TEOTWAWKI and Invisalign: My Two Current Indulgences

Kind of an odd headline, ain't it?  Well, those two topics indeed have been my current indulgences.  The latter -- Invisalign -- is one that I proudly beam to all I meet.  Being an adult, I originally felt a bit guilty going to my orthodontist about straightening my teeth, never having been all that happy with my smile.  Mind you -- my teeth weren't "that" bad, but I was a bit self-conscious.

Initially, I wasn't too thrilled that my plan also included having buttons and attachments to my teeth, along with "elastics"; but, being that many of my "clientele" (read "students") likewise have metal and elastics in their mouths, I figured I would be in good company.  However, now I have completed my two years of plastic trays and am now in the "retainer phase", needing to wear them pretty much full-time for a year to allow healing of the bone. (Thereafter, I will only wear them at night ... for the rest of my life.)  It's nice to be in the home stretch of orthodoncia.

My other indulgence?  TEOTWAWKI: "The End of the World As We Know It."  As Wiktionary  explains it, "The original phrase was popularized in the song It's The End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine) by the band R.E.M. It is used often online by members of survivalist groups."  It was also an acronym first coined by Mike Medintz on misc.survivalism in the mid-1990s. (Pronounced "ti.ɑt.wɑk.i" ... I guess it rhymes with "Milwaukee.")

Being a volunteer with The American Red Cross, I know they and the government advise that everone have several days' worth of food and supplies in cases of emergencies.  Then, while watching a show on History Channel advised by former military and government guys (of course), the likeliest scenario they present was that of a pandemic, for which all advised having about a 45-day supply.

I guess I come by this passion honestly.  Dad was a pilot during the early days of  The Cold War.  I remember him telling me a bit of his training: pilot survival training in Alaska, close calls as he flew The Bomb around the globe, knowing secrets for which he could possibly still be court-martialed, etc.  Here's one wild thing he told me when I was a girl: he still held on to some lance-like, drug-laced objects that would put a man into a coma for several days, dropping heart rate and breathing so low that it would mimick death should "the enemy" come across your body ... gives a kid some vivid imagery, you know?

I am trying hard not to go overboard with disaster preparedness, worrying that I might go the way of those hoarders we see on TV.  Luckily, a good book gave me some a reasoned argument for not thinking that world would explode tomorrow: The Disaster Preparedness Handbook by Arthur T. Bradley, Ph.D.  Bradley eschews "the sky is falling" mentality and instead goes more for the practical and more realistic idea of  "plan for what makes sense" -- events such as natural disasters (here in the Midwest, tornadoes are common), terrorist attack such as a computer hack on food supply chains, or a pandemic.  (Anyone see "Contagion" last fall?)  This book has talked me down from the rafters a bit and helped me to realize I don't have to go all survivalist with this obsession and can instead keep disaster preparedness more reasonable.  Plus, watching National Geographic's new series "Doomsday Preppers" helps me gain perspective .... or, does it fuel my fear?  Gulp!

So, what have I done so far?  Well, in my basement I have a mix of canned goods, MREs ("meals-ready-to-eat"), and freeze-dried meals (i.e. short-term, mid-range, and long-term storage ... also going from cheap to more expensive). I probably have about a month's worth of food in canned goods, 2 weeks' worth in MREs, and about 70 servings of freeze-dried meals.  I've also got a small mix of over-the-counter medications and some minor first aid supplies, tequila and wine (gotta have the booze stash ... great for consoling you when the shit hits the fan), very simple cooking equipment a la backpackers, a terrific water purifying system, etc.

My next big purchase: something to offer a back-up power supply.  Some candidates: Goal Zero, and Ecotricity Portable Back-Up Power Solar Generator.  With my coming tax rebate, I have a little flexibility; but, I do want to be sure to purchase something that will deliver a lot of bang for the buck.  I'll keep you posted on this when the time comes.


For disaster preparedness supplies, here are a couple of  companies who have given excellent service thus far:
- Emergency Essentials
- MyPatriotSupply.com

So, I guess you'll see this "hobby" develop as I continue researching and adding to my stockpile.  Beside offering product info, I'll also share good retailers.  I invite you to do the same!

