashing Christmas?

Does anyone know when it became taboo to celebrate Halloween in public schools? It seems it started in certain private Christian schools that didn't want to celebrate a pagan holiday that involves dressing up like devilish characters.

This was new to me with my Catholic up-bringing. Growing up, it was always considered good fun. In fact, I just learned that a Vatican-appointed exorcist in Rome has said, "...to dress up as witches and devils on one night of the year, that is not a problem. If it is just a game, there is no harm in that."

Now as practicing Protestants, my husband and I agree that it's ok, with a few limitations of course. We don't allow our kids to wear anything too "grown up" (i.e. sexy) or anything too scary or gruesome -- you know, like the boys dressed up as Jason and the Scream murderer at my daughter's kindergarten party a few years back.

=:0 !!!

Our jack-o'-lanterns for this year -- did I pull off the Bat Signal ok?

But somehow this religious belief became P.C. and now Halloween Parties across the nation at our public schools have become Harvest Parties. Which really leaves me scratching my head. Why would public schools acquiesce to the beliefs of conservative Christians?

I think I figured it out, and I think it goes beyond their usual "We are trying so desperately not to offend anyone at the expense of any thought" maneuvers.

Showing sensitivity to the misgivings about Halloween gives them every reason to then turn around come the Yuletide and declare that we have to comply with protests from those who don't celebrate Christmas. (And unfortunately this also can put the kibosh on Hanukkah, too.)

While thankfully some clever teachers have the sense to call celebrations in December a "Holiday Party" that involves many faiths, too often it is relegated to just a frosty fete with images of snowflakes and snowmen.

So while I respect the beliefs of those who steer clear of all things Halloween, they might want to think about whether or not the fuss they raise is fuel for the anti-Christmas fire.

The Shame of Shame

Once upon a time when I was a hippy chick, I was one of those who used to cringe at those who proudly expressed their patriotism. Although I had been raised a proud citizen, for a while I bought into the whole notion that the U.S. was a nation that shouldn't bang its drum so loudly -- that as a nation we overstepped our role, blah blah blah.

There were people in my life -- my father, most prominently -- who did not shy from declaring what a great nation we are. For a thankfully short period of time, I rolled my eyes when he would say how we should proudly display our flag or sang along to songs praising our country.

Of course, I got over all that. Pheee-ew!

But now we have a President whose only show of patriotism is the perpetual flag pin on his lapel. And everywhere you turn, there is someone complaining about others showing their patriotic stripes.

From the firefighter who was suspended for putting a flag sticker on his locker (now reinstated, and allowed to keep the sticker) to the gym owner with clients who complained about a large flag hung in the workout area (says he doesn't care if he loses customers) -- those who say it loud and say it proud are supposedly offending others and are being told they should put a lid on it.

Who are these people who feel we must apologize for being the greatest nation in the history of the world?

Now, I do think there needs to be boundaries. For instance, the latest story is about an employee of Home Depot that was fired because he refused to follow the company policy and remove a pin that said "One Nation Under God."

Wellllllll, here's the thing: Whereas, it is weird that he wore it for over a year with no objections, and it wasn't until he brought a Bible to work that suddenly the pin became a problem...

Still, there is a slippery slope that private companies have to deal with here. Unfortunately, there would be a problem of deciding which pins to allow, and which not to. Would anyone want to be the guy who had to decide which are ok and which are not (we're talking conservative and liberal here)?

I think the fact that HD does allow their employees to wear the single approved non-work-related button -- a flag pin that says "United We Stand" -- is sufficient.

But just as I grew up/ woke up/ got an attitude adjustment / whatever you want to call it -- and realized that we as Americans have no reason to apologize for pride in our nation, those who listen to this song and don't get a lump in their throat, if not a tear in their eye...

Well, maybe they should just go spend about a week in say Cuba, Afghanistan, Syria, North Korea -- and I don't mean as a "special guest" of the government. I mean amongst its oppressed people. And then we'll see if they still deny that the U.S. of A. ain't worth bragging about!

 

Bungling H1N1: Govt Should NOT be in Charge of Health Care

Am I stretching it? I don't think so.

The first cases of swine flu in the U.S. were reported back in March, after there was plenty of time to assess what was coming and make a plan to vaccinate the public. So here we are more than seven months later, and already we're seeing shortages, long lines, and the vaccine not going to those who need it most.

