College Admissions Scandal...more like EPIC PARENTING FAIL...

So wealthy people are buying their kids way into elite colleges…I can’t say I’m surprised. I suppose that the personality of those who would do anything to become famous lends to expecting the same for their kids.

Doesn’t make it any less sorry an example, and especially for those kids, some of whom were complicit. It’s pathetic that parents would teach their children that the ends justify the means; that being the center of attention is one’s main goal in life; and most of all, that their child isn’t good enough as they are. They think so little of their child that they don’t trust their abilities or strength to achieve a worthy goal. They communicate to their kids that they are only worthy when they have achieved the highest, even if they have to cheat to get there.

And they call that love...SO far off the mark!

I continue to wonder why we care about celebrities’ opinions on life.

It's just like that fairy tale...

…where the emperor had no clothes.

I was embarrassed yesterday as I watched Congressman Adam Smith, from our fair state of Washington, comment on the Benghazi situation. He was a guest of Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

Chris challenged him to respond to the newly disseminated facts that talking points about the attack were revised 12 times before they came out with the false story that a demonstration against an internet video resulted in violence and the deaths of our Ambassador to Libya, and 3 others.

Despite early video of presidential spokesman, Jay Carney, insisting that there was only one change made to the talking points about the Benghazi attack – they changed the term “consulate” to “diplomatic facility” – our honorable representative would not admit that it was a lie.

He danced round and round the evidence, obfuscating, and denying that a lie was perpetuated.

He looked absolutely stupid.

I watch this and wonder what kind of a man Rep. Smith is that he willingly supports the lie when clear evidence to the contrary is presented. Does he not have at least a modicum of personal pride and integrity that he would not shame himself? How can he justify denying the obvious? What is the payback to him for making such a fool of himself?

His behavior points to the likelihood that he is committed to some agenda (on which I will not speculate) more than he is committed to truth. What use is he if this is so? He’s willing to play the fool more than he is willing to serve his constituents. What service can he render his country if he will not deal with reality? He’d rather believe a fantasy, than make his government better, or work to defend our State Department employees from further danger.

From what I saw yesterday, I would recommend that his district throw the rascal out! You can’t trust someone who chooses to be blind to truth for whatever reason. He’s wasting the office.

I can’t fathom what he hopes to accomplish by this behavior.

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.

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.

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”…

The best time to win accolades...

http://kgmi.com/New-Report-On-Plastic-Highlights-Bellingham-Bag-Ba/11490856

Read it right here...Bellingham is being lauded for their plastic bag ban. It's becoming a model for other cities to follow. Interest is running high...

It's just a minor issue that the mandated program does not go into effect until January 2012...

It probably IS the best time to win notice for a program...before it becomes actual practice...before you know if it really works...Those pesky realities can really mess up a good theory.

(I use the the adjective "good" loosely in that last sentence...)

Oh, puh-leeze...

On the radio the other day, I heard this exchange in one of those political ads: (paraphrased)
Woman #1:"...there are just so many issues, I don't even know what's important these days..."

Woman #2: "I know what's important! Preventing dental disease in children!..."

I thought: WHAT? Preventing dental disease in children??? What about terrorism, the faltering economy, war in the Middle East, homeland security, the exponential growth of the national debt?

No -- what this commercial is promoting is that the government take on the sad state of dental disease prevention...

Like most people have no idea what to do about it already...

Like there is a shortage of toothbrushes and toothpaste...

Like there aren't enough dentists available...

No, these people are sure that we need the government to teach us how to take care of our children's teeth; and they probably want supplies and services to be provided or at least subsidized. Because some of these kids may one day be unhealthy (GASP!) due to this dread situation...

People, if you can't take care of your kids teeth on your own, you've got bigger problems...BIG problems...And mark my words, one day you're going to find you "owe your soul to the company store". Be grown-ups, and buy your own toothbrushes and toothpaste and force your kids to use them.