Liberals The Aggressors in Today's Clashes

In case you didn't catch this op-ed piece from Jonah Goldberg published at USA Today (emphasis added):

Liberals are the true aggressors in today's culture wars

If you're not with us, you're against us. President Bush popularized this expression after 9/11 to describe his foreign policy doctrine: Countries couldn't support or indulge terrorists and be our friends at the same time. But his detractors quickly turned it into a fairly paranoid vision of domestic political life, as if Bush had been talking about domestic opponents and dissenters.

The irony is that few worldviews better describe the general liberal orientation to public policy and the culture war. The left often complains about the culture war as if it's a war they don't want to fight. They insist they just want to follow "sound science" or "what works" when it comes to public policy, but those crazy knuckle-dragging right-wingers constantly want to talk about gays and abortion and other hot-button issues.

It's all a farce. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war (and not always for the worse, as the civil rights movement demonstrates). What they object to isn't so much the government imposing its values on people — heck, they love that. They see nothing wrong with imposing their views about diet, exercise, sex, race and the environment on Americans. What outrages them is resistance, or even non-compliance with their agenda. "Why are you making such a scene?" progressives complain. "Just do what we want and there will be no fuss."

Undermining Catholics

Consider President Obama's decision to require most religious institutions— including Catholic hospitals, schools, etc. — to pay for contraception, sterilizations and the "morning after" pill. When "ObamaCare" was still being debated, the White House had all but promised Catholic leaders that it would find a compromise to spare the church from the untenable position of paying for services that directly violate their faith. Now that ObamaCare is the law, the administration says the church, like everyone else, must fall in line.

Or consider the still-raging controversy over the Susan G. Komen For the Cure's entirely reasonable — albeit very poorly handled — decision to withdraw its funding of Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion provider. The Komen foundation is singularly dedicated to raising research money for, and awareness about, breast cancer. It's the folks with those pink ribbons. The organization decided to withdraw its comparatively meager funding in part because Planned Parenthood doesn't offer mammograms. (Planned Parenthood's president, Cecile Richards, was caught misleading people on this very point last spring.)

Other factors included the fact that Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Congress and the obvious but unstated fact that the organization is wildly controversial. It's this last point that infuriates the left. 

Pro-choice activists and their allies believe that Planned Parenthood should not be controversial, nor should abortion be up for discussion, either. If you have a problem with either it is because you are an ideologue, an extremist or a zealot opposed to the interests of womankind. And any attempt to suggest that abortion should offend the consciences of mainstream Americans, never mind such a revered organization as Komen, is simply unacceptable.

Resist, and you will pay

It's clearly not about the money. Komen's $600,000 in donations amount to less than .01% of Planned Parenthood's budget (as opposed to the nearly half that comes from taxpayers). It's about making it very clear: Resistance is not just futile, but dangerous.

That was evident almost immediately. Komen's website was hacked, its Wikipedia page filled with smears. Various allegedly objective news outlets rallied to Planned Parenthood's defense as if the behemoth abortion provider was a victim of the tiny little breast cancer foundation.

Komen apologized and seemed to offer a reversal of its policy. This "just goes to show you, when women speak out, women win," responded House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

This, of course, is ridiculous propaganda. Women are not a monolithic political bloc and were not unanimously opposed to Komen's decision. Indeed, roughly half of women are pro-life and, you can be sure, Komen will lose donations from women and men who do not want to see their donations going to abortion providers. But for a certain type of upper-class liberal woman, it simply must be asserted, if not believed, that there is only one acceptable definition of a woman's perspective when it comes to issues such as abortion.

You can understand why Komen wants to get out of the culture war crossfire. It just wants to spend its finite resources on the race for a cure. But that's not good enough. The real motive behind this backlash is to make it very clear: You must choose a side — ours. And once you choose our side, you can never change your mind without severe consequences. And what is true of liberal politics is also true of liberal public policy. As the Obama administration has made clear to the Catholic Church, there is no neutrality, no safe harbor from liberalism's moral vision. You're either with us, or against us — which means we shall be against you.

