Saturday, January 31, 2009

The British Called--They Want Their Guns Back

...when you let the government have too much begin to lose more rights than you bargained for. Since we use Great Britain as a model for other events (healthcare, etc.) why not use them as an example as what WILL happen if you give the politicians too much control.

An Inconvenient Truth

Recommended Reading, 1/31/09

Obama's Economic Tightrope--Governor Mark Sanford's (SC) take on Obama politics and state bailouts.

A Warning to the President--Genuine bipartisanship means compromises on policy, not photo-ops and hand shakes. The last two Democratic Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, also came to power with big Democratic majorities in Congress, veered far to the left on policy, and quickly came undone. To adapt White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now famous line, a 70% approval rating is a terrible thing to waste on the ideas of Henry Waxman and Pete Stark.

George Obama Arrested--Just because this headline is interesting...

Peace Rules as Polls Close in Iraq--isn't the headline enough? Thank Goodness for Obama!

GOP Governors Support Bailout--I think my favorite quote is Jindal's..."I'd have voted against it if I were still in Congress...but..."

What a load of crap. Geez. I'd approve it if we took out all the pork and pets and just allocated the money to STIMULUS PLANS.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Thought for the Day

"The government consists of a gang of men [and women] exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office."

-H.L. Mencken

Limbaugh on Limbaugh, The Coming Socialist Tsunami

Targeting Rush: Saul Alinsky Would Be Proud

In his eight full years as the recipient of endless vile, often-delusional slander, President George W. Bush rarely grumbled, much less counterattacked his tormentors. Yet before he completed his first week in office, President Barack Obama -- a dedicated disciple of Saul Alinsky, who is to left-wing radicalism and social agitation what Karl Marx is to communism -- declared war on Rush Limbaugh.

This was a calculated move by a man who professes to be open to all ideas but apparently brooks no dissent. He not only does not tolerate dissent well but also really doesn't even like to be questioned, as we saw during the campaign, when he accused the normally fawning press of grilling him for merely asking a follow-up question.

We caught another glimpse of this last week, when he showed irritation at the White House press corps for daring to ask him a policy question after he had decreed that the sole purpose of his visit was to press the flesh.

But Obama's effort to target Rush is not just his ego at work. He has begun a full-court press to advance his extreme left-wing agenda and was angling both to garner enough Republican support to insulate himself against future accountability for failure and to validate his self-styled image as a bipartisan uniter.

That's why he invited a group of Beltway conservatives for dinner, in a move reminiscent of Hillary Clinton's "listening tour" -- as if discerning observers believe that listening, as opposed to projecting an image of openness, was either Clinton's or Obama's purpose.

That's why he surrounded himself with big-business CEOs as he unveiled his misnamed "stimulus" package. That's why he often throws meaningless, abstract bones to conservatives in his speeches while having no intention of diluting his specific concrete liberal policies.

Obama is savvy enough to realize he can't eliminate all dissent. But he's enough of an Alinskyite to know that marginalizing and demonizing his strongest opponents could intimidate the fainthearted into supporting or withholding criticism of his policies and increase his chances for success.

Perhaps Alinsky would couch Obama's strategy in different terms, but it is essentially a divide-and-conquer approach.

Make no mistake: The goal is to single Rush out and pick him off.So Obama is trying to parlay his extraordinarily high approval rating to lay a foundation for his shock troops in the press and the party apparatus to discredit and eventually compromise or silence Rush.

As if in conspiratorial lockstep, the media are dutifully responding with round-the-clock distortions and deceitful context manipulation of Rush's clearly articulated statement that he hopes Obama's socialist blueprint for America fails, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is circulating a petition denouncing him.

These are part of their larger goal to emasculate Rush and other conservative radio hosts through the Unfairness Doctrine. Unhappily for them, their plan has backfired so far, as it obviously led to a counteraction, which, in turn, arguably contributed to the consolidation of Republicans in unanimous opposition to Obama's trillion-dollar mega-pork scheme.

But this is no time for Republican gloating -- obviously. Obama is far from dispirited or deterred. He has only just begun. His plan did, after all, pass the House with solely Democratic votes. It has a good chance to sail through the Senate, as well.

