Saturday, July 12, 2008

Mental Recession? A Nation of Whiners?

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," former senator Phil Gramm of Texas told the Washington Times. "We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

Former Senator Phil Gramm thinks that we're in a "mental recession" and not an actual recession. What universe is he living in?

Is it a recession? I don't know that it passes the definition of a recession. I've heard it doesn't; I also have heard that we can't go by the "classic" definitions anymore because economics have changed so much. We all know that times are hard for a lot of people, particularly those who are living on the edge for one reason or another. When you don't have much of a cushion, rising prices could cause, not just a pinch, but a real bite into your finances.

Senator Gramm is one of Senator McCain's economic advisors. He tried to explain that he was referring to some of the nation's leaders when he was speaking of a "nation of whiners". Well, I agree that some of the so-called leaders can be "whiners", but I don't read it that he was referring to some national leaders.

You know, politicians are people who are adept at using a lot of words and saying almost nothing. Maybe they need to start listening to themselves. Maybe they should use fewer words and finally, maybe they should say what they mean and mean what they say instead of using double-talk to say nothing.

They just don't understand that perception is everything. I can't read your mind, Senator Gramm and, not being a politician, I don't speak political double-talk. When you speak, I have to take what you say and believe you mean what you say.

I googled Phil Gramm and found that he might not be such a great guy. I didn't take time to read all the articles, but just the headlines are enough to send red flags up all over the place! I'm certainly glad that I didn't take any economic classes from Senator Gramm when he was a professor of economics. He's now a vice chairman at USB, which is under investigation for money laundering, and he was involved in Enron. In fact, the more I read about Gramm, I'm put in mind of a couple of old sayings my mother used to use:

You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas


You are known by the people you associate with - birds of a feather, flock together

Senator McCain, my advice to you is to find another economic advisor. Fast. Yesterday. In fact, go back in time and don't bring him on board to begin with. Dump this guy, and get someone who hasn't been involved in more financial scandals than I can shake a stick at.
The Cactus Cuties

All I can say is...OMG....

Our Country is Broke and How We Can Fix It
Why We Went to War in Iraq
July 3, 2008; Page A11

A lot of poor commentary has framed the Iraq war as a conflict of "choice" rather than of "necessity." In fact, President George W. Bush chose to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he concluded that doing so was necessary.

President Bush inherited a worrisome Iraq problem from Bill Clinton and from his own father. Saddam had systematically undermined the measures the U.N. Security Council put in place after the Gulf War to contain his regime. In the first months of the Bush presidency, officials debated what to do next.

As a participant in the confidential, top-level administration meetings about Iraq, it was clear to me at the time that, had there been a realistic alternative to war to counter the threat from Saddam, Mr. Bush would have chosen it.

In the months before the 9/11 attack, Secretary of State Colin Powell advocated diluting the multinational economic sanctions, in the hope that a weaker set of sanctions could win stronger and more sustained international support. Central Intelligence Agency officials floated the possibility of a coup, though the 1990s showed that Saddam was far better at undoing coup plots than the CIA was at engineering them. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz asked if the U.S. might create an autonomous area in southern Iraq similar to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north, with the goal of making Saddam little more than the "mayor of Baghdad." U.S. officials also discussed whether a popular uprising in Iraq should be encouraged, and how we could best work with free Iraqi groups that opposed the Saddam regime.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worried particularly about the U.S. and British pilots enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Iraqi forces were shooting at the U.S. and British aircraft virtually every day; if a plane went down, the pilot would likely be killed or captured. What then? Mr. Rumsfeld asked. Were the missions worth the risk? How might U.S. and British responses be intensified to deter Saddam from shooting at our planes? Would the intensification trigger a war? What would be the consequences of cutting back on the missions, or ending them?

On July 27, 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld sent a memo to Mr. Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney that reviewed U.S. options:

"The U.S. can roll up its tents and end the no-fly zones before someone is killed or captured. . . . We can publicly acknowledge that sanctions don't work over extended periods and stop the pretense of having a policy that is keeping Saddam 'in the box,' when we know he has crawled a good distance out of the box and is currently doing the things that will ultimately be harmful to his neighbors in the region and to U.S. interests – namely developing WMD and the means to deliver them and increasing his strength at home and in the region month-by-month. Within a few years the U.S. will undoubtedly have to confront a Saddam armed with nuclear weapons.

"A second option would be to go to our moderate Arab friends, have a reappraisal, and see whether they are willing to engage in a more robust policy. . . .

"A third possibility perhaps is to take a crack at initiating contact with Saddam Hussein. He has his own interests. It may be that, for whatever reason, at his stage in life he might prefer to not have the hostility of the United States and the West and might be willing to make some accommodation."

