Blogs For Bush
I am registered as an Independent. My political leanings are more and more Libertarian. I just wanted to make this clear before notating that I have added a link to Blogs for Bush to my sidebar. I've had a calendar counting down the days to the election that references Bush and Cheney. While I am now publicy supporting Bush and Cheney I want it understood tha I don't agree with everything they or the Repulican Party endorse or stand for.
As I write about the election and my opinions, I will try to be as honest as I can about both sides. But, I don't like Kerry; he scares the spit out of me. I won't call him names as other bloggers do; that's not my style. I will say that I think the man will say whatever he thinks the people he is currently addressing wants to hear. If that's different from the next group, or the last group, it doesn't seem to make a difference. It's who he's addressing at the time. His military service doesn't impress me. His Purple Hearts impress me even less. His were apparently awarded for minor scratches in an effort to get out of town. That diminishes the Purple Hearts awarded to those seriously wounded and those who died in the service of our country. He's been called out on lie after lie and apparently hasn't met one he doesn't like.
I don't begrudge him his money. I do begrudge the fact that he wants to take money from people who have worked hard for what they have and give it to people who don't want to work at all; people who think the government should take care of them and make the playing field even. My family didn't have a lot of money while I was growing up. I worked for my education and worked for my place in life. I resent that Democrats and liberals think that I should share my money to those who "didn't win life's lottery." Let them work for it like I did, my parents did, and just about everybody I know did. I made poor decisions in life; I learned from my mistakes and I'm not yet done paying for them. But I never thought taxpayers should support me.
I still believe this country is the greatest country in the world and anybody can be whatever they want to be if they want to work for it. The Democrats think you and I are too stupid to think for ourselves and too lazy to work for what we want. They want to keep us stupid and poor so we'll look to them to take care of us. I was raised to think for myself and earn my own way in life. If I can do it, so can anybody else.
I've said most of this before, so please read my previous posts. And, however you vote, please educate yourself about the man you plan to vote for. After all, he's going to influence your future for many years to come.
If you vote without educating yourself, you're proving the Democrats correct. You are too stupid and lazy to take care of yourself. God help you.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
New Rules
I've made some new rules for myself. Starting Monday, I'll blog during the week mainly about things that affect my life such as work, personal things and the like. On the weekends, I'll post my opinions about things that have happened of a more general, national interest. During the week, I'll make notes and Friday night will rough them out and will post over the weekend.
Of course, since these are my rules, I can deviate anytime I feel the urge to do so. Since this is the weekend, I think I'll start on the Rumsfeld/Iraqi prisoner abuse situation.
Iraqi Prisoner Abuse
According to Tony Snow at Fox News: "Here’s a rough timeline: A soldier or soldiers informed lower-level officers last November that something was amiss at Abu Ghraib. Gen. Rene Sanchez, the general in charge of operations in Iraq, got word of the problem on Jan. 13. Donald Rumsfeld got a cursory briefing then, too. Sanchez launched an investigation the next day, and the next week he appointed General Antonio Taguba, asking Taguba to conduct a no-holds-barred inquiry. Taguba got cracking. By early March, he had nailed the prison guards for misconduct; documented an appalling breakdown in leadership, training, discipline and professionalism; given military authorities the names of the guards involved; and recommended disciplinary proceedings against at least 18 people in supervisory positions, including the general in charge of military police, the colonel in charge of the prison, and the lieutenant colonel charged with overseeing the unit guilty of the crimes."
I can't fault the military for their actions after finding out that something was happening. Apparently, Rumsfeld failed to inform Bush about the situation when he should have. And of course, Congress wasn't notified. Rumsfeld dropped the ball, but should he be fired or resign? No. The situation was dealt with. Had it not been, I would have a different opinion. Whose heads should roll? The ones who actually committed these atrocities and those up to and including the general in charge of the military police.
I can't think of anything right now that is more reprehensible than an MP abusing any prisoner. There is no justification for the actions of those MP's. They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I have no problem with the person who came forward and notified their superiors. It was something that needed to be brought to light, investigated, and appropriately dealt with. I know what would happen to any corrections officer who engaged in such activity in a stateside detention facility. He or she would be occupying a cell of their own and facing all sorts of charges including civil rights violations. And rightly so.
President Bush should have been informed as soon as Rumsfeld knew. Congress? With the leaks they have? No, I can't fault anyone for not notifying Congress. The only good it would have done would be to get the scandal out in the open sooner and it would be over with by now. My main question is why it took from November to January for General Sanchez to be notified - something in the vicinity of six weeks. The lower-level officers should have informed their supervisiors immediately and so on up the chain. It should have been hours, not weeks. If I were Sanchez, I'd be asking a lot of questions and there would be people doing a lot of sweating. Of course, Sanchez may have asked these questions, got the answers, and dealt with it already. I hope so.
One report says that the MP who was leading a nude Iraqi around on a leash was following orders. I'm assuming that the content of other photographs was under similar circumstances - orders. Who in their right mind would follow such an order? That could not be construed as a lawful order. It's not moral, legal, or ethical in any way, shape, or form. And anyone who would issue such an order is morally bankrupt. Anyone who would follow such an order hasn't got the sense God gave little green apples. I pray to God and all that is holy that this is not indicitive of our MP's. I can honestly say that I know several former MP's and none of them would have been involved in such a sorry state of affairs.
If this situation happened in any detention facility in the US and it took more than a few hours to get to the top person with the authority to order an investigation, heads would roll from the first person who delayed in reporting the situation. In our facility, if I, as secretary, becomes aware of something like this, I am required to immediately report it to my sergeant. The sergeant then reports to the lieutenant, who reports to the captain, who reports to the major.
Say the sergeant is on vacation; I have to go up the chain until I find someone to report it to. It's not acceptable to say the sergeant wasn't available. There's always someone. There have been a few times when everyone in my chain of command was unvailable for one reason or another. If I was faced with this, I would have to find someone to report it to. Otherwise, I am the one in trouble.