For those on the right who still cling to the fantasy that Obama is a bipartisan centrist, I refer you to his recent statement that FDR did not do enough by way of government spending to end the Depression, his decidedly pro-abortion executive order and pronouncement celebrating Roe v. Wade, his Web-documented commitment to the radical homosexual agenda, his announced closure of Gitmo and termination of enhanced interrogation techniques, his planned discontinuation of missile defense systems, his actions on carbon emissions and fuel efficiency in deference to the global warming hoax, his shameless apologies for America to the Muslim world, his arrogant carving out of exemptions for his own staff and appointees from ethical rules he is now otherwise imposing, his groundwork to shut down political criticism, and his government-expansion-on-steroids, non-stimulus pork bill.

The inevitable explosion of federal debt this legislation would cause is reason enough to oppose it, even if it were likely to stimulate the economy. But even some liberals are disputing its potential to stimulate. The hastily crafted bill, with its corrupt funding of ACORN and other favors, is a disgracefully irresponsible effort to expand the public sector, diminish the private sector, empower the autocrats, and further divest us of our individual liberties -- all at the expense of present and future generations.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Market vs. Bailout

**A note from The General's Libertarian Friend:

As you know from our (almost heated) exchanges at the time, I think this was a tremendous misjudgment on the part of Mr. Paulson, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Becker. The damage to our free enterprise system of saying it needs to be “bailed out” was obviously going to be – and has proven to be – enormous and long-lasting. Just accepting the premise that the government can do better than the market at allocating resources makes it all but impossible for principled pro-market arguments to prevail in the future.

Free market adherents simply cannot say, “I favor the market except when the experts tell me there’s a big problem requiring government assistance,” and expect to be taken seriously in the future when arguing that some other idiotic interference in the market is a bad idea. Once you open the door to saying that there is such a thing as a “market failure,” you have forfeited in the public mind the right to object to the government fixing every market “failure” that someone declares to exist.

Now, as to this “crisis,” yes, there was a problem, or actually a bunch of government-created problems consisting of interference with the credit and housing markets – compounded enormously by the panic that was caused by Bush, Paulson, McCain, Obama, Frank, Becker, and a bunch of others saying, “There’s a great big problem here and it’s so bad we can’t even tell you what it is because it would scare you to death and set off a panic.” Duh, that was reassuring.

Now, you had a problem with (1) artificially inflated housing prices that needed to come down, (2) excessively risky loan portfolios had dropped down below their “true value,” (3) a government system concentrating the risk in just two major players (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) in the mortgage market, (4) a Federal Reserve (working in conjunction with the Treasury) terminally addicted to trying to micromanage the economy through interest rates and the money supply, and (5) lenders were excessively afraid to lend.

Now, here are some solutions to these five problems: (1) The market, (2) the market, (3) the market, (4) the market, (5) the market. You tell me why – certainly no one else has ever tried and I predict you won’t either -- there is ANY government solution that is better than the market for these five problems.

(1) Housing prices are “too high.” Well, the market can decide what the right price of a house is far better than any bureaucrat I’ve ever met.

(2) Risky mortgage bundles were priced “too low.” How the hell did anyone know this? “Too low” is a market judgment and the market was saying, “these things are toxic.” So the prices needed to go down. And the reason for stopping the market from doing its pricing job was -- some of the fools who bought these things might go bankrupt? So what? That is not a rhetorical question. So what? That’s what bankruptcy is for – the loan bundles could have been sold off in bankruptcy at a fair market price. (I actually know the bureaucrat who was assigned responsibility within GAO of monitoring the pricing of the TARP portfolios – back when they expected to have portfolios – and he was very open in saying that he couldn’t imagine how the government was going to be able to do that)

(3) Concentration of mortgage market risk in the Macs. Solution – stop doing that, abolish Freddie and Fannie, and let the market spread the risk among many players, any one of which could go bankrupt without a problem.

(4) The Federal Reserve trying to maintain a steady state economy by manipulating interest and currency – Solution, a steady medium of exchange (probably a money supply tied to GDP) so that the market can efficiently price goods, without trying to ensure there are no “losers.”

(5) Lenders were “too afraid” to make loans that made “good business sense.” Oh sure. And the government knows better than the people who have the money to lend what makes good business sense. Don’t tell me that the market couldn’t have solved this one in short order. Banks would have been happy to lend, at a fair price. But the Fed had convinced the businesses of America (and the world) that they had a God-given right to cheap credit forever, so the prices that the banks would have charged would have led to the bankruptcy of businesses who had bet their existence on interest rates never going up in risky times. That mind-set that cheap credit will always be available (caused by problem #4) obviously has to be corrected – even Obama and the liberals agree to that – and the market is the best corrective I know. What the Fed has been doing under Greenspan was every bit as arrogant Big Government (and every bit as damaging) as Keynes at his worst.