The Iraq policy debate remained unresolved when the September 11 attacks occurred. Like all major national security issues, Iraq policy was re-examined in light of our post-9/11 sense of vulnerability and the heightened worries about terrorism and, especially, about the danger that terrorists might obtain WMD from a nation state.

When the president ultimately decided that the Iraqi regime must be ousted by force, he was influenced by five key factors:

1) Saddam was a threat to U.S. interests before 9/11. The Iraqi dictator had started wars against Iran and Kuwait, and had fired missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. Unrepentant about the rape of Kuwait, he remained intensely hostile to the U.S. He provided training, funds, safe haven and political support to various types of terrorists. He had developed WMD and used chemical weapons fatally against Iran and Iraqi Kurds. Iraq's official press issued statements praising the 9/11 attacks on the U.S.

2) The threat of renewed aggression by Saddam was more troubling and urgent after 9/11. Though Saddam's regime was not implicated in the 9/11 operation, it was an important state supporter of terrorism. And President Bush's strategy was not simply retaliation against the group responsible for 9/11. Rather it was to prevent the next major attack. This focused U.S. officials not just on al Qaeda, but on all the terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism who might be inspired by 9/11 – especially on those with the potential to use weapons of mass destruction.

3) To contain the threat from Saddam, all reasonable means short of war had been tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years. The U.S. did not rush to war. Working mainly through the U.N., we tried a series of measures to contain the Iraqi threat: formal diplomatic censure, weapons inspections, economic sanctions, no-fly zones, no-drive zones and limited military strikes. A defiant Saddam, however, dismantled the containment strategy and the U.N. Security Council had no stomach to sustain its own resolutions, let alone compel Saddam's compliance.

4) While there were large risks involved in a war, the risks of leaving Saddam in power were even larger. The U.S. and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones were routinely under enemy fire, and a larger confrontation – over Kuwait again or some other issue – appeared virtually certain to arise once Saddam succeeded in getting out from under the U.N.'s crumbling economic sanctions.

Mr. Bush decided it was unacceptable to wait while Saddam advanced his biological weapons program or possibly developed a nuclear weapon. The CIA was mistaken, we all now know, in its assessment that we would find chemical and biological weapons stockpiles in Iraq. But after the fall of the regime, intelligence officials did find chemical and biological weapons programs structured so that Iraq could produce stockpiles in three to five weeks. They also found that Saddam was intent on having a nuclear weapon. The CIA was wrong in saying just before the war that his nuclear program was active; but Iraq appears to have been in a position to make a nuclear weapon in less than a year if it purchased fissile material from a supplier such as North Korea.

5) America after 9/11 had a lower tolerance for such dangers. It was reasonable – one might say obligatory – for the president to worry about a renewed confrontation with Saddam. Like many others, he feared Saddam might then use weapons of mass destruction again, perhaps deployed against us through a proxy such as one of the many terrorist groups Iraq supported.

Thoughtful, patriotic Americans differed then and now on whether the risk of leaving Saddam in power outweighed the risk of war. But Mr. Bush concluded that it did, and that war therefore was necessary. In Congress, many Democrats as well as Republicans supported that conclusion. Debates will continue over whether the president should have balanced the risks differently. But characterizing the Iraq war as "a war of choice" sheds no light on the issue.

Mr. Feith, under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, is author of "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism" (HarperCollins, 2008), the author's proceeds of which are being donated to charities for veterans and their families.

From the 7/3/2008 Wall Street Journal

From Laura Ingraham

OBAMA DAZZLES WITH FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTISE: Uh oh. Someone let Obama out of the house without his teleprompter! The man just can't help but get frazzled if he's asked about anything weightier than his favorite pie. Appearing this morning on Good Morning America and the Today Show, inquiring minds wanted to know his thoughts about Iran test-firing its Shahab-3 missile, which is capable of hitting Israel. You won't believe his answer - that is, unless you've been following his campaign. Obama ... blamed America! He claimed the missile tests were the fault of President Bush's failure to deal diplomatically with Iran (lie #1), for not pushing tough sanctions (lie #2), and for using "overheated rhetoric" (Mahmoud "Kill the Jews!" Ahmadinejad apparently being the paragon of proper rhetoric?). If Diane Sawyer knew the difference between a Shahab-3 and Shakira, she might have actually asked a follow-up question rather than let him get away with this nonsense. Alas, no such luck.

A DISGUSTING DISPLAY OF ELITISM: Barack Obama thinks you're stupid. At a townhall event yesterday in Powder Springs, Ga., Obama uttered the latest in a series of snide remarks about everyday Americans: "It's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup!'" Amazingly, the audience rewarded this bit of America-bashing with hearty chuckles and applause.