I understand that someone somewhere wanted to do some cover up. It's human nature, but, you know, I've found that it's better to bring my mistakes out on my own rather than have someone else discover that I messed up. When someone in my agency messes up, the agency is open and right out there about it. We learned it the hard way. And hopefully, someone in the Army has learned it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119290,00.html
I've made some new rules for myself. Starting Monday, I'll blog during the week mainly about things that affect my life such as work, personal things and the like. On the weekends, I'll post my opinions about things that have happened of a more general, national interest. During the week, I'll make notes and Friday night will rough them out and will post over the weekend.
Of course, since these are my rules, I can deviate anytime I feel the urge to do so. Since this is the weekend, I think I'll start on the Rumsfeld/Iraqi prisoner abuse situation.
Iraqi Prisoner Abuse
According to Tony Snow at Fox News: "Here’s a rough timeline: A soldier or soldiers informed lower-level officers last November that something was amiss at Abu Ghraib. Gen. Rene Sanchez, the general in charge of operations in Iraq, got word of the problem on Jan. 13. Donald Rumsfeld got a cursory briefing then, too. Sanchez launched an investigation the next day, and the next week he appointed General Antonio Taguba, asking Taguba to conduct a no-holds-barred inquiry. Taguba got cracking. By early March, he had nailed the prison guards for misconduct; documented an appalling breakdown in leadership, training, discipline and professionalism; given military authorities the names of the guards involved; and recommended disciplinary proceedings against at least 18 people in supervisory positions, including the general in charge of military police, the colonel in charge of the prison, and the lieutenant colonel charged with overseeing the unit guilty of the crimes."
I can't fault the military for their actions after finding out that something was happening. Apparently, Rumsfeld failed to inform Bush about the situation when he should have. And of course, Congress wasn't notified. Rumsfeld dropped the ball, but should he be fired or resign? No. The situation was dealt with. Had it not been, I would have a different opinion. Whose heads should roll? The ones who actually committed these atrocities and those up to and including the general in charge of the military police.
I can't think of anything right now that is more reprehensible than an MP abusing any prisoner. There is no justification for the actions of those MP's. They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I have no problem with the person who came forward and notified their superiors. It was something that needed to be brought to light, investigated, and appropriately dealt with. I know what would happen to any corrections officer who engaged in such activity in a stateside detention facility. He or she would be occupying a cell of their own and facing all sorts of charges including civil rights violations. And rightly so.
President Bush should have been informed as soon as Rumsfeld knew. Congress? With the leaks they have? No, I can't fault anyone for not notifying Congress. The only good it would have done would be to get the scandal out in the open sooner and it would be over with by now. My main question is why it took from November to January for General Sanchez to be notified - something in the vicinity of six weeks. The lower-level officers should have informed their supervisiors immediately and so on up the chain. It should have been hours, not weeks. If I were Sanchez, I'd be asking a lot of questions and there would be people doing a lot of sweating. Of course, Sanchez may have asked these questions, got the answers, and dealt with it already. I hope so.
One report says that the MP who was leading a nude Iraqi around on a leash was following orders. I'm assuming that the content of other photographs was under similar circumstances - orders. Who in their right mind would follow such an order? That could not be construed as a lawful order. It's not moral, legal, or ethical in any way, shape, or form. And anyone who would issue such an order is morally bankrupt. Anyone who would follow such an order hasn't got the sense God gave little green apples. I pray to God and all that is holy that this is not indicitive of our MP's. I can honestly say that I know several former MP's and none of them would have been involved in such a sorry state of affairs.
If this situation happened in any detention facility in the US and it took more than a few hours to get to the top person with the authority to order an investigation, heads would roll from the first person who delayed in reporting the situation. In our facility, if I, as secretary, becomes aware of something like this, I am required to immediately report it to my sergeant. The sergeant then reports to the lieutenant, who reports to the captain, who reports to the major.
Say the sergeant is on vacation; I have to go up the chain until I find someone to report it to. It's not acceptable to say the sergeant wasn't available. There's always someone. There have been a few times when everyone in my chain of command was unvailable for one reason or another. If I was faced with this, I would have to find someone to report it to. Otherwise, I am the one in trouble.
I understand that someone somewhere wanted to do some cover up. It's human nature, but, you know, I've found that it's better to bring my mistakes out on my own rather than have someone else discover that I messed up. When someone in my agency messes up, the agency is open and right out there about it. We learned it the hard way. And hopefully, someone in the Army has learned it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119290,00.html
New Look
Apparently Blogger is going to upgrade this weekend. Getting new features and a new look. I'll be looking forward to that. I don't know if the new look will apply to the individual new sites or just to the Blogger main page. New features? hmmmm...could be interesting.
I have some things that I think are cool that I'd like to add to this page, but can't for one reason or another. And, for that reason, among others, was considering moving to another site. I'll hang on here for a while and see what Blogger is offering as incentive.
Curves
I haven't mentioned Curves lately. Actually, there hasn't been much to talk about. Tina and I are going at least twice a week and, most weeks now, three times. Three times is the recommended number. I like it. I'm still not loosing weight, but my inches are showing results. Last month not so much, but still losing. I'm told, by others as well as the Curves instructors, that losing inches, but not weight, means I'm building muscle and losing fat. At some point, I should start dropping pounds.
Yes, I know you have to diet as well as exercise and my diet is improving. I also know that I have a thyroid issue (it's been diagnosed but I'm not on medication yet), and I think I have an adrenal exhaustion problem. I've been taking recommended supplements for that and I think I see some improvement. So either my adrenals are getting back on track or the supplements are helping something else. In any case, I'm not as exhausted as I was. I can actually think about doing some of the things I used to just ignore. Okay, I'm still procrastinating at doing them, but now I actually think that I can do it. Trust me, this is an improvement.
Procrastination
I was talking to a friend of mine, oh, a year or so ago about my procrastination. Ruth told me that she attended a workshop where this was addressed (she's in the mental health field) and found that there are at least two types of perfectionists: one type sees something that needs to be done and does it. The other type sees something that needs to be done, and since they can't do it the way they want to do it, put it aside until it can be done their way. I apparently am in the second group. If I can't do it the way I want to do it, I'll put it aside until I can. True or not, I feel better about myself and understand why I do as I do.
