This is a little too close for me, but I suppose it'd be ok if I wasn't wearing my glasses.
Why would you need or want something like that, though, when this is possible?
They should at least put a perch on it. Help dispel the myths that hummers don't sit or even have feet :)
My hummers have been gone for a while now; saw a couple of snowbirds the other day.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Truth about Teddy
Read it here and here:
Alexander's Essay – August 27, 2009
From The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe)
Lion of the Left
"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." --John Adams
Have you ever attended a funeral service out of respect for a friend or colleague, and left perplexed as to whom the eulogy was referring? Just once, I would like to go to a service for some disreputable rogue and have a clergyman deliver a eulogy that was faithful to the facts rather than full of fiction. (Hopefully, that won't be my own!)
I am certainly not suggesting that we should stand in judgment of any man, for that is the exclusive domain of our Creator. However, we should never abandon our responsibility to discern right from wrong.
On that note, Edward "Teddy" Kennedy (22 February 1932 -- 25 August 2009) died this week at age 77.
Kennedy spent the last 47 of his years as a senator, having been perpetually re-elected by the people of Massachusetts. This made him the third-longest serving senator -- behind Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Strom Thurmond (R-SC) -- in that chamber's august history.
Of course, a fawning Leftmedia will inundate us with non-stop coverage of Kennedy's life, featuring interviews with his political sycophants up to, and probably well after, his interment at National Cemetery. The airways and printed pages are already sodden with accolades, mostly framing the senator's life as one of great personal tragedy but great public success.
Let's take a look at both.
Kennedy was born into great wealth, privilege and political influence, the fourth son and ninth child of Joseph and Rose Kennedy. He never worked a day in a private-sector job, and like his brothers before him, he owed his political career to his father's considerable political machinations.
But, the mainstream media's reference to TK's life as one punctuated by personal tragedy is an understatement.
Before the age of 16, he had suffered through the death of his brother Joseph Kennedy Jr. (his father's heir apparent), who died when his B-24 bomber exploded over Surrey, England, during World War II, and the death of his sister Kathleen Agnes Kennedy, who died in an airplane crash in France.
In 1941 his father ordered a lobotomy for Ted's sister, Rosemary Kennedy, then age 23, because of "mood swings that the family found difficult to handle at home." The procedure failed and left Rose mentally incapacitated until her death in January 2005 at age 87.
Ted, like his brother John, developed a reputation as a serial womanizer in college. Unlike his Ivy League brothers, however, Ted was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, though allowed to return a few years later to complete his undergraduate degree.
Thanks to some election-night manipulation of returns by Old Joe, JFK was elected president in the closest race of the 20th century (49.7 percent to Richard Nixon's 49.5 percent). That paved the way for TK's victory in a 1962 U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts.
The thrill of victory was brief, however. On 22 November 1963, during a political visit to Dallas, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
In June 1964, Ted Kennedy was flying with friends on a private plane that crashed on a landing approach, killing the pilot and a Kennedy staffer. Kennedy survived but suffered severe injuries.
On 4 June 1968, Robert Kennedy, then a candidate for the Democrat Party's nomination for president, was assassinated after a Los Angeles political event. The political baton then went to Teddy, the last of the four Kennedy brothers, but his alcohol abuse and philandering would keep the presidency out of reach.
In 1969, on one of his infamous junkets to "the island" (Martha's Vineyard and Chappaquiddick), Kennedy's moral lapse would cost a young staffer her life, and would cost him any chance of becoming president.
On the night of 18 July, Kennedy left a party with an attractive young intern en route to a private secluded beach on the far side of Dike Bridge. Kennedy lost control on the single-lane bridge and his vehicle overturned in the shallow tidal water. (Note: I drove across this bridge in a large 4x4 truck a few years after this incident, and it was not difficult to keep it out of the water -- but then, I was not intoxicated.)
Kennedy freed himself from the vehicle leaving his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate in an air pocket inside the overturned car. After resting at the water's edge, he walked back to the party house, and one of his political hacks took him back to his hotel.
Nine hours later, after sobering up and conferring with political advisors and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. Kopechne's body had already been discovered.
With the help of Father Joe's connections, Kennedy was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. In his testimony, he claimed, "I almost tossed and turned... I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car." He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve two months in jail -- sentence suspended.
With Joan, his pregnant wife of 10 years, and their three children by his side, he claimed that charges of "immoral conduct and drunk driving" were false and he was promptly re-elected to his second full Senate term with a landslide 62 percent of the vote. However, his responsibility for the death of Kopechne would all but disqualify him from ever holding national office. Indeed, the moral composure of the nation differs significantly from that of his Massachusetts supporters and defenders.
Kennedy's political advocacy swung evermore to the left in the years that followed, and his personal conduct led the way.
In January 1981, Joan announced she had had enough, and they divorced.
Two Senate terms later, Kennedy was partying at the family's Palm Beach compound with his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, who was charged with the rape of Patricia Bowman during that evening. The Kennedy machine was able to undermine Bowman's charges by assassinating her character ahead of the trial.
Not surprisingly, Kennedy was an ardent backer of his friend Bill Clinton after the latter lied about sexual encounters with a subordinate White House intern in 1998.
In turn, Clinton awarded Kennedy the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which, along with the Congressional Gold Medal, is the highest civilian award in the U.S. It is designated for individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."
Setting aside all of his personal tragedies, what about the tributes and rave reviews of Kennedy's public life, his success as a legislator?
According to Barack Obama, "Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists, "No one has done more than Senator Kennedy to educate our children, care for our seniors and ensure equality for all Americans. Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adds, "Ted Kennedy's dream was the one for which the Founding Fathers fought and for which his brothers sought to realize. The Liberal Lion's mighty roar may now fall silent, but his dream shall never die."
Oh, really?
Kennedy has a very long legacy of legislative accomplishments, but not one of them is expressly authorized by our Constitution, that venerable old document he has repeatedly pledged by oath "to support and defend."
Kennedy's long Senate tenure was, in fact, defined by hypocrisy.
For example, consider that this fine Catholic boy's advocacy for abortion and homosexuality was second to none.
In regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, consider his claim during the Clinton years: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." A few years later, with his cadre of traitorous leftists at his side, Kennedy claimed, "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought."
Who can forget Kennedy's outrageous 2006 inquisition into the integrity of then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito? In 1987 when Ronald Reagan nominated Alito to be a U.S. District Attorney, Kennedy's vote was among the Senate's unanimous consent. And when Sam Alito was nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990, he again received Kennedy's vote and unanimous consent from the Senate. But after impugning Alito's character in his Supreme Court hearings, Kennedy blustered, "If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right."
Of course, Kennedy was an expert at "borking" judicial nominees. Indeed, he is responsible for the coining of the term. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated an exceptional jurist, Robert Bork, to the Supreme Court. During Bork's confirmation hearings, Kennedy proclaimed, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens." Despicable.
No agenda was more sacred to Kennedy than opposing Constitutional Constructionists in order to convert the Judiciary into what Thomas Jefferson called the "Despotic Branch" stacked with jurists who subscribe to the notion of a so-called "Living Constitution".
But among über-leftists like Kennedy, there is perhaps no greater hypocrisy than the fact that they are among the wealthiest of Americans but pretend to be advocates for the poor. Of course, they never give up their opulent trappings and lifestyles while pontificating what is best for the masses. (I have written on the pathology associated with this hypocrisy under the label "Inheritance Welfare Liberalism, or "rich guilt" if you will.)
And there is a long list of Kennedy legislation that has proven disastrous.
Second only to the looming disaster of his pet nationalized health care promotion, Kennedy led the charge for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, ending quotas based on national origin. He argued, "[O]ur cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. The ethnic mix of our country will not be upset. ...[T]he bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area..."
How did that one turn out?
Kennedy also had some dangerous dalliances with the Soviets in 1983, endeavoring to undermine Ronald Reagan's hard line with the USSR. Fortunately, his efforts did not prevail.
But Kennedy did have one thing in common with his older brothers: He had powerful oratorical skills.
At the 2004 Democrat Convention to elect his lap dog, John Kerry, Kennedy, who wrote the book on political disunity, declared to delegates, "There are those who seek to divide us. ... America needs a genuine uniter -- not a divider. [Republicans] divide and try to conquer."
Fortunately, the American people weren't buying his rhetoric -- at least not until the 2008 convention, when Kennedy joined Barack Obama's "hope 'n' change" chorus: "I have come here tonight to stand with you to change America.... For me this is a season of hope -- new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few -- new hope. And this is the cause of my life -- new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American -- north, south, east, west, young, old -- will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege."
Predictably, and before the man has even been laid to rest, there is already a rallying cry from Ted Kennedy's grave: The Left and their mainstream media talkingheads are exhorting us to fulfill the late senator's misguided mission to nationalize health care. (I checked, and the Constitution doesn't authorize this either.)
As I contemplate the life of Ted Kennedy, I am left with two primary conclusions.
First, Ted Kennedy was no JFK.
In his 1961 Inaugural Address, John Kennedy said famously, "My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." Ted Kennedy inverted that phrase to read, "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you," and in the process, turned the once-noble Democrat Party on end.
Second, a man who can't govern his own life should never be entrusted with the government of others.
One of our most astute Founders, Noah Webster, wrote, "The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities. ... In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look to his character."
In Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the first use of "government" is defined in terms of self-government, not the body of those who govern.
Despite the Left's insistence that private virtue and morality should not be a consideration when assessing those in "public service" (unless, of course, they are Republicans), the fact is that the two are irrevocably linked.
Finally, in 1968, when Ted Kennedy delivered the eulogy for his brother, Robert, he said, "My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life..."
I would hope that whoever is slated to deliver Ted Kennedy's eulogy follows that advice because we do a disservice to him and our country to suggest Kennedy was anything more than he was.
I do not know who will bestow his final tribute, but I do know it will not be Mary Jo Kopechne.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US
Alexander's Essay – August 27, 2009
From The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe)
Lion of the Left
"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." --John Adams
Have you ever attended a funeral service out of respect for a friend or colleague, and left perplexed as to whom the eulogy was referring? Just once, I would like to go to a service for some disreputable rogue and have a clergyman deliver a eulogy that was faithful to the facts rather than full of fiction. (Hopefully, that won't be my own!)
I am certainly not suggesting that we should stand in judgment of any man, for that is the exclusive domain of our Creator. However, we should never abandon our responsibility to discern right from wrong.
On that note, Edward "Teddy" Kennedy (22 February 1932 -- 25 August 2009) died this week at age 77.
Kennedy spent the last 47 of his years as a senator, having been perpetually re-elected by the people of Massachusetts. This made him the third-longest serving senator -- behind Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Strom Thurmond (R-SC) -- in that chamber's august history.
Of course, a fawning Leftmedia will inundate us with non-stop coverage of Kennedy's life, featuring interviews with his political sycophants up to, and probably well after, his interment at National Cemetery. The airways and printed pages are already sodden with accolades, mostly framing the senator's life as one of great personal tragedy but great public success.
Let's take a look at both.
Kennedy was born into great wealth, privilege and political influence, the fourth son and ninth child of Joseph and Rose Kennedy. He never worked a day in a private-sector job, and like his brothers before him, he owed his political career to his father's considerable political machinations.
But, the mainstream media's reference to TK's life as one punctuated by personal tragedy is an understatement.
Before the age of 16, he had suffered through the death of his brother Joseph Kennedy Jr. (his father's heir apparent), who died when his B-24 bomber exploded over Surrey, England, during World War II, and the death of his sister Kathleen Agnes Kennedy, who died in an airplane crash in France.
In 1941 his father ordered a lobotomy for Ted's sister, Rosemary Kennedy, then age 23, because of "mood swings that the family found difficult to handle at home." The procedure failed and left Rose mentally incapacitated until her death in January 2005 at age 87.
Ted, like his brother John, developed a reputation as a serial womanizer in college. Unlike his Ivy League brothers, however, Ted was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, though allowed to return a few years later to complete his undergraduate degree.
Thanks to some election-night manipulation of returns by Old Joe, JFK was elected president in the closest race of the 20th century (49.7 percent to Richard Nixon's 49.5 percent). That paved the way for TK's victory in a 1962 U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts.
The thrill of victory was brief, however. On 22 November 1963, during a political visit to Dallas, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
In June 1964, Ted Kennedy was flying with friends on a private plane that crashed on a landing approach, killing the pilot and a Kennedy staffer. Kennedy survived but suffered severe injuries.
