Time for a more serious post. Well, certainly more serious than my last post about the shoes (although, truth be told, I am pretty darn serious about my shoes these days!). This post, however, is about personal responsibility and the state of mind of the American public. I was reading a story online the other day about a lawsuit brought by homeowners against Countrywide Home Loans. I couldn't decide who I was more disgusted with; Countrywide or the homeowners. It's pretty easy to be disgusted with Countrywide. They leave themselves wide open for contempt at every turn. They've engaged in everything from chumping their own employees out of overtime pay to making an astounding number of sub-prime loans which have most certainly contributed heavily to the current mortgage crisis our country is in. Oh, and Countrywide is also the company who made loans at extremely favorable rates to the likes of Senators Dodd and Conrad (both Democrats) and James Johnson and Franklin Raines (both former CEOs of Frannie Mae). Yeah...fine upstanding people running that place, NOT! Anywho, Countrywide is being sued by a couple who had been seeking a "loan modification" for their mortgage. You have to understand that, since this mortgage crisis and Countrywide's role in it have come to light, Countrywide's been telling anyone and everyone who will listen (particular those in Senate hearings) that they are working oh so hard to modify mortgages for their financially strapped customers to prevent foreclosures whenever possible. Well it seems that this couple in New Hampshire had worked with Countrywide for more than 8 months in an effort to have their loan modified before Countrywide finally flat out refused to adjust their interest rate. As a result, the couple lost their home to foreclosure because they couldn't catch up on their lapsed payments, etc., etc., etc. Since then, these homeowners filed a lawsuit against Countrywide alleging breach of faith, fraud, negligence and misrepresentation due to Countrywide's failure to make good on it's marketing, advertising and testimony before Congress in which Countrywide has repeatedly made assurances that they are "working hard to modify the mortgages of financially strapped borrowers caught up in the sub-prime meltdown". Attorneys for the lending giant are telling a different story, however. While those testifying on Capital Hill are painting themselves as benevolent lenders out to help the "financially strapped", their attorneys call such claims and assurances “mere commercial puffery.” Saying the modification offers are “only Countrywide’s vague advertisements,” Countrywide's attorneys are asking the court to throw out the lawsuit. That's just too funny to me. They're asking the court to ignore their own propaganda because they'd just as soon not be held to the standards they themselves have touted. Can you be anymore ballsy? Really? "Yes, Your Honor, we did say we would work with our clients but that was just to help our public image and to keep Congress off our asses. We didn't really mean it. Geez!"Saturday, January 17, 2009
Crooks, Liars and Fools: The New Faces of America
Time for a more serious post. Well, certainly more serious than my last post about the shoes (although, truth be told, I am pretty darn serious about my shoes these days!). This post, however, is about personal responsibility and the state of mind of the American public. I was reading a story online the other day about a lawsuit brought by homeowners against Countrywide Home Loans. I couldn't decide who I was more disgusted with; Countrywide or the homeowners. It's pretty easy to be disgusted with Countrywide. They leave themselves wide open for contempt at every turn. They've engaged in everything from chumping their own employees out of overtime pay to making an astounding number of sub-prime loans which have most certainly contributed heavily to the current mortgage crisis our country is in. Oh, and Countrywide is also the company who made loans at extremely favorable rates to the likes of Senators Dodd and Conrad (both Democrats) and James Johnson and Franklin Raines (both former CEOs of Frannie Mae). Yeah...fine upstanding people running that place, NOT! Anywho, Countrywide is being sued by a couple who had been seeking a "loan modification" for their mortgage. You have to understand that, since this mortgage crisis and Countrywide's role in it have come to light, Countrywide's been telling anyone and everyone who will listen (particular those in Senate hearings) that they are working oh so hard to modify mortgages for their financially strapped customers to prevent foreclosures whenever possible. Well it seems that this couple in New Hampshire had worked with Countrywide for more than 8 months in an effort to have their loan modified before Countrywide finally flat out refused to adjust their interest rate. As a result, the couple lost their home to foreclosure because they couldn't catch up on their lapsed payments, etc., etc., etc. Since then, these homeowners filed a lawsuit against Countrywide alleging breach of faith, fraud, negligence and misrepresentation due to Countrywide's failure to make good on it's marketing, advertising and testimony before Congress in which Countrywide has repeatedly made assurances that they are "working hard to modify the mortgages of financially strapped borrowers caught up in the sub-prime meltdown". Attorneys for the lending giant are telling a different story, however. While those testifying on Capital Hill are painting themselves as benevolent lenders out to help the "financially strapped", their attorneys call such claims and assurances “mere commercial puffery.” Saying the modification offers are “only Countrywide’s vague advertisements,” Countrywide's attorneys are asking the court to throw out the lawsuit. That's just too funny to me. They're asking the court to ignore their own propaganda because they'd just as soon not be held to the standards they themselves have touted. Can you be anymore ballsy? Really? "Yes, Your Honor, we did say we would work with our clients but that was just to help our public image and to keep Congress off our asses. We didn't really mean it. Geez!"Monday, January 12, 2009
Prince Harry's a what?
