Starting a new project~~~

2011-01-30T10:01:00.002-05:00

For all you genealogy and YDNA hobbyists out there........We just started the R-L165(S68) Project at Family Tree DNA (FTDNA). You can check it out here:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-L165Project/default.aspx

We have 29 members to date (which is a pretty good start for one of these projects) and have sent out invitations by the dozens. Membership is free. We promise great communication as part of the deal!

Consider joining us and getting that R-L165 test if you think are a part of this sub-clade of R1b!

Thanks!

A 2011 New Year's toast to y'all:

2010-12-31T13:51:00.001-05:00

May the best you've ever seen be the worst you'll ever see. May the mouse never leave your pantry with a tear-drop in his eye. May you always keep healthy and hearty until you're old enough to die. May you always be just as happy as we wish you now to be. (Scottish blessing) Cheers! (Thanks Angie)

A whole year~~

2010-10-04T11:02:00.002-04:00

I actually went to "view blog" on the other one today - I wanted to see the photos I'd posted over the last couple of days..while there, I happened to glance to my left to the "read more..." section and there it was..."last post 1 year ago".

A lot has actually happened on the genealogy front but I've just never gotten back to posting on this blog. A mother passed, cousins passed, and in the beginning, I didn't have the words and then, well, time passed. I still don't have the words on those who passed....

So, a quick update on the YDNA front and our MacLeod heritage. About 7 years ago, Cousin Purdy joined a study run by the Associated Clan MacLeod through the University of London; the goal was to see if the MacLeod Clan actually did descend from one founder born within the genealogically relevant time frame of that Clan...in other words, a founder born about 1240 or so. 500 DNA test kits were sent out and about 344 were actually returned. 32% of that 344 had a Haplogroup and certain matching alleles (numeric value signifying "repeats") at one marker that indicated that yes indeed, these 32% could have descended from one founder born about 1240 or so. Cousin Purdy was part of that 32% as were a couple of the documented descendants of Leod/Ljotr, who was of course that founder.

Now, our Clan history is that Ljotr was the son of King Olaf, of the Isle of Mann and therefore of Viking ancestry...and that is where things got a bit sticky because, most men of Viking ancestry appeared at that time, to be R1a Haplogroup while the 32% that included documented descendants of Ljotr were R1b. R1b is the most common Haplogroup found in the Scottish Isles - so the immediate assumption was that Ljotr was actually a Celt and not a Viking. Ooops.

We weren't the only Clan to get that surprise concerning Haplogroup~ Clan Donald's legend was that Somerled was of Celt descent, a descendant of the Irish Kings, but their Haplogroup (including documented descendants of Somerled) was R1a - the Viking one.

Both Clans had documented ties to the Isle of Mann; but what exactly was their genealogy based upon their Haplogroup (the two Clans of different Haplogroups did not share any ancestor within many thousands of years).

In our case, there was an alternate genealogy that had been developed by a couple of researchers that was questioning Ljotr's relationship to King Olaf before the YDNA testing so, the results of our YDNA added a lot of credence to that alternate genealogy - which went like this...Ljotr was not a son of King Olaf but a cousin descended through a daughter of a previous King - that daughter was said to be Helga the Beautiful Hair. Lending this genealogy credence was the McLean/McLain genealogy which included a granddaughter of Ljotr called Christina along with several of the more ancient Scottish genealogies. Perhaps the most telling though was the fact that when the male line of Olaf and the Kings of Mann died out, the Chief of Clan MacLeod did not petition to become the next in line as would a male descendant regardless of the generations removed from the last King.

But, there was still that question of our being Celt rather than Viking. Although R1a was the predominant Haplogroup of the Viking men...30% of those tested from that area of the world were R1b, just like the MacLeods...so there was still a chance that Ljotr was not Celt...in other words, IF Ljotr descended from Helga the Beautiful Hair, he would carry the YDNA of her husband and not of her father. Was her husband a Viking? There was a 30% chance that he was.

Fast forward now to the Family Tree DNA Clan MacLeod project now in its sixth year; The University of London project used a very small number of markers for testing the participants; initially the FTDNA project used only 12 markers - slightly more than the University - the testing was now expanded to men who had not participated in the original study AND, the group who shared R1b and that allele found in the first study was growing. Eventually, FTDNA expanded to the testing of first 25, then 37 and now 67 markers and the group still grew. The results showed that this group of men shared an ancestor within the last 600 years....but still, there was the question...Celt or Viking?

Then, within another arm of the testing called Deep Clade Testing there was discovered a new SNP called S68 or L165 and one member of that group of related MacLeods tested positive for that SNP. That SNP was a Norse one....since then, we've tested several others (including Cousin Purdy) among the related group at FTDNA and each one has also tested positive.

We can be fairly positive now that Clan MacLeod, although maybe not descended from King Olaf as suggested by our legends, is of Norse Viking ancestry.

If you are a MacLeod, please consider joining our FTDNA project....!

Genetic DNA, New Website Reception, An Award~~

2009-04-15T11:39:00.003-04:00

I've been busy with Genetic DNA since the new design went on line....Several folks have emailed with questions and thankfully, my answers were able to clarify the process for them just a little. Since joining the MacLeod YDNA project (with my father and my cousins James and Purdy) I've been a bit disappointed by the management of said project. The initial results of our participation were confusing to say the least and therefore disappointing. We weren't the only ones to feel this; I got busy researching how to interpret those results and eventually was able to interpret them to the point where I was amazed at what had been hidden.....Slowly, our fellow participants are realizing that they can learn more and with a little recruiting of their family members, possibly even learn a lot more......you can read more about this at MacLeod YDNA

~~~~~~~~~~

The reception of the new format for the website has been warm.....after an initial feeling of "where am I" most visitors are pleased with the ease of navigation. I've found there are a few broken links, mainly in the photograph albums, and I'm working on getting working properly. As I hoped, the effort of maintenance and updating has been much easier ~ a good thing since I've gotten a lot of new information from visitor's emails over the last month. I'm in the process of sorting through it all and adding it to the pages.....keep it up folks.

~~~~~~~~~~

I recently received a "Gold" rating from Heritage Awards, a web site that evaluates various genealogy sites and rates them according to some pretty strict standards. Walking with Ghosts received a 91 out of 100 possible points, had no penalty points but also received no bonus points. Reading the results I realized that I received "0" points because links didn't open in new windows.....I decided to run a poll to see what folks who visit the site would prefer...links that open in the same window allowing you to use your back button to return to where you were or links that open in new windows allowing you to switch between windows to view the information....please consider participating in the poll - it's to your right on this blog. I'd like to thank the three judges at Heritage for their time and their effort in doing this for genealogy site......

My Kiddo - April 2008

2009-03-23T15:49:00.002-04:00

Die Wetterfahne

Come Away, Come Away, Death - Dallas

Signed, One Proud Mama!

Learning something new~~

2009-03-03T08:41:00.002-05:00

Genealogy isn't just the gathering of names and dates and burial sites; it's so much more than that. The names, dates, and burial places don't tell you who your ancestor was - to get that information you have to dig a little deeper - work a little harder.

I love fairs. Everything about them. The smells, the sounds, the sites....could that be in my genes? Perhaps....because I just learned that our Abnett ancestors ran the Kentish Fairs in Maidstone back in the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Ginger Beer manufacturers (yummy!), brick layers (wish that gene had passed down a little stronger everytime we work on those front porch steps), bakers and cooks and Fair Folks......

Changing Adresses~

2009-02-27T13:06:00.005-05:00

I checked out a fellow genealogist's blog today. One of her recent entries dealt with a site re-design of a database of Civil War information; apparently the redesign resulted in changed addresses for the pages which in turn created a headache for those folks who had previously bookmarked those pages. The blog entry included a letter sent to the site owner reprimanding him/her for the confusion that had resulted from his re-design.

I felt for the poor site owner; after all, I've just spent the better part of two years searching for a way to make my own website (and the local site which is on my home computer) more organized, more searchable, and well...just better. I tried my darnedest to figure out a way to only change a few of the web site page addresses, but in the end, in order to facilitate future updating to the site, I had no choice. I had to work within the outlines of my own knowledge of web design and the context of the amount and type of information that the site incorporated. In the end, only the index page address of my own site remained the same (home page).

After 8 year of research, my site had grown to close to 200 pages with hundreds of photos and scanned documents all of which were in alphabetical order but with no generational or surname organization.....it had reached the point where maintenance of the site both locally and on the Internet was becoming a nightmare....that nightmare meant I avoided maintaining the site.....and so on. I couldn't find documents, images, and sometimes, even the page I had created for an individual without a great deal of effort. As a result, a lot of the information was outdated.

So, when I finally got down to re-designing the thing, I had to not only think of past visitors who had bookmarked old pages, but I had to think of myself and how to make it as easy as possible to maintain the site in the future. I had to come up with a way to make navigation of the site not only easier for me but for the visitors to the site. I tried everything I could think of to accomplish this without losing the old page addresses, but in the end, I knew that I had to give up that idea.

Folders were the answer - the only real solution to a disorganized mess. Folders and sub folders and still more sub folders - assigned by surname and then generation and then additional folders that contained all the documentation and the photos for that surname and that generation. i.e.

A. MacLeod Folder

I.Angus and Nancy Folder

a) Alexander and Sarah Folder

i. Alexander and Harriet Folder

ii. John N. and Kitsy Folder

iii. Photos and Documents Folder

b) Daniel and Catherine Folder

i. Annie McLeod Boykin Folder

ii. John Robert McLeod Folder

c) Photos and Documents Folder

B. Abnett Folder (following the same principal as above).

Folders solved the issue of my local site; I can find generations and branches and documents in a heartbeat. But all of that organizing would have been undone if I simply used the old way of uploading those pages to the Internet site....they would all go back in alphabetical order using the given name.....so all the folders had to be uploaded as well which changed the page addresses (addresses now include the folder names as well).

The local site is now a mirror of the Internet site and the Internet site is a mirror of the local site....this make maintaining the site 100% easier for me, with an unfortunate side affect being that the page addresses have now changed. I can only hope that a well maintained site - one that has all information updated on a regular basis - is a fair trade off for those visitors losing their bookmarks temporarily. (And each page now has links to every surname entry page on the site making it easier for folks to navigate - some pages even have the generations listed to aid in finding individuals).

I imagine that the Civil War database owner faced the same issue - how to keep it all organized for the easiest maintenance of the site.....and I'm sure that he/she tried their best to keep the page addresses the same but in the end, that desire had to be sacrificed for the long term benefit of both the research and the researcher....I know that's what I experienced.

February's Birthdays and Anniversaries

2009-02-22T08:44:00.004-05:00

Anniversaries this month:

Meyers, Iva and Bryan

Westberry, Joanne and William

McLeod, Vicky and Kevin - 25th****

Gaylord, Sarah McLeod and Willis Gaylord 143 years ago

McLeod, Thomas H. and Sara 150 years ago

Birthdays:

1. Ross Leonard C. age 90; Truesdale, Hosea age 113; McLeod, Wilson age 117

2. Burgess, Anthony; Meyers, Sarah E. age 164

3. Blue, Henry age 109; McLeod, Thomas E. age 121

4. Moncrief, Joshua; White, Mary M. age 142

5. McLeod, Hampton D. age 136; McLeod, Angus Robert age 166

6. Westberry, Jesse; McElveen, Margaret age 140

7. Alger, Robert age 93

8. Horne, Sarah Bragg age 104

9. Phillips, Doug, Locklair, William

10. Westberry, Samatha; McLeod, Joseph C. age 140; Williams, Mary H. age 121

11. McLeod, Christopher; McLeod, James H. age 158; Hudson, Jochiam age 276; Holland, Mittie age 138; Brown, W. M. age 138

12. Wessell, Samantha; Davis, Sharon; Donald Ross McLeod Sr. age 113; Kevin Ross McLeod (grandson of Donald)

13. Westberry, Reginald age 72;Way, Austin

14. Griffith, Francis McLeod age 91; McCaskill, Margarette age 98

15. Cutshall, Norman;Hudson, Mary B. age 375

16. Smith, Sarah McLeod; Huggins, Martha McLeod age 168

17. Jessup, Mary L. age 202

19. Newman, Scott, Hopkins; Melissa Barfield, Tindale; Mary B. age 133; Arrants, Johannas age 239

20. Jesse Lazarus McLeod age 162

22. Westberry, Mary; King, Melody; McLeod, Richard T. age 162; Bain, Mary M. age 141

23. Foxworth, Margaret age 71; Dennis, Isobella J. age 150

24. Kritas, John age 92; McKay, Harriet age 119; Estes, Dorothy age 91

26. Westberry, Dr. Jesse age 92; Evans, Otto

27. Oldhouser, Bill

Walking With Ghosts~~~

2009-02-18T17:53:00.001-05:00

I guess the title of the new site intrigues folks; because a few of you wanted to know a bit more about our ghostly experiences while researching...... I'll start with the story that caused my niece Skye not to want to spend the night with me anymore! If you dig around a bit on the website, you could read about it there...but to save you the chore of the digging~~

In June of 2004, David and I packed H off to summer camp where his two elder siblings were counselors and headed up the road to South Carolina for our annual McLeod Reunion and my annual research trip. I had a list of things I wanted to find in the courthouses, but the most important thing to me that year was to find the McLeod Family Cemetery where John Robert McLeod (h/o Sarah Cason) and Annie McLeod Boykin (w/o Col. Stephen M. Boykin) were said to be buried (both children of Daniel McLeod and Catherine McLean).

