Newtown, Conneticut

Newtown, Connecticut…quite far away from my corner of the world, but my heart is still heavy with the grief of the losses suffered there. Just a few years ago, I was a school secretary and would have been the first line of defense for any threat that tried to enter the front door of the elementary school.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what I would have done…and how my heart would have been crushed to fail at such a mission…and how those women in Connecticut gave their all, literally, to save the kids.

And still, not all of them were saved.

So immediately, there is the rush to outrage, and blame, and demands that such tragedies be prevented…

But what if we can’t? What if it is no one’s fault? What if we cannot always stop evil?

Our immaturity causes us to demand new laws that, in reality, cannot produce the desired result. Even worse, we are satisfied with the symbolism of such laws and consider the problem addressed, resolved.

We are content to say, “Someone should stop that!” instead of, “I will not let that happen again.”

Evil is real, and present in our world. Thank God that we are not blasé about the loss of life, the terror and the tragedy…But there are countries in our world where it is an everyday occurrence…where it is never a given that everyone will come home each night. It is good for us to realize that security is not guaranteed, nor can it be. There are madmen out there from whom there is no protection. And we are fools if we think that we can quarantine evil by laws directed at the lawless.

Rather than look for someone else to secure our safety, we need to wisely consider how we will face the madman when that day comes. Perhaps it will be our day to give it all to save some…something that cannot be done unless one is certain of their purpose, and believes that ultimate security is in the hand of God.

In the meantime, perhaps we should be standing against evil by coming alongside the family of the difficult child, the mentally ill, the addicted, the out-of-control rebel. The first defense against evil is not another law, but for each of us to love our neighbor…in deed and in truth…

“Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee…”

Favorite Excerpts & Quotes from Atlas Shrugged...

Words from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

"So you think money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the priniciple that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of looters who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is that what you consider evil?"

"An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced."

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter or in spirit."

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

"A viler evil than to murder a man, is to sell him suicide as an act of virtue. A viler evil than to throw a man into a sacrificial furnace, is to demand that he leap in of his own will, and that he build the furnace besides."

"I work for nothing but my own profit -- which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them, nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage..."

"...the purpose of a military fleet is to protect from violence the citizens who paid for it, which is a proper function of government."

"There was an air of luxury about the room, but it was the luxury of expert simplicity...This was Mullingan's concept of wealth, she thought -- the wealth of selection, not of accumulation."

"Mr. Rearden," said Francisco, his voice solemnly calm, "if you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling, but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort, the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders -- what would you tell him to do?
          "I...don't know. What...could he do? What would you tell him?"
"To shrug."

Part II: The Sanction of the Victim

The second theme from Atlas Shrugged that has occupied my thoughts is the concept of “the sanction of the victim”.

There are many pages of dialogue explaining to the wealthy steel magnate,  character Henry Reardon, that his indifference to the increasing taxation and intrusion of his business by the government had made him complicit in the final takeover of his company. In effect, his passivity was a sanction to those who were abusing his rights.

Reardon’s friend admonishes: “By their {the government} own statement, it is they who need you and have nothing to offer you in return. By their own statement, you must support them because they cannot survive without you. Consider the obscenity of offering their impotence and their need – their need of you – as a justification for your torture. Are you willing to accept it? Do you care to purchase – at the price of your great endurance, at the price of your agony – the satisfaction of the needs of your destroyers?”

Wow! I had to ruminate over this. The inevitable question is: How am I sanctioning my own victimization? What should I be doing to avoid giving sanction to the government when they diminish my rights?

I have to admit that after all these months of consideration, I don’t have many good answers. But – I do see many regulations and government requirements in a new light, and take time to examine my response to them. I do not want to be giving the sanction of the victim. I believe, as God says, that I am subject to the governing authorities, and respect that God has put them there. However, I will not be passive or silent any more in my response to any attempt to diminish my rights as a citizen.

And that conviction to action does scare me, but I feel it very strongly, and even more so after the revelations of the 2012 election.