Now, knowing to an absolute CERTAINTY that junking the free market system in September 2008 would damage arguments in its favor for generations to come – damage that will literally cause the deaths of millions of children in sub-Saharan Africa, Bangladesh, and other economies on the survival margin – means to me you’d better be absolutely damn certain that what you’re doing is better than the solution the market would produce to the short-term problem in September 2008.

But not one economist or politician or analyst that I heard talking about the September 2008 bailout ever discussed the damage the so-called solution would have. All they would do is look at the mess the government had created by interfering with the market and say “well, that’s unacceptable, we’d better ‘do something.’”

This failure to make any effort to tell the public the costs and benefits of the government “solution” and the market solution (no quotes needed) was immoral. A corrective had to happen but the politicians were unwilling to tell the public that. So instead, they made the problem worse by many orders of magnitude than just letting the market work.

It was a level of irresponsibility that infuriates me to this very day and probably will for the rest of my life. To have had Republicans destroy the free market system … I just find it hard not to get angry about that.

And I’m sure not sympathetic to arguments that what Obama and his crew are doing is somehow worse than having our free market party wave the white flag of surrender.

Proudly Introducing...

Bless Our Heart's newest contributor...The General.

The General is no stranger to Bless Our Hearts, as he has been mentioned in quite a few of my previous posts. I'm thrilled to write that he has agreed to help take ownership of Bless Our Hearts.

I'm quite proud of the General and would like to share some of his accomplishments with you, Bless Our Heart's readers.

The General is currently serving as a labor relations professional for a company with multiple contracts and international unions. In this role, he links business strategy from Senior Management to the Labor and HR strategy, including benefits, wages, operating flexibility, etc. In prior assignment, headed labor and employment law department, assigned and monitored or handled all employment and labor matters for company, advising senior management on strategy and policy. He has advised senior management on antitrust compliance and merger-related trade law issues. He has also given assistance and advice to clients on labor, trade and finance matters. In this role, he has practiced extensively in labor and employment litigation.

In a former life, the General owned and operated a marketing company and a separate company that advised international clients on trade and finance.

The General is also a principal in an oil and gas development company that has extensive holdings in the Western United States.

The General is a member of various Bar Associations, a former President of the Labor and Employment Law Section of his state bar association and is a founding member of its Hospital Law Committee. He has served as chairman of numerous civic and non-profit boards at state and national level.

Prior to internal counsel position, The General was a partner and attorney within a large law firm, where he represented several corporate clients and maintained an active federal and state trial practice with an exceptional success rate.

He graduated with a B.A. in English, and has extensive post-graduate work. He received his commission through ROTC and entered active duty. After leaving active duty, he attended law school, where he graduated magna cum laude with a J.D. degree. Retired as a Major General in the Army National Guard, with extensive command experience at battalion, brigade and higher levels.

Please join me in welcoming The General to Bless Our Hearts. I know you will enjoy what he has to say as much as I do.

Stimulus Plan-Part 2

SG: "I can't understand why ANYONE thinks that this "stimulus plan" is justifiable. Where there is NOT pork and pet projects...where legitimate "assistance" actually exists, there is absolutely NO timeline or regulations outlined. "We'll allocate $102 billion for those that have lost their jobs due to this recession, but we certainly won't tell you how we're going to determine if this was a legitimate layoff, if this worker is doing his best to find a new job in this tough job market, or if he is just scamming us." We'll give Louisiana millions of dollars (oh mista, thanks!) to help recover from Katrina, but AmericaCorps and YouthBuild can have BILLIONS. We'll set aside MILLIONS to redo the Washington Mall. What about Iowa (floods)? Arkansas (tornado and ice recovery)? California (wild fires, mud slides)? Really, the Washington Mall gets $400 million? I've been trying to find a breakdown of what "faith-based and community organizations" will benefit from this crap the Gubment is calling a "stimulus plan." Don't get me wrong...there are some very good ideas in there. But those good ideas are allocated a couple of million, maybe a couple of billion, when the darn Washington Mall is allocated 100 million."
THE COWORKER: "I wonder what one "Maverick" (SG: heh...good question) will vote in the Senate. Rush is calling it the "porkulus." I stole this headline straight from Drudge$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL... While I believe we should try to prevent STDs, I don't know how throwing $335M at the problem is going to stimulate the economy. And btw, the only 100% effective way to prevent and STD is abstinence. I know not every kid will adopt abstinence but I believe it deserves to at least be mentioned as an option in the education at schools. $100 Mil for the Washington Mall? Really? Had not heard about that. It's probably for erecting a statue of B. Hussein Obama."
SG: "no, not $100 Mil. $400 Mil. My bad. Typo. 'including $200 Mil to address the deterioration of the National Mall, such as repair the Jefferson Memorial's collapsing Tidal Basin wall; $150 mil to address the repair backlog at the Smithsonian; and $50 million for the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS.' While I'm a huge history nerd and appreciate our national treasures to no end....WHY IS THIS IN THE STIMULUS PLAN?!? What will this stimulate?"
On a side note...APPLAUSE to the House Republicans. Not a single Republican voted for this in the House. I'd say that is going to come out as a black mark in the history books if you can't get ONE person in the opposing party to cross the party line...