Here's a video from WashingtonPost.com about a shot clinic set up at a school in Maryland: it's basically a comedy of errors, as the school is overwhelmed by the crowd that shows up and has to bring in extra security and port-a-potties. The biggest mistake they make, imo, is not giving the shot to the pregnant women first:

In my county, shot clinics were also inundated with hundreds more people than they had doses for, and no one I know has any idea where to get a shot or when if their doctor might get some in.

The government has also failed in getting the message across how serious this epidemic is. Too many people are ambivalent about getting the vaccine, not recognizing that it can be deadly, even to those in fine health. Imagine if more people took the message to heart, just how much longer all those lines would be.

The good news is the outbreak may have peaked. The bad news -- we're at least weeks away from finally getting around to producing enough vaccine. But the WashPo said it best today, describing the governments efforts as "sputtering."

A glimpse of America under Obamacare? Count on it.

Where, oh where, can the GOP ideas be? Killed by the Dems...

There has been a cry for the GOP's ideas to reform health care . "Where are their ideas?" -- "all they say is no" -- "they don't really want reform" --"they want the status quo" - all sorts of accusations have been bandied about by the left and the Prez.

I think the real problem is that even though the Republicans have similar goals -- we agree on 80% of this stuff, right? -- curiously, when they offer amendments or legislation that will ensure the promises that the Prez and the Dems have made, their efforts are quashed.

Why haven't most folks heard about them? Because the mainstream media isn't reporting on it. Of course, it could be because they feel that bills and amendments shot down by Democratic-controlled committees or blocked from the floor by Nancy Pelosi aren't newsworthy.

But there are plenty of GOP ideas being reported in stories from news outlets that may not be on every leftie's reading list. (I like this article from Real Clear Markets.)

For example:

• Rep. John Shaddeg (R-AZ) presented a bill (H.R. 3217) that would allow purchasing health insurance across state lines, dramatically affecting competitive forces in the insurance market. But the bill lies dormant in the Energy and Commerce Committee. This is puzzling, given that PBO's "guiding principle" relies on market forces and increased competition to relieve problems.

• Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) offered an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee that fell in line with PBO'S promise that "I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need." Gingrey's amendment would explicitly prohibit federal officials from making those type of decisions. Waxman and co. killed the amendment.

• Sometimes the GOP has reservations based on forecasts, so they want to add provisions as a safety net. Republicans fear that the employer mandate will cause a loss of 1.6B jobs. So Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and Wally Herger (R-CA) came up with the idea of suspending the mandate if unemployment reaches 10 percent. Both their amendments were killed in committee. (Another congressman tried the idea of allowing businesses that befall hardship from the mandate to appeal for an exemption -- again, thumbs down from Dems.)

• Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) tossed an amendment in the ring that would allow small businesses to band together to buy health care coverage at a lower cost. Defeated in Ways and Means.

So many other amendments that would have addressed public concerns and help keep PBO's promises -- about no additional deficit, no "comparative effectiveness research" and most notably more than one amendment that would have ensured -- as the President has explicitly promised -- that no funds would be used to provide abortions: One by one, like ducks at a shooting gallery. Blam, blam, blam.

But this has been going on since the onset of this administration, not just since the h.c. bill raised its gargantuan head. Back in January, Senator and physician Tom Coburn (R - OK) proposed legislation that would have provided private health insurance options for families with children enrolled in SCHIP and another that would have provided lower income families a choice of health care insurance options for their children rather than just government-run programs. The amendments were both rejected by a vote of 36 to 62 with no Democrats supporting them.

So who exactly is saying no to everything, who exactly has been opposed to bipartisan cooperation from the beginning?

Some other ideas from the GOP you may not have heard about: They have been calling for insurance portability so you don't lose your insurance when change jobs. Respected former Senator (andphysician) Bill Frist has touted programs that attack our nation's number one health concern -- obesity. Why haven't these ideas been acknowledged?

The Prez did give credit to McCain for suggesting high-risk pools for pre-existing conditions (although McCain wanted them state-based and the Prez wants a federal pool) but everyone continues to declare that there are no ideas coming from the GOP.

But for me the big cahuna is TORT REFORM -- which the Prez has finally given lip service to, mentioning trying out some pilot programs. Well, we already have two huge programs that have had great success in California and Texas. These programs have reduced insurance premiums 20-40%. No need for any further studies -- this aspect of reform which has been on the docket of every GOP member of Congress from the get-go needs to be included now.

There has been political posturing on both sides, and bipartisan obstruction of progress. Big money has been throwing their weight around in their best interests.