I think this is the most valuable concept I learned from Atlas Shrugged, though there are many more that have become part of my thinking as well. It’s a very good book, worth the many pages of reading, and the discipline of thinking through the principles therein. My only wish is that it was written with a underpinning of belief in God. Ayn Rand, the author, was an atheist, and so it makes for some curious reading when she writes of “motive power” as your moral code. A moral code based on what? Character John Galt describes that moral code “which holds that man is an end in himself and not a means to any end of others”.

I couldn’t disagree more…and I think how much greater this story would be with the inclusion of grace and redemption. Ayn Rand missed out on the beauty of that – but nonetheless, it is a book that has informed my beliefs and convictions, and has made me a better thinker.

It has also given me a vision of where our country may be going, that is, the consequences that may be ahead. While the possibilities frighten me, again I take inspiration from the Tramp’s words: “…I think it’s a sin to sit down and let your life go, without making a try for it.”

Or to let your country go…I’m more determined than ever to protect our right to freedom, and the country that is the freest in the world.

BOOK REPORT: Atlas Shrugged

It took me three months to read through Atlas Shrugged -- so many pages, so much to think through. When I got to John Galt’s 60 page monologue I almost gave up…but it was too close to the end. I couldn’t quit then!

I am glad that I persevered as I learned so much, and continue to think about it often. Every week, I see something in the news that reminds me of the world of Atlas Shrugged. We are on our way there, and the election confirmed that.

I wanted to write a book report back in June when I finished the book but couldn’t face the multitude of ideas and philosophies that I would have to describe, and the multitude of words it would take. I just felt I would need to tell it all, and how do you do that?

There is so much good in the book, but as time has passed, the message of Atlas Shrugged has distilled down to two things for me.

1) Beware the philosophy of “fairness”.

In the world of Atlas Shrugged, fairness came to mean that all would work to their ability, but would be rewarded according to their need.

The first application of this belief was higher taxation of the rich, to supply the needs of the government, who supplied the needs of the poor. Then it moved to the government trying to redistribute the resources and productions of larger corporations to smaller struggling ones, to make it “fair”. Finally, it moved to businesses themselves where “work according to ability; paid according to need” resulted in workers competing to be the least productive. Why should any one work harder than the next guy? They would all be paid the same –unless you were needy. The needy were expensive, and as productivity declined, the fulfillment of needs reduced the amount of pay available for those without needs. Babies were resented; sickly old women died the night before expensive treatment. Workers could not take the despair of this system and just disappeared.

On a larger scale, factories and businesses could not produce enough goods to stay in business, and closed. In time, people had cars but no fuel to run them. Trains ran fewer and fewer routes per day. The economy was slowly dying and the staples of living became scarce, and difficult to procure.

Of course, this anecdote is from a novel – but take a minute to think about how much “fairness” is talked about in our society. “It’s not fair that corporations make so much money. They should be forced to pay more taxes.” “The rich don’t deserve what they have.” “We should all have our medical expenses taken care of. It’s not fair that anyone should suffer from unexpected needs.” “It’s only fair that a business pay its employees at least a minimum wage.”

We are already a ways down the road of Atlas Shrugged; and the election results seem to make it clear that many Americans want to go there.

I think what the Tramp (in the novel) said to character Dagny Taggart is exactly true: “There wasn’t a man voting for {The Plan to work to ability, paid as to need} who didn’t think that under a set-up of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that they didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his betters wealth and brains. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits too.”

The needy can point to the greed of the rich, but often, their desire is based just as much on the greed they say they despise.

We need to be cautious about fairness, and examine more deeply and thoroughly where a call for fairness will lead. True fairness is rooted in my right to freely possess myself and my efforts. It should be based on equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. If I work harder than the next guy, is it not fair that I am rewarded more than he is?

The people of our nation are embracing, as character Danneskjold says “...the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights; that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does...” “…practicing charity with wealth that {we do not} own, by giving away goods which {we} have not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of {our} pity.”

Tomorrow: Part II

To legalize or not to legalize...

I’ve been puzzling over the initiative to legalize marijuana. Well, more accurately, I’ve been puzzling over the implementation of the legalization of marijuana.

I keep asking how they are going to the get the drug dealers to sign up for a license to sell marijuana, and to take a huge pay cut. I suppose the lack of eventual jail time might be a motivator.

But I would think that the drug dealers might not be too happy about the possibility of legalization because now they will have to sell a lot of marijuana to make the same amount of money…and probably buy a license, and charge/pay taxes on their sales, and be liable for income tax on the now-documented sales of their product.

Not to mention, they will likely have to become farmers if they are going to profit from it at all. Hard work.

Somehow, I just don’t picture most drug dealers making the transition. And so far I haven’t seen any interviews on how they feel about the initiative.

{snicker, snicker}

I have to say that I don’t follow the reasoning of the backers of this initiative…They always begin their promos by saying that years of enforcement of marijuana laws have not reduced the number of users…Like this plan is going to do that! The premise of the plan is to increase the number of users.

If you legalize, you widen the market, you bring the price down – and more users (or more usage) is needed to make a profit.

That just might mean more DUI’s, and the costs associated with that…some much worse than monetary.

Of course, the proponents’ biggest justification is that the dealers are making all the money now, and why shouldn’t the state get some of that money? After all, the state needs money badly…and this business is already successfully running out there, just waiting to be exploited accessed.

So, again, the end justifies the means, especially when the end is money.

But I still don’t get how this is good for the drug dealers, and how they are going to get them to buy into it…Some of them are willing to risk death to do what they do now. I don’t think they are just waiting to be freed into a life of legitimacy…I suppose the marijuana dealers will move up the chain into the profitable drugs, and leave the mary-jane to the dispensary types.

And then, in a few years, there will be an initative to legalize crack.

More than sick at heart...

CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

Thank God for the insubordination of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Because they did NOT obey the orders to "stand down", lives were saved...though it cost them their own.

At best, our leaders' reaction to this tragic incident is shamefully incompetent...shamefully!

But there is more evidence that it could be something worse than shameful incompetence. I'll not put a title on it, but I am angry that after the attack and the deaths, and the obvious knowledge of it that our leaders had as it happened, and now, the knowledge that help was denied -- I am angry that for weeks, our leaders kept telling the story of a spontaneous attack that resulted from a video made by an American.

What? WHAT?! WHY?!

There is no way that the actions of our President, his administration and our Secretary of State can be seen as anything but self-protective...

Simply put, they care more about themselves than others. Let the others pay the price. Obfuscate the facts that reveal deficiencies.

More than any other event in the course of President Obama's term, this shows us what is most important, most valued in his life...

And it's not our country, or his obligation to the people of this great country.

And 4 people may have died because of this.

I continue to be sick at heart -- and now I am angry too.

Sick at heart...

I am sick at heart over the violence, and the lives that have been lost, in the countries supposedly liberated in the Arab Spring.

I was disbelieving that our Ambassador to Libya was killed, along with three of his colleagues. Is it not a long-standing tradition that an Ambassador is untouchable? He is the representative of peaceful cooperation between countries. He speaks for his country, and communicates to his country the requests, requirements of the country for which he is a liaison.

It is the ultimate in disrespect for Libyans to take the Ambassador’s life. It is the ultimate disrespect to the country that he served.

I agree with Donald Rumsfeld that these things are happening as “a result of perceived American weakness”.

I believe that the response of the Obama Administration was weak, and slow, and completely inadequate.

But it is nothing new.

I am weary of an administration that seems to gauge or change its response by putting a finger in the air to check which way the wind is blowing. I think we saw their true convictions in their immediate response – which in this event, seemed to be apologetic – but when this response didn’t get the ratings desired, they changed things up, so as not to lose their audience.

Bill Clinton did this all the time too, except there wasn’t Twitter, et al, for the immediate consequences. He had to wait for the polls.