On 4 June 1968, Robert Kennedy, then a candidate for the Democrat Party's nomination for president, was assassinated after a Los Angeles political event. The political baton then went to Teddy, the last of the four Kennedy brothers, but his alcohol abuse and philandering would keep the presidency out of reach.
In 1969, on one of his infamous junkets to "the island" (Martha's Vineyard and Chappaquiddick), Kennedy's moral lapse would cost a young staffer her life, and would cost him any chance of becoming president.
On the night of 18 July, Kennedy left a party with an attractive young intern en route to a private secluded beach on the far side of Dike Bridge. Kennedy lost control on the single-lane bridge and his vehicle overturned in the shallow tidal water. (Note: I drove across this bridge in a large 4x4 truck a few years after this incident, and it was not difficult to keep it out of the water -- but then, I was not intoxicated.)
Kennedy freed himself from the vehicle leaving his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate in an air pocket inside the overturned car. After resting at the water's edge, he walked back to the party house, and one of his political hacks took him back to his hotel.
Nine hours later, after sobering up and conferring with political advisors and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. Kopechne's body had already been discovered.
With the help of Father Joe's connections, Kennedy was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. In his testimony, he claimed, "I almost tossed and turned... I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car." He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve two months in jail -- sentence suspended.
With Joan, his pregnant wife of 10 years, and their three children by his side, he claimed that charges of "immoral conduct and drunk driving" were false and he was promptly re-elected to his second full Senate term with a landslide 62 percent of the vote. However, his responsibility for the death of Kopechne would all but disqualify him from ever holding national office. Indeed, the moral composure of the nation differs significantly from that of his Massachusetts supporters and defenders.
Kennedy's political advocacy swung evermore to the left in the years that followed, and his personal conduct led the way.
In January 1981, Joan announced she had had enough, and they divorced.
Two Senate terms later, Kennedy was partying at the family's Palm Beach compound with his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, who was charged with the rape of Patricia Bowman during that evening. The Kennedy machine was able to undermine Bowman's charges by assassinating her character ahead of the trial.
Not surprisingly, Kennedy was an ardent backer of his friend Bill Clinton after the latter lied about sexual encounters with a subordinate White House intern in 1998.
In turn, Clinton awarded Kennedy the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which, along with the Congressional Gold Medal, is the highest civilian award in the U.S. It is designated for individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."
Setting aside all of his personal tragedies, what about the tributes and rave reviews of Kennedy's public life, his success as a legislator?
According to Barack Obama, "Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists, "No one has done more than Senator Kennedy to educate our children, care for our seniors and ensure equality for all Americans. Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adds, "Ted Kennedy's dream was the one for which the Founding Fathers fought and for which his brothers sought to realize. The Liberal Lion's mighty roar may now fall silent, but his dream shall never die."
Oh, really?
Kennedy has a very long legacy of legislative accomplishments, but not one of them is expressly authorized by our Constitution, that venerable old document he has repeatedly pledged by oath "to support and defend."
Kennedy's long Senate tenure was, in fact, defined by hypocrisy.
For example, consider that this fine Catholic boy's advocacy for abortion and homosexuality was second to none.
In regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, consider his claim during the Clinton years: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." A few years later, with his cadre of traitorous leftists at his side, Kennedy claimed, "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought."
Who can forget Kennedy's outrageous 2006 inquisition into the integrity of then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito? In 1987 when Ronald Reagan nominated Alito to be a U.S. District Attorney, Kennedy's vote was among the Senate's unanimous consent. And when Sam Alito was nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990, he again received Kennedy's vote and unanimous consent from the Senate. But after impugning Alito's character in his Supreme Court hearings, Kennedy blustered, "If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right."
Of course, Kennedy was an expert at "borking" judicial nominees. Indeed, he is responsible for the coining of the term. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated an exceptional jurist, Robert Bork, to the Supreme Court. During Bork's confirmation hearings, Kennedy proclaimed, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens." Despicable.
No agenda was more sacred to Kennedy than opposing Constitutional Constructionists in order to convert the Judiciary into what Thomas Jefferson called the "Despotic Branch" stacked with jurists who subscribe to the notion of a so-called "Living Constitution".
But among über-leftists like Kennedy, there is perhaps no greater hypocrisy than the fact that they are among the wealthiest of Americans but pretend to be advocates for the poor. Of course, they never give up their opulent trappings and lifestyles while pontificating what is best for the masses. (I have written on the pathology associated with this hypocrisy under the label "Inheritance Welfare Liberalism, or "rich guilt" if you will.)
And there is a long list of Kennedy legislation that has proven disastrous.
Second only to the looming disaster of his pet nationalized health care promotion, Kennedy led the charge for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, ending quotas based on national origin. He argued, "[O]ur cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. The ethnic mix of our country will not be upset. ...[T]he bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area..."
How did that one turn out?
Kennedy also had some dangerous dalliances with the Soviets in 1983, endeavoring to undermine Ronald Reagan's hard line with the USSR. Fortunately, his efforts did not prevail.
But Kennedy did have one thing in common with his older brothers: He had powerful oratorical skills.
At the 2004 Democrat Convention to elect his lap dog, John Kerry, Kennedy, who wrote the book on political disunity, declared to delegates, "There are those who seek to divide us. ... America needs a genuine uniter -- not a divider. [Republicans] divide and try to conquer."
Fortunately, the American people weren't buying his rhetoric -- at least not until the 2008 convention, when Kennedy joined Barack Obama's "hope 'n' change" chorus: "I have come here tonight to stand with you to change America.... For me this is a season of hope -- new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few -- new hope. And this is the cause of my life -- new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American -- north, south, east, west, young, old -- will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege."
Predictably, and before the man has even been laid to rest, there is already a rallying cry from Ted Kennedy's grave: The Left and their mainstream media talkingheads are exhorting us to fulfill the late senator's misguided mission to nationalize health care. (I checked, and the Constitution doesn't authorize this either.)
As I contemplate the life of Ted Kennedy, I am left with two primary conclusions.
First, Ted Kennedy was no JFK.
In his 1961 Inaugural Address, John Kennedy said famously, "My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." Ted Kennedy inverted that phrase to read, "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you," and in the process, turned the once-noble Democrat Party on end.
Second, a man who can't govern his own life should never be entrusted with the government of others.
One of our most astute Founders, Noah Webster, wrote, "The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities. ... In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look to his character."
In Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the first use of "government" is defined in terms of self-government, not the body of those who govern.
Despite the Left's insistence that private virtue and morality should not be a consideration when assessing those in "public service" (unless, of course, they are Republicans), the fact is that the two are irrevocably linked.
Finally, in 1968, when Ted Kennedy delivered the eulogy for his brother, Robert, he said, "My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life..."
I would hope that whoever is slated to deliver Ted Kennedy's eulogy follows that advice because we do a disservice to him and our country to suggest Kennedy was anything more than he was.
I do not know who will bestow his final tribute, but I do know it will not be Mary Jo Kopechne.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US
Monday, August 17, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Russian antihistamine is the best bet we have against Alzheimer's
Doing my small part to spread the word:
Are We Taking the Wrong Approach to Curing Alzheimer’s?
When I get done being mad about this, I'll consider it good news.
Are We Taking the Wrong Approach to Curing Alzheimer’s?
When I get done being mad about this, I'll consider it good news.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Healthcare Reform
With the fine job Obama et al have done fixing the economy, I'm really looking forward to seeing what they can do with our nation's healthcare system.
A couple of old adages come to mind when I ponder this topic: If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Our healthcare system is in need of a few tweaks to make it work better- not a complete overhaul. Nor does it need to be thrown out and replaced, especially with a model that hasn't worked for anyone else who's tried it.
I do not have health insurance: I lost it with the divorce. That was one of the scariest parts of being on my own; I'm doing ok so far, but I know we are a small health crisis away from disaster, probably. (This wouldn't be the case if the economy was actually working now.)
If I need to, I can get healthcare at a clinic for people like me. I have gone there in the past, but haven't gone back since they quit giving appointments and started making us wait for hours, with only the hope of being able to see a doctor (first come, first served, and they wouldn't know how many they could see until time ran out).
I've been to the ER with a couple of my adult children who also don't have insurance, and in the first case it worked out well, although we refused a lot of what they would've done because we were trying to keep costs down. In the end, the visit was free, thanks to the hospital's policy of providing free care to people who qualify.
In the other case, we waited for hours and never got past intake. My son- who's in the Army Reserves- limped around for weeks till his probably broken foot healed on its own.
My ex, who still had insurance at the time, had the experience of going to a doctor and being charged an outrageous price for a small procedure. Talking to the doctor's billing department and the insurance company got nowhere. He threw a tantrum, and they decided to let it go.
My underage children are covered under the state's plan, now that their father's coverage has expired. I haven't tried to use it yet, but I heard one has to go to the other side of town to see a doctor- that's how it is here, for most things.
While I was still married and had insurance, I saw our coverage go from excellent to a step above an HMO, yet we had to pay a lot for even the cheapest plan. In the end, the doctors available as Primary Care Physicians were mostly foreigners, often had no office nearby, and overall, were a gamble as far as ability, despite the insurance company's screening process which was supposed to assure quality care.
Now Obama et al want us to throw all that out and- regardless of what they say to sell this inferior product- give us nothing but the worst of what now exists.
If they do what they want, for most of us, a visit to the doctor will involve having to wait- possibly for MONTHS- just for an appointment. When you finally do get in, you will probably find your appointment was actually for one of those cattle pen sessions such as the clinic I mentioned has degenerated to. If you get to see a doctor, and if this person knows what they're doing- which will not be a given, since the quality of doctors will surely decline once the money they can earn disappears- he/she will see what your problem is and will have to decide whether or not to treat you. This decision will be based on whether you are worth treating- are you too old; is your condition too expensive to treat; will the cost exceed the probable outcome; possibly even considering whether you contribute enough to be treated.
In addition, what treatments are available will be limited, as funds for research and development of drugs and procedures dries up, and specialists disappear.
To add insult to injury, this so-called healthcare will include abortion, sterilization, and birth control- not to mention euthanasia- all of which are morally repugnant to real Christians, who will be forced to pay for these and be seen by doctors who have no problem with them. Healthcare providers will have no choice in these matters, either, or in the rationing of care: their only options will be to quit the healthcare field, or risk the wrath of the State by following their consciences.
What Obama et al are not going to tell us is what they will do if/when they or their loved ones need care, especially life-saving care. First of all, they will probably qualify for any top-of-the-line care that still remains, since they're doing such an important job as public servants. If that fails, you can bet they will have access to any better-qualified physicians who are still around, if only because they will be able to pay them. This will probably be kept secret, since most people have a natural understanding of the the rights and equality of all men, as well as an extreme aversion to such elitism, and wouldn't tolerate this kind of deadly discrimination.
Obama is counting on his still inexplicably high approval ratings to shove this program through (and down our throats), like he did his wonderful economic reforms that have brought such bountiful blessings to the average American. He's telling his cronies to divert their attacks from their more moderate fellow Democrats (who can see that this reform sucks) to the majority of Republicans, who are fighting it because they really do care about the little guy. He needs all the Dems in Congress to back him in order to pass it.
Let's not let them get away with it, shall we?
Call, write, email, petition, picket- do whatever it takes to prevent this catastrophic decimation of our healthcare system. There is good reason why everyone who can still comes here when their lives are in danger: in spite of its flaws, ours is the best healthcare available.
A couple of old adages come to mind when I ponder this topic: If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Our healthcare system is in need of a few tweaks to make it work better- not a complete overhaul. Nor does it need to be thrown out and replaced, especially with a model that hasn't worked for anyone else who's tried it.
I do not have health insurance: I lost it with the divorce. That was one of the scariest parts of being on my own; I'm doing ok so far, but I know we are a small health crisis away from disaster, probably. (This wouldn't be the case if the economy was actually working now.)
If I need to, I can get healthcare at a clinic for people like me. I have gone there in the past, but haven't gone back since they quit giving appointments and started making us wait for hours, with only the hope of being able to see a doctor (first come, first served, and they wouldn't know how many they could see until time ran out).
I've been to the ER with a couple of my adult children who also don't have insurance, and in the first case it worked out well, although we refused a lot of what they would've done because we were trying to keep costs down. In the end, the visit was free, thanks to the hospital's policy of providing free care to people who qualify.
In the other case, we waited for hours and never got past intake. My son- who's in the Army Reserves- limped around for weeks till his probably broken foot healed on its own.