If he keeps this up, voters are increasingly going to wonder why Obama's more comfortable ridiculing his own country than going after actual threats - like Iran. Who wants a president who looks down on them?

And maybe Obama should spend some time mastering the English language before the next time he preaches the glories of multilingualism. The punch line of his statement above: "and alls [sic] we's [sic] can say is 'merci beaucoup!'"

from here

National Speed Limit?

Last week Virginia
Senator John Warner asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to determine what speed limit would be the most fuel efficient. Warner raised the possibility of Congress passing a national speed limit to save gas and help deal with rising fuel costs. The previous national speed limit was set at 55 mph in 1974 and repealed in 1995. In addition to saving gas, Warner said that the lower speed limit resulted in thousands of fewer deaths each year. Warner would like the DOE to determine if a lower speed limit would also result in lower gas prices.

Yes, I support a National Speed Limit

NO, I do not support a National Speed Limit
Manipulating The Media For Obama
By Cliff Kincaid
July 11, 2008

Thanks to Matt Drudge, Jesse Jackson's disparaging comments about Barack Obama have become national news. Who benefits? Obama. It makes Obama look like a moderate, compared to the disgraced, discredited and venomous Jackson. But this doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that Jackson, a failed black presidential candidate, will cease to be a national black "leader" and spokesman. Remember this is a "Reverend" who has survived the embarrassment of fathering a child out of wedlock.

Now why would Fox News, which recorded and provided Jackson's private comments, want to make Jackson look bad and Obama look good? Why did it take several days before the comments were aired by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News? And who outside of the news organization was made aware of the controversial remarks before they were put on the air? Was the Obama campaign notified in advance and consulted about what to do?

We do know that Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch is already on the Obama bandwagon, having declared the candidate a "rock star" and a winner with a good university record. Murdoch's New York Post endorsed Obama in the Democratic primaries, after Murdoch, who had been supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy, figured she was a loser.

We also know that Bill O'Reilly, in the middle of this controversy, has recently been campaigning on the air for Obama to come on his show. He is even conducting a poll of viewers to see how many think Obama will appear on the air with him. Such pandering means that O'Reilly will steer clear of anything really embarrassing to the candidate. After all, he wants the interview!

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post reported that Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report had an item about Jackson's comments before they actually aired on the O'Reilly program. How did that happen? Even stranger, Bill O'Reilly was quoted as saying about Jackson, "We are not out to embarrass him and we are not out to make him look bad. If we were, we would have used what we had, which is more damaging than what you have heard."

In addition to the troubling matter of why Fox News is withholding these additional Jackson remarks, the delay in airing some of them is also of concern. The Los Angeles Times reported, "Fox News held the footage of Jackson's remarks for three days before showcasing it as an exclusive on its top-rated program. A network executive said the delay was related to the holiday weekend as well as a desire to be cautious about the controversial material."

Could the deliberations have had something to do with the political impact? The Obama campaign must have seen the remarks as a Godsend, enabling the candidate to rise above Jesse Jackson-style politics. Did Fox News see them the same way?

Into the mix comes another discredited and disgraced black politician, Al Sharpton, who has been all over Fox News commenting on the "controversy." Sharpton was on Fox News this morning and on Hannity & Colmes last night. He might as well sleep in the "green room" where guests get ready to go on the air. He was also on Bill O'Reilly's show last week talking about something else. That's three times in about a week and a half. Remember that Sharpton is the "Reverend" who hyped black woman Tawana Brawley's hoax about being raped by white men. Why is he even on the air?

Sharpton is useful to Fox News because he offers protection from left-wingers anxious to brand the channel as too conservative and racist. That's why O'Reilly honored Sharpton (web site) at a national conference after getting into trouble by cracking a joke about black kids stealing hubcaps.

So Drudge and Fox News highlight the Jackson remarks, enabling Obama to put distance between himself and Jackson. Sharpton, of course, must see the controversy as a way for him to upstage Jackson. It is a clever gambit for all concerned.

For Obama, it is another chapter in his "extreme makeover," following his patriotic speech and TV ad.

In the same vein, the Washington Post has a Thursday front-page "analysis" story (web site) headlined, "Obama's Ideology Proving Difficult to Pinpoint." For reporter Dan Balz, supposedly a veteran political analyst, Obama's flip-flops do not prove political expediency and a desire to fool voters, but raise "unanswered important questions about his core principles and his presidential priorities."

This is laughable. Obama is the most far-left major party candidate ever to run for the presidency. Yet Balz insists that serious questions remain "about who Obama is ideologically."

The Post is one among many liberal (and conservative) papers which will never utter the words "Frank Marshall Davis" when discussing Obama. Davis was Obama's Communist father-figure and mentor when Obama was being raised in Hawaii. On the American Thinker website, Andrew Walden has filled in some of the other blanks about Obama's mysterious past. His article (web site)is titled, "What Barack Obama Learned From the Communist Party." Don't look for any pick-up on the Drudge Report, Fox News, or the Post because this kind of information makes Obama look bad.

This does not mean that all of Obama's views are communist or socialist, or that all communists and socialists support him. Veteran Communist and Democratic Party activist Alan Maki tells me that, despite announcing a Frank Marshall Davis discussion group on an official Obama community blog website, he wants it known far and wide that he doesn't support the candidate and wouldn't walk across the street to vote for him. Maki, an organizer of casino workers in Minnesota, thinks Obama and McCain are too close to Big Business, including the casino industry.

Has Obama changed his ideology, which was developed and based on a pattern of associations ranging from Frank Marshall Davis to Marxists in college and the Communist terrorists and socialists that launched his career in Chicago? That is a question we should all want asked and answered. But in order to even get close to asking and answering it, the media will have to ask Obama about Davis. Davis was so extreme that he denounced another black author, Richard Wright, for "treason" for breaking with and exposing the Communist Party USA. Those "news" outlets which continue to ignore the story will expose themselves as being in Obama's back pocket.

Balz further demonstrates his ignorance of the facts when he claims that "no signature policy proposal is universally regarded as distinctive in defining his politics or philosophy." This is what the Obama campaign wants you to believe. He ignores Obama's Global Poverty Act, the $845 billion foreign aid boondoggle that is possibly coming up for a full Senate vote. Our media have been careful not to mention Obama's sponsorship of the bill for the very reason that it does in fact shed light on his ideological approach. Obama has deliberately ignored it as well, even in a TV ad touting his alleged legislative accomplishments. In effect, Obama is covering up his own record. And the media go along with it.

But you can bet that if it passes the Senate, the media will suddenly discover the legislation and hail Obama for trying to eradicate global poverty. This is how pro-Obama media bias works. Then the pressure will be intense on President Bush to sign the bill.

Right now, Obama is playing a clever game, using various media properties on the right and left for the purpose of making himself look more moderate and acceptable.

Let's not be under any illusions about what is happening here.


Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at
It Got Me To Thinking

I posted about how we sign petitions without knowing all the facts behind the petition. We rely on what we are told about the issue and if we agree, we sign, and if we don't we decline.

We have to rely on what we are told at the time. Unless we are already familiar with the issue, we don't have time to research the pros and cons of the petition before signing, and frankly, we probably don't even want to. Sometimes we just don't have the inclination to do the research, and sometimes, we like what we hear. Sometimes, we don't want more information than we already have. As I've said before, sometimes facts just get in the way of our beliefs.

But, petitions aside, we have an obligation to understand what it is we believe and why we believe it. It is not in our best interests to hear one side of an issue, or hear what one politician has to say, and to base our very futures on hearing that one side. We really need to listen to the candidates and not only know, but understand what they are talking about.

Senator Obama is young and charismatic. He's a fantastic speaker and does well in a written speech in a stadium type setting. He's the rock star of the political scene and in that sense, reminds me of John and Bobby Kennedy. He has some good ideas, some not so good.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, is older and not so charismatic. He is not the speaker that Senator Obama is, but does very well speaking off-the-cuff in a town hall type of setting. McCain is not a rock star in any sense of the word. He also has some good ideas, and some not so good.

We can't forget the women behind the presumptive candidates. Jimmy Carter was the first president to openly admit that he discussed issues with his wife, Rosalyn. All the wives have been the First Lady, of course, and probably played more of a behind-the-scenes role that we knew. But since the Carter days, the wives have become more than "just" the First Lady. I am certain that Michelle Obama, a strong, opinionated lady not afraid to say what she thinks, will have input into decisions made by a possible President Obama. I think Cindy McCain, who seems to be a quieter, more demure personality, has more input to her husband than we may have seen, and will offer her opinion when asked (or maybe not even wait).

My intention in this post is not to bash or promote either candidate, or even to examine their platforms. My only intention is to suggest that you, as the voter, look beyond what the candidate looks or sounds like, and think and study on what they are saying, and sometimes more importantly, not saying.

The buzzword of the day, from both sides, actually, seems to be change. We all want change. But, just what do the candidates mean by change? My question to the candidates is specifically, what needs to be changed and what do you propose to do to change it?

Politicians are good at saying something without saying much of anything. And it sounds good until I hear the topic discussed among friends, around the water cooler, around the dinner table, or on a talk show and different points of view are given. Then, I'm not sure what to think except that it's easier to not listen to anyone else, especially if they don't agree with what I already believe. And when I hear a different point of view from someone I respect and admire, it'
s all the harder to mesh with my thinking.