I had recently learned that the cemetery was on what used to be our family land; at some point it had either been sold or given to the New Hope Presbyterian Church where the grave yard was consecrated and used from then on for both McLeods and members of the church. Unfortunately, the church burned in the 1930's and the ground was left to return to nature...and nature was taking back the cemetery along with the rest of it all. I knew that any opportunity to find those graves was slipping away with each new growing season.

After the reunion on Saturday, David, cousins' Trish Sanders Brown and her daughter Elizabeth and I loaded up to drive to where we would begin the search. Trish had been there several years before and thought that she would find it quite easily, but nature had so taken it all over that it took us close to three hours to find the little place. Even asking neighbors didn't help us, they'd forgotten it was even there for the most part.

As we searched, I couldn't help but think that it was a little bit like the Blair Witch Project...you could hear the wind whistling softly in the trees, our feet crunching through years of undisturbed layers of leaf mulch, the cars traveling every now and then down the distance road almost sounded like the moans or growls of something........and the hushed excitement in our voices might have been mistaken for a little bit of fear and holding that camera steady was nigh impossible...and then we finally caught a glimpse of an old gravestone through the trees.

The stones were in pretty awful shape and it broke my heart just a little to read the names and the dates of those of my family who were buried there and now forgotten. Many of the stones were broken and lying on the ground, some were showing signs that it wouldn't be long before they were joining the already fallen, and far too many were missing completely. The fence that had once surrounded the little site was only evident by the slanting, rotting posts.....

Although we found John Robert's grave almost immediately (and a few other family members that I didn't know were buried there), Annie's stone was nowhere to be found. As I videoed each stone, I talked about the connection to the family if they weren't actually related or recited their ancestry if they were....and as I walked from stone to stone, stepping over tree roots and huge limbs and other debris, I would place the video camera on pause......

Quite a few times, I had to back track and re shoot a grave or two because I'd forget to take it off of pause, and so when we returned to the hotel to share the video I wasn't surprised to see that I had missed a few of the stones......

But after not finding Annie's grave, I was bitterly disappointed to see that I didn't have John's gravestone on the video either.....we re-wound that tape and went over it several times just to be certain that it wasn't there.....with my father Donald Ross McLeod Jr., his wife, Jan and my Aunt Madie there as witnesses. Seeing my disappointment, David assured me that he could find the graves again and that we would stop by there on our way out of town the next morning.

David was as good as his word because we walked right up and into the site the next morning and this time, not quite as excited or nervous, I was much more cautious with my recording and I made certain that I had John's stone on tape before doing anything else. The calm that we hadn't had the day before allowed us to really look at what remained of the lay-out of the remaining stones and slowly, we began to see a pattern.....our family members were mostly in a double line, stone after stone. We started to look for foot stones that gave us clues to where formerly marked graves were located....and finally, David began to gently move the dirt away from in front of one of those foot stones. Soon he reached stone and we began to think that we'd been very lucky.....

Before very long, David had uncovered Annie's entire head stone, beautifully engraved and all in one piece. Who knows how long her stone had laid there covered by years of falling leaves and blowing dirt...but we had found her. We videoed the stone and then gently propped it up against a tree that stood near her foot stone....and we headed home to Florida.

I couldn't wait to show the kids the two videos (Saturday's had had a certain Blair Witch quality to it as we first viewd it) .....we had been big fans of the Blair Witch Project years before, playing tricks on each other and our neighbors....they would love the video adventure even if the names and dates didn't mean anything to them just yet....

I started with Saturday's video.............and was shocked when suddenly, there where it had not been before, was John Robert's gravestone....remember, we had watched the video in the hotel room with 3 extra witnesses and his stone was not there.......I guess Annie wanted to be found, eh? I kinda like walking with ghosts.....

*disclaimer....I like walking with the ghosts of my family..that was in no way to be considered an open invitation to just any old ghost who wants to walk with me.......

Finished~~

2009-02-16T15:40:00.003-05:00

I just uploaded the last page of the newly redesigned website ! And I breathed a huge sigh of relief~~because that thing has been hanging over my head for the better part of two years! I'm sending out the email letting folks know that its completed as soon as I finish this post (the site now has a link to this blog ~ and I need to make sure this thing is as welcoming as I hope the new site will be!).

From 2000 - 2003, I was dilligent in the maintenance of the website; well, actually two websites which mirrored each other.....but then we went on our farmhouse search and I got a bit distracted - still I was able to keep up with it. Then in 2004 we actually bought the farmhouse and moved into it and....well, the poor website began to get neglected.

Four months after moving in, just as I was getting ready to jump back on the genealogy wagon, I had a computer crash.....from that point on, I just never got back into the habit of maintaining the site the way it should have been maintained.

Then, in mid 2005, the first of the DNA project results started coming in and I spent the better part of a year learning about genetic DNA and well, you guessed it, I neglected that poor old website. From then until now, I have had three attempts at a redesign and update of the thing each of which stalled out about a quarter of the way through....until this past November.

My computer began to drag its feet whenever I got on it; finding a photograph or a research piece began to get progressively more difficult; I was finding duplicates of images and documents all over the poor puter and suddenly, I'd had enough of my own disorganization. And I got serious. And I got down to business....spending an average of 2 hours each evening on the website and re-organizing the puter at the same time.....until I finally finished the last page on Saturday.

The new website is completely up to date on all of the research but perhaps most important is that it should be easier for everyone to navigate now.....I know that folks were getting as lost on the old site as I was in my computer!

If you've come to this blog from the website, a little reminder~~ you will need to re-book the pages and hit refresh from time to time to make sure that you are 1) able to return to the site when you need to (most page names have changed despite my attempts to do this without that happening) and 2) seeing the most up to date version of the pages.....

Happy Researching! Here's hoping that someone in my family tree may be someone in yours!

Today's Birthday - In Memory

2009-01-11T09:15:00.003-05:00

Walter Kenneth Hudson was born Jan 11, 1892 New Zion South Carolina to Ashby Orr and Louisa Ann Dennis Hudson. He died Aug 30, 1960 in Florence South Carolina. According to The Writings of Ellen Rodriques Hudson, (provided to Lori McLeod Wilke by Donald Ross McLeod Jr. January 2000) - he dated a young woman with two children but allowed the family to influence him and they never married......

Todays Birthdays - In Memory

2009-01-10T08:45:00.004-05:00

Sidney Smith McLeod (125th) was born Jan 10, 1884 in Pike County, Alabama. Sidney was the grandson of Betsy McLeod and her husband Norman McLeod. Betsy was the daughter of Angus and Nancy McCutchen McLeod. She and her husband, also a McLeod, would migrate to Alabama shortly after the death of Angus, Nancy went with them but lived with Betsy's sister's family (Bethune's). He was the son of Sidney McLeod and Emma K. Smith.

Ransom Edward Motley (157th) was born Jan 03, 1852 in Sumter County, South Carolina, and he died Oct 04, 1928 in the Horrell area. He married the youngest child of John N. McLeod and Kitsy Davis in about the year 1881, Katherine Harriet Eliza Ann Rebecca McLeod. Katherine, also known as Kitsy to her family, was named after two sisters who died in infancy. They both are buried at Old Beulah Baptist Church Cemetery near Hopkins, S.C., in Richland County-

January Birthdays~~~~

2009-01-08T09:13:00.007-05:00

January 1 Vicki Eileen Horne (61st)
Janaury 2 Lee Allan Birminghom, Eliane Frietas McLeod, Harold A. Abnett (106th)
January 3 Mary Elizabeth Coe Evans, Janet Wilson, Charles M. Skipper, Janaury 4
January 5 James Clinton Jones, James P. Westberry III
January 6 Dee Dee Green, Theresa A. Jones Thigpen
January 7
January 8
January 9 Rosa Belle McKay Horn (134th)
January 10 Karen McLeod Stewart, Sidney Smith McLeod (125th),Ransom Edward Motley (157th)
January 11 Wendy Westberry Burgess, Walter Kenneth Hudson (117th)
January 12 Dannette Alan, Eugenia Alexi English, Charles Skipper, T. H. Newman III
January 13 Gwen Geddins
January 14 Len Caughman, Lori McLeod Wilke, Mary McLeod Anderson
Janaury 15 Benjamin Hudson (218th)
January 16 Kevin Allan Bork
January 17
January 18 Jerry Edward Cutshall, John Hodges Aull, Christopher McLeod Bradham
Janaury 19 William Westberry Tucker, Willis McLeod Gaylord (135th)
Janaury 20 John McLeod DeBacker, Jonathon D. Oldhouser
January 22 David Eldridge Jones, Phillip E. Wells, Ferril King Jr.,
January 23 Thomas Stuart Estes (93 years old), Giles Salvo, Bryan S. Myers,
January 24 Iva Skelton Myers
January 25
January 26 Robert McKay Blue (102nd), Christian Salvo Ferguson, Robert A. Hudson (171st), Eunice C. Hudson (133rd)
January 27 Christian Marks Skipper
January 28 Leslie R. Abnett (99th)
January 29 Angie Malone Horne, Georgette D. Kleckly
January 30 Frank Caughman (97 years old)
January 31 Adrian Thompson Green, James C. McLeod (110th),

If you know of more January Birthdays, please email or add it in the comment section!

Genealogy....What Else?

2009-01-08T09:02:00.002-05:00

First, I have to plug another blog - the owner of the blog commented on "My Favorite Photograph" over at the Farmhouse Blog and as always, I took a minute or two and visited out her blog to see if its one I'd like to follow....she had three blogs but one of them had a title that got more attention from me then the others. And it turned out to be the right pick for me since its a blog devoted to her family and genealogy..... it gave me some clarity on what I'd like for this blog to become....

Buster's War"

I'd already placed a link to this blog on the site's new template but wasn't entirely sure how I'd tie it all in together...so here goes....

Moving Along Nicely

2008-12-29T11:31:00.003-05:00

The re-design of the web site is coming along....I've figured out how to really use templates and library items after a long time of pretending to know what I was doing. This new knowledge will help not only now in getting the new website up and running but also in keeping it updated.

Hopefully, visitors won't get lost in the site anymore....getting lost in Scottish genealogy is oh too easy.....I mean, all the men of every family was named either Alexander, Daniel, Norman or Angus! With a few Johns' thrown in for good measure!

I'm just about finished with the MacLeod/McLeod portion of the site, which is by far the largest portion, and then I should be able to just zip through the others (with the exception of the Abnett line - thanks to a cousin (Jill Cole) I've got info on them back to about 1705.....and there were a lot of Abnetts!

I hope to launch the new site shortly after the New Year!

Happy Researching!

Instead of working on that book~~~

2008-12-08T07:45:00.002-05:00

I've started over on the redesign of the website. To be perfectly honest, I've been working on that for two years now and the guilt began to really get at me. I began to feel it every time I checked my yahoo email and found several genealogy related emails.....and they mentioned broken links or asked if the site was up to date...........

So, last Monday, I got back to it...in between bouts of frenzied Christmas decorating and frantic phonecalls around the country regarding my dad and his health emergency.

To begin, I spent some time surfing other genealogy pages to see what the average navigation style has evolved to over the last few years. My site had grown so large that I knew that some folks would be getting lost within the pages as they click link after link to follow a particular line of ancestry. It was time to figure out a more appropriate navigation style of my own.

Once I decided on the navigation style that would suit my site best, I began the long job of pasting the old information into the new pages and then going through my files to see if I had learned anything new that needed to be added...I'm about 1/4 of the way through at the moment.......and I've a lot of work ahead of me....

So, if I'm absent from posting for awhile......you'll know where I am....buried deep in dusty files and getting organized.......

A written history~~~

2008-11-30T10:43:00.003-05:00

I've gotten a few responses to my last post about our Family History Book ....so to begin this post, let me say thank you to those who have written......I've truly enjoyed your suggestions.

I am about one quarter of the way through the book. I like what I've got so far as do those of my immediate family that have been allowed to see the progress. I've mixed in my fictional view of my family's immigration from Scotland with facts that pertain to the era in which they left their home country to sail to the new world. I've created collages of old photos that also give a visual aid to the story...for example what the ship they traveled on may have looked like or how the mill or cooperage from which they earned an income may have been built.

And I've included my own thoughts and experiences as I've traveled this road of research for the past ten years...sort of like a diary.

I think what has stopped me is that I'm not an author....and I'm afraid that folks may think that the work over-reaches my ability to truly tell a story that is not just dates and reference numbers pertaining to the yellowed documents I've been lucky enough to hold in my hands. Perhaps my view of our ancestors life will seem overly romantic or melodramatic to readers....

I'm wary of criticism...and I find that funny in a way...because I've lived my life exactly as I have wanted to despite the criticism of others; I've always followed my heart in decision making, in child rearing, in philosophical matters and life in general....so why should I now fear the criticism of others?

Perhaps putting that fear out there for all of you to read it and hear it will allow me to move forward with the book....perhaps the actual acknowledgement of what it is that I fear will allow me to overcome it.....I hope so!

Genealogy~~

2008-11-26T10:53:00.003-05:00

I'm supposed to be working on our family's written history. I'm supposed to have it ready for publication by next June's family reunion......but I can't seem to get going on it. Its not just that all of our time has been spent on working on this old farmhouse, hosting parties and holiday dinners....although time has been an issue. Mainly, its because I can't decide how to put it all together.