There is a lot of work to be done -- I suggest we quit talking about firm deadlines and start over, taking reform in small chunks. But the first notion we need to throw out the door is that the GOP has no ideas and that they are opposed to reform. Then maybe we can start to get something done.

Rush, I Got a Bone to Pick...

Wow, have I been engaging in some lively debates lately! Just so you all know, I'm a racist, fear-mongering liar. At least, that's what friends of friends have called me -- and those are the kindest comments!

And those people also seem to think that Rush Limbaugh is a personal friend of mine or something. As if -- I mean, when it comes to the facts, El Rushbo is usually spot on, because he has to be. He's targeted so much, he knows he has to get it right. It's the analysis you may or may not agree with.

I'll flip by his show to see what he's talking about, but so many times I have to turn him off because he keeps using those goofy voices, making fun of speech impediments, making fun of what women wear, etc. I realize he's an entertainer, but why does the debate have to include derision?

On Wednesday's show (9/16/09), I was ready to throttle him. He was talking about the move by the House to censure Joe Wilson. Now I feel it's unnecessary -- he apologized like he should, the Prez accepted. Move along. But that wasn't good enough for the Dems in Congress -- they had to make an official motion -- cuz, you know, that's what they do. (And maybe they were a bit ticked off that Wilson was right about the absence of a requirement for proof of citizenship, and the Prez had to add a provision.)

So Rush brings up the fact that the House has official guidelinesfor what you can and cannot say about the POTUS. (Apparently, the Senate only has rules for what you can say about fellow senators.) If you look them over, some seem silly and others arbitrary -- e.g. you cannot call the POTUS a liar or a hypocrite, but you can call him a disgrace or a nitwit. (Elsewhere in the guidelines, the word "damn" has been ruled out of order, whereas "damnable" is permitted.) It seems like ma-a-aybe someone had a little too much time on their hands -- too much time wasting taxpayers' money -- but I can see where things could get out of hand, so someone had to put an ix-nay on the ad-bay ords-way.

Well, Rush voiced his grand opinion that these sort of guidelines were because of the "chickification" (I think I got that right) of our government. That it's because of the women in the House that there are these "mom rules" that "may as well be put on the refrigerator with a magnet."

Well, I don't know Millie Limbaugh, but I do have family in Cape Girardeau (that's "Ger-AH-duh" to the folks back there) and the moms there have refrigerators, and they put house rules on them with magnets.

What the heck is wrong with that? What's wrong with stating "A Member may refer to political motives of the President in debate. However, personal criticism, innuendo, ridicule, or terms of opprobrium are not in order." (Yeah I had to look up that last one: "reproach incurred by conduct considered outrageously shameful.")">Nothing. Someone has to limit the towel-snapping in Congress. It sure ain't going to be a man. It takes women to insist upon behavior appropriate of a gentleman.

For that sexist, no... MOM-ist commentary, it's a timeout for you, young old man. Sit down and write out one thousand times:

I will not make fun of women or moms, or their need to create some decorum and boundaries when there are MEN around.

And I will be counting those -- you don't want me to take your microphone away.

I'm sending this refrigerator magnet to my favorite Congresswomen!

9/11/2001 -- Time Immemorial?

Are we already forgetting the horrid events of that day? Are we already relegating it to only being worthy of recognition every five years? Neither the L.A. Times nor the Chicago Tribune had any front-page stories commemorating the anniversary.

The Washington Post -- which only had a single ad in remembrance (a full-page tribute from Lockheed-Martin) -- did have this article above the fold on its cover which was titled "9/11 a Distant Memory for Teens: Eight years later, the Sept 11 attacks have become relegated to history books for a generation that's too young to remember." 

The bad news: It contains an anecdote about a class that groans when they are handed the nine-page packet their teacher is using to study the events of that infamous day.

"This is going to take us forever," complained a boy in the back.

The good news: It also tells the story of Anthony Gardner who lost his brother, Harvey, that day. When he realized that his children -- who never knew their uncle -- needed to be taught to remember the events of this day, he started the Sept. 11 Education Trust, which has already conducted 100 hours of video interviews with survivors, firefighters, politicians and relatives of the victims.

The videos are the core of a curriculum which Gardner intends to "remind everyone that 9/11 was a collective experience, affecting everyone, everywhere."

When I ask my middle children, aged 9-14 what they remember, mostly they recall me crying and not really understanding what was happening that day. They don't remember the youngest of them, just 16 months old, pointing at the tv screen. As yet another replay of one of the towers falling was running, she pointed and said, "Uh oh! Uh oh!" Indeed.