My ex, who still had insurance at the time, had the experience of going to a doctor and being charged an outrageous price for a small procedure. Talking to the doctor's billing department and the insurance company got nowhere. He threw a tantrum, and they decided to let it go.
My underage children are covered under the state's plan, now that their father's coverage has expired. I haven't tried to use it yet, but I heard one has to go to the other side of town to see a doctor- that's how it is here, for most things.
While I was still married and had insurance, I saw our coverage go from excellent to a step above an HMO, yet we had to pay a lot for even the cheapest plan. In the end, the doctors available as Primary Care Physicians were mostly foreigners, often had no office nearby, and overall, were a gamble as far as ability, despite the insurance company's screening process which was supposed to assure quality care.
Now Obama et al want us to throw all that out and- regardless of what they say to sell this inferior product- give us nothing but the worst of what now exists.
If they do what they want, for most of us, a visit to the doctor will involve having to wait- possibly for MONTHS- just for an appointment. When you finally do get in, you will probably find your appointment was actually for one of those cattle pen sessions such as the clinic I mentioned has degenerated to. If you get to see a doctor, and if this person knows what they're doing- which will not be a given, since the quality of doctors will surely decline once the money they can earn disappears- he/she will see what your problem is and will have to decide whether or not to treat you. This decision will be based on whether you are worth treating- are you too old; is your condition too expensive to treat; will the cost exceed the probable outcome; possibly even considering whether you contribute enough to be treated.
In addition, what treatments are available will be limited, as funds for research and development of drugs and procedures dries up, and specialists disappear.
To add insult to injury, this so-called healthcare will include abortion, sterilization, and birth control- not to mention euthanasia- all of which are morally repugnant to real Christians, who will be forced to pay for these and be seen by doctors who have no problem with them. Healthcare providers will have no choice in these matters, either, or in the rationing of care: their only options will be to quit the healthcare field, or risk the wrath of the State by following their consciences.
What Obama et al are not going to tell us is what they will do if/when they or their loved ones need care, especially life-saving care. First of all, they will probably qualify for any top-of-the-line care that still remains, since they're doing such an important job as public servants. If that fails, you can bet they will have access to any better-qualified physicians who are still around, if only because they will be able to pay them. This will probably be kept secret, since most people have a natural understanding of the the rights and equality of all men, as well as an extreme aversion to such elitism, and wouldn't tolerate this kind of deadly discrimination.
Obama is counting on his still inexplicably high approval ratings to shove this program through (and down our throats), like he did his wonderful economic reforms that have brought such bountiful blessings to the average American. He's telling his cronies to divert their attacks from their more moderate fellow Democrats (who can see that this reform sucks) to the majority of Republicans, who are fighting it because they really do care about the little guy. He needs all the Dems in Congress to back him in order to pass it.
Let's not let them get away with it, shall we?
Call, write, email, petition, picket- do whatever it takes to prevent this catastrophic decimation of our healthcare system. There is good reason why everyone who can still comes here when their lives are in danger: in spite of its flaws, ours is the best healthcare available.
Friday, June 12, 2009
What you don't know...
Yesterday, we received in the mail an item that was for someone else. I looked at the address and saw that it was less similar to ours than the misdirected mail we frequently get usually is, and we had not received any for this person before.
Since it was a postcard, I also saw that it was for a little girl whose birthday is coming up, and the postcard was for her to receive a free meal at a national restaurant chain. I wanted to make sure that she got this little card and gift, but was reluctant to drive over and try to find her house, which is what I often do for the guy with the same house number on a similarly named but different street that is not too far away, whose mail I usually get. (Besides, he brings my mail when it comes to his house; I was especially grateful for this one time when it was a letter from my son who was then in Marine boot camp, and I wasn't hearing from him anywhere near often enough.) So I decided to try to catch the mailman (read postal carrier, if this bothers you) when he came by today and ask him to deliver it to the proper address. (We got tired of watching for him, so I stuck it on my mail slot cover with a clothespin, which also works.)
My 9-year-old, meanwhile, learned through this experience that
1. It's ok to look at a postcard in such a situation, but I wouldn't open a letter for someone else that came here by accident because that would be illegal
2. We are required by law to give mail that isn't ours to the proper person, or back to the mailman or post office
He didn't know that, and it got me to wondering, how many people do? Where are we supposed to learn such things? I don't think the Postal Service is up to the task, although they have sent out info about the collections of donations for hunger centers that they do every year, the ways you can get postal supplies, and once, a handy card that told the abbreviations for all the states. But I don't think I've ever seen or heard of them telling us what to do if you get someone else's mail. Or that it's also illegal to take mail or packages left for other people at their houses (like somebody must've done with several things that never arrived here in the past. So I put up a sign that tells delivery people not to leave things out front, and it mostly seems to be working.)
I suspect this problem will be moot in the not-too-distant future, when the Postal Service goes out of business. (It can't last much longer, with hardly anybody sending Christmas cards anymore, or writing letters, and with the price of stamps getting totally freaking ridiculous.) But until then, please make sure the people you know are aware that they must not just throw away mail that doesn't belong to them. (Although I was really tempted to, that time it was a Playboy magazine...)
Then I started thinking about other signs that people don't know things that they should. Like, often when I shop for food, I'll see an item sitting on a shelf that someone decided they didn't want and apparently just stuck in the nearest convenient place. Unfortunately, these items are often things that must be kept refrigerated or frozen to prevent spoilage, so when I give them to a person who works at the store, I point out that they were left sitting on a shelf and not refrigerated. I hope and pray these people realize that, if they do not dispose of such items properly (don't just put them back in the refrigerated or freezer section), they could cause someone who ends up consuming them to become very sick or even to die from food poisoning.
Driving provides many proofs that a lot of people have no idea what they're doing. Worst is when an emergency vehicle is trying to get through, and they just keep going their merry way, oblivious to the law that requires them to get the hell out of the way, if possible. I mentioned turn signals in a previous blog; there are lots of others, but I'm sure you get the drift.
The same thing is going on in my Church: I think they need to do a refresher course on the main points at least once a year- from the pulpit- since most people aren't going to try to correct their ignorance on their own. Most of them don't even know what they don't know, or care, from what I can tell.
I got in a minor fender-bender on the way to the cemetery in a funeral procession in January, because a woman was trying to break through from a side street and created a distraction that almost caused a multi-car pile up (thank God we were going about 25 mph, but the roads were wet and nearly icy). I glanced at her and the escort who was blocking and confronting her as I drove by, then looked forward to see that the car in front of me had come to a dead stop. I hit the brakes and narrowly avoided rear-ending him, but the guy behind me couldn't stop in time. Luckily, everyone was ok and we were able to continue to the graveside service. Funeral processions have the right of way, ok?
If you find money or a wallet lying on the ground or wherever, it is not your lucky day. If you have an ounce of moral fiber, you will try to find the owner. For money, you can leave your name and number at the office of the nearest business and ask them to call if no one claims it, which is a waste, but hey, ya never know. I started realizing a lot of people here are selfish morons the day I dropped $50 going into the grocery. If I had realized it before I went to pay, I might've tried to find the culprit by looking for someone who looked unusually happy. I tried to console myself with the thought that maybe they needed the money more than my hungry and now-broke family did.
And when you're out in public, you have to share with and be nice to the other people you meet. It's not required by law, but it is highly recommended. God sees and cares how you treat other people, and you never know how someone will react if you treat them badly, whether you intended to or not.
Update: Lately, I've noticed that a lot of people apparently don't know about rip currents. We live on Lake Erie, and almost every time there are rip current warnings from the NOAA- which I see online but have heard on tv- someone drowns, and it's usually a little kid. Last week it was a 13-year-old girl; her 2 friends also got sucked out/under but survived, from what I can tell by the online news. It makes me wonder whether people just don't realize the lake is not safe- not ever, but especially when there are rip currents- or they just don't care about their kids.
Since it was a postcard, I also saw that it was for a little girl whose birthday is coming up, and the postcard was for her to receive a free meal at a national restaurant chain. I wanted to make sure that she got this little card and gift, but was reluctant to drive over and try to find her house, which is what I often do for the guy with the same house number on a similarly named but different street that is not too far away, whose mail I usually get. (Besides, he brings my mail when it comes to his house; I was especially grateful for this one time when it was a letter from my son who was then in Marine boot camp, and I wasn't hearing from him anywhere near often enough.) So I decided to try to catch the mailman (read postal carrier, if this bothers you) when he came by today and ask him to deliver it to the proper address. (We got tired of watching for him, so I stuck it on my mail slot cover with a clothespin, which also works.)
My 9-year-old, meanwhile, learned through this experience that
1. It's ok to look at a postcard in such a situation, but I wouldn't open a letter for someone else that came here by accident because that would be illegal
2. We are required by law to give mail that isn't ours to the proper person, or back to the mailman or post office
He didn't know that, and it got me to wondering, how many people do? Where are we supposed to learn such things? I don't think the Postal Service is up to the task, although they have sent out info about the collections of donations for hunger centers that they do every year, the ways you can get postal supplies, and once, a handy card that told the abbreviations for all the states. But I don't think I've ever seen or heard of them telling us what to do if you get someone else's mail. Or that it's also illegal to take mail or packages left for other people at their houses (like somebody must've done with several things that never arrived here in the past. So I put up a sign that tells delivery people not to leave things out front, and it mostly seems to be working.)
I suspect this problem will be moot in the not-too-distant future, when the Postal Service goes out of business. (It can't last much longer, with hardly anybody sending Christmas cards anymore, or writing letters, and with the price of stamps getting totally freaking ridiculous.) But until then, please make sure the people you know are aware that they must not just throw away mail that doesn't belong to them. (Although I was really tempted to, that time it was a Playboy magazine...)
Then I started thinking about other signs that people don't know things that they should. Like, often when I shop for food, I'll see an item sitting on a shelf that someone decided they didn't want and apparently just stuck in the nearest convenient place. Unfortunately, these items are often things that must be kept refrigerated or frozen to prevent spoilage, so when I give them to a person who works at the store, I point out that they were left sitting on a shelf and not refrigerated. I hope and pray these people realize that, if they do not dispose of such items properly (don't just put them back in the refrigerated or freezer section), they could cause someone who ends up consuming them to become very sick or even to die from food poisoning.
Driving provides many proofs that a lot of people have no idea what they're doing. Worst is when an emergency vehicle is trying to get through, and they just keep going their merry way, oblivious to the law that requires them to get the hell out of the way, if possible. I mentioned turn signals in a previous blog; there are lots of others, but I'm sure you get the drift.
The same thing is going on in my Church: I think they need to do a refresher course on the main points at least once a year- from the pulpit- since most people aren't going to try to correct their ignorance on their own. Most of them don't even know what they don't know, or care, from what I can tell.
I got in a minor fender-bender on the way to the cemetery in a funeral procession in January, because a woman was trying to break through from a side street and created a distraction that almost caused a multi-car pile up (thank God we were going about 25 mph, but the roads were wet and nearly icy). I glanced at her and the escort who was blocking and confronting her as I drove by, then looked forward to see that the car in front of me had come to a dead stop. I hit the brakes and narrowly avoided rear-ending him, but the guy behind me couldn't stop in time. Luckily, everyone was ok and we were able to continue to the graveside service. Funeral processions have the right of way, ok?
If you find money or a wallet lying on the ground or wherever, it is not your lucky day. If you have an ounce of moral fiber, you will try to find the owner. For money, you can leave your name and number at the office of the nearest business and ask them to call if no one claims it, which is a waste, but hey, ya never know. I started realizing a lot of people here are selfish morons the day I dropped $50 going into the grocery. If I had realized it before I went to pay, I might've tried to find the culprit by looking for someone who looked unusually happy. I tried to console myself with the thought that maybe they needed the money more than my hungry and now-broke family did.
And when you're out in public, you have to share with and be nice to the other people you meet. It's not required by law, but it is highly recommended. God sees and cares how you treat other people, and you never know how someone will react if you treat them badly, whether you intended to or not.
Update: Lately, I've noticed that a lot of people apparently don't know about rip currents. We live on Lake Erie, and almost every time there are rip current warnings from the NOAA- which I see online but have heard on tv- someone drowns, and it's usually a little kid. Last week it was a 13-year-old girl; her 2 friends also got sucked out/under but survived, from what I can tell by the online news. It makes me wonder whether people just don't realize the lake is not safe- not ever, but especially when there are rip currents- or they just don't care about their kids.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Quiet
People like to ask, “Which of your senses would you choose if you had to give up one?” I have always hated such questions, but lately I’ve begun to think I won’t miss my hearing much, if I ever lose it. Sounds have been driving me crazy for a while now.