Now, if my boss tells me to do something and it's not the way I want to do it, it gets done his way. I might not like it, but he's the boss. If it's not on a time frame, or for other reasons, I might make the suggestion to do it this (my) way and give reasons. Many times, I get my way. Sometimes, I don't. Again, he's the boss. I've got a good boss though and even if I don't get my way, life is good.
Speaking of my boss, he's not above trying to stir things up. Last week, Tina and I were on a break. As he was leaving to see his boss, he mentioned that things we were saying (negative things) were getting back to the CJ and they were being talked about. Now, first, our break area is situated so that not just anybody passing hears what we're saying. Second, when we're dissing anyone, it's usually the men in our lives - whether husbands, co-workers or men in general. Third, anyone actually hearing what we're saying usually have no business telling our business, they really need to watch their own. Fourth, we seldom talk about our jobs on break. Tina finally finds out that he was playing us. There was nothing being said (we thought as much). He was just trying to stir the puddin'. It gave us something to talk about - trying to figure out what had been said that could be construed as negative.
Speaking of Work
We're finally coming into the 21st century. We now have voice mail - if we can figure out how to set it up. And I finally got email at work! My job requires that I have email so that I can email the Inspector General's office about certain things. Not that I have had to do so as yet, it hasn't come up. Tina already has email and was doing the emailing when it was required, but job duties change and it's now my responsibility. I also am required to do background checks on employees and needed a specific software program to do it. I finally got that last week. With the email, I'll be able to contact JPO's and maybe actually get a response! Woo-hoo!
Our agency is also upgrading our computers. We're at the end of the list (of course!), but should be changed out in the next few weeks. We're connected to the county mainframe, so hard drive space is not a consideration for us. But, speed is. We're still running some Pentium 1 and 2's here. I'm not sure what I've got, but it's slow. I've had the same CPU since '97 so you can see how obsolete it is compared to what is out there and specifically to what I have at home! I have a HP 5Plus laser jet printer that is getting cranky about printing envelopes. The last one I had got so it wouldn't print envelopes at all and I was instructed to switch it out with another HP5P. Apparently I have one of the last HP5P's in the agency. Last week I sent a requisition to Computer Services to replace the toner cartridge. When Gary came out the other day, it was for something else. I asked about my printer and he went ahead and changed the cartridge. I had only run 7000 copies since the last change. Gary told me he keeps a cartridge on the truck for me. Luckily he does since he never got the requisition. Maybe I'll have to have a new printer in the near future. Just damn!
I see advantages to being on the mainframe and disadvantages. The advantage, of course is that I have plenty of storage capability. I don't archive anymore. I don't see the need. And, if my computer goes on the fritz, I don't lose my work or storage as can happen if you don't store off-line. The disadvantage is if the mainframe goes down. I don't foresee that being too much of an issue since they backup every night and do a full back up on the weekend. The most I would lose is one day. It would be a pain, but I could live with that (and have). The main disadvantage is the router hub we're on. All too frequently it goes out and our computers are dead in the water. Sure, we can use them as standalones, but I can't access anything stored on the mainframe. And, as I said, that's everything! My work updates so frequently that it isn't feasible to store anything on the local drive.
I have heard that the telephone system is working off two 8088 computers. This would make them approximately 20 some years old. I rather doubt that it's true (it might have been when I was told that however), I would guess that it's been updated sometime in recent memory. But, since they are updating the computer system, maybe the telephone system has or will be updated. Speaking of telephones. We are in dire need of replacing some of the phones in our facility. We're told all it takes is a requisition. It's getting the big guy to tell me to fill it out! I can't do it without his approval and he hasn't given it to me. He can also do it himself, by the way, but that's what a secretary is for, isn't it??? One of the nurses was trying to make a call and got 911 the other day! Now that's scary! What would she get if she tried to dial 911?
I was told we'll be getting new CPU's, monitors, and keyboards. Tina just got a new monitor. Her old one would pulsate every so often and then started turning itself off. It finally just died. I noticed mine pulsating Friday so it will be a race to see if I get a new system before my monitor dies.
And they're off!
Dogs
We now have 13 dogs in the program. Four, I think are visitors. Three are here for finishing and relaxing until they go to the blind school for their real training - we're just doing basic obedience training. The fourth is here for "boot camp." The puppy program director at SEGI called and asked if we could take a dog assigned to a private handler (private as opposed to our program) who is not behaving very well. The raiser is very experienced; this isn't the first dog she's raised for SEGI. Bobbie Jo was chewing her house up. When the raiser would tell her "no!", Bobbie Jo would just look at her, grin, and continue on chewing whatever she was destroying. We were supposed to have her for two weeks, but it looks like we'll have her for an additional two weeks while the raiser goes on vacation. The raiser assigned to Bobbie Jo got her under control within the first 24 hours. She's still a playful puppy, but listens now. Apparently, the outside raiser is too soft for this particular dog. It happens. Tina moves dogs around in our facility all the time because a youth isn't an appropriate raiser for a particular dog. Actually, now the youths move, the dogs are assigned to specific rooms and stay there.
When we started the program, one of the directors decided to build kennels for the dogs. He decided that we could handle 12 dogs and built a structure that would accommodate two dogs in each kennel. However, last summer was rainy, so the cement he used didn't cure properly and is now crumbling. Areas in the roof and inside the concrete block walls that should have been blocked off now have spiders and wasps in them. Needless to say, the dogs don't kennel outside. And why should they? When they become guide dogs they won't be staying outside in kennels, they'll be in the house with their person. So it was a wasted activity except some of the kids helped build the kennel and got some building experience. Too bad they didn't have a better instructor.
This same director, the one who decided we could have 12 dogs actually tried to take over the program. He tried to take credit for starting it even though it was in the works before he was even assigned to our program. I wonder if he still wants credit for the kennel? I won't go into details, but I understand that he's had enough of his own problems since he was re-assigned.
How Much Is That Doggy in the Window?