It's hard to give up or change an opinion. It becomes part of who we are. But we want to be liked, and we have a tendency to change our opinions to match the people we are around most of the time. Especially when the other people are stronger personalities, or are people we want to like us. We tend to model the people we respect. We tend to adopt the opinions of those who are stronger willed that we are.
We tend to gravitate toward people who are like us. Subconsciously, we might choose someone who looks like us, or like someone we admire. We might choose someone who thinks like us. We may have a role model and take on their values, which makes us choose the person they might vote for.

It's why the children of Democrats tend to be Democrats, the children of Republicans tend to be Republicans; the children of liberals or conservatives tend to emulate the beliefs of their parents.
By the same token, younger people tend to lean more to the liberal side. Liberal meaning that they are concerned about other people and the environment. This is not bad. The problem is that the young don't always understand that just because they want something, it's a whole 'nother thing to accomplish. They don't always understand that what they see as an injustice isn't something that can be changed just because they want to change it.
It's not just the young and liberal who feel this way. Most everyone who is a thinking, caring person wants all this and more. But that's not the world we live in. We will always have the poor, if only because someone will always have less than someone else. Compared to some, I am poor; compared to others, if not rich, I am well off. And we always want to leave the next generation just a little better off than we were.

As we grow and mature we begin to see things in a different light. It may or may not change our core beliefs, but we may realize that what we believed five, ten, fifteen, twenty or more years before, isn't something we believe in now. Or, it just isn't as important as it once was.

In November, we are essentially hiring someone to fill a position. This position happens to be pretty important: the President of the United States. The undisputed Leader of the Free World. It is up to us, the voters, to do the hiring.

We have two men who are interviewing with each and every voter for the position. We have to make the best choice we can. Whatever decision we made, we will have to live with it for at least the next four years. Maybe more.

We have to look beyond the surface and see into the person. The only way we can know what this person will do is to see what they have already said and done. How did they live their lives up to now? What have they accomplished in their lives? And, yes, who are their friends and their supporters. We need to remember that what they said or did a number of years ago, while still part of their history, may not be what they currently believe.
We have two presumptive candidates who want your vote in the hiring process. Like the young, they both say they want change. Both have offered some examples of the changes they want. Some questions to ask: Can they actually accomplish what they want to change? How can they go about it? And finally, and maybe the most important, what will the consequences be? How will it effect you? Will it better your life?

Some things to consider:

Be wary of someone who tries to be all things to all people. it can't be done.

Be wary of someone who claims to have all the answers. It's not possible.

Be wary of someone who changes their opinion on a dime. They have no moral core.

Be wary of someone who won't change their opinion when shown where they are wrong. They are inflexible.
We can't afford to think and vote with just our hearts. We have to think with our heads and think of the consequences of our votes. And the only way to do that is to know the candidates and who they are, what they think, and what they say they will do as opposed to what they can actually do.

I hope this post got you to thinking about who you will hire in November. It may be the most important decision you make for the next four years.
Now You Know About Dihydrogen Monoxide

I posted a video earlier with Penn and Teller showing a woman asking for signatures to ban the chemical dihydrogen monoxide. The woman in the video did not say anything that wasn't true, and didn't exaggerate the potential problems of dihydrogen monoxide. The signers were told the truth, but apparently all they needed to know about dihydrogen monoxide to agree to sign is that it was a chemical, that it couldn't be washed off when we washed our vegetables, and could be found in reservoirs and baby foods. It was presented as a potential threat to our health and to the environment.

The tone of the woman asking for signatures on the petition was the same as the tone used by people asking for signatures (for and against) candidates for political office, local propositions to be voted on, drilling for oil in Alaska, gas prices, the war in Iraq, environmental issues such as global warming, climate control, and air quality issues, and a whole host of other issues. Issues that are important to people who are willing to stand in malls and elsewhere asking for signatures. You and I may not have thought the issue was important, but obviously someone does, and if it's important enough to someone to draw up a petition and spend time getting the required signatures, it's probably important and worth the minute it takes to affix our signatures. We want to believe that people are serious about issues and wouldn't ask us to sign a petition if the cause wasn't well-thought out and important to society.

In today's society with our ever-increasing awareness of the environment, we are thinking more and more about the environment. We think about the chemicals we use and how many chemicals are bad for the environment and for us, as human beings and as the caretakers of the environment and the world in which we live. We are coming to realize that we may not have been the caretakers we should have been. We want to do our part to save the environment so that it can be a legacy to future generations. A good and noble desire. So we "go green" and sign petitions.

If you watched the video about dihydrogen monoxide, you understand that my accompanying text was tongue in cheek about the seriousness of the threat posed by the use of dihydrogen monoxide. While I wrote that with my tongue firmly planted in my right cheek (mouth, not elsewhere), I do understand that when the quality, and even the quantity, of dihydrogen monoxide is compromised, we could have a serious problem on our hands.

Would I have signed the petition? Possibly. Especially in my younger, more trusting days. I have been guilty of getting up in arms about something without knowing all the details of the issue. When we put the "logical" side of our brains at hold, we forget to ask questions and consider what the petition is asking. Sometimes we just don't want facts to get in the way of our beliefs about an issue.

But to be creditable, we really do need to know as much as possible about the subject we are passionate about; the pros and cons, the good and bad. We need to know that the reasons behind the petition we are signing, in this case banning a chemical, is not just that the chemical is bad, but why is it bad, and just what the heck is it anyway?

The point of the video is that people will sign a petition if they are told how bad something is without knowing all the details. In this video, most people signed the petition without even asking what dihydrogen monoxide is and what it does. We are so accustomed to hearing the chemical names of substances that are bad for us, that we don't think about what we know the chemical as. Most of the time, a chemical is just a chemical and that is all we ever know about it, if that much.

We forget that there are chemicals that we use every day, but call them by a commonly known name. Doctors tell us to take acetylsalicylic acid and call them in the morning, teachers use calcium carbonate in the classroom everyday (at least I think they still do), we put sodium chloride and sucrose in our food and don't give it a thought. We might soak our feet or our achy bodies in magnesium sulfate. I use impure dilute acetic acid and sodium bicarbonate to clean. Prescription drugs are just chemicals put together that will alleviate symptoms or cure a disease.

What is dihydrogen monoxide anyway? It's a commonly used chemical that is used every day by each and every one of us, some more than others. Some of us need it more than others do, but don't take advantage of it's availability. We ingest it in our food and beverages; we use it when we bathe and brush our teeth, when we clean our houses and clothes, and tend our yards; we use it for ourselves, our children, our pets, and our food supply. We literally can't live without it, but too much of it can kill us.

You know it better by it's chemical symbol H20.


And as Paul Harvey would say, Now, you know the rest of the story.

PS...if you don't know the chemical names I used in my examples of chemicals used every day, find them here
Petition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide

People, this is a very serious problem that could have devastating results if we don't ban this chemical now!!

Tell me, what do you think about dihydrogen monoxide?
Today's Horoscope

Received in email. I don't believe in horoscopes, but I do admit to reading mine nearly every day. Just as I know a lot of people not only don't believe in horoscopes, but don't read them, there is a whole bunch of people out there who say they don't but secretly do (you know who you are). Take as you see fit:

This was interesting. Criss Angel showed how this worked on one of his shows, but it was still kind of surprising when I checked out several people I knew. Not superstitious, but I need all the luck I can get.

Once you have opened this e-mail, there is no turning back. Below are True descriptions of zodiac signs. Read your sign, and then forward it on, with your zodiac sign and label on the subject line. This is the real Deal, try ignoring or changing it, and the first thing you'll notice is having a horrible day starting tomorrow morning - and it only gets Worse from there.Remember, if you are on the cusp of another sign you most likely will have features of both signs...which may lead you into total confusion......

CAPRICORN- The Go-Getter (Dec 22 - Jan 19) Patient and wise. Practical and rigid. Ambitious. Tends to be Good-looking. Humorous and funny. Can be a bit shy and reserved. Often pessimistic. Capricorns tend to act before they think and can be Unfriendly at times. Hold grudges. Like competition. Get what they Want. 20 years of good luck if you forward.

AQUARIUS- The Sweetheart (Jan 20 - Feb 18) Optimistic and honest... Sweet personality. Very independent. Inventive and intelligent. Friendly and loyal. Can seem unemotional. Can be a bit rebellious. Very stubborn, but original and unique. Attractive on the inside and out. Eccentric personality. 11 years of luck if you forward.

PISCES- The Dreamer (Feb 19 - Mar 20) Generous, kind, and thoughtful. Very creative and imaginative. May become secretive and vague. Sensitive. Dont like details. Dreamy and unrealistic. Sympathetic and loving. Kind. Unselfish. Good kisser. Beautiful. 8 years of good luck if you forward.

ARIES- The Daredevil (Mar 21 - April 19) Energetic. Adventurous and spontaneous. Confident and enthusiastic. Fun. Loves a challenge. EXTREMELY impatient. Sometimes selfish. Short fuse... (Easily angered.) Lively, passionate, and sharp wit. Outgoing. Lose interest quickly - easily bored. Egotistical. Courageous and assertive. Tends to be physical and athletic. 16 year s of good luck if you forward.