But we are teaching them to never forget what happened, to remain vigilant, and do what they can to defend freedom from those who would tear it down.

Arlington September 11th Memorial - Arlington Cemetery Washington, D.C.

A five-sided granite marker inscribed with the victims' names (including ranks where appropriate).  The unidentified remains from the Pentagon are buried here.

What Levi & the Left Don't Get about Sarah Palin

Levi Johnston -- from Object of Ridicule to Mainstream-Media Darling. Hmmm... what changed since November? Oh yeah, that's right: Now he's trashing Sarah Palin.

We're supposed to take the word of a disgruntled, dazzled-by-the-limelight word of a teenage boy as gospel? Ha! But I actually want to address some of the gossip that Johnston dished to Vanity Fair. The fact that these slanted stories were included in their latest issue says so much more about Levi -- and the Left --than the Palins.

How shocking that Palin's children do chores and cook for themselves! That's right, there's no nanny, and their mom isn't chained to the stove as they sit and play video games or chat on Facebook. These must be alien concepts to the author of the article and the editors. Why else should it be considered newsworthy?

And the fact that Sarah sometimes didn't sleep with Todd? Are they kidding? I can't count the number of times my husband and I haven't shared a bed due to the dynamics of raising our family. Is this only found in large families? Conservative families? Families that care about their kids and know that the occasional night in a different bed than your spouse in no way reflects on your marriage? Who are these people who find that so unusual?

Oh, the next was a doozy: Sarah suggested that she and Todd could raise their grandchild -- no one would have to know! Shocking! Assuming this is true, the Palins wouldn't be the first to pull this off. (Jack Nicholson, everyone?) But again -- it just shows the thinking of the Left.

There is no outcry, no screaming headlines when, in order to hide a pregnancy from everyone:

• underage girls sneak off to Planned Parenthood abortion clinics and are told to lie about their age by the counselors

• PP counselors ignore the ages of the much older boyfriends of underage girls and don't report suspected sexual abuse as required by law

• PP counselors have any adult sign off for permission for an abortion when it's not the 14-year-old girl's family member but actually oops! the 21-year-old soccer coach that impregnated her

But when a loving parent -- who probably was just trying to shield her daughter from embarrassment -- in what was probably a weak moment, suggested that it was okay to hide a pregnancy and deny parenthood -- yep, to the salivating liberal press, that is hot ink.

Here was the worst account from Johnston: "I couldn't believe it when she would come over to us and sometimes say, playing around, 'No, I don't want the retarded baby -- I want the other one' and pick up Tripp."

So unusual for a grandmother to dote on a grandchild for a few minutes, when she spends hours every day with her own child. But what really is outrageous is the suggestion that Sarah was pushing aside Trig because he is mentally challenged -- that perhaps she was unhappy with having to rear a child with Down's syndrome.

Sarah Palin acknowledged that she had a fleeting moment of doubt about having her son. But have him she did, unlike 90% of other women in the same position. And like so many of the 10% who have the courage to recognize that Down's syndrome is a journey with challenges and triumphs, not a millstone one is burdened with --Sarah Palin clearly cherishes her son Trig.   

Although there are testimonials about how Sarah has met with families with a child who has Down's, and despite what Palin declares in public, championing the value of the lives of these children -- Vanity Fair deems Johnston's quote worthy of inclusion. Why? To insinuate that Palin secretly regrets her decision and harbors thoughts like theirs -- that these children should not be brought into the world, and that they aren't as worthy of attention as "normal" babies? Who knows what they were thinking at VF?

You know, I don't care if Johnston get 15 minutes of fame or 15,000. And it doesn't matter to me if Palin makes it to the White House. No matter what that young man says, or how much the MSM tries to bring her down, Sarah Palin is destined to play a very important role in some capacity that will mean a helluva lot more to this world than any one of them ever will.

As a speaker, as a fundraiser, as a shining example -- I imagine she will fill the void left by the valiant pro-lifer Eunice Kennedy Shriver as she becomes a champion for those with Down's syndrome, autism and other mental challenges. No one will be able to stop Sarah Palin, whatever her future holds.

The side of Levi Johnston I choose to remember...

Another Idea How Parents Should React to Obama Nation

I've got to side with the libs on this one -- but only to a point.

When I heard that the President was going to address school children next Tuesday, my first thought was "Ok, he can impart some wisdom about the value of education." This is something I have talked about before -- how I think BO can have a real impact on a certain sector of students who might otherwise throw away the opportunities available to them.