Jonah Goldberg is author of the forthcoming book, The Tyranny of Clichés (Penguin-Sentinel). He is also a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

Oh, and I've been really enjoying Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism.  Check it out!!

The Ironic Girl: Typical Spoiled Brat OWSer

Spied this gem over at Blonde Sagacity.  Loved it!!!

Birth Control: The Untouchable Right?

As the ObamaCare mandate regarding Catholic medical groups possibly before forced to offer birth control and abortion to its members (although it now appears that a "compromise" is being hammered out), the various news stories being published presently seem to evince a growing radical and extremist bent to the "right" to birth control.  Here are some ...

Vending machine at Pennsylvania college dispenses 'morning after' pill

Students at a public Pennsylvania university can buy the "morning after" pill from a campus vending machine, though the school's minister is working to get the dispenser off of school grounds.

The vending machine at Shippensburg University's Etter Health Center that provides Plan B emergency contraceptive pills for $25 was installed after a survey found that 85 percent of student respondents supported it, according to Peter Gigliotti, the university's executive director for communications and marketing. The machine also dispenses condoms and pregnancy tests.

"We value student input on matters that directly pertain to their health and safety so these results were an important part of the decision-making process," Gigliotti said in a statement emailed to FoxNews.com. "We are not the first one to make this available so this is not unique to us or to public higher education.  This decision was also made in consultation with our medical staff."

Plan B is available without a prescription to anyone 17 or older. Gigliotti said that all current students at Shippensburg -- a public school of roughly 8,300 students in central Pennsylvania -- fit that criteria.
"Any student who wants to discuss Plan B may do so at any time," Gigliotti's email continued. "In addition, medical information is provided with the Plan B for purchasers to read before its use."

The machine -- the only one on the school's campus -- is in a private room within the health center and is accessible only by students, Gigliotti said.
...

The drug, which is isn't covered or subsidized by the school, is sold at the school's cost to the pharmaceutical company. The $25 price is less than the pill sells for at off-campus pharmacies, the Associated Press reports.

Allyson Oppman, a junior at Shippensburg studying criminal justice and a member of its Newman Association, said she thought the vending machine is a good idea.

"Sometimes, in certain situations, it's really needed," she told FoxNews.com. "And most people do not want to go to a pharmacy. It's more embarrassing to go to complete strangers."

Keisha Burns, a senior majoring in art at the university, said she thought it was acceptable for the pill to be offered on campus, but questioned the method of distribution.

"It's ridiculous that it's in a vending machine because it doesn't send the right message," Burns told FoxNews.com. "You can get a soda and potato chips in a vending machine, so it lightens the situation."

Burns said she would rather students be given the pill by a physician on campus.

"The way it's being presented to me is the issue," she said.
...

I agree with Burns at the notion of selling Plan B in a vending machine sending the wrong message.  Have young women these days, brainwashed and aroused by Hollywood and feminism into believing that they derive their power from their seuxality, so intellectually numbed to the effects of wreckless sex and its emotional, spiritual, psychological effects ... even disregarding potential PHYSICAL effects to taking a drug that will induce a miscarriage?  A vending machine selling an abortifacient -- just like buying a candy bar. "Chocolate with your post-coitus "Gee, I wonder if I'm pregnant" after glow?"

In the wake of the huge uproar over the Susan G. Komen Foundation, a private organization, deciding to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, it was ironic how the "pro-choice" lobby said the decision was purely political.  And, yet, why did the Press not discuss why Komen made the decision -- that PP was under investigation.  What was Planned Parenthood under CONGRESSIONAL investigation for? Here's what The Los Angeles Times reported:

The congressional inquiry was launched in September by Rep.Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) to determine, among other things, whether Planned Parenthood has used public money to fund abortions. Although Planned Parenthood receives federal money, that money can't be used to provide abortions.

