Happy Meals

It's been a long time since I've written a post, but I was motivated by a thought today.

For whatever reason, I got to thinking about the governments increasing intrusion into our meal decisions. I'm all for good choices and education, but legislating goes too far.

There are many parents who do fall short in their parenting. For some, it's supervision, for others diet, for others it's schooling, for others it's being a good example, and for others it's several or all of the above. But....there are many parents making good decisions most of the time.

"Good" is a relative word. There are different standards for "good." Unless we're talking about breaking laws that are hurtful to other people, the govt has no right to intrude.

Good parents are always the ones punished in these cases. A known and very good strategy for parenting is positive reinforcement. For some, a Happy Meal (candy bar or ice cream cone or donut, etc) could be a reward for an ongoing or special celebration or reason. Just b/c some kids live on a diet of hamburgers and french fries and toys shouldn't mean that McDonalds can't use the incentive of a special toy in their meal that makes their trip to McDonald's special - more than a meal, but a treat. You pay for that toy. If you send your kid to McDonalds with less money, they'll have to make a choice other than a Happy Meal. Regardless of a toy, they'll choose the french fries if they want it. The toy makes it special and brings kids to that chain versus the one across the street. It's a market principal. You can try and legislate it, but people will find a way around it and your objective will fall flat and you'll hurt the the profit for McDonald' and hence the pay and benefits for its employees, as well as the jobs required to make the toys and to serve the increased clientele generated by the toy ploy.

There are others ways that the people who follow the rules and make good decisions get punished by those who don't, but that's another conversation.

WE ALL KNEW IT...

We all knew that the main stream media had a left bias and even a political agenda, but the evidence coming out of Journolist are astonishingly transparent in their frankness about their purposes.

The Daily Caller continues to provide pieces of the Journolist comments that are very damning, indeed. Today, it had a post, Political operatives on Journolist worked to shape news coverage
By Jonathan Strong Here is just a sample of some of the quotes they found:“

Calling all Journos,” Bernstein wrote in a message relayed by Klein. “I thought we got too little love from progressive types re our tax changes targeted at businesses with overseas operations. We’re maybe going for another bite at the apple this Monday,” he wrote. Bernstein invited members of the list to join him on a conference call on the issue a few days later.

I'm not going to write all the tidbits about who was in on it, in addition to bloggers and media types, but the fix is in. But....will the same media bias keep these truths from coming out into the mainstream? Read the whole thing.

IRRELEVANCE

Sometimes people just have to accept that certain products and inventions of yesteryear, while helpful once upon a time are no longer relevant.

The article that spurred that comment has many other issues to consider besides that one, but after only reading the first paragraph or two, I was prompted to express my exasperation at the idea to publicly fund the dying print newspaper. Things go out of style for a reason. For example, the telegraph was replaced by the telephone. It's not that the telegraph was an important too of communication in its time, but the telephone was quicker and reached more people. Another example is the cell phone gradually replacing the cell phone.....or e-mail taking over snail mail. The examples are endless in a world of continuing innovation.

You think there are problems now with the mainstream media? Just wait. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger joins the drumbeat of those proposing fixes that are guaranteed to make the MSM much, much worse — and he wants to do it with your tax dollars.

In a July 14th op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Bollinger argues that the time has come to rescue the declining fortunes of newspapers and broadcast news with “enhanced public funding for journalism.” He envisions the future of American journalism as a “mixed system,” part public, part private.

A very current and parallel (in some respects) example of the electronic/web medium replacing paper is tradition paper maps and Yahoo Maps! And eventually, GPS systems are going to take that over, too. As long as people are inventive, something is going to replace older means of the same task.

The reason, then, for wanting to subsidize newspapers would be to control the message. The article continues...

Otherwise, worries Bollinger, Americans might not get the news they need. Absent a pipeline of government money, he fears the Fourth Estate cannot continue to perform its fabled function as a watchdog, prowling the globe and speaking truth to power.

There are so many things wrong with this. The "get the news they need" sticks out. Because, of course, they know better what we need. Moreover, if one thinks that separation of church and state is important due to the 1st ammendmendment, I think it's clear that there should be a separation of the press and government. As in so many things, they are trying to remove the checks and balances that make America the functioning democracy it's always been. You can't be a dictator with checks and balances.

Boy, I could go on and on. But I won't. I'm going to finish reading the article. Go ahead and read it too. The title is ominous, too: Next Up in Washington, a Media Czar?

TAN TAX

Apparently, there is a "tan tax" to be included in the health care bill. Some are declaring it a reverse racism tax since mostly, if not only, white people go to tanning salons.

Ranall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law says,

"But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, .

"There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect," he said.

I agree. He rightly says that laws that affect different races disproportionally happen all the time.

Regardless of what I think about a "tan tax", I agree with that concept.

From the article in the Washington Post,

"Kennedy said that this is why courts have upheld a raft of other laws that also happen to have a disproportionate impact on particular groups. For example, laws that impose higher penalties for possession or trafficking of crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine resulted in far harsher sentences for African Americans compared to whites. And laws that offer preferential treatment for veterans are much more likely to benefit men than women. But in both cases judges ruled that, because lawmakers did not intend to disadvantage black people or women when drafting those laws, they are legal.

The only problem that I have with Kennedy's argument is that we do indeed have laws that explicitly benefit one race over another. Affirmative action is a glaring contradiction to his argument. Another example that immediately comes to mind is Eric Holder's recently revealed perception that the Voter Rights law only is only there to protect minorities - particularly blacks.

Reverse racism is sadly becoming a bigger and bigger issue in our country right now. The tan tax, though, isn't that. It could be justified the same way a sin tax, such as that on cigarettes could be: an unnecessary indulgence that has negative affects on your health. Being attached to the health care bill actually makes sense to me. For good or naught, it is not a ban on the activity, but a tax to affect behavior - a long standing principal used in taxes for eons.

LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS

Usually, that has a religious connotation. This time, however, it is J. Christopher Adams. Finally, some light is shining onto the despicable practice of the justice department to ignore cases that they don't want addressed. Of course, I'm referring to the Black Panther Voter fraud case. Light had been shining on this unconscionable lack of justice through non-stream media, but it took someone from the inside to force the light to focus on the problem in a way that it won't be able to be ignored, even by the MSM (eventually, if not currently).

A Wall Street Journal article called "Who Will Investigate the Investigators?" is a good snapshot of where that case stands, as well as more damning testimony about other huge infractions of executing their charge to ensure that laws are enforced fairly and judiciously.

It's difficult to read in its unbelievable evasion of justice at the highest levels, but refreshing and encouraging in its forcing light on the darkness that has the MSM has been determined to keep on this dangerous issue. This is the introduction:

J. Christian Adams,, a former career Justice Department lawyer who resigned recently to protest political interference in cases he worked on, made some news yesterday in testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.As expected, he claimed that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama appointee, overruled a unanimous recommendation by six career Justice attorneys for continued prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party on charges of voter intimidation in an incident I detailed here yesterday. But Mr. Adams leveled an even more explosive charge beyond the Panther case. He testified that last year Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice's Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal "Motor Voter" law -- Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

Read the whole thing.

MAKES ME THINK

Having been a teacher, I'm sympathetic with the benefits of teachers being protected. They are a part of their compensation, and in part makes up for them being grossly underpaid for having a professional degree for such a vital purpose in our society. There are teachers that are pretty well paid, but rightly so, since they have years and years of experience and continued their education to a Masters and beyond. A masters' degree should yield a middle class living wage.

On the other hand, there is no question that public education is a mess in the United States. Too many schools are both under performing and under funded. Many schools in more affluent areas do better, in part, because their budgets are supplemented by huge donations, on the order of $100,000 or more. Other factors include the better than average level of education of residents, which has an influence on their general importance they place on their child's studies in the household, as well as being able to provide support, in practical ways, because they already know the habits that promote success in school.

Good schools increase property value, and thus only the affluent can move in. The best teachers are often lured by being in a good school. And, because of the value placed on education, in addition to large foundations, bond measures supporting the school will sometimes actually get passed, adding to the school's improvement budgets. Then, of course, this promotes a self perpetuating cycle of the same good and bad schools.

There are very few good solutions. Many have been tried, but most grand schemed solutions have failed to have measurable results.

This brings me back to my first point about teacher's benefits and salaries. Over its entire existence, the Teacher's Union, has certainly made some positive impacts on education. Better paid teachers bring in better teachers, in many instances.

I feel, however, that their existence has crossed over from helpful to destructive. They not only reward good teachers, but make it so that poor teachers remain in the system and with equal pay to the best teachers. Instead of improving education, they are crippling the varied districts and schools in this country from making the staff changes that would improve the school.

School choice has been a big option floating around out there. Charter schools, vouchers, and so forth have been experimented with. The political nature of the discussions make it hard to get a real read on their effectiveness. People use the statistics for their own agenda. Testimonials, then, are the best indicator.

This blog entry was inspired by an article linked by instapundit (of course) called, "The Education Debacle of the Decade."

It provides a great example of how the teacher's union killed something that was working. It has to do with a program called OSP (he never defines the abbreviation). It provided residents of Washington D.C. with a $7500 voucher to attend a private school. That is actually less than it costs per child at to educate them at the public school ($10,000). The results were measurable positive.

OSP dramatically increases prospects of high-school graduation.

Wolf pointed to research showing that high-school diplomas significantly improve the chance of getting a job. And dropouts that do find employment earn about $8,500 less per year than their counterpoints with diplomas. Further, each graduate reduces the cost of crime by a stunning $112,000. Cecelia Rouse, an economic advisor to President Obama, found that each additional high school graduate saves the country $260,000.

Simply put, OSP has a profoundly positive effect not just on students, but on the city and the country as a whole.
So when it came time for Congress to reauthorize OSP, it would seem to be a no-brainer: Expand the program.

Instead, they killed it.

Read the whole thing. It makes me think about the benefits of vouchers, an idea that I never really understood or cared for, but I'm now rethinking it. Just as in a free financial markets, choice improves the product. It has always been assumed that public education is a sacred cow. Perhaps, instead, we should heavily support private entities to do the job well, instead of states spending more, doing a mediocre job (at best in some places).

THE TEA PARTY DEFINED

I read an article linked by Instapundit, called "What is the Tea Party? A growing state of mind", from USATODAY.com. I think it does a very good job at correctly identifying the personality of the Tea Party. The writer actually interviewed some real people who consider themselves aligning themselves with the Tea Party movement, instead of just blindly deciding for themselves.

To look at who the foot soldiers are in the nation's newest political army and what motivates them, USA TODAY combined results from national polls in May and June and did additional interviews.

How refreshing!

The Tea Party movement has been hard to describe in any definitive terms. People who support it generally understand what they're supporting, but it might mean something a little different to different people.

"I don't really understand it, but I like what they stand for," says Terry Rushing, 63, of Greensburg, La., who was among those surveyed. "They just support everything I'm looking for — lower taxes, less government. ... All the good things, you know."

Perceptively, the author of a mainstream magazine discovered the issues that the Tea Party People are uniting around.

What unites Tea Party supporters is less their geography or demography than their policy views: a firm conviction that the federal government has gotten too big and too powerful and a fear that the nation faces great peril.

I was happy to read the the authors were able to glean the fact that hearkening back to the philosophies of our Founding Fathers that shaped the Constitution of this great nation are an important piece of who the Tea Party people are.

Their faith in the Founding Fathers is a signature of the movement. Citing links to the Revolution has been a mainstay of American politics since the nation's beginnings, Lepore says, but the way the Tea Party uses those symbols and language is original. "It is a fundamentalist way of thinking of the past: The founding documents are gospel; they come alive for us," she says.

Another factor uniting them is the rejection of the political structure and parties that exist now.

"The Tea Party is trying to change the country around because the Republicans and Democrats — I don't think anyone knows what they're doing in Washington anymore," says Ed Bradley, 54, a retired police officer and judge from Lebanon, Ind. "The Tea Party is trying to change this country to what it used to be."

At the same time, the Tea Party is not trying to be a political party, but rather a political movement.

On the last big Election Day, in 2008, the Tea Party didn't exist. Now the name encompasses the most energized segment of the electorate, one that has denied members of Congress renomination, created a new constellation of political heroes and pushed the GOP to the right.

Even so, the movement is less a party than an anti-party, with no clear consensus about whom its national leaders are and a generally dyspeptic view of organized political power.

In sum, the Tea Party is a growing group of Americans who realize the American Dream is slipping away. They are a people who love their country and value the freedom it has promoted for exactly 234 years. They are trying to protect that very freedom before the USA no longer resembles the free republic created to be for the people and by the people. The final quote that the article sited was,

"The government is taking over everything — the banks, the automobiles," she says. "I want my freedom back."

That sums up the frustration pretty well.

REMARKABLE

Remarkable. I mean that in two ways. One is that the following item is worth a remark, and the other is that it is truly remarkable in an amazing sense.

Apparently, the ardent atheist, Christopher Hitchens has cancer. There is a blog post that is soliciting prayer for him as he faces a potentially terminal disease.

It is interesting on all sorts of levels. The comments are fascinating, too. It's funny how bothered an atheist can be that someone is praying for them. Why does it matter?

I join this blogger in prayer for Christopher Hitchens. How awesome it would be to see him become a modern Paul, i.e, an atheist of atheists who converts to believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in his remaining days, uses his position of respect in the atheist world to showing people that there is a God, and He can be known.

WELCOME TO AMERICA

I just read the transcript of Obama's immigration speech this morning. Instead of hashing that out, I had an idea. Tell me what you think.

How about instead of only focusing on adding more border control agents, why don't we add more border welcomers. Have lots of Ellis Island types of border crossings where the non-criminal family just aspiring for a better future can pass through legally without having to wait years and years.

If the process of getting legal status were more streamlined and easier, the motivation for the "good type" of immigrant to cross illegally would be gone.

You could come over, fill out a bunch of papers that document who you are, finger print, and other identifying information, and then get a provisional legal crossing, while the rest of the red tape gets sorted out. If you fail to comply with the entire process, including fees, learning English, Constitution test, etc., which could take however long needed to get through the bureaucracy, you are deported, and you could be found b/c your whereabouts were documented when you came in.

The criminal side would have to be dealt with too, but the key is to deal humanely for the people coming to America for the right reasons.

ARE STATEMENTS OF FAITH EVEN ALLOWED?

The Supreme Court made a decision recently upholding that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join.

The Christian Legal Society has a statement of faith that you have to sign. From an article from The Contra Costa Times,

The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with that faith.

The keyword there is "regards" and "unrepentant." That statement of faith would not exclude a homosexual from joining the group. It would only exclude someone who does not regard sexual immorality as described in the Bible as sin. It so happens that along with acts of homosexuality, performing acts of fornication and adultery are also regarded as sin. If you are participating in premarital sex in an unrepentant way, there is the same problem. An unrepentant heart does not acknowledge that sexually immoral behavior is sin and should be avoided. Desiring such behavior, but realizing that you shouldn't do so, has not crossed the line of regarding it as sin. Even engaging in such behavior is not necessarily "unrepentant." Certainly, according to Christian doctrine, it is clearly sin. But, we all sin and fall short, but our mind set as to whether we think the sin is "just fine" represents whether or not someone is being "unrepentant." If the CLS exculded every sexually immoral person from their group, their ranks would be very small indeed.

While homosexual people should not be denied to enter a Christian group, they should not be given special status either. All voting members must adhere and accept the tenants in the Bible. Why else should you have a say in decisions affecting the policies and activities of the group, if you don't accept the statement of faith that the group represents. Their policy in no way rejects unrepentant gays or any sexually immoral person from participating - only voting.

Since when can clubs and groups not define their own principals of membership? Never mind sexual orientation. It'd be like saying a Jihadist radical islamist could join and change all of the rules of the clubs with their vote. That is counter intuitive. Or, back to sexual orientation, it'd be like saying someone who advocates sexually immoral behavior could vote and completely change the purpose of the group. A group like CLS is there for support for the Christian law student. There is no point in joining as a voting participant, if you don't desire adherence to the precepts of the group.

GOOD JOB AP

Hooray. A MSM wrote a fair, comprehensive, true look at what the Tea Party movement is all about. It's very refreshing to see something like this coming from the Associated Press.

Take the time to read it. It's the most refreshing piece of reporting I have read in a very long time that didn't come from a blog. I'd copy the whole thing here, but it's fairly long - but worth the read.

DISRESPECT?

Tell me. Is it disrespect for President Obama to address the US Military in Pensalcola, FL in a coat without a tie? The military men and women were dressed with respect in mind. Why wasn't our Commander in Chief?

If it's hot outside, think of our troops in the deserts in Iraq. If you're trying to somehow get down on their youthful level, that is disrespect. They deserve more respect than any big wig anywhere....and attire can demonstrate that. There is a time and a place for casual wear. In a place where uniforms and respect are paramount, he should show up in "uniform" i.e., a white shirt and some combo of red or blue tie.... with a flag pin to boot. It may be trite, but we can expect some things from our president that simply respect the office and our military. He may want to be seen as "down to earth" or something, but he's not on the campaign trail - maybe someone should remind him of that.

PEEPING TOMS?

There is an article I read from Yahoo! News called, Feds under pressure to open US skies to drones. Here is an exerpt:

The obvious risks [crashing into things, mind you] have not deterred the civilian demand for pilotless planes. Tornado researchers want to send them into storms to gather data. Energy companies want to use them to monitor pipelines. State police hope to send them up to capture images of speeding cars' license plates. Local police envision using them to track fleeing suspects.

Google Earth shows how well satellites already demonstrate the clarity at which anyone can see the exact location of a building, such as a house. It sounds like these drones would get an even closer look - to the point of reading license plates.

I'm sure that these drones would be useful in some applications, but is that worth the potential of someone becoming a "peeping Tom" on someone. There would be no privacy, even in your fenced in backyard. I'm sure there would be laws that attempt to prevent that, but they would have no muscle on the front side of the crime, even if the recordings are monitored.

Wire tapping my phone because I'm a suspected terrorist is one thing; any foul play has to be a very proactive act by placing the wire tap in the telephone (or however they do it these days). Spying on me is quite another; foul play would be as simple as "mistakenly" pointing the camera on the drone in the "wrong place" as you scan for the right object - say a theif on the run.

There are privacy issues that we are having to forfeit due to the new dangers this terror filled world presents - shoes off at airport security for instance. But, risking my privacy for weather reporting or license plate reading? I don't think the cost/risk analysis is worth it. It makes the red light cameras already in use a miniscule issue, when it comes to privacy.

Maybe that's the point. Reach further and further into our personal lives so that the formerly taboo actions seem like no big deal. Whether it's the point or not, it is a result.

FORTY DAYS CATCHING ON

I was amazed today to find an L.A. Times article that really wripped President Obama for his leadership. I think they might have gotten a hold of the same day planner that the fellow in my previous "Forty Days" post did.

In the nearly eight weeks that the ancient oil has been escaping its subterranean imprisonment, Obama has found....

...time for a couple mini-vacations with golf, a dose of party fundraisers, healthcare town halls, TV interviews, a high school graduation, a festive White House lawn picnic with members of Congress, a Paul McCartney music hoedown, an ABC July 4th TV taping and a session with a key Palestinian leader.

Thursday Obama issued important statements celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Department of Labor's Women's Bureau and King Kamehameha Day, and mustn't forget, Portugal Day.

This article has the harshest words I've heard from the MSM to date. They even utilized Palin's, "hopey changy" line using it as if it was their own.

Polls show Americans now seeing Obama less as the hopey-changey, swell-talking guy of 2007-08 but instead as a standard partisan Democrat. They are also more seriously disapproving of the White House CEO's handling of the spewing stuff.

The crux of the article was why Obama hasn't talked to BP's CEO yet. Following is a big chunk from the article that references back to Matt Lauer's interview on the Today Show, as well as some advice for the president.

RealClearPolitics' brilliant Tom Bevan noted, the real question is not can Obama handle an urgent 3 A.M. call anymore; it's why hasn't Obama initiated one to Hayward? Here's the excuse Obama gave NBC's Matt Lauer earlier this week:

"I have not spoken to him directly – and here’s the reason: because my experience is when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s going to say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words, I’m interested in action."

The Harvard-educated inquiring legal mind doesn't need to talk to someone because he knows what they're going to say? The president who took four months of meetings to figure out his second Afghan troop surge doesn't appreciate words?

An incredulous Lauer pressed Obama, who also said he was looking for some "ass to kick." Obama replied:

"Look, this has been the main critique of the administration, is “giving a piece of my mind” to these guys. Look, I would love to vent. I would love to just shout and holler because I’m thinking about this day in and day out. But my main job is to solve the problem."

But you know what? Truthfully, that's not the main critique at all. The main critique is Obama's constant reaction to crises like a campaigning pol, not like an elected leader.

This is silly simple to have to do, but if solving the problem really is the president's Job One, here's a hypothetical Obama-Hayward conversation the day after the leak began:

PRESIDENT: "Tony? Barack here. I'm terribly sorry about the loss of your people down in the gulf. That's awful. But listen, Rahm tells me we've got a pretty darned serious new problem down there right now. Well, Rahm used other words. But you get the point.

"And it could be August before that stuff stops leaking. I know my Justice Department has launched a criminal probe and your lawyers are probably listening in nervously right now. (Nervous laughter).

"But, look, why don't we let the investigation find whatever it finds later? We may be kicking your company's ass in public someday.

"But right now, I'd like to make you an offer you can't refuse. From a legal and PR point of view, it's to your short and long-term advantage and the nation's advantage and, Lord knows, the wildlife's advantage -- and, let's be real here, mine too -- to get this spill stopped asap. This is new territory for all of us. I and my people propose to publicly work and speak with you and your people jointly for now to make that happen and get this job done as quickly as humanly possible. What do you say?"

HAYWARD: "Yes, sir."

To be fair, there is a political price to such a practical ploy. A politician like Obama would have to forfeit, for now, having another corporate suit to blame as the bad guy.

But it would be leadership.

I think I can safely say that Obama's honeymoon with the press (at least the LA Times) is officially over.

SEVEN

Psalm 12:6,
"And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified 7 times."

I read this today and I noted the number 7. I know that the number 7 is an important number in the Bible, but I wanted to know better, why that is so. I googled, "seven bible" and found a very thorough and informative text that satisfied my understanding.

The gist is that the number 7 represents completeness. Read the whole text. It's amazing.

40 DAYS

I found the following list of events of the 40 days proceeding the gulf oil spill in a comment from an excellent article written by Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal, called "The Alien in the White House." The comment speaks for itself.

Glenn P Morris replied:

There is a crass detachment in the man in the White House which jumps out at you when you see how he actually spends his time - playing!

I found this post, the 40 days of Obama, lifted from the daily agenda of the current occupant in the WH:

40 DAYS OF OBAMA

Day 1 – April 20
Explosion in Gulf
Obama returns from L.A. - fundraiser for Baraba Boxer

DAY 2 – April 21
Obama attends reception for G-20 Labor Ministers

DAY 3 – April 22
Obama hosts Rose Garden reception to honor earth day
Obama flies to NYC to push Wall St Bill

DAY 4 – April 23
Hey, let’s go on vacation to Ashville North Carolina
Lunch at Twelve Bones for ribs and mac & cheese
No worries! How about a mountain hike?
Obama squeezes in a round of golf!

DAY 5 – April 24
Let’s go golfing again — at Grove Park Inn
A nice gourmet dinner at the Biltmore

DAY 6 – April 25
A scrumptious brunch at Grove Park Resort

DAY 7 – April 26
Obama hosts NY Yankees for White House event

DAY 8 – April 27
Obama visits Iowa for rhubarb pie at Jerry’s Diner

DAY 9 – April 28
Obama flies to Missouri for lunch at Peggy Sue's Diner

DAY 10 – April 29
Obama attends DNC fundraiser at swank DC residence

DAY 11 – April 30
Obama flies to MD to view Secret Service binoculars

DAY 12 – May 1
Obama joins Leno for comedy routine at WHCD

DAY 13 – May 2
Obama finally visits Lousiana

DAY 14 – May 3
Obama hosts the Navy football team

DAY 15 – May 4
Obama private lunch with Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel

DAY 16 – May 5
Obama hosts Cinco De Mayo party at White House

DAY 17 – May 6
Just chillin’. Summers gives updates on economy

DAY 18 – May 7
Wizbangs give Rose Garden speech on ‘economy’

DAY 19 – May 8
Obama hits links at Ft Belvoir
Dining out at ritzy DC restuarant — Komi!

DAY 20 – May 9
Obama gives commencement speech at Hampton U.

DAY 21 – May 10
Hey, during a crisis, let’s pick a SCJ!

DAY 22 – May 11
Private (golf?) lunch with Joe Biden

DAY 23 – May 12
Obama hosts private reception for President Karzai

DAY 24 – May 13
Obama flies to Buffalo for Duff's hot wings

DAY 25 – May 14
Obama finally makes speech on oil spill in Rose Garden

DAY 26 – May 15
Enough of the oil spill stuff… Obama off to golf!

DAY 27 – May 16
Obama golfs (again!) at Fort Belvoir

DAY 28 – May 17
Obama hosts UConn women’s basketball

DAY 29 – May 18
Obama tours plant in ‘Ohio’ (um, oil spill’s in LA!)

DAY 30 – May 19
Obama hosts glitzy state dinner for Calderon
Dance the night away!

DAY 31 – May 20
Obama meets with Bono for some reason

DAY 32 – May 21
Obama Rose Garden speech on… Wall St reform

DAY 33 – May 22
Obama goes golfing again at Andrews Air Force base

DAY 34 – May 23
Obama discusses basketball with Marv Albert

DAY 35 – May 24
Obama hosts Asian American celebration

DAY 36 – May 25
Obama flies to San Fran to party with Getty Oil family
…And raise millions for Barbara Boxer

DAY 37 – May 26
Obama spends day 2 in CA — with fellow economic wiz Gov. Schwartznegger

DAY 38 – May 27
Obama welcomes the Duke Blue Devils
Obama, Clinton hang with the U.S. World Cup team
Obama hosts party for Jewish Americans
Obama family heads off for a weekend vacation

DAY 39 – MAY 28
Obamas back in Chicago for weekend vacation
…Obama interrupts vaca for some PR

DAY 40 – MAY 29
Obama leaving U Chicago after some basketball…
…The Obamas heading out for an evening of barbecue

DAY 41 – MAY 30
After a night of barbecue and beers, let’s hit the gym!

Truly, I do understand that the president of the United States has a very tough, taxing, and stressful job. A round of golf or two makes sense to decompress once in awhile. OTOH, the list shows the things Obama is comfortable with: sports, campaigning, enjoying the luxuries and privileges that come with the office (such as plane trips to dinner and visiting with national stars from music to sports), and generally being in the limelight. For the heavy stuff, he assigns czars and committees with very high profile people to figure it all out. At least we know that tax payer money isn't overspending on hand soap, because this president doesn't like to get his hands dirty.

DISTURBING

It is fairly common knowledge among the right of center people that the MSM heavily favors their own leftist agenda and even proactively hides or mischaracterizes anything that opposes or contradicts its validity.

We've seen it vividly with the Tea Party protests, and then in other ways that happen daily, such as the hypocritical demonizing of infractions of someone on the right and then giving a pass to someone on the left for the same infraction - small or big.

Today, however, another instance came up that I find hard to rationalize, even for the MSM. It has to do with a protest at Ground Zero yesterday that was asking that the Mega Mosque not be built so close by. Around 8000 people showed up. I first saw it at Atlas Shrugs via Instapundit.

I was expecting to see it on the Today Show this morning, but there wasn't a peep. Their building is in New York. This story should have hit a close nerve and be an obvious big time story.

I googled "Ground Zero Protest" and found it reported at a number of independent blog type of sites. The only MSM I saw was at CNN and the NY Daily News.

It makes me so sad. I read the CNN and New York Daily News articles b/c they will be seen by a bigger population than the bloggers would. As you can imagine, the bloggers are sympathetic. Ever an optimist, I expected the bigger news outlets to treat this protest with more compassion.

Mimicking the same under estimating of crowds, CNN said,

Geller said the NYPD and security at the rally told her about 5,000 demonstrators were there. But NYPD spokesman Sgt. Kevin Hayes said the police department's policy is to not provide crowd estimates and that he could not confirm Geller's number.
CNN iReporter Julio Ortiz-Teissonniere, who attended the rally and sent photos to CNN, said the number was closer to 200-300 while he was there for the first 45 minutes of the event. All three said the protest was peaceful.

The builders claim that they're trying to boost Islam relations with the community,

The Cordoba Initiative aims to improve relations between Muslims and the West.

I believe that even the speculating of doing this will only aggravate any hostility that is already there. I think that people have been very disciplined about not placing the hate on the non-radical Muslim. But, I don't think this will have a positive effect on relations - it is more likely to cause a riot or actual hate among anyone who utilizes the building. And, they couldn't resist implicating the Tea Partiers, in a racist light,

Local political leaders turned out in support of the community last month after Mark Williams of the conservative Tea Party Express reportedly said the mosque was for "the worship of the terrorists' monkey-god."

This should not be a political issue. It is an emotional one. 9/11 brought our country together in a way we haven't seen a very very long time. It was a time of unprecedented unity (in my generation, anyways). This should be a no-brainer. If 5000-8000 people showed up, that is 1-3 people per victim on 9/11. The MSM is either ignoring or mischaracterizing the event. Knowing how much this offends me, 3000 miles away and not personally knowing any of the victims, I can only imagine the outcry of the negative coverage. Just add a zero or two to those numbers.

If the supporters of the building of this Mega Mosque truly desire better relations between the Muslim community and others, they should voluntarily cease the planned construction, and apologize to the victims, acknowledging that providing this community center is not fostering the good will that they intended. No harm intended. The continued demonization of the "good guy" is disheartening.

"To make room for peace there can be no room for hatred, bigotry or prejudice," City Councilman Robert Jackson said at the May 20 demonstration.

Admittedly, this blog entry has been one-sided in showing the reporting. That is because the tone and/or lack of coverage offended me. And, I know I'm not alone in that. I am not trying to be a news outlet. I express my opinions. If you want to read the whole article to get the full context, follow the links above.

APPEAL FOR PRAYER AT CC

As I reflect on the fact that America has lost its way, in terms of trusting in God for the big problems and direction of our country, I looked back to the Constitutional Convention to see how and if they appealed to God. It wasn't hard to find. Benjamin Franklin made an appeal to seek God's guidance in the big task of creating the man made government. His words are eye opening, as to the similar difficulties that mere man faces in governing themselves. The difference then is that they did indeed appeal to God, and the US Constitution was born. That document has carried our country a long way. It's only now when it is being ignored or misunderstood that we are losing our way as a country. We must return to appealing to God for help in our self governance and embrace once again the ideas He inspired in the founding of this great nation.

Benjamin Franklin's Constitutional Convention Address on Prayer
American Rhetoric Online Speech Bank ^ | June 28, 1787 | Ben Franklin
Posted on February 7, 2010 3:28:48 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege

Mr. President:

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other -- our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own wont of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

VICTORY IN TEXAS

Well, I guess some would differ on calling it a victory....that is the content of a headline and article I read the other day:

TEXAS BOARD ADOPTS NEW SOCIAL STUDIES CURRICULUM

An excerpt from it that tries to sum up the changes requested is:

During the monthslong process of creating the guidelines, conservatives successfully strengthened the requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers and attempted to water down rationale for the separation of church and state. The standards will refer to the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

Some of the critics may have a point when they say,

"Educators have blasted the proposed curriculum for politicizing education. Teachers also have said the document is too long and will force students to memorize lists of names rather than thinking critically."

but, overall I think it's a victory for the direction of American History Standards. While this change in text books may be "political", there is no question that every time a text book is adopted there is an agenda. After all, education does shape the ideas and framework of our children. History, especially, has an impact on the way our future generations view the world, and America's place in it.

For me, the victory is seeing that the people are rising up and want to get back to the founding principals of this nation, and get away from the revisionist history that has been developing in the last couple of generations. Text books are generally reviewed every 7 years. The changes are a great way to view the psyche of those with the power to have a say. Or perhaps a better way to say it is that it reveals the population that cares enough to exercise their power in determining the curriculum. Every parent has the opportunity to have their say, if they pursue it. It has to be a proactive statement; otherwise the committee will decide it for you.

I sense change. I sense hope and change - but not the type the political elites have been trying to sell us over the past many years. As the sleeping giant of middle America and other more conservative minded people wakes up to the reality that America is changing before their eyes, we must pray that the direction the country goes is steered by God and not by a different type of elite group. There is a good feeling in my heart about the energy being put forth that is pushing a change back to our founding principals, but it could get off track and worldly just as quickly b/c we know that power can be a destructive force. Pray with me that the grass roots that are applying the power of the people would not lose focus on the change they're looking for and that they don't get drunk on the new power that they're feeling, as elections and other influential decisions go their way. Amen.

MUSINGS FROM THE BEGINNING

By "Beginning", I'm talking about the book of Genesis. In my 52 week Bible study, today's reading was from Genesis 8-11.

It's amazing how fresh the Bible can be, even when it's just a listing of events and genealogies. What pops out is a good indication of where you are, in terms of your thoughts and concerns.

Chapters 8-11 go from the end of Noah's flood up through the genealogy of Abram. Even in that, I found some interesting nuggets that fall in line with my thinking lately.

The first was Gen 9:14-15,

Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind.

Where I live, we have had drought conditions for some time. This year, however, there seems to rain almost weekly. A couple of weeks ago I saw the most beautiful rainbow I've ever seen. It was a full arc and rich in color.

As I read Genesis 9:14-15, I thought facetiously to myself that perhaps we keep getting the rain because we are exercising God's patience with us, and so He's putting lots of rainbows in the sky to remind Himself of His convenant with us!

The other verse that stood out to me was Genesis 11: 5-7,

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

The thought that came to me is less facetious, but still partly in jest.

I thought, "As the United States of America, we started with the same language, i.e., English. Well, at least, we united around a common language, even if it wasn't one's first language. We made ourselves a great tower, in terms of a mighty nation, full of all sorts of things that are not pleasing to God. Perhaps as at the Tower of Babel, He has confused our language, by bringing people here from all over the earth. Ironically, back then, people's languages became confused and it scattered them; here in America, people scattered from other lands to America, and it confused our language." Growing up in Southern California, and working in the public schools, I know that materials had to be translated into something like 19 languages.

Having varied languages does weaken us as communities. Without good communication, all sorts of factions, prejudices, and misunderstandings can happen. Language is a uniting factor. In "post-racial" America, I think that different languages are more prejudice inducing than one's country of origin. All of America's problems certainly to not reside in this issue, but the United States of America feels less united than ever. Even illegal immigration shows a divide that at some level has to do with a foreign language. A common language couldn't do anything but help increase unity among all people.

Who knew that reading about the Tower of Babel would take me there!