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Geithner enlists lobbyist as top aide

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner picked a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist as a top aide Tuesday, the same day he announced rules aimed at reducing the role of lobbyists in agency decisions. < Mark Patterson will serve as Geithner's chief of staff at Treasury, which oversees the government's $700 billion financial bailout program. Goldman Sachs received $10 billion of that money. Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said President Obama was retreating from his own ethics rules barring lobbyists from working on the issues they lobbied about during the previous two years. "It makes it appear that they are saying one thing and doing another," she said. **Please note that as of 1/28/09--the website for Ethics at is currently "under construction"--though it was up and running last week. Is someone having second thoughts?** (website)
Politics at its finest.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Enough is Enough-Stimulus Plan 2009

So, I'm a bit outraged at the moment...too much so to do any research--but am hoping to get some done tonight or in the morning. This is all I have to say for now. $4.19 BILLION to ACORN? And how is this to stimulate the economy? Ummm....the Catholic Church pulled their funds allocated for ACORN. Why do we, the taxpayers, have to support a non-profit organization that is under FEDERAL investigation? So more to come...just had to get that written before I explode.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Spread the Grades.

By Mike S Adams

Good afternoon students! I’m writing you this email to announce that I’m making some changes in the grading policies I announced two weeks ago when I sent an email with an attached course syllabus. As you know, we now have a new president and I thought it would be nice to align our class policies with some of the policies he will be implementing over the next four years. These will be changes you can believe in and, I hope, changes that will inspire hope, which is our most important American value. Previously, I announced that I would use a ten-point grading scale, which means that 90% of 100 is an “A,” 80% is a “B,” 70% is a “C,” and 60% is enough for a passing grade of “D.” I also announced that I will refrain from using a “plus/minus” system – even though the faculty handbook gives me that option.

The new policy I am announcing today is that those who score above 90 on the first exam will have points deducted and given to students at the bottom of the grade distribution. For example, if a student gets a 99, I will then deduct nine points and give them to the person with the lowest grade. If a person scores 95 I will then deduct five points and give them to the person with the second lowest grade. If someone scores 93 I will then deduct three points and give them to the next lowest person. And so on.

My point, rather obviously, is that any points above 90 are really not needed since you have an “A” regardless of whether you score 90 or 99. Nor am I convinced that you need to “save” those points for a rainy day. Those who are failing, however, need the points – not unlike the failing banks and automakers that need money to avoid the danger of bankruptcy.

After our second examination, I intend to take a more complex approach to the practice of grade redistribution. I will not be looking at your second test scores but, instead, at the average of your first two test scores. In the process, I may well decide to start taking some points from students in the “B” range. For example, if someone has an average of 85 after two tests I may take a few points and give them away to someone who is failing or who is in danger of failing. I think this is fair because the person with an 85 average is probably unlikely to climb up to an “A” or fall down to a “C.” I may be wrong in some individual cases but, of course, my principal concern is not the individual.

By the end of the semester I will abandon any formal guidelines and just redistribute points in a way that seems just, or fair, to me. I will not rely upon any standards other than my very strong and passionate feelings concerning social justice. In the process, I will not merely seek to eliminate inequality. I will also seek to eliminate the possibility of failure.

I know some are concerned that my system may impact their lives in a very profound way. Grade redistribution will undoubtedly cause some grade point average redistribution. And this, in turn, will mean that some people will not get into the law school or medical school of their choice. Or maybe some day you will be represented by a lawyer – or operated on by a doctor – who is not of the highest quality.

These are all, of course, legitimate long-term concerns. But I believe we need to remain focused on the short term. I think my new system will immediately help the self-esteem of those failing or in danger of failing. It should also help the self-esteem of those who are not in danger of failing. After all, it just feels good to give – even if the giving is compelled and not really “giving” in the literal sense.

Finally, I want to note that this idea was also inspired by a former presidential candidate named George McGovern. In a debate with the late William F. Buckley, McGovern said that people who earn more money should pay more taxes. Buckley replied that the rich do pay more in taxes – and more as a percentage of their income. McGovern looked confused.

But I don’t think there’s anything confusing about our pending social responsibilities. Whether we are talking about income or grades it does not matter how much or what percentage we are giving. The question is and should always be “Can we give more?”

Restaurant Customers

I came across this article this morning about restaurant customers (the title of this post is linked to the article) and it gave me a good giggle. Then sent me spiraling down memory lane. Oh. The nerve of some people. I worked in the restaurant industry from the time I was 14 until I was 23. I took about two years off (but in increments)--otherwise, I was there, either as a hostess, a server, a runner, a busser...I worked just about every aspect of the restaurant. I've even been known to throw some fries in the frier and wash some dishes when we were short a dishwasher. I have been there and I know. There were a couple of "restaurant types" that just got my blood boiling thinking about them. First: The Yup Couple--snobby woman, spineless man How true. The woman is a complete shrewed and has probably never worked a day in her life. If she has, it was definitely NOT a job where she had to deal with customers. Otherwise, there is NO way she would speak to another human being that is trying to make an honest living the way she does. Makes you want to spit in her food most of the time. Second: The Family. You know what I'm talking about. The kids and dad "enjoying" a meal out of the house. Ok--in a family friendly restaurant I'm perfectly ok with that. I wish the parents would clean up after their children, but will take what I get. In a nicer restaurant, I don't want to see kids. Unless they're well behaved, proper children. I saw a few tables like that the other night--I was amazed at how well behaved the children were. Not my family. My family would be an embarassment and destroy the other diners' night out. Which is why I believe that if it is not a child friendly restaurant...don't bring your children. Make it a date night if you really want to try out that new steakhouse. It's not your night that you're ruining by the loud, dirty children. It's the other diners. And the servers... Third: The Teens. This is self-explanatory. And reminds me of this summer when we had a girls' night and went to a local restaurant to eat and enjoy a few cocktails. The table next to us was full of teen agers that were loud, throwing food and actually went ACROSS the street to the grocery store, bought food there and brought it back into the restaurant. Several issues with this: first, the children have been taught NO manners. I do not blame them--I blame their parents. I understand a teen will be a teen, but with proper guidance in those formative years, the teen will at least somewhat respect those around him. Second, the teens are taking up FIVE tables on a Friday night and are there for hours. That loses that server the chance for at least FIVE tips. Third--they did not tip. I was confronted by one of the teens because we moved. She said, "do you have a problem with us?" My response, "Yes. You are disrespectful. Throwing food like monkeys and behaving like 12 year olds. Yes, I have a problem with you." She went to complain to the manager, who then proceeded to give my table complimentary cocktails. The teens left soon after. Finally, The Gaggle. You've seen them. A group of women that act just like the teens mentioned above. Yet, they're grown adults. They are the worst customer. They run your ass like crazy, usually sending you into the weeds (restaurant lingo for so busy you can't catch up) which then usually hurts your chance for a good tip from another table...all for a meezly tip and probably a huge blow to your self esteem. So...My soap box for the day. Restaurant customers. It's tough to be a restaurant employee and these days I am thankful that I am not one any longer. But I'll never forget the years that I was. And I appreciate my service and tip accordingly.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Why Do You Hate America?

I lost count how many times I was asked that question yesterday. And do you know WHY I was asked that question?
I am not a Barack Obama supporter.
I am a hater. I hate the United States of America--because I do not agree with what Barack Obama has proposed for this nation.
I am not a part of the 53% of Americans that voted for BO in the 2008 election.
I was however, a part of the 51% the voted Bush in to his second term.
Yet, because of that 2% difference, in 2009, I hate America.
Because I don't believe the government should tell me how to spend my money, how to volunteer or how to live my life, I hate America.
Because I don't agree with 53% of America, I hate America.
Explain that rationale to me?

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Proud to be an American...again.

I'm so glad that at this hour there are so many people that are proud to be American...AGAIN.

That has to be one of the most un-American statements I’ve ever heard. I’m still proud to be an American even though I don’t agree with the leadership to date. I’ll never stop being proud to be American. People that make those comments disgust me.

The Other Coworker: "ME TOO. These people should go spend a little time where pride is not allowed."

The Immoral War

While many people like to forget that in 2002 the Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction (source), it happened.
While many people believe that there were no WMD, it happened (source).
The MSM has people so hypnotized that they truly believe if it is reported in the MSM, it is true. If it is NOT reported in the MSM, it is not true.
So, I'll say this and leave it be. There are people in this world that want democracy and our Nation to fail. When I say "people" I do not mean the good citizens of Iraq. I mean insurgents.
We're not fighting IRAQIS. We are fighting the insurgents that make Iraqis lives a living hell, too. I'd much rather fight them (that would be insurgents) on someone else's soil than on our own.
So go ahead, Mr. New President. Quit on Iraq. That's the way to go.

Bush...Take Your Money and Shove It!

Yesterday, the Times Picayune (out of New Orleans) ran a story about the possibility of Bush assisting post-Katrina clean up once he is just a regular ol' guy (you know--minus the red tape and all). Almost every comment after the article was summed up with "we don't need your stinkin' money. Go back to Texas." My thoughts on this: Are you as a city that relishes on hand outs honestly going to turn down money because it comes from Bush? Honestly? Well I suppose they're waiting for the Obamessiah to save the city...because he gives a rats ass about the thugs down there. I suppose ignorance is bliss.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Is It Ever Going to be About the PRESIDENT?

or...will it for the next four years be about the color of his skin? And God forbid, you don't agree with the man and his policies. Now, I'll be the first to say, it is a huge step for our country to elect someone that is NOT a white male (or 100% white). I've been to all the history classes and all the Black American History assemblies that our public school system required us to attend. I understand the historical significance of this event. But will it ever be about the man himself and NOT about the color of his skin? I suppose time will only tell, huh? Until then, we get to read about how slaves built the Capital...

Bush Commutes Sentences for Two Former Border Patrol Agents

Now...can someone tell me again WHY they were in prison in the first place?

Down With America, Right?

On the blog, Political Irony the question is asked, "why does Rush hate America so much?"

This stems from Rush Limbaugh's statement made Friday, January 16: "I hope Obama fails."

I wasn't aware that Rush hated America. I was under the impression that he hated Obama and what he stands for? Not America.

On a different's ok to call someone a failure--just don't you HOPE it: Stated by Pelosi: President George W. Bush 'a total failure' who 'has no ideas,' in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer CNN Interview . CNN'S Video.

Apparently it's only Anti-American to wish for failure if you're on the "wrong side."

Are Birds the Latest Threat?

Now, I can't decide if I need to be concerned for my own safety or the mental stability of birds...but something needs to be done.
Just days after the US Airways Jetliner was forced to make an emergency landing (because of some birds)--a helicopter for Baptist Health Center in Little Rock, Arkansas had to make an emergency landing...because of a bird.
Coincidence? Or should we start interrogating these birds (without the water board, of course)? Hmm...You never know. Al Quaeda could have found it's newest volunteer squad...GEESE.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Salary Worthy?

So, last night I was sitting with The Social Worker, watching W give his final address...and we started chit chatting about the upcoming family. She said, "did you hear about Michelle? People are actually PUSHING FOR A SALARY for her."
Actually, as much as I float around the internet, I have actually managed to bypass this information. Until this morning. Google "Michelle Obama, First Lady, Salary" and 397,000 hits appear. Now, I'm sure that some of those hits are from blogs like mine, that are absolutely APPALLED by the idea, but then some of these hits come from legitimate news sources (well, I probably should go as far as saying legitimate).
Poor thing has to take a "sabbatical" from her career. To be First Lady. Of the greatest nation in this world. Yep. My heart really goes out to her. They're going to be making $400K/year, plus receiving food and shelter essentially for FREE and people are proposing that the First Lady should have a salary?!? I'm sorry--is $400K not enough for the Obammys? Because I'm pretty sure I could figure out a lot to do with that kind of annual salary.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Cold is Ridiculous.

That is why I live in the South. If I wanted to be cold, I'd move up North. But not to Maine or South Dakota.
"MONTPELIER, Vt. - Bone-chilling cold settled in Thursday from the Midwest to the Northeast Thursday, bringing teeth-chattering misery with temperatures that sank as low as 47 below zero.
In some places, the temperature was the lowest in years, including Chicago, where it was 11 below zero at O'Hare International Airport Thursday morning. It was the coldest daytime temperature in a more than a decade.
In Pollock, S.D., which dropped to a record-setting 47 below zero, Todd Moser, who works at a gas station, said it took about 10 minutes before the gas pumps started working. (source)"
Not sure if I can take too much more of this warming that's happening. The lows in NEW ORLEANS are even reaching below freezing!
....and I STILL can't figure out what my blog formatting is doing...anyone??? Why isn't it adding spaces between paragraphs?!?!?

Businesses Position in the Economy

Does Calvin remind you of anyone? ...This cartoon is over 15 years old!! (double click image to enlarge)

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Taxes? What Taxes?

Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that the guy that is about to be the Secretary of Treasury had back taxes? That he "accidentally" didn't pay Social Security for four years while working at IMF? That he is about to manage the Social Security and Medicare funds and has in the past neglected to contribute to these funds? (source)
I have a severe problem with this revelation. I also have a problem that the Senate is writing it off as a "common mistake." (source) Yeah, maybe this is a "common mistake" for the "common American," but come on...if your job is about money and TAX DOLLARS, shouldn't you know that you have to pay Social Security, even when self-employed? (or maybe paying into SS and Medicare is my job and yours...though I sure don't make enough to pay for his family members living off either or).
$34,000 + in back taxes. What's he going to do once he's hanging out in the Treasury? Take your money? Probably. Just don't ask him to contribute his own.
I was almost there. I was almost ready to accept that Obammy will be the next President.
Then this came up (among other things). I am just NOT ok with the fact that someone (exum...TREASUREY) in the Cabinet failed to pay his own taxes...
So, let's go back to square one. I don't trust Obama. I don't trust the majority of his Cabinet and I'm terrified that the "Change" we were all promised will run this country even further into the ground.
Has there ever been a President-Elect with so much scandal PRIOR to his first Inauguration? Maybe I'm just too young, but I sure don't remember any?!?

Off the Subject, Again. One of my Favorite Things. AND FRUSTRATION.

I love my iPhone. I truly do. I know, I're probably not supposed to have such love for an object, but I do. I love it. Phone? Check. Internet? Check. Email? Check. iPod? Check. Camera? Check. ALL IN ONE!!

Dave Ramsey probably wouldn't approve of such a frivilous purchase, but hey...I think it was worth every cent.

What on earth is WRONG WITH MY BLOG??? I create a post, preview it, check it's Html and then post. And it looks NOTHING like what I'm trying to create!! WHY!??! Why are my paragraphs running together like that? Anyone???


Tuesday, January 13, 2009


by ALa Tag Rules: 1. Link to the person that tagged you. --Done.
2. Post the rules on your blog. --Done.
3. Share six non-important things/habits/quirks about yourself. --Done.
4. Tag six random people at the end of your post by linking to their blogs. --Six people...hmmm...
5. Let each person know you've tagged them. --Gonna take ALa's lead on this one.
6. Let your tagger know you've posted your entry.--This one, too.
Six Trivial Things about SG:
1. I have taken tap dancing lessons for over 20 years.
2. I love avacados.
3. I have never been to California.
4. I have been to Europe twice.
5. I converted to Catholicism as an adult.
6. Though I had absolutely no training in the industry, I worked in the trucking industry (and now could be somewhat considered a specialist in recruiting/recruiting marketing) for two years...though, (fortunately) I no longer work with the trucking folk.
I don't know that I can think of 6 people to tag...

Monday, January 12, 2009


I got this email this morning and it pretty much sums it all up...I had to post it. I was going to add my own commentary, but I think this particular email is pretty self-explanatory. I'm not sure who the original author is: They [the politicians] all promise change. How about if they run on a promise of restoration rather than change. A restoration that would take us back in time to a place where things ran better, smoother and life was more enjoyable. Change? That, in truth, is what they have been giving us all along. We used to have a strong dollar ... Politicians changed that. Life used to be sacred ... Politicians changed that. Marriage used to be sacred ... Politicians are changing that. We used to be respected around the world ... Politicians changed that. We used to have a strong manufacturing economy ... Politicians changed that. We used to have lower tax structures ... Politicians changed that. We used to enjoy more freedoms ... Politicians changed that. We used to be a large exporter of American made goods ... Politicians changed that. We used to be an openly Christian nation ... Politicians changed that. We used to teach patriotism in schools ... Politicians changed that. We used to educate children in schools ... Politicians changed that. We used to enjoy freedom of speech ... Politicians changed that. We used to enforce LEGAL citizenship ... Politicians changed that. We used to have affordable food & gas prices ... Politicians changed that, too. ... and one could go on and on with this list. What hasn't been changed, politicians are promising to change that as well if you will elect them. When, oh when, is America going to sit back with open eyes and look at what we once were and where we have come and say, enough is enough? The trouble is, America's youthful voters today don't know of the great America that existed forty and fifty years ago. They see the world as if it has always existed, as it is now. (From Southerngirl: They're all spoiled rotten--including myself. We don't know what it is like to work for a dollar, as (up until now) we've always been handed what we want) When will we wake up? Tomorrow may be too late. When will America realize ... Politicians are what is wrong with America ? What needs to be changed are the Politicians! Just as diapers are changed on babies when they become full of crap, so too must the politicians!

Friday, January 9, 2009

2008 Year In Review...

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Post Katrina Restructuring or Just Greed?

Lord help us all.
In a city that already had FOUR murders committed by January 4, 2009, God is needed. In a city that is encouraged by having only 179 murders in 2008 compared to the 210 in 2007, the Police Force is needed on the streets, putting an end to crime. What is God doing? He's are being kicked to the curb (well, ok, not him, but surely his shepards). By who? The City's police. New Orleans police evicted parishioners from two Uptown Catholic churches Tuesday, allowing the Archdiocese of New Orleans to reclaim the churches which parishioners had occupied around the clock for almost 10 weeks. (see source)
As Comiskey arrived at Good Counsel, one person from the crowd asked loudly about an earlier statement from archdiocesean officials that those participating in the vigil would not be disturbed as long as they remained peaceful. She didn't immediately respond.
I am heartbroken to read such a story. Police physically removing parishioners from their spiritual home. One of the two churches being closed was one of the few churches in the city to suffer little to NO damage during/after Katrina. Our Lady of Good Council was one of the first to reopen following Katrina's devestating blow to the city and celebrate Mass (please note, only TWO months after the storm hit, to service the Guardsmen and first responders in the city). Since the church's reopening post-Katrina, it's congregation numbers were rising and it was in financial stability.
I think back to a trip to New Orleans where I attended Mass at St. Stephens (the church that "survived" and is now being merged with OLGC) and remember homilist speaking to us about the "re-evaluation" of New Orleans diocese. My stomach hurt then and it hurts now thinking that these good people that have suffered so much already are now having to say good bye to one of the staples they've ever known.
In an email I received from a concerned former parishioner of OLGC: "This church is over 125 years old, and my father was baptized there in 1926, as were my brother and I and our children as well. Hugh and I were married in this church as well. Just a year ago, my niece's daughter - our family's fourth generation - was baptized there. It is one of the most beautiful churches you will ever see."
Four generations link--gone. Just like that.
I understand that a lot has to be reevaluated in the Big Sleezy. I also understand that a culture that is so passionate about hanging on to the way things were are slowly having to accept the way things are "now."
What I don't understand is how closing OLGC and St. Henry's is going to help the Diocese or the City. Except that maybe they're both located in what is now known as "the sliver by the river." Prime real estate, dry land. Which could bring big bucks to the Church.
Which is how I'm going to close this posting..."The archdiocese believes that either [children occupying the buildings and parishioners excercising within the building] is inappropriate. Even though neither church contains the Blessed Sacrament, consecrated bread that Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ, the churches are still sacred, consecrated spaces, she [Comiskey] said."
Please Ms. Comiskey. Do tell. What are your plans with these sacred, consecrated spaces?

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Something to Ponder.

"Maybe this world is another planet's hell." -Aldous Huxley
This quote caught my attention this morning, which then inspired me to check out Aldous himself. I knew he'd written Brave New World. I read it once upon a time...but needed a quick refresher.
The quote is something to ponder...especially once you refresh yourself with what his BNW was all about... Huxley was said to be outraged by the culture of youth, commercial cheeriness, sexual promiscuity, and inward-looking nature of many Americans which inspired his famous book, Brave New World. Brave New World is an unsettling, loveless and even sinister place (from This is because Huxley endows his "ideal" society with features calculated to alienate his audience. Typically, reading BNW elicits the very same disturbing feelings in the reader which the society it depicts has notionally vanquished - not a sense of joyful anticipation. In Brave New World Revisited (1958) Huxley describes BNW as a "nightmare". Though...he ended his life loving psychodelics and some even call him the father of "hippies." You can't help but wonder, what would HE think of today's society? Does anyone else feel like this world is quickly becoming a world of clones--acting and reacting in the way everyone is supposed to? Where did our individuality go? Which brings me back to the quote...maybe we are simply living someone else's hell?