Here are two statements from Stearns on the status of the congressional investigation:

“As Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I am leading a formal investigation into taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, which receives over $1 million a day in taxpayer money.  Repeated cases of Planned Parenthood ignoring state and local reporting requirements, many involving minors, and allegations of financial abuse led to this investigation – the first ever oversight conducted on this group.  We are still working with Planned Parenthood on getting the records and documents for the investigation, and I’m interested in holding a hearing depending on what the investigation discovers.”  [source]

Let's not forget the other scandals that have rocked PP, for which is should also be investigated.  What about the undercover video that caught a purported sex trafficker (read "pimp") trying to arrange care for his underage prostitutes?  And what about the failure of some PP workers to report cases of statutory rape?  Is there an investigation into "Shreddergate" with regard to abortions performed on fourteen-year-olds and falsifying the reports?

Vet The Candidates ... Unlike Last Campaign

Flash Mob! - Carson School of Management

This is AWESOME!  We need more of this!

Obama: Re-Election Campaign Propped Up By Demagoguery & Misrepresentations

Obama's re-election campaign is rife with demagoguery: Robin-Hood-In-Chief frequently portrays himself as a man of the people wishing to take from the rich in order to give to the poor.  The other Charles Krauthammer nailed it on the head in this op-ed piece at National Review (emphasis added):

Obama’s Campaign for Class Resentment
The president has nothing to run on but crude populism.

In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that if in three years he hadn’t alleviated the nation’s economic pain, he’d be a “one-term proposition.”

When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track” and even Bill Clinton calls the economy “lousy,” how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case.

It seems that he and his policies have nothing to do with the current state of things. Sure, presidents are ordinarily held accountable for economic growth, unemployment, national indebtedness (see Obama, above). But not this time. Responsibility, you see, lies with the rich.

Or, as the philosophers of Zuccotti Park call them, the 1 percent. For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. The “breathtaking greed of a few” is crushing the middle class. If only the rich paid their “fair share,” the middle class would have a chance. Otherwise, government won’t have enough funds to “invest” in education and innovation, the golden path to the sunny uplands of economic growth and opportunity.

Where to begin? A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It’s mis-investing. As for federally directed spending on innovation — like Solyndra? Ethanol? The preposterously subsidized, flammable Chevy Volt?

Our current economic distress is attributable to myriad causes: globalization, expensive high-tech medicine, a huge debt burden, a burst housing bubble largely driven by precisely the egalitarian impulse that Obama is promoting (government aggressively pushing “affordable housing” that turned out to be disastrously unaffordable), an aging population straining the social safety net. Yes, growing inequality is a problem throughout the Western world. But Obama’s pretense that it is the root cause of this sick economy is ridiculous.

As is his solution, that old perennial: selective abolition of the Bush tax cuts. As if all that ails us, all that keeps the economy from humming and the middle class from advancing, is a 4.6-point hike in marginal tax rates for the rich.

This, in a country $15 trillion in debt with out-of-control entitlements systematically starving every other national need. This obsession with a sock-it-to-the-rich tax hike that, at most, would have reduced this year’s deficit from $1.30 trillion to $1.22 trillion is the classic reflex of reactionary liberalism — anything to avoid addressing the underlying structural problems, which would require modernizing the totemic programs of the New Deal and Great Society.

As for those structural problems, Obama has spent three years on signature policies that either ignore or aggravate them ...

Krauthammer goes on to list the massive stimulus and pay-off to Democratic interest groups to the tune of nearly $1 trillion added to the debt, sweeping federally run reorganization of health care that created more entitlements in an already stagnant economy,  high-handed regulations, Obama's inaction with regard to reforming the tax code despite bipartisan efforts.

Krauthammer continues:

In Kansas, Obama lamented that millions “are now forced to take their children to food banks.” You have to admire the audacity. That’s the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years. Yet Obama summoned it to make the case for his reelection!

Why? Because, you see, he bears no responsibility for the current economic distress. It’s the rich. And, like Horatius at the bridge, Obama stands with the American masses against the soulless plutocrats.

This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chávez. But with high unemployment, economic stagnation, and unprecedented deficits, what else can Obama say?
He can’t run on stewardship. He can’t run on policy. His signature initiatives — the stimulus, Obamacare, and the failed cap-and-trade — will go unmentioned in his campaign ads. Indeed, they will be the stuff of Republican ads.