I suppose that’s because I’ve been living in this noisy hell-hole of a city, with a varying number of wonderfully boisterous children, for the past 28 years. Before that, I lived on an Air Force base, where F-106s routinely blasted away whatever small amount of quiet might’ve been found with so many neighbors so close by. Moving here, not far from an international airport, seemed almost quiet in comparison, at first.
Now I have to sleep with earplugs, and sometimes even that doesn’t work. I have sound-insulated windows and doors, too, thanks to the city and the FAA. Still not good enough.
I know I’m spoiled because, when I was a kid, we lived out in the country for a few years, and for a significant portion of the rest of the time, in small towns. The most noise we ever had to endure then was when someone was vacuuming, cutting the grass, or running farm equipment in the nearby fields. I didn’t realize then, of course, how unusual it was to be able to hear far away sounds, and few of them.
I was lucky to be able to hear at all, after suffering a bout of German measles that left me deaf for a short time, according to family lore. My hearing has been about as perfect as can be since then, and I do thank God for that great blessing.
But once, a few years ago, I noticed that I was having trouble understanding when people were trying to talk to me, especially if there was any other noise in the room. I went to an ENT doctor for a hearing test, and tried to start facing the possibility that I might need a hearing aid.
I know I shouldn’t put too much stock in this doctor’s diagnosis because one of the first strange things he did was to sterilize something he stuck in my ear by holding it in the flame of a match for a couple seconds beforehand. I was in too much shock to respond in time to prevent it, and went along for the rest of the adventure, cuz I’m stupid like that sometimes.
While I was waiting to go to the audiologist’s room for the hearing test, I noticed that I could hear a whole lot of sounds coming from the various other rooms in the office- mostly there was the slamming of doors and drawers by some woman who was going around putting things away. I think she must’ve been either hard-of-hearing herself, or very unhappy about something.
She kept this up during my hearing test, too, and I told the technician that she was drowning out the sounds in the headphones. Even after she quit, I could still hear a child crying in one of the rooms.
Before I put the headphones on, I had to ask the guy to change the covers, because they were stained with ear wax from a previous patient. I couldn’t believe that he expected me to put them on my head in that condition, or his nerve at implying that I was being a pain in the behind for asking, which was obvious from his sigh and the reluctance with which he complied.
When the doctor saw the results of the hearing test, he told me that there was nothing wrong with my hearing, and in fact, I had what he called “super-hearing.” He recommended that I avoid going to rock concerts, or it might kill me. (I had been to several extremely loud rock concerts before this- not to mention, blasting rock music in my car is one of my favorite therapies when I’ve encountered a few too many idiot drivers- so I knew he had to be full of crap.) I tried to discuss with him possible explanations for the difficulty I was having with conversation, and asked if menopause might have anything to do with it (thinking the inability to concentrate or something might have been playing a part); he pooh-poohed that idea- twice- and even said something about if I needed that crutch, when I pointed out that I was old enough for it to be a possibility.
The more I thought about this fiasco, afterward, the angrier I became, until I finally reported him to the state medical board. I don’t know if they ever did anything, but his name wasn’t on the office door when I went by recently and checked.
So, anyway, I just hope I can still hear if/when I ever get to move somewhere quiet again. Then my “super hearing” will be a blessing again :)
I suppose that’s because I’ve been living in this noisy hell-hole of a city, with a varying number of wonderfully boisterous children, for the past 28 years. Before that, I lived on an Air Force base, where F-106s routinely blasted away whatever small amount of quiet might’ve been found with so many neighbors so close by. Moving here, not far from an international airport, seemed almost quiet in comparison, at first.
Now I have to sleep with earplugs, and sometimes even that doesn’t work. I have sound-insulated windows and doors, too, thanks to the city and the FAA. Still not good enough.
I know I’m spoiled because, when I was a kid, we lived out in the country for a few years, and for a significant portion of the rest of the time, in small towns. The most noise we ever had to endure then was when someone was vacuuming, cutting the grass, or running farm equipment in the nearby fields. I didn’t realize then, of course, how unusual it was to be able to hear far away sounds, and few of them.
I was lucky to be able to hear at all, after suffering a bout of German measles that left me deaf for a short time, according to family lore. My hearing has been about as perfect as can be since then, and I do thank God for that great blessing.
But once, a few years ago, I noticed that I was having trouble understanding when people were trying to talk to me, especially if there was any other noise in the room. I went to an ENT doctor for a hearing test, and tried to start facing the possibility that I might need a hearing aid.
I know I shouldn’t put too much stock in this doctor’s diagnosis because one of the first strange things he did was to sterilize something he stuck in my ear by holding it in the flame of a match for a couple seconds beforehand. I was in too much shock to respond in time to prevent it, and went along for the rest of the adventure, cuz I’m stupid like that sometimes.
While I was waiting to go to the audiologist’s room for the hearing test, I noticed that I could hear a whole lot of sounds coming from the various other rooms in the office- mostly there was the slamming of doors and drawers by some woman who was going around putting things away. I think she must’ve been either hard-of-hearing herself, or very unhappy about something.
She kept this up during my hearing test, too, and I told the technician that she was drowning out the sounds in the headphones. Even after she quit, I could still hear a child crying in one of the rooms.
Before I put the headphones on, I had to ask the guy to change the covers, because they were stained with ear wax from a previous patient. I couldn’t believe that he expected me to put them on my head in that condition, or his nerve at implying that I was being a pain in the behind for asking, which was obvious from his sigh and the reluctance with which he complied.
When the doctor saw the results of the hearing test, he told me that there was nothing wrong with my hearing, and in fact, I had what he called “super-hearing.” He recommended that I avoid going to rock concerts, or it might kill me. (I had been to several extremely loud rock concerts before this- not to mention, blasting rock music in my car is one of my favorite therapies when I’ve encountered a few too many idiot drivers- so I knew he had to be full of crap.) I tried to discuss with him possible explanations for the difficulty I was having with conversation, and asked if menopause might have anything to do with it (thinking the inability to concentrate or something might have been playing a part); he pooh-poohed that idea- twice- and even said something about if I needed that crutch, when I pointed out that I was old enough for it to be a possibility.
The more I thought about this fiasco, afterward, the angrier I became, until I finally reported him to the state medical board. I don’t know if they ever did anything, but his name wasn’t on the office door when I went by recently and checked.
So, anyway, I just hope I can still hear if/when I ever get to move somewhere quiet again. Then my “super hearing” will be a blessing again :)
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Sticking it to Smokers Again. How Original.
I knew something like this would happen eventually.
I figured someday the anti-smoking Nazis were going to come after us all for this. Their solution, of course and as usual, is to punish all smokers because some are inconsiderate slobs.
I am a smoker, and I have long been as disgusted as any non-smoker could be by the sight other people's butts everywhere. I picked up the habit from my time in the Air Force of not leaving my butts on the ground: someone was going to have to pick them up- and it was often us.
I am half-tempted, whenever I see fellow smokers drop or throw a butt on the ground, to remind them that our world is not their ashtray. I'll probably be more tempted now, but it will still be just as useless, in my opinion. People who are that stupid don't usually take too kindly to being told they're being idiots, however nicely one may put it.
I don't like littering of any kind, but throwing butts down/out is not just unsightly- it can be dangerous. I see people doing it all the time, especially now that many cars don't come equipped with ashtrays anymore.
So how about nabbing them for littering and/or posing a fire hazard, instead of imposing yet another unwarranted tax on all smokers?
And if they ever catch one of those complete imbeciles who empty their car ashtray on the ground, I think they should make them go pick up butts for a month. That would make sense.
Unlike ideas like Mayor Newsome's.
I figured someday the anti-smoking Nazis were going to come after us all for this. Their solution, of course and as usual, is to punish all smokers because some are inconsiderate slobs.
I am a smoker, and I have long been as disgusted as any non-smoker could be by the sight other people's butts everywhere. I picked up the habit from my time in the Air Force of not leaving my butts on the ground: someone was going to have to pick them up- and it was often us.
I am half-tempted, whenever I see fellow smokers drop or throw a butt on the ground, to remind them that our world is not their ashtray. I'll probably be more tempted now, but it will still be just as useless, in my opinion. People who are that stupid don't usually take too kindly to being told they're being idiots, however nicely one may put it.
I don't like littering of any kind, but throwing butts down/out is not just unsightly- it can be dangerous. I see people doing it all the time, especially now that many cars don't come equipped with ashtrays anymore.
So how about nabbing them for littering and/or posing a fire hazard, instead of imposing yet another unwarranted tax on all smokers?
And if they ever catch one of those complete imbeciles who empty their car ashtray on the ground, I think they should make them go pick up butts for a month. That would make sense.
Unlike ideas like Mayor Newsome's.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Kiss my A$$, CAIR
This story bothers me. I'm trying to figure out why.
I don't have anything against Muslims personally, and I've even seen one here wearing a beautiful outfit I wouldn't mind wearing- but only her head was covered, not her face. But it bothers me to know that, if I were to go to a Muslim country, depending on how heavily Sharia law is imposed, I would have to at least cover my head if not wear the whole face-covering burkha-thing when I went out in public. I've also heard that our military, when stationed in a Muslim country, have to hide their Christian jewelry, and aren't allowed to bring alcohol, pork, porn, or Bibles in. (I can understand the porn prohibition, but...) Those are good enough reasons for me never to bother going to one of their countries, assuming I'd ever be able to.
However, when a Muslim comes to/lives in OUR country, instead of following our laws, they are trying to force us to allow them to act as if Sharia law is observed here. I've heard of women trying to get their driver's license photos taken of them in their veils (nevermind that in Muslim countries, they wouldn't even be allowed to drive), which is total BS. Now this woman is suing a judge because he wouldn't let her bring a small claims case before him unless she revealed her face, which he felt was necessary for him to make an accurate judgment. Instead of allowing her to wear a veil, how about letting her have a female judge? Or take the next logical step, if she wants to pretend she's living in a Muslim country, and don't allow her to bring a suit at all.
Or how about allowing Catholics and other Christians (and whoever else) to practice our religion by not making us pay for abortions, abortifacients, birth control, homosexual indoctrination of the young in our public schools, etc, through this misuse of our tax dollars?
You know, Jewish people don't eat pork, either, but you don't see them trying to get everyone else to stop eating it, like the Muslims are doing here.
And Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays during Lent, but we don't have a problem with others doing so.
Can we get Holy Water fonts installed in universities with public funds, like they're getting foot baths for the Muslims? I doubt it.
How about paying to bring over and feed, clothe, and house a few million Catholics and other Christians who are being persecuted in China, Pakistan, Turkey, Africa, etc, like Obama recently did with the Palestinian refugees? I mean, if you're going to spend millions of our tax dollars trying to help refugees, at least pick some who aren't our freaking enemies.
I don't see any reason why our country should make any concessions at all to Muslims, and I'm not saying this out of prejudice. I'm saying it because to do so is the most assinine thing our nation could do, when a significant portion of those who espouse that faith want to wipe us off the face of the earth and have been working feverishly to do so for many years now.
When Hitler and Japan tried to take over the world, we eventually got involved, and bombed the holy crap out of both countries and occupied them until we were sure they got that world-domination stuff out of their heads. Neither one of them succeeded in attacking us in our own country, so why are we kowtowing to Muslims?
I'm not saying we ought to bring back the internment camps, and racial prejudice is a truly hideous thing.
But so is treason.
I don't have anything against Muslims personally, and I've even seen one here wearing a beautiful outfit I wouldn't mind wearing- but only her head was covered, not her face. But it bothers me to know that, if I were to go to a Muslim country, depending on how heavily Sharia law is imposed, I would have to at least cover my head if not wear the whole face-covering burkha-thing when I went out in public. I've also heard that our military, when stationed in a Muslim country, have to hide their Christian jewelry, and aren't allowed to bring alcohol, pork, porn, or Bibles in. (I can understand the porn prohibition, but...) Those are good enough reasons for me never to bother going to one of their countries, assuming I'd ever be able to.
