Scandal Brewing OR Who's Under the Bus This Week

The media has given a free pass to the Democrats by and large because the president and Republicans in general were a more popular target for venom and ridicule. So here we have this economic situation fueled largely by dropping dollars from the mortgage "crisis" (did you ever notice how every liberal issue is a "crisis"?) Anyway, where is the outcry in the media about these stories? They go very high up in the DNC echelon and hardly anyone is giving them page one treatment. Where's the angst folks? Where's the accusations and calls for censure? Pay special attention to the very close alliance between current and former Countrywide executives and the Obama campaign. Heck, one of them is vetting potential VP candidates. *pensive" Do you think that the views potential candidates have toward litigation of the folks involved with subprime loans will play into who is chosen? Just wondering
Story One
Story Two
Story Three
Story Four

About Eggs

(Cross posted at N.I.C.E.)
Remember when you were nine or ten and you sent away for the packets of seeds or greeting cards to sell? Remember how reluctant neighbors and relatives were to buy those seeds? But you had already made PLANS. You were going to buy a horse or travel the world or get a new mitt. You mother at some point told you
"Don't put all of your eggs in one basket." meaning that you can't assume that because something is supposed to work out one way, that you can insure it will work out that way.

Now consider ethanol. Our Congress has virtually forced corn based ethanol down our throats. Never mind that it was based on erroneous assumptions that we had endless supplies of corn. Never mind that the model it was based upon used more efficient sugar based ethanol. Never mind the way it slows down the refining system with the way it has to be handled. Never mind that corn is a source of animal feed and as such has forced the prices on all animal based food items to rise precipitously. No let's just go on our merry way and assume that because we are nice people and think good "green" thoughts, everything will be hunky dory.

Well boys and girls, everything is NOT hunky dory. In fact, with the recent rain and flooding, corn crop projections are lower. Do you think the good farmers and farm corporations are going to say no to ethanol subsidies? Do you think Congress will back away from keeping the likes of Al Gore and George Soros happy? Of course not. So read the story below and start finding a way to grow, hoard or otherwise obtain your own food because unless something changes soon (and not in the political acceptable way) food is going to skyrocket.

Story here.

New Blog

Because I have gotten fed up with the nonsense coming out of the minds and mouths of our elected officials, I have decided to start another blog for discussion of removing incumbents from office. When our founders were deciding who would govern, I am sure they didn't have in mind that anyone would willingly stay in office for an entire career. The system was designed that individuals would do their public service for awhile and then go home. What is missing from today's political scene is the going home part. How do we have anything remotely resembling true representative government when we have folks like Senator Byrd, who by all accounts is very feeble and only conducts subcommittee meetings with the oversight of his aide, or Ted Kennedy, who hasn't been coherent for years even before he became ill. It was never meant to be a lifestyle. Yet our elected officials get health care, retirement and other benefits that most of us can only dream about-and it's all on our backs because we are footing the bills. I will try to post timely links to articles supporting the premise that ALL incumbents need to go home. Right now much is made in the media of how low President Bush' rankings are, but few people know that Congress, the Democrat controlled Congress, has much lower rankings. They are doing nothing to benefit anyone but themselves and their cronies. So give it a look-see, the link is in the blog title for this article.

Who's In Your Corner (Not!)

You can turn on any newscast and the top story is the economy. The corollary story is the price of oil. Supposedly, people think the President has the power to "do something about the price of oil." Not so. The Executive branch can only act upon laws and bills passed by Congress. So what has Congress done lately to lower the price of oil? If the price is based on supply and demand, you would think that the reduced demand, as cited in the news, would help. Not so-the supplies were lowered by foreign producers to keep prices high. So the next step would be to increase domestic production. But the folks who are running the committees in Congress are now headed and filled with appointees from Pelosi and company. So what did the Congressional subcommittee do for you yesterday? They denied any drilling for oil of of Florida. But that's just for AMERICAN companies. It seems that Cuba, China AND India are all drilling from the same oil field just outside the 50 mile line from shore. The rest of the world is profiting from OUR resources, and then selling them back to us for a profit. The Democrat controlled Congress has done NOTHING to stem this, they insist on following a tangential line of quasi-environmentalism that is leading us to deny our own citizens a safe lifestyle. The case could easily be made that if, as many liberals contend, the war in Iraq was for oil, then what policy forced us to be so concerned about keeping safe our energy supply? In short, would we be in Iraq if environmentalists had prevented using our own coal and oil? And remember, while people can point fingers all they want at the White House, it's Congress that calls the shots. Oh, and by the way, the vote broke down by parties-Democrats opposing drilling, Republicans supporting it. Who's in your corner, really?

China Drills While Congress Piddles.
Subcommittee Rejects Drilling

Everything You Know Is Wrong.

It's funny how politicians predicate their fortunes on what they perceive as a stable and unchanging economic fortunes. They assume that the poor folks they champion today will always be poor, and that the rich folks they villainize will always be rich. Well that's not exactly true. It seems that of men born in the bottom 25% of income, 32% of them end up in the top 25% of income. And vice versa. The Romans used to have a goddess called Fortuna, who was to be appeased for her flippant ways. Perhaps politicians would do well to recall that those they help now, may curse them down the road for punitive taxes.
Story here.
Excerpt-or how to be a high income wage earner:
"1. High-income households are not likely to consist of one person earning a very high income (as is often assumed); rather, they are likely to have two or more income earners:
-In 2006, a whopping 81.4 percent of families in the top income quintile had two or more people working, and only 2.2 percent had no one working.
-By contrast, only 12.6 percent of families in the bottom quintile had two or more people working; 39.2 percent had no one working.
(This is Important)-
The average number of earners per family for the top group was 2.16, almost three times the 0.76 average for the bottom.

2. Census data show a large difference in full-time work and in the number of weeks worked in a year.
-Less than one-third of families in the lowest quintile had a head of household working full-time; in the top quintile, more than three-fourths of families did.
-Thus, average families in the top group have many more weeks of work than those in the bottom and, in the late 1970s, the 12-to-1 total income ratio shrunk to only 2-to-1 per week of work, according to one analysis.

3. Workers tend to start out at a low income, increase their earnings with experience, and then have lower incomes late in their careers or in retirement. For example, peak earnings typically occur in the 35-to-54 age group. However:
-In the bottom income quintile, only one-third of households are headed by someone 35 to 54; whereas, in the top quintile, more than half of household heads are in that age range.
(I want you to consider seriously the large number of single parent families in certain demographic groups AND the much earlier age of first pregnancy for those single mothers-THIS more than anything is a predictor of poverty.)
-The bottom group also has a much larger proportion of household heads more than 75 years of age — 11.5 percent versus 2.3 percent for the top group.
(This is also the result of drug/alcohol abuse that has left many grandparents in charge of raising grandchildren. So the sex and drug revolution did produce some casualties.)
-The bottom also has more young heads of households ages 15 to 24 — 10 percent

So, if you want to be wealthy, get an education, don't do drugs or alcohol, and don't have babies out of wedlock. Gee, where have I heard this all before?