I'm still trying to get my husband used to the idea that I want a chihuahua. Don't ask why, I just like chi's. I have chi wallpaper on my computer, a chi charm on a chain around my neck, "Chihuahua's for Dummies", on the bookshelf, and Tiny, the Beanie baby chihuahua in my office and car. Don't tell my husband, but there's one more Tiny coming for my home office. And maybe I'll get one to carry around in my purse.
He knows better than to say I can't have one. I've told him if he does, I'll have one by the weekend. In return he says he and the cats will have Mexican that night. So it's a standoff.
One reason I don't have a dog (of any breed) now is because we have two cats now. Not that they would stop me if I wanted a dog. The main reason I won't have a dog in the house right now is because my husband is unsteady on his feet because of the circulation difficulties and the amputations (he's lost three toes due to diabetes and poor circulation). As unsteady as he is, I don't want him to fall trying to avoid stepping on or tripping over a small dog. And he would fall rather than hurt an animal. He would be devastated if he ever hurt an animal, even accidentally. So, until he's steadier, or in a wheelchair, I don't want a dog. The cats are enough of a problem. The other reason we don't have a dog is because we live in a very small condo. We would have to have a small dog. I like big dogs for protection, but I don't see that as an issue right now - our area is very safe. But a large dog is not appropriate for the size of the condo or the lack of a yard. A small dog is better suited to our location. But a dog of any size is out of the question. I have to be satisfied with visiting with our SEGI dogs and visiting with my brother's two Schnauzers, Jock and Casey.
I am patient. I WILL have a dog! So it is written, so it shall be done.
Apparently Blogger is going to upgrade this weekend. Getting new features and a new look. I'll be looking forward to that. I don't know if the new look will apply to the individual new sites or just to the Blogger main page. New features? hmmmm...could be interesting.
I have some things that I think are cool that I'd like to add to this page, but can't for one reason or another. And, for that reason, among others, was considering moving to another site. I'll hang on here for a while and see what Blogger is offering as incentive.
Curves
I haven't mentioned Curves lately. Actually, there hasn't been much to talk about. Tina and I are going at least twice a week and, most weeks now, three times. Three times is the recommended number. I like it. I'm still not loosing weight, but my inches are showing results. Last month not so much, but still losing. I'm told, by others as well as the Curves instructors, that losing inches, but not weight, means I'm building muscle and losing fat. At some point, I should start dropping pounds.
Yes, I know you have to diet as well as exercise and my diet is improving. I also know that I have a thyroid issue (it's been diagnosed but I'm not on medication yet), and I think I have an adrenal exhaustion problem. I've been taking recommended supplements for that and I think I see some improvement. So either my adrenals are getting back on track or the supplements are helping something else. In any case, I'm not as exhausted as I was. I can actually think about doing some of the things I used to just ignore. Okay, I'm still procrastinating at doing them, but now I actually think that I can do it. Trust me, this is an improvement.
Procrastination
I was talking to a friend of mine, oh, a year or so ago about my procrastination. Ruth told me that she attended a workshop where this was addressed (she's in the mental health field) and found that there are at least two types of perfectionists: one type sees something that needs to be done and does it. The other type sees something that needs to be done, and since they can't do it the way they want to do it, put it aside until it can be done their way. I apparently am in the second group. If I can't do it the way I want to do it, I'll put it aside until I can. True or not, I feel better about myself and understand why I do as I do.
Now, if my boss tells me to do something and it's not the way I want to do it, it gets done his way. I might not like it, but he's the boss. If it's not on a time frame, or for other reasons, I might make the suggestion to do it this (my) way and give reasons. Many times, I get my way. Sometimes, I don't. Again, he's the boss. I've got a good boss though and even if I don't get my way, life is good.
Speaking of my boss, he's not above trying to stir things up. Last week, Tina and I were on a break. As he was leaving to see his boss, he mentioned that things we were saying (negative things) were getting back to the CJ and they were being talked about. Now, first, our break area is situated so that not just anybody passing hears what we're saying. Second, when we're dissing anyone, it's usually the men in our lives - whether husbands, co-workers or men in general. Third, anyone actually hearing what we're saying usually have no business telling our business, they really need to watch their own. Fourth, we seldom talk about our jobs on break. Tina finally finds out that he was playing us. There was nothing being said (we thought as much). He was just trying to stir the puddin'. It gave us something to talk about - trying to figure out what had been said that could be construed as negative.
Speaking of Work
We're finally coming into the 21st century. We now have voice mail - if we can figure out how to set it up. And I finally got email at work! My job requires that I have email so that I can email the Inspector General's office about certain things. Not that I have had to do so as yet, it hasn't come up. Tina already has email and was doing the emailing when it was required, but job duties change and it's now my responsibility. I also am required to do background checks on employees and needed a specific software program to do it. I finally got that last week. With the email, I'll be able to contact JPO's and maybe actually get a response! Woo-hoo!
Our agency is also upgrading our computers. We're at the end of the list (of course!), but should be changed out in the next few weeks. We're connected to the county mainframe, so hard drive space is not a consideration for us. But, speed is. We're still running some Pentium 1 and 2's here. I'm not sure what I've got, but it's slow. I've had the same CPU since '97 so you can see how obsolete it is compared to what is out there and specifically to what I have at home! I have a HP 5Plus laser jet printer that is getting cranky about printing envelopes. The last one I had got so it wouldn't print envelopes at all and I was instructed to switch it out with another HP5P. Apparently I have one of the last HP5P's in the agency. Last week I sent a requisition to Computer Services to replace the toner cartridge. When Gary came out the other day, it was for something else. I asked about my printer and he went ahead and changed the cartridge. I had only run 7000 copies since the last change. Gary told me he keeps a cartridge on the truck for me. Luckily he does since he never got the requisition. Maybe I'll have to have a new printer in the near future. Just damn!
I see advantages to being on the mainframe and disadvantages. The advantage, of course is that I have plenty of storage capability. I don't archive anymore. I don't see the need. And, if my computer goes on the fritz, I don't lose my work or storage as can happen if you don't store off-line. The disadvantage is if the mainframe goes down. I don't foresee that being too much of an issue since they backup every night and do a full back up on the weekend. The most I would lose is one day. It would be a pain, but I could live with that (and have). The main disadvantage is the router hub we're on. All too frequently it goes out and our computers are dead in the water. Sure, we can use them as standalones, but I can't access anything stored on the mainframe. And, as I said, that's everything! My work updates so frequently that it isn't feasible to store anything on the local drive.