However, when a Muslim comes to/lives in OUR country, instead of following our laws, they are trying to force us to allow them to act as if Sharia law is observed here. I've heard of women trying to get their driver's license photos taken of them in their veils (nevermind that in Muslim countries, they wouldn't even be allowed to drive), which is total BS. Now this woman is suing a judge because he wouldn't let her bring a small claims case before him unless she revealed her face, which he felt was necessary for him to make an accurate judgment. Instead of allowing her to wear a veil, how about letting her have a female judge? Or take the next logical step, if she wants to pretend she's living in a Muslim country, and don't allow her to bring a suit at all.
Or how about allowing Catholics and other Christians (and whoever else) to practice our religion by not making us pay for abortions, abortifacients, birth control, homosexual indoctrination of the young in our public schools, etc, through this misuse of our tax dollars?
You know, Jewish people don't eat pork, either, but you don't see them trying to get everyone else to stop eating it, like the Muslims are doing here.
And Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays during Lent, but we don't have a problem with others doing so.
Can we get Holy Water fonts installed in universities with public funds, like they're getting foot baths for the Muslims? I doubt it.
How about paying to bring over and feed, clothe, and house a few million Catholics and other Christians who are being persecuted in China, Pakistan, Turkey, Africa, etc, like Obama recently did with the Palestinian refugees? I mean, if you're going to spend millions of our tax dollars trying to help refugees, at least pick some who aren't our freaking enemies.
I don't see any reason why our country should make any concessions at all to Muslims, and I'm not saying this out of prejudice. I'm saying it because to do so is the most assinine thing our nation could do, when a significant portion of those who espouse that faith want to wipe us off the face of the earth and have been working feverishly to do so for many years now.
When Hitler and Japan tried to take over the world, we eventually got involved, and bombed the holy crap out of both countries and occupied them until we were sure they got that world-domination stuff out of their heads. Neither one of them succeeded in attacking us in our own country, so why are we kowtowing to Muslims?
I'm not saying we ought to bring back the internment camps, and racial prejudice is a truly hideous thing.
But so is treason.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Truly Good News
I have been reading some things lately that have really lifted my heart, and I want to share them with you.
First, a real heroine:
Catholic pro-life leader snubs Notre Dame invitation.
And another pretty brave person.
Then, a sign of hope.
And finally, a light shining in the darkness.
First, a real heroine:
Catholic pro-life leader snubs Notre Dame invitation.
And another pretty brave person.
Then, a sign of hope.
And finally, a light shining in the darkness.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Not Cool
As I was driving the kids to school this morning, we passed by a young man who was walking a couple of dogs on the sidewalk. He was wearing a baseball cap and a sports jacket, and looked perfectly normal- at first glance. Then I noticed he was moving his mouth as if talking, and gesticulating with his free hand. He didn't appear to be addressing the dogs, so 3 possible explanations flashed through my mind:
1. He's schizophrenic and talking to the voices only he can hear
2. He's rehearsing a speech
3. He's using a hands-free phone
Since we were in one of the area's ritzier neighborhoods, I figured it must be Option 3. But I had to laugh: I wonder if people who shell out good money for such modern conveniences and status symbols realize that, for many of us, when we see them attempting to show off their expensive toys, the first thing we think of is not, "Gee, how cool! I want/wish I could afford one of those!"
Sorry, but I suspect when most of us see someone apparently talking to himself, our first thought is more like, "What the... is he talking to himself?!" and we are automatically aroused to caution, not admiration or envy.
I have encountered these pseudo schizos in stores a few times already. I don't think I'm ever going to get used to people who not only cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the presence of others with a smile or an "Excuse me," where appropriate, or even by just making eye contact, but now impose upon others in the following manner:
You're in a store, minding your own business. There's another person nearby, and suddenly this person says something. Normally, it would be safe to assume the person is talking to you, since you're the only other person around, they're not holding a cell phone, and they aren't speaking loudly enough to be heard by someone in the next aisle. But what they said doesn't make any dang sense. You have a fleeting thought that people who talk to themselves like that can be dangerous, but you try not to freak out. While you're trying to figure out whether or how to respond, the person says something else, which also doesn't make sense, and eventually you realize they must be talking on one of those darn hands-free phones. Doh! And some of them have the nerve to look at us as if WE'RE crazy.
It's worse when what they say DOES make sense, though. If a person says hello to me, I am the kind of person who will say hello back. If you fall for that with one of these people, somehow you're left feeling like an idiot. That is not right. It's even more embarassing than- and not nearly as funny as- when you're in a store and you hear a kid call out, "Mom" and you and every other mother within earshot either answers or has to stop and ask herself, "Did I bring any of the kids with me?"
Well, one good thing to come of this isolating and alienating technology is, schizophrenics are probably not as noticeable as they once were.
At least, I THINK that's a good thing...
1. He's schizophrenic and talking to the voices only he can hear
2. He's rehearsing a speech
3. He's using a hands-free phone
Since we were in one of the area's ritzier neighborhoods, I figured it must be Option 3. But I had to laugh: I wonder if people who shell out good money for such modern conveniences and status symbols realize that, for many of us, when we see them attempting to show off their expensive toys, the first thing we think of is not, "Gee, how cool! I want/wish I could afford one of those!"
Sorry, but I suspect when most of us see someone apparently talking to himself, our first thought is more like, "What the... is he talking to himself?!" and we are automatically aroused to caution, not admiration or envy.
I have encountered these pseudo schizos in stores a few times already. I don't think I'm ever going to get used to people who not only cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the presence of others with a smile or an "Excuse me," where appropriate, or even by just making eye contact, but now impose upon others in the following manner:
You're in a store, minding your own business. There's another person nearby, and suddenly this person says something. Normally, it would be safe to assume the person is talking to you, since you're the only other person around, they're not holding a cell phone, and they aren't speaking loudly enough to be heard by someone in the next aisle. But what they said doesn't make any dang sense. You have a fleeting thought that people who talk to themselves like that can be dangerous, but you try not to freak out. While you're trying to figure out whether or how to respond, the person says something else, which also doesn't make sense, and eventually you realize they must be talking on one of those darn hands-free phones. Doh! And some of them have the nerve to look at us as if WE'RE crazy.
It's worse when what they say DOES make sense, though. If a person says hello to me, I am the kind of person who will say hello back. If you fall for that with one of these people, somehow you're left feeling like an idiot. That is not right. It's even more embarassing than- and not nearly as funny as- when you're in a store and you hear a kid call out, "Mom" and you and every other mother within earshot either answers or has to stop and ask herself, "Did I bring any of the kids with me?"
Well, one good thing to come of this isolating and alienating technology is, schizophrenics are probably not as noticeable as they once were.
At least, I THINK that's a good thing...
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Potty Talk, Part 3
This is freaking ridiculous. The new plunger I bought a little while ago (See PottyTalk, Part 2) is already caput. I used it perhaps 3 times. The last time, it inverted and stayed that way. So much for the pliability it showed in the store.
That thing cost me almost $5, and I did not get my money's worth.
How hard can it be to make a functional, reusable plumber's helper? The manufacturer made no claims about how long it would last or even if it would work, but I'm thinking about taking it back to Walgreens for a refund. That ought to make them think twice before they offer us nothing but crappy Chinese products in their stores.
I'm going to have to look into this problem. Don't they make these things out of rubber anymore? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be a good use for all those old tires, if there's any way to recycle them?
What are they making them out of, anyway? Is there something I should be doing to prolong the life of my plungers? Between these $5 one-use plungers and the $4 I have to spend every other week on products to unclog the tub, it's is getting rather expensive to keep my bathroom in working order.
So I guess I'll try the costlier and even lousier-quality ones that look like the flexing part of bendy-straws (and appear to be made of the same material) next. Wish me luck!
Update: I looked online and found that they are still making some force cups (as they are also known) out of rubber (or so they say), so I will look for one of those, instead. I think I will also try to get one with a longer handle, and forgo the various, bizarre designs by which they attempt to eliminate the splashing problem.
Some of them even come with guarantees!
That thing cost me almost $5, and I did not get my money's worth.
How hard can it be to make a functional, reusable plumber's helper? The manufacturer made no claims about how long it would last or even if it would work, but I'm thinking about taking it back to Walgreens for a refund. That ought to make them think twice before they offer us nothing but crappy Chinese products in their stores.
I'm going to have to look into this problem. Don't they make these things out of rubber anymore? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be a good use for all those old tires, if there's any way to recycle them?
What are they making them out of, anyway? Is there something I should be doing to prolong the life of my plungers? Between these $5 one-use plungers and the $4 I have to spend every other week on products to unclog the tub, it's is getting rather expensive to keep my bathroom in working order.
So I guess I'll try the costlier and even lousier-quality ones that look like the flexing part of bendy-straws (and appear to be made of the same material) next. Wish me luck!
Update: I looked online and found that they are still making some force cups (as they are also known) out of rubber (or so they say), so I will look for one of those, instead. I think I will also try to get one with a longer handle, and forgo the various, bizarre designs by which they attempt to eliminate the splashing problem.
Some of them even come with guarantees!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
#@$%&!
I hate people.
I know I shouldn't even think such things, let alone write them in a blog for all the world to see (LOL, as if), especially during Lent, and most especially during Holy Week.
But, I have to vent somehow. Or quit driving. Since the latter is not really feasible at this time, voila.
As I drive, I sometimes think of bumper stickers I'd like to put on my car- when I'm not worrying about what will happen if I have to make a sudden stop, which will cause the idiot on my bumper to rear-end me (which it seems he wouldn't mind doing, since he's so close). Today it was, "I have the right (and obligation) to do the speed limit, but you have no right to tailgate me." (It sounded a lot better with all the cusswords.) Another one was, "If I'm not going fast enough for you, I can always SLOW DOWN!" I actually made one once that said. "Tailgating is not merely stupid- it's also illegal." It was surprisingly effective.
Another one that might come in handy around here is, "Use your turn signal- it's not just a courtesy: it's the law" but I think the people who most need to be reminded of that probably can't read, anyway. They probably don't have their licenses, either, so that's the least of my worries when sharing the road with them.
Today I also encountered one of the biggest kinds of idiots I've been tormented by: ones who tailgate you when you're speeding.
In my defense, let me say that I only speed on that particular street because if I don't, I will regularly be tailgated and occasionally passed by people who have crap for brains. It is a winding road, so it's extremely dangerous to try to pass on it- which is why the whole thing is marked "No Passing." Some of the idiots who use it appear to be under the impression that it is wide enough for two cars in one direction. It is not- that is why there is no dotted white line dividing it into 2 lanes. To drive around someone, even (or especially) next to the curb, is an invitation to disaster, since the road winds along the top of a cliff and has many side streets intersecting it.
Today as I drove on that street after dropping off the kids at school, I had one of those drivers on my tail who appeared to expect me to squeeze over next to the curb so he could pass me (again, this is in a No Passing zone). Since I was doing 39 in a 35 zone, that really made me mad, so I hit the brakes instead. I came to a complete stop, right there in the street. (Coincidentally, there was a squirrel at the side of the road, and it looked like it was going to run out in front of me.) The idiot sat behind me and honked his horn before figuring out that he could now pass me (without danger of killing someone). I know I should be ashamed that I flipped this person off as they went around me, but I'm not.
I used to not have so many problems driving around here. Then I got 3 tickets in a year and had to go to traffic court. Traffic court in Cleveland is a dress rehearsal for Purgatory, and I vowed that I would never end up there again. So far, so good. But it was extremely hard to force myself to obey the speed limits.
Then I got sick of people harrassing and intimidating me for going too slow (aka doing the speed limit), so I started doing 4 miles per hour over. That eliminates most of the tailgaters, but occasionally I'll get one of those freaking losers who always tailgates everyone. It's like they never heard of keeping a safe distance when following another vehicle. Which is why I'm pretty sure they don't have licenses. And it's undoubtedly the explanation for why their vehicles so often are damaged. What really scares me, though, are the ones who are driving around with a windshield that was broken by somebody's head. You just know it was the person who's now riding your bumper.
Well, I feel a little better. Thanks for listening.
I know I shouldn't even think such things, let alone write them in a blog for all the world to see (LOL, as if), especially during Lent, and most especially during Holy Week.
But, I have to vent somehow. Or quit driving. Since the latter is not really feasible at this time, voila.
As I drive, I sometimes think of bumper stickers I'd like to put on my car- when I'm not worrying about what will happen if I have to make a sudden stop, which will cause the idiot on my bumper to rear-end me (which it seems he wouldn't mind doing, since he's so close). Today it was, "I have the right (and obligation) to do the speed limit, but you have no right to tailgate me." (It sounded a lot better with all the cusswords.) Another one was, "If I'm not going fast enough for you, I can always SLOW DOWN!" I actually made one once that said. "Tailgating is not merely stupid- it's also illegal." It was surprisingly effective.