It's Not Easy, or Cheap, Being Green

An interesting break down of what Texas would have to pay in terms of higher costs for energy if certain measures make their way through Congress is Here.
The entire study is HERE
Just keep these number in mind when you vote.

Rewriting History

One of the scariest aspect of political correctness is the rampant attempt to force errant facts into the mix. Facts, as they say, is facts. Yet folks like Spike Lee play fast and loose with history and try to shape it into their own image. If this were a movie about the Buffalo Soldiers, it would be ridiculous and out of place to have Anglos, Hispanics and Asians in roles that they did not fulfill during that time in history. During WWII, like it or not, American forces were largely segregated. A majority of the soldiers who fought and died on Saipan, Iwo Jima and other islands in the Pacific were anglo. That may not go down well with Spike Lee, but once again, it's either factual or it's not. By the way, Lee's own racial tunnel vision is open to view because he failed to acknowledge one of the Iwo Jima heroes, Hayes, who was Native American. By the way, how many non-stereotypical, rhythmless anglo people has Lee featured in his recent epics? Isn't stereotyping a kind of racism? Where are the non-smart Asians and the legal upscale Hispanics in Lee's movies? I guess it's easy to throw down with someone who is forty years older than you, but when it comes to brass tacks, Lee, you don't have a clue what fairness really is.

Conquered From Within

In the bad old days of the Cold War, Moscow claimed that they would never need to use nuclear weapons, because they would ultimately conquer us from within. Likewise, the capture of American captives pushed Americans to vote Jimmy Carter out of office due to his lackluster attempt to deal from a position of equanimity rather than dealing with the preservation of the United States as his goal. So witness this spike in oil prices
HERE
Ask yourself a few questions-
Who is raising the prices?
Answer: speculators, foreign investors and producers-this is obvious because although consumption is dropping the prices continue to rise. As I have stated before, this is just the commodity equivalent of the flipping of real estate that precipitated the mortgage situation.
Who benefits from a weakening U.S. economy?
Answer: China, India, the Middle East, oil producing nations and Europe. By the way, someone might want to enlighten them to the legend of the "Goose and the Golden Egg."
Who bears the burden of cost?
Answer: American taxpayers
What could be the ultimate goal?
Answer: A crash on the American stock market with the goal being to overtake us economically, from within.
Who bears the burden/blame for opening our borders without imposing tarriffs and insisting on trade equivalence?
Answer: Washington-from Executive branch to the Congress they have opened our borders via NAFTA, they have refused to impose limits on illegal immigration which erodes our per capita resources. Someone needs to tell them the story about "The Emperor's New Clothes" and "The Little Red Hen".
You may think I am weighing in as an alarmist, but when you see the amount of investment in American companies by foreign investors, there is ample cause for concern. Congress can point fingers all they want at the White House, and there are reasons that the Executive branch has failed to stem this situation, but Congress has had a one party majority for TWO YEARS. And in that time they have done nothing to help develop companies and the related jobs on our own soil nor have they allowed Americans to find and use domestic resources for our own welfare. Isn't it about time we stop the beauty pageant nature of this campaign and start demanding some serious answers that don't involve smoke and mirrors?

Crazy Much?

This guy obviously has some beef with his employment, but if this wasn't just a staged stunt, I wonder how close we were to seeing yet another in a series of workplace assaults. Frankly, I am surprised that it doesn't happen more often, especially in school settings. Strange days indeed.


http://view.break.com/513310 - Watch more free videos

Grade Fixing

This isn't the first time that a prime athlete from a championship level high school team has had the path made smooth for them and it probably won't be the last. What I find troubling is how many administrators allow coaches to bully teachers into changing grades for star athletes. Many of these students are recognized for the athletic ability early in middle school. From that point on, it is a struggle between the easy life of allowing the system to cover or the real educational experience where you win and lose on the field and in the classroom. What is more problematic still is that the teacher who made this public had taken reasonable action to allow the student to bring up his grade, but the student seldom attended class. After the teacher returned the grade to a failing level, the student was moved to another, probably more amenable, teacher. A former English teacher from this same school confirmed this complaint and a petition of twenty teachers have met with the Dallas ISD officials for quite awhile to make this situation change. But in the end, due to site based management, administrators have a great deal of power in saying who will stay and who will go. The teacher that made this story public is going to see his job eliminated by, you guessed it, the administrator-Mrs. Dixon-who supported and instigated much of the grade changing. I know it seems like I am beating the same old drum, but people at some point we have got to stop glorifying athletics over academics. We aren't doing these students any favors by passing them up the line because at some point, their eligibility runs out. And without job skills, they will end up the walking wounded that haunt crack houses and show up on "Cops". I kid you not, I can see the writing on the wall with some of these students. It's pretty scary.

Educating Homeless Children

There is no question that our poorest children are not well served by our society. If their parents are well enough to have a job, the children often end up cycling through schools, relatives and addresses and the result is there is no continuity in their educational experience. It used to be that parents would try to stay in one place for most of their children's school years because of the old addage "Give your children roots, and wings!". These days, we have parents who think nothing of burdening very young children with the adult responsibilities of feeding, clothing and housing the family. This is the reason so many children drop out of school, to work. But in doing so, they also leave behind huge opportunities to learn life and professional skills which will help them avoid the pitfalls of homelessness. So in the linked story, Chicago schools are proposing to create boarding schools for children from homeless families. Right now there's a great deal of outcry regarding putting a wedge between parents and children. That is a concern. But what bothers me much more is that schools are already in the position of feeding, providing health services and providing after school care, so how much more can we provide or should we provide? I can see that there are economic concerns about providing housing and services for children, but on the other hand, aren't we practically doing that now?

Let's look at the positive side. Without having to strive to provide housing, meals and clothing for their children, homeless adults can get on with the business of healing and finding meaningful, sustaining work. And without having to shift schools on a whim, our poorest children will have the educational opportunities afforded by having a stable living situation. While this is definitely a solution that must have the bugs worked out, with the sword of AYP and NCLB, our schools have to demonstrate that ALL populations are improving. Sadly, that simply will not happen if children are relegated to homeless shelters with parents who cannot or will not take the necessary steps to improve their lives.

Our Demanding Society

The basic laws of economics centers around the
concept known as "supply and demand".

For example, let's say you really like Chocolate donuts, and in fact everyone you know likes Chocolate donuts. If there is only one donut shop in town (which in fact would be a local monopoly) they could charge five bucks a donut if they wanted, because there was no other way to get scrumptious, delicious, warm chocolate donuts. Now let's imagine if in this same town, a SECOND donut shop opened up. They could set their price at four dollars, which would still be high, but lower than the existing shop. The other shop would lose business and be forced to LOWER their prices in order to stay competitive.

Later on down the road, a corporate bakery makes donuts by the dozen, lowering prices because now chocolate donuts were plentiful and even though the local donuts were more expensive and probably tasted better, people were willing to take a lower quality product to save a few bucks, just so long as they had the appearance of being people who could afford chocolate donuts. The local stores would downsize or close due to the overabundance of donuts, allowing the corporate bakery to make ALL the donuts for the area. But with rising costs of retirement, insurance and disability, the corporation found itself top-heavy with overpaid management and overpaid line employees. So to save the brand at all costs, the company would fire domestic employees and move the entire factory overseas-where the managers would still get hefty incomes, but the line works were paid in dollars per week instead of dollars per day. The citizens still wanted to have those desirable chocolate donuts, but now in order to keep a profit for stockholders, the company has eliminated jobs that allow money to return to the economy.

On top of that, let's assume that Congress, concerned about the increasing girth of its citizens, decides to limit the number of yummy chocolate donuts that can be made in this country. Now imagine that a factory in Indonesia makes really cheap chocolate donuts. They could sell them for a dollar a DOZEN. That would drive out the local shops and corner the business with lower grade, cheaper quality chocolate donuts. Add that the dollars would only flow OUT of the country, creating an economic vacuum. They would outsell the American corporation, buy them out and before you know it, the only thing Americans have to show for their trouble is way too much of a belly from gorging on chocolate donuts. The only solution to save the economy is to permit chocolate donut shops to open and produce the SUPPLY that the public DEMANDS.

Now let's talk about gasoline. It comes from oil. A barrel of oil yields just about 17 gallons of gas. And that's before the spa style additives demanded by certain states. Believe it or not, we have oil resources in our national territory, but we can't access it. We can't even think about accessing it. And furthermore, if you read the web, we should feel virtuous for not allowing American countries to access American resources for the benefit of the American public. Who is running this show anyway and who is in their back pocket?

While I do think that corporate honchos are getting far too much compensation for what they actually do, and while there are probably layers of management that could disappear tomorrow without ill effects, the key issue to gas prices is SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Corporate profits have remained steady. You hear the astronomical numbers of gross income, but not the facts regarding the increased cost of everything from exploration to transport. Our economy demands oil and gas. And whether you like it or not, that's not going to change very soon. For all of the pie in the sky promises, there are few meaningful alternatives right now. You can talk electric hybrids, but there are still questions about the environmental impact of the batteries, and you can talk electric cars, but if you charge a car using conventional power sources, you are using coal or natural gas-both questionable sources in terms of the environment. We can't build nuclear, we can't harness enough wind or water power, we simply don't have a viable delivery system for biodiesel or other sources. In short, we are left stranded by the same Congressional do-gooders who claim to have our best interests at heart. Our Congress has patted themselves on the back for limiting exploration off of Florida, off of the West Coast, the East Coast and Alaska. Never mind that Castro and his friends are there pumping away to have oil that will be refined in Venezuela. There comes a point in time where you have to put aside your petty bickering to look at the greater good. What good comes of $4.00 per gallon gasoline? What good does it do other than make those who struggle even less able to survive. If you answer that it makes people use mass transit, then you are a self-centered boob. While it may allow some to consider those options, how many more will it limit in terms of their ability to hold a job, go to school or get medical services? It's time to be big boys and girls and allow limited drilling in ANWR, and on the coasts. And it's time to remind those folks in Washington, who's boss.

The Danger of the "Over-Promise"

Most businesses, especially sales, will say that in order to keep customers happy, you don't over-promise. You don't promise things sooner than you reasonably think they can get there or you run the risk of making the customer mad. I am betting there's not a single person out there who went to a one hour photo booth and didn't expect their photos in sixty minutes. One of the biggest gripes people have regarding businesses these days is the lack of customer service, and disappointment over delivery, specs and such play into that.

So....
Witness the Democratic National party line where they are promising virtually everything to virtually everyone. Because of the image of the DNC as the Big Umbrella party, their party platform must address every single demographic minority's view in order to maintain the perilous status quo. Be they gay or straight, atheist or fundamentalist, regardless of religion, union, job or gender, every single person's needs MUST be addressed, even when they conflict (as in the current primary race between a woman and an ethnic minority) or when they fly in the face of common sense. Take just one example-energy. The environmentalists have been violently opposed to nuclear power for decades even when their European counterparts embraced this source.
So that leaves
solar-which doesn't have the battery or generating ability to date,
wind-which has the same problems,
hydraulic-which is also being fought by environmentalists who want to do things like get rid of Glen Lakes Dam,
coal-which they don't like even though it is our most abundant naturally occurring source of energy
natural gas-no ability exists for average folks to access this for cars at this time.
biodiesel-which is being scuttled by higher source material costs
or oil-which Cuba and China are taking from right under our noses off the coast of Florida because the Congress and DNC are so much in the back pockets of environmental groups.

And this is just one issue. Pick another-single payer healthcare, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, taxation, states rights, eminent domain, drugs, illegal immigration, voter ID-pick any issue and they have promised to any and all that their dreams will be fulfilled. Just as if the Magic Fairy showed up or a Genie in a bottle granted three wishes. But when you read such stories as those, there's always a catch or a moral attached. The moral to this story is that if you promise everything to everyone, somebody is going to be disappointed. And with the fervor and anger that has driven the last four years of media hype, if all that is on the winner's plate cannot be delivered in record time, there is going to be serious implications for the mid-terms. Lincoln said it best,

"You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you can't fool all of the people, all of the time"

Let's me add to that: "And payback is a *****"

Israel: The Real History

It has been a constant puzzle why leftists and liberals, including some prominent members of the Jewish community, continue to support politicians that espouse the elimination of Israel. This has been a cornerstone of much of the foreign policy of the liberal side of the aisle and it continues to be a cause celebre for those who are either ignorant of the goals of Hammas and their ilk, or ignorant of their own status in the world. In short, why would someone like Barbara Striesand support the militant governments that would shoot her on sight simply for her heritage, whether she practiced her faith or not? Read this commentary, which is a very thoughtful and thorough analysis of the history of the creation of Israel and the history of its oppression by neighboring Arab states.
Commentary here

Who Is Making Money On High Fuel Costs?

It would seem that Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag by trying to get Congress to pass a fuel tax holiday. While the margin of profit that oil companies make has been pretty consistent at around 8%. Granted that's better than some companies, but much less than say, Google, which had a 25% profit. To quote from CNN-which is not usually an apologist for big oil companies-

"...Even though many oil companies are reporting record profits, many people forget just how expensive it is for energy companies to engage in the oil business.

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?..."