Okay. So that's not how I really feel. I really feel that what passes as so-called news these days is really nothing more than salacious gossip. I feel that, while racism is ugly and intolerable, the world has gone too far into the "politically correct" stage and anything and everything can and probably will be misconstrued as racist if heard by the right (or the wrong) person. I feel that some people are too thin-skinned and that there are false proponents of those people who will raise the specter of ugliness and hatred for their own purposes without thought to the strife their actions will cause. I feel that we, the people of the industrialized nations all across this planet, spend way too much time listening to people who claim to be bringing us the "news" when those people have absolutely no idea of what the basic tenets of journalism actually are. I feel that our ability and willingness to let other people formulate our opinions over issues ranging from Prince Harry's latent and/or blatant racism (depending on how you view this latest "news", of course) to which of our potential leaders' shady associations are really worth thinking about is going to lead us into ruination and chaos. And most of us will be standing there asking "How'd this happen?". Well let me just tell you ahead of time...it happened because we were all too damn lazy to find out facts for ourselves. Having it force fed to us by plastic faced talking heads on so-called news shows was just easier. The Politically Correct Police have informed us that Prince Harry is a racist, therefore he will be labeled as such forever more in the minds of many. Just like the Politically Correct Police told us that Obama's associations with the likes of Tony Rezko, William Ayers and ACORN were unimportant and not worthy of scrutiny. Far too many of us said, "Duhhhhhh, okay. If you say so.", and let those issues fall to the wayside. Whether or not they were worthy of scrutiny may never be known because we were told it didn't matter and we excepted it. Probably because we were too busy watching Britney Spears' latest mental breakdown or agonizing over who would win the "big prize" on the latest Must See reality show. Priorities are everything, eh? It happened because we gave far too much trust to those who are supposed to earn it from us and were too lackadaisical and/or ignorant to take that trust back when we knew we should.
Okay. I'm done for now. Note to self: stick to reruns of Monk in the A.M. and avoid "news" channels like the plague.
I'll be back with some Christmas pictures later on today...once my blood-pressure has returned to normal. And just so you know; hearing that Prince Harry issued an "apology" for his "racist" remarks really didn't go a long way towards accomplishing that. I think I'd have felt better if he'd have told the world media to "piss off" instead.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Life's Most Embarrassing Moment and There's an Elephant in the Room (believe it or not, these are two totally unrelated subjects)
About 7 1/2 years ago, Randey and I were looking to buy a house. We hired a realtor who came up with a list of homes for us to view. In one such house, we were walking through the place, checking out the amenities, when Randey spied the microwave oven. It was placed in a low cabinet, maybe 18 inches off the floor. Randey remarked how cool that would be for the kids - they could use the microwave without our help. He said it would sure be "convenient". I took one look at it and said, "For who? A midget?" Then I turned around and...yeah, you guessed it, the homeowner, a midget, was standing in the doorway. Who could have known? Nothing else in that house gave a clue that the owner was a little dude. I was so embarrassed, I couldn't wait to get back in the car. That house could have been the house of my dreams, and I never would have stepped foot in it again. (Luckily, it was over-priced for our budget anyway so that wasn't an issue. For once, having a lower budget came in handy!) The moral of this story: Think and look before you speak, Kari. Think and look!!
That may not be my most embarrassing moment in life, but it's got to be in the top 5.
Now I have to address a comment left here by Jeanne. Jeanne, an Obama supporter, had this to say about my post-election post:
"Sen. McCain was much more gracious than you all are. This election galvanized the people of this country who till this point felt they had no voice. It would be for the good of ALL for everyone to unite and truly make these the United States of America."
I actually have two things to say about this. The first being that I think Jeanne may have totally and completely misunderstood my aversion to Obama. I wasn't opposed to him because he was a Democrat. I wasn't opposed to him because he has a funny name. And I wasn't opposed to him based solely on the fact that I wanted John McCain to win. I was opposed to him because I think he's a believer in Socialism, which is one step away from communism, which is the exact opposite of everything our country has ever stood for. I don't want my government to "spread the wealth". I want me and my fellow countrymen to earn our own wealth. And while that's one of the biggest issues I have with Barack Obama, it's just the tip of the iceberg. If his "world view" didn't scare the t-total hell out of me, I probably could rest a little easier with the thought of him leading our country. But be "gracious" about him being president, knowing all I've seen and heard from him? No. Not without seeing how he does. I don't give blind allegiance to any human being on this planet, regardless of their "position". You know, I was "gracious" when Texas whupped Oklahoma's butt in college football this year. I was "gracious" when the waiter walked up to our table and promptly tumped a full to-go container of hot spaghetti in my lap. I was "gracious" when my sister and I spotted the same beautiful red jar in an antique market and I backed off because I knew she wanted it more than I did. But be "gracious" when I think a socialist has been put in charge of our government and our military? No. I don't think so. But as I said in that post-election post, I will continue to pray that I am wrong about the man. I will keep an open mind. I will learn all I can about any given subject or decision he makes without jumping to conclusions. I will try to look at things from every angle possible. To do any less, would be remiss of me.