Prevent dental disease by being a PARENT...and save government for stuff that you CAN'T do...

A Somali Pirate's lament...

I was stunned when I read the following quote, the response of a modern-day pirate to the recent tragic ending of the Americans aboard the Quest...

"We had no intention of killing the hostages until the Americans began shooting at us," Muse said. "Our preference is only to take ships and ransom money, not to kill. But governments are targeting and killing our people."

Um -- perhaps governments are targeting and killing your people because you are taking innocents hostage and threatening to kill them...I mean, MAYBE this could be the reason why. Perhaps the Americans started shooting at you because you had no regard for human life and property. Generally speaking, this kind of activity makes one a target of military or police action. Make note of that, okay? For future reference, you know...

I know that what Mr. Muse is trying to do is to blame the US for the deaths. If the US had not taken action against the pirates, the hostages would have lived. "We won't kill unless other people MAKE us do it..." Right -- I'm sure your statement will change the whole discussion on piracy.  So -- when you take people hostage on threat of death, we're not supposed to believe you...We're just supposed to realize that you need to make money SOMEHOW and so, we well-supplied Americans are supposed to hand it over peacefully, and we'll all live happily ever after. If Americans just wouldn't be so unreasonably attached to their property and freedom, you would never need to get close to carrying out your supposedly disingenuous threats. It's always the HAVE NOT's against the HAVE's...

I 've heard that there's nothing new under the sun...


I read the quote here: Nation & World Lure of ocean, adventure drew sailors till death Seattle Times Newspaper

An Almost Wordless Wednesday...

Got this in the mail...

I decided to do this with it...

Thanks to the Republican Party for this little exercise that reminds us how the Federal government works.

When they send you money, you end up sending it back, and about 80% of it gets lost in the process.

God bless -- no, God HELP America!

So this is what it has come to...

I couldn't believe what I was reading in the Sunday Herald! I'll quote it (partially) here, with credit to the author, in an effort to not get in trouble for copying without permission...

TANNING TAX MAKES SOME SALON BUSINESSES BURNING MAD
by Nathan Olivarez-Giles  LA Times

"Eydie McNeill was fuming about the newly passed health care bill, but her rage had nothing to do with socialism, death panels, or the deficit.

She just likes a good tan, and because of a provision in the bill that puts a 10 percent additional tax on tanning salon fees, her sessions are going to cost her more.

'I'm angry, I'm really disappointed by all this,' said McNeill, 51, waiting for a tanning bed at the Tanning Club in Westwood. "It just feels like we are being taxed for everything nowadays."

She was not just thinking of herself. McNeill is a sorority house mom at Gamma Phi Beta at the University of California-Los Angeles.

'A lot of my girls tan, most of them, and they don't have a lot of extra money,' she said. 'They're students. Most students live on a tight budget.' "

I have 3 observations:
1. Sorority girls of UCLA -- if you can afford to tan, you don't know what a tight budget is!! Holy cow!! These are the depths of victimization that we have fallen to? We are now supposed to be concerned about people who can't afford to tan -- as much as they are accustomed to.

2. Of course, this is a legitimate reason for the health care bill to be repealed. Girls in CALIFORNIA will not be able to tan!! Thank you, liberal media for finally finding a good reason for the American public to be concerned and fearful about how this bill will change their lives.

3. Though I reject the idea that taxing tanning will lead to the prevention of skin cancer, I would like to encourage you entitlement-minded out there to note this: You want free health care. You want the government to provide for your "right" to quality health care. You know how they're going to take care of you? They're going to limit your freedom to tan as much as you want, to eat as many french fries as you want, to smoke if you want, to ride motorcycles if you want, etc., etc...by taxing you, or the business that provides these services...Yep, it will COST more...one way or the other...and probably both ways.

You know, it would be nice if you entitlement-minded people would think these things through, and not just live by your gut.

I don't think I've ever said a less diplomatic thing in my life.

How you know your pre-SuperBowl coverage has gone on too long...

You know your coverage has gone on too long when you hear your commentators say:

COMMENTATOR #1: {Paraphrased} "The Saints need to force the turnovers! Statistically, the teams that recover the turnovers win the most games."

COMMENTATOR #2: {Quote} "But will the Saints be able to do that today?"

COMMENTATOR #3: {Quote}"We don't know -- that's why they need to play the game..."

CUT TO COMMERCIAL

Yes, PLEASE, PLEASE! cut to a commercial!! It seems quite obvious that this may be only one of MANY, MANY reasons why they need to play the game... Another might be to see who wins...and what about the revenue from all those commercials? Somebody needs to play a game for there to be commercials, right?  And don't forget that lots of people bought tickets to see a game, so someone might as well play one...

At least we know it has been statistically proven that teams that do things right often win over those that make mistakes.

Maybe 5 1/2 hours is too long to talk about a football game that hasn't happened yet, ya think?

NEWSFLASH:

WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR ALLEGES THAT FOX NEWS CHANNEL REPORTS THE NEWS TO MAKE A PROFIT!... a PROFIT, people!!! How nasty is that?! Even worse, it seems to be working! People by the millions are tuning in to Fox News, leaving other cable stations trolling for an audience. I naively assumed that CNN, MSNBC, and even the networks had profit as their goal as well...I thought it was merely due to their lack of success, that they became unprofitable. Silly me! Apparently, they were earlier having some difficulty moving down to non-profit status...Oddly enough, they can now thank Fox News for helping them achieve this higher plane of non-profitability as cable -watching Americans, of their own free will, abandon these former giants of media monopoly. Oh fickle Americans, can’t you see that being unsuccessful – I mean unprofitable – is the honorable way to do business, especially in the media? It shows that you owe no man – or does it mean that you owe every man? Either way, it’s the way to go. Evil Fox News...trying to make money...Feh! Before you know it, we’ll see "opinion journalism masquerading as news"! Can’t have that, now can we?

What a relief!

I am so glad to hear that the NFL is all about sensitivity. In denying Rush Limbaugh the opportunity to become an owner of the St. Louis Rams, various people involved in the league indicated that sensitivity is where it's at -- and in their opinion, Rush hasn't got it.

Indianapolis Colts owner, Jim Irsay, accused Rush of making "insensitive comments". DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFL Players Association said, "Our sport...overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred". NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said, "divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about".

They must be turning over a new leaf! I, for one, am interested to see this new era in the NFL...This must mean no more trash talking on the field, no more "your momma is so dumb she thinks a quarterback is a refund" between the offensive and defensive lines... No one should try to take out the other team's quarterback, or injure any player. No more holding -- after all it is against the rules, even if the ref doesn't see it. No more trying to strip the ball -- that's really insensitive! Let the guy make the run --he's trying hard! No more trying to recover fumbles -- the poor guy who dropped it feels bad enough. It's insensitive to capitalize on his mistake. I think we should see a lot more penalties declined, and I suggest that they change that terminology to "apology accepted, replay the down". The fans should cheer for both sides -- it's divisive for some to be enthusiastic for one team and not the other. In fact, I think they should stop keeping track of the score --- I mean, WINNING! How divisive is that! And the on-air commentary! It is almost completely devoted to pointing out errors made by the coaches and players -- SO insensitive.

When I think about the game, I can now see why the NFL sees the need for greater sensitivity. The whole sport is rife with a lack of feeling and empathy for others...Perhaps Rush is not quite the epitome of insensitivity when compared with some participants in the sport -- you know, the ex-convicts, dog killers, wife beaters, and rapists (I know, it's insensitive for me to bring this up) --but you have to start somewhere. You can't have a minority owner allegedly say mean things! Even if they can't prove that he said those things, I can see why the NFL has basically told Mr. Limbaugh, "You should use tact, you fathead!"