CNN Money April 29, 2008

So exactly which entities have the most to lose if gas taxes are cut? Not the oil companies, their taxes are paid before it hits the pump. But local taxing umbrellas such as counties, states and even the federal government have a great deal to lose if such a tax holiday were passed. The Obama camp is trying to rally union opposition by citing the possibility of losing construction jobs. But then again, is this real shrinkage of the domestic job market, or will it give construction companies the incentive to stop hiring people who are not here legally? And when it comes to tax dollars going into Washington D.C. , Texans are only getting about seventy five cents or so for every dollar we send. So where's the rest of the money? We could go into the scenario from "It's a Wonderful Life" where the function of the savings and loan is explained, but the simply matter is that the money Texans don't get back in the form of projects is political payola for things like ethanol support subsidies, pet projects and celebrity endorsed programs which due to their cost only help the already wealthy. In short, while there's a noticeable reluctance to address the issue, the federal government, state governments and local towns and cities are reaping a bountiful harvest of sales taxes that become exponentially higher when they are based on per dollar sales. Everyone wins, except the consumer. Maybe someone should read them the story about the Goose that Laid the Golden Egg before all of our gooses are cooked.

The Problems with Cults

Okay.
I know that there are lots of different religions in this world.
I also know that there are lots of charlatans that take advantage of people seeking freedom from the pain of lonliness, isolation, pain or whatever.
I came across this testimony from a man, a fairly well known actor, who left the cult known as Scientology.
Here's my issue. I think that some so-called churches exist just for the benefit of the pastors or managers. I think that some so-called churches perpetuate a system of power over others with the sole purpose being to gain financially. There's no question that in any of the variety of polygamous groups, welfare fraud is a common problem. Likewise, cults prey on people who are missing something in their lives. And in the end, they become even less than they were. At any rate, despite the language, watch this video. It's pretty raw, but insightful.

Scientology: Jason Beghe Pt 2 from Mark Bunker on Vimeo.

A TAKS Upon Us

** High Priority **

There will be a staff roster for you sign off on acknowledging you have read and are aware of the following security guidelines.

Severe Weather TAKS Testing Protocol

1. Should a severe weather situation occur during testing, please remain calm. To display any kind of anxiety would be a testing irregularity and must be reported.

2. Please do not look out the window to watch for approaching tornadoes. You must monitor the students at all times. To do otherwise would be a testing irregularity and must be reported.

3. Should students notice an approaching tornado and begin to cry, please make every effort to protect their testing materials from the flow of tears and sinus drainage.

4. Should a flying object come through your window during testing, please make every effort to ensure that it does not land on a testing booklet or an answer sheet. Please make sure to soften the landing of the flying object so that it will not disturb the students while testing.

5. Should shards of glass from a broken window come flying into the room, have the students use their bodies to shield their testing materials so that they will not be damaged. Have plenty of gauze on hand to ensure that no one accidentally bleeds on the answer documents. Damaged answer sheets will not scan properly.

6. Should gale force winds ensue, please have everyone stuff their test booklets and answer sheets into their shirts...being very careful not to bend them because bent answer documents will not scan properly.

7. If any student gets sucked into the vortex of the funnel cloud, please make sure they mark at least one answer before departing...and of course make sure they leave their answer sheets and test booklets behind. You will have to account for those.

8. Should a funnel cloud pick you, the test administrator, up and take you flying over the rainbow, you will still be required to account for all of your testing materials when you land so please take extra precautions. Remember, once you have checked them out, they should never leave your hands.

9. When rescue workers arrive to dig you out of the rubble, please make sure that they do not, at any time, look at or handle the testing materials. Once you have been treated for your injuries, you will still be responsible for checking your materials back in. Search dogs will not be allowed to sift through the rubble for lost tests...unless of course they have been through standardized test training.

10. Please do not pray should a severe weather situation arise. Your priority is to actively monitor the test and a student might mark in the wrong section if you are praying instead of monitoring. I'm sure God will put war, world hunger, crime, and the presidential primaries on hold until after testing is over. He knows how important this test is.

Okay, just kidding, but honestly, sometimes the Texas Education Agency missives are just about this silly. Trust me, they are, but if i divulge what is actually going on, I would probably have to kill you, or risk losing my job. It's really become just that strange down here.

This is NOT ART.

I teach art. I also happen to be a person who truly loves animals. I am not a nut. I am not a person who blows up labs or refuses to eat meat, but I don't think that humans should deliberately cause harm or pain to animals. This person who claims to be an artist, I personally think he's just a sadistic monster, claims that by paying poor Honduran children to catch this poor sick animal, and then to chain him up and watch him die is ART. This is cruelty. This is just as bad as the stupid STUPID hoax masquerading as art perpetrated by the Yale art student who pretended to repeatedly inseminate and abort fetuses. What is WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? This is why I teach art rather than work as a professional artist. Frankly, the art communities of this world have become so jaded, so intimately entranced by that which is perverted or bizarre that art as beauty has become passe. I am ashamed to be on the same hemisphere as these sick and twisted media monkeys. I am more ashamed that they dirty the epithet of "artist" with their psychotic and cruel performances. Go here if you want to lodge a protest on this petition.
Facebook Protest Link

And It's Two, Three, Four, What Are You Paying For?

I came across this little website that outlines what the average family pays in taxes. Then it takes it to the next level and itemizes. I think you will be surprised at what we are shelling out on a per person basis for services that are wasteful or even unaccounted for. The site is linked in the title. Below is a tidbit.
"TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Jim Kessler, VP for Policy and Tess Stovall, Policy Advisor
RE: What You Paid For

If you wrote a check for more than $13,000, you would want to know exactly
what you were buying. As is it turns out, $13,000 is about what the typical working
age taxpayer paid to the federal government in 2007. That’s a lot of money for
anyone, but for a taxpayer earning about $64,000, that’s one-fifth of all earnings.
Yet nearly all taxpayers have absolutely no idea how that money is spent. At best,
they may see a pie chart which shows in broad categories how the federal
government spends its $2.9 trillion budget.

This document—essentially a receipt—shows exactly what the typical working
age taxpaying household gets for their money in dollars and cents. The question
taxpayers and policy makers should ask is “Are you satisfied?” Do you think
spending priorities should change or stay the same? Do you think you’re getting
what you and the country deserve for your payment?

What You Paid For
An Itemized Receipt for the Typical Taxpayer
The typical working age household (a household led by a person between the
ages of 25 and 59) earned approximately $63,960 and paid $13,112 in federal
income and payroll taxes in 2007.* Below is a sample of exactly what that $13,112
paid for. See our attached spreadsheet for far greater detail.
• Social Security: $ 2,662.94
• Interest Payment on National Debt: $ 1,085.29
• War in Iraq: $ 593.48
• War in Afghanistan: $ 159.82
• All other Defense: $ 2,008.01
• Medicare: $ 1,697.96
• Veterans Benefits and Health Care: $ 355.03

* The income figures are derived from a Third Way analysis of the March 2007 Current Population Survey of household finances for 2006 and adjusted slightly upward to incorporate flat, inflation adjusted 2007 income gains. The tax burden is based upon the “The Distribution of Tax Cuts: Updated Projection: 2006,” from the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute which shows that a filer with this income should expect to pay 20.5% of their income in federal income and payrolltaxes (not including the employer’s share)...."

"• Health care research (NIH): $ 132.70
• Aid to the public schools (No Child Left Behind): $ 107.55
• National Parks $ 12.25
• Roads and Bridges $ 77.15
• Renewable Energy Research $ 6.67
• International AIDS prevention $ 14.87
• The Space Program (NASA) $ 74.53
• Health Care of Low Income Families (Medicaid): $ 872.92
• Border Security Fencing $ .13
• Income Assistance for the Disabled (SSI): $ 164.95
• Agriculture Subsidies $ 98.80
• Environmental Protection (EPA) $ 34.50
• Heating Assistance for Low Income Families: $ 9.90
• School Lunch/Breakfast Program: $ 46.09
• FBI, DEA, and ATF: $ 41.46
• Pell Grants for Low Income College Students: $ 62.55
• The Post Office: $ 2.95
• Consumer Product Safety Commission: $ .29
• Members of Congress and Staff: $ 8.44
• The President and White House Staff: $ .18
• The IRS $ 48.53
• Pork Barrel Projects: $ 60.45
• CIA: $ ???.??+

+ If we told you; we’d have to kill you. All sources for program spending come from the agency
budgets submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 with the exception of the following: War in Iraq and Afghanistan spending comes from the Congressional Research Service;earmarks/pork projects comes from Citizens Against Government Waste. All figures relate to fiscal year 2007 spending.

Why do we use “working age households” for this analysis? Working age households—households headed by people between the age of 25–59—represent approximately two-thirds of the adult population. Many younger filers (teenagers and the like) skew the median income level lower and many file separately so that they can get a lower tax rate than their parents. Old filers, particularly seniors, get most of their money through benefit transfers like Social Security, or other sources like pensions andinvestments. This income is taxed very differently than work income.

We're Not In Kansas Anymore

As a departure from politics, how about a dose of REALITY? Last night our home had a brush with a tornado. The warnings went out and the wall cloud was visible. How we dodged the bullet is beyond me because two blocks north of us thirty foot tall trees were TWISTED from the ground. Roofs were missing and those big electric towers were torn and crumples like cheap toys. Serious stuff to those of us in the Belt Buckle of Tornado Alley. As just a caveat, no matter where you live, you owe it to yourself and your family to have a viable emergency plan. My son and I hid in the bathroom with our dog and realized that if the power went off, we had no battery powered radio to know when it was safe. It pays to know what is happening. Stay safe and make sure you know what is going on around you. My son living at college had no clue we were under a tornado warning with countless set downs. That kind of oblivious attitude could be dangerous. I am buying him a weather radio whether he likes it or not.

Where Are Our Heroes?

This isn't an empty question. I don't know if heroes exist on an everyday basis or if they are only recognized long after their acts of heroism. I am sure there are those whose simplest acts qualify as efforts above and beyond the norm. I am equally sure that most of us could and should do more, but we slog through our daily lives avoiding hard questions and major impasses. I guess that would be a good analogy for modern life, we seek to be like streams that flow around the damn with all the rising water rather than being the wave that breeches that same damn then crashes to the ground. I think many of our heroes are dying. The few WWII vets left are diminishing on an hourly basis, their stories untold. Korean War, Vietnam, Bosnia, Afghanistan, even the cops and EMT's on their daily tours of duty simply try to make it through the day. But unlike you and me, they have to wake up and do it all over again. Is is any wonder that our kids are so aimless? Their heroes are the "anti-hero"-the flawed thug sprouting hubris and regret. What sort of role model is this that works his actions for self over selflessness? There used to be a saying "Show me your friends and I'll show you your future." Instead perhaps it should be, "Show me your heroes, and I'll show you your fate."

Al Sez: Skeptics Aren't "Real" Scientists-HA!

His HolierThanThouness the Enviropope AlGore I has said that global warming skeptics are intellectual lightweights unable to fathom the depth of the Global Warming scenario. Seems like most of the hot air is coming from him and his brain trust-such intellectuals as Leo DiCaprio. Wow. I am underwhelmed.
Global warming skeptics are not real scientists? April 3rd, 2008 · posted by Mark Landsbaum

Al Gore says global warming skeptics are not real scientists.

Zat so? How about these guys:

Dr. Edward Wegman–former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”

Prof. Paul Reiter–Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”

Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski–world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”

Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”

Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”

Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

The aforementioned can be found at Amazon.com from whence this list was drawn. Gee, these fellas must be in Exxon’s pocket, eh?"

Easy to Be Cruel

Big Oil is a massive Sitting Duck on the pond of government life. People see the prices rising at the pump, they hear tidbits about CEO's with golden parachutes and it makes for good politics for the Big Boys and Girls in DC to call these oil honchos on the carpet. I would agree, corporate compensation has been over the top. But likewise, they are the guys who end up carrying their heads after an especially vicious internal debate and they don't get paid that money for not having had any experience. Give the devil his due-these folks didn't just drop in on Exxon the day after getting their BA's. So for all the anger that the American public has for oil, oil pricing and such consider the following:
"Last year the big five oil companies made around $123 billion in profits. Pretty strong. But what was their profit margin? Around 9%. Same as the year before and the year before that. The politicians can't pander to the dumb masses by slamming profit margins ... so they play the dishonest game of slamming the gross profits, and the media lets them skate. They start talking about "windfall" profits. Tell me ... how is it a windfall profit when the profit margin is remaining effectively the same? Some windfall..."-http://boortz.com
While you are at it casting stones, aspertions and innuendoes (and at the same time being politically motivated by an increasingly biased major media) consider the Big Who Else is profiting from increases in oil prices. And that Big Who Else are ALL THE TAXING ENTITIES including Your City or Town, Your County, Your State and Your Nation. All tax rates are based on a per dollar sale. So for all those people who think that this hurts our country, think again. It hurts THE PEOPLE, but all those taxing entities are flat rolling in dough. And by the way, that money isn't necessarily coming back home because the way of porkbarrel spending is that money goes wherever the head guy or gal says it goes. So look for those cushy public works projects to head to states that the Democrats need in November. And that means, boys and girls, we are going to end up paying $4.00 a gallon so that the DNC can win. How do you like them apples?

Kerplunk - Common sense from Down Under: Earth Hour. Putting the 'mental' back in environmental.

Kerplunk - Common sense from Down Under: Earth Hour. Putting the 'mental' back in environmental.