As to the part about "This election galvanized the people of this country who till this point felt they had no voice." I think that's pure bull-hockey. Let me just say here, publicly, what many people are saying quietly amongst themselves...Obama was elected in large part because he's black. (I can say this, you see, because I've already been called a racist, based on my opposition and questions regarding Obama.) Those "galvanized" people of which you speak weren't galvanized because of Obama's greatness or his demeanor or even his high-falutin' speeches. They were "galvanized" because he's a black man. All of those people had a "voice" before, they just didn't use it. Why? Because they didn't care before now. If these people felt disenfranchised, certainly in the last 30 years, it was as much their own fault as anyone else's. I get how exciting and thrilling it must have been for the black community to see a black man elected president. After Sarah Palin was nominated, I let my mind wander to the future possibilities. I thought to myself "Wow! If McCain wins, in four years, this country could probably have 2 women at the top of the presidential tickets. Hillary Clinton for the Dems and Sarah Palin for the Republicans.". And yeah, I felt exhilarated at the thought. A woman president. Woo-hoo! It was a "We've come a long way, baby!" moment. But had Hillary received the Democratic nomination this year instead of Obama and if McCain had selected a man for his VP, I still would have voted for McCain. As much as I would have liked to see a woman shatter that glass ceiling, I wouldn't have voted for Hillary Clinton because she and I don't have enough in common with our political views. Just by virtue of the fact that she's a woman would not have been enough to win my vote. Many people voted for Obama because of his skin color and for no other reason. I saw interview after interview of people supporting Obama with absolutely no clue as to what he stood for. That does not sit well with me. Now I'm not saying that everyone voted for Obama because he's black. I know of people who voted for Obama because they loved his "rhetorical ability" (that's a quote from Colin Powell). I know of people who voted for Obama because they just plain, ol' hated George W. Bush. And I know of people who voted for Obama because they believed in all his promises. But far too many people voted for Obama because of his skin color. Those people who just now "found their voice" should be asking themselves why a person's skin color "galvanized" them into action and why being American with the right to vote wasn't enough to "galvanize" them in the past.
Okay, people, now you can bring on the charges that I'm a racist. I know it's coming. I'm "white", therefore, in this country with all it's political correctness, I'm not allowed to state the obvious or state any sort of view on race, for that matter. I regret that I will be viewed as a racist by anyone. I have long held the belief that none of us is black or white or yellow or red....but rather, we are all just different shades of brown. That naivete' has been stripped away, however. I've come to realize that the "melting pot" reputation of our country isn't as true as I had been taught. It's obvious that our country suffers from great racial division and, as a "white" person, I'm not supposed to talk about it. Anybody ever heard that saying "There's an elephant in the room"? It means there's something very obvious sitting right in front of us but nobody will acknowledge it. How do we progress if we are afraid to talk openly with each other? I've stated a viewpoint and I fully expect to be skewered for it. Isn't political correctness grand?
P.S. It is with a heavy heart that I click on the "publish" button. I know I will have cast the dye that will cause so many to think ill of me. I can hear the gasps now. I guess I'm just tired of dancing around this subject. I hate racism. I hate that every person in this country, heck - in this world, doesn't believe that we truly are just different shades of brown. I have never, ever understood why skin color is so important. Why does it matter? If more of us, of every shade of brown, dismissed skin color as being a "defining characteristic", wouldn't the issue of racism become a thing of the past? Isn't it incumbent upon all of us to work towards that ideal? As long as it's okay for any segment of society to define itself by skin color, racism will never go away. And until we face up to and talk about how and why people focus on skin color with such fervor, we'll never be able to get past it.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Americans have made their choice...
It feels almost surreal. In fact, this old election has felt like something straight from here:And now our odyssey begins....I fear it may be an odyssey of upheaval, a journey to a place of unrest and the first steps down a path of weakness for this country. I have never prayed so hard in my life that I am wrong about something. I will keep praying for that. I'd rather be wrong about Barack Obama and what he may do to this country than be right. The ability to say "I told you so" will be small comfort if and when it becomes obvious that he's leading us the wrong way.
I will say this to anyone out there who is hoping to start a political career: study Obama's campaign. It was brilliant. All the sheeple out there think it was McCain who ran a dirty campaign. The irony is almost unbearable.
I regret that John McCain will not get an opportunity to show America and the world just how right he would have been for the office of President of the United States of America. Wasn't in the cards for him, I suppose. But I thank him for giving me a chance to cast my vote for one of the finest Americans ever. I was proud to support you, Senator McCain. Learning your story and seeing you in action was both an honor and a privilege.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
This is what I feel like today...
This is what I look like (that's my sister on the left, me on the right):
See how this election is turning my hair gray????? (Oh okay, so actually, I'm just letting the natural gray grow out. I've declared my freedom from Ms. Clairol and her friends. ha!) Yeah, sure, I look all relaxed and happy, but in reality, I've been gnawing on my fingernails and wanting this election to be done (and successful for John McCain!). And by the way, yes - the wind was blowing pretty good. That's why Sherri and I both look like we're modeling new hairstyles from Mars.
What a motley looking crew, eh? I don't get the whole Nascar thing myself, but these 5 seem to think it's the way to go. Sherri and I took advantage of their "need for speed" and went shopping while they went Nascar-ing. I had a great time and I'm so glad she, er....I mean, they came to visit. lol (My checkbook, however, is still whimpering in pain.)Monday, November 3, 2008
Tomorrow's the Big Day
Who'll win? John McCain, a moderate Republican with a stellar reputation (recent slurs from the left not withstanding) of service to our country?
Or Barack Obama, a person with no record of service to our country?
Before the Obama fans start screaming, I'll concede that Obama does indeed have a record of service...service to Chicago, to the Chicago political machine, to the Reverend Wright, to ACORN, and to his radical friends. Still...all that service doesn't really measure up to John McCain's record, does it? But I wonder if it will matter? Will people vote for the person with a plan or will they vote for the person with the misty promises of "hope" and "change"? What will the future bring us here in America? It's no secret to anyone who reads my blog...I, personally, dread the thought of an ObamaNation. But I know there are those of you who dream of that possibility. Friday, October 31, 2008
The Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of the "common" man", right?
There's Joe the Plumber:
There's Joe the Veteran:
And let's not forget the most visible of us "common people", Sarah Palin:
So where are Obama's common "folks" (as he so charmingly calls us)? Where are they at? I see lots of politicians endorsing this "Agent of Change". Kind of makes me wonder what kind of "change" Obama is selling them on because surely they're not all volunteering to get the heck out of DC so that real change can happen if only we'll elect The One, are they? I see a lot of Hollywood "folks" endorsing Obama. Barbra Streisand, Matt Damon (Lord how I weep for your attitude about Palin, Matt!), Jessica Alba, Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and oh yeah, Oprah Winfrey among many, many others. Not sure if I see the benefit of having people who lie for a living endorse you, but politicians do seem to like that, don't they? I see lots of Obama campaign workers who support him. And they're all trained like good little robots. Doesn't matter what question is asked of them, they come back with the same tired old lines, "We don't want 4 more years of failed Bush policies" or "Senator Obama has been very clear that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans". They never seem to mention that McCain isn't Bush and, in fact, McCain has differed from Bush in several very meaningful and public ways. Sure, he voted for lots of stuff that Bush wanted. Maybe that's because Bush was actually right about some things. I know the Left likes to paint Bush as being damn near as inept a president as Jimmy Carter was, but let's be serious...Carter set such a high bar in the field of ineptitude that it's pretty much impossible for anyone to even come close. They also fail to mention that of those 95% that Obama is going to cut taxes for, at least 40% of them don't even pay taxes to begin with. Hard to "cut" their taxes when they don't pay any, eh? But pointing that out is seen as quibbling and therefore, too far beneath response, so the Obama-bots just keep repeating their lines over and over and over without so much as acknowledging the issues.
I also see a lot of ACORN workers endorsing Obama. Only problem with that, of course, is that ACORN is supposed to be non-partisan and by claiming to be non-partisan, have managed to obtain beau coup bucks from our Federal Government in the form of our tax dollars. Not cool. So again...normal, every day, common Americans like Tito and Joe and Joe and Sarah put their butts on the line in order to endorse John McCain for president and Obama's big endorsements come from fellow politicians, pretenders, paid campaign workers and ACORN.
So tell me again.......how is it that the Democratic party is geared towards "the common man" and the Republicans are only good for rich, old, white guys?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Make Election Day a National Holiday? I don't think so....
"It goes both ways. You could take the day off and push for McCain as well. There are some people that want to see the voting day moved to a more practical time. The 1st Tuesday in November was chosen by President Taylor in 1845. At that time, it was a good day after the harvest when predominantly agrarian men would have plenty of time to go to the polls. It was also when the weather was still mild enough and dry enough as to not hinder travel. After observing Sunday as a day of rest, farmers used Monday to travel to often far-away voting sites for the Tuesday vote.
We should examine making election day a bigger deal in this country. The US lags behind many other nations in voter turnout (this year may be an exception). A friend from Russia, spoke of the parties and celebrations they had on election day. It was a national holiday so nobody had to work. Many things were available in the markets (he mentions bananas) that couldn't be had any other time of the year. All of these things were incentives to get people to get out of their home and vote.There has been some push to move election day to a more practical day. Scheduling elections on a day when so many Americans must also go to work or school flies in the face of our nation's mission to open democracy for all, makes it difficult or impossible for most parents to take their children to the polls (instilling the importances of voting), and makes chaos at polling centers inevitable.*"
(*Brian's comments as posted here are a compilation of two comments he actually left due to a confusion over my blog moderator procedure.)
Brian, dude, I love 'ya, you know I do. But I not only disagree with this, I have to say I vehemently disagree with it. First I'll address the view of moving election day to a more practical day: It no longer matters what specific day the election is held on. According to The National Conference of State Legislatures, early voting is available in every state in the union. Voters are no longer restricted to having to be at their particular polling place on a particular date during a particular time. For the most part, you can now avoid long lines, you can vote in a more convenient location, you can even mail in your ballot, if need be. Heck, in our area alone, there's been 9 locations available for early voting (which started 17 days prior to the official election date). With the early voting available all across this country, I think it certainly gives a wide enough time frame for people to get in and cast their vote if they want to.
Now, my big area of disagreement...the notion of making election day a "bigger deal" in this country. I'm not sure what you mean by that. A bigger deal? Heck, it is a huge deal to me. Why? Because I pay attention. Because I seek out information and views. Because I make it my business to learn what I can and try to discuss with others so that I can learn even more. So how could election day be a bigger deal? I assume everybody who cares about the direction our country is going in is making election day a big deal. Who isn't? The person who doesn't care? The person who only gets involved when he's offered a cigarette or a buck for his efforts? The person who expects his government to take care of his every need? I gotta tell 'ya...voting is a privilege. Yeah, a privilege. Not just a right. This is a prime example of (to paraphrase President John F. Kennedy) what we can do for our country, not what our country can do for us. It shouldn't be made into a national holiday. It shouldn't be "celebrated" with incentives and enticements to get people out to vote. People should get out to vote because they feel driven to say their part, cast their ballot, have their voice heard. You make election day a national holiday and voter turnout will plummet to all time lows. "Election Day Sales" down at your local Lowe's, Home Depot and car dealerships nationwide might skyrocket, but I can guarantee you that voter turnout will not increase in any way, shape or form. For heaven's sake, look at our current national holidays: Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday. What do you do on that day? Me? Not much. Hang out with my husband, since he's off work that day. I'm not out there talking up the best points of what was most assuredly a great man. Not many Americans are. Presidents Day/Washington's birthday. What do you do on that day? Me? Same as MLK day. Hang with my husband. I'm not thinking of ways of honoring Washington or Lincoln. Sorry. I think very highly of both of them, but hey, that day isn't truly dedicated to thoughts of them. I'd venture to say most Americans feel the same way. Independence Day. What do you do on that day? Me? Well, we might go check out some fireworks. Or we might drive up to my dad's. Go to a BBQ maybe. Usually, we just hang out, though. I do think of the blessing of being an American. I do take some time to marvel at what a great country we live in. But I'm not out there trying to improve America in any other way on that day, other than telling my kids how blessed we all are to live here. Veteran's Day. What do you do on that day? Me? Well, we might go to a local parade. We might take a moment to think about our family's and friends' service to our nation. But by and large, we don't make a big effort to congregate with other people in an effort to "celebrate" the day. Not many people do, really. It's a good day to honor our fallen, but that doesn't take any truly physical effort on our part. We only have to use our prayers and our hearts to do it.
The bottom line is, you give Americans a holiday, and you'll get a bunch of laid back Americans. Sorry, but that's the way of it. We all love a holiday, but we don't necessarily honor that holiday with its intended purpose. But even if that wasn't the case, even if it was made into a holiday and Americans made a big effort and decided to go out and vote before they hit the couch, I would still disagree with making it an actual holiday. Because again, voting is something we should be doing for our country. Getting the entire day off of work in order to cast our vote is not something our country (or employers for that matter) should be doing for us. We all have ample time and opportunity to get our votes in. It's a matter of what, if any, effort we want to put out. It doesn't actually take a lot of effort now. Making it a holiday won't make it any easier. It'll just make it easier to turn election day into another free day off from work. Period. The problem with voter turnout isn't "getting to the polls". It's a mindset of some Americans who feel like it's too much of a "hassle", or it's too "inconvenient" or it just "doesn't matter". Giving Americans the day off won't change that thinking. It's a personification of that old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". Exact same thing.
As far as instilling the importance of voting in our children, I think I've done that with my kids. I talk to them about the candidates, about the issues, about the vote. I love discussing politics with them even though politics has become a dirty subject to many of my fellow citizens for some reason. I show my kids how excited I am to vote. I show them my passion for finding out the truth and for investigating issues and stands. I don't need for my kids to see me "touch the screen" or "punch the chad" or "fill in the little circle" in order to instill the importance of voting in them. They understand that by the importance we give election discussions that go on in our household.
And finally...Brian, I have to say, when we start taking voting cues from the likes of Russia, we're in bigger trouble in this country than I could have ever imagined. Prime Minister Putin and his puppet president can keep their damn bananas. I'll take my reward in the form of knowing I did my part. I cast my ballot. I let my voice be heard. Considering all that America has done for me, I figure voting is the least I can do for her.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Let's Get Together
Little gems of truth are in this thing. Including the fact that most conservatives don't like John McCain because they think he's too moderate. Me? I think he's the perfect person to work with both sides of the aisle. Obama's smear campaign against him, trying to convince the American public that John McCain is just an extension of Bush, has succeeded in diverting the American people from John McCain's record of reaching out to both sides of the aisle and his willingness to do what's best for our country. If you examine the records and not just the sound bites, you will see that John McCain is someone who has devoted himself to ending the divisiveness and has shown a willingness and ability to just get on with the business of what's right for America. This truly is a man who has put country above party and duty above self, time and time again.
Take Tuesday Off!
He's talking to YOU Betty the Beautician, Cody the Construction worker, Arnie the ACORN employee, Stanley the Student, Tony the Tiger and Buffy the Vampire Slayer: TAKE THE DAY OFF! Nevermind our faltering economy, nevermind your good work ethic and nevermind that big paper you were due to turn in on Tuesday...your
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Shouldn't the Man Who Would be President Have at Least Some Measure of Pride in Our Country?
Ashamed of our country, but this is who they spent 20 plus years cavorting with? This is the person who performed their marriage ceremony, the person who baptized their children, the person who, before it became to too politically expensive, Barack Obama declared was "like family" to him?
Barack Obama is not a person who should hold the highest office in our land. The person who holds that office should go into it with a deep and abiding love of our country. The person who holds that office most assuredly should not be a person steeped in sermons of hate and division. Shame on those of you who refuse to believe your own eyes and ears. Your ability to "transcend" the issues of this election doesn't make you enlightened. It makes you frighteningly and willfully blind.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Yeah, Bill Ayers is as bad as they say...
And Obama finds something to like about this guy...despite the fact that Ayers is proud of his past and has never apologized for it. Obama wasn't 8 years old when he wrote this review of Ayers' book....

And he wasn't 8 years old when they served together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board and he wasn't 8 years old when they collaborated on the Woods Fund together and he wasn't 8 years old when he kicked off his political career in Ayers' living room.
If you won't question Obama's judgment in whose company he has kept and does keep, at least ask yourself what do these people like about Obama? What does Ayers see in him? What does Louis Farrakhan see in him? What does Jeremiah Wright see in him? What does that corrupt organization ACORN see in him? To attract radicals, racists and nut cases to your side, you must surely be espousing something they find attractive, no? Ask yourself what is it that they like about Obama....and then ask yourself if it's something you find attractive, too. And if it is, ask yourself why.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Memo From the Obama Camp to All Media Outlets: Vee vill tell you vhat questions you may ask. Zees is non-negotiable!
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.
Watch the video and you decide whether these questions were out of line:
So what'd you think? Bad questions? Harsh questions? Or questions that many Americans have been wanting to hear answers to? I very much wanted to know more about Obama's plan to "spread the wealth". I very much wanted to know what Biden meant about Obama being "tested" within 6 months of being president. (And despite Joe the Biden's word dance, he did specifically say that Obama would be tested...not just "the next president", as he now claims he meant. Oh and by the way Joe, it's not Obama and/or McCain who would be tested, seeing as how they can't both be president). I also would have liked to have heard more about Obama's ties to ACORN. Joe said here that Obama was a community organizer for them. No secret there, except that last week, Obama changed the wording on his website to say he was never hired by ACORN. Semantics, really. Whether or not he was hired and paid back in the day doesn't negate the fact that he did indeed collaborate with them and knowing that he's working so hard to minimize the appearance of their relationship now concerns me. It's a form of dishonesty and I don't know why America tolerates it.
Finally, at long last, someone from the media has actually asked Joe Biden to explain a few of his very own comments, as well as those of his would-be boss, and the Obama campaign shuts that media outlet down. No more interviews. This concerns me mightily because these were questions I wanted answers to. I do believe Obama wants to take our country to socialism - he's given every single indication of it and, no matter how harshly and frequently the left may mock that viewpoint, it doesn't change the facts...Obama wants to "nationalize" health care, he wants to "spread the wealth", he wants to nominate Supreme Court judges who have "empathy" for the downtrodden, rather than ones who are concerned with the letter of the law (which is kind of their actual role in our government, by the way), he wants to put government in charge of our retirement accounts ('cause the government has done so well with Social Security's funds)...how many more clues do we need before we see the light? I'm constantly amazed at people's willingness to accept lame explanations for these blatant signs. It stuns me. It truly does. I don't want the government taking so much control over my life. Why do you? Is that the kind of "change" America wants? To abdicate responsibility and authority of their own lives and give it to the government? Say it ain't so, Joe! Oh, wait a minute, that's right. Joe doesn't talk about those issues. He (and apparently the whole Obama camp) doesn't like those kind of questions....
Friday, October 24, 2008
Why it's important to know the issues and the candidates...
You know, I've always been an advocate of people getting out there and voting. But I kind of think it's important to know who and what you're voting for. Who'd of thought that needed to be specified? Geez.
Now for this:
"The price John McCain paid for his country, you couldn't even pay the taxes on."
That's a quote from the guy in this next video. His entire video is about 10 minutes long. I suspect that not many will take the time to watch and listen, though. Politics has become an almost taboo subject among most Americans. It's like talking about abortion, women's rights, racial issues and religion...most of us won't discuss these things in public for fear of "offending" someone. Welcome to the Politically Correct United States of America...where personal views are to be mocked and discouraged and silenced because to give voice to them might cause someone to have to respond with personal thoughts of their own, which might actually result in a debate on the issues and gee whiz, who wants that?
I question America's new-found propensity for being silent, unoffensive sheep. I don't think it's what our founding fathers had in mind for us when they began their quest for freedom and created this wonderful place called the United States of America where we can express views without fear of retribution. Seems like, in the main, the only people who want to express a political view are the ones who are members of an actual campaign. Most of us regular "folks" have taken on the role of bystander. We've sure come a long way, baby...too bad we took that U-turn somewhere along the way.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Sarah Palin...Tougher Than She Should Ever Have to Be
For those of you who found this video to be "deep" and "thought provoking" and "a reason to question John McCain's choice as vice presidential running mate" (actual comments made by some viewers), I would ask that you look into these ridiculous allegations for yourself. Get the facts - this video is nothing more than a prime example of "mud slinging" - something the left has done over and over again to Sarah Palin during this campaign. I only wish Barack Obama would get even half the scrutiny that Palin has gotten and I wish that even a quarter of that would be in depth scrutiny. I think America would have a whole different view of Obama if they actually looked into him, his past and his stances for themselves instead of letting the media tell them what to believe. But I digress. This post is about Palin and this latest horrible attack on her. After watching this video, think of these things, if you will:
Palin has been a member of Feminists for Life since 2006. This organization is a Pro-Life Feminist group (a group after my own heart, I have to tell you!). In August 2006, Sarah Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that "no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child", a belief held by the Feminist for Life organization, as well.
Some of you may not realize this, but one of our earliest feminists in this country also was against abortion. Her name was Susan B. Anthony. In her writings, Anthony occasionally mentioned abortion. She opposed it. She blamed men, laws and the "double standard" for driving women to abortion because they had no other options. Here's a quote from Anthony:
"When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." 1869
She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion. Anthony used her anti-abortion writings as yet another argument for women's rights. Sooooooo, the makers of this video are reminding Sarah Palin who she should thank for the opportunity to run for VP and what do you know? Sarah Palin carries on many of the same views held by the Great Susan B. Anthony, a woman who was a prominent American civil rights leader who played a pivotal role in the 19th century women's rights movement to introduce women's suffrage into the United States. Exactly who's forgetting who to thank here? I would venture to say that Sarah Palin is well aware of our foremothers efforts and sacrifices that have brought her to the point where she is on the verge of being the first woman elected to the office of Vice President of the United States of America. What I find immeasurably shameful and unworthy of our foremothers efforts and sacrifices is this bizarre attack (and others like it) by women against a woman. What do you think Susan B. Anthony, Lydia Chapin Taft, Francis Wright, Ernestine Rose and all those other women who fought to get us the vote would think of these attacks? Honestly. What would they think?
By the way, on the issue of abortion, when asked what she would do as governor if Roe v. Wade were overturned, Sarah Palin responded "it would not be up [to me] to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values." Palin personally supported bills to outlaw late-term abortions and to require parental consent for underage abortions in Alaska, but rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to legislate restrictions on abortion even though she agreed with the bills.
Regarding the war in Iraq, Palin supported the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, but has expressed concern that "dependence on foreign energy" may be obstructing efforts to "have an exit plan in place". Her own son is serving over in Iraq. To suggest that she wants Americans to die over there is nothing short of obscene.
To address the purported "book banning" that Palin has been accused of: According to Wasilla librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, she and Palin discussed the question of library censorship in October 1996. Emmons recalls Palin asking whether Emmons would object to censorship, and recalls Palin raising the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved. In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads, stating that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature." She further added that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy" and that she did not have a specific list of books in mind. No books were removed from the library. From 1986 to 2008, several books acquired by the Wasilla Public Library were challenged by various citizens as poor selections, such as a challenge to Heather Has Two Mommies in 1997. None of the challenged books were opposed or removed by Palin.
Finally, the issue of rape and domestic violence in Alaska. Just as a matter of interest, you should know that Governor Palin signed into law bills designed to protect victims of domestic violence and raise awareness of domestic violence crimes (House Bills 213 and 215).
HB 213, sponsored by Rep. Andrea Doll, D-Juneau, provides for the imposition of greater sentences, up to the maximum for the offense, for crimes committed on the premises of a domestic violence shelter.
“People who come to domestic violence shelters need to know that they are safe and protected,” Governor Palin said. “They need to know that they are not in harm’s way when they come to a shelter.”HB 215, sponsored by Rep. Anna Fairclough, R-Eagle River, establishes the Task Force to Review the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. This task force would prepare and present a report to the full Legislature by March 1, 2008 – and then will be repealed on April 16, 2008. The task force would bring members of the Legislature and administration together with members of the public to have frank and comprehensive discussions about the council and the issues it addresses.
I've watched a lot of political coverage, I've read a lot of political news, columns, opinions and blogs. I've tried to get stories from both sides of the issues so that I can have an understanding of both sides. And I'm telling you right now, this election is being won not only by low down underhanded moves from groups like ACORN (who claim quite loudly to be non-partisan, a fact disputed by numerous videos of ACORN conventions, ACORN workers and ACORN policies), but also by the media. I have no idea why the media is so determined to elect Obama, but if any of you out there don't believe that to be the case, you are either woefully ignorant or willfully blind. Obama has gotten a pass on his relationship with Bill Ayers, his affiliation with ACORN and his 20 year membership in a racist, "white America" hating church that was run by one of the most vocal racists in recent history. He gets a pass on his voting record in the Illinois State Senate, where he apparently couldn't manage to stand for anything, opting to vote present rather than vote a position. What has he not gotten a pass on? For those of you who claim that he has answered questions regarding these things, tell me what those answers where. Tell me where Obama answers honestly. He hasn't. He's danced around the subjects and the media has let him. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has been eviscerated at every single turn. She has been called every name in the book, she has had her integrity, her parenting skills and her intelligence questioned. She's been mocked at every level, she's been subjected to sexist remarks and she's even had her devotion to her Down Syndrome child called "pandering to the pro-choice crowd". I don't know how this woman has stood up under this nightmare. I don't know how she hasn't hit back at some of these people who are so intent upon tearing her life apart. I don't know how she has kept her sanity. All of this strife, all of these untruths, all of the vitriol and hate...and this woman gets up in front of crowds of Americans every day with her head held high, always on message and always with a positive attitude. And some of you question whether or not she could handle life with the "big boys" in Washington and around the world. Sarah Palin has proven she can handle them. And much, much more.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
More Walking the Walk - Not Just Talking the Talk
Here's yet another reason why I, a woman, support John McCain for President of United States of America: McCain actually walks the walk when it comes to equal pay for women.(for the full story, click here)
Actually, a case could be made that McCain does more than walk the walk, as his female staffers actually average slightly more in salary than his male staffers. The story linked to above deals with McCain, Obama and Hillary Clinton with regards to the number of women each had on staff compared to the number of men, as well as compared the salaries for both.
From the above referenced article:
Both McCain and Clinton also employed more female than male staffers, while Obama employed more males than females. However, Obama's staff was more balanced between male and female staffers than either McCain's or Clinton's. Also, McCain and Clinton had more female than male staffers making six-figure salaries, while Obama had more male than female staffers making six-figure salaries.
The reason I find this information so telling is this (from another article that you may read in its entirety by clicking here):
While Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has produced a television ad criticizing Sen. John McCain’s position on equal pay for women and pointing out that women in America are paid only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, Obama pays his own female Senate staffers, on average, only 78 percent of what he pays male staffers.
The referenced Obama campaign ad says:
“Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. It’s just one more thing John McCain doesn’t get about our economy.”
It goes on to say that McCain said equal pay would be "a burden on business". That is not what McCain said regarding equal pay, it was what he said regarding the Ledbetter legislation proposed by Dems (more on that in just a bit). Meanwhile, also from the article:
NOW President Kim Gandy did not view the pay disparity as a problem. “It depends on what positions they’re in,” Gandy told CNSNews.com. “Certain positions are paid more than other positions. I do know quite a number of women very high up in his staff and in his campaign who are extraordinarily strong supporters of women’s rights. We don’t advocate people be hired because of their gender. We advocated people be hired and paid without regard to their gender.”
Okay, first of all, I just gotta say...how dumb of a statement was that? The part about "I do know quite a number of women very high up in his staff and in his campaign who are extraordinarily strong supporters of women's rights". Well, duhhhhhhh. If they're women, one would hope they would be supporters of women's rights, wouldn't one? Anywho...other than that goofy part, I agree with the general assessment of reasons for equal pay. It does depend on what job someone is doing, how long they've done it, etc. I will even go further and say I advocate paying someone based on ability and aptitude, not gender or race or hair color or shoe size or batting average or any other criteria (unless you are a player in Major League Baseball in which case that batting average issue would be of some importance, obviously).
The point as I see it, though, is that Obama's camp made this big deal out of saying that McCain does not understand the economy because he doesn't support equal pay when it would appear that Obama doesn't understand or "get it" too well himself. I'm simply not seeing how McCain has illustrated his so-called "not understanding" of equal pay - he seems to have a firm grasp of that concept, certainly within his own staff. The only other thing I've found regarding John McCain and equal pay has to do with Lilly Ledbetter. Anybody remember her name being brought up in the 3rd debate? Obama brought up the legislation regarding Ms. Ledbetter during the debate as a supposed example of McCain's unwillingness to support women. If you remember, McCain very firmly called that legislation "a trial lawyer's dream" and I believe he was right about that. This whole accusation of McCain's failure to support women came from McCain’s reservations about a bill that would overrule the Supreme Court’s take on a technical statute of limitations issue. The bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, is named after the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case at issue, Ledbetter v. Goodyear. The Court rejected Lilly Ledbetter’s claim that Title VII’s statute of limitations is reset with each paycheck, declining to establish a special rule for pay discrimination cases. Regardless of what you may think of the technical issue in the Ledbetter case (and I happen to think it does bear some looking at), it's sheer bull-hockey to equate McCain's opposition to overruling the decision with opposition to equal pay for women. I think this country is lousy with lawyers willing to sue anybody over anything and I wholeheartedly agree with having laws in place to prevent too much of that nonsense. As I alluded to earlier, though, I also happen to believe that the Ledbetter case brought to light some interesting aspects of the fair pay laws that should be addressed and looked at, but the sort of sweeping legislation that the Dems tried to pass through is not the answer. As far as the issue of equal pay goes, please keep in mind that pay discrimination against women legislation has been in place since the 1963 Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As John McCain was serving in the United States Navy during those time periods and not the United States Congress, I think it'd be a tad bit disingenuous for the Obama camp to claim McCain either supported or opposed that particular legislation.
I see this as another example of the differences in the candidates. John McCain is certainly "walking the walk" on this issue and not just "talking the talk". What do you think?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
And the Darwin Award Goes To.....
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
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Call me "adaptable"
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:
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: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.
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...