What’s left? Class resentment. Got a better idea?

As entitlement-pushers and entitlement-addicts jumped on Obama's "blame-the-rich" bandwagon, surprisingly the AP came out with some damning statistics that debunked the Left's claims that the rich don't pay their "fair share" (emphasis added) --

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama says he wants to make sure millionaires are taxed at higher rates than their secretaries. The data say they already are.

"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said as he announced his deficit-reduction plan this week. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In his White House address on Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for the billionaire investor.

The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay." Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older _ and limited to federal income taxes _ but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.

Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.

"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, `But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting,' which is also the case."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.

"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.

[Let's not forget Geithner's tax evasion problems when we read that total dodge.]

And, here's some clips of Dear Leader on the campaign trail rollin' out the "Hate-The-Rich" rhetoric:



2001: redistributive change






Revenue debates: "additional income that I don't need"

But, to end on a brighter note ... Go, Maggie!!

 

Quote of the Day: Socialism

I ran across this quote the other day  --

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

- Winston Churchill

Sounds an awful lot like the demagoguery in which Dear Leader frequently engages ... and a lot like the lack of maturity and the disconnect from reality that plagues the far Left and its current manifestation among the OWS protesters.

Battle Saints Bracelets

What a terrific story I found on KSDK's website via CNN --

Military mom designs 'Battle Saint Bracelets' for troops in harm's way

CNN - A simple bracelet is providing a source of strength and support for men and women fighting for our country.

A solemn march, a loud ovation and a last goodbye for these deploying troops; the Atlanta airport is the final stop on their way to war. That's also where you'll find military moms like Cynthia Lemay.
Lemay knows the pain of deployment all too well.

"Our son is in Afghanistan. My nephew just got back from his third tour. We have several other family members over there," she said.

While she can't be on the front lines, protecting her son, she can ask for a little help from above.

"We put together these saints bracelets. My son has been wearing it since he went over and he's been in several fire fights and attacks," Lemay said.

Lemay calls them the 'Battle Saint Bracelet.' They're made up of 12 to 16 different saints, each with a unique military connection.

"They have different saints on them, including St. Christopher to protect you when you travel, and St. Barbara to protect you if you work...that have very specific meaning to the military and offers them specific protection," she said.

Lemay started the program as a way to feel connected and show support for the troops overseas. Now, the small memento has spread to Hollywood and beyond.

You'll find them on the wrists of celebrities like Zac Brown and the cast from Band of Brothers. And now you can get them online too.

"When you have a loved one in harm's way, not a moment goes by where you don't think of them," Lemay said. "So we wear these every day and think of our loved ones and all the other service men and women who make so many sacrifices every day."

This shopping and holiday season take a moment to think about the men and women spending their holiday in harm's way. And while you're picking up that new gift for a loved one remember the troops and put the saints on their side.

Class Warfare: A Simple Explanation

Here's the simplified explanation of "class warfare":

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff ...
    And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop, and the the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!
 
Now ... The people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
 So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere  between 200 and 250 years after being founded.  The reason?  The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change  that in  2012.

Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it. 

Write Me Out of Your Will

My daughter just walked into the living room and said "Dad, cancel my allowance immediately, rent my room out, throw all my clothes out of the window, take my TV, and stereo, and iPhone, and iPod, and my laptop. Please take all of my jewelry to the Salvation Army or Cash Converters. Then sell my new car, take my front door key away from me and throw me out of the house. Then disown me and never talk to me again. And don't forget to write me out of your will and leave my share to my brother."

Well, she didn't put it quite like that. She actually said ... "Dad I have decided to work for Obama's reelection campaign."

The Ant & the Grasshopper: The 2012 Version

What a gem my friend R sent me! Thanks!  Be sure to send this on to your fellow "ants" ... and some "grasshoppers" who naively think OWS is kewl.

The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER 
This one is a little different ...... Two Different Versions .....
Two Different Morals

OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.  Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.  The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:  Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green..'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, We shall overcome.

Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames  President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid  exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act
retroactive to the beginning of  the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having  nothing left to  pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the  Government  Green Czar and given  to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading  friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is  in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has  disappeared in the snow,
never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found  dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now  abandoned, is taken over  by a gang of  spiders who terrorize and ramshackle, the once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY:  Be careful how you vote in 2012

I've sent this to you because I believe that you are an ant!
You may wish to pass this on to other ants, but don't bother sending it on to any grasshopper's because they wouldn't understand it, anyway.

 

2012 Election Blues: Heartbreak, Scandal and ... CONSPIRACY?!?

I've been MIA the past two months, wanting to blog, but just not up for it.  The bug bit me again over the weekend, and I feel like I'm starting come out of my slump. I'm sure the blogosphere and my bazillions of adoring fans missed me!

Noooo, just being extremely sarcastic with that last comment.  I mean, I've been using these past few years of blogging just as a method of venting.  Spending everyday in public education for over 25 years ... well, the PC-brainwashed Liberal masses make me cah-RAY-ZAY after a while.  I need this blog just to help me gather my thoughts, push me to investigate things, and express my beliefs that are otherwise unwelcome and clearly the minority voice in a sea of acamedic ignorance.  Educators, for the most part, seem to only regurgitate the propaganda of Liberalism and Unions, unwitting victims of the indoctrination they received in college ... and, to some degree, perpetuating with their students.  This blog pushes me to take what I hear and investigate it, or, if anything, at least hear OTHER voices about various subjects.

I've been wondering why my gradual disinterest in blogging, starting over the summer when I typicall have WAAAY more time to blog, winding up pretty much crapped out this fall.  I think perhaps these blogging doldrums might be due to this ongoing, frustrating candidate approval process among the GOP candidates.  Just when I think I might have made my pick of a candidate, something hits the fan, and I start searching again. Will there somebody "other than Romney", as they say, to stand a chance against Obama?

I do like Romney.  Hell, now I'm starting to understand the Left's mentality during the last election with their feeling of "anybody but Bush."  Well, I feel that way about Obama -- ANYbody, short of Stalin, would be better than Obama.  Hell, I'd even vote for Clinton again!  At least Clinton was a leader.  Obama has proven himself time and again that he lacks leadership, a spine, and balls.  What an utter disappointment, and, if his Liberal supporters didn't throw in the towel last summer with his slipshod mishandling of the BP oil spill, they surely must be angry at the ridiculous con game he thinks he's pulling over us -- "Oh, here, let me come up with some solutions for our budget crisis" or "Here, let me put together a Super Committee to make decisions about budget cuts."

Quite frankly, I am still in mourning that Chris Christie decided not to throw his hat in the ring.  My sorrow was renewed when I read Christie's succinct analysis of Obama's recent budget debacle, describing Obama as being just a "bystander."  This from Politico (emphasis added):

Gov. Chris Christie on Monday tore into President Barack Obama in the aftermath of thesupercommittee’s failure to reach an agreement on debt reduction last week, asking the president, “What the hell are we paying you for?”

Calling Obama “a bystander in the Oval Office,” the outspoken New Jersey governor said the White House spent the weekend tossing out a whole lot of “spin” about the supercommittee’s inability to come to an agreement before the Nov. 23 deadline.

“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for?” Christie said during a press conference in Camden, N.J. “It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”

Even though he said both parties deserve blame for talking at each other instead of talking with each other, Christie ultimately maintained that the buck stops with the nation’s highest in command and pointed to his own governance in the Garden State as a model for effective leadership.

“In New Jersey, the reason [problems got solved] is because I called people into the room and said we’re going to solve this problem and I had people of good will on the other side who said they believed it was their obligation, regardless of party, to get done things like pension and benefit reform,” the governor said, adding, “Why the president of the United States refuses to do this is astonishing to me.”

If Obama doesn’t get his act together, he may as well go back to the Senate, Christie suggested.

“If he wanted to run for Senate again and just be 1 of a 100, I’m sure he could have gotten reelected over and over again in Illinois,” he said. “He’s the one in Washington and he’s got to get something done here. And it’s not good enough just to say, ‘Well, I’ll get it done after the election.’”

Could someone please wave a magic wand and make Christie magically appear in the GOP pool?  He surely would skyrocket to the top of the chart and win the nomination.

But, alas! -- 'tis but a fruitless wish!  The pool as it stands, in my humble and woefully inexperienced opinion? Here you will see the source of malaise --

- Romney, yes I would vote for him, although he has been too much of a flip-flopper on too many issues; but, he could handily take on Obama and, with him being a flip-flopper, he might be seen as more of a centrist and, therefore, more likely to draw some of Obama's disgruntled supporters;

- Cain: like him, the ongoing allegations are going to torpedo his chances (I wonder who's behind those ... it seems a lot of his accusers have questionable backgrounds and track records ... the current accuser, Ginger White, being a prime example); don't really think he's presidential material ... but I would still vote for him over Obama, knowing that Cain has leadership skill (and Obama was far from presidential material);

- Gingrich: hate his marital record, he also seems to be a flip-flopper; but, MAN! the guy is brilliant;  I love how he blows away the debate moderators/ass clowns;  maybe he's a big enough of a shit to get the job done (I think he would definitely show far more leadership than Obama could even begin to picture);

- Santorum: good guy, intelligent, good debater, could do the job; but, the press has blocked him out (as usual, the press is want to choose our candidates for us ...)

- Bachman: press has ridiculed her from the git-go; someone used the expression the other day (sorry, I forget who) about the press pulling out the Sarah Palin playbook on Perry ... I think the MSM did the same with Bachman; she has come off too robotic for me -- sounding a bit too much like slogans she regurgitates; great background ... she'd get my vote, but the press has blacklisted her;

- Paul: BWAAH - hahahahahahhahha!  He sounds like he could unexpectedly suffer a psychotic snap and push "the button"; his ideas of foreign policy are too isolationist and evince a serious lack of international awareness or concern; his lack of support for our military makes him a big, fat zero in my book;

- Perry: as mentioned earlier with Bachman, the press pulled out the Sarah Palin playbook on him and did a major hatchet job ... but, Perry also shot himself in the foot at some of the debates; I do love how his ads call Obama's policies for what they are -- socialist ... and I would still vote for him over Obama!

- Huntsman: Why do I want to take a bath after hearing this guy talk?  And ever since it was announced in January that Huntsman resigned his position as ambassador to China, MSNBCs "Morning Joe" has been pumping out the PR for Huntsman like nobody's business!  I clearly remember hearing one morning Mika piping up with "Love him!" in another one of her incisive analyses ... not! (Go here for my review of "Morning Joe.")  Again, I would vote for him over Obama.  Huntsman has way more experience and fortitude than Obama The Spineless Wonder.

Speaking of Morning Joe, this morning's show had the cast really knuckling down on getting out the word for Huntsman, pointing out that Huntsman is the true conservative. The gang was in hot counterattack mode against the recent endorsements Gingrich has received.  (Here is Scarborough's op-ed piece, or "test", about the GOP candidates: "Who is the real RINO?")  Scarborough does make some interesting observations about the candidate field, making the case for Huntsman being the true conservative compared to Romney and Gingrich ... some good food for thought ...

I just think it a tad odd how hard Morning Joe has been promoting Huntsman ... 

OOOH!  How 'bout me startin' some Huntsman conspiracy theory?  Let's see if it takes hold through the Blogosphere!  

Here goes ... What if MSNBC and Scarborough's minions are actually pumping in loads publicity and financial support to Huntman's campaign, having received some sort of promise in return ... let's say ... GOT IT!  Huntsman gets the nomination and asks Scarborough to be his running mate!

AAAANNNDDDD!!!  Meanwhile, Huntsman is actually the one behind all those women making accusations against Cain in an attempt to bump Cain out of the running.  Also, Huntsman might even be funding the media leeches to dig up trash on the other candidates in order to up his chances for the nomination.  Huntsman is the U.S.'s billionaire number 486, according to Forbes.  He's got the bucks ...

... and I would still vote for him over Obama ... even if Joe Scarborough were his running mate! 

Christmas Shopping: A New Angle for a Weak Economy

This was a great idea forwarded to me by my friend M!  Some great food for thought as you prepare your Christmas shopping "strategery" ...

As the holidays approach, the giant Asian factories are kicking into high
gear to provide North American with monstrous piles of cheaply produced goods -- merchandise that has been produced at the expense of Canadian/American labor. 

This year will be different. This year North Americans will give the gift of genuine concern for others. There is no longer an excuse that, at gift giving time, nothing can be found that is produced by American hands. 

Yes there is!

It's time to think outside the box, people. Who says a gift needs to fit in a shirt box, wrapped in Chinese produced wrapping paper?

Everyone -- yes EVERYONE gets their hair cut. How about gift certificates from your local hair salon or barber?
 

Gym membership? It's appropriate for all ages who are thinking about some health improvement.

Who wouldn't appreciate getting their car detailed? Small, locally owned detail shops and car washes would love to sell you a gift certificate or a book of gift certificates.

Are you one of those extravagant givers who think nothing of plonking down the $$$$ on a Chinese made flat-screen? Perhaps that grateful gift receiver would like his driveway sealed, or lawn mowed for the summer, or driveway plowed all winter, or games at the local golf course.

There are a bazillion owner-run restaurants -- all offering gift certificates. And, if your intended isn't the fancy eatery sort, what about a half dozen breakfasts at the local breakfast joint. 

Remember, folks this isn't about big National chains -- this is about supporting your home town
businesses with their financial lives on the line to keep their doors open. How many people couldn't use an oil change for their car, truck or motorcycle, done at a shop run by the American working guy?

Thinking about a heartfelt gift for mom? Mom would LOVE the services of a local cleaning lady for a day.
 

My computer could use a tune-up, and I KNOW I can find some young guy who is struggling to get his repair business up and running.
 

OK, you were looking for something more personal. Local crafts people spin their own wool and knit them into scarves. They make jewelry, and pottery and beautiful wooden boxes.
 

Plan your holiday outings at local, owner operated restaurants and leave your server a nice tip. And, how about going out to see a play or ballet at your hometown theatre.
 

Musicians and Stand Up Comedians need love too, so find a venue showcasing local talent!
 

Honestly, people, do you REALLY need to buy another ten thousand Chinese lights for the house? When you buy a five dollar string of lights, about fifty cents stays in the community. If you have those kinds of bucks to burn, leave the mailman, trash guy or babysitter a nice BIG tip.

You see, Christmas is no longer about draining North America's pockets so that China can build another glittering city. Christmas is now about caring about us, encouraging small businesses to keep plugging away to follow their dreams. And, when we care about our neighbours, we care about our communities, and the benefits come back to us in ways we couldn't imagine. THIS is the new Christmas tradition.

Forward this to everyone on your mailing list -- post it to discussion groups -- throw up a post on Craigslist in the Rants and Raves section in your city -- send it to the editor of your local paper and radio stations, and TV news departments. 

This is a revolution of caring about each other, and isn't that what Christmas is about? Live simply. Love generously. Be kind. Care deeply. Speak kindly. In God we trust.

Dog Loves "Babe"

A border collie, no less!

ClimateGate 2 Scandal Continues to Heat Up: BBC in Cahoots

Ah, yes.  The MSM once again in bed with the Left and its dictatorial policies ... This from the UK's Daily Mail (emphasis added):

BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows

By David Rose

Last updated at 12:29 AM on 27th November 2011

Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives  in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.

The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

Like the first ‘Climategate’ leaks two years ago, they were placed last week on a Russian server by an anonymous source. 

Again like their predecessors, they have emerged just before a United Nations climate summit, which is to start this week in Durban.

BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage. 

‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is  settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’

In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ – the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

The document says the policy was decided after ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts’ – including those from UEA.

The ‘Climategate 2’ emails disclose that in private some of those same scientists have had doubts about aspects of the global warming case.

For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph – the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.

But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britain’s main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.

...

[loads more good reading if you go to the original article!]