TAURUS- The Enduring One (April 20 - May 20) Charming but aggressive. Can come off as boring, but they are not. Hard workers. Warm-hearted. Strong, has endurance. Solid beings that is stable and secure in their ways. Not looking for shortcuts. Take pride in their beauty. Patient and reliable. Make great friends and give good advice. Loving and kind. Loves hard - passionate. Express them emotionally. Prone to ferocious temper-tantrums. Determined. Indulge themselves often. Very generous. 12 years of good Luck if you forward

GEMINI- The Chatterbox (May 21 - June 20) Smart and witty. Outgoing, very chatty. Lively, energetic. Adaptable But needs to express themselves. Argumentative and outspoken. Like change. Versatile. Busy, sometimes nervous and tense. Gossips. May seem superficial or inconsistent. Beautiful physically and mentally. 5 years of bad luck if you do not forward.

CANCER- The Protector (June 21 - July 22) Moody, emotional. May be shy. Very loving and caring. Pretty/handsome. Excellent partners for life. Protective. Inventive and imaginative. Cautious. Touchy-feely kin of person. Needs love from others. Easily hurt, but sympathetic. 16 years of bad luck if you do not forward.

LEO- The Boss (July 23 - Aug 22) Very organized. Need order in their lives - like being in control. Like boundaries. Tend to take over everything. Bossy. Like to help Others. Social and outgoing. Extroverted. Generous, warm-hearted. Sensitive. Creative energy. Full of themselves. Loving. Doing the right thing is important to Leos. Attractive. 13 years of bad luck if you do not forward.

VIRGO- The Perfectionist (Aug 23 - Sept 22) Dominant In relationships. Conservative. Always wants the last word. Argumentative. Worries. Very smart. Dislikes noise and chaos. Eager. Hardworking. Loyal. Beautiful. Easy to talk to. Hard to please. Harsh. Practical and very fussy. Often shy. Pessimistic. 7 years of bad luck if you do not forward.

LIBRA- The Harmonizer (Sept 23 - Oct 22) Nice to everyone they meet. Cant make up their mind. Have own unique appeal. Creative, energetic, and very social. Hates to be alone. Peaceful, generous... Very loving and beautiful. Flirtatious. Give in too easily. Procrastinators. Very gullible. 9 years of bad luck if you do not forward.

SCORPIO - The Intense One (Oct 23 - Nov 21) Very energetic. Intelligent. Can be jealous and/or possessive. Hardworking. Great kisser. Can become obsessive or secretive. Holds grudges. Attractive. Determined. Loves being in long Relationships. Talkative. Romantic. Can be self-centered at times. Passionate and Emotional. 4 years of bad luck if you do not forward.

SAGITTARIUS - The Happy-Go-Lucky One (Nov 22 - Dec 21) Good-natured optimist. Doesn't want to grow up (Peter Pan Syndrome). Indulges self. Boastful. Likes luxuries and gambling. Social and outgoing. Doesn't like responsibilities. Often fantasizes. Impatient. Fun to be around. Having lots of friends. Flirtatious. Doesn't like rules. Sometimes hypocritical. Dislikes being confined - tight spaces or even tight clothes. Doesn't like being doubted. Beautiful inside and out. 14 years of bad luck if you do not forward
Obama Tells American Kids to Learn Spanish
Posted By Bobby Eberle On July 10, 2008 at 6:17 am

I hope the American public is watching. For months, Barack Obama was a blank slate. The only thing people knew about him was that he gave a good speech and that he wanted "change." This apparently was enough to garner him the Democratic presidential nomination. (That should be a clue to most Americans NOT to vote for him.) But now, with no help from the media, the real Barack Obama is starting to appear.

The media won't write stories about what he says, but they don't need to. With today's technology, we can see for ourselves, and this latest incident is a doozy! Our education system is crazy enough with all these liberal, feel-good programs. Forget adding, subtracting, spelling, and grammar. Now, despite the fact that the rest of the world is learning English, he says that American kids should learn Spanish? What? Learn Spanish? Yes, and it shows just how out of touch and far left Obama is. We need a president who will put America first, not push for our culture to be forgotten.

What an absolutely ridiculous speech. We need to make sure our kids can speak Spanish? Why? That is the question. Oh, and I have the answer. It's because the liberals are quite happy seeing millions of illegal aliens pour across our border and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it. Rather than solve the problem of illegal immigration by enforcing laws and securing our border (after all, if we did that, liberals would call us racists), the far left would rather Americans simply learn Spanish. That is their solution to the problem.

And it is definitely becoming more and more of a problem. Example... during these very nice summer months, my kids love to go swimming with me at our neighborhood pool. We go in the late morning and spend an hour or two there. Afterward, we come home for lunch. On some days, we go out, and they love it when we get sandwiches at Subway. Getting the sandwiches, however, has become more and more of an ordeal. In fact, the last time we went, it took forever simply because I couldn't understand the attendant, and the attendant couldn't understand me.

I'll have a six-inch ham sandwich on wheat with lettuce and tomato... All I got was a blank stare. I repeated the order, with my daughter looking on. The lady finally grabbed the wheat bread and then selected turkey. No... I said ham.

Now, this being a Subway restaurant in AMERICA, one would think that I could place my order in English. Wrong. This must be a Barack Obama Subway restaurant, and the only way to place an order is to do it in Spanish. Hmmm... I guess I should thank Obama for his speech. What he was trying to get across was the idea that we should teach our kids Spanish just so we can order a sandwich at an American restaurant. Thanks Obama for looking out for me!

Sarcasm aside, Barack Obama continues to show that he is not ready for the presidency, and more importantly, America is not ready for him. Our kids should not be told to learn Spanish. Our kids should be told to learn English and math and science, so they can become contributing American citizens. Obama's example in his speech is that Americans sound silly when they go to France because they can only say a simple phrase. What's his point? Is he saying that we should all learn French for that day that we spend thousands of dollars to travel to France?

English has become the language of international business, commerce, science, and technology. Other nations learn English, because English is the "universal" language in which things get done. Only in America (an English-speaking country) would left-wing Barack Obama tell Americans that their kids should learn Spanish.

find it here

Friday, July 11, 2008

For Your Consideration

It's no wonder Congress, under new Democrat management, has managed to chalk up the lowest approval rating in history - just 9 percent.

Consider the following, courtesy of our friends over at Americans for Tax Reform.

When Democrats took office on January 4, 2007, the average cost of a gallon of gas was $2.30. As of July 1 of this year it was $4.05.

When the Democrats took over, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 12,481. As of July 1, it was down to 11,232.

When the Democrats took over, the cost of a loaf of bread was $1.15 and a gallon of milk $3.07. Today, the cost of a loaf of bread is $1.37 and a gallon of milk $3.76.

When Democrats took over, the inflation rate was 2.1 percent. Today it's 4.2 percent.

When Democrats took over, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. Today it's 5.5 percent...and growing.

Just imagine where we'd be two years after Obama becomes president.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

TV One to offer extensive Obama coverage

NEW YORK (AP) - TV One, the cable network aimed at African-American viewers, will cover Barack Obama's nominating convention but is ignoring John McCain's.

The network is telecasting live, prime-time coverage of the Democratic convention in Denver Aug. 25-28, followed by "TV One Live: DNC Afterparty," with political and social commentary from panelists. TV One is available in 43.7 million households, or about 40 percent of the nation's TV homes.

Obama's nomination as the first black to be a major party presidential nominee is an historic event for African-Americans, so it's important for the network to be there, said Johnathan Rodgers, the network's president and CEO.

"While viewers can get coverage of the convention from any number of networks, we plan to cover the convention from a uniquely African American perspective," he said.

The network has no plans to cover the Republican convention.

"We are not a news organization," Rodgers said. "We are a television network that is designed to celebrate African-American achievement. That is why we are covering this convention. If Hillary (Clinton) was the nominee, we would not be covering this year's Democratic convention."


So what happens to the Fairness Doctrine that the liberals and the Dems want so badly? They want Talk Radio and cable news to be subject to the Fairness Doctrine. Will they insist that TVOne also be subject to the FD? Even though Mr. Rodgers says "We are not a news organization. We are a television network that is designed to celebrate African-American achievement", I wonder if anyone sees a difference.

Are we talking apples and oranges here as apparently Mr. Rodgers thinks? I would think that as long as a network gives coverage to a political candidate, they should give the other candidate(s) equal time.

I'm not disagreeing with him, I'm just wondering where the line is drawn. Maybe talk radio should begin to "celebrate the conservative achievement".

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

What's a Military Family Worth?
by Rush Limbaugh
March 11, 2002

I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty, and those who die serving our country in Uniform, are profound. No one is really talking about it either; because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers just pass by; because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country .

If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,0 00, all the way up to $4.7 million.......

However; if you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a big $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.

Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.
Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. But our military men allow themselves to be put in harm's way FOR ALL OF US , and they and their families know the dangers.... ( a willing sacrifice....)

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation, as well.

You do see where this is going, don't you?


The above is what Rush wrote, and the rest of the email is below. Rush apparently didn't write this part and it was added to his remarks by someone else. See for the rest of their verification.


Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East , while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing . Make any sense?

However, our own Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month! (And most are now equal to being millionaires plus.) They do not receive Social Security on retirement, because they didn't have to pay into the system.

If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, while the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month............

I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks, before they start cutting out more benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting!