CaliValleyGirl

Picture Post

2009-08-16T20:29:00.013+02:00

I have been a lazy blogger of late, but I wanted to post a few pics of life.

Daddy is restraining the boy, so Mommy can take a funny picture.

Daddy is restraining Susie, so that Mommy can take a funny picture.

Big shoes to fill.

Filled!

And introducing the newest member of the family: Trixiebell*! (Aunty Sarah's nickname for her)

Just minutes old.

5 Days old (taken this morning).

Just after the birth. I just had to compare this picture with a similar shot from last year...and they are almost identical (same gown, same gleeful smile, different baby).

Props to Pelosi

2009-07-09T23:25:00.002+02:00

I usually can't stand the woman, but, thank you Pelosi for this:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shut the door Thursday to a resolution honoring Michael Jackson because debate on the symbolic measure could raise "contrary views" about the pop star's life.

But I object to this:
Lawmakers are free to use House speeches "to express their sympathy or their praise any time that they wish," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "I don't think it's necessary for us to have a resolution."

It just reminds me of when legislators in California wanted to ban the personal use of ultrasound machines after they found out that Tom Cruise had purchased one to use at home while Katie Holmes was pregnant. Or after the Octomom had her babies, how there is some representative who wants to limit the number of embryos that can be implanted.

It's like, seriously? You really think that these are the biggest issues facing our nation today? You are going to take away precious legislative time to talk about these (non)-issues just because that is what is getting the public's attention? You are looking to tabloids to see what to legislate on? You guys are supposed to be the smart ones (yeah, right...). Or let me rephrase that: tax payers are paying you to discuss those issues instead of, oh, I don't know, more pressing issues like the budget crisis?

*Sigh*

The US' Afghanistan Strategy

2009-06-22T14:22:00.003+02:00

This is something I have been wanting to post about myself, but never got around to it. And now I don't think I need to, because Sarah hit the nail on the head with my thoughts about the whole situation (actually she did it way better than I would have been able to.)

I am really worried about how things are going to develop there, and I think that Afghanistan could easily develop into the quagmire that many feared Iraq would become.

Unbelievable

2009-05-07T16:00:00.002+02:00

But then again…I don’t know why I am surprised at this:

So the government wants to make a memorial to Flight 93 on the land where it crashed. Many landowners are amenable to selling their property to the government, but a few aren’t…or perhaps they have set their prices so high as to make it basically prohibitive for the government to purchase. In my opinion: their prerogative.

So what’s the solution?:

"We always prefer to get that land from a willing seller. And sometimes you can just not come to an agreement on certain things," park service spokesman Phil Sheridan said.
"Basically, at this point, we have not been able to acquire all the land we need," he said.
[…]

The next step will be for the U.S. Justice Department to file a complaint in federal court. A court would have to decide the matter and would set a value on the land.

Two owners account for about 420 acres the park service plans to condemn, including Svonavec Inc. — which owns 275 acres, including the impact site where 40 passengers and crew died. About 150 acres are owned by a family that operates a scrap yard.

Most of rest of the land to be condemned are small parcels, two of which include cabins.

Tony Kordell said the park service visited him late Friday afternoon and made him an offer for his 150 acres. He declined to give the price, but said his attorney requested the appraisal used to determine the value on Monday.

He's not gotten that appraisal, he said Thursday. On Wednesday, he was told the park service would condemn the land.

[…]
Randall Musser owns about 62 acres that the park service wants to acquire.

"They apologized about the way it's come together, but what's sad is they had all these years to put this together and they haven't," he said.

Musser served on the committee that helped establish the park's boundaries and said landowners were promised in 2002 that eminent domain would not be used.

"It's absolutely a surprise. I'm shocked by it. I'm disappointed by it," said Tim Lambert, who owns nearly 164 acres that his grandfather bought in the 1930s. The park service plans to condemn two parcels totaling about five acres — land, he said, he had always intended to donate for the memorial.

"To the best of my knowledge and my lawyer, absolutely no negotiations have taken place with the park service where we've sat down and discussed this," Lambert said.

Obviously there are two sides to every story and this one seems to heavily quote the land owners, but I really don't like the idea of eminent domain being used in this situation.

I heart Craigslist

2009-04-28T03:41:00.002+02:00

Not just because I just recently bought enough boys clothes on there to outfit my baby until he is 4 1/2 (and spent the whole weekend washing, sorting and finally packing them away into 9 storage containers, but because of the Best of Craigslist. This one is truly a gem.

Very telling

2009-04-27T16:07:00.002+02:00

I just read this article where it was stated that since the media ban on coverage of fallen soldiers returning to the US has been lifted, that the majority of families have agreed (14 out of 19), which I find really surprising. I didn't expect there to be such willingness on the parts of families to share that moment with others...it shows a great generosity on the part of the families of the fallen soldiers.

But it was this paragraph that was most telling for me:

Media interest has fallen off sharply since almost 40 reporters, photographers and camera operators turned out to document the arrival of Myers' body. At a more recent casualty arrivals, the only media representative was a lone photographer from The Associated Press.

So much for showing the human cost of the war to the US...

I did think that this was a nice idea:

Even if no one from the media shows up, the Department of Defense films each casualty arrival for which consent is given and presents a recording to the family.

I would be thankful for something like that...although I would almost wish that you could choose that option without allowing other media.

My furry baby

2009-04-22T17:37:00.003+02:00

So yesterday was PetSmart's annual pet birthday party. So we went and took Susie along...so guess who won in her size group for Musical Sits (like musical chairs, minus the chairs...last dog to sit and stay seated loses) and the over all competition? If you guessed Miss Susie, you're right!

So she brought us home a PetSmart gift card (I think it was for $5) and $50 dollars worth of free dogfood coupons...what a star! I totally felt like a pageant mother...makes me want to get into agility training with her...lols...setting my sights high...she wins two games of musical sits and I am dreaming of agility trophies...;-)

Homemade baby food recipe

2009-04-20T17:00:00.003+02:00

Just thought I would share this recipe, since it was easy to make and I was stumped for ideas before I made it.

I have been making our baby homemade food since he started eating solids. Don’t get me wrong, he still eats Cheerios and other pre-made baby appropriate finger foods, however I will make up some pureed sweet potatoes, peas, beans, etc, and freeze them in ice cubes for him to accompany some meatloaf or whatever other table food he would be able to eat.

But I had gotten into a kind of slump, because he is now in the meat phase, and sometimes we just don’t have table food meat that is appropriate for him (too difficult to chew for a molar-less baby).

So I went to the supermarket and got a few jars of pre-made baby food for inspiration. And one was Turkey with rice and vegetables. So I got home, opened it, and figured out it would be pretty easy to make…and it came out so well, that I thought I would share this online, in case anyone else was looking for an easy baby food recipe.

Homemade Chicken, Rice and Vegetable Baby Food

3 pieces of chicken (I used drumsticks, but small chicken breasts would work well)
1/2 a bag of frozen peas and carrots (the small chopped carrots) (about 8oz)
½ cup of rice
1 large sweet potato, already baked and peeled

Put the chicken, frozen vegetables and rice in a crockpot with about 3 cups of water.
Cook on high for about 3 hours (or until the chicken is done). Turn off crock pot and let cool until chicken is cool enough to handle.
Remove the chicken from crock pot and puree in a food processor. Add the sweet potato to the chicken in the food processor and puree some more.
Return the pureed mixture to the crock pot and stir with pea and rice mixture until combined.
Voilà…done! Now all you have to do is package and freeze.

The measurements aren’t an exact science. You can probably add another baked sweet potato, change the amount of chicken and maybe have some more liquid…it’s up to you.
The peas are so soft after all those hours of cooking that they are close to mush, but will still retain their form. And the rice is very well cooked. The baked sweet potato is something I usually do when the oven is already on for something else…in this case I was making dinner in the over the night before, and threw a foil wrapped large sweet potato in as well. It can keep in the fridge a few days, so you could make that part in advance. Alternately, you could probably throw large uncooked slices into the crock pot and fish them out with the chicken to puree, but I thought this was the easier way.

I think I am going to use this same technique to make something with ham next time. Another ode to my crock pot!

My view on taxes

2009-04-16T17:37:00.002+02:00

I wanted to post a response to Indie Army Wife's post: In Honor of Tax Day, but am struggling with her comments section (but thankfully I am trained through dealing with Sarah's comments section always rejecting my comments too, so I have saved it...)...so I am posting it here:

I come here via Trying To Grok, and I just wanted to explain my point of view. I don’t intend to be combative, and I hope that my comment is received in the way it was meant: just trying to shed light on, well, I wouldn’t call it an “obsession with taxes”, but I think “healthy concern” would be more apt.

It’s not that I don’t want to pay taxes. I don’t want to live in a lawless society where I am responsible for making the road in front of my house, and getting a water supply to my house and dishing out law and order. I like deferring the responsibility for the upkeep of infrastructure to someone else in exchange for paying taxes. However, I do think that where we differ in opinion is the degree of services that taxpayers should be paying for. So you have listed:
Roads (Transportation), emergency services (I will bundle these under Protection which includes police, fire, court system, etc.), military (Defense), Social Security, tap water (Water Supply), electricity or gas (fuel and energy). So I would like to pay for all of those except Social Security (my logic with Social Security is that, we pay into that and that payment could go into private savings instead of the current public ponzi scheme..the caveat though, is how do we wean ourselves off this system without screwing those who faithfully paid into it over the years? I think I could agree to paying into it for another say 15-20 years with it tapering off for the last covered by it…I am just paying it to support those who would be left dry, because they trusted the government with this scheme…but I think everyone else from now on should take care of their own retirement savings.). So there’s one place we differ. I would also like to pay for public education, not because I feel it is a right, I just think it’s smart for a country to educate its population. I think the current system is a failure, but I do think that a publically funded system can work (probably best with vouchers). Then I think we have to pay for the general running of government. I personally support the recreation and sports spending, which I believe public and national parks falls under. I also think the government should take care of waste and water waste disposal.
But I don’t want to pay for Welfare (a certain very restricted safety net I might go for, but certainly not the current system in place). I also don’t support Public Healthcare for various reasons.
So if we go over the Federal Budget for 2010 I come out with this: (all numbers are in $billion)
Transportation: 249.5
Defense: 828.9
Protection: 340.9
Education: 918.5
General Gov.: 115.2
Water Supply: 63.9
Recreation + Sports: 50.8
Waste + Waste Water: 28.4 + 48.2
Fuel + Energy: 101.4

Now the things I don’t want to spend in the federal budget:
Welfare: 480.6 (let’s say I would be for 10% of this spending, so I will remove 48 billion) 432.6
Healthcare: 1,029.2
Social Security + other pensions, disability etc: 951.1 (Social Security only makes up 695 of that)

Total of budget I disagree with: $2,412.9B
Total I agree with: $2,793.7B
I just wanted to illustrate how the things I don’t agree with amount to almost as much spending as those things I do agree with.

I am sure there are a few other things in the budget that I have overlooked but would also agree to spending on. But this current ideal budget of mine comes in under $2,800B. I will throw in $200B for things I have overlooked (and it may be more than that). So I come to $3000B.

However, the total budget for 2010 is $6,143.70 billion, which is more than double what I agree with.

So it’s not so much that I don’t want to pay taxes, it’s just that there is a lot in there that I don’t agree with the spending on. But the majority of what you have listed, I definitely DO agree on (with the exception of Social Security). I would want to limit it the scope of public spending towards exactly those things that you have listed, which currently only seem to make up less than half our budget. It’s those things that you have termed the “myriad of other things,” that I am not interested in, and would rather cut from the budget.

And I know that this is a fundamental difference between Republican views towards public spending and Democrat views, so I am not trying to say that my view is better than yours. I am just explaining why I am unhappy with the amount of taxes paid, and what we get for it. And honestly, I can afford what I am paying now, so it’s not so much that which is the issue. But just because I can afford to pay more taxes, it doesn’t mean that I think it’s okay to do so. I mean, I probably could afford to go out to dinner every night of the week, travel more, buy my baby only new things instead of getting them on Craigslist, garage sales and thrift stores, etc. It’s not a case of what we can afford…it’s what I would rather do with the money. So the more money I have to pay into taxes, the less liberty I have to spend it on things of my own choosing.

So although I am not a protestor in general, I appreciate the fact that these guys go out there and say they don’t want to pay more and more taxes. Taxes keep on increasing…more and more things are being taxed.

It’s not just federal income taxes. Los Angeles Country sales tax will increase from 8.25% to 9.25% next month…doesn’t seem like much, but it represents a 12% increase in taxation. That’s pretty significant. And I feel at the same time that the quality of what we are getting for our money is getting worse and worse. Probably the best way to compare this is to imagine this country as one big apartment building where you pay monthly rent for the upkeep and general services. And your rent keeps increasing, but the paint is peeling in the hallways because instead of repainting it every 2 years, it now happens only every 6 years, the pipes are leaking, mold is growing, the playground in front of the building is a dirty mess…you feel unsafe sometimes. So the service provided is of a lesser quality than it once was…but the rent still increases. I currently live in Alabama, and I have to say they have a better grip on the upkeep of infrastructure…but every time I go home to LA, I am so saddened by what I see: litter everywhere along the sides of the highway (15 years ago this wasn’t the case…it was always dirty, but not to this extreme), the streets are in a deplorable condition (it’s a city issue, not federal), etc. But taxes have continually increased: so obviously an increase in taxes doesn’t equal an increase in the quality of services.

I am not sure if you wanted a response from a Republican point of view, I just wanted to say that there is some logic behind the apparent whackadoodleness and I hope that you won’t take it as an affront that I have left this comment.

My little bunny

2009-04-16T05:00:00.003+02:00

I'm on Facebook now, so I usually get my fix of photosharing there, but I couldn't resist putting up this recent picture of the little guy! He is just so squeezable, huggable, and such a joy...and he is already such a little boy: he doesn't like cuddling, pushes away my face when I try to kiss him...he's only 10 months old, but already growing up!

Apparently I'm a rightwing extremist now...

2009-04-15T17:00:00.001+02:00

I’m self-employed…which means, I am one of those lucky people who has to calculate their own taxes and then send 4 big old fat checks a year to the federal government and 4 smaller checks a year to the state government. When I sent out my state taxes and federal taxes estimated payments this week it occurred to me that my check to the federal government was almost 10x that of the check sent to the state…and this just didn’t seem right…I mean, why are we sending all this money to the federal government, so that it can decide where and whom to appropriate it to? For some reason, this discrepancy never really bothered me before. But now it does…it really makes clear how much power the federal government wields over deciding how money gets spent in the individual states.

Every state is waiting for federal funds to come in on some project, so doesn’t it make sense to just say that every state needs that money that is being sent to DC…so why doesn’t it just remain in the state…and then local voters can have more of an effect on how the money gets spent, instead of having to vote to send some senators to Washington to beg to get their money sent back to their own state?

But according to this article, that makes me a radical on the right.

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

Part of me also believes that local government might actually like the fact that the federal government controls the purse strings, because when the local voters complain about not getting the infrastructure and program improvements they think are necessary, local officials can just nod their head in sympathy and say: “yeah, but it’s the boys in Washington…we can’t do anything about it.” And then the boys in Washington can turn around and say: “yes, we understand your plight, but there are others in more need than yourself. Sorry.” And there is no way for anyone to really check up on this. You can’t “follow the money” in Washington.

I think it would make for a more responsible local government and an overall more efficiently running country if money that was to be disbursed to the individual states, didn’t have to flow through Washington first, just to make it back to the states it came from…

But hey, I guess I better watch what I say, such thoughts are apparently deemed radical nowadays.

Reset button "gift"

2009-03-06T20:42:00.002+01:00

Oh this story is so cringeworthy. So first Obama gives Gordon Brown a boxed set of 25 DVDs. And now Clinton gives Lavrov a craft project? I mean, I get the symbolism, but it is soooo cheesy. I mean, who came up with that idea, and I feel bad for Clinton having to go through with presenting it:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a red "reset button" to symbolise improved ties, but the gift drew smiles as the word "reset" was mistranslated into the Russian for "overcharge"."I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: 'We want to reset our relationship and so we will do it together," said Clinton, presenting Lavrov with a palm-sized yellow box with a red button.

So, I wonder exactly how Russio-American relations will improve? I mean, it's not like Obama is looking to be so strikingly different from Bush with regards to Russia.

Economy over environment

2009-03-02T15:47:00.002+01:00

Interesting article about how states are repealing environmental protections in the name of jobs...even California!

Born Again American

2009-02-09T18:01:00.002+01:00

Sarah linked to a Varifrank post about many Americans expressing their joy in Obama’s election, and how this translated into being proud to be American:

I was at the office after the inaugural when one of my liberal collegues came by to tell me how happy they were with the election and in a slip of the tongue he said "I’m so proud to be an American". He was expecting anger from me but I just said "feels good doesn't it? That sudden pulse of patriotism. Welcome to the side of the angels my friend!"

He stopped dead cold. He was genuinely feeling good and he was feeling genuinely patriotic and these were entirely new feelings for him.

I was reminded of this post today when I discovered this organization. The name is so apropos, it is almost ironic how it alludes to religious dogma: Born Again American.

The website explains: In the two weeks since the launch of the Born Again American initiative at the Inauguration kick-off event in DC, over 1.5 million Americans have committed to get involved in their communities and serve the country by visiting www.bornagainamerican.org. The Born Again American campaign includes a specially commissioned song and interactive website offering visitors the opportunity to reaffirm their belief in American values that hark back to the Declaration of Independence.

According to the website: In a matter of days, Americans from the left, right, and center have come forward and declared themselves Born Again and shared this message with their friends and loved ones via the Internet.

Hmmm…somehow I find it hard to believe that there are that many people on the right that have come forward. It’s sad to me that many Americans can only be proud of their country if their candidates get elected. I’m still proud of America whether or not my preferred candidate is in office. America is so much more than its elected officials (thank goodness!).

I just find it so sad that people can only pledge to make the country a better place when they like the current POTUS.

All this pledging (the recent celeb pledge video) and this pledge, make me a little nervous, too. What happens when their candidates aren't in office in anymore? Do they renege from their pledges?

A company's raison d'etre

2009-02-06T16:17:00.008+01:00

I was at my Yahoo main page and saw a short synopsis for an article that didn't exactly make my jaw drop, but did kind of annoy me: (I have underlined the offending words in red.)

So if a company doesn't lay anyone off, they are "staying loyal" to employees? It kind of redefines what a business is all about. A business is about providing a service or product, but this article almost seems to say that it's about providing a job.

When companies makes lay offs, they are not being disloyal to employees, they are being loyal to the company and doing what is best in the face of reduced demand.

I applaud the companies for their strategies, like cross-training employees for different positions, but if Ford or other companies are laying off employees, they are taking care of the company, which in turn is best for those who continue to stay in its employ.

Gah, this annoys me. My husband and I are watching Season 2 of The Wire. Love that show...anyway, the episode we watched last night had a pretty telling scene: the boss of the local dock laborers' union and another union representative are at a presentation of Rotterdam port, where according to the presentation everything is so highly automated and efficient, that it is the top port in the world, Singapore coming in a far second. The presenter is aiming to introduce such improvements to Baltimore's port. Rotterdam reduced injuries by 60%, and is able to move all that freight with a mere 4000 dock workers. And the list of improvements goes on and on. And you can see the union representatives’ faces getting angrier and angrier. At the end of the presentation one asks: what about the jobs? The presenter tried to impress upon him the lower injury rate and how less containers get lost due to human error, etc. But it is all lost on the union boss, because all he is interested in are the jobs.

Later in the show the same union boss is yelling at a lobbyist he had paid, and criticized the fact that the lobbyist's son was at Princeton, and when he would graduate he could become anything he wanted to, whereas the union boss’ children were going to be dockworkers, and there were less and less dock jobs to be had. The lobbyist got pretty annoyed and said that his great-grandfather was a knife sharpener, and made sure that his grandfather graduated from high school so he didn’t have to sharpen knives, and that his father went to college, and the lobbyist also went to college. And the union boss just looked at him and said he was talking in the present and there was no opportunity for his sons other than dock work. The message was totally lost: if you had encouraged your children to seek out other occupations and training, they would have had other opportunities. But no, for the union boss, he was being let down by the company.

Some people will always see themselves as powerless in their own destiny. It reminds me of what Sarah linked to yesterday:
This fact is incredible, and very revealing. 75% of Republicans believe you can get ahead by working hard, compared to 14% for Democrats. 86% of Democrats don’t believe that hard work allows you get ahead!

Dog/Baby Blogging

2009-02-04T17:54:00.002+01:00

Yesterday my husband was holding the baby, while the baby was standing. And the baby really delights in playing: "Give me 10!" He doesn't really understand, but I mini slap both his hands, and he squeals with delight. So I was doing this yesterday, while kneeling on the floor:

"Give me 10!" - slap baby's little hands. Baby squeals and laughs. And this was repeated about three times.

Susie the dog is pretty jealous of the baby, if I have him in my lap, she will often come over and lay on my lap between the baby and me...it's pretty obvious.

So yesterday, she walks over, sits, and scooches over so she is sitting right next to the baby, and when I said: "Give me 10!", she raises both her paws.

Needless to say, she got a "High 10!" and a treat... (we had previously taught her High 5! (single paw up in the air) and shake hands (single paw extended out)...but I guess, she figured out the the "Give me 10!" as jealously is an incentive. Funny dog...

Recession Trickle Affect

2009-01-30T20:13:00.002+01:00

I have found a new favorite guilty pleasure. When Wall Street was hit hard by the recession, so were all those poor bankers' girlfriends, and at this blog they are able to pour their hearts out about their financial woes...the girls are witty:

I couldn’t comprehend why people were so insistent that America’s automobile industry had to be saved. We import safer more fuel efficient cars from Asia. No big deal. Survival of the fittest, that’s my motto, or was, until my FBF broke up with me. He explained my termination as follows:

“Princess, we need to talk. How do I explain this? You are a costly investment. During better economic times, I was happy to spend a little extra to buy American, but now we are all being forced to make tough decisions and, well, bottom line: I can quite literally get more bang for my buck if I invest with a foreign model instead. Do you understand what I’m trying to tell you?”

And that my fellow DABA girls is more or less how my girlfriend services were outsourced to an underage Russian model who was willing to provide services substantially equivalent to my own but at well-below market value and without the regulatory hassle. F*cking mercenary.

I hope the government earmarked some bailout money for ex-DABA girls. Without my FBF subsidizing my lifestyle, I am seriously over leveraged with Saks and I’m not talking about Goldman.

The New Deal sucked

2009-01-28T23:46:00.002+01:00

Sarah just linked to THE.BEST.EVER. article explaining why the New Deal wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I mean, this article is so good, I just want to roll around in it, like a cat does catnip...I can't get enough...I want him to write more!

If you don't want to read it all (your loss), this conclusion from it, pretty much hits the nail on the head:

I will finish with a quotation from Roosevelt's secretary of treasury, Henry Morganthau. He admits, the whole thing failed. Again, the quote, you will never see in a textbook, but I have it right here. I went to the Roosevelt Library and dug this one out. Henry Morganthau, Secretary of Treasury, in May, 1939, years after the New Deal, said, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot." That is the secretary of treasury in charge of the money disbursement and statistics collection during the 1930s, making that statement.

Yeah...got to admire his honesty, but for some reason it was ignored and we continue to throw money at problems, villify the wealthy, and turn everyone else into "victims" of the capitalist machine.

Obama and the ice

2009-01-28T23:26:00.002+01:00

I have been finding reason to blog again lately...namely Obama's election. Now don't get me wrong, I wasn't entirely unhappy that he was elected. I was completely disappointed with McCain as a candidate, so I am not too sorry that he didn't get elected. I mean, I guess I might be feeling how some Democrats felt after Bush was re-elected over Kerry.

Additionally, Obama doesn't drive me nuts or anything. Sure, he panders, etc. But so does every politician. It's just that he isn't pandering to me. I think Obama is a shrewd politician. The people who drive me nuts are those who act as if on January 20th the clouds parted and the sun came out. And now everything is happy and wonderful. I like it that their attitudes have changed for the positive, but I don't like it that they can't seem to realize that they can do that on their own, and they don't need an outside agent to make this happen.

Anyhoo, seems like every day now, I find reason to post something new here. And today's gem:

"Can I make a comment that is unrelated to the economy very quickly?" the new president told reporters at a gathering with business leaders. "And it has to do with Washington. My children's school was canceled today. Because of, what? Some ice?"

The president said he wasn't the only one who was incredulous.

"As my children pointed out, in Chicago, school is never canceled," Obama said to laughter. "In fact, my 7-year-old pointed out that you'd go outside for recess. You wouldn't even stay indoors. So, I don't know. We're going to have to try to apply some flinty Chicago toughness."

Asked if he meant the people of the national's capital are wimps, Obama said: "I'm saying, when it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don't seem to be able to handle things."

I love this...I agree with him. He is calling the city out for not being able to handle some ice. Now, had Bush made a comment like this, you can be sure that the unions would pounce on him after the media had whipped up a frenzy.

I wonder how often he will say things like this and get away with it...and at what point he will get the cold shoulder...it will be interesting.

I pledge...

2009-01-26T23:17:00.003+01:00

In the spirit of that self-absorbed celebrity "I pledge" video (thanks, Sarah for the gag-worthy link), I am making a pledge today. I will never make statements about Obama's presidency being a nightmare. I mean, I am really quite tired with hearing: "the nightmare ended and the dream finally came true". To say the last 8 years were a nightmare seems truly self-absorbed, it totally lacks perspective. I understand that a lot of things happened that people were unhappy with, but for me such a statement would be worthy of something like, oh, I don't know, V-Day in Paris, and then later in Germany. To finally be over with WWII. Or perhaps the end of the Castro era. But to say that the years "under" Bush were a nightmare is insulting to people who have lived under truly oppressive leaders.

Whatever the next 4 to 8 years brings, be it nationalized healthcare (*gag*) or whatever other social program he wants to implement (the New New Deal), it won’t turn my life into a nightmare. Yes, my taxes will go up, but my life will go on pretty much the same way it is now.

I think it is great that Obama has garnered such support, what scares me though is the cult-like support he has. People chanting "O-ba-ma" and "Yes, We Can! Yes, we will!" Seriously, it's slightly reminiscent of a Tony Robbins convention or a church revival.

Bush never had that kind of support. If people starting chanting anything in his presence it was more likely to be "U-S-A!" It's so strange for me that there is this cult of personality. I hope he uses it wisely.

Animal Farm Re-dux

2009-01-26T16:42:00.005+01:00

I think I almost need to start a special reoccurring post called Animal Farm Moments.

Just read here that 600 private jets were expected for Obama's inauguration. The previous record was 300 for George W. Bush's 2004 inauguration:

Of course, flying private to a celebration of a populist, pro-environment President is a bit like the Detroit execs jetting to Washington for bailout money. How do you call for social responsibility after touching down in a $40 million, gas-guzzling Gulfstream? (Maybe travelers will buy carbon credits).[...]

The presence of so many wealthy and their jets also underscores a stark reality of Mr. Obama’s election and presidency. As much as some people wish that Mr. Obama–the face that launched millions of grass-roots Internet donors–will eliminate the influence and impact of the wealthy on politics, the wealthy will always have a center table in Washington. And, of course, a prime spot to park their Gulfstreams.

DailyKos' Obama criticism quandary

2009-01-23T18:01:00.002+01:00

Lately, I often visit DailyKos. Since Obama has been elected the blog has become slightly more bearable since there is less Bush-bashing to be made, and more looking to the future. I actually really enjoyed their reporting during the whole Blago saga. But today's post from the Kos himself gave me some reason for mirth. DailyKos was able to be relevant, because it was built in opposition to the Bush administration...but what happens when that demand is gone?. Kos writes:

It's been easy to survive the last seven years bashing Bush, and few complained when we took on Pelosi or Reid. But criticizing Obama is pretty darn controversial in our little world.

Yes...this will be interesting...I have also wondered what will happen to the Colbert Report. I think the Daily Show will survive, but I am not so sure about Colbert...we'll see...

Yay, more taxes!

2008-12-17T22:07:00.002+01:00

NY Gov. Paterson is still angry about SNL's skit mocking him...so he's decided to get back: NY gov proposes tax on drinks, downloaded music.

Nice.

How many taxes will be enough? Just because there are more things to tax, doesn't mean we should tax them.

Gah.

Heh

2008-11-26T21:38:00.002+01:00

So all those things that my mom did to me when I was growing up...well, I am doing them with my kid.

Case in point: I bought the boy a winter suit: it's one of those zip up down suits from Columbia sports...not cheap...$50...but perfect for the backpack or stroller...he's 5 months old...I got him size 12 to 18 months. Yeah, I figured, this way, he might even fit into it next winter as well!

Doesn't matter that he looks like a star-fish and his feet and hands are about 3 inches from the ends of the legs and arm holes...he'll be warm and he will be able to get a lot of use out of this, doesn't matter what he looks like!

Luckily he can't talk back yet...

Civil Discourse

2008-11-11T22:05:00.002+01:00

Going through the recent election season (phew, am I glad that is over!) I became aware of this disconnect and wanted to have a discussion of sorts on my blog.

This is how I see things: I see the government as a servant to the people: it is not there to tell us what to do, but to do our bidding. That is why we have an election: we choose who is going to do the work, according to what those candidates say they think is important to get done.

I see the President of the US as the leader of the government, and the person we have chosen to represent us. We have willingly given him a certain amount of power (of attorney) to act on our behalves (is that proper grammar?). Although he (or possibly one day she) has this power, I don’t feel that they have power OVER us, and neither should the rest of the government, unless we have violated some code. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people.

So for me, it is hard to understand how this now turns around in the government demanding that certain people pay more money. And yes, that is how I see this whole talk of the wealthier paying a higher percentage of taxes.

We all live in a society together, but it seems like this society is so huge and far removed from each other that people feel comfortable talking disparagingly about fellow citizens and making generalizations without ever having met them.

You have Palin’s comments about “real America” vs. I guess, fake America? Whereas I can understand what she meant (I think many people feel that the “heartland” of America is being forgotten in favor of more urban areas), rural Arkansas is no more real than Manhattan. I will digress here, but I was thinking that when they made the electoral college it was meant to balance out the power between larger states and smaller states, and now I sometimes wonder if the power needs to be balanced between rural areas and urban areas?

You have Joe Biden making disparaging comments about Joe the Plumber on Leno. I was reading the comment section here:

And found these comments:

That was a politically idiotic statement for Biden to make. He must not be aware of the leagues of unlicensed contractors and handymen who work out of their pickups all over the country, and vote. That's akin to telling them they aren't good enough. Smooth as always, Joe!

*************

How many plumbers live in Joe Biden's neighborhood? Does he socialize with any? Are there any in congress? I imagine it would be easy for the owner of a plumbing company to make $250,000 a year by contracting plumbing out and selling the products. However, that's not the point of the Joe the Plumber story. The point is the answer he was given by presidential candidate Barack Obama. Does Barack Obama want to spread the wealth around by taking it away from some and sharing it with others below them? Ask him that question outright. 4

**************

That's pretty sad that Biden/Obama are now poking fun at Joe the Plumber now but they were all for the Joe the Plumbers before he got upset at the Obama's Socialist Tax Plan, who wouldn't. And for Biden's information, I work for a builder, yes, some builders are still doing well, and the plumbers we use have crews of over 25 trucks and some have crews of 10 trucks. Either way, when we pay up to $20,000 to plumb 12 custom homes a year, these "small businesses" make more than $250,000 and we are not the only one's paying them. I do consider these small businesses, as well as the builder I work for. The builder builds up to 12 homes per year from $600K to $1 million. Although that sounds like a good deal and he's rolling in the dough, he's not. I see the bills and he pays 5 employees, not 30. Since they are in their own little bubble when it comes to what they think of small business, they need to educate themselves. Some small businesses dig themselves a hole before they are even hit with taxes. And Obama/Biden evidently do not know that Plumbing companies and their employees make good money. At least the ones that make a name for themselves and push for business. It's sad that they were pushing for the "little people" and now they are bashing them.

The this one:

It was obvious that when Obama said "spread the wealth around" he was talking about using tax dollars to improve education,healthcare,and the economy so that more people are able to make more money and "grow the middle class".This is not socialism,its good government. And Joe the Faux Plumber would have a very hard time competing with licensed plumbers and contractors in the area that he lives in.Some additional education ,in both building codes and plumbing techniques,along with some acounting education so he can understand the tax system ,would allow him to actually be able to make it to that $250,000 a year level that he is concerned about,at which time he would owe an additional 3% in taxes,while the benefits for him,his son,his employees,and his partner would more than offset that 3 %.

******************

Okay, so I am biased, but I have taken three comments that I feel represent how I feel (I have "bolded" the thoughts I especially agree with), and then one to show what I think is a gross misunderstanding of how government should operate (the last comment and I have "bolded" what I disagree with).

I was watching Dr. 90210 the other day (I am reality show addict…so sad) and Dr. Robert Rey is a workaholic, and his wife takes care of their 2 kids on her own (her mother helps, but they don’t have a nanny or anything, despite having a lot of money). Dr. Rey really dislikes his mother-in-law, so when she is around, he works even longer hours. Anyway, now his wife wants to buy a bigger more expensive house, move further away from Dr. Rey’s work, so his commute would be longer, because it would be a better area for the kids and nearer to her parents, whom she would like to spend more time with, because Dr. Rey is never home and she feels lonely. When she proposes this new house purchase to Robert, he balks, and then she says: “well, you don’t have any say in this matter!” I was bug-eyed watching that. What, she wants to move, wants to spend $9 million of their money, and he is the breadwinner, but he has no say in this, because she is the one taking care of the kids all day and he is never home any way? I just didn’t get it, but I think it kind of illustrated the tug of war between the breadwinners and the bread-spenders in the US.

Often when I see discussions about why the rich should pay higher taxes, it quite often paints the rich as not so nice people. People who suck the life-blood out of the poor. People who profit from others losses. Greedy. People who have no hearts. It makes me sad, because I know a lot of these “rich” people. I know how difficult it is to become wealthy, and stay wealthy. Also, I understand how important it is not to eat the seed potatoes…meaning, it is not in an employer’s best interest to mistreat or take advantage of his employees or do shoddy work. So when I hear generalizations to that effect it reminds me of how distant and divided we are a country. I wish that it weren’t so.

So my question is this (to proponents of higher taxes for those who earn more): What would you say if society were smaller (kibbutz-like almost) and you had to explain to others why you felt it was necessary for them to pay more taxes? Like in a one on one conversation?