After all, Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 also addressed school children, albeit without any "Menu of Classroom Activities" distributed by the Dept of Ed. And whereas I'm sure there would have been a lot of eye-rolling and snarky comments -- I highly doubt that any liberals would have pulled their kids out of class if W. had made an address. (Yeah, yeah -- the schools are already so liberal, what would they be worried about?)

After hearing more about this speech and the accompanying materials, and how schools are handling the event, I have to say I have my reservations -- especially how this was just presented without any type of input from or consultation with local school district officials. But I believe the knee-jerk reaction by some conservatives is short-sighted.

Some have talked about taking their children out of school that day or having their children "opt-out" of listening to the speech. Yeah, that's one way to go about it -- and there are times when I think that is totally appropriate --but in this case, what does it really accomplish? You teach your child that if they disagree with our President that they should just tune him out. Meanwhile, their classmates who stay have no one to balance the conversation afterward.

I think the better approach is to first look over the materials provided by the Dept of Ed and know what you find objectionable. (Apparently, the officials there have already removed one of the more questionable activities that conservatives raised objections to in the past few days.)

Second, contact your school and find out whether or not they will even be participating -- many are not as it is the first day of school, and they feel it will be hectic enough. Then find out exactly how they will handle the event. Will all students be watching? Will all teachers be following the "Menu" afterward? How much time is being devoted to these activities?

If you don't like the responses, ask if you can sit in the back of your child's class -- don't take no for an answer. You have every right to be there. If you can't be there yourself, find another parent who can. If you don't know another parent who would do this -- you should. Identifying like-minded parents can be crucial to ensuring that your children retain your family's values.

If you were not able to take the opportunity to meet your child's teacher -- do so as soon as you can. Feel them out as to where they stand -- look around the classroom. You can get a real sense of what your child will be exposed to under his or her tutelage.

But most importantly, you need to sit down with your children and talk through exactly what you object to regarding the President and what he espouses. It may be hard for little ones to absorb it enough to be able to speak up at school in the presence of such overwhelming adulation -- but you can teach them to keep their ears open and pay attention so they can tell you what was said in the classroom.

You can then go over it all again, and instill in them a sense of discernment, not just abject opposition. And if what they report to you about their class seems to go outside the realm of what is appropriate, then you can make a call to the school to voice your concerns.

I have a feeling the address will be available on-line afterward, and we can then go over it with our children. I'm willing to bet that there will be very little to worry about within the speech itself. It is the discussions afterward in the classrooms that may be problematic, so you have to hope that you prepared your child sufficiently.

Yeah, I know -- closing the barn door. Unringing the bell. Closing Pandora's box. Whichever. It screams out as another validation for school choice. But until that happens -- for those of us who have very limited options for private schooling -- vigilance is the way to go, not simply abstention.

We all need to be plugged into our child's education. Take the steps today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw

At least we got some warning about this speech. Apparently some school children were shown the above video without parents' knowledge. While it has some good ideas in it, there are some that are way off base -- and the whole presentation seems a little... indoctrinating. On the off-chance that one of my kids' teachers will show this to them, I sat them down to watch it and discussed it.

Do I Honestly Think? Yes, but Apparently that Makes Me a Liar

Count me in -- someone I consider a friend relentlessly attacked me on a message board regarding the health care bill. In all my years as an ardent pro-lifer, I have never been as disrespectful to anyone who disagreed with me. But this President, and his agenda, seems to bring this out in so many of his supporters. They choose politics over friendships.

I said that Barney Frank was condescending for asking a woman "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" at his town hall meeting. Yeah, she was the woman who made a hu-u-uge stretch by comparing what she feared could happen under the proposed health care plan to the practices of Nazi Germany.

Okay -- whereas I do agree with those who said there was a possibility that something resembling a death panel -- if only in the virtual form of bureaucrats making life-and-death decisions by turning to "QALY" (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) standards to set health care policy, and that could be looked at as choosing the fit over the weak -- I feel that making any comparison to Hitler does a disservice to those who suffered at the hands of that monster.

I tried to say that by attacking this woman, Frank was just fanning the flames of distraction from the debate, rather than attempting to reach consensus.

I suggested that Frank could have said something like "I detest any comparisons to Hitler, or Nazi Germany -- I think that is a ridiculous comparison -- but in the interest of putting these accusations to rest, I can assure you that any legislation that we pass will very clearly spell out that bureaucrats will not be making life and death decisions. No one need fear anything even resembling a death panel."