I don't want it to be a book that folks open the day they receive it only to spend a few minutes browsing it and then put it away never to look at again. I want it to be a book that draws them into the world of their ancestors.

I laughingly tell folks that I "walk with ghosts" and that I know more about the family members that have passed from this life than I do about those still here and walking. And it is the truth. As I work on this old house, I find myself comparing my life today with that of my 3 times great grandmother Sarah McIntosh MacLeod. As I drive the 12 miles into town, I think about how long a trip that would have been to those who traveled in a horse and buggy rather than a Pontiac Grand Am......

Somehow, I want to fill the pages of our family history with glimpses of the impact the research has had on how I live my own life today and how I view my days through the eyes of the ghosts of my ancestors........

Our President too?

2008-11-07T08:32:00.002-05:00

Emanuel Told His Staff That Republicans Could "Go F--- Themselves!" "'I'll tell you this,' Emanuel shouted out to his staff. 'The Republicans may have the 72-hour program. But they have not seen the 22-month program! ... Since my kids are gone, I can say it: They can go ---- themselves!'" (Naftali Bendavid, "The House That Rahm Built," Chicago Tribune, 11/12/06)

Suddenly Emanuel grabbed his steak knife and, as those who were there remember it, shouted out the name of another enemy, lifted the knife, then brought it down with full force into the table. 'Dead!' he screamed. The group immediately joined in the cathartic release: 'Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead! Bill Schaefer! Dead!'" (Elisabeth Bumiller, "The Brothers Emanuel," The New York Times, 6/15/97)

Perhaps my peace and hope were a bit naive? Has Obama forgotten his campaign speeches already? Is that what those who voted for his promised change hoped for?

Obama's Election Night Speech: "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."(Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Election Night, Chicago, IL, 11/4/08)

Obama: "We've got to get beyond the small politics ... the slash and burn politics that have become the custom in Washington." ("Obama Denounces 'Slash And Burn' Politics," The Associated Press, 2/19/07)

Let's see what happens to Joe Leiberman, who as an American, exercised his right to vote for the person he felt was best to lead our country...there are rumors of revenge already circulating......

Democrats scale back expectations

2008-11-06T10:18:00.000-05:00

Democrats scale back expectations

And so it begins....the backing off of campaign promises and party promises....this should prove interesting......

It's a strange morning......

2008-11-05T09:42:00.002-05:00

I am saddened and hopeful at the same time. I am fearful and eager all at the same time. I am proud that we have come so far that an African American was elected as our country's President, but I wish that I had more faith in this man's real feelings about our country.

“We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too." President Elect Barrack Obama

When Bill Clinton was elected, the noise following the election included the words "we have been given a mandate" - no one heard that he would be our President too. No one who had voted against him felt that their voices would be heard in the years that were to come. Yet, this new President Elect made it a point to include this in his acceptance speech. I have hope because of those words but it is tempered hope.

It remains to be seen if we will be governed in the manner in which he served as the most liberal senator in Washington, or if we will be governed in the manner in which he campaigned for the most powerful office in the world..as a centrist.

It remains to be seen if the middle class will get those promised tax cuts and if they do, whether or not they are offset by crippling taxes on our energy sources (gas, utilities). It remains to be seen whether or not the raised taxes on small businesses and large corporations cause massive layoffs and huge price increases that eliminate any tax cut we may receive. Will we accomplish major steps towards energy Independence including drilling, clean coal and other means that Obama has stated he is against prior to his campaigning for the office of the Presidency?

Will our Health Care Crisis be overcome or will we actually find more folks under insured as a result of his plan? Will we wait months for surgeries as other countries do instead of being the country where those folks come to have those same surgeries without the wait? Will parents be fined for not being able to afford to insure their children?

Will the leveling of the playing field raise people up or bring people down?

Were the associations with those who hate our country a reflection of this man's true feelings for our country or was his inability to stand up, walk away, speak up, as one democrat said this past weekend, a sign of "political cowardice"? And if political cowardice, what does this mean for our national security?

As I said, it's a strange moment. The middle aged African American who stood with silent tears rolling down his face touched my heart and I was proud that he lived to see this day. Yet, we don't really know President Barrack Obama - I could wish that our first African American President was more experienced, had fewer associations that cause me to question his true feelings for this great country, a record more known and more centrist, a history of crossing the aisle - This country voted for change. As an American, I pray the change we get is what we hoped for.

A Question of Judgement

2008-11-02T12:11:00.003-05:00

My parents and grandparents always told me to be careful of just whom I decided to call my friends because I would be judged by the company I kept. Although I didn't understand this concept and thought it an unfair sounding one at that, I soon learned that it was all too true. We were an Air Force family, traveling the world and the states and attending schools at each place we were stationed....and I didn't always make the best decisions.....even though I was for the most part a rule follower and concerned about not only my own reputation but that of my family. Over the years, I learned that my folks were usually correct; one time really stands out in memory...ignoring my parents advice led me to the time I got arrested for the shoplifing my so called friend had engaged in while with mom and I at the mall (this friend slipped a necklace into my jacket pocket - luckily my story was believed and I was let go without prejudice).

My experiences led me to believe that while what my folks told me was usually true, my own rule following personality showed there were exceptions to the rule....sometimes, it takes a while before you can truly know the heart of a person.....this perspective has allowed me to become an adult who doesn't always jump to conclusions about a person based upon whom they hang out with.....I am slow to judgement, slow to embrace a new friendship taking my time to eventually come to a conclusion about a new acquaintance which is based upon a "preponderance of evidence" (to loosely use a legal term).

One should always take their time before allowing an opinion to form based upon any new acquaintance. First impressions, while sometimes the correct one, have exceptions....a well spoken acqaintance may only be showing one side of their nature. It takes time to learn about the true feelings and thoughts anyone may have; it takes time to see the reactions and non- reactions of a new acquaintance and then determine whether or not you can trust this person's judgement. Their judgement can and will have an affect on your own life...in other words, you need that so called preponderance of evidence.......This "preponderance of evidence" is overwhelming in Senator Obama's case. His associations through the years have been with those who are anti-American, pro-Socialism, and with violence advocating activitists. From Jeremiah Wright to Bill Ayers to Frank, his card carrying Communist Party USA childhood mentor to his being an attorney and teacher for Acorn, Senator Obama's choices of folks to have "frequent dinners" with is a bit alarming. And his claims of being too young, too uninformed, to have been able to use good judgement in continuing those associations just ring false when weighed against that evidence.

Obama talks about the "change" we need in this country....and while I agree that we do need change, I'm not certain that he is the one best suited to serve as the agent of change. If I felt that time he spent with those who hate our country was to "hear" their side of things and that he also spent an equal amount of time listening to those who love our country and don't want to so much change it as temper it, refine it, make it work better...then I would feel less afraid of this man and how his judgement will affect my life and the life of my aging parents and my growing children and my future grandchildren.

Senator Obama never walked out of a church in which hateful rhetoric was heard - he stayed for 20 years listening to how white Americans/Europeans were responsible for every ill in the world - and he never walked out or severed the association until it became political suicide to continue it; he sat in on meetings where Anti-Semitism was spewed and didn't walk out or pass judgement on those who spoke it; he never condemned the terrorist acts of Bill Ayers and the Weathermen but wrote a blurb in a book written by him and states he was only "eight years old" when those acts of violence were done by a man who is admittedly unrepentent.....I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

I've walked out of movies where I didn't condone what was being shown on the screen; I've ended so called friendships when overwhelming evidence of a lack of character showed me that I couldn't be an enabler or a condoner, I've spent 25 years teaching my children to use their judgement to protect themselves in this world and watched them learn by experience that sometimes, you have to stand up, walk out or speak up.....I expect no less of the person who would lead my country.

the New Party & Obama

2008-10-26T18:22:00.000-04:00

Is Obama a socialist? He belonged to the New Party in Chicago and was elected as a New Party Member and not as a Democrat......

About the New Party: "Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."

Spread the weath around? With a "guaranteed minmum income" (not wage - income) "for all adults; a universal social wage"......and with Biden's statement of just what equates to patriotism...I would assume that any who made above that minimum income or social wage, would have the abundance taken to give to those who are "behind" them......

Why are we just now finding out about this? Because the liberal media has decided they want Obama as President......! Just as they have not checked out his true relationship with Bill Ayers - an America hater - just like we're not supposed to care about his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright - another America hater......we are not supposed to figure out just who Obama is and what he really means with his message of "change" and "sacrifice" and "service".......

401k's

2008-10-24T09:31:00.002-04:00

I know a lot of folks have seen losses in their 401ks in this economic minefield we've been navigating since September.....just like in the months that followed September 11th 2001. I know that jobs losses are on the increase and that foreclosures are way up.....and I also know that a whole lot of folks are scared. David and I are not isolated from you in this.....there is no more overtime at David's job, and there is talk of decreasing the number of folks who work in certain areas....hidden speak of layoff's perhaps in the near future.

I've spent a lot of time researching the truth behind the spin of the political parties in this election cycle and there is no doubt that any reader understands my position clearly.....but over the last 2 weeks, I've spent a great deal of time watching T.V. due to my back pain, and I've become even more concerned about the direction our government is going in response to this and other factors in today's political and social environment. The Democratic Majority in our Congress is already talking of socializing 401k's, making contributions to 401k's mandatory, increasing taxes by 5% on those with 401k's etc.....they are spending millions of dollars trying to increase their majority to stop the Republicans from having any vote power in the next two years (the Dem's want a 2/3rd majority.....). All of this talk is vetted by Mr. Obama as he "measures for the curtains".......to use a quote of John McCain's.

Folks seem to think that Obama is the answer to this crisis, based not only upon his "change" campaign rhetoric but on the blame his party has placed on the Republicans for the economic crisis ("failed policies of the past eight years", deregulation etc.). Folks seem to think that increased socialism in our government is the answer to all of our problems....but folks, it was socialist beliefs and a feeling of entitlement that got us where we are right now!

The truth is that both parties are to blame for this situation just as much as the corporations that have systematically started to fail because of their own misguided borrowing and lending. But, folks are forgetting that it is the burst housing bubble that created this crisis and not the policies of any one party or any particular corporation. And if you look into the burst housing bubble with any degree of impartiality you can see that even it had many facets to its inevitable explosion.....

Many folks ( and I am personally acquainted with a few of them) bought houses beyond their means using fancy financing....like no interest loans with no down payments or with variable interest rates that move with the prime interest rate, or with balloon payments.....all assuming that their financial status would always remain the same or continue to improve; all assuming that they could refinance in three years to get out of the original loan. Life is too erratic to ever count on these things....but that is something that comes with age and experience.....and so these folks bought houses they couldn't afford and are now losing those houses.

How does this pertain to socialism, since the above is more about entitlement (I deserve to own this house I can't afford instead of waitng until I can afford it- and I want it so badly that I won't look at the fine print to see if this could explode in my face!), let's take a minute to look at the part socialism played in the burst housing bubble.... the folks above made their own choices to partake of the schemes, but the schemes themselves were developed because of the lending requirements our government put in place to put lower income, non credit worthy folks into homes......

The government, mainly the democrats like Dodd, Frank, Pelosi and Schumer but including some Republicans, continued to state that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both government owned agencies, didn't need more regulation but in fact, needed to continue to offer these fancy financing schemes to folks who couldn't afford the loans.....and backing those high risk loans (insuring them). While the Republicans, led by President Bush, and echoed by John McCain, continued to warn that something needed to be done or we'd be exactly where we are right now......the dems encouraged the increased socialistic lending of money to those who couldn't repay it....

Socialism is backed by good intentions. The problem is that good intention can cause as great a harm as bad intention if not thoroughly thought out.....in other words, those with good intentions must balance those intentions with thoughtful consideration of the unintended consequences.....

Socialistic experiments have always been around....sometimes called Communism...but all based on the same principal that the government should make everything "fair" to everyone regardless of the amount of effort expended by those folks to achieve their own piece of the fairness pie.....

If you are able to work overtime and earn more money, the socialists argue, then you should be willing to give something extra to those who can't work overtime - even to those who WON'T work overtime...because it isn't fair that you are able to work overtime!

If you were able to work hard to achieve academic success through hard work, and go on to college with scholarships and grants based upon that hard work and/or were able to obtain student loans or your parents paid for your college, the socialists state that you should be willing to give something more to those who didn't work hard to achieve academic success and scholarships and grants and student loans or parental funds.......or those who just didn't choose to go to college...

If you drive old cars, don't go out to dinner very often, don't take expensive family vacations and contribute more money then the government feels you should be able to to your 401k, then the Dems want to start taxing you on those contributions......because its not fair that other folks can't or won't contribute as much as you do......put that money in a savings account instead of a 401k and the government already taxes you on the interest you earn.....(401k's and IRA's were a way to delay that taxation until you used the money and now they want to change that!).

Obama's going to give you a tax break, so he says, but if you look closely enough, you'll find that he's going to raise your tax burden in other ways.....like forcing you to contribute to an IRA and then taxing you for doing so......all in the interest of fairness....... in the interest of spreading the wealth around....regardless of whether you are poor because you choose not to work hard, save money yourself or because you are poor as a result of circumstances beyond your control.

And, those nasty corporations who create the jobs that we need to be able to contribute to an IRA or pay for the mortgage that we got with fancy financing or without fancy financing? - he's going to tax them more as well.. and anyone with any sense at all knows that corporations don't pay taxes.....we do.....with increased job losses and raised prices of their goods or services to cover that new taxation ! All in the name of fairness.......and an unwritten and previously unknown right of the people...the right to be given something you didn't work for, can't afford and....you've got the picture already I hope...the pursuit of happiness has been changed to the right of happiness.....and happiness apparently means governmental parenting.....

We are looking directly into the face of a one party government if the Dems succeed in getting Obama elected and taking over the House and Senate with a 2/3rds majority in this election....and for those of you who would respond with "well, George Bush was a Republican President with a Republican majority"....that majority wasn't anywhere near a 2/3rds one.....Democrats were still needed to pass any bill that wasn't a simple majority and those simple majority votes are few and far between. Looking at the burst house bubble that resulted from the socialist tendancies of the Democratic Party and the state we all find ourselves in right now, is a one party government a safe thing for our futures and the future of our children?

Think about it for minute - our forefathers set up a two party government on purpose....they set up the rules of house and senate and the balance of power to ensure that we the people weren't overridden by our own government.......think about that when you cast your vote for your Senator and your Representative on November 4th.

More Truth about De-Regulation

2008-10-20T08:23:00.002-04:00

Despite the fact that the Dems, led by Pelosi, Frank, Dodd and Obama, keep saying it was the Republican policies of the past eight years and the deregulation carried out by the Republicans over the past 20 years, that led to our current financial crisis, there is proof that they are spinning. CNBC reported on it and the AP wrote about it here.

You'll remember I've post here before that Bush tried to get stronger regulatory oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since 2003; that John McCain, among other Republicans, tried to pass legislation to provide this additional regulation in 2005....that legislation went to the Finance Committee, where all Republicans voted for it and all Democrats voted against it....it never made it to the floor because there wasn't enough Democrats and Republicans to pass it...and now we are learning part of the reason why.

Mae and/or Mac secretly paid a lobbying firm to target Republican Senators up for re-election in 2006 to vote against the bill. For varying reasons, those Republicans would not support the legislation's. Without enough Republicans AND Democrats to vote for the bill, it would not pass (putting the lie to the statement that the majority could have placed more regulatory oversight on the GSE's but didn't do so - it had to be a bi-partisan passage).

If you are interested in the truth, read the article.....and if you still walk away blaming Bush and the Republicans for the financial crisis.......that's the beauty of America isn't it?

The truth about deregulation is of vital importance in this election because so many are voting with their pocketbooks in mind.....make the wrong choice and you may find that you'll be doing it again in 2010 when its much much thinner - but will have to wait till 2012 to really fix the problems created by increased socialism and decreased free markets.

Who can we trust?

2008-10-19T08:20:00.003-04:00

My Home Page greeted me this morning with the news that Obama had raised (another) unprecedented amount of funding in September......despite his pledge to sit down with the Republican Nominee to discuss the matter of public vs private funding for the fall campaigning.

A June 19 2008 article by Nation and World stated the following:

"As reporters gathered at Washington's St. Regis Hotel were quick to point out, that would make Obama the first presidential candidate since Republican Richard Nixon to raise unlimited private funds for his race. And it represents a 180-degree pivot from his earlier pledge to participate in the public system if his opponent does the same."

First thing I noticed in this article was that Obama was the first to opt out of this public funding (which has spending limits) since good old Richard Nixon. Remember him? And his honesty?

You may remember that McCain opted out of public financing for the nomination portion of campaigning and that the Obama camp, led by Howard Dean, to raise a bloody stink about it.....here's what the article had to say about that....

".... acknowledged that Obama didn't meet his pledge to get together with his opponent to discuss a public financing agreement -- Bauer says a recent conversation he had with McCain lawyer Trevor Potter made it "clear" there was "no basis for further discussion." And, after they repeatedly accused McCain of "gaming" the campaign finance system, they had to respond to questions about their own gamesmanship."

And Obama's excuse for not using public funds? Reform. His camp claims that they are receiving most private donations in amounts under $200.00....how convenient that he doesn't have to disclose the names of donors when they are under $200.00.....!

While McCain's camp has fully disclosed its donors, according to Newsmax.com, Obama has raised $221 million from donations under the $200.00 while only 39.6 million was from donations high enough that the donors need to be disclosed....."It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002. "

First of all, did you notice the name of the Senator who put forth real legislation to reform our campaign system? It wasn't Obama. Is Obama's fundraising campaign real finance reform? I don't think so. If Internet fundraising is the future of our campaigns, then ALL donors should be disclosed.....$221 million in undisclosed donations....and we're to trust that it all came from American donors?

You'll have to excuse my skepticism.

I just don't trust our Mr. Obama.....there are two many questions about his past associations.....I can't get over the fact that he hired an attorney to find a way to remove his competitors from the election in Chicago...and how he then just walked on into the seat unopposed. This broken pledge to meet with John McCain to discuss public financing is just one more reason that I can't get behind him....and for a moment there, a few months ago, I thought I could.....

Tool

2008-10-18T10:29:00.005-04:00

Tool.....have you noticed that word is being used to insult and/or intimidate those with whom one does not agree? As in "you are a tool of the neo-cons"? I've noticed it, and I've noticed that it is mostly the younger generation who get their news from John Stewart on the Comedy Channel who throw it around most often.

The members of the young comedy channel news generation can not reason with you logically; they never do their own research into the actual documents of the administration they are blaming for all the ills of this country they simply throw the media's lines at you....such as "Reagan de-regulated the oil industries and caused all of this mess".

And it is sooo easy for the media to spin their words to these younguns, who after all, were either not born or so young that they have no experiential knowledge of that which they speak. Use the year 1980 to speak of the beginnings of de-regulation and most folks automatically assume you are talking of Reagan (who didn't take office until 1981 remember?). Point out this fact to the "tool" accusers and they come back with "don't try to confuse the issue with dates"........

In fact, Reagan simply appointed a task force to review all the regulations for 60 days at the beginning of his administration......in fact, Reagan did not achieve anywhere near the de-regulation he intended to in his 8 years (because the House and Senate were a Democrat Majority) and in fact, most of the de-regulation he is credited for began before he took office and was actually regulation that was scheduled for phase out by 1985 anyway.....take a look at the oil issue for a minute....this first excerpt is from a Times Magazine article written after the November 1980 election and before the January 3rd 1981 inauguration of Reagan.

"The new Administration, therefore, expects to emphasize production by decontrolling natural gas prices before 1985, when controls are due to languish anyway, and to maintain the timetable set up by the Carter Administration for phasing out oil price regulations by the fall of 1981" Time Magazine

Compare the above 1980 Time Magazine article with the following written recently:

"The gasoline price record was set in 1981 when the Reagan administration removed price controls on the oil industry. " Neiman Watchdog

Note how the Reagan administration gets the blame for something that was set to phase out in the Carter Administration.....oh how we re-write history.

Oh, and another thing the news from the comedy channel generation doesn't remember..... take for example, the prime interest rate on the day Reagan took office.....20.05% and what it was when he left office...10.50%. Oh and gas prices? Adjusted for inflation, gas prices under Jimmy Carter match what they are today......does the comedy channel news ever mention that? Nope, cuz then they can't blame all the ills of society on the Republicans can they? Oh and if they get questioned on it, you get "it was harder to earn a dollar back then than it is today"......maybe that was because of Carter's 20.50% prime interest rates?

So, do me a favor, eh? Don't be a "tool" of the liberal media and the Democrats spin machine. Do your own research...there is really no excuse not to in to days Internet world.

The Final Debate

2008-10-17T23:16:00.003-04:00

I didn't watch it. I found myself uninterested. Sick of it.

I've grown tired of hearing the same thing over and over......tired of the spin of both parties. I wish I was brave enough to vote out all the encumbants like I threatened to do during bail out debacle....but, the incumbants in my state are mostly Republicans and there is something about a one party rule in Washington that I just can't get behind. I mean our fore-fathers set up this government for checks and balances, and it looks like we may get a terrible threesome already (Pelosi, Reed and Obama) up there wielding their power unchecked.....at least for two years.

Perhaps though, there may still be some hope.....I mean, Obama did let his real intent show through with Joe the Plumber.....income re-distribution. Take from those who work hard, produce the most, and give it to those below them.....

Oh, and can I make a prediction? Should Mr. Obama actually win, we'll see him, within the first 60 days of his administration, take the podium and tell the middle class that, he's sorry but he just can't deliver on his promise to lower taxes on 95% of Americans. And, he'll blame it on those nasty republicans and their de-regulation ( a whole lot of which was passed in a Democrat Majority). It may even be sooner...I mean it didn't take Bill 60 days to back off his campaign promise of lowering taxes on the middle class......

In the 90's, David and I, a single income family of 4 making about $30,000 a year, wrote a check to the IRS every single year on April 15th under good old Bill (until the child tax credit came into being)......guess to a Democrat, David and I were rich back then..............and after working for 26+ years, paying his dues, gaining education and experience, we'll really be considered rich now.....but, hey, spread the wealth around - in return for working hard, working overtime, taking classes whenever possible (on our own dime and time) and finally making a somewhat comfortable living, Mr. Obama thinks David doesn't deserve the fruits of his labor.....but someone "behind" him does!

Town Hall

2008-10-08T09:36:00.005-04:00

So, I was a bit disappointed in the debate last night.....that wasn't a town hall meeting, that was a Tom Brokaw interview of the two candidates who basically each gave their stump speeches....one more time.

Town Hall meetings typically let the audience actually ask the questions....like in either the 1992 or the 1996 one in which a young business owner asked Bill Clinton about raising the minimum wage...the quest ion went something like this..."if you raise the minimum wage a dollar, then I have to raise the price of my pizza's by a dollar to make up for my additional costs. In effect, you've just taken that dollar an hour out of my employee's and my customer's pocket . Can you explain why this is too simplistic in defense of your proposed increase?" (I wasn't too impressed with Bill's answer because in truth, this is exactly what happens - cost increases = price increases - the only thing that really saves the situation is that most minimum wage workers are teenagers - 47% in 2007 age 16-19 with the next highest group being college age 20-25 - the entire minimum wage group is 12 % of the work force).

Anyway, back to last night....only one question resembles a Town Hall meeting question...the very last one submitted from the Internet "What is it you don't know and how will you learn about it?"......that was a good one.

John McCain is good at the meetings; he's quick on his feet to come up with the answers...Obama, his own campaign admits, is less comfortable with this forum....could that be why Tom changed up the normal way a Town Hall meeting is run? Hmmmm.

PUMA Politics: “Ohio”…They Are Stealing Your Election… | Logistics Monster#comment-147#comment-147#comment-147#comment-147#comment-147#comment-147#comment-147

2008-10-05T10:26:00.000-04:00

PUMA Politics: “Ohio”…They Are Stealing Your Election… Logistics Monster#comment-147#comment-147#comment-147#comment-147#comment-147#comment-147#comment-147

Seen this video yet? A non-partisan volunteer driving around to homeless shelters and/or college campuses in Ohio to help folks register to vote and vote....all on the same day. No photo id required, no proof of American citizenship required, just an electric bill or the last four digits of your social.......

And is this non-partisan volunteer encouraging folks to whom they should cast their vote? You betcha! And do I need to tell you which candidate it is that she's trying to help......?

Oh, and btw....Acorn is the group behind the motor voter bill and this register and vote on the same day debacle......and Obama was the attorney who helped them succeed in their initial motor voter deal.....

Just who is being dis-enfranchised in this election? Those of us who follow the rules, register in time to have our registration validated and actually spend time learning about the issues before we cast our votes.....

Oh, and if you have Dish network.....you can watch channel 73 here in Florida and get a 24/7 paid advertisement on Obama TV........

watch out America......big money is once again buying our election........and where that may fail, non-partisan volunteers will help Obama steal it....through fraudulent register and vote actions in battleground states......

Lovely....

Just who is responsible for de-regulation?

2008-10-04T15:37:00.003-04:00

In this election year, like all others, words are used to influence the actions of the folks who will be casting their votes in November….the issue is that we can't just take them at their word and believe what they are saying- here's some of what we've all been hearing.....:

De-Regulation – used by the Democrats to imply that the Republicans have repealed all rules and regulations enacted by the Democrats to protect Main Street from the greed of Wall Street. The following Acts are used to support the Democrats argument….

the Glass-Steagal Act was repealed or deregulated by the Republican Majority in 1999 by….

the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is directly responsible for the economic crisis we find ourselves in (Barney Frank to Bill O'Reilly)

CRA - Community Reinvestment Act -(Democrat President Jimmy Carter- 1977 Jimmy Carter's Administration – and the 96th Congress of the United States which met from January 3 1979 to January 3 1981 in which the Democrats held a majority in both houses (Senate 58 – 42 Democrat Majority/House 277-158 Democrat Majority)

And then there is the term "Reagonomics" - used like de-regulation to place all blame for everything wrong in our economy on the Republicans.

But if you look a little deeper then just the words used by the Democrats and begin to question things like dates and such…..i.e. when did de-regulation actually begin…..then suddenly you realize that you just may have been the victim of spin. So, when did deregulation actually begin in this country? Take a look......

Airline Deregulation Act, October 24th 1978 – Democrat Jimmy Carter's Administration – and the 96th Congress of the United States which met from January 3 1977 to January 3 1979 in which the Democrats held a majority in both houses – (Senate 61 – 39 Democrat Majority/House 292-143 Democrat Majority)

Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act, Mar 31 1980 Jimmy Carter's Administration – and the 96th Congress of the United States which met from January 3 1979 to January 3 1981 in which the Democrats held a majority in both houses (Senate 58 – 42 Democrat Majority/House 277-158 Democrat Majority)

Regulatory Flexibility Act, September 19 1980 - Democrat Jimmy Carter's Administration – and the 97th Congress of the United States which met from January 3 1979 to January 3 1981 in which the Democrats held a majority in both houses (Senate 58 – 42 Democrat Majority/House 277-158 Democrat Majority)

Wait a minute.....the Democrat Majority in Congress enacted the first of the deregulation laws under a Democrat President? Why would a Democrat begin de-regulation if deregulation is such a horrible thing? And don’t the Democrats say Reagonomics was responsible for all deregulation and all problems we have in our economy?

Those questions should cause one to dig a little deeper to find out just why deregulation began in the 1970's (and not the 1980's like we have all been told). And if one digs, one finds that Jimmy Carter began deregulation because the truth is that de-regulation is not intended to get rid of regulations in their entirety but to reform them due to unintended negative results of implementing them.....such as increased spending by government at all levels to enact the regulations. Now deregulation doesn't sound so bad does it?

Today, the Democrats use the word "de-regulation" to imply that ALL rules and regulations were repealed by Reagonomics and the Republican Party, when in fact regulatory REFORM would more honestly describe what occurred. But the truth can be seen above…..deregulation began in the Carter era.

(See a good definition of deregulation here - http://www.investorglossary.com/deregulation.htm)

Moving on......We hear a lot about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) at the moment as well. What exactly is the CRA and how has it been affected by deregulation?

The largest portion of the economic crisis today is the recently burst housing bubble. This bubble was inflated by the issuing of high risk mortgages (sub-prime), among other factors, such as the need for lending institutions to actual make a profit (and the need to recompense their CEO's which is another matter entirely then of what we speak of here). The truth is that about 70% of todays mortgages are held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or more accurately by the Federal Government. The CRA is responsible for this by outlawing “redlining” by some banks (offering mortgages to only wealthier neighborhoods) and to ensure that all banks lent to those purchasing in lower income neighborhoods and that all banks also offered commercial loans to small businesses as well as larger corporations. As time went on, more regulations were added to this 1977 act to ensure “fairness” in lending that required those with little credit, bad credit or no credit (sub- prime)were given mortgages. This fairness required a balance of the number of low risk mortgages given and high risk mortgages given. (There is a lot more to this then can be covered here. i.e. community groups like Acorn receiving money for pressuring the banks to do more and more of the sub-prime lending..maybe later.)

Now, lets take a look at another of the Democrat's claims....that the Republican Majority under Bill Clinton's Administration were wholly responsible for banking de-regulation that has led us to our present economic crisis because of merging of banks etc........and to back up this claim, they quote the reform of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999 and blame Republican Gramm for it. Once again, if one wants to know the truth behind the spin, it is necessary to go to the law itself and then to information on the Congress that passed these Acts into Law to see the truth.

First, the Democrats fail to mention that the Glass Steagal Act was made law way back in 1933......in order for us to believe that the 1999 reform was unnecessary and purely harmful, we also have to believe that nothing in our economic status had changed in the years since the Depression era of 1933 and the era of 1999 and that no reform or updating whatsoever was needed in this law....ever. But that's not all they ask us to believe. Remember, the Democrats use the word deregulation when the more accurate term would be reform.....

They also fail to mention that the first reforms that took place to the Glass Steagal Act of 1933 was with the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act, Mar 31 1980 - remember this was Jimmy Carter's Administration – and the 96th Congress of the United States which met from January 3 1979 to January 3 1981 in which the Democrats held a majority in both houses (Senate 58 – 42 Democrat Majority/House 277-158 Democrat Majority) - or if the Democrats actually do mention that the first deregulation/reform of the Glass Steagal Act took place prior to the Gramm act, they only say "1980" to imply that it was Reagan's Administration that signed that de-regulation into law. And it works....because you can read that this act was under the Reagan Administration all over the net in blogs and articles.....yet it isn't true, is it?

And they also fail to mention that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law under President Bill Clinton………..or even refer to it by its full name which included the word “modernization”. Instead, they state that the Republicans held the majority in both houses of Congress and therefore imply that the Republicans forced this law through without bi-partisan support…..

Senate 55 Republicans to 45 Dems
House 223 Republicans - 211 Dems

But to state that the law passed because the Republicans had the majority is another spin of the actual truth. Let’s look a bit closer at this law…………assuming that all House Republicans voted for this bill, how many Democrats were required to also vote for it in order for it to pass with 343 votes? 120 Democrats have to have voted for this bill in the house! The law did pass the Senate along Party lines with a 54-44 vote initially but was placed in committee to work out differences between the house and senate versions...it eventually passed with a 90 - 8 total....which means that, once again assuming that all the Senate Republicans voted yes, only 8 Democrats voted no.

As to how this 1999 law applies to the CRA go here .....

Now, take a look at what the prevailing attitude was at the time and what President Clinton thought about this 1999 bi-partisan law:

"White House officials withheld final approval of the agreement until aides could see the measure's language. But the officials indicated Friday night that, with broad support from Democrats in Congress, the measure was all but certain to be signed by President Clinton. As such, it will be one of the most significant pieces of legislation to be written by the White House and the 106th Congress, which began its term considering whether to remove Clinton and has had a bitter relationship ever since. "

"When this potentially historic agreement is finalized," Clinton said in a statement, "it will strengthen the economy and help consumers, communities and businesses across America." http://partners.nytimes.com/library/financial/102399banks-congress.html

Wait a minute….doesn’t Barney Frank insist that the Gramm act is directly responsible for the failure of Fannie and Freddie and the economic crisis as a whole? How can that be in light of what we’ve seen here?

Add these facts to the one where George W. Bush has called for more regulatory oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more than two dozen times in the past 8 years and to Barney Frank's insistence that those entities didn't need any more regulatory oversight and you begin to see a different picture then the one Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Barrack Obama want us to see.

Don't you? Or are you so trusting of what our politicians have to say that you don't feel any responsibility to find out the truth before you cast your vote on November 4 2008? I'm certainly not.......

The Bail-out...............

2008-09-30T08:29:00.005-04:00

It is obvious that both parties consider their constituents worthy only of “fooling”. It is clear now that the deal to draft and pass a bail out bill was a win-win for the Democrats…..if the bill passed, it was the majority who had acted in a greater bi-partisan fashion for the sound bites by allowing the unneeded Republican minority to have a say in the drafting of the final bill……and if it didn’t, then the Republicans were responsible for its failure…..not the Majority, but the Minority!

The truth is this…..Neither Party wanted to take the credit or the blame for this bail-out bill that so many American’s were against- therefore a deal was struck by the Majority Democrats, (who could have passed this bill without ONE REPUBLICAN VOTE) with the Minority Republicans to each bring 60% of their caucus to the table for a YAY vote.

As I caulked and painted a primer coat on our bathroom bead board, I was alternating between watching and listening to CSPAN’s coverage of the discussion and vote in the House. I was sickened by the few Democrats who continued to point the finger of blame at Bush and the Republicans despite the fact that 1) this was supposed to be a bi-partisan effort leaving politics out of the mix and 2) the record shows that Bush has called for more regulatory oversight over these GSE’s since 2003, along with others including John McCain and Dole. But as the majority of the 1 - 2 minute speeches were not as partisan as those few who were - I felt pretty good about the process.

But not for long. I was furious when Nancy Pelosi made her speech. I put down my paint brush and went and stood before the TV wanted to reach through the screen and shake her. When the vote began, I watched until it appeared the bill would be passed and then went on with my work, still fuming over her partisanship at a time when our country needed better from its leaders. Forty-five minutes later, I was shocked to see that the bill had failed to pass, and after a moment of reflection, felt that Pelosi’s speech had not helped the matter.

Unaware at that moment of the deal of 60%, I was surprised that the Democrats had not voted the bill in……I mean, they ARE the majority aren’t they? As I learned about the "deal", my understanding of it all increased and my disdain for most of our politicians did as well.

94 Democrats did NOT vote for this bill. They didn't have to; they could save face with their constituency who did not want this bill pass because the Dem's only needed 60% of their caucas.

The Minority needed 12 Republicans to meet their end of the 60% deal. And according to GOP leaders, they had those 12 votes......until Nancy Pelosi spoke.

12 Republicans had decided to vote for this massive bill that would drive us closer to the socialism that the Democratic party has been steering us to for years. 12 Republicans decided to risk their constituency for a so called bi-partisan bill. Until hearing Nancy Pelosi’s typical, business as usual speech on the floor just before they cast their votes.

If I could have a few minutes of Pelosi’s time, I’d tell her she should be ashamed of herself. Her grandstand attempt to make sure that American’s voted the Democrat ticket on November 4th is directly responsible for the failure of the bill……many of these representatives face an election in November and 12 of the Republicans were willing to risk that by voting with the Dems on an unpopular bill….until she gave her partisan, hate filled speech.

And I can’t say that I blame them one bit. In a few minutes of partisanship, Pelosi had undone a weeks worth of work by the parties. All to convince Americans that it wasn't the Dems who had made this bill necessary in the first place......despite the fact that three of them received more money from the GSE's then any other politician and despite the fact that Barney Frank insisted over and over again that no more oversight was needed on those same GSE's.

Don't be fooled by the Dems claims that the Republicans defeated this bill or that John McCain didn't come through on his end......Nancy Pelosi and partisan hate speech defeated this bill............

Ms. Pelosi "“You don’t vote on the speech, you vote on the Bill,” . Sorry, Nancy, but you're wrong. You didn't need to make the speech. You injected partisanship into a non-partisan proceeding where folks were putting aside their true fear of the long term aspects of this bill to do something for the immediate future. You made the Republicans once willing to do so, and perhaps risk their own career, UNwilling to do so just in order for you and your party to once again take the credit and none of the blame.

YOU are the unpatriotric one in this instance as your need to once again show your disdain for the wishes and interests of the American People over your need to do the right thing. You sicken me.

What is the truth?

2008-09-26T08:09:00.002-04:00

Who is really at fault here? I've spent the better part of two days researching how our mortgage lenders and our government allowed us to get to the point where a $700 billion bail out is needed. And you know what? Who the heck can figure it out! There is so much spinning out there on both sides that "we the people" really can have no idea where the fault lies.

And if we can't figure that out, how the heck do we figure out who to vote for and how do we know what to start screaming our heads off about getting done when the newly elected officials take office in January?

The worst possible time for this crisis to occur is within 2 months of a presidential election. The spin is worse then normal....you've got a table full of our top governmental leaders screaming at each other instead of working together to get this done. Why? Because neither side wants the other side to get any credit for it because it might swing the now dead even polls one way or another. You've got one side saying the other sides' Presidential Nominee did nothing to further the debate but in fact hurt it....

Oh yeah? And I'm supposed to believe that statement when we're less then 2 months from the election. Pardon my skepticism.

Here's the truth as I see it.....and to heck with political correctness! Our government, led by Barney Frank among others, pushed the government backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and others institutions now failing) to give home loans to lower income people.....the numbers in which this occurred was of more importance to Mr. Frank then was the ability of those lower income families to afford the payment on that housing. Apparently laws were passed that in effect forced the mortgage lenders to issue those loans and the insurers to insure the mortgages. And then of course, the mortgage lenders had to make a profit off of these loans so they came up with fancy ways of eventually getting that money, even though they knew those folks would not be able to afford to pay the mortgage when those fancy terms came into affect.

Zero interest loans, , balloon mortgage, variable rates such as the Two-Step, Super Seven, or Premier Mortgages, Lender Buydown, Compressed Buydown etc.....all of these were fancy ways to get people into homes that they couldn't afford.....!

Back in our old neighborhood, a new subdivision was being built during the time when we were beginning to implement our 3 year plan. As part of our plan, we were pre-qualified for a mortgage so that we knew what we could comfortably afford when we eventually found our new home.....we couldn't have afforded to move into that new subdivision....at least not without some fancy financing like that mentioned above.

David and I have a built in avoidance reflex for anything the government says will "help" us....because our first home was purchased under the old "235" plan. This plan got first time home buyers in the market by a plan where the FHA paid half your interest rate (and roughly half your payment) for you in the initial years of home ownership. As your income increased, the share the government paid decreased until you were making the whole principal and interest payments on your mortgage. When you sold the home, or refinanced it (which was recommended to you to do by the third year in the home), you paid back 1/2 the equity to the government less any improvements you have made in the home.

The catch was twofold 1) the interest rate at the time was about 10%, but the interest rate on our little starter home was at 17% - so if you didn't refinance it before you could afford the entire payment your payment would be sky high....(initial mortgage payment on that home was about $450 per month - at the point where we would have made the entire payment it would have been about $900.00 per month). 2) when you refinanced (which was recommended because of 1 above) or sold the home, you had to fight to get any portion of the equity....in the end, David and I wrote a $300.00 check to the government when we sold our first house - we lost every bit of the $14,000 equity for various reasons not fully explained to us at purchase....

But even in this less then ideal first home buyers scheme at least we were never in danger of being unable to pay for our home-unlike the lower income buyers and first time home buyers caught up in the Government backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac schemes.

In this new (2003) subdivision in which we couldn't have afforded to buy, lived a friend of ours. We visited them quite often as the homes around her were bought up. As we met some of her neighbors and learned their occupations (i.e. school bus driver/cafeteria worker), David and I were confused as to just how those folks could have afforded homes in that neighborhood....it was our first indication that something fishy was going on in the mortgage industry.

Now we know don't we? Those folks couldn't afford those homes. They were given lending similar to what we were given way back in the early 1980's but this time, it wasn't the government paying half the interest for them, it was various interest beating schemes that would eventually force those folks out of their homes. (And our home was a "starter" home under 1000 square feet, not a high end home in a high end neighborhood.)

I'm certain that they were all told to re-finance to a fixed FHA or Conventional Mortgage within a certain time frame, and I'm equally certain that many of them, like David and I way back when, didn't fully understand the nature of that need or the implications of not refinancing. And for those of them that did understand it, I'm certain that many of them couldn't get refinancing because they still couldn't afford those homes three years later, and/or had made late payments and had poor credit or the inflated appraisals of the last five or more years or the after affects of some other of our government and mortgage lenders schemes made it impossible for them. (As far as I can tell, the only mortgage in which you are entitled to a refinance upon request is the FHA backed mortgage - the only stipulation is that you are not behind on the payments or can catch up at refinance- all the others require credit checks and qualifications).

Oh and I'm certain that these folks received full disclosure on all the possible liabilities of their fancy financing along the 30,000 other pieces of paper they were given at closing and had no time to really read and understand....after all that is the law right?

I know these lending schemes didn't just catch the lower income folks in the net and as far as I'm concerned, those folks don't deserve a bail out...as for the lower income folks with little or no education or experience in the house buying realm (like David and I way back when).... the truth still remains that the Barney Franks in our government didn't care HOW the people got in the homes, they just wanted them in them....cuz then they can say look at what we did...look how much home ownership increased.

Yeah, and look at the housing market now....and the global economic instability this back door socialism got us into.

Who is to blame? All of them....every single one of them. The republicans may have been saying we needed reform in more regulatory oversight, but they weren't screaming it from the mountains so that we the people could put pressure on our legislators to do it....and the Dems were too busy trying to buy the lower income vote in future elections to stop what they knew was a hemorrhage in the mortgage industry......

If anything good comes of this, I hope it is that the American people have learned that we need to get beyond politics and start being active participants in the day to day running of our government. We need to take the time to study the bills being presented in a congressional session and communicate loudly and clearly with our officials to hold them accountable every single day they spend in Washington and not just on election day every two to four years.

Maybe we should all vote for Ron Paul.......................

Economic Crisis

2008-09-25T07:11:00.013-04:00

I know that many of my friends and readers who are Democrats may not take the time to read this particular post...but I humbly issue a challenge to anyone who believes strongly in getting the facts from places other then the Presidential Candidates Campaigns in order to make an intelligent, aware vote....to read this in its entirety and then..do your own research.

The 2001 - 2002 Bush Budget Request included statements of concern over the GSE's including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2003, the statement was upgraded to state that any failure of these giants would be "systemic" and spread beyond the housing market. Treasury Secretary Snow spoke before the House Financial Services Committee on behalf of President Bush pressing Congress to pass a "strong regulatory agency of GSE's and to thoroughly investigate the safety and soundness of their financial record. (Fannie Mae admitted it needed to "restate" its financial results for the previous three years)

Wait a minute. Republicans calling for more regulation? Aren't they supposed to be the party of DE-regulation?

Democrat Barney Frank, then a ranking member of the committee (currently the chairman) disregarded Bush's 2001 - 2003 warnings of the coming crisis and his (Bush) requesting more regulatory oversight stating.... .

Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac "are not in a crisis....the Federal Governmnet should do more to encourage...more lower income families into homes".

In effect, the Democrat was making this more about class and income then about a looming housing bubble that threatened to explode our economy. As a result of Barney Frank's opposition, the legislation to provide more regulation over these giants was blocked.

Now, don't go defending the Dem's because they were the "minority"...the actual breakdown of the Senate was effectively 51-49 in the fall of 2003....and we all know that not every senator votes on every piece of legislation. (The house breakdown was 228 Rep. to 211 Dems + 1 Independant who voted/caucaussed with the Dems). With Republican's supporting the regulation of the GSE's, do you honestly think the Dems couldn't have gotten some reform passed despite their minority status? All the "reform minded" Democrats needed to do was vote with NINETEEN Republicans to pass the reform.

In 2005, the Bush administration tried once again to get some regulatory oversight for the GSE's....Greenspan spoke on behalf of Bush. This time it was Democrate Charles Schueler who defended the GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (This was the "do nothing" 109th Congress where filibustering was so extensive that some Republicans threatened constitional remedy to get anything done in chambers and the era of the Gang of 14 which included McCain and Leiberman to bring about some bi-partisianship.)

In May of 2006, John McCain co-sponsored a bill to push regulation of GSE's stating that they needed "to be reformed without delay". While this bill made it out of the senate committee, ALL democrats voted against it.(Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005)

Despite the fact that Sen. Obama blames all the recent failures and the crisis we now face on the policies of the Republicans and the Bush Administration the truth is far from that black and white as can be seen above.

Additionally, Mr. Obama was present at the Congressional Black Caucaus Swearing in Ceremony in which Daniel Mudd, interim CEO of Fannie Mae spoke of the troubles facing that company.

Despite the obvious issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the sub-prime lending practices used to put those lower income families into homes (they couldn't afford) AND despite the Bush Administration and John McCain's attempt to get some regulatory oversight in place, Obama was second in the top three Democratic Senators in the amount of money he received from Fannie May (Senator Dodd is in first place with John Kerry in third). (Mr. Obama took this money AFTER attendance at the May 2005 CBC swearing in ceremony. Although only in the Senate for four years, he somehow managed to become the 2nd largest recipient of funds from the now bankrupt giants.

Change, Mr. Obama? Didn't taking the money from them mean that you would FIGHT DEREGULATION FOR THEM? And now, Mr. Obama, you point the finger at McCain (who co-sponsored a bill for regulation) and the Bush Administration (who pushed for regulation during his entire 8 years as President?) Shame on you, Sir.

President Bush called for reform 18 times in 2008, yet the Democrats, now the majority in both chambers, did nothing about it.... John McCain co-sponsored a bill that ALL Dems voted against.

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

Stop listening to the spin my friends, and get the facts.

For more information:

Media Mum on Barney Frank's Fannie Mae Love Connection

ThomHartmann.com - US Domestic Politics - Barney Frank Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'"

Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer’s Role in the Fannie Mae Failure « Wake Up America

The Economy~~~

2008-09-22T22:52:00.001-04:00

Obama and Iraq

2008-09-22T11:30:00.001-04:00

Social Security Reform

2008-09-20T17:49:00.004-04:00

First, some facts....

1) by 2017, retirees will face a reduction in benefits due to the failing system. Its failing because in 2005, the baby boomers began to retire and there are not, nor will there be enough workers putting into the system to sustain what it pays out AND leave money for the workers of 2017 to receive benefits when THEY retire. (It's also failing because during the past decades of more contributors then recipients of benefits, our congressional leaders have been "borrowing" and not repaying the funds into the account...its filled with IOU's from our leaders instead of actual money.)

2) Privatization of Social Security will carry some risks due to fluctuations in the market....but read the above paragraph....so does continuing on the path we now trod. The SS taxes we pay now are paying for the retirement benefits of those who are now retirees. Our retirement benefits are supposed to be paid for by the workers behind us....yet if there are more of us then them, then more is going out then is coming in.....get it?

3) Privatization will not affect disability benefits - only 6.2% of the payroll tax for social security will be allowed to be voluntarily diverted into the private investments. The employer's 6.2% contribution (tax payment) will be used to continue to fund disability benefits and pay for the transition from socialized to privatized contributions.

4) No plan to privatize Social Security will affect those already receiving benefits or those shortly to retire or those aged about 50 or older. Most plans to privatize it state that it will be voluntary for older workers and would/could be required for younger workers (average age put forth for non-voluntary privatization is 22 - my son's age - see #1 above if no reforms are made).

It should be noted that the Federal Government has a MORAL obligation to pay benefits to those of us who have paid in for all of our working lives, but they have NO LEGAL requirement to do so.....

Senator Obama states his opposition to the so called privatization of Social Security, but his only answer for reform is, as usual, tax the wealthy more. And I agree with one thing he has said...get rid of the cap - Americans pay SS tax on the first $97,000 of income, then they pay zip for the remainder of their income - the cap is too low since only about 4% of workers earn that annually. And yet, wasn't the cap put there in the first place because it was unlikely that those making more than $97,000 annually would actually need SS at retirement? Is it fair for them to put in money they will never benefit from? A conundrum.

Personally, I think a combination of the two (privatization and raising the cap) is necessary, although some say that's what the IRA's and 401K's are for (And Obama's other answer to the SS issue? - Mandatory 401K's for EVERYONE, even the server earning less then $3.00 per hour before tips.

Perhaps Obama should start first with making Congress pay back the IOU's that fill the Social Security trust fund.......

McCain's Health Care Plan

2008-09-20T11:20:00.007-04:00

One of my friends, both a fellow blogger and a Diana Gabaldon reader, posted a blog today regarding her stance on the issues......and turned off the comments to avoid any potential arguments! I totally understand her reasons for doing so as I've seen too much nastiness this election cycle....

However, I feel the need to respond...no offense to my friend intended at all...if she even comes over to read this.....but I like balance....this post is my balance!

There are those who want to criticize McCain's health plan.....and one of the ways they are doing it is to talk about how he wants to begin taxing our health care services...which is not quite the truth.

The truth is that those of us blessed enough to receive health care through our employer's are not currently taxed on the employer's contribution to our health care packet....i.e. if my plan costs me 1200.00 a year, and the company contributes 1200.00 per year to my cost (total $2400.00) under the current tax plan, I am not taxed on the $1200.00 my employer contributes. (Costs estimated, not actual)

John McCain wants to change that. Why? Because it can be said that it is unfair to those who are paying for their own insurance plans out of pocket and with no help from an employer. It can be said that it favors those with jobs in larger companies while not favoring those who are self-employed or with smaller companies who do not contribute.

What's wrong with that stance? Absolutely nothing. And the Dems know it, so they spin it to say that he wants to "tax our health care services".

I'll admit that there are some sources out there who claim that this plan will make it less likely that employers will offer group plans which will eventually force folks to seek out more expensive private insurance, but all of these sources appear to be Obama supporters, so I take it with a grain of salt....iow, I can't see how taxing ME on my employer's contributions equals my employer removing my option to purchase insurance from them....I'm still looking to determine where that belief comes from.................other then from obviously pro-Obama writers.

In addition to taxing our employers contributions as income, McCain also will institute a $5000 tax CREDIT that will go directly to your insurer for all families ($2500 for singles). And if your health care plan costs less then that $5000.00 credit? The balance goes into your Health Savings Account to help cover "out of pocket expences".

Once again, there are the nay-sayers who believe that this will eventually not be enough to cover the increase in health care over time.....so I'm looking to see if McCain proposes an inflationary increase to this over that same amount of time...............

As to "taxing" our health care "services" (i.e.taxing us on surgery etc.) I've found absolutely nothing that states this is the case.....I'm still looking, but since that factoid came from the Obama side of the election, I'm skeptical!

Here are some quotes from a New York Times article on this subject....

"The 71 percent of insured Americans who get their health coverage through their employers now enjoy a significant advantage because the money spent by employers on their health coverage is excluded from their taxable income. If employers chose to pay that share of a worker’s compensation as wages rather than benefits, the income would be taxable."

"To end the disadvantage to those who do not buy insurance through employers, Mr. McCain proposes to eliminate the exclusion of health benefits from taxable income. In exchange, he would provide refundable tax credits of $2,500 to single people and of $5,000 to families, with the goal of stoking competition in the individual insurance market. The elimination of the exclusion would generate $3.6 trillion over 10 years, according to the McCain campaign, and that money would pay for the tax credits."

"Mr. Holtz-Eakin calculated that workers in the top income tax bracket would have to pay more in taxes if their employers have been contributing at least $14,285 toward a family insurance premium. Nationwide, the average cost of a family policy is $12,106, with employers paying $8,824 of that amount."

Hey! Aren't the Dems all about taxing the higher income earners more? Then what is the issue in that last paragraph? Why the spin? To win an election.......

And a word about Nationalized Health Care.....it sounds great....it looks good....but when has the government (and by this I mean both of the parties) ever run anything really, really well?

My mom is English; she naturalized in 1957 when she first came to America with my Air Force Dad....her parents and family remained in England. I was a dual citizen who spent her childhood living between the two countries - a child who witnessed the National Heath of that country first hand. I saw my Nana wait for an Orthopedic Surgeon to see to her broken arm; I watched her lay in a hospital ward with stomach and heart issues that would have been treated as an emergency here in the States. I watched my grandfather die of prostrate cancer due to a lack of good preventative care.....

There was a good side to the National Health Care provided by that country...my mom received a pension for nursing her father during the last year of his life at home instead of placing him in a hospital. Nurses came by daily to check on him and Doctor's made house calls on occasion.....I would love to see some of this here in our country but we've got hospice and could improve on that aspect of our health care with some minimal governmental interference....

and that is what it comes down to for me.....minimal government interference....especially where the health care choices I make for me and my family are concerned.

I like Obama personally. But I'm not voting for him. I love to hear him speak; like Reagan...his speeches are interesting and thought provoking. But I don't agree with him on more issues that I don't agree with McCain on.....there's my reason for voting. When I can pick out the facts from the spinning....

So, contrary to what appears to be the Dems new line - that we shouldn't vote for someone because "I like that guy" or because "she's cute" which is obviously aimed at undecided Republicans, Independents, Reagan Democrats and Libertarians....I am voting on the issues...the problem is finding out what is the truth about the stance of each candidates issues....and bloggers and the media are too biased for the average voter to get the truth anymore.

So, while my friend and I don't agree on the issues themselves, we do agree on one thing. Don't take someone else's word for what stance on an issue a candidate takes.....research for yourself and find out the truth .....don't just listen to the spin!

9 million?

2008-09-17T13:55:00.005-04:00

Geez, think what that will mean to the homeless in this country. Or, think about how those who stand to lose their homes because of variable rates, balloon payments, over-appraisals, etc could really use a bit of help right now~! It could be enough to stop some real hardships among hard working Americans, now wouldn't it?

The Hollywood gang got together at a high falooting fund raising dinner and raised that much cash....unbelievable.

Oh, wait a minute....its not going to help the folks who need it the most...some of them desperately...its going to be used to take the White House and both houses of Congress.....silly me.

You know what? I'm totally over hearing celebrities tell me how to live my life....like good old Barbara S....with her "flush the toilet with a bucket of water when you run the shower" and her "oh, but I don't always do it myself" and her "don't drive SUV's" while her garage had what, six of them parked inside? And Mr. Cruise...wasn't it him who slept on a grate with the homeless one night...or was it Leo?

Anyway, seems like some of the $28,500 per ticket (Barbara) or several million per movie they (Mr. C. and Leo) get would have gone a lot further towards helping the homeless then sleeping with them simply to get me to dig in the grocery money and give more then I already do....

I'd have a lot more respect for those rich celebs if they shut up and gave directly instead of trying to influence politics.

$28,500 for a concert ticket? And I'm supposed to believe it is only John McCain who is out of touch with everyday Americans?

Rant over.........

"The Sword of Truth" series.....

2008-09-15T08:46:00.008-04:00

Wizards First Rule - "People will believe a lie either because they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it might be true" Terry Goodkind

I've been reading a series of books by author Terry Goodkind; the books could be described as a grown up Harry Potter series. Wizards and Sorceresses fill the pages and stand either on the side of good or the side of evil. Which is no different from most books right? There's almost always a good side and a bad side no matter what the plot may be........so what makes this series different?

Its relevance to today's society. And the blurring of the line between what is good and what is evil...and how sometimes, its hard to tell the difference.

The first book in the series was also the author's first attempt at writing a novel; as a life-long devourer of books, I felt the inexperience of the author in the dialogues and sometimes in the descriptive words...but despite this, I was drawn in by the story. And I was rewarded for my perseverance in each of the books that have followed. In these pages, I see relevance to my life and relevance to what is happening around me.

"People will believe a lie either because they want to believe it's true or because they are afraid it might be true"

I felt the power of these words almost immediately, but Terry Goodkind doesn't just preach the Wizards rules in his pages, he brings them to life in various ways; he uses different scenarios to show us the truth of the rule.....from Kahlan's belief in her loss of power to Richard's sudden understanding of a prophesy to (later on in the series) Nicci's life of shame because of her belief in anothers "truth".

We want to believe in the truth of something...whether it be a Governor's words about involvement in a possible scandal or the words of an opponent of the Governor. We bury our heads in the sand in order to not find out just whose words hold the truth....because we want so badly to believe in the side we are on.

We believe we are victims if we are told we are victims, because, essentially we are afraid that we are indeed victims....and in that fear, we make the rumours of our victimization the truth....and hand our individual power to succeed over to others.

In "Wizards First Rule", good and evil are pretty easy to distinquish, but with each new book in the series, Goodkind shows us how the distinction can become blurred and challenges us to think beyond mere words to the unintended consequences of "good intentions".

Each consecutive book makes clear another of the Wizards rules while continuing to teach us the truth of the rules which came before.....and in each book, the relevance to our society becomes more clear....

If you're looking for a good book and if you love to read sequels, then I highly recommend this author and his "Sword of Truth" series....and I have to thank my son for insisting that I read them...........thanks Dallas.

Genealogy

2008-09-14T13:03:00.002-04:00

I've been doing genealogy research for 8 years now; I've learned through those years that, like most of my interests in life, there are times when I'm obsessed with the research and times when I barely keep up with it. Most summers I spend a great amount of time deep in research mode...this summer was different.

I barely spent any time at all on genealogy. I'm supposed to be re-doing the website, but I just can't seem to get it done. I keep getting distracted by DNA research and house renovations. While DNA is closely related to the paper searching of genealogy, the house reno's have nothing at all to do with it.....anyway, the end result is that not much has been done on the website lately.

I've gotten several emails regarding genealogy lately and that has had the result of turning my mind back to the website and its condition at the moment....which is not very good....anyway, this post is simply to let readers know that if, as I suspect, I'm going to get buried in research and re-design here shortly, I'll most likely not be posting very often.....although I am going to try to post updates on research as regularly as possible.....

.....

Service~~~

2008-09-12T09:13:00.005-04:00

I watched the forum on service that both John McCain and Barrack Obama participated in last night....want to know what impressed me the most? It might surprise you, but it was the students who were interviewed after the forum.

I was very interested in what Obama had to say about our military. Some of his earlier comments had led me to believe that he intended to re-instate the draft in order to as he says "re-build the military". Although he states that that is not his intent, I still have doubts that he can increase our military personal in the numbers he has stated he will without a draft. My doubts are, unfortunately, based upon the apparent attitude of so many of our younger folks regarding the military and the purpose it serves. Its ironic that the university in which the forum took place hasn't allowed ROTC on its campus since 1968 (but claims it's because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy instituted under Bill Clinton (1993). But, I will hand it to Sen. Obama for stating that ROTC should be allowed on campuses across the nation. But, he's got a fight with those pink ladies if he wants recruiting offices to be allowed in one little town in California....

I'm also glad he acknowledged the fact that those who enlist in the military voluntarily are largely from small towns, rural areas, and the south and that he acknowledged more urbanites need to join in the cause of protecting the national security. The lack of balance in our enlisted personal is not a matter of class so much as a matter of location. (And I'm glad that information is at last coming out about the children of politicians who serve to counter the mis-information that our politicians send only the poor and under-served to fight our wars!).

The other points regarding service that were made by both men were interesting and informative and I support both of their platforms, which were similar in nature. Both men were pleasant and likable and both were, well, presidential.

Some of the questions put before them were a bit ridiculous or one sided...i.e. implying that Palin was criticizing Obama's community service in her speeches. I'll grant you that depending on which party you favor, your opinion of her discussion of his service will differ....however, the question asked of the two men was based upon taking Palin's statements out of context. Obama's community service in his twenties was used to counter the Dems attacks on Palin's experience as a Mayor (which they continually harp on and tend to exclude her position as Gov..)and not as a belittling of his service. The Dems opened the door to the comparison and then didn't like it when she walked through.

Anyway, the conclusion is this....I like Obama, but there are two many issues on which he and I disagree....socialized medicine, mandated 401K participation but not allowing younger folks to invest in retirement instead of failing Social Security, his United Nations Global Poverty Act, his immigration reform, his plan to tax business (because it will only get passed on to the consumer in lay-offs and increased prices for goods and services effectively eliminating any tax "cut" he gives), etc.....

There are issues that I don't agree with McCain on as well...like his previous immigration stance or his back door tax on Americans through the McCain-Leiberman bill.....but when I take the issues one by one...(contrary to what the Dems and the media want to say about women in the Republican Party being one issue voters!)...I still have to say that I'm sticking with my party this year..........

Lipstick?

2008-09-11T09:26:00.004-04:00

Okay, enough is enough. I don't care whether you believe that Sen. Obama made the lipstick on a pig comment appropriately or not. I don't care whether you believe that he made it with the knowledge that it was very likely that McCain supporters would seize it and run..or not. I know that the audience laughed at it because THEY felt the reference implied that it was about Sarah Palin just as some of us felt the reference implied that and didn't laugh.

The thing is that its a sure sign of just how far our politicians have fallen...on both sides. Sen. Obama is a very smart man...and so are his speech writers...they all had to know that using that phrase at this point in the campaign could become exactly what it has become...a distraction. And the McCain side knew they could use it as a distraction as well. I say, shame on both camps.

I want to see the candidates debate each other. I want to hear some truth and not just hear them each twist and spin their plans to deal with the issues to get a reaction. I want some truth.

I want to hear both men admit that their tax plans will not decrease the Federal Deficit unless they both cut Federal Spending very very deeply.

I want Sen. Obama to admit that his tax cuts are not really tax cuts. I mean, if you don't pay taxes in the first place, how are your taxes then "cut"? Take my daughter for example. She has taxes deducted from her paycheck. Then after filing her taxes, she gets a check back from the IRS for almost exactly the amount of taxes she paid in through the year. She didn't pay any taxes really did she? So, if Sen. Obama say he's giving her a tax cut equal to about a couple of hundred dollars, and she'll get a check that includes what she paid in and that additional sum...then that is income redistribution isn't it? Be honest, Sen. Obama. Somebody else paid that "tax cut" for her didn't they?

Our politicians get away with this kind of double-speak because my daughter thought that she actually DID pay income taxes until I explained it to her...the fact is that my daughter LOANS the government the money that is deducted from her paycheck and then they give it back to her on or about April 15th. Perhaps if Sen. Obama would say "okay, you're right, it's not really a tax "cut", we're just giving the poorest of working America some interest for the money we used for the year!"....I could swallow that and maybe, just maybe, even agree with it. It is the dis- ingenuousness that I get angry about.

And Sen. McCain? Well, I want to hear how he's going to stop the flow out of American jobs to other countries and more details about how his energy plan is going to put more Americans to work as well as make America energy independent. I want to hear more about the McCain-Leiberman bill that will put caps on our utility companies and create a back door tax on all of us.

There's a whole lot more I want to hear about...and none of it involves lipstick.

Fair and Balanced.............

2008-09-09T07:07:00.004-04:00

See anything in the following headlines?

09/09/2008 02:16:14 EST Obama embraces charter schools in education plan
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer

Obama puts heat on Palin as she boosts GOP ticket
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer

Obama accuses Republican rivals of dishonesty
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer

Obama: Kill terrorists, but give prisoners rights
By DAVID N. GOODMAN
Associated Press Writer

You got it! Not one headline on my Front Page this morning about the McCain Campaign but four about the Obama camp.

Good thing that I've got the time to go looking for an article somewhere on the net to "balance" these, isn't it?

Baltimore Sun Reporter Susan Reimer ....Scared by the responses of her readers?

2008-09-08T00:01:00.003-04:00

Susan Reimer, a reporter for the Sun wrote the following September 1st regarding Sarah Palin as McCain's choice for VP...

"He seems to think that my girlfriends and I are so disappointed that an utterly qualified woman is not going to be president that we will jump at the chance to vote for an utterly unqualified woman for vice president."

and

"Does McCain think we will be so grateful for a skirt on the ticket that we won't notice that she's anti-abortion, a member of the NRA and thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution?"

and

"You want to look good to the evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child."

and

"(....I don't know what I'll do if she trots out the story of her 5-month-old baby to shore up the Republican base.)"

Ms. Reimer was apparently surprised by the number of responses (over 9000 comments) she received in regards to her article and its tone/stance, but I wonder if the surprise was mainly the fact that so many of those responses did not agree with her?

In a follow-up on September 5th, Ms. Reimer wrote:

"A handful of people wrote to say that I had captured exactly their reaction to the Palin nomination. But the rest of the responses were vehement or venomous..... "

Over the last couple of days, in between laundry, childrearing, bb gun sessions and other things from my real life, I took the time to go over some of the more than 9,000 comments on Ms. Reimer's September 1 opinion piece to see if what Ms. Reimer was claiming was in fact the truth.

"The things that were said about me, my personal appearance and my children - as well as Barack Obama - were beyond the bounds of decency, and many were said in language that might only be seen in a bathroom stall. "

I certainly don't have the time to read all 9000+ comments that the September 1st article resulted in..... I will agree that of the comments I did read (about 200 of them) some were unneccessarily harsh and obviously written for the "troll" affect or the shock effect; but I also have to say that in those 200 comments, I didn't see anything really nasty (or worthy of the bathroom stall) about Mr. Obama...I did however see a lot of comments regarding McCain........anyway, is Ms. Reimer not aware that this kind of vehemence and venom is found all over message boards and comment sections on the internet? It is a sad commentary of where we are in this country, and I must say that on this Ms. Reimer and I agree.

"Generally, the comments were not made behind the veil of anonymity the Internet can provide. The writers signed their names. And they revealed what I think has become the bare-knuckles nature of our national conversation."

I admit though that I wonder if the author was implying that the anger came only from those who disagreed with her. If that was her intent, then I have to disagree with her again..... the vehemence and venom came from both sides, Ms. Reimer.

And there's something else that Ms. Reimer didn't mention....the fact that quite a few of the comments were from the same people. As the posts get higher in number, the actual number of new poster's goes down......iow - 9000+ people didn't comment on the article...a few commented over and over again to each other....with the result that the postings got nastier and nastier......you can find this on just about any unmoderated message board on the net.

.....here's a sampling of the venom from those who wrote in support of Ms. Reimer.....

"...- wow - a lawyer who can't spell (no surprise - most lawyers are money hungry morons), many prejudiced unenlightened, just plain mean comments, preferences for a woman who can type over men who can govern ..... Palin is a role model for the 19th century - "

"...The conservatives can do nothing but resort to their usual strategy: name calling. "

"..... news story about Gov. Palin (aka Miss Congeniality) .....Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot."

"Attention right-wing attack squad! Special alert from your Viagra-poppin' hero, Rush! "

"And what does this say about McCain's decision-making ability? Where is he going to get his Secretary of Defense from? The checkout line at Wal-Mart? "

".......by a man (McCain) who has the intellectual capacity of an acorn. "

"John McCain has a thing for ex-beauty queens. His first wife, second wife and now his vice president were all ex-beauty queens. Just what we need."

"Let me see if I understand this...we're supposed to be thrilled with a woman who is pro life, and has a Downs Syndrome child to prove it? The issue might be, "Now, who might raise this child while you assist McCain with running the country?" Her choice to keep her child is spot on. Her choice to consider the VP job is not! "

"....Boy, you really have to have your head in your **** to try to defend Mccain’s selection of Palin"

"Sarah Palin: Can't control her husband and his permanently hard tubesteak but we're supposed to entrust her with the 2nd most powerful job in the world...."

".....that John McStupid....."

"I'm opposed to this governor/beauty queen (end of resume) forcing her views on people thru her position if this NO Name psycho get's in office. Susan's article hits the nail on the head she's absolutely correct! This nut that the other nut selected wants to make birth control pills, condomns and IUD's illegal? Please he might as well have selected a nazi for VP.. she's a step way back for the rights of women, she doesn't represent anything for the movement. GET RID OF THAT beauty queen! TALK ABOUT COMMUNIST COUNTRY! WHO'S THE COMMUNIST NOW!

Conservatives don't corner the market on nastiness....."Todd Spivak at Houstonpress.com can empathyze with you Ms Reimer....

Palin Part II

2008-09-07T11:48:00.003-04:00

Today is a day for 2 parter's apparently.....this one dealing with the attacks on Sarah Palin regarding parenting which is a follow-up to yesterday's post regarding her RNC speech..........

I'm a parent; anyone who knows me personally or who is reading this blog or my 1909 Farmhouse-Our Life blog knows this...I make no secret of it. We have three children - two grown ones and one in middle school. And, although I don't post about parenting too much because, after all, my blogs aren't specifically geared to parents, I'll readily admit that we've had our ups and our downs while experiencing this adventure of raising kids.

Each of our three children have completely different personalities which greatly affects our parenting successes and failures with them. I can't write too much about Hunter just yet as he is only twelve, just entering the stage of his life where he will begin to question our parenting. He'll begin to experience the separation all teens experience where they begin to look at the world around them and judge it by many factors, perhaps the most important being what we have tried to teach him through the years. So far, he's been a rule follower...a follower not just of our home rules, but the school rules and the church rules as well. But, I know from my own experience as a teenager and from going along for the ride with Nikki and Dallas, that bumpy roads are ahead of us.

This perspective allows me to refrain from the impulsive judgment of other parents for the most part. I tend to look at the child's personality as much as I do the parent's parenting. I also know from experience that society tends to hinder and not help attempts to raise our children with the ability to make the good choices in their lives.

Our children are not puppets for whom we can always pull a string to get the desired behavior or outcome. As parents, we provide the tools for our child to achieve what we all hope is success in their choices. But, we do not go to school with them; we do not go out with them every time they socialize with their friends; we do not go out chaperoning their dates. And we cannot always be at home with them while they are home.

There is no perfect child. Children and teenagers break rules. Every single one of them do it. Some broken rules have greater consequences then others. But, unless we always are there to hold their hands and hold them back, rules will be broken.

There is no perfect parent. Again, unless we are there to always hold them back from making their own choices, we cannot stop our children from making their own decisions about how they will respond to our rules and our guidance.

Our daughter, then a junior in high school, was once given permission to take her father's truck to school where normally, she would have ridden the bus. This particular day, she had a work meeting early in the afternoon and if she had ridden the bus home from school, she would have had to be straight back on the road to get back to work in time for this meeting. Traffic in our old town was a nightmare. Permission came with a condition - she was to go to her co-workers house (near school and work) and spend the hours in between school and the meeting there....no driving around town.

Instead of following the condition, she and her friend decided to run out for pizza and while in the parking lot, she was in a car accident that totaled her father's just recently paid off truck. One decision to break a rule, a few moments of distraction in a parking lot (and a woman coming out of a drive through bank window looking in her purse instead of out her front window) and Nikki had done something that had huge consequences not only for her but for her dad and I.

Here's the question? Was it OUR fault that she totaled that truck based upon her decision to break a rule, not follow our guidance (that parking lots were as dangerous as highways)? Was I a "failure as a mother" because I didn't tell her no that morning?

So, let's look a moment at Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol. I am assuming that, like me, Sarah Palin had counseled her daughter on the consequences of pre-marital sex ...the moral side of it all (based upon our faith) and the possible physical consequences (STD's, Pregnancy etc). And I'm assuming that like me, she explained birth control options to her daughter. And, followed up the talk with a statement that, should her daughter chose to have sex and suffer a consequence as a result, then she should come to me to help her bear the consequence. We would yell, we would be upset, but we loved our daughter and her choices would never, ever destroy that love.

But then Sarah Palin, like all of us parents, had to let her daughter go out in the world armed only with that information. Sarah Palin couldn't hold her daughter's hand all of the time, she couldn't be there to stop Bristol from making her own choice in whether or not she would have sex, use birth control or not. Nor could Sarah Palin or her daughter Bristol rely completely on any form of birth control because they all fail sometimes....all forms of birth control except abstinence that is.

Folks are busy out there assuming that because Bristol made a choice to have sex before marriage then of course, her mother never told her about birth control. And of course, it then follows that Sarah Palin is a hypocrite because she is an advocate of abstinence only based education. There's more then a couple of issues with this assumption...

1) None of us know that Bristol was not given birth control information from her parents.... or that she didn't use it or if she did use, it failed.

2) Even kids who receive sex education with birth control information included get pregnant don't they? Sometimes its because they didn't use it; sometimes its because it failed (broken condoms do occur...)....

3) Read all the paragraphs that precede this list of issues.....Sarah Palin couldn't control her daughter's every action now could she? And if she did, then these same critics would be screaming "child abuse".

And how about those who say that since her daughter is pregnant, and since her youngest child has special needs, and since she had five children Sarah Palin shouldn't have accepted the nomination for VP. She should have protected her children from the media attention they now will receive for their mother's choice.

Here's my opinion.

Britol Palin made an adult decision with her own body, she made an adult decision to accept the consequences of the first decision by keeping the child, and she now will bear the consequences of both of those decisions which is the media attention that comes along with being the child of a public figure. That is life...dealing with consequences of our choices; Bristol Palin will experience it just like the rest of us have to, except her experience is just on a bigger stage then most of us ever have to deal with.

I don't believe anyone thinks its great (or sweet) that this family is faced with this in their private or their public lives. I do believe that folks approve of Bristol's decision to allow the consequence of her choice to breath. Just as those same folks would approve of her placing the baby up for adoption.

You can disagree with Palin's stance of abstinence only sex education and you can disagree with her stance on abortion, but you cannot claim she is a failure of a mother....that to me is the height of judgement and intolerance....and it is coming from the so-called tolerant side of America.....

Palin.....

2008-09-05T20:09:00.008-04:00

Today, on houseblog.net, a blog devoted to house topics and not politics, I have read two blogs concerning the RNC.....and felt the need to respond. I won't link to the blogs because I'm not doing this to start a "blog war", I'm simply exercising my right to freedom of speech in response to theirs (and many others).

Did Palin keep the money for the "bridge to nowhere"? Technically, yes. But not in the way that it is being used against her.

"National fury over the bridge caused Congress to remove the earmark designation, but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion". (To read the entire article, follow the link provided above.) Alaska will use the grant to improve roads and other infrastructure, but not on the bridge to nowhere. So, Palin did nothing wrong in "keeping the money".

Let's look at the whole story. "The classic definition {of an earmark} connotes an amount of money added by a member of Congress to the president's budget for a specific project or program." John Katz Juneau Empire

Due to abuse of the earmark process, projects have been added on to budgets/bills/laws in the darkness of secrecy and without debate or public knowledge. In an effort to curtail this, it was decided that there should be greater transparency in the ear mark process. And so, the Bridge to Nowhere became the poster child of the reform efforts regarding earmarks.

In response to this unflattering choice of Alaska's earmark as that poster child, Palin removed the earmark request. And in response to the reforming of the request process, she set forth guidelines for her state to follow in the future.

The truth is that Alaska submitted 31 earmarks this year as opposed to 54 from last year; all but four of them are requests already in the system. That means that only FOUR new ones were submitted.... Every earmark request has been (or will be) posted on the Alaska congressional delegations websites for transparency. Gov. Palin insisted that "each Alaska request must demonstrate an important federal purpose and strong public support" and that "wherever possible, a state or local match should be provided." John Katz Juneau Empire

Did Palin "lie" about Obama's record when she stated he had not authored "a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."?

Statistics: Barack Obama has sponsored (authored) 136 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 122 haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Obama has co-sponsored 653 bills during the same time period.

Let's take a look at just one of Obama's bills - S. 115: Oil SENSE Act or the "Oil Subsidy Elimination for New Strategies on Energy Act'

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

5) the Statement of Administration Policy of June 14, 2005, on the energy bill that would become the Energy Policy Act of 2005 states, `The President believes that additional taxpayer subsidies for oil-and-gas exploration are unwarranted in today's price environment, and urges the Senate to eliminate the Federal oil-and-gas subsidies and other exploration incentives contained in the bill.'; and

(6) {the President believes} incentives for the energy industry should be focused on the development of renewable energy resources in the United States that will also promote, jobs, investment, innovation, and economic development in rural, agriculture-dependent areas.

Okay, so Obama wrote the bill but used a statement from George W. Bush to define and defend and explain the bill; personally I can see how this reliance upon a previous statement and intent could be termed "not major". Its timing is perfect for a senator to author who is running for the office of President, however. Other then the S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007 (in which a revision removing all reference to the United Nations bar 1 now awaits debate - to hide the fact that some politicians want the US to cede control of its own national interest to that body? Hmmm!), most of the other bills are to recognize Civil Hero's, etc. All commendable, but not "major".

One blogger referenced Obama's work with Lugar on the interception of WMD's to call Palin a liar. Lugar first introduced legislation regarding this issue in 1991 - this was known as the Nunn-Lugar act. Obama worked with Lugar on a expansion of the almost twenty year old act....Obama DID NOT author it, therefore, Palin did not lie.

Lugar , who has worked with many across party lines on the issue stated "...I wrote on Oct. 23, 2004, in the Washington Post: “President Bush has repeatedly demonstrated his personal commitment to Nunn-Lugar and has been out in the world achieving non-proliferation goals. The administration has established relationships and expertise that are critical to the paramount objective of preventing weapons of mass destruction from falling into terrorist hands.”

"On May 27 of this year, I praised an arms control speech by Sen. John McCain saying: “I am pleased that Sen. McCain would make achieving … arms control goals a priority. Sen. McCain has affirmed his intent to work with Congress and the international community to aggressively address the existential threats posed by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and materials.”

Now, had the blogger stated that references to Obama never reaching across the aisle were "lies", I still would have said that LIE is too strong a word. Even using this particular legislation (an expansion of an act introduced in the 1990's and expanded before Obama's involvement" can't really be said as "reaching across" the aisle. Because in all cases, reference to this is in light of McCain's reaching out and angering his own party to do so and regardless of the cost to his chance of being President.

"The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars." Sarah Palin RNC 2008 Speech

All of the above is true. Sarah Palin did not lie. When the taxes on businesses are raised, employees are laid off and/or the cost of the increase in tax to the business results in an increase in the product or products the business sells. Who pays that tax burden in the end? The American people.

Just like the price of a pizza goes up when the pizza company has to pay employees an increased minimum wage (which effectively wipes out the increase of pay for the minimum wage worker). Oh and btw, Obama will MANDATE IRA's and 401's for all Americans. Any tax relief felt by the lower income family will be offset by the forced enrollment in government over-seen savings plans (but Obama opposes the rights of younger Americans to CHOOSE to invest in those plans or other plans of THEIR OWN CHOICE INSTEAD of the failing Social Security system).

sorry, I digressed there for a moment.....

Sources differ on the tax plans offered by Obama and McCain and both parties tend to only tout that part of their plan that will go over well. Palin didn't "lie" about Obama's plan, she simply stated the facts. And the truth is, that neither plan will decrease the federal deficit....neither of them.

A blogger stated that "The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded."

CