Not the same "OLD" photo challenge...or maybe it is?

Thanks to Jeanne, I'm back into the Brenda Photo Challenge. I've missed the last several because I couldn't manage to get my photos done on time. While these pics aren't the best, I'm pretty darn pleased to have them anyway...and at least I'm back in the game! The theme this time is "old". Yeah. Not one of my favorite topics either (Thanks Donna! ha!) Especially when I look in the mirror these days (cringe). I tried to get a close up picture of the wrinkles under my eyes - because what screams "old" more than that, right? - but I damn near blinded myself in the attempt so I settled for these pics instead (*smile*).
This first one is a photo of one of my very favorite old movies...It's a Wonderful Life. Who doesn't love this old classic? This next one is a photo of an old homemade toy truck that Randey found at an antique mall several months ago. It currently sits in front of our fireplace and is decorated with mini hay bales, pumpkins and scarecrows.
This picture is of my feet - you might say I'm kickin' it old school. Remember this foot fashion from back in that day? (Susan, I know you're groaning as you see these. LOL) I love these shoes - I even have a pair in yellow.
As a bonus, I thought I'd throw in a picture of a really old guy. Meet Yoda, of Star Wars fame. Okay, so this isn't the real Yoda. Sheesh. This is a life size replica and it's only about 4 years old, but still...it's representative of a 900 year old Jedi...I was going to say he looks pretty good for his age, but...well, that wouldn't be entirely true, now would it? LOL
Thanks for reminding me about this, Jeanne! Can't wait to see what everyone comes up with.

And the Darwin Award Goes To.....

ANONYMOUS #3!!! Congratulations, Anonymous! You've just won an all expense paid vacation to a place of your choosing, provided you can pull your head out of your ass long enough to navigate your way out of that padded room you must surely be living in!

I have received 4 comments from 3 different "Anonymous" commenters regarding my political posts of late. One, regarding my last post, said this:

Kari, I have to admit like Vee that I voted for Carter--what a diasterous, weak president. American prestige in the world took a nose dive -it is what will happen IF a Obama person wins (I HOPE not)!!! If the American people elect Obama, they will get what they deserve. I'm only afraid that we who did not support him will suffer along with them. He will NOT stand up to aggressors, he will try to "understand" them-- VB

Okay, so it won't shock anyone that this is actually a comment I agree with (lol). VB, this Darwin award is not for you (and not just because we happen to agree, but also because you explained your reasoning behind your comment). I thank you for taking the time to say your piece. Also, just as an aside, this technically isn't an "anonymous" comment since you did sign your initials, eh? Thanks again for weighing in.

Another comment, also regarding today's post, said this:

oh sorry, I had to laugh out loud when I read Vee say we were a prosperous country until the democrats took over 2 years ago LOLOL!! You women are hilarious and I sure as H*L* don't know where you been livin!!!

Huh. Us women, eh? Well, golly, I'm not sure if it's okay for me to respond to this condescending ass. Wouldn't want to overstep my boundaries, being one of the dreaded "you women" of which this person speaks. Hey, by the way, you are one popular person on my blog today, Vee! I know you're laughing just like I am to have gotten a reaction like this. I won't waste anymore time on this particular putz, except to say this: We women (I think I speak for you here, too, Vee. If not, I apologize!) have been living in the United States of America, where we have been safe from terrorist attacks from 9/12/01 forward, thanks in large part to the actions of President George W. Bush. I don't know where you've been living, buddy, but I hope it's just as safe there for you, too. Hate to say it, but this Darwin Award is not for you either. Not that I don't think you're worthy, but rather I've got someone even more worthy in mind.
Now enough of this woman's time has been wasted on you. Let's get to today's big winner...
The next two anonymous comments I got are from the same person and they're the ones that really burn me up (hence the reason I've declared this person the winner of the previously mentioned Darwin Award!). This first comment was in response to my "Preaching to the Choir" post. Here it is:

Hello, I don't have a blog but enjoy reading them! I would like to point out something, this ACORN mess is voter REGISTRATION fraud, NOT voter fraud! There is a huge difference! ACORN pays their workers by the number of people they can sign up in a day, thats why they commit fraud, so they can make bigger bucks, IT WON'T affect the voting process! Please understand that, thank you!

Uhhhhhh, okay. Excuse me. It's Voter REGISTRATION Fraud, which is like totally different from Voter Fraud, right? I mean hel-lo, dudes! That's like not nearly as bad, right? Hardly worth mentioning. Well golly gee, boy howdy, I feel like an hysterical, hand-wringing ninny, let me tell you. Well, okay, so that's not really how I feel. No, I feel more like a person of superior intelligence compared to ANONYMOUS because I think it is abundantly obvious that ANONYMOUS doesn't have the sense God gave a goat. Understand this, ANONYMOUS: the voter registration fraud that ACORN has committed has already affected the voting process. Let me walk you through it. First of all, think about the sheer expense to the states as a result of ACORN's actions. Election board employees are having to work extra hours, hire extra help and devote untold man hours to determine which registrations are genuine and which are suspect. In most states, that is done by sending out verification letters to the people who have registered so they can verify that the address given is correct. (Can anybody say POSTAGE FEES = EXPENSE?????). If there are multiple addresses used for one name, they still have to send a verification to each address. If the address is verified, fine - that person's name is added to the voter rolls. If they are unable to verify a person's address, (in some states) that person's name is not added to the voter roll, but is put aside in case that person shows up to the polls to vote. Should that person show up to vote and their name isn't on the roll, they are referred to the other list. If they are on that list, they are given a ballot, but that ballot is not counted unless and until their registration information can be verified. Imagine standing in line behind just a few people who have to be processed in this way. So you're right, genius, just because a person registers to vote 72 times does not mean they will get to vote 72 times. It does, however, mean that by virtue of registering multiple times, that person has effectively and needlessly cost the election board in funds and time and if enough of these people who registered multiple times show up at any given voting site, they could slow down the voting process enough to discourage lawfully registered voters from actually casting their votes. So you keep on believing that Voter REGISTRATION Fraud is nothing more than a silly ass game played by some low-level flunkies who just happen to work for ACORN. Way to soak in "the big picture"! I can tell how well you actually think issues through, ANONYMOUS. 'Course, I was able to ascertain that by your next comment (left on my Voter Fraud post), which was:

Dear Lord, please please read my comment on the post before this one, I said, VOTER FRAUD IS NOT VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD!!! Voter fraud is what happened in the last 2 elections where Bush stole the election! YES HE DID!!!

If I didn't realize you were a blithering idiot before, I surely understand it now. Thanks for the clarification.
I have had it up to here (picture my hand scraping across my forehead) and two feet over with blatant stupidity and/or willful blindness. I don't mind that someone might have a different opinion than me. Hell, I even welcome it. I have to admit, I'm fairly easily bored and it gives me something to do when someone points out a differing view. We can open up a dialogue and exchange views and ideas back and forth. Good times! Happened just this morning with Brenda, as a matter of fact. She pointed out what she felt were fallacies with my Obama Tax post and, thanks to her, I was able to get a broader picture of some things. It was great learning from her and while I still have the same opinion over Obama's Tax proposal, I'm more clear as to the specifics. That was exciting stuff for me. I love to learn - sometimes I love it more than at other times (particularly when I realize I've been wrong about something), but nevertheless, learning is always welcome. This ANONYMOUS, however, was not attempting to open a dialogue. This ANONYMOUS was seeking to lay down an opinion as fact and then just skedaddle on off my blog without so much as a scratch. Think again, dufus. ANONYMOUS, you apparently suffer some deep-seated resentment regarding George W. Bush. I sure do hate that for you. Now get over it. You truly need to because your resentment of W runs so deep that you seem quite willing to overlook and/or ignore a terribly vicious attack against our democracy, i.e., Voter Fraud (the Registration kind, of course). ANONYMOUS, you probably couldn't explain one iota of either candidate's stand on any given issue, other than to say who is the Democrat and who is the Republican. For whatever reason, you seem to think that by trivializing the actions of ACORN and their personnel, it somehow makes their actions "okay" or even "inconsequential". To that I say, DON'T BE AN IDIOT. More to the point, if the sanctity of our electoral process means so little to you, then why in the hell are you even commenting on my blog about it? There are innumerable ways you can show your ignorance without cluttering up my blog. Go give one a try, eh? And do yourself a favor and seek therapy over this W fetish that seems to have such a grip on you. It's not healthy to live like that. (Yeah, okay, that was a cheap shot. I'm just pissed to be confronted with so much ignorance out of one person. In the words of that great American, Senator John McCain, "it's remarkable".)

Okay, I'm done with that. For now. It burns my butt to no end to hear someone say something so ignorant about Voter Fraud. Like even a little bit is okay. Geez.

Okay, I'm really done now. Let me change the subject before I pound my keyboard into oblivion. On to other things...oh yeah, I got pretty good news at my Weight Watchers meeting. I'm down another 1.6 pounds for a total of 44.6. It was much better than last week, when I lost a whopping 2 ounces. Two ounces...good grief. I probably lost that by wearing a different watch or something. But no matter - this week was better so I'm feeling pretty good. I gotta tell you, though, this last bit of weight seems to be the hardest to get off. It's like trying to whittle a chunk of oak using nothing but a feather. It's hard to make much progress! lol

Call me "adaptable"

Okay, so I've discovered that I am quite incapable of just keeping my mouth shut about politics. For those of you who don't enjoy my political posts, I'm terribly sorry. But, as was mentioned in a comment from Cassie, if we were friends IRL (in real life) odds are good we'd be talking about this face to face so why would it be wrong to "talk" about it in Blogland? However...in the interest of maintaining variety, I'll make an effort to throw in some stuff other than politics, too. After all, it's not like I sit around IRL, talking about politics 24/7. Okay, so maybe I do, but variety is the spice of life, right?, so I'll work on spicing things up a bit. I'll start with this post and we'll call it "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly".
Here's "the Good"... my 3rd child's senior pictures:
PICTURE DELETED BY BLOG OWNER
Isn't he adorable? This is Kaleb, my most kind-hearted child. Don't worry - I'm not showing favoritism. I think even his siblings would agree with that characterization. Kaleb is so kind-hearted, he can't even bear to kill a spider. He tends to "set them free", something that I, his arachnophobia afflicted mother, totally disagree with. In most areas of life, he's such a mature kid - I take that for granted sometimes. Like the day he had his senior pictures taken, for instance. I told him to wear the black dress shirt (he looks good in it, no?). I assumed that would be the extent of the wardrobe advice needed from me. I was wrong. I was a bit...taken aback when we got the proofs in and I saw that Kaleb had added the hat and the fingerless gloves and hadn't bothered to button the shirt. I knew I should have gone with him that day. But, even though this is not what I would have chosen for him to wear, I think the pictures themselves came out pretty darn good. We're going to have more pictures taken when he receives his letterman jacket. (I think I'll attend that photo shoot and make sure those gloves don't put in another appearance.)
Now for "the Bad": I was watching TV the other day when an advertisement came on for some new diet cookies.

Before any cookie company lawyers start preparing a lawsuit against me, let me make clear that I am not commenting on the effectiveness of this product. Their commercial cracked me up, though. Not for their claim that these cookies can help you lose weight...no, no, no. The funny thing to me was when they said "Many clients comment that they have actually saved money on our program by eliminating the need to purchase food." When I heard that claim, I thought "Geez! Now even these diet places are appealing to our economic fears!". Ummmm, don't most all nutritionists say that we should eat a balanced diet for optimal health? Eliminating food seems like an awfully drastic diet plan to me. lol

Now for "the Ugly"...Barack Obama's Tax plan. I've been doing some research on this tax plan. I've found points from the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Brookings Institute. Who are they, you ask? The more conservative American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation, along with the more liberal leaning Brookings Institute, are generally considered the three most influential policy institutes in the U.S. Here's what they have to say about Obama's tax plan. This chart is from the American Enterprise Institute and it shows the effective Marginal Tax Rates of Obama's plan compared with the current tax law:See how Obama's plan can actually raise taxes for us "middle class people"? By the way, wondering what "Marginal Tax" means? Yeah, me too. Here's the definition for you:

Marginal Tax Rate
The amount of tax paid on an additional dollar of income. As income rises, so does the tax rate.
Notes:Many believe this discourages business investment because you are taking away the incentive to work harder.

Uh, huh. Really clear, isn't it? I'm not an economist, I don't get the tax code all that well, and a lot of this is gibberish to me (hey, I'm being honest here! The only math I'm really good at is figuring out how much an item will cost me if it's on sale. You give me the starting price and tell me the percentage off, I can tell you PDQ just exactly how much that item will cost in the end. lol). However, you can go to the wikipedia link here for a better explanation. (Maybe. Depends on your aptitude to decipher economic talk, I guess.) Anyway, while I don't have a firm grasp on this subject, I think I understand what the basic gist is. And I don't think it's as good for us "middle Americans" as we've been led to believe.

Now here's what The Heritage Foundation had to say about Obama's tax plan:

Among the more prominent elements of his tax proposal, Senator Obama would end the Bush tax cuts and allow the top two tax rates to return to 36 and 39.6 percent. He also would allow personal exemptions and deductions to be phased out for those with income over $250,000. The real kicker, though, is that Senator Obama would end the Social Security payroll tax cap for those over $250,000 in earnings. (The cap is currently set at $102,000.) These individuals will then face a tax rate of 15.65 percent from payroll taxes and the top income tax rate of 39.6 percent for a combined top rate of over 56 percent on each additional dollar earned.
High-income individuals will be forced to pay even more if they live in cities or states with high taxes such as New York City, California, or Maryland. These unlucky people would pay over two-thirds of each new dollar in earnings to the federal government.

Wow! Are we simply out to punish success in this country? You know, I'm not happy about those Wall Street CEOs and their outrageous pay packets, either. In fact, I think it's absolutely ludicrous what these people have been paid in salaries and bonuses. Heck, I'm just as outraged about the huge sums of money actors and athletes get paid in this country. It's crazy! But make no mistake, people. We're not talking about those "ultra rich" people here. These are people who make over a quarter of a million dollars a year. Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it's not an outrageous sum of money. To tax those people at such a rate should bother each and every one of us. These people are not the greedy bastards that ran Wall Street into the ground...they are people who managed to excel in America, something this country has always advocated for. Punishing them for that is not the American way, nor should it be. Here's more from The Heritage Foundation:

Historically, Senator Obama's tax rate would be the highest individual tax rate since the Jimmy Carter days. Tax shelters and tax avoidance strategies were common when the top marginal rate was 70 percent or higher. This new top tax rate will again encourage these gimmicks, reducing investment and economic growth as resources are squandered in an attempt to avoid punitive taxation.

As to the effect on our work force, The Heritage Foundation says this:

These high tax rates could also have a large impact on the labor force. Many workers could choose to reduce their hours or simply retire in the face of such high taxation. Economists usually argue a great deal about what effect minor changes in the tax code will have on incentives to work. However, the Obama plan calls for a tax increase so large that economists will be focusing on the harm to the overall economy rather than just the isolated effects on labor and on capital.

You can read the entire article from The Heritage Foundation by clicking on this link.

Okay, so you think these are just the views of conservatives. Fine. They are. They make sense, but I can see where a liberal would find them suspect. So here's the breakdown from The Brookings Institute as outlined in the Washington Post (click to enlarge):

Looks like Obama is really sticking it to the rich, eh? And what's wrong with that, you ask? Well, I'll tell you. Many of those rich people are the ones who own the companies that employ Americans. You start punishing them for their success and you'll soon find them taking those jobs elsewhere (to a place more friendly to their bottom line) or downsizing their success (and therefore OUR success) in an effort to escape the burden of those outrageous taxes. You'll probably see an increase in the demand for CPA's, though. Everybody and their dog will be hiring them to navigate the way through the tax code in search of each and every loophole available. Also, many of those rich people are the ones who make the biggest contributions to charities. You start taxing them senseless and soon those charitable donations will begin to dry up. I guess that won't matter too much with the Obama doctrine, though. He seems to want the government to provide everything to every citizen. As Obama said, he wants "to spread the wealth around". Sure it's quite a romantic concept, isn't it? I mean heck, America fell in love with this idea back when Errol Flynn slipped on a pair of tights and took on the Sheriff of Nottingham. But do you know what this concept truly is, ladies and gentlemen? It's called SOCIALISM. The definition of socialism?

so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) n.
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Honestly, people. Look at that chart, the one from The Brookings Institute. It shows you that Obama is taking from the richest and giving to the poorest. Many of you think that's okay. It's not. I'm all for eliminating poverty, but this isn't the way to do it. This is America. We're supposed to strive for success, not aim for mediocrity. Why can't some of you see that's what Obama's plan is geared towards? When did you confuse Wall Street's greed with Main Street's hard work? If socialism is the abhorrence to you that it is to me, you'd better start spreading the word so that your friends and neighbors will feel the need to look into this themselves. As always, don't take my word for anything. Do the research yourself. And decide for yourself which way you want this country to go...

Preaching to the choir...

doesn't actually accomplish anything, does it? And that's pretty much what I've been doing, I think. Sure, there's been one or two readers of my blog who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. There's also been more than one or two readers who appear to be downright apathetic about the election process, this election in particular. But by and large, the rest seem to be of the same frame of mind as I am. Although saying "the rest" may be a misleading turn of words as it would imply a "multitude"of readers, which is not the case. I fear I've lost many of my blogging buddies due to my political obsession of late. I've been spending most of my free time researching the candidates and writing about my concerns regarding one candidate in particular. Unfortunately for me, most people don't seem to want to engage in political discussion. Or maybe they just don't want to engage in political discussion with me (perhaps I come off as too right wing? I can see how it would seem that way, although I'm much more moderate than most Republicans or Democrats I know). Either way, Blogland is becoming a lonely place and, although I realize it's a situation of my own making, knowing that doesn't make it any more enjoyable to get up in the morning only to see an inbox empty of comments.
I'm torn as to what I should do...continue to post about this or shut the heck up about politics and hope I can rebuild some of the blogging relationships that I've run off and/or neglected. Believe it or not, this really is a tough decision to make. I'm honestly afraid that this country is on the verge of electing someone with questionable and dangerous associations in his current life, as well as his past... a person who, for 20 years, was a member of a church that espouses contempt and hatred for "white America", a person who has shown an alarming habit of associating himself with the leaders of a political machine that often put private issues ahead of the public good, and a person who is closely tied with Washington politicians and even some CEOs who are directly responsible for the American public suffering the consequences of the greed and willful blindness of those politicians and business people in matters relating to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. I hear the supporters of Barack Obama throw around words like "hope" and "change" and "dreams" like so much confetti. I've seen ordinary citizens on TV telling the entire world that they are voting for Obama because "he's different" or "we need a change". I've seen ACORN workers on TV telling reporters how they have encouraged people to vote for Obama during their "voter registration drives", even though that is supposedly not the purpose of those drives. I've seen video of poll workers telling voters as they came in to vote during the primaries that "this is Obama's house", then asking how many people inside the voting precinct building were voting for Obama (something that is blatantly illegal to do). I've seen video of Obama campaign workers actually having tables set up inside a voting precinct building during the primaries, ostensibly to provide "help" to those who were having "difficulties" voting. I've seen all of these things, heard many more and have read even more than that about matters that should outrage each and every one of us who enjoy the freedoms of this democracy. But what do I hear? I hear "yeah, the whole process is corrupt" or "so what?" or "what difference does any of that make?". Or, even worse, I hear silence. Our democracy is being corrupted every day and we, as Americans, are too damn lazy, apathetic or blind to care.
You know, maybe I'm just more aware of the consequences than the average American. Everytime I see my husband in uniform, everytime I talk to my son who is stationed half way across the world, everytime I remember the good-byes to family and friends as they've headed to the Middle East to fight the War on Terror, I'm reminded forcefully that freedom isn't free and it is, in fact, something that must be constantly and ferociously protected and guarded. Having a front seat to the sacrifices of our military doesn't make me a better American. That is not what I'm saying. But maybe it makes me more cognizant than others of the price paid for freedom. Maybe it makes me question our leadership a little more because the lives of my husband, my son, our friends and other family members depend on who's leading us. I'm not looking for hope and change and dreams in my president, as pretty as those words may sound. I'm looking for freedom and integrity and progress. If I could believe that Barack Obama could deliver those things, he'd have my vote. But after having done hours upon hours upon hours of research, I've come to believe that he simply is not qualified for the job, nor is his "vision" of America anywhere near the same as mine. His past, as well as his current, associations and connections are with people and groups who have worked, and are still working, to undermine the very values of America that set us apart from the communists, the fascists, the dictatorships and the socialist governments around the world.
I don't want or expect anyone to take my word for anything I've said in these political posts. I would have a hard time respecting anybody who did. We are (or at least we should be) responsible for our own research, our own conclusions and our own votes. My problem comes in when people declare their support for a candidate without doing that research. What is that about and how can you justify it? Do you honestly believe that using words like hope and change are enough? I guess you do. Okay then, I'm willing to give it a shot myself...here goes: I hope you change you mind and do in-depth research yourself, if you haven't already. I hope you get the stars out of your eyes and the cotton out of your ears and start listening and seeing the very real issues in this election. I hope you, along with me and others in this great country of ours, start demanding that our so-called "news" outlets change their policies of being part of the news and go back to simply reporting it. And finally, I hope the change you're hoping for isn't one that signals the end of a democracy and the beginning of a socialist government.
In the meantime, while we're all hoping and changing and dreaming and scheming, I'll be taking a few days off. Got to decide what this blog is for...talking about the things on my mind (of which politics is the main focus these days) or simply reaching out for friendship here in cyberspace. I don't think either purpose is wrong...but I do see where they might be in conflict. Before I sign off, I do feel compelled to throw one more political plea in here...please, please, please research the candidates. As important as voting itself is, it's even more important to cast an informed vote.

Evidence of Voter Fraud Uncovered....but don't worry...those who fuss about this are just being "hysterical"

Yeah, that was actually what a Democratic strategist had to say on the subject of voter fraud. He said people were acting "hysterical" when it came to groups like ACORN not only being accused of voter fraud, but in many instances actually admitting to it. Ummmmm....I'm just spitballing here, but shouldn't the issue of voter fraud be of paramount importance to America? Are we not a democratic society that prides itself on spreading democracy around the world? Do we not monitor free elections all across the planet in an effort to insure that the process is free from corruption? So....at what point did voter fraud in this country become so acceptable that speaking of it would get you labeled "hysterical". Are the inmates now running the asylum or what?? (Never mind. Don't answer that.)
I first heard about this latest round of voter fraud when someone called me and asked if I'd been watching the news day before yesterday. I hadn't been. Boy, was I missing it! Seems like there's been allegations of recent voter fraud all across the country. Being somewhat outraged about this, I asked where this person had gotten their information. They told me Fox News was reporting on it. I tuned into Fox and caught part of the story. Very interesting. However, not wanting to depend on one source only, I scanned the other news networks as well and guess what? I didn't hear a peep about it from any of the other so-called "news" networks. Strange. So I turned to the internet. CBS had a story on it, but it wasn't on their front page. I had to type "voter fraud" into their search engine to find the story. Same with ABC. Why these guys don't have it on their front pages is totally beyond me. Voter fraud is, or at least it should be, a huge issue! I went to msn.com and couldn't find a story about it there, either. I clicked on their "MSNBCnews" button, which led me to another page where I could see the word "politics". I clicked on that, which conveniently enough, led me to a list of political stories. The sixth story down was titled "Mo. officials suspect fake voter registration". Two questions...why was it not featured any higher or more prominently than that and why not just come out and say the word "fraud" in the title? Because it was just too painful a word for them or what? But hey, as an added bonus, msnbc.com does still have that wonderful old picture of Sarah Palin wearing her beauty queen crown up on their "politics" page, 'cause that's real news, right?

CNN, however, was the absolute worst offender in this "let's ignore the voter fraud" game. I went to CNN.com and found nothing on the voter fraud stories. Nothing. Nada. Zip. I clicked on their "politics" page. Instead of voter fraud stories, these were what they considered of the utmost importance for the American public to learn about:

Poll: Half concerned McCain wouldn't finish term
CNNMoney: Treasury eyeing stake in banks
CNNMoney: Questions candidates should answer
Colin Powell at Stevens corruption trial
Beck: Anti-Obama vote doesn't make you racist
Brown: Race-baiting wrong, so is overreaction
Bloomberg gains support on term-limit law changes
Todd Palin submits answers in trooper probe
Palin on SNL? 'All in good time,' producer says

Nothing, not one word, about the voter fraud currently being investigated all across this country. Did you know that it is being investigated in over 10 states?? Doesn't that seem like a substantial story? All depends on your priorities, I guess. (**Note: CNN did finally have a story titled "Voter registration forms faked, officials say" located on their "politics" page, posted this morning - 2 days after the story first broke.) By the way, most if not all, of these fraud cases involve Barack Obama's old friends, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). I would urge all of you to do your own research on this organization. They are frequently referred to as "extreme left wing" and have a history of committing voter fraud. They have used strong arm tactics in the past to get what they've wanted (things like mortgage loans for people who actually could not afford such loans). And Senator Barack Obama has a rather long and involved relationship with them. In fact, his presidential campaign has paid ACORN more than $800,000 for voter registration drives during this campaign. Read more on that here. There's also a story in The Washington Times on this payment, but I couldn't get the link to work. Google it, though, if you'd like to read more.

For even more information on the current rash of voter fraud cases, you can click on the following links as well:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/story/700310.html

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/07/acorn-vegas-office-raided-voter-fraud-investigation/

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/crl-testimony-acorns-voter-fraud/story.aspx?guid=%7B573B31D0-6AB7-4353-B8E7-91300F4DFF81%7D&dist=hppr

There's plenty more out there, too, if you'd just take the time to investigate. I think every American should be aware of this. Don't be lazy, don't be naive and don't be blase' about something that means so much to so many. It is your job to be informed. Do it now before "Vote Early and Vote Often" becomes our national motto.

Here's what I've learned...

In my last post, I asked Obama supporters to tell me why they support him because I wasn't seeing the reasons for myself. I heard that they favored Obama's stance on the economy, health care, drilling for oil and abortion rights. I also heard that he would at least be different than the last 8 years. (I may have to cover that particular view in another post entirely)
But okay...so let's break this down.
1) The Economy: The biggest reason why our economy is in the toilet? Sub-prime mortgages. Companies like Countrywide Financial made loans to people using predatory practices. The following is from Wikipedia regarding Countrywide Financial.

Countrywide subprime documents show a policy of lending to families with as little as $1000 of disposal income, often compromising their ability to pay living expenses. This guideline was not established by Countrywide, but rather the investors to whom they sold their loans. However Countrywide had no qualms in following through despite it knowing those families would likely fail to make monthly payments: these loans would be sold to investors shortly after anyway. Employees were given scripts as a sales aid when talking to customers about taking out loans. But get this; Economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit." Countrywide's commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003. Furthermore, in June 2008 Conde Nast Portfolio reported that numerous Washington, DC politicians over recent years had received mortgage financing at noncompetitive rates because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo". The politicians extended such favorable financing included the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Democrat Christopher Dodd, and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Democrat Kent Conrad. The article also noted Countrywide's political action committee had made large donations to Dodd's campaign. Democrat Senator Dodd proposed that the federal government buy up to $400 Billion in defaulted mortgages. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington(CREW) has called for House and Senate to investigate Senators Conrad and Dodd. It was reported that James Johnson, former CEO of Fannie Mae and an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, had received loans under the "Friends of Angelo". Johnson announced he would step down from the vice presidential vetting position on June 11, 2008 in order to avoid being a distraction to Obama's campaign. In June 2008 The Wall Street Journal reported that Franklin Raines, a former CEO of Fannie Mae, received below market rates loans at Countrywide Financial because the corporation considered the officeholders "FOA's"--"Friends of Angelo" (Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo). He received loans for over $3 million while CEO of Fannie Mae.

By the way, Obama's buddy, James Johnson of Fannie Mae fame? An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.
What does this have to do with your choice of either Obama or McCain? Well I'll tell you. All of you Obama supporters, Independents, McCain detractors, and/or hard line Democrat voters, when you start talking about wanting a "change" or wanting to have "hope" or trying to get away from the last 8 years of "The Bush Presidency", I would ask that you look towards members of the Democratic leadership in Congress for some clues as to how this economic nightmare came to fruition. And no, I don't hold the Republican party harmless in all this, if for no other reason than they should have been screaming louder about the dangers of letting the sub-prime crisis reach such epic proportions - long before it actually happened. By several accounts, the warnings were there. That president, the one you all love to hate, was trying to sound the warning bell way back in 2001 and again in 2003. Nobody wanted to listen. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, tried to warn Washington in 2005. Again, no one wanted to listen. In 2006, John McCain co-sponsored legislation pushing for the regulation and reform of entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That bill made it out of the Senate Banking Committee with a party line vote; all democrats voted against it. Fearing that they, the Republicans, didn't have the votes to pass it, this bill wasn't even brought up on the senate floor. Yeah, I think the Republicans should have fought this much harder than they did. This effort looked more like partisan politics as usual than it did an honest attempt at preventing an economic disaster for America. Nevertheless, despite not actually getting anything done, the Republicans would at least get a "C" for putting out some effort, while the Democrats would get a flat out "F" for displaying such a willful intent to ignore what was, even then, a major issue. These inept political leaders who so blatantly ignored all the warning signs are the very same ones that Barack Obama aligns himself with and who align themselves with him. Think that over, would you? I mean, how will "change" occur when the person you are selecting for that "change" is a supporter of and is supported by many of the very people who allowed this catastrophe to happen?
Now on to Health Care: I'm afraid I haven't been able to find enough information to give an even slightly informed opinion on whose plan would work best. That's not to say I've given up, though. I will continue searching. I'm looking for non-partisan examinations of both candidate's plans. I want a comprehensive breakdown of what each will do, how much it will cost, who will pay for it and the overall benefits to America as a whole. I'll get back to you if and when I manage to get a grasp on this.
Another issue was Drilling: some of you don't want to see much drilling going on which makes absolutely no sense to me. You'd rather be dependent on foreign oil? I know there are ecological and environmental concerns. I get that. But for those of you who are opposing McCain and supporting Obama because Obama is against drilling, think again. Here's what he said during the last debate:

"I believe in the need for increased oil production. We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling. It includes telling the oil companies, that currently have 68 million acres that they're not using, that either you use them or you lose them."

Basing your vote on who will drill and who won't has become a nonstarter. Both candidates intend to drill. Granted, if Sarah Palin gets her way, there'll actually be drilling taking place in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), too. If the drilling can be done with minimal effects on the environment (and multiple studies indicate that to be the case), then why not do it? What are we saving all that oil for? A time when we'll have developed alternative fuel and won't need oil anymore? It probably won't do us much good then, now will it? I agree that resources should most certainly be allocated for alternative energy research and development, but in the meantime...we need to do everything in our power to get away from this dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Everything.
Finally, people seem to be concerned with Abortion Rights: As I've stated before, I believe a woman should have the right to choose. But I think that choice should be whether or not to have sex, not whether or not to abort a baby for personal convenience. I think touting abortion as a "right" is ridiculous and an indication of the ultimate "pandering" to women voters. It's marketed as "I believe a woman should have control over her own body and should be able to exercise her own views over whether or not she wants to have a child". Well, thank-you-very-much, Mr. and Ms. Left-Wing, Kumbaya, "I'll empower you with the right to treat a growing entity in your womb as so much tissue to be discarded" Abortion Activist. Really appreciate your condescending and completely misleading method of trying to convince me that I Am Empowered. Personally, I think that kind of attitude short-changes women and presupposes that only by allowing us to negate a consequence of our actions (actions we partook in of our own freewill) will we be able to "control our own lives". You know I, too, believe a woman should have control over her own body, only I think that control should begin long before any man's sperm makes contact with her egg. I think that control should be granted at the onset of any and all sexual encounters, not merely afterwards. I believe a woman has a responsibility to understand the repercussions of sex, as well as the pleasures. I believe men have that responsibility, too, but seeing as how the woman ends up carrying one of those "repercussions" in her belly for approximately 9 months, I'm going to have to say the majority of the responsibility belongs to her. I think abortion as a matter of convenience is the ultimate in irresponsibility and I will never understand how any woman could stand for that as if advocating for it were some "badge of honor". We are women. We should take more pride in our ability to grasp the concept of responsibility, rather than advocate for a way out of responsibility. I swear, I really don't know when giving up the biggest and best thing that separates us from men became necessary for us to feel equal to men. We lessen ourselves when we abdicate our responsibility and I for one, won't do it. And I don't get the almost militant attitude of those who will. Edited to add: I got so carried away with my abortion stance that I forgot to tie this issue into the whole McCain/Obama choice that we've all been talking about. (Who says I can't be totally self-centered on my own blog, eh? lol) Anywho, I believe the issue of abortion is another nonstarter because I don't see Roe v Wade being overturned now or in the future, regardless of who is elected. The country has heard far too many stories of women going to back-alley butchers in the past. I don't think anyone wants to see that again, nor do I believe it will happen. There are many of us who take a stand against abortion itself, but as for me, I believe that making it legal or illegal is not the issue. Making women understand responsibility for their own bodies, and their futures, is. If we ever manage to accomplish that, then the subject of abortion could very well become moot. But again, I don't see it as a reason to vote for one candidate or another at this point in time because, despite the rhetoric, it's simply not on either party's "front burner".

In the famous words of a Batman foe...

riddle me this: why are politics such a touchy subject? Why do so many of us not want to talk about the presidential race? Isn't this subject one of paramount importance to us? Don't you dare say "no". Don't you dare say it doesn't matter who's in office "because it won't affect me". Who we elect does matter and it does affect every single one of us. For those of you who feel that who you vote for is a personal decision, I get that. I know that there's a reason we go into a booth all alone and pull those levers or punch those chads or fill in those circles in total privacy. It's to protect us voters from intimidation and/or attempts to influence our votes. I actually like that aspect of the voting booth. Here's what I don't get, though. Why are so many of us afraid to discuss our political choices with even our own friends? Why are we so afraid to express any political disagreements we may have with one another? Even more importantly, why is it so difficult to explain to one another why we like a certain candidate? I ask because, well...I honestly don't get Barack Obama's appeal. I just don't. As far as I can see, he has very questionable associations in his political past, his main accomplishments in his adult life are that he's written two autobiographies (one of which was inspired by a sermon given by Rev. Jeremiah Wright - a man I do not hesitate to call a racist) and he's campaigned for the office of president the majority of the time he's been a senator. How does that even begin to qualify him for the office of President of the United States of America? I know that some of you out there do support him, though. And I'd like to know why. Not so I can disrespect your choice and certainly not so that I can mock you, but mainly because you may possess information that I do not have and I'd like to know it. I need facts. I need to hear from people like me who have differing views. I need to learn all I can so that I can make an informed decision.
Have you ever been on a debate team? Do you know what the beauty of real debate is? It's getting to hear the position from "the other side". To bring that even closer to home...have you ever disagreed with your spouse on an issue regarding one of your children? Randey and I sure have. He's more "soft" and I'm more "hard line". I tend to speak in absolutes while Randey's full of "second chances". Normally, we manage to work it out without a lot of discussion. However, occasionally, we have some major disagreements about certain issues. We work it out like this: one of us will make an actual list (on paper) that details exactly what we think should happen. Then the other one takes that list and, item by item, either agrees or disagrees and if we disagree, we offer an alternative solution or we state what our position is. The list goes back to the other person and so on until we're able to reach an agreement between us that we both can live with. The amazing thing about this method? I've had to realize on more than one occasion that I had become too hard nosed about something and wasn't considering all the ramifications of an action I was proposing. The same thing has happened with Randey. He's been able to see the "other side" of an issue that he hadn't previously considered. Learning what Randey's stances were and how he came to those stances has helped me understand the "bigger picture". I believe the same could be said of him. That's what debate is for.
I want to hear from you Obama supporters. I want to know why you believe he'll be the better president. I want to hear the "other side". I wish I could depend on the media for this, but I can't. CNN and MSNBC are so far in the tank for Obama that I question everything I see and hear from them. FOX is so far in the tank for McCain that I question them, too. In fact, Steve Doocy from Fox and Friends could be called the "Chris Matthews of the Right". The other networks are no better. Maybe not as obvious, but still pretty much uninformative on the issues I want to hear about. I was watching ABC this morning and they were talking about a hard hitting story on what caused this banking crisis and who was responsible. What did their "investigation" uncover? That the head of Lehman Brothers made $500 million while his company was knowingly making bad loans. Well, duh. Thanks a lot. I wanted to hear more about who in Washington should be held responsible. Why? Because those are the people we elect to look out for us. I didn't elect the head of Lehman Brothers. And after researching for myself and learning about the outrageous bonuses and salaries paid to these CEOs, I kind of figured out for myself that most of them are crooks. I think law enforcement should be investigating those guys. I think the media should be investigating our politicians. And I mean investigating - not digging for dirt, not joining in on the feeding frenzy of the pundits and not trying to sway public opinion one way or the other. Remember when Sarah Palin was first announced as McCain's running mate? Man, the media just ate her and her family alive. Some of it, I agreed with. I do want to know her background, her record, her stances...I want to know what her constituents think of her. The rest of it? Not so much. It wasn't necessary for me to know that she colors her hair, I didn't need to see where she got her hair done, I didn't need to see that picture of her wearing the beauty queen crown every single day, week after week, when I clicked on a story from msn.com. I also want to hear about Obama's ties to Ayers, his ties to Jeremiah Wright, his ties to Acorn. I want to hear how and why he came to be in Chicago. How he financed his education at both Columbia and Harvard and how he and his wife (who were supposedly saddled with extensive debt from student loans that reportedly paid for their educations) could afford to spend several months in Bali while he wrote his first autobiography. Who can do that? How could they be swimming in debt and yet afford a 3 month trip to Indonesia? Yes, it matters! If his entire political career has been financed by others, I want to know who financed it. What was their stake in this? And if he paid for it himself, how? I'm not sure why the press isn't reporting on this. Heck, Palin made a comment about Obama "palling around with terrorists" and she's being slammed every which way for it. CNN flat out said her claim was false. But...it's not. Look up the Chicago Annenberg Challenge online. I did. My research on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge certainly tended to indicate a more extensive relationship between Obama and Ayers than Obama has previously indicated. Obama's response, when asked about Ayers during the 2008 Democratic Primary presidential primaries, was this:

"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis."

Okay. But not only did Obama and Ayers have multiple contacts in connection with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, they also served on the the Woods Fund of Chicago together for years, and Ayers hosted a meet-and-greet at his house to introduce Obama to his neighbors during Obama's first Illinois state Senate campaign in 1995. By the way, for those of you who don't know who Ayers is, think on this: Ayers describes himself this way:

"I am a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist ..."

In 1969 he co-founded the violent radical left organization Weather Underground which was active during the 1960s and 1970s. Does it matter that Obama had this much contact with someone like William Ayers. Yeah, it does. It certainly matters a heck of a lot more than where Sarah Palin gets her hair done. I think it's unfortunate for us that the media has chosen to believe they are, by and large, a part of the political process rather than the reporters of it.

I'm asking all of you Obama supporters to please tell me what I'm missing about him. What do you see in him? I'm open to listen. If you don't feel comfortable doing that in a comment, please e-mail me at grannyskywalker (at) yahoo (dot) com. I want to hear your views. Let me be honest, though, and tell you I might use your comments in a future post. I will not, however, use your name if you expressly request that I do not. I'm not wanting to put anyone on the hot seat, but rather I'm wanting to start a dialogue. I want to listen, I want to understand. I want to learn all I can before I cast my vote this November.

My Never Ending Summer

See these? They're some of the jackets I've bought in the last month. I figured that since I'd dropped a couple of pounds this year, I could wear something like these with a pair of jeans and look downright spiffy. Now see this?
It's a lovely brown sweater I bought to wear over a plain white t-shirt. And this?

Another sweater I bought for the blue jean/white t-shirt look I'm planning to sport this fall. (I'm totally diggin' the color!)

However, thanks to this (click to enlarge):
I'm starting to wonder if maybe I shouldn't have just bought tank tops and bermuda shorts. Yesterday, it was 96 FLIPPIN' DEGREES HERE!!!! Hel-loooooooo! It's October! Time for pumpkins, falling leaves and crisp weather. Today it's supposed to get up to 90 degrees, but that's what they said yesterday so I'm preparing for a full-press roasting session. But, just to prove I'm not a total pessimist, I'm also heading out to find and buy a bale of hay, for my front yard scarecrow display. Mother Nature doesn't seem to want it to be cooler weather here so it looks like I'll just have to fake it. As they say: "Denial...not just a river in Egypt".
Hope Mother Nature comes around soon, though. I've only got a limited time frame to wear this before people start looking at me funny:It says "Don't be a scardy cat" on the front. Even cuter? Check out what it says on the back of the left shoulder:

You gotta love that, right?

Now tell me again who has a better grasp on the economy...

McCain or Obama?

The trouble begins when supporters become followers...

Have you guys heard this yet? It disturbs me like nothing else I've seen (or heard) so far this political season. Children, ages 5-12, singing bizarre and hope-filled praises of Barack Obama while displaying blank expressions on their faces as their glassy eyed parents look on with unfettered and rapturous pride. Remember those horrific images of the Hitler Youth from the '30s and '40s? Innocent children being indoctrinated into a movement that they couldn't possibly have any understanding of. I'm all for teaching your children your views and positions, I'm all for showing your children what you think is the best, most moral, ethical and hopeful way to live. What I'm not for, however, is using your children as props in a campaign to demonstrate to the world your near orgasmic love and adoration for a politician. Every single adult involved in this little exposition should be ashamed of themselves for turning innocent children into puppets for their cause. If you support Obama, that's all good and well. But use your own voices to sing his praises, not those of your children. (Never, in the history of mankind, has it been a good idea to teach your children to worship a mere politician. If you need evidence of that, look up the use of children in North Korea, China, Iraq...and the aforementioned Hitler Youth.)

What do you guys think of this? Harmless "song for change" or just plain disturbing? Let me know your views.

For information on the origin of this song, you can go to the group's website: Sing for Obama. (Notice my restraint in not calling the group a "cult", despite their apparent veneration of the Junior Senator from Illinois.)

Finding a Weigh Out of Fat

Hey, whatdaya know! A post not about politics. lol Don't get used to it - my politics obsession has not waned any. I'm just taking a break to squeeze in a "weight loss" post. Not that I have much to say about that this week. I don't think I've lost so much as an ounce and, in fact, I've probably found a few instead. But what are you gonna do, eh? I've eaten right this week, I've pretty much behaved myself, I've even learned a new recipe from my brand new Lean Mean Fat Reducing Grilling Machine by George Foreman instructional manual. I know I haven't been perfect, though, so I can't whine as much as I'd like to. (Remember, I've admitted in the past to being a world class whiner - it's a "gift" that I'm usually happy to share with the rest of the world. ha!) But I haven't done much exercising (one walk around the neighborhood does not an exercise regime make) and I haven't been drinking as much water as I should. (sigh) I hate it when things don't work out the way I want them to and then I have to admit it's my own darn fault. It really cuts into my martyr act, you know what I mean? So I guess that's the lesson for this week: if you want to lose weight, do what needs to be done. "Dreaming" of success may be a good start, but it's not enough to make it happen. Too bad, though...I'm pretty good at dreaming. : )

P.S. I have got to clarify something because all your "congratulations" have made me feel a bit of a fraud. When I said last week that I got into a size 8 jeans, remember - that's all I did; get into them. It wasn't pretty and I don't wear a size 8. I hope to wear a size 8 one day. But until then, I'm just goober enough to get a thrill out of squeezing my butt into something that really doesn't have enough material to contain it with any sort of dignity. Yeah, it speaks to my shallowness as a human being, but come on! When you've gone from a size 18 to actually getting a size 8 zipped and buttoned - well, I don't care who you are, that's just exciting. (*big smile*)

What does 18 Billion Dollars Mean to you?

Yeah, same here. It's more money than I expect to ever see in my lifetime, I can tell you that much (barring that lottery win that may or may not be looming in my future). Believe it not, though - there are people who feel that an amount such as that is, and I quote, "a drop in the bucket". What genius has expressed that completely-out-of-touch-with-the-sensibilities-of-middle-America view, you ask? Senator John Kerry, that's who. And what prompted those pearls of wisdom to drip from his honeyed lips? A statement from Senator Lindsey Graham regarding the exorbitant amount of earmarks asked for from members of congress this past year. While discussing the failings of our government during a recent appearance by both Kerry and Graham on Special Report with Brit Hume, Graham made mention of John McCain's mission to stop the rapacious earmarking practices that have become the norm rather than the exception in congress since the mid '90s. When Senator Kerry categorized that stance as simple "demagoguery" (his word), Graham pointed out that in the last year, 18 billion dollars had been asked for in earmarks by members of congress. To which Kerry responded by saying something along the lines of curtailing earmarks wouldn't fix the problems. In fact, according to Kerry, 18 billion dollars is "just a drop in the bucket". Well dadgom. Wonder if I could get a piece of that bucket? You know, I'm not sure how much that bucket can hold, but if 18 billion is a mere "drop" of its contents, I'm thinking we may need to downsize our bucket. Regardless of the size of the bucket or the drop itself, however, I feel compelled to point out that whatever it is that fills any bucket, it always consists of drops of something. And if you want to control what goes into your bucket, you'd damn well better start paying attention to the drops you allow to go into it.
In that same appearance, Brit Hume asked Graham about his own history of asking for earmarks. I almost dropped a skillet on my foot when I heard his answer. Graham said, "I've been a part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution". Senator Graham went on to say that he had this change of heart because John McCain convinced him that it is the right thing to do for America. Okay. In the first place, I don't know when I've ever heard a politician say he was a part of the problem. They're usually screaming about how the other guy is the problem. Secondly, I don't know how long Graham will remain in this frame of mind - if it's a real change of heart, a change contingent upon the election of John McCain, or even if he'll hold up to any pressures from home regarding this stance in the future. What I do know is this: that view, that statement, that vision gave me a ray of hope for our future. What if all of Washington could admit to their failures and stop with the finger pointing and the blame game? What if all our elected officials decided to work for us and our country, instead of for each other and their political party? What if???

P.S. I know I'm probably being entirely too political these days and if that makes any of you uncomfortable, I'm sorry. Remember, I'm always open to hearing views "from the other side". I'm sure it's obvious that I'm a Republican and a John McCain supporter. Like Senator McCain, I too have issues at times with the Republican party. I affiliate with them because of our common views. I question them because I don't believe all their positions are the right way to go. Hearing other views is interesting and sometimes even illuminating.

Oh, and are you asking why I've gone into politics so thoroughly lately? IT'S BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A FLIPPIN' CAR RIGHT NOW SO I'M STUCK AT HOME WATCHING ALL THE POLITICAL NEWS AND READING POLITICAL VIEWS ONLINE. We got one wrecked car out of the shop Friday and put the other one in Monday morning. As I've mentioned before, since our cars were damaged by people who had no insurance and we didn't have Uninsured Motorist coverage, that means NO RENTAL CAR while ours are being repaired. So...the gist of this is, if you don't want me writing political stuff, take up a collection and GET ME OUT OF THIS HOUSE during the day!!!! (she said, laughing maniacally with the tv remote control clutched tightly in her fist)

I'M SICK OF PARTISAN POLITICS!!!!!!

Help me out here. I realize that I'm only an "uneducated/stay-at-home mom type" (that was a side joke shared with Vee from A Haven for Vee), but I don't understand a few things about this whole economic crisis. Barack Obama has said that he intends to see that no American loses their home. Soooooo....does that mean that the people who bought houses they couldn't afford using financing agreements that couldn't be met will get to keep their homes even though they can't now, nor have ever been able to, afford said homes? How does that work? Should Randey and I rush out and buy a much larger and more expensive home with the full knowledge that we can't afford it, but with the comfort of Obama's reassurance that we won't lose that home? Oh. We left it too late, you say? Should have done that months ago before the shady dealings of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Wall Street banks and the money-grubbin', do-nothing congress banking committees came to light? Figures. Once again, we seem to have missed the boat, I suppose. At any rate, can someone please explain Obama's plan of keeping all Americans in their homes? Will we all have to continue to pay for our own homes or will our tax dollars take care of those mortgage payments for some of us? Or is Obama just doing what he does best; talking smack. I'm sorry, all you Obama supporters, I really am. I don't mean to sound dismissive of your candidate, but I honestly don't see any substance to him. What has he done in his political career that indicates he could or even would be a good president? Okay, so he makes "profound" speeches. Big whup. Ever heard that saying, "Talk is cheap"? It's a cliche' for a reason, you know. Pretty much all politicians can talk. I prefer the ones who will act on their convictions and not just talk about them. McCain comes out and declares that he's going to Washington to work on this bailout proposal for the good of the country. He seems to think he should be focusing on the biggest crisis to hit our shores since 9/11. Obama's response? "Let's issue a joint statement". Wow. Thanks. Really helpful. He further says that the leaders in congress "can call me if they need me". Here's a thought, Barack. Get your butt back to the job you were actually hired to do, roll up your sleeves and help save all us little people from the mess our financial sector and our government leaders have allowed us to get into. You are the man for change, right? So what change were you referring to? A change of scenery? A change of pace? A change of venue? What? He and his camp say things like "we need a leader who can chew gum and walk at the same time". Well, first of all, I'm going to have to say, you're slipping a little on that whole "profound" talk you're so famous for and, second of all, I personally think we need a leader who can identify and focus on an issue when that issue threatens the entire well-being of our country. I heard yesterday and this morning how Democrats are blaming McCain because they were "close to an agreement" until McCain showed up and injected "presidential politics" into the deal. Too bad no one told the Republican leaders they were "close to an agreement". I heard Harry Reid say again this morning that they didn't need "presential politics" brought into this. Well, Harry, what do you need? I only ask because you sure as hell don't seem to be solving the problem with the current group of people you've got working on it. Although, it is my understanding that the Democrats do have enough votes to pass the bill in both the House and the Senate, they won't do it without Republican support. Not because they want to include Republicans in that bill, but rather because they don't want to face the blame alone if the bill doesn't do what it's supposed to. What ever happened to standing up for what you believe in? If these people believe that the bill, as it stands, is the best possible route to take, then stand up for it and get it passed! Personally, for once I'm glad for their cowardice actually, because I don't believe this bill should be passed in its current form. I don't get how us taxpayers paying out money to buy these so-called "toxic mortgage loans" can be in anyway beneficial to us. Something needs to be done, that much is evident. But I don't think Bush's plan is the right thing and I don't believe that our elected leaders in Washington are working towards what's best for us. I think there's still back-biting and trying to put "party" ahead of "country". There is one person who has shown over and over again that he can and will work with sensible members of both political parties and that is Senator John McCain. He's proven it time and time again. So why have certain politicians (Harry Reid anyone?) as well as certain media outlets (damn near every one out there, but MSNBC in particular) labeled John McCain's willingness to suspend his campaign and focus on this crisis "a political ploy". Washington game players are so freakin' warped by their "party is number one" way of life, that they've forgotten what they were sent to Washington to do in the first place. And the fringe element (media, etc.) is just as bad. I'll point out that Democrats aren't the only ones guilty of partisanship either, so don't get too smug my GOP brethren. Case in point: Rush Limbaugh. The man couldn't stand John McCain because John McCain has had the nerve to work with Democrats in the past. Now that McCain is the Republican nominee, however, Rush has managed to jump on board and become a loud and proud McCain supporter. Has he suddenly had an epiphany and decided he and McCain agree on the issues? Nah, not so much. It's because "party" matters more than issues to people like Rush. And people like Chris Matthews. And Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and well...I wanted to add some more Republicans in here just to show my true disgust at the whole Washington community, but after researching a bit, I'm unable to find any that are more partisan than most Democrats. I would think they must be out there, but then again, if they were, I'm pretty sure the media would have publicly tarred and feathered them by now. Regardless of party affiliation, however, as a taxpaying citizen of this country, I want you people to work together, stop whining because a member of the senate has returned to Washington to do his job and FIX. THIS. DAMN. PROBLEM. you know, sort of like you're paid to do.
Our country is facing a crisis of epic proportions and we have one presidential candidate rolling up his sleeves and working towards bringing both parties together and we have another one who says things like "call me if you need me", "let's make a statement" (with words only, of course), and "this first debate must happen and it must happen on schedule because the American public deserves that". Whoa there, little Buckaroo! As a member of that American public, let me put my two cents worth in...I'd much rather see our savings, our homes, our income and our credit ratings protected first. You can debate about your "views" once you've saved us from this crisis. Although - quite frankly, your actions have already spoken much louder to me than any words you could possibly utter.

Oh and one more thing. Speaking of those debates. I keep hearing about how much planning has gone into these debates and how important it is that they go on as planned and how many man-hours have gone into the planning and how many "millions" have been spent on them. I did some research on these debates and, while I'm sure they took quite a bit of planning and and quite a bit of man-hours and quite a bit of money, I gotta say, if these people have actually spent "millions" on getting this done, they are not much better than those bankers who made all those worthless loans that have helped cause the crisis our nation now faces. I think they may be guilty of a bit of bad money management because, honestly, it just shouldn't cost that much to get these things set up. I'd love to see their budget breakdowns and their financial statements. Also, these debates are not the free-wheeling debates of the past. Since 1988, they have become far more orchestrated than they should be (in my opinion). Do a little research on the process. I think you'll see what I mean. If Obama and McCain want to give us American citizens a chance to hear their views as well as their answers to important questions, why not do a series of town hall meetings across the country? Why are these massively preplanned and basically "rehearsed" debates the end all and be all of presidential politics? Hey - it's just another question from me, an "uneducated, stay-at-home mom type"....

Finding a Weigh Out of Fat and Whining

Okay, okay, okay. I know I'm a whiner. To be honest, I'm a whiner from waaaaaaay back. It's sort of a way a life with me. Matter of fact, I guess you could call me a genuine Whine-O. I would say that I'll try to do better in the future, try to not whine about every little thing that happens in my life, but well, then I'd just be a lying whiner instead of just a plain ol' whiner and that would make me even worse, right? I suspect I'll always whine so what's the point of trying to deny it. At any rate, I'm at the point of my latest crisis when even I'm sick of hearing me blubber so I guess that means I need to move on now. Cars and cousins are just a part of life and grousing about either won't change the circumstances surrounding those subjects. At long last, I've arrived at the "suck it up" stage of this particular whine. So YAY me. LOL
Now on to "weightier" issues. I'm happy to report that I've lost another 1.6 pounds for a grand total thus far of 41 pounds. I'm pretty darn pleased with myself about this (ha! Talk about an understatement!). I got a comment on my previously referenced "big whining post" from Vee, asking if I was learning what to do when stressed instead of eat? I have to tell you, I hadn't even thought about it until she asked! But you know, there was a time not so very long ago when I would have buried my face in chocolate cake or maybe a bag of Hershey kisses or even a bag of Flamin' Hot Cheetos when faced with as much stress as we've been through the past few weeks. Without trying to sound like a cheerleader for their program, I have to give credit to Weight Watchers for my not doing that anymore. WW has taught me how to eat and, more importantly I think, they've taught me how to have a healthy emotional relationship with food. I no longer look to food for comfort or solace. I eat because my body needs the fuel, not because I'm feeling depressed or anxious or happy or sad. I'm so glad that Vee asked me that question because I feel much more confident in realizing through actual actions that my relationship with food has changed so dramatically. If I could impart one piece of advice to anyone trying to lose weight, it'd be to learn that food is fuel - nothing more, nothing less. That's not to say I don't want my food to taste good, because I do, but I don't plan my days around food anymore. I don't plan my life around food, other than to eat it because I need the fuel for energy. It's incredibly liberating to not be focused on food 24/7 (and here's to this being a life-long attitude and not just a phase, eh?). Heck, I'm even able to happily focus on other things these days...things like my husband, my hobbies, my home, my clothes... speaking of clothes, let me tell you this; the other day, I was telling Randey that I had tried on a pair of size 8 Levi's and actually got them on! SIZE 8s!!Okay, so it wasn't pretty, but that wasn't the point (*smile*). The point was that I was able to put them on my body and zip them up without rupturing anything. And despite my arse looking like a twisted balloon (strange little creases abounded!), it was a thrill to be able to do that. And maybe in a month or so, those size 8s will fit like they're supposed to. Maybe. Hopefully. (Hey! It's a goal! Don't judge.)
Before I leave, I want to share a picture of the Halloween tree. Yeah, it's the same tree I posted about and called my Fall tree, but I decided to dress it up for Halloween now. I had these "witch shoes" from Hobby Lobby last year. Don't know why I bought them, other than they were on sale after Halloween. They have little handles on them so maybe they are to hold candy or flowers or something, who knows. Anyway, as I was staring at them, trying to think of where to put them, it hit me: I needed a pair of Halloween tights to stick into the shoes! I found some at Wal-Mart, stuffed them with fiber-fill and set them up under the tree. Then I found a totally cool witch hat for the topper. And if I had those gorgeous feather-trimmed witch gloves I'd bought Maddy a couple of months ago, this tree would have arms as well as legs! (Yeah, Jake was pretty grateful those gloves are with Maddy now, too. lol) So what do you think? Too much?