Another one that might come in handy around here is, "Use your turn signal- it's not just a courtesy: it's the law" but I think the people who most need to be reminded of that probably can't read, anyway. They probably don't have their licenses, either, so that's the least of my worries when sharing the road with them.
Today I also encountered one of the biggest kinds of idiots I've been tormented by: ones who tailgate you when you're speeding.
In my defense, let me say that I only speed on that particular street because if I don't, I will regularly be tailgated and occasionally passed by people who have crap for brains. It is a winding road, so it's extremely dangerous to try to pass on it- which is why the whole thing is marked "No Passing." Some of the idiots who use it appear to be under the impression that it is wide enough for two cars in one direction. It is not- that is why there is no dotted white line dividing it into 2 lanes. To drive around someone, even (or especially) next to the curb, is an invitation to disaster, since the road winds along the top of a cliff and has many side streets intersecting it.
Today as I drove on that street after dropping off the kids at school, I had one of those drivers on my tail who appeared to expect me to squeeze over next to the curb so he could pass me (again, this is in a No Passing zone). Since I was doing 39 in a 35 zone, that really made me mad, so I hit the brakes instead. I came to a complete stop, right there in the street. (Coincidentally, there was a squirrel at the side of the road, and it looked like it was going to run out in front of me.) The idiot sat behind me and honked his horn before figuring out that he could now pass me (without danger of killing someone). I know I should be ashamed that I flipped this person off as they went around me, but I'm not.
I used to not have so many problems driving around here. Then I got 3 tickets in a year and had to go to traffic court. Traffic court in Cleveland is a dress rehearsal for Purgatory, and I vowed that I would never end up there again. So far, so good. But it was extremely hard to force myself to obey the speed limits.
Then I got sick of people harrassing and intimidating me for going too slow (aka doing the speed limit), so I started doing 4 miles per hour over. That eliminates most of the tailgaters, but occasionally I'll get one of those freaking losers who always tailgates everyone. It's like they never heard of keeping a safe distance when following another vehicle. Which is why I'm pretty sure they don't have licenses. And it's undoubtedly the explanation for why their vehicles so often are damaged. What really scares me, though, are the ones who are driving around with a windshield that was broken by somebody's head. You just know it was the person who's now riding your bumper.
Well, I feel a little better. Thanks for listening.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
CRAP!!!
I was sleeping during Earth/Human Achievement Hour!!! I had my outside light off, then. Now people are gonna think I support the enemy:
Watch video here.
Oh, well, there is still time to try to get my son in Hawaii to keep his lights on for me :)
Watch video here.
Oh, well, there is still time to try to get my son in Hawaii to keep his lights on for me :)
Friday, March 27, 2009
Copenhagen Accord not up to snuff
I am trying really hard not to get paranoid about the plans the climate control freaks have for preventing climate catastrophe (ostensibly, anyway; most of us know what they're really up to, and it's just plain old control), but this look by Fox News at what the information note on the Copenhagen Accord hints at is truly hair-raising.
I have long known that there is a dedicated group of anti-human slimeballs whose goal is to free the earth from the "plague of humanity" as much and as soon as possible. It is frightening, seeing how far they've come toward achieving their goals, and with the apparent cooperation of most of the leaders of the free world.
The leaders of the Third World are a little more leery- and they should be, since the plans include preventing them from improving the lives of their people (how could anybody in their right mind be against them acquiring basics such as food, sanitation, and electricity?), along with drastically decreasing their numbers.
I'm starting to wonder if the conspiracy theorists aren't right after all. You know, the ones who think the Bilderberg Group is behind everything, trying to take over the world, and setting up to wipe out massive amounts of people.
Whoever they are, these people are a real threat. What they want to do is make it impossible- or at least as painful as possible- to continue to live the way we do here in the US. They seem to have a problem with nearly every stinking thing we do. They want to make everything so darned expensive that only the super-rich can afford to do any of the things most Americans currently do at least once in a while: drive our own cars, travel, buy flowers, enjoy imported goods, heat and cool our homes, use water, etc. Oh, yeah- I almost forgot: eat, breathe, and take up space, too. And procreate.
And all this BS is based on their lies about the human impact on global climate, which is non-existent.
Fight them, people. It's us or them, and someday- perhaps soon- it will be too late.
I have long known that there is a dedicated group of anti-human slimeballs whose goal is to free the earth from the "plague of humanity" as much and as soon as possible. It is frightening, seeing how far they've come toward achieving their goals, and with the apparent cooperation of most of the leaders of the free world.
The leaders of the Third World are a little more leery- and they should be, since the plans include preventing them from improving the lives of their people (how could anybody in their right mind be against them acquiring basics such as food, sanitation, and electricity?), along with drastically decreasing their numbers.
I'm starting to wonder if the conspiracy theorists aren't right after all. You know, the ones who think the Bilderberg Group is behind everything, trying to take over the world, and setting up to wipe out massive amounts of people.
Whoever they are, these people are a real threat. What they want to do is make it impossible- or at least as painful as possible- to continue to live the way we do here in the US. They seem to have a problem with nearly every stinking thing we do. They want to make everything so darned expensive that only the super-rich can afford to do any of the things most Americans currently do at least once in a while: drive our own cars, travel, buy flowers, enjoy imported goods, heat and cool our homes, use water, etc. Oh, yeah- I almost forgot: eat, breathe, and take up space, too. And procreate.
And all this BS is based on their lies about the human impact on global climate, which is non-existent.
Fight them, people. It's us or them, and someday- perhaps soon- it will be too late.
Freedom of Conscience for Healthcare Providers
People shouldn't be forced to support or take part in abortion or abortion referrals or risk losing their jobs. This is the USA, not the fricking USSR!
Please go to the following website and support the freedom to be pro-life in the medical field:
http://www.freedom2care.org/action
Do it now, before it is too late.
Thank you.
Please go to the following website and support the freedom to be pro-life in the medical field:
http://www.freedom2care.org/action
Do it now, before it is too late.
Thank you.
Spitting Nails
Few things anger me more than when someone denigrates the fine men and women of our armed forces, and it would be hard to be more infuriating than Murtha when he opened his stupid mouth and slandered the Marines then only alleged to be at fault in the Haditha incident.
But he managed to do it, by refusing to apologize when called upon, once it became obvious that the claims were unfounded.
Now, to rub salt in the wound, we have the former Secretary of the Navy giving Murtha the highest civilian award (for what, I have no idea). What I think about that is not fit to post here.
Please sign this petition calling for an apology from Murtha, or for the award to be rescinded. Thank you.
But he managed to do it, by refusing to apologize when called upon, once it became obvious that the claims were unfounded.
Now, to rub salt in the wound, we have the former Secretary of the Navy giving Murtha the highest civilian award (for what, I have no idea). What I think about that is not fit to post here.
Please sign this petition calling for an apology from Murtha, or for the award to be rescinded. Thank you.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Impeach Obama NOW
I'm starting to wonder if part of Obama's financial recovery plan for the US doesn't include killing off a large portion of us by causing stress-induced heart attacks.
This plan of his to deny our veterans the healthcare coverage that was promised to them if they suffered service-related injury is almost unspeakably despicable.
I can think of quite a few other, more worthy entities he should consider throwing from the train before he gets to the men and women who have risked all for us and our allies.
If belt-tightening is required- which no one doubts that it is, although maybe we should, considering who the main beneficiaries of the stimulus bill and all its earmarks appear to be- you don't do it by turning your back on those who are depending on our government to keep its promises, like they did theirs.
When one considers that the bill includes more than $300 million a year to help Planned Parenthood continue and increase its evil-doing, the mere $540 million Obama looks to save by this outrageous abandonment of our wounded service members makes no sense at all.
If there was any doubt where Obama's heart lies, this should settle the question: he obviously doesn't have one.
This plan of his to deny our veterans the healthcare coverage that was promised to them if they suffered service-related injury is almost unspeakably despicable.
I can think of quite a few other, more worthy entities he should consider throwing from the train before he gets to the men and women who have risked all for us and our allies.
If belt-tightening is required- which no one doubts that it is, although maybe we should, considering who the main beneficiaries of the stimulus bill and all its earmarks appear to be- you don't do it by turning your back on those who are depending on our government to keep its promises, like they did theirs.
When one considers that the bill includes more than $300 million a year to help Planned Parenthood continue and increase its evil-doing, the mere $540 million Obama looks to save by this outrageous abandonment of our wounded service members makes no sense at all.
If there was any doubt where Obama's heart lies, this should settle the question: he obviously doesn't have one.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Smoke
I am a smoker. Been smoking most of my life- over 35 years now.
I started smoking right about when the Surgeon General started making noises implying that smoking wasn't good for you, but deeply in the age when cigarettes were heavily advertised- and used- virtually everywhere. The only place smoking was not allowed, back then, was around flammables. People smoked not only on tv and the big screen, but in theaters; you could smoke on airplanes, in elevators, in stores- even in hospital rooms. I think the statistics for that time, which held until just recently in this area, said that 2 out of 3 people smoked.
My mother did not smoke, and did not want me to, but we had only one conversation that I can recall wherein she asked me not to. Hers and the Surgeon General's were the only voices I heard saying anything at all against smoking, and they were drowned out by the overwhelming support- actual and implied- smoking then enjoyed. In other words, I was strongly encouraged- and hardly discouraged at all- in developing an addiction to nicotine.
Within a few years of having become physically and psychologically dependent on cigarettes, I tried to quit smoking for the first time because I was pregnant. I was not able to, though, and I remember one of the nurses saying that we new mothers didn't realize that our babies were born addicted to nicotine, too. I pondered that, while I smoked in my room.
As the years passed, I tried now and then to quit again, never succeeding for more than a week, during which time I gained 5 lbs. The fear of how much I might gain if I went longer was a factor in not wanting to try again for a long time after that, and even hearing that it would be better to be overweight than to smoke didn't help. Now that I've gained some weight passing through menopause, at least that shouldn't be as big a hindrance as before. But that is only one of the obstacles I face.
The last time I tried to quit smoking, about 20 years ago, I managed to make it for 13 hours before I caved in. I spent as much of the time as possible sleeping; I gave up when I started itching all over and crying.
When my last child was born, the labor lasted so long that I had to go outside, with the IV attached, to have a cigarette a couple of times. I also smoked in the bathroom, before and after- I knew they wouldn't throw me out before, and actually wanted them to, after. I never stayed long in the hospital anyway, after giving birth, but that was mostly because I couldn't sleep there, and wanted to get my babies away from all the poking and prodding as soon as possible. But, looking back, part of the reason I always wanted to go home right after- the same day, if possible- was to be able to smoke.
One of the reasons pregnant women shouldn't smoke is because somebody claimed that babies of smokers might be born too early, be underweight, and suffer fetal injury. I don't know what the deal is with that, but I smoked more with each succeeding baby, and with the exception of my daughters- who were a couple ounces smaller because they're girls, and one was my firstborn- they each weighed more than the one before, and ALL of them were born late, with no fetal injuries. But then, I did pray almost continually that they would not have to suffer because I couldn't quit, so make of that what you will.
When I started smoking, cigarettes were 50 cents a pack, and were easily obtained from retailers and vending machines, even though I was underage. Only once did someone refuse to sell them to me because I was under 18. Now they cost anywhere from $4.80 to $5.80, and I hear they're going to tack on another 60 cents for some reason. A friend, who switched to rolling his own after the last big hike, says they've increased the price of the bags of tobacco by $26- that's an increase of twice the original price.
I understand that some of the anti-smoking lunatics are motivated by a genuine concern for health- mostly their own, believing as they do in the second-hand-smoke monster invented to help scare off the tobacco companies and to spare themselves the horror of ever having to smell smoke.
I'll venture to say that most of us who are still smoking these days would love to quit, but are not able. You can be sure that anyone who continues to smoke under the present conditions is completely addicted, and sadly for most of us, the placebos they've conjured up to help us really don't. I have wasted a good deal of money trying such products; apparently the only one that's going to help me quit will have to involve being drugged into oblivion long enough to get through withdrawal. So you know what you can do with those patches, gum, and suicide pills.
The worst thing about being a smoker these days is having to endure the legally sanctioned ostracism of a large part of society. I really don't appreciate being treated like a leper, or a second-class citizen- to put it nicely- just because I smoke. It's hard not to be offended that I am no longer welcome at most drinking or dining establishments, unless I want to spend part of my visit outside, regardless of the weather and probably without a place to sit while I smoke. And it angers me exceedingly that we are being taxed at a much higher rate than anyone else. None of this helps people like me quit- it just makes us very, very mad.
Some of the people being hurt by this ill-conceived war against smoking are the men and women who once put their lives on the line to keep this country safe and free. In Ohio, these heroes recently lost an appeal to get an exemption for their clubs from the smoking ban that was passed a short while before that, through deceit and treachery- not the will of the people. I hope you control freaks are happy. How does it bother you if our vets smoke while visiting their VFW and American Legion halls?
The point of this rant, I guess, is that we smokers don't want to impose upon you anti-smokers, and we have bent over backwards to accomodate your phobic aversion to being exposed to smoke. But you have to allow us to live also, and to smoke if we need to- and some of us really do.
I started smoking right about when the Surgeon General started making noises implying that smoking wasn't good for you, but deeply in the age when cigarettes were heavily advertised- and used- virtually everywhere. The only place smoking was not allowed, back then, was around flammables. People smoked not only on tv and the big screen, but in theaters; you could smoke on airplanes, in elevators, in stores- even in hospital rooms. I think the statistics for that time, which held until just recently in this area, said that 2 out of 3 people smoked.
My mother did not smoke, and did not want me to, but we had only one conversation that I can recall wherein she asked me not to. Hers and the Surgeon General's were the only voices I heard saying anything at all against smoking, and they were drowned out by the overwhelming support- actual and implied- smoking then enjoyed. In other words, I was strongly encouraged- and hardly discouraged at all- in developing an addiction to nicotine.
Within a few years of having become physically and psychologically dependent on cigarettes, I tried to quit smoking for the first time because I was pregnant. I was not able to, though, and I remember one of the nurses saying that we new mothers didn't realize that our babies were born addicted to nicotine, too. I pondered that, while I smoked in my room.
As the years passed, I tried now and then to quit again, never succeeding for more than a week, during which time I gained 5 lbs. The fear of how much I might gain if I went longer was a factor in not wanting to try again for a long time after that, and even hearing that it would be better to be overweight than to smoke didn't help. Now that I've gained some weight passing through menopause, at least that shouldn't be as big a hindrance as before. But that is only one of the obstacles I face.
The last time I tried to quit smoking, about 20 years ago, I managed to make it for 13 hours before I caved in. I spent as much of the time as possible sleeping; I gave up when I started itching all over and crying.
When my last child was born, the labor lasted so long that I had to go outside, with the IV attached, to have a cigarette a couple of times. I also smoked in the bathroom, before and after- I knew they wouldn't throw me out before, and actually wanted them to, after. I never stayed long in the hospital anyway, after giving birth, but that was mostly because I couldn't sleep there, and wanted to get my babies away from all the poking and prodding as soon as possible. But, looking back, part of the reason I always wanted to go home right after- the same day, if possible- was to be able to smoke.
One of the reasons pregnant women shouldn't smoke is because somebody claimed that babies of smokers might be born too early, be underweight, and suffer fetal injury. I don't know what the deal is with that, but I smoked more with each succeeding baby, and with the exception of my daughters- who were a couple ounces smaller because they're girls, and one was my firstborn- they each weighed more than the one before, and ALL of them were born late, with no fetal injuries. But then, I did pray almost continually that they would not have to suffer because I couldn't quit, so make of that what you will.
When I started smoking, cigarettes were 50 cents a pack, and were easily obtained from retailers and vending machines, even though I was underage. Only once did someone refuse to sell them to me because I was under 18. Now they cost anywhere from $4.80 to $5.80, and I hear they're going to tack on another 60 cents for some reason. A friend, who switched to rolling his own after the last big hike, says they've increased the price of the bags of tobacco by $26- that's an increase of twice the original price.
I understand that some of the anti-smoking lunatics are motivated by a genuine concern for health- mostly their own, believing as they do in the second-hand-smoke monster invented to help scare off the tobacco companies and to spare themselves the horror of ever having to smell smoke.
I'll venture to say that most of us who are still smoking these days would love to quit, but are not able. You can be sure that anyone who continues to smoke under the present conditions is completely addicted, and sadly for most of us, the placebos they've conjured up to help us really don't. I have wasted a good deal of money trying such products; apparently the only one that's going to help me quit will have to involve being drugged into oblivion long enough to get through withdrawal. So you know what you can do with those patches, gum, and suicide pills.
The worst thing about being a smoker these days is having to endure the legally sanctioned ostracism of a large part of society. I really don't appreciate being treated like a leper, or a second-class citizen- to put it nicely- just because I smoke. It's hard not to be offended that I am no longer welcome at most drinking or dining establishments, unless I want to spend part of my visit outside, regardless of the weather and probably without a place to sit while I smoke. And it angers me exceedingly that we are being taxed at a much higher rate than anyone else. None of this helps people like me quit- it just makes us very, very mad.
Some of the people being hurt by this ill-conceived war against smoking are the men and women who once put their lives on the line to keep this country safe and free. In Ohio, these heroes recently lost an appeal to get an exemption for their clubs from the smoking ban that was passed a short while before that, through deceit and treachery- not the will of the people. I hope you control freaks are happy. How does it bother you if our vets smoke while visiting their VFW and American Legion halls?
The point of this rant, I guess, is that we smokers don't want to impose upon you anti-smokers, and we have bent over backwards to accomodate your phobic aversion to being exposed to smoke. But you have to allow us to live also, and to smoke if we need to- and some of us really do.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Things I've Seen In My Yard
Birds, including
Sparrows
Starlings
Robins
Grackles
Crows
Seagulls
Mourning Doves
Pigeons
House Finches
Gold Finches
Cardinals
Blue Jays
Red-winged Blackbirds
Dark-eyed Juncos
Chipping Sparrows
Song Sparrows
White-crowned Sparrows
Hawks
Rose-breasted Grosbeaks
Indigo Buntings
Kildeers
Flickers
Downy Woodpeckers
Red-headed Woodpeckers
Red-bellied Woodpeckers
Black-capped Chickadees
Nuthatches
Catbird
Tufted Titmouse
Wood Thrushes
Ruby-throated Hummingbirds
Baltimore Oriole (seen on 5-15-09)
and a very small, greenish bird I couldn't identify
Seen flying over
Great Blue Herons
Wood Ducks
Canada Geese
Turkey Vultures
Unfortunately, my neighbor's cat is often in my yard now, so I don't feed the birds anymore- except for the hummers, and throwing a few scraps on top of the garage. Tried telling them he was killing birds, and they caught him once, but all they did was yell at him. I tried explaining that he was only following his instincts, and the only way to prevent him doing it was to keep him in, to no avail. At least it saves a lot of money, not buying bird food.
Other critters
Squirrels
Chipmunks
Moles
Mice
Rabbits
Opossums
Groundhogs
Raccoons
Skunks
Dogs
Cats
Deer
Not bad, for an urban yard- although we are about 2 miles from a nature preserve.
I've also seen a drunk guy lying in my driveway- there are lots of bars in the area :)
Sparrows
Starlings
Robins
Grackles
Crows
Seagulls
Mourning Doves
Pigeons
House Finches
Gold Finches
Cardinals
Blue Jays
Red-winged Blackbirds
Dark-eyed Juncos
Chipping Sparrows
Song Sparrows
White-crowned Sparrows
Hawks
Rose-breasted Grosbeaks
Indigo Buntings
Kildeers
Flickers
Downy Woodpeckers
Red-headed Woodpeckers
Red-bellied Woodpeckers
Black-capped Chickadees
Nuthatches
Catbird
Tufted Titmouse
Wood Thrushes
Ruby-throated Hummingbirds
Baltimore Oriole (seen on 5-15-09)
and a very small, greenish bird I couldn't identify
Seen flying over
Great Blue Herons
Wood Ducks
Canada Geese
Turkey Vultures
Unfortunately, my neighbor's cat is often in my yard now, so I don't feed the birds anymore- except for the hummers, and throwing a few scraps on top of the garage. Tried telling them he was killing birds, and they caught him once, but all they did was yell at him. I tried explaining that he was only following his instincts, and the only way to prevent him doing it was to keep him in, to no avail. At least it saves a lot of money, not buying bird food.
Other critters
Squirrels
Chipmunks
Moles
Mice
Rabbits
Opossums
Groundhogs
Raccoons
Skunks
Dogs
Cats
Deer
Not bad, for an urban yard- although we are about 2 miles from a nature preserve.
I've also seen a drunk guy lying in my driveway- there are lots of bars in the area :)
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Christianity
I was just looking for blogs to subscribe to, and came across one that made me give up the effort for now.
It said something about Christians who are against abortion being wrong for presuming to represent all Christians.
I'm getting sick of people who feel they need to tell Christians what they're allowed to do.
First and foremost, we try to follow Christ. To do that, you have to know who He is and where He leads.
I have no doubt that our Lord does lead us to places like abortion clinics, to offer help and hope to the mothers going there, who have lost all hope.
I have no doubt either that our Lord, the Giver of Life, NEVER wants us to intentionally cause the death of a child He called to life.
It is also dead certain that He wants us to work to promote a culture of life, which includes speaking out and trying to get our laws to protect the innocent.
They can try to shut us up by spreading the lie that some Christians are pro-abortion, but we know better.
It's also pointless to try to silence us by saying we have no right to speak. As long as we have breath we will try, in whatever ways are possible, to obey our God- and He commands that we do these things.
And by the way, some "Christians" were pro-slavery.
It said something about Christians who are against abortion being wrong for presuming to represent all Christians.
I'm getting sick of people who feel they need to tell Christians what they're allowed to do.
First and foremost, we try to follow Christ. To do that, you have to know who He is and where He leads.
I have no doubt that our Lord does lead us to places like abortion clinics, to offer help and hope to the mothers going there, who have lost all hope.
I have no doubt either that our Lord, the Giver of Life, NEVER wants us to intentionally cause the death of a child He called to life.
It is also dead certain that He wants us to work to promote a culture of life, which includes speaking out and trying to get our laws to protect the innocent.
They can try to shut us up by spreading the lie that some Christians are pro-abortion, but we know better.
It's also pointless to try to silence us by saying we have no right to speak. As long as we have breath we will try, in whatever ways are possible, to obey our God- and He commands that we do these things.
And by the way, some "Christians" were pro-slavery.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Catholicism
This is a hard time to be Catholic. Sure, there have been worse times: it's not as bad as when our country was first starting, for example: Catholics were openly persecuted here, then. And it's not nearly as bad here as it is in other countries right now, like China or Pakistan. In those place, the Church is suffering horribly; the price of being caught practicing the Faith is often imprisonment or death. I suspect, if the Church in America were to be subjected again to such persecution, it would quickly lose a whole lot of members.
A recent poll claimed that 59% of Catholics have no problem with Obama's decision to force tax payers to fund fetal stem cell research again. That sounds a little high to me, but it's possible. Years ago, polls were saying 1 in 3 Catholics thought using artificial birth control was ok, and about that many didn't believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, either.
So it doesn't surprise me that our diocese is going to have to close some churches in order to stay afloat. If somewhere between one-third to over one-half of people who call themselves Catholic are that far gone, they probably aren't attending Mass, anymore. Why should they?
The Church- the REAL Church- has been heading underground for a while now. We aren't there, yet, and we may never have to completely break off from the mainstream as they did in Russia when it became the USSR.
But there is already a transformation taking place within the Church, and it had its start in the fallout of Vatican II. It will continue, unless or until we get a pope who will address the Modernism, Radical Feminism, and other heresies that have infiltrated every part of the Church.
Meanwhile, real Catholics are making do. My kids attend an independent Catholic school that was started by homeschoolers. It presently does not receive any funding from the state or the diocese, and probably never will, since to do so requires allowing them to dictate our curricula. Our school is dedicated to providing a traditional, orthodox Catholic education to its students, and is doing a fine job of it.
Real Catholics are forming groups and supporting one another in engaging our society on issues such as the sanctity of human life and true social justice- not the cockamamie version the radical feminists have convinced too many Church leaders to embrace.
Real Catholics are not going to just give in when the government says we have to provide abortifacient birth control or abortion referrals- if not actual abortion, itself- or be put out of business. There is a higher law that mandates civil disobedience to unjust laws, as anyone who ever heard of the Civil Rights movement would agree.
It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how this all works out.
A recent poll claimed that 59% of Catholics have no problem with Obama's decision to force tax payers to fund fetal stem cell research again. That sounds a little high to me, but it's possible. Years ago, polls were saying 1 in 3 Catholics thought using artificial birth control was ok, and about that many didn't believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, either.
So it doesn't surprise me that our diocese is going to have to close some churches in order to stay afloat. If somewhere between one-third to over one-half of people who call themselves Catholic are that far gone, they probably aren't attending Mass, anymore. Why should they?
The Church- the REAL Church- has been heading underground for a while now. We aren't there, yet, and we may never have to completely break off from the mainstream as they did in Russia when it became the USSR.
But there is already a transformation taking place within the Church, and it had its start in the fallout of Vatican II. It will continue, unless or until we get a pope who will address the Modernism, Radical Feminism, and other heresies that have infiltrated every part of the Church.
Meanwhile, real Catholics are making do. My kids attend an independent Catholic school that was started by homeschoolers. It presently does not receive any funding from the state or the diocese, and probably never will, since to do so requires allowing them to dictate our curricula. Our school is dedicated to providing a traditional, orthodox Catholic education to its students, and is doing a fine job of it.
Real Catholics are forming groups and supporting one another in engaging our society on issues such as the sanctity of human life and true social justice- not the cockamamie version the radical feminists have convinced too many Church leaders to embrace.
Real Catholics are not going to just give in when the government says we have to provide abortifacient birth control or abortion referrals- if not actual abortion, itself- or be put out of business. There is a higher law that mandates civil disobedience to unjust laws, as anyone who ever heard of the Civil Rights movement would agree.
It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how this all works out.
Is it just me...
...or has anyone else noticed that Wayne Dawson is starting to look like Little Richard?
I don't mean to be mean- I'm just wonderingwhat the heck happened to his eyebrows. I don't watch tv news much anymore, so it was shocking to see the difference in his appearance since the last time I saw him.
I don't mean to be mean- I'm just wondering
Potty Talk, Part 2
Well, I bought a new plunger this morning at Walgreens. Only cost $4.49 + 7.75% tax- which is much cheaper than hiring a plumber. It was made in China, though, so I tested it before I bought it. It seemed pliable enough, and proved to be so, once I applied it- thank God. I mean that sincerely- I did pray a lot during my toils over the toilet. He finally heard and helped me, and it was a delight to hear once again the gurgle of the water flowing freely as I flushed.
My teenaged daughter will be relieved :)
And it only took about 50 flushes.
My teenaged daughter will be relieved :)
And it only took about 50 flushes.
Life is going down the toilet (Potty Talk, Part 1)
It is my understanding that we have the environmentalists to thank for the plague of water-saving toilets that have been foisted upon us by law.
If it isn't the fault of the environmentalists, then this blog is directed at whoever IS to blame, and I suspect you know who you are. You're lucky I do not.
I just spent the last hour or so going in to apply the plumber's helper- better known as a plunger- to my POS toilet every few minutes, after the "water" drained enough to try flushing it again. This was the worst clog we've experienced yet; I am going to have to buy another plunger- I got a blister on my palm trying to use the POS one I have now, which was probably made in China.
One of things that ticked me off and totally grossed me out as I dealt with the clog was that, due to the shape of the bowl and the lousiness of the plunger, "water" splashed out numerous times, despite my best efforts to prevent it. But that's nothing new: one of the special features of these toilets is apparently a built-in stealth bidet. Too bad it uses water from the bowl. So the seat has to be wiped frequently; save water, kill more trees.
But the worst thing about them is the stupidity of forcing us to use them when they really don't save water at all. How can they possibly do that when they require at least 2 flushes to get rid of a normal-sized bowel movement? Plus they are so inefficient at flushing that they require cleaning far more frequently, so there goes more water. Not to mention, where I live, we don't usually need to conserve water. In fact, quite a few folks around here are probably wishing they could get rid of some, right about now. (Flooding is common here in the spring.)
If only I had known, when we replaced the original toilet, that there are far worse things than hard water stains.
If it isn't the fault of the environmentalists, then this blog is directed at whoever IS to blame, and I suspect you know who you are. You're lucky I do not.
I just spent the last hour or so going in to apply the plumber's helper- better known as a plunger- to my POS toilet every few minutes, after the "water" drained enough to try flushing it again. This was the worst clog we've experienced yet; I am going to have to buy another plunger- I got a blister on my palm trying to use the POS one I have now, which was probably made in China.
One of things that ticked me off and totally grossed me out as I dealt with the clog was that, due to the shape of the bowl and the lousiness of the plunger, "water" splashed out numerous times, despite my best efforts to prevent it. But that's nothing new: one of the special features of these toilets is apparently a built-in stealth bidet. Too bad it uses water from the bowl. So the seat has to be wiped frequently; save water, kill more trees.
But the worst thing about them is the stupidity of forcing us to use them when they really don't save water at all. How can they possibly do that when they require at least 2 flushes to get rid of a normal-sized bowel movement? Plus they are so inefficient at flushing that they require cleaning far more frequently, so there goes more water. Not to mention, where I live, we don't usually need to conserve water. In fact, quite a few folks around here are probably wishing they could get rid of some, right about now. (Flooding is common here in the spring.)
If only I had known, when we replaced the original toilet, that there are far worse things than hard water stains.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Things can always get worse- and they're about to
Well, we were right, but there is no comfort in being able to say, "We told you so."
We tried to warn you that Obama would be bad for our country, and now the proof is in the pudding.
I wonder if we will survive his "reign of terror"?
I didn't expect miracles from our next president; it was obvious that, whoever was elected, he was going to have a major mess to deal with, and I figured we'd have to make some painful adjustments to deal with it. But I hoped and prayed it wouldn't be this bad.
I knew there would be a struggle, but I trusted that the system of checks and balances would save us from the worst of it being forced into law. Unfortunately, the liberals/Democrats have their thumbs on the scale.
It was something like this when Clinton was president, and some of what we are suffering now is his legacy. In many ways, Obama is merely imitating the worst president America ever had. But, by not learning from the mistakes of the past- and seeming to be determined to make them again, where our national defense and pro-life issues are involved- Obama's errors are magnified, and we are in greater danger than ever before.
Not only are Obama and the liberal/Democrat Congress' changes going to place us in extreme danger of more terrorist attacks on our own soil, but they also put us in the graver danger of being abandoned by God. If we, as a nation, allow our leaders to impose upon us legislation that grievously offends God, there is no way we can rightly expect Him to continue to bless and protect us, as He so obviously has for our entire existence thus far.
Common sense should've told Obama that it would not be wise to welcome into our midst- and provide financial support for- millions of people who were among the enemies who rejoiced on tv when their heroes successfully attacked our nation on 9-11-01. (If Obama hadn't already demonstrated a clear penchant for affiliating with enemies of America, I might wonder if this was possibly a case of keeping your enemies closer than your friends...)
At the same time, they are working to cripple our power to defend ourselves and our allies. (In my opinion, those two taken together amount to treason and/or dereliction of duty, and we should seriously consider impeaching- at the very least- those responsible.)
Obviously something more than a search for medical cures is going on when Obama et al decide, in these dire financial times, to restore funding for fetal stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells have never yet produced a viable cure or treatment for anything (except maybe investors' wallets), but have instead proved to be dangerous or ineffective. Meanwhile, treatments from stem cells obtained without requiring the snuffing out of human life are currently restoring the health of many, with realistic hope of more to come.
They're also working to restore funding for the largest provider of abortion on earth, Planned Parenthood. This big business makes millions of dollars in profits from killing the unborn; it has no need of our tax dollars. I'm sure they delight in knowing they have an ally in Obama, who will force us to fund their evil to the tune of $300 million+ per year. The great irony about PP is that their industry is eliminating a significant portion of future generations of tax payers, and is therefore contributing to the financial problems Obama claims to want to fix. And you can be sure they have something to do with the removal of the restraints on embryonic stem cell research, since they're in a perfect position to profit from it: finally, a "good" use for all those aborted babies.
What else are we going to be forced into? Another clue is Obama's choice for Climate Czar- Browner. She apparently has no problem cooking numbers when studies don't back up her draconian measures against whatever boogeyman she may be attempting to slay. Last time, it was second-hand smoke. "So what?" you may be thinking. "Even if it was all lies, we are better off not having to be exposed to the stink of cigarette smoke everywhere." And that's the problem in a nutshell: studies have shown that the worst you can say about cigarette smoke is that it stinks. The studies that supposedly show how dangerous it is don't exist. Browner didn't let that stop her, though. Now imagine what is going to happen with climate change, which studies show is not affected by humans. Reality hasn't stopped Gore; it won't be a problem for Browner. Some people care as much about the truth of this issue as they do about cigarette smoke. But if they have their way, it is going to cause major increases in the cost of utilities, and put a lot of people out of work. Still saying, "So what?" If so, you really, really need to get your head out of your arse.
We tried to warn you that Obama would be bad for our country, and now the proof is in the pudding.
I wonder if we will survive his "reign of terror"?
I didn't expect miracles from our next president; it was obvious that, whoever was elected, he was going to have a major mess to deal with, and I figured we'd have to make some painful adjustments to deal with it. But I hoped and prayed it wouldn't be this bad.
I knew there would be a struggle, but I trusted that the system of checks and balances would save us from the worst of it being forced into law. Unfortunately, the liberals/Democrats have their thumbs on the scale.
It was something like this when Clinton was president, and some of what we are suffering now is his legacy. In many ways, Obama is merely imitating the worst president America ever had. But, by not learning from the mistakes of the past- and seeming to be determined to make them again, where our national defense and pro-life issues are involved- Obama's errors are magnified, and we are in greater danger than ever before.
Not only are Obama and the liberal/Democrat Congress' changes going to place us in extreme danger of more terrorist attacks on our own soil, but they also put us in the graver danger of being abandoned by God. If we, as a nation, allow our leaders to impose upon us legislation that grievously offends God, there is no way we can rightly expect Him to continue to bless and protect us, as He so obviously has for our entire existence thus far.
Common sense should've told Obama that it would not be wise to welcome into our midst- and provide financial support for- millions of people who were among the enemies who rejoiced on tv when their heroes successfully attacked our nation on 9-11-01. (If Obama hadn't already demonstrated a clear penchant for affiliating with enemies of America, I might wonder if this was possibly a case of keeping your enemies closer than your friends...)
At the same time, they are working to cripple our power to defend ourselves and our allies. (In my opinion, those two taken together amount to treason and/or dereliction of duty, and we should seriously consider impeaching- at the very least- those responsible.)
Obviously something more than a search for medical cures is going on when Obama et al decide, in these dire financial times, to restore funding for fetal stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells have never yet produced a viable cure or treatment for anything (except maybe investors' wallets), but have instead proved to be dangerous or ineffective. Meanwhile, treatments from stem cells obtained without requiring the snuffing out of human life are currently restoring the health of many, with realistic hope of more to come.
They're also working to restore funding for the largest provider of abortion on earth, Planned Parenthood. This big business makes millions of dollars in profits from killing the unborn; it has no need of our tax dollars. I'm sure they delight in knowing they have an ally in Obama, who will force us to fund their evil to the tune of $300 million+ per year. The great irony about PP is that their industry is eliminating a significant portion of future generations of tax payers, and is therefore contributing to the financial problems Obama claims to want to fix. And you can be sure they have something to do with the removal of the restraints on embryonic stem cell research, since they're in a perfect position to profit from it: finally, a "good" use for all those aborted babies.
What else are we going to be forced into? Another clue is Obama's choice for Climate Czar- Browner. She apparently has no problem cooking numbers when studies don't back up her draconian measures against whatever boogeyman she may be attempting to slay. Last time, it was second-hand smoke. "So what?" you may be thinking. "Even if it was all lies, we are better off not having to be exposed to the stink of cigarette smoke everywhere." And that's the problem in a nutshell: studies have shown that the worst you can say about cigarette smoke is that it stinks. The studies that supposedly show how dangerous it is don't exist. Browner didn't let that stop her, though. Now imagine what is going to happen with climate change, which studies show is not affected by humans. Reality hasn't stopped Gore; it won't be a problem for Browner. Some people care as much about the truth of this issue as they do about cigarette smoke. But if they have their way, it is going to cause major increases in the cost of utilities, and put a lot of people out of work. Still saying, "So what?" If so, you really, really need to get your head out of your arse.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)