But rather than admit that Frank had skirted the issue, this friend felt I was defending the woman (who it turned out was a LaRouchie not a conservative, as had been suggested) and declared that I was just another "vicious and hurtful liar." Yep, for saying that this bill is so unclear and that so much seems uncertain -- I'm a liar. And for mentioning the V.A. pamphlet without expressly saying first that it isn't a death panel, but it does have questions within it that make me uncomfortable and fearful -- I was spreading even more lies. (Nothing like giving a friend a chance to explain herself, eh?)

Here I was trying to help him understand our concerns, and instead of saying oh, something along the lines of, while he doesn't agree such concerns are valid, perhaps there should be language prohibiting such practices added to the bill -- nope, instead he calls me names and says "Do you honestly think that Congress and Obama would stoop to that?"

(This from the guy who -- after saying that no President deserved to be compared to Hitler -- in the very same post suggested that he could see why some people think that "a scum like Bush" was at least a bit deserving of the comparison.)

Do I honestly think that about Congress and Obama? Yes, I do.

Because this is the same Congress whose leaders think it is more humane to suck the brains out of an "unwanted" or "imperfect" child just inches away from birth than let it be born and adopted by the countless couples aching to do so.

Because this is the same man who lied about his Illinois congressional record, denying that he voted against a bill to try to save babies who survive abortions. When his voting record was found, he then lied by saying that he voted against it because he felt there was already sufficient legislation. When the record of his comments on the floor of the Illinois House were discovered which revealed that he opposed the bill because he felt the infant -- even though alive and separate (outside the body) of his or her mother and also capable of being adopted -- was an undue burden on the mother, what did he do?

Did he apologize to the people who had challenged his cover-up for calling them "sleazy liars"? No.

Silence. He was counting on most people not to learn the truth. He was counting on the MSM not to press the issue. And it came to pass, and he was elected. 

So now the counter-attacks by Obamacare proponents ensue. They think the old tactics will still work. But everyone has wised up to Obama, Pelosi, Frank, & co. and they can no longer hide when their deceptions are revealed. These attempts to call us the liars isn't working and the truth is coming to light for all to see.

So while it hurt that this friend attacked me, and I don't expect he will apologize for letting his passion get in the way of respecting me enough to have a true debate, I find solace that the public at large isn't buying the "it's all lies by racist Astroturfers" subterfuge and is demanding an alternative plan.

I honestly think so.

Compassion for One Remorseless Terrorist or Victims' Families?

Should Scotland be compassionate? Let's boil it down to that simple question and say, yes they should.

But any act of compassion has to be examined as to exactly what effect it will have for all those involved. If showing compassion for one murderer results in gut-wrenching strife for countless others -- how is that taking the high road?

Apparently, some of the victims' families -- kind (but sadly misguided) souls that they are -- have said that they agree that this terrorist should be freed.  I'm afraid that their need to let go of any hatred and to not give in to the evil that affected their lives has led to that erroneous notion.

The Lockerbie Murderer (I will not speak his name, for I hate to contribute to the reknown for those who commit atrocities) has already been shown compassion. He was spared his life by not receiving a death sentence, and he has been receiving treatment for his illness -- more than likely at the expense of someone else in Scotland. (At least now, maybe someone else will move up in line.)

If he received a life sentence, that should mean spending the rest of his life -- to the last second -- in jail. Even if we can see the end of that life approaching much sooner than expected, even if he is at death's door, that sentence should be carried out, to the bitter end.

Some actions should result in a complete surrender of any benevolence.

The absolute clincher in this case? This cretin has never expressed any regret for what he did, and would likely do it again. If he had the chance to bring down the plane that took him home today and crash it into any U.S. embassy they fly over, I imagine he wouldn't have hesitated.

And will those in Libya bow their heads when he arrives, quietly welcoming a sick family member, humbly acknowledging that a mercy has been bestowed upon them they didn't deserve? No -- they will celebrate and welcome him home as a hero who has performed valorous deeds.

While the victims' families and friends will be suffering yet another assault upon their trampled spirits, a murderer's family and friends and countless others will dance in the streets.

It is obvious that compassion was lost in this imprudent injustice to release a murderous monster. The truly compassionate act would have been to spare the victims' loved ones further pain. 

Remember, 279 people aboard that plane -- 178 Americans -- and 11 people on the ground died at the hands of this remorseless assassin.