I have heard that the telephone system is working off two 8088 computers. This would make them approximately 20 some years old. I rather doubt that it's true (it might have been when I was told that however), I would guess that it's been updated sometime in recent memory. But, since they are updating the computer system, maybe the telephone system has or will be updated. Speaking of telephones. We are in dire need of replacing some of the phones in our facility. We're told all it takes is a requisition. It's getting the big guy to tell me to fill it out! I can't do it without his approval and he hasn't given it to me. He can also do it himself, by the way, but that's what a secretary is for, isn't it??? One of the nurses was trying to make a call and got 911 the other day! Now that's scary! What would she get if she tried to dial 911?
I was told we'll be getting new CPU's, monitors, and keyboards. Tina just got a new monitor. Her old one would pulsate every so often and then started turning itself off. It finally just died. I noticed mine pulsating Friday so it will be a race to see if I get a new system before my monitor dies.
And they're off!
Dogs
We now have 13 dogs in the program. Four, I think are visitors. Three are here for finishing and relaxing until they go to the blind school for their real training - we're just doing basic obedience training. The fourth is here for "boot camp." The puppy program director at SEGI called and asked if we could take a dog assigned to a private handler (private as opposed to our program) who is not behaving very well. The raiser is very experienced; this isn't the first dog she's raised for SEGI. Bobbie Jo was chewing her house up. When the raiser would tell her "no!", Bobbie Jo would just look at her, grin, and continue on chewing whatever she was destroying. We were supposed to have her for two weeks, but it looks like we'll have her for an additional two weeks while the raiser goes on vacation. The raiser assigned to Bobbie Jo got her under control within the first 24 hours. She's still a playful puppy, but listens now. Apparently, the outside raiser is too soft for this particular dog. It happens. Tina moves dogs around in our facility all the time because a youth isn't an appropriate raiser for a particular dog. Actually, now the youths move, the dogs are assigned to specific rooms and stay there.
When we started the program, one of the directors decided to build kennels for the dogs. He decided that we could handle 12 dogs and built a structure that would accommodate two dogs in each kennel. However, last summer was rainy, so the cement he used didn't cure properly and is now crumbling. Areas in the roof and inside the concrete block walls that should have been blocked off now have spiders and wasps in them. Needless to say, the dogs don't kennel outside. And why should they? When they become guide dogs they won't be staying outside in kennels, they'll be in the house with their person. So it was a wasted activity except some of the kids helped build the kennel and got some building experience. Too bad they didn't have a better instructor.
This same director, the one who decided we could have 12 dogs actually tried to take over the program. He tried to take credit for starting it even though it was in the works before he was even assigned to our program. I wonder if he still wants credit for the kennel? I won't go into details, but I understand that he's had enough of his own problems since he was re-assigned.
How Much Is That Doggy in the Window?
I'm still trying to get my husband used to the idea that I want a chihuahua. Don't ask why, I just like chi's. I have chi wallpaper on my computer, a chi charm on a chain around my neck, "Chihuahua's for Dummies", on the bookshelf, and Tiny, the Beanie baby chihuahua in my office and car. Don't tell my husband, but there's one more Tiny coming for my home office. And maybe I'll get one to carry around in my purse.
He knows better than to say I can't have one. I've told him if he does, I'll have one by the weekend. In return he says he and the cats will have Mexican that night. So it's a standoff.
One reason I don't have a dog (of any breed) now is because we have two cats now. Not that they would stop me if I wanted a dog. The main reason I won't have a dog in the house right now is because my husband is unsteady on his feet because of the circulation difficulties and the amputations (he's lost three toes due to diabetes and poor circulation). As unsteady as he is, I don't want him to fall trying to avoid stepping on or tripping over a small dog. And he would fall rather than hurt an animal. He would be devastated if he ever hurt an animal, even accidentally. So, until he's steadier, or in a wheelchair, I don't want a dog. The cats are enough of a problem. The other reason we don't have a dog is because we live in a very small condo. We would have to have a small dog. I like big dogs for protection, but I don't see that as an issue right now - our area is very safe. But a large dog is not appropriate for the size of the condo or the lack of a yard. A small dog is better suited to our location. But a dog of any size is out of the question. I have to be satisfied with visiting with our SEGI dogs and visiting with my brother's two Schnauzers, Jock and Casey.
I am patient. I WILL have a dog! So it is written, so it shall be done.
Friday, May 07, 2004
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Network Television
I mentioned in my previous post that I seldom watch network television. That's true; except for a selected few sitcoms and occasional movie, I pretty much stay away.
I listen to talk radio. That's where I get most of my news. I listen to talk radio because I hear things there that I wouldn't hear on the network news. News bias? You bet. I can remember a time when news anchors gave the facts and you couldn't tell where they stood on any issue. I first became aware of the power of the press during the first Clinton campaign for the presidency. The press then was pro-Clinton. Just as now it's so pro-Kerry. I honestly feel that the press got Clinton elected and they are trying their darndest to get Kerry elected.
I can feel my agitation and anger levels rising when I watch network news. Why am I agitated or angry? Because I'm hearing only what the liberal media wants me to know. Liberals don't think I'm smart enough to think for myself so they have to tell me what to think. No, I take that back. They don't want me to think. They surely don't want me to prosper and have wealth. They don't want me to own my own property. They want to take money I have earned and give it to people who don't have jobs so they can have what I have. More about this in another post.
How do I know this? Because I listen to talk radio. I hear another side of the story and I hear things I don't hear on network TV. I don't like being agitated or angry so I don't watch network news. Why should I spend my time being agitated and or angry because of the news?
I don't read newspapers either. Not for the same reason I don't watch network TV however. I used to subscribe faithfully to the local paper. I no longer have time to read it during the week, so I changed to a weekend subscription. The weekend is from Thursday through Sunday - four days. I don't have time to read at least two of those days, so I requested a Sunday only subscription. Guess what? They don't have it. Or at least that's what the person in the subscription office told me. Now either the paper does not have a Sunday only subscription, or the woman lied. Either way does me no good. Another reason is that this paper has to read the other local paper to find out what to print. Honestly! Local news is in one paper a day or two before it's in the other. And the paper that has the news first can't find my house. I ordered a subscription and a week later called to ask when my delivery would begin. I was told it started the day after I called. I explained that I hadn't gotten the paper. I was told it was delivered, but maybe a neighbor took it. I cancelled the subscription right then. I wasn't paying for a newspaper that either wasn't being delivered or was being stolen.
I used to listen to Fox News Channel in the mornings while getting ready for work. I like Fox, but they can agitate me as well. The news anchors aren't too bad, but the commentators make their opinions well known. And even if I agree with them, I still don't like one-sided news shows. I don't want opinions. Just give me the facts and let me form my own opinion.
My local papers are both online and I get the local news there. For national and world news, I look to various Internet news sites and talk radio. I also read quite a few blogs. Sure, they are opinion, but they seem to have the facts. I don't mind opinion when they are backed up by facts. I can't be bothered listening to, or reading opinions that have no logic to support them. If I want that, I'll find a Democrat and/or liberal site, opinion piece, newspaper or network news (including CNN).
I can't stand most of the "reality" shows on TV today. Joe Millionaire? Please, he wasn't; it was a lie. And the women who were on the show? The best I can say is that they were gold-diggers, out to get his money. Joe Schmoe? I still don't get that one. The premise of "The Apprentice" wasn't too bad. Trump had a job opening and used the show to find out who would get the job.
I have to admit to one little secret. There is one network, reality show I do watch in the summer. Big Brother. I don't know why I like the show. The person who makes it to the end is never the one I want to win. I don't like the alliances and the back-stabbing that goes on. And I hope that Big Brother vets their contestants a little better this year. The year before last a male contestant threatened the life of a female contestant. Last year a male contestant was removed after he, well, lost it. I think there were problems there to begin with and then the confinement and tension of the show pushed him over the edge.
It seems like the bottom line on "reality" shows is who will sink the lowest to get money? I wouldn't last on one of those shows. I trust people way too much, and I have integrity. They'd eat me for lunch for sure.
Democrats and Republicans
You gotta watch them. They want you to think that they want to make the world a better place for everyone. They want everyone to prosper and live a great life. The pity is they believe it.
It used to be thought that if you worked hard enough, you could be anything you want to be. The world is yours for the grabbing. Just reach out a grab the gold ring. You want to own your own business? Just get out there and put in the time and the effort and your can do it! You want to be a success and have money, a nice house, a nice car and eventually, a nice retirement? Just put in the time and effort and it will be yours.
Fat chance.
Democrats don't want you to have anything of your own. You have money? They want to take it and give it to the less fortunate; those that didn't win life's lottery. Well, guess what? Life's not a lottery. If you want something, make the effort and your can have it.
Taxes - one of my favorite topics. The Democrats want to repeal the tax cuts because it benefits the rich. Think about this - did you ever get a job from a poor person? If you were hired by anyone, they weren't poor. The poor don't have businesses where they can hire anyone. The person who hired you might not have been rich, but they weren't poor by definition. If it weren't for the rich, no one in the luxury car, boat, or airplane building industry would have a job. It's not that the rich wouldn't have these things, the people who build them wouldn't have jobs! How about colleges? I understand that most of the people who go to college go on scholarships. But not all do and not all go on full scholarships. And where to those scholarships come from? The rich get tax breaks when they give money to colleges and universities. Without those donations, the schools couldn't give scholarships, and jobs wouldn't exist - from the president of the school right down to the janitor.
Social Security. The Democrats will any day now start screaming that the Republicans want to reduce or eliminate SS. They're trying to scare the elderly who depend on SS to live on. Why? So they will vote for the Democratic candidate who promises to protect SS. It's scare tactics. Go look up just who is doing what to SS. It's on the net. Find it out for yourself.
Welfare. Democrats don't want people off welfare. It would cost them votes! Democrats get a heck of a lot of their votes from the welfare class who are afraid that Republicans and conservatives will take their welfare away from them. They want money handed to them so they don't have to work. There are jobs out there, I see signs everyday advertising jobs. But, why should I start out at minimum wage and work when the government will send me a check every month for not working?
I work a full time job and have for a lot of years. I have worked for every job I ever got, everything I ever bought. I bought a lot on credit and now I'm paying the price for it. In a few years, I'll be eligible for retirement. I may or may not retire then, I don't know. It will depend on many things. When I'm eligible for SS and Medicare, I'll apply. Why? I've paid into the system and it was part of my salary. I hope I won't "need" it, but I'll ask for it. And you know the difference between me and the "less fortunate"? I worked for it; I earned every penny of it.
I don't begrudge a penny of the tax cuts to the wealthy. They earned it. They pay 50% of the taxes and account for only about 5% of the population. The bottom segment, the "less fortunate" pay nothing. But they vote so the Democrats want to make sure they vote Democratic.
I'm not a Republican, but I am a voter. I'll be watching to see who's looking out for me. And it won't be a Democrat, I'm sure of that.
Republicans
Now that I've run down the Democrats, let's see what I have to say about Republicans.
Not much.
They are just as bad at spending money as Democrats. Neither party found a cause it can't throw my tax money at. Democrats used to be big government, but Republicans have gotten as bad if not worse over the last few years.
They only good thing I can say right now is that the Republican party did cut taxes. The Democrats want to repeal those cuts.
The Republicans want to fight the war on terror. The Democrats want to turn it over to the UN.
Nuff said. I'm getting agitated.
I mentioned in my previous post that I seldom watch network television. That's true; except for a selected few sitcoms and occasional movie, I pretty much stay away.