Establishment Republicans are pro-active in their directional determinations, and refuse to risk alienating, not so much their base, but the fence-sitters they think they can’t live without.

I’m tired of it all.

Whatever happened to convictions and men who would act and “damn the torpedoes”! If President Obama’s true convictions are that the US has something to apologize for, I wish he would live by it, wrong as it may be.  If Mitt Romney believes that the President responded completely inadequately, I hope that he will stand by his statement, and not soften it to make himself look more kind and acceptable to the independents/undecideds.

We need leadership. Our country will soon fail without it, and it has become very scarce. We need to reject those men who pose as leaders, but in reality their greatest conviction is that they must succeed at their personal endeavors. These posers have no regard for the common good. All their efforts are self-serving, despite their talking points that we can’t get through life without a “village”.

They are everywhere, not just in our highest offices. We need to be more discerning, and keep short accounts with our leaders. They need to know that we want truth, conviction and action…not just having our ears tickled with pleasant promises and fake hope.

Of course, that means we must be people of conviction, willing to risk confrontation…and there is the rub. But if we truly love our country, and the amazing opportunities it affords us, we must.

As Plato said: “The penalty good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves.”

I am weary, but I’m not going to give up. God help me find ways to live as a patriot.

I think I have a better idea...

In her interview with Diane Sawyer on the day after her convention speech, The First Lady listed some of her husband's accomplishments.

One she mentioned was that they were able to give young people, up to the age of 26, the ability to stay on their parents' health insurance.

I think I would have preferred that they accomplished an increase in productivity and a boost to the economy that allowed 22-26 year olds the ability to pay for their own health insurance. THAT would be an accomplishment!

I just don't agree that enabling young people to be dependent on their parents longer is something that should be considered progress.

And I certainly wouldn't be proud to list it as an "accomplishment".

Bittersweet...

I think, after what he said on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we can assume the our Vice President would also find hell to be "bittersweet".

Today, President Obama said that his opponent, Mitt Romney, "has a tendency to shoot first, and aim later".

Mr. President, that is a much more apt description of your Vice President...quite perfectly descriptive...except that there is some question whether he ever does aim at all.

"Stand up, Chuck!" comes to mind...

 The errors he utters indicate he is a man who can't focus enough to adequately address the audience of the day, or keep to the party line. I am still quite astounded that someone who "misspeaks" so profoundly and often, is second in line to the Presidency.

It's another good reason to wish the President good health.

Likability...

I have joked before about our country being "The Land of Perpetual Junior High".

I'm starting to think it isn't a joke...

There's a lot of fussing going on about the "likability" ratings of the two presidential candidates.

Likability?

Who gives a hang dang about likability? I'm just a little more interested in CAPABILITY.

Remember that, American Citizens? CAPABILITY!

You know, competency, success, leadership, character, conviction...

I don't want a president who is like all us common men...I want someone with uncommon capabilities and strength to lead. I would dare to wager that there is a high percentage of our country's presidents who didn't rate high on the likability scale...I think Abraham Lincoln was one of them.

PUH-LEEZE...we have descended into Junior High when our biggest concern is whether we are liked...and we choose our leadership based on whether they are liked, or cool, or easy to talk to and dress nicely.

Let's remind people that likability is a minor virtue...We are looking for capability.

I REALLY don't want to go back to Junior High.

Whatever happened to progress?

In my blog wanderings, I came across this post: Cloth Toilet Paper: How and Why...and I am thinking, mostly, WHY????

This earnest, frugal person, whom I will say must be a "better man than I", uses cloth for, uh, you know what...And then she has to keep a container next to the toilet in which to collect the, uh, used cloths for later washing.  Apparently, the container is sealed, because, well, you know why...

I'm not gonna add this to my to-do list, people...And I'll bet there aren't many old-timers-- who once thought that the Sears catalog was an upgrade -- that will want to bring it back either.