Letter To My Governor

The University of Texas has one of the most lucrative resources of funding in the United States. It's the largest university in numbers and one of the better known state schools. Having the large numbers of students in the Austin location as well as across the state, the average person has to wonder why the University of Texas Board of Regents continues to raise tuition. The answer is: Because they can. Until other parents, citizens and taxpayers demand transparency and accountability in the budgeting system, state schools will continue to nickel and dime the average student to the poorhouse all the while funding athletic programs that only serve a small microcosm of the university student population. And this doesn't even start to consider the many and varied fees imposed on a per hour basis for services and amenities that many students never use. BTW for a little perspective, Mack Brown, UT's football coach, will be paid $2.6 MILLION this year. I am sure all those kids working two or three jobs to try and take 12 hours per semester will appreciate that when they can't even see a game because alums get all the good seats at Memorial Stadium and besides, they have to work that day any how. Anyway, here's part of the letter I wrote to Rick Perry. He probably won't read it. I doubt anyone in Austin reads much of what is sent to them. They can't be if this stuff just keeps going on the way it is.

Sir:
This time has come to rein in the state universities in terms of tuition increases. While it is easy to for the schools to assume that students and families can just take out further loans, this is not always the case. Many students, such as my own children, work to pay their own way. When tuition increases, on top of penalties for retaking classes-which is sometimes required for the major in music, dance and theater-or for taking longer than four years to graduate, it places students in a difficult position. Students who work have to work more hours in order to pay higher tuition. That means there are less hours available to be in class which in turn means that the student is penalized for taking too long to graduate. Everywhere students turn, there's yet another surcharge or fee. And where is the transparency on the use of those fees? Many students are charged for services they never use. Why should a student who has no interest in athletics have to pay based on a per credit hour basis to support those programs? And by the way, this really seems ironic since the UT Board of Regents hired a football coach for a very hefty salary. So what are the priorities of these schools? It surely doesn't seem to be educating the average kid, but instead it seems to be to build farm programs for the NFL and NBA. Oh, and you will see a copy of this posted on my blog.

Through The Cracks

A friend of mine's husband teaches fifth grade math in an urban school. He got this note last week:
"Dear Mr.-----
My step-daughter is repeating fifth grade this year. She started school in Mexico and for two years just basically had play time. Since then, she has been in eleven schools. Her mother can't help much because she doesn't speak English. I have six kids to care for so I don't have time to help. What I want to know is what you are going to do to make sure she doesn't fall through the cracks?

Signed (Concerned Step-Father)"

This kid has the deck stacked against her, but I don't see that it's the fault of the school. Her own mother hasn't bothered in at least nine years to try to learn English. She has moved her daughter to eleven different schools in three years meaning that the child has changed textbooks, teachers, classmates and procedures around every three months. The step-father is too busy, too unconcerned, too overworked to do anything,
YET
It's the problem that the schools must solve.

Does anyone else get the idea that there is something wrong with this picture?
I could speculate that this child has parents who skip out on leases and buy and drop cell phone numbers by the month. They probably rely on the schools for meals, for health referrals, for daycare, for ESL, for early childhood education and countless other costly measures that the schools have been legally mandated to provide. And for the most part, the schools will try to fulfill these goals. But every night this child will go home to the same family that sees the schools as the Big Nanny that will keep the kid busy while the parents do whatever it is that they do during the day. Bad grades won't matter. Bad test scores that can impact entire faculties, won't matter. Because all many people see when they send their kid to school is something they get for free-something other people pay for-soemthing that many other nations only provide for the wealthy.

English On The Job

Story here.
I can understand the confusion of the woman who was required to speak English on the job. I mean, where else in our society do we currently support these goals? We have schools all in Spanish, we have TV, radio and newspapers all in Spanish. There are grocery stores where you can't even be hired to work unless you are fluent in Spanish. Even the DISD removed experienced teachers and replaced them with less experienced, but Spanish speaking, instructors. But here's the bottom line-when you are working at a job that requires technical know-how, you must be able to efficiently communicate problems. And you can't do that if you don't speak the language. Now telling the employee not to say "hola" is coming down a bit hard, and I would like to know if that in fact happened or was made up. But the issue is that we cannot continue to function in any aspect of this country if we cannot communicate. You wouldn't want a nurse in surgery or an EMT at a fire to be unable to convey what was happening. And in a technical or assembly situation, there could be safety issues or construction issues that would make serious errors or cause accidents. Lack of communication is no laughing matter in the workplace because failure to tell supervisors of dangerous situations leads to accidents. How many gas lines have been cut simply because the signs were placed to communicate the danger or the heavy equipement operator could not or did not read the warnings? So I am sure there will be the usual hoopla from the usual suspects shouting racism and claiming injury, but in the end, at the workplace if English is what is used in the operation of the business, then that's the rules and you abide by them.

PS. I still think if all the English language networks have to provide SAP captioning, that Univision and others should offer English language captioning. Who knows, maybe all of us would learn another language that way

Another View of Rev. Wright's Foot In Mouth Situation

I came across this online and thought that excerpts might be interesting to folks. This does have quite a bit to do with how Mr. Obama approaches issues and says a great deal about what his idea of equality might be. Don't you know HIllary's operatives are combing every piece of footage they can find on Rev. Wrights diatribes (I won't honor them by calling them sermons because sermons are about faith and this is partisan politics plain and simple.)
Entire article here.

"The Obama Crash and Burn
If he acts as if the Wright controversy is behind him, it's over for Obama.

By Victor Davis Hanson

The latest polls reflecting Obama’s near-collapse should serve as a morality tale of John Edwards’s two Americas — the political obtuseness of the intellectual elite juxtaposed to the common sense of the working classes.

For some bizarre reason, Obama aimed his speech at winning praise from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and Harvard, and solidifying an already 90-percent solid African-American base — while apparently insulting the intelligence of everyone else.

Indeed, the more op-eds and pundits praised the courage of Barack Obama, the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable.

The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism. We learn now that Obama is the last person who wants to end the establishment notion that a few elite African Americans negotiate with liberal white America over the terms of grievance and entitlement — without which all of us really would be transracial persons, in which happiness and gloom hinge, and are seen to do so, on one’s own individual success or failure.

Instead there were the tired platitudes, evasions, and politicking. The intelligentsia is well aware of how postmodern cultural equivalence, black liberation theory, and moral relativism seeped into Obama’s speech, and thus was not offended by an “everybody does it” and “who’s to judge?/eye of the beholder” defense. But to most others the effect was Clintonian...."

"...The more the pundits gushed about the speech, the more the average Americans thought, “Wait a minute — did he just say what I thought he said?” It’s not lost on Joe Q. Public that Obama justified Wright’s racism by offering us a “landmark” speech on race that:

(1) Compared Wright’s felony to the misdemeanors of his grandmother, Geraldine Ferraro, the Reagan Coalition, corporate culture, and the kitchen sink.

(2) Established the precedent that context excuses everything, in the sense that what good a Wright did (or an Imus did) in the past outweighs any racist outburst of the present.

(3) Claimed that the voice of the oppressed is not to be judged by the same rules of censure as the dominant majority that has no similar claim on victim status.

What is happening, ever so slowly, is that the public is beginning to realize that it knows even less after the speech than it did before about what exactly Obama knew (and when) about Wright’s racism and hatred. .."

Feminism At College is On It's Way Out

For quite a few years universities across the globe have promoted a type of political correctness that included the creation of various departments and majors in things such as Women's Studies (sometimes called Womyn's Studies-to have no association whatsoever with the male of the species) as well as a rainbow of minority inspired programs in culture, anthropology and literature. Being a far more socialist society, the UK was a bastion of all things politically correct. So imagine my surprise and delight in reading the following article! Too many dollars have been wasted subsidizing programs that very few students want just to be able to wave the banner of diversity. Now that money is tighter, and now that this generation's students are far more savvy with their educational demands that their parents were, the time has come for universities to get rid of programs that don't sustain enrollment.
Excerpt:
"Feminist scholarship has become predictable, tiresome and dreary, and most young women avoid it like the plague," said Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for public policy research in Washington and author of Who Stole Feminism? "British and American societies are no longer patriarchal and oppressive 'male hegemonies'. But most women's studies departments are predicated on the assumption that women in the West are under siege. What nonsense...."
Story here.

When Barry Became Barack

I found this article from Newsweek very interesting because if we are going to continue with what amounts to a rush to coronation, we must know what makes this man tick. I am not faulting his early years or his upbringing-all kids want to "fit in" and be part of the crowd. What I found a bit disturbing was this segment in which Mr. Obama's memory of the situation differs greatly with that of his friend. And this detail gives us a little insight into how awkward and how much Mr. Obama's African American heritage plays into his political spiel. The story itself is linked to the headline above.
Excerpt:
"Back in Hawaii in the 1970s, it could seem that everyone was some kind of a minority. The fact that Obama was half-black and half-white didn't matter much to anyone but Obama, Kakugawa says: "He made everything out like it was all racial." On one occasion, Obama thought he'd gotten a bad break on the school basketball team because he was black. But Kakugawa recalls his father's telling the teenager, "No, Barry, it's not because you're black. It's because you missed two shots in a row." (Here, Kakugawa's memory is different from Obama's. The Ray character in the book is the one obsessed with being discriminated against.)....."

The Movie Juno is NOT Reality.

Many people applauded the movie "Juno" for what they saw as a positive affirmation of life. I teach high school and I am angered by the messages the mainstream media sends to our kids. As teens we heard "if it feels good,do it" the result being that we had a generation that spent far too much time feeling their way through life without doing much. Two generations later, we have some segments of our community were 70% of the children are born to single parents. Sure, there are success stories. Their are young mothers who move on, who get educated and who raise their children responsibly. But there are also those young women who see messages such as are put out there by Hollywood and TV networks and other such purveyors of what is seen as the "enlightened message" that say women can do it all. Teenage girls are not women. They are children. And these children are having babies. For every girl who is successful, there are ten who are not. These girls drop out of school, they invite a parade of questionable men into their lives and those of their children. Their kids are more likely to be poor, to suffer from disabilities, to be hungry, to be abused and to die at the hands of those who claim to want them. Not a week goes by that we hear about another "mommy's boyfriend" or even "mommy" who thinks it's okay to simply take a child's life. And the courts and criminal justice system don't help when murdering a child gets far less punishment that killing an adult. I am not alone in this sentiment, but if you think this is just a conservative view, here's a column from Slate-a far more liberal online mag-and they share the same views with details.
Excerpt:
...I get letters all the time that describe the turbulence that results from deciding marriage is archaic. Sometimes the writers start with a conflicted sense of hope. "My ex is rather immature and irresponsible. I had a recent fling with him that resulted in pregnancy. I am overjoyed with the impending arrival of my baby, but I fear that no one else in my life will feel the same way." This is followed by more conflicted and less hopeful letters when the kids are small. "My boyfriend and I have a child who is almost 2. He also has a daughter and I have two other children. We bought a home together, but a week before we were about to move in, he left me. Now it's four months later, and he's bought me an engagement ring, but I found out he had a girlfriend during the time we were split." "I have two children with my ex-boyfriend. We broke up because last year a paternity test he was ordered to have came back positive. Even though we are not together, I still want my kids to have a father in their life. I also know he is ignoring his new son because he wants nothing to do with the mom, but that little boy also deserves to have a male figure who cares."

Having unmarried parents can be devastating for children who start out with no cushion in life. In 1999 congressional testimony, Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution said that the increase in single-parent families—mostly due to unwed motherhood in the past few decades—"can account for virtually all of the increase in child poverty since 1970." A recent study found that the stress of early childhood poverty can literally damage developing brains.

Slate article

Another Global Warming "OOPSIE" Moment

So we have all these celebrity types who want to latch on and bask in the reflected glow of Al Gore under the dubious guise of "stopping Global Warming." Never mind that that particular moniker has recently been changed to "Global Change" which syncs nicely with someone's presidential campaign rhetoric, just pretend to go along. Well now it seems that some fairly heavy hitters who have spent more than a summer studying the weather, global currents and such are questioning the rush to judgment on the part of the Nobel committee and the Usual Suspects. Read the letter linked to the title above and the blog at Orange Punch and then ask yourself as the prices on gas rise and the demands of the liberal left further restrict domestic exploration and production if it's worth it to your family to keep throwing good money on bad science?
Bad Science

Kerplunk - Common sense from Down Under: The Islamification of France

Kerplunk - Common sense from Down Under: The Islamification of France
I've said it before but I'll keep saying it until someone pays attention.

Mexico's Economic Strategy

We've heard all the claims that a pursuing a true implementation of federal illegal immigration statutes is racist and bad. But what is the ultimate goal of the nation that supports these causes even to the point of assisting illegal entry into the U.S? Folks, we are being blindsided by a rogue government that has the goals of their oligarchy placed over those of our legal residents and citizens. One point that hasn't been discussed is how many millions of illegal immigrant are illegally accessing services amounting to possibly billions of dollars. If you look at any bar graph of federal spending, social and welfare services are double what we spend on military and defense.
Story here.

Whatever Happened to Class?

Class
" Velma: Whatever happened to fair dealing?
And pure ethics?
And nice manners?
Why is it everyone now is a pain in the a**?
Whatever happened to class?"
You must listen to the lyrics to get the irony of the song. Here are two women of dubious integrity, bemoaning the fate of manners and breeding. I see this type of whining every day. We hear about stars that are upset that their lack of circumspection in regard to their personal behavior is displayed by the paparazzi for all the world to see. And these two situations are very similar. It used to be thought that using foul language, innuendo or "cuss words" were an example of low class behavior. Yet words that would have gotten a movie banned even fifteen years ago are common every day fare for some parts of our culture. When I was a child, my parents told me that cussing was an example of someone who was too ignorant to express themselves in any other way. It was declasse. I am aware that kids cuss, and there was a period in my life when I thought I was cool by doing so because I found out that such words had the power to excite someone to action. But I outgrew that, as I like to think that most people do.

Well, sadly, most people these days don't. My kids all work in the retail and service sector. They are well mannered, they are intelligent and they understand the scope of their jobs. So why then do grown up people, thirty,forty and fifty year olds, think that it's appropriate to cuss out a kid or anyone else for a relatively minor complaint? In one case, an order was wrong, but before my son could change it, the person threw all the food at him and started cussing him out. This order included drinks that were thrown. Likewise, when a sale coupon could not be honored for a purchase in a department store, the lady in question not only cussed the staff out, but cut up her card and threw the scissors at one of the girls working. To my mind, that's assault and the police should be called. Is this rational behavior? Is this acceptable? Is this what passes for normal these days?

I ask this because I think we have all become navel gazers to a certain degree. It's all about serving "me". "Me" is the most important person in the room, the hotel, the store the hospital. "Me"s needs supersede everyone else's. Like the guy at DFW, who would not wait two minutes for my sister in law to get in the open door of the car so he could park (terminal C last night by the way)and then blocked our egress with his open door. While I could understand his wanting to get the space, was it really necessary to be so rude? We would have gladly held the space for him.

I guess I just don't get it. But then I also don't understand why please and thank you have become an issue for some folks. I hold doors open and help people when they are in need, but some segments of our society barely register appreciation as if their mere presence should entitle them to special services from any stranger who passes. Can we all grow up a little and use some common sense and common courtesy? And by the way, can some of you parents start demanding of your kids as well? Part of the reason my kids weren't allowed to watch The Simpsons until middle school is that I found his rhetoric appalling. Yet I see kids as young as kindergarten spouting off such Bart-isms to the seeming rapture of their doting parents. What may appear cute, but isn't, at five or six, can become a serious attitude issue at 14 or 15. Chew on that a minute. See the future. Take action now.

Global Warming Payola

From the New York Times comes this tidbit of interest. People tend to trust the government research more than privately funded research. But you have to wonder how well researched or documented situations regarding the environment or diet or any other of the media buzzwords are completely clear when money and government grants get in the way. Do you bite the hand that feeds you? Or do you simply create research to support whatever plans are in place?

Entire story here.

"....Now, you may trust the government agencies more than you do private companies because the agencies are supposed to be serving the public, not increasing profits for shareholders. But the officials running the agencies have their own agendas — like increasing their budgets and power and prestige, which can be done by supporting research demonstrating that there’s a terrible problem for the agency to solve. These officials are also subject to pressure from politicians and from the research establishment, which by definition tends to be more interested in work that conforms with the prevailing wisdom.

Once the fat-is-bad theory became the consensus — and was being formally promoted in federal agencies’ recommendations to the public — the officials handing out money were much more interested in finding evidence about the evils of fat than in looking at alternative hypotheses (like the carbs-are-bad theory discussed by Mr. Taubes). And research that jibed with the majority opinion was more likely to appeal to the editors and reviewers at journals as well as to journalists covering the debate. Scientists and journalists try to be open-minded, but they’re not immune to the confirmation bias that has been documented in so many experiments.

Moreover, it’s naive to think that money from industry is a monolith supporting one side of a debate. There were plenty of food companies eager to support the fat-is-bad consensus and profit by selling new low-fat products, just as there are companies — whole industries, in fact — eagerly promoting research and policies that jibe with the prevailing view on the dangers of global warming. Granted, there are companies lobbying against emission cuts because it could cost them money, but there’s plenty of potential for profit in the campaign against global warming, and energy companies are already angling for their cut.

A cap-and-trade systems for curbing carbon emissions (the kind criticized at this week’s conference) is popular in Washington in no small part because of corporate lobbyists who see a chance to make money from the carbon credits. There’s money to be made in developing alternative energy — even when it’s not so green, like the ethanol industry that has been collecting subsidies for decades. There’s money to be made by cultivating a green image. And there’s lots of money to be doled out to researchers studying climate change and new energy technologies...."

Now, Can We Drill?

I want you to consider the amount of damage that has been perpetrated in the name of environmentalism. Thanks to the China Syndrome, we stopped building nuclear power plants. And the last ones built were so challenged in the courts that their costs were three times the original plan. Thanks to other environmental programs, we can't drill off of the coasts of Florida-where one of the potentially richest oil fields is currently being illegally tapped by Cuba. We can't drill in ANWR in Alaska for fear of a dwindling caribou population. We are pushed by a Congress with eyes on rural votes to have corn ethanol in our fuel. We haven't built a refinery in 29 years. We can't use coal because of acid rain. So what are we to do?

The Ivory Tower advocates for clean air like to point to things such as hybrid cars, expensive fixes for homes and ethanol from corn-which not only reduced fuel efficiency but causes the price of gas at the pump to spike due to the necessary purging of fuel lines in order to have it added. The same people who so elegantly point to rows of cars don't stop to consider that average people cannot afford these things. And with the rising cost of fuel, everything is going to rise in cost from food to energy. It's funny how the same folks who push these ideas don't understand that those of us who work for a living can't just trash our old clunkers and spend $400 a month paying for a new car. And what's worse, they don't really seem to care.

There is the laissez-faire attitude that we "little people" can simply walk to work or turn off the air conditioning. What about the elderly, the infirm or the very young? I guess it's easy to do without air conditioning when you live in a climate were it's only needed a few weeks per year, but what are you going to tell folks in Houston, Dallas, Flagstaff, New Orleans, Phoenix or El Paso? Should we simply close shop and leave town from May until September? Should we wander around like previous generations of the Dust Bowl era?

And it goes farther than that. There's no question that the war in the Middle East has to do with national security in as much as oil is necessary to our livelihood. With Saddam in power and exercising control of the region, we would have been his virtual economic slaves. Right now, environmentalist are limiting our abilities to produce domestic fuel in so many ways, and yet they refuse to realize that these goals have forced our hand internationally. Oil is reaching record purchasing amounts, and the government makes money off of every gallon. We have reserves, we have potential sites for exploration and drilling, but the same folks who seem to be blind to the needs of everyday people are keeping us from progressing. It's the same attitude that helped Marie Antoinette lose her head. At estimated costs to the consumer of $4.00 a gallon coming soon to a neighborhood near you, isn't it time for us to stop this wasteful navel gazing nonsense and begin to use what resources we have available to tide us through until the next great wave of transportation technology comes along? Most midwives and obstetricians will tell you that an induced birth is more painful for the mother and the child. What organized environmentalism is doing to our nation now is the energy equivalent of a pitocin drip. So for the last time, NOW CAN WE DRILL?