I listen to talk radio. That's where I get most of my news. I listen to talk radio because I hear things there that I wouldn't hear on the network news. News bias? You bet. I can remember a time when news anchors gave the facts and you couldn't tell where they stood on any issue. I first became aware of the power of the press during the first Clinton campaign for the presidency. The press then was pro-Clinton. Just as now it's so pro-Kerry. I honestly feel that the press got Clinton elected and they are trying their darndest to get Kerry elected.
I can feel my agitation and anger levels rising when I watch network news. Why am I agitated or angry? Because I'm hearing only what the liberal media wants me to know. Liberals don't think I'm smart enough to think for myself so they have to tell me what to think. No, I take that back. They don't want me to think. They surely don't want me to prosper and have wealth. They don't want me to own my own property. They want to take money I have earned and give it to people who don't have jobs so they can have what I have. More about this in another post.
How do I know this? Because I listen to talk radio. I hear another side of the story and I hear things I don't hear on network TV. I don't like being agitated or angry so I don't watch network news. Why should I spend my time being agitated and or angry because of the news?
I don't read newspapers either. Not for the same reason I don't watch network TV however. I used to subscribe faithfully to the local paper. I no longer have time to read it during the week, so I changed to a weekend subscription. The weekend is from Thursday through Sunday - four days. I don't have time to read at least two of those days, so I requested a Sunday only subscription. Guess what? They don't have it. Or at least that's what the person in the subscription office told me. Now either the paper does not have a Sunday only subscription, or the woman lied. Either way does me no good. Another reason is that this paper has to read the other local paper to find out what to print. Honestly! Local news is in one paper a day or two before it's in the other. And the paper that has the news first can't find my house. I ordered a subscription and a week later called to ask when my delivery would begin. I was told it started the day after I called. I explained that I hadn't gotten the paper. I was told it was delivered, but maybe a neighbor took it. I cancelled the subscription right then. I wasn't paying for a newspaper that either wasn't being delivered or was being stolen.
I used to listen to Fox News Channel in the mornings while getting ready for work. I like Fox, but they can agitate me as well. The news anchors aren't too bad, but the commentators make their opinions well known. And even if I agree with them, I still don't like one-sided news shows. I don't want opinions. Just give me the facts and let me form my own opinion.
My local papers are both online and I get the local news there. For national and world news, I look to various Internet news sites and talk radio. I also read quite a few blogs. Sure, they are opinion, but they seem to have the facts. I don't mind opinion when they are backed up by facts. I can't be bothered listening to, or reading opinions that have no logic to support them. If I want that, I'll find a Democrat and/or liberal site, opinion piece, newspaper or network news (including CNN).
I can't stand most of the "reality" shows on TV today. Joe Millionaire? Please, he wasn't; it was a lie. And the women who were on the show? The best I can say is that they were gold-diggers, out to get his money. Joe Schmoe? I still don't get that one. The premise of "The Apprentice" wasn't too bad. Trump had a job opening and used the show to find out who would get the job.
I have to admit to one little secret. There is one network, reality show I do watch in the summer. Big Brother. I don't know why I like the show. The person who makes it to the end is never the one I want to win. I don't like the alliances and the back-stabbing that goes on. And I hope that Big Brother vets their contestants a little better this year. The year before last a male contestant threatened the life of a female contestant. Last year a male contestant was removed after he, well, lost it. I think there were problems there to begin with and then the confinement and tension of the show pushed him over the edge.
It seems like the bottom line on "reality" shows is who will sink the lowest to get money? I wouldn't last on one of those shows. I trust people way too much, and I have integrity. They'd eat me for lunch for sure.
Democrats and Republicans
You gotta watch them. They want you to think that they want to make the world a better place for everyone. They want everyone to prosper and live a great life. The pity is they believe it.
It used to be thought that if you worked hard enough, you could be anything you want to be. The world is yours for the grabbing. Just reach out a grab the gold ring. You want to own your own business? Just get out there and put in the time and the effort and your can do it! You want to be a success and have money, a nice house, a nice car and eventually, a nice retirement? Just put in the time and effort and it will be yours.
Fat chance.
Democrats don't want you to have anything of your own. You have money? They want to take it and give it to the less fortunate; those that didn't win life's lottery. Well, guess what? Life's not a lottery. If you want something, make the effort and your can have it.
Taxes - one of my favorite topics. The Democrats want to repeal the tax cuts because it benefits the rich. Think about this - did you ever get a job from a poor person? If you were hired by anyone, they weren't poor. The poor don't have businesses where they can hire anyone. The person who hired you might not have been rich, but they weren't poor by definition. If it weren't for the rich, no one in the luxury car, boat, or airplane building industry would have a job. It's not that the rich wouldn't have these things, the people who build them wouldn't have jobs! How about colleges? I understand that most of the people who go to college go on scholarships. But not all do and not all go on full scholarships. And where to those scholarships come from? The rich get tax breaks when they give money to colleges and universities. Without those donations, the schools couldn't give scholarships, and jobs wouldn't exist - from the president of the school right down to the janitor.
Social Security. The Democrats will any day now start screaming that the Republicans want to reduce or eliminate SS. They're trying to scare the elderly who depend on SS to live on. Why? So they will vote for the Democratic candidate who promises to protect SS. It's scare tactics. Go look up just who is doing what to SS. It's on the net. Find it out for yourself.
Welfare. Democrats don't want people off welfare. It would cost them votes! Democrats get a heck of a lot of their votes from the welfare class who are afraid that Republicans and conservatives will take their welfare away from them. They want money handed to them so they don't have to work. There are jobs out there, I see signs everyday advertising jobs. But, why should I start out at minimum wage and work when the government will send me a check every month for not working?
I work a full time job and have for a lot of years. I have worked for every job I ever got, everything I ever bought. I bought a lot on credit and now I'm paying the price for it. In a few years, I'll be eligible for retirement. I may or may not retire then, I don't know. It will depend on many things. When I'm eligible for SS and Medicare, I'll apply. Why? I've paid into the system and it was part of my salary. I hope I won't "need" it, but I'll ask for it. And you know the difference between me and the "less fortunate"? I worked for it; I earned every penny of it.
I don't begrudge a penny of the tax cuts to the wealthy. They earned it. They pay 50% of the taxes and account for only about 5% of the population. The bottom segment, the "less fortunate" pay nothing. But they vote so the Democrats want to make sure they vote Democratic.
I'm not a Republican, but I am a voter. I'll be watching to see who's looking out for me. And it won't be a Democrat, I'm sure of that.
Republicans
Now that I've run down the Democrats, let's see what I have to say about Republicans.
Not much.
They are just as bad at spending money as Democrats. Neither party found a cause it can't throw my tax money at. Democrats used to be big government, but Republicans have gotten as bad if not worse over the last few years.
They only good thing I can say right now is that the Republican party did cut taxes. The Democrats want to repeal those cuts.
The Republicans want to fight the war on terror. The Democrats want to turn it over to the UN.
Nuff said. I'm getting agitated.
Adoption
I listen to talk radio in the mornings on the way to work and at work. The big topic seemed to be about the Barbara Walters show on adoption. What I was understanding was that a 16-year-old was going to interview several couples for the opportunity to adopt her infant.
I didn't watch the show, mainly because I forgot about it. But I probably wouldn't have watched it anyway. One, I seldom watch network television anymore. And two, I don't watch Barbara Walters.
I said I probably would not have watched the show. Why? Here is a 16-year-old who has not exhibited good judgment in the past. She decides to have sex and gets pregnant. Do I care that she had sex? Not at all. That's her decision. I do fault her for not being on the pill or insisting that a condom is used. Yes, I know condoms break and the pill is not 100% effective, but I doubt that's the case here and it's not the point. She made a poor decision.
I will say that she made one good decision and that was to put the baby up for adoption. I'm curious to know just how she happened to be on this show and what her reasons were for appearing. As I said, I didn't see the show; if I had, some of my questions might be answered. But, I never let not seeing a show stop me from commenting on it. Personally, I think she was on the show because she wanted the publicity (Look at me! I'm on TV!). What 16-year-old wouldn't think it would be cool? And then there is the money issue. I'm quite sure she was paid and it would have been a lot of money for a 16-year-old. I will question the reasons she chose to be one the show. If she simply wanted a family for her baby, there are a lot of ways to make that happen without being on TV. Reality TV is big right now and is opening doors even for people who don't win the object of the show. My personal opinion? Another bad decision.
I understand she chose the teachers to adopt the baby. I come from long line of teachers, so I can't fault that. But, what were her reasons for choosing them? I guess I won't know because I didn't watch the show. But, since I don't trust her decision making capabilities, I have to wonder why them and if someone didn't help her decide.
I also have reservations about the people who were on the show with her. What were their reasons? I have to question anyone who appears in a TV show like this. Why? I can't believe this was their only chance to adopt a child. Again, there are other ways to go about adopting than to be on a TV show. Money? Publicity? Maybe if they don't get the baby someone will feel sorry for them and give them a baby?
I'm all for adoption. I think people who adopt are among the best people in the world. They are angels walking on earth. At least my parents were. Yes, I'm adopted. My parents made sure that I knew the word adoption from my earliest days and understood from the time they felt I could understand, that I was adopted. They also made sure I understood that I was chosen, by them and by God, to be their daughter. I also knew from the age of 12 who my biological mother was and why she gave me up. She was young and unmarried and knew she couldn't take care of me the way she wanted me to live. So she gave me to people she knew would love me and raise me to be the woman she would want me to be. I was their daughter just as much as their biological son was their son. I never felt any difference.
And it was all done without anyone appearing on TV.
I listen to talk radio in the mornings on the way to work and at work. The big topic seemed to be about the Barbara Walters show on adoption. What I was understanding was that a 16-year-old was going to interview several couples for the opportunity to adopt her infant.
I didn't watch the show, mainly because I forgot about it. But I probably wouldn't have watched it anyway. One, I seldom watch network television anymore. And two, I don't watch Barbara Walters.
I said I probably would not have watched the show. Why? Here is a 16-year-old who has not exhibited good judgment in the past. She decides to have sex and gets pregnant. Do I care that she had sex? Not at all. That's her decision. I do fault her for not being on the pill or insisting that a condom is used. Yes, I know condoms break and the pill is not 100% effective, but I doubt that's the case here and it's not the point. She made a poor decision.
I will say that she made one good decision and that was to put the baby up for adoption. I'm curious to know just how she happened to be on this show and what her reasons were for appearing. As I said, I didn't see the show; if I had, some of my questions might be answered. But, I never let not seeing a show stop me from commenting on it. Personally, I think she was on the show because she wanted the publicity (Look at me! I'm on TV!). What 16-year-old wouldn't think it would be cool? And then there is the money issue. I'm quite sure she was paid and it would have been a lot of money for a 16-year-old. I will question the reasons she chose to be one the show. If she simply wanted a family for her baby, there are a lot of ways to make that happen without being on TV. Reality TV is big right now and is opening doors even for people who don't win the object of the show. My personal opinion? Another bad decision.
I understand she chose the teachers to adopt the baby. I come from long line of teachers, so I can't fault that. But, what were her reasons for choosing them? I guess I won't know because I didn't watch the show. But, since I don't trust her decision making capabilities, I have to wonder why them and if someone didn't help her decide.
I also have reservations about the people who were on the show with her. What were their reasons? I have to question anyone who appears in a TV show like this. Why? I can't believe this was their only chance to adopt a child. Again, there are other ways to go about adopting than to be on a TV show. Money? Publicity? Maybe if they don't get the baby someone will feel sorry for them and give them a baby?
I'm all for adoption. I think people who adopt are among the best people in the world. They are angels walking on earth. At least my parents were. Yes, I'm adopted. My parents made sure that I knew the word adoption from my earliest days and understood from the time they felt I could understand, that I was adopted. They also made sure I understood that I was chosen, by them and by God, to be their daughter. I also knew from the age of 12 who my biological mother was and why she gave me up. She was young and unmarried and knew she couldn't take care of me the way she wanted me to live. So she gave me to people she knew would love me and raise me to be the woman she would want me to be. I was their daughter just as much as their biological son was their son. I never felt any difference.
And it was all done without anyone appearing on TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)