Progress means you can send the, uh, foul stuff away with a flush, and without extra, uh, handling...or smell...or collecting it...ewwwww...Using toilet paper used to be considered an UPGRADE...another improvement for the homemaker, and for hygeine...time-saver, and so much better than a corn cob or a catalog...

So many of the improvements in "technology" that our grandparents and parents hailed as new luxurious conveniences, upgrades in hygeine, in food storage & safety, and in reducing their workloads, have fallen out of favor today.

Oh -- I know chlorine is used to make toilet paper white, and that the toilet paper has to be dealt with at the water treatment plant...But so does the water from your washing machine, and you have just shifted the e.coli to another source for the water treatment plant. I'm not saying cloth does not lessen the effect on water treatment, but I am suggesting that it may not be a very large percentage of improvement for the environment. Not to mention the increased risk of having an e.coli source sitting on the floor of your bathroom while it waits for the wash...

In my opinion, some of these radical shifts back to "the way things were" do more for the psyche of the doer, than they do for the environment, or the purposes used to justify the practice.

More power to you, I say! But I'm staying with paper, and the luxury of flushing some of my troubles away.

Peeves in the news...

 SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE
Disney has joined the fight against the "obesity epidemic" by pledging to offer more healthy food choices at their parks. The First Lady lauded the move as something that is "really big" in the effort.

I'm not sure we can expect that the number of obese citizens will drop dramatically...because Disney is a place that, unless you live in Orlando, or southern California, you will probably visit only once in your life...not exactly enough time to make a life-change. Of course, it is advertised as a "magical" place...maybe there's something I don't know that could effect a magical weight loss.

Regardless, I don't think the phrase "really big" was a good choice of words...for a number of reasons!

 GET YOURSELVES A NEW SPOKESPERSON
King5 news last night covered a protest against additional local regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries. They interviewed one of the protestors, a woman who emphatically described her need for medical marijuana. She said that the doctor had given her pills for her condition, but you don't know what is in them, and there's stuff in them that will kill you. She needed access to marijuana because you know what is in that (just marijuana!) and it's much safer.

Perhaps she had just taken a dose of her preferred prescription before saying this...but I'm pretty sure that the cause that she supports was not too happy with the display of her reasoning -- or lack thereof.
I don't think the cause would have appreciated the guffaws coming from the viewers as they considered the safety of acquiring pure marijuana from a grower/distributor as compared with medicines researched by drug companies, and prescribed by doctors, who are accountable for malpractice. Oh sure, I'd trust the marijuana guy over the doc every time...and that's why every neighborhood should have their own dispensary.

So being a stay at home mom isn't work, huh...

I respond with a quote from G.K. Chesterton:

"To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labours, and holidays; to be Whitely within a certain area, providing toys, boots, cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can imagine how this can exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can one be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone? No, a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute."

Hear, hear!

Wisdom for Wednesday...

In honor of the rapidly approaching deadline for filing your income tax, these words:

THE POINT TO REMEMBER IS
THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT GIVES
IT MUST FIRST TAKE AWAY.
--John S. Coleman

Thanks to all for your forced contribution.

I'm sure I don't understand...

...because what I thought I heard has such broad application.

What I heard yesterday as one of the arguments to uphold the healthcare law was that those who don't participate in purchasing healthcare make the costs greater for those who do...and that is an undue burden on those participants.

Couldn't I say that is also true for those who don't choose to purchase raspberries? Really -- it causes us a burden when the price goes way down because the market is soft. So, we plant fewer raspberries, and then people want them more, and they become costly because there aren't enough of them to go around...and that causes a burden on everyone.

If everyone was required to buy some raspberries every year, wouldn't that be more fair?

I'm not sure how they're going to handle shipping raspberries to places that don't have them. Neither do I know what they're going to do about the people who don't like raspberries...or think they don't need them...

They'll come up with some regulations to handle that, and after they pass that bill we'll find out what's in it.

And we'll all live happily ever after, because life will finally be fair...well, except for people who don't like raspberries.

But obviously, they don't know what's good for them anyway.

If ever there was evidence...

...of our President and his wife considering themselves as entitled elitists, I think the report that their 13 year old daughter was sent to vacation in Mexico with her friends and Secret Service Agents is it.

First of all , what 13 year old deserves her own spring break vacation. I'm not sure most college kids deserve spring break vacations... AND what 13 year old needs to vacation without her parents?

Secondly, MEXICO??? This is craziness! Our own State Department is warning great caution in traveling to Mexico because of the drug cartel dangers. I have great admiration for, and faith in, our Secret Service, and frankly, I wouldn't go to Mexico unless I could get Secret Service protection... But think what a prize the daughter of the US President could be to the drug cartel thugs...They could have carte blanche if she was kidnapped...Why would you risk that kind of danger for your child, and the others accompanying her?

Perhaps the justification for her trip was that "normal" kids her age would get to go on such a trip...Maybe it is a school trip...details are lacking (which is safer for all the participants)...

My third point is that a member of the President's family must sometimes make sacrifices of what "normal kids" do because they fall into the category of "not normal kids". Most normal kids don't cost the tax-payers tens of thousands of dollars when they take a trip to Mexico. Most normal kids escapades in a foreign country don't have the potential to cause an international incident.

And, actually, if you want to be a "normal kid", there are likely many more of those whose parents would say: "You're not going." I can't think of another President who would have asked the taxpayers to foot the bill for a 13 year old's vacation. 

This, to me is unarguable evidence that the Obama's think of themselves as royalty more so than public servants.

Disgusting...

Trial by media...

Large organization takes action according to previously established guidelines.

Said action creates negative impact on a media/ liberal favorite.

Politically motivated media accuses organization of being A) politically motivated, B)racist, C)homophobic, D)chauvinistic, E)the 1%, F)a warmonger, G) anti-environmental, H)just plain mean, or I)any or all of the above.

There is an outcry from the people…according to the media.

Money is taken away from large organization, according to the media.

Large organization reverses now-controversial action and says they didn’t mean to be mean.

Large organization fires someone.

Everything is All Better. 

I fear we are becoming “America, the land of Perpetual Junior High”…

Rest in peace, Joe Paterno...

I’ve not been a follower of Penn State football. I knew of Joe Paterno, and frankly, my thought was that the old guy should quit while he was ahead. Really – coaching football at 85?

Obviously, it was what kept him going.

From the beginning of the Sandusky scandal, I thought it was wrong that they fired Coach Paterno. I think the board of trustees did it to placate the media frenzy, and try to keep them (the media, that is) from creating a portrayal of their university as a “good ol’ boys” administration that looked the other way.  And Joe Pa was collateral damage.

I maintain he didn’t deserve it.

Consider what this man is characterized by: He loved football, but saw it as a tool to further education. He insisted that his players meet high academic standards. As more and more football programs enjoyed the money that success brought, he continued to stick with the plain uniforms, navy jerseys with no names on them…the Nittany Lions were a team, and not flashy.

When the scandal broke, and he was fired, he waved off the supporters (and reporters) hanging around his front door, thanking them for their support through the years, and asking them to pray for the kids who were victims. He didn’t protest his firing. He expressed that he thought he had done enough, but looking back now, he wished he had done more. He expressed his gratefulness for the many years he had at Penn State, and all the blessings that had come from it. His attitude was, “I’m fine…pray for the kids who were hurt.”

That just doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who would be culpable for concealing the kind of activity that was perpetrated by Sandusky. Consider the generation: Can you imagine how your own grandpa might have handled a similar situation? Honorable people of that generation could not acknowledge or articulate such heinous acts. I wish for the sake of the kids who were hurt that he had done more – but so did he. This was borne out in the interview he gave recently, in what turned out to be his last days.

I admire Joe Paterno. I think that even in the scandal that ended his career, he continued to display good character. A terrible thing happened on his watch, and though I think he could have been defended, he chose to take the consequences, focusing on what he had to be thankful for, and showing compassion for those who had been hurt.

I think he will rest in peace.

Oh boy, a State Bank!

There is talk in Olympia of the need for a state bank, or State Bank perhaps is more accurate.

The state would bank and invest its own money, and then they could offer low-interest loans to citizens who have difficulty getting conventional loans.

HELLO? Ever heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? I don't think they had much luck with the same principle...and trust them, they tried it on a very large scale.

Leave it to our liberal legislators to come up with an idea that has tried and failed and call it a new solution...

Sign me,
A Lonely Conservative Living in a Blue State

Pathetic...

Our state suffered the tragic loss of a National Park Ranger in Mt. Rainier National Park on Sunday. A crazed, PTSD suffering former soldier gunned down the ranger when she made an attempt to stop him in the park. She was stopping him because he had already blown through a checkpoint down the road. It turns out that he was fleeing the scene of a shooting in which he had been involved earlier that morning.

After killing Margaret Anderson, he fired on other park rangers who came to the scene, then fled into the snowy woods on foot...

He was found the next day, face down in a creek, dead by drowning and hypothermia.

All this is very tragic...especially for the husband and 2 pre-school daughters of Ranger Anderson. I can't help feeling it is a tragedy as well for the family of the gunman...what a heartache.

What is pathetic is that, even before the gunman was found, there were those who were exclaiming that if the government had passed a proposed ban on handguns in national parks this would not have happened...

I can't think of any way that a handgun ban would have prevented this tragedy...

Would the PTSD suffering soldier think: "I can't hide in the national park because there is a handgun ban there..."

Would he have surrendered his weapon at the check point, or turned around to leave when informed that it was illegal to carry in the park? (Uh -- he BLEW THROUGH the check point as it was...)

Isn't this almost exactly the kind of scenario that opponents of a ban explain would happen NO MATTER WHAT RULES THERE ARE FOR CARRYING GUNS?  It is true that guns don't kill people; people kill people. And when you remove the right to bear arms, you just might be disarming the hero who will come to your aid when someone who is out of their mind pulls a weapon on you...

Really -- my biggest problem with the rationalization that a gun ban would have prevented this tragedy is not that it impinges on my right to bear arms. It's that the reasoning used is so flawed, and so STUPID. Some people are so committed to their agenda that they can't even see when they are being fools...and THAT is pathetic.

I was at the mall today...

...and I can now confirm for you that men should not wear jeggings...just sayin'...

Especially acid wash ones.

The merging of two eras -- the 80's and the Now -- did not enhance either look.

Jeggings...oh! it was painful to witness. Probably almost as painful as it was for the gentleman(I use the term loosely) to wear the tight things. When I looked up to his face, to avoid staring at the bright splashes of acid wash and the snug fit... I saw he had those big holey things in his ear lobes...and immediately I was staring again!

Why, WHY???? What is the attraction of this particular mutilation? I really want to see some of these people when they are pushing 70...If it's not pretty now, what will it look like then? If they just had some patience, they would find out that many things begin to stretch out and sag on their own...No need to help things along...Those ear lobes will likely be a tripping hazard for him one day...

A color-splashed tee completed his ensemble, and I believe he had red Chuck Taylors on as well...The gentleman looked to be about 35 or older...not an Emo Kid. I will say that he was neat and clean...just totally weird looking.

Maybe that's what he was going for...but again, I ask, why?  I just don't understand this current fetish of looking outlandish, with freakish mutilations of stretched ear lobes, and metal studs sticking out of body parts that should be left alone...clothes that are stretched tight, and slung low, and hair sticking straight up, glued in place...

It seems just a little too obvious that you're dying for attention...And you'll take any, even if it is for the wrong reasons. I know some of these people say they are challenging society's efforts to make us all one homogenous, monotonous group...But it seems that all the "free spirits" dress the same weird way. Apparently, there is a uniform for the non-conformists amongst us...

Whatever! It is a free country, and if you want to look ridiculous, go right ahead...but I think there SHOULD be some kind of law against men wearing jeggings...It's just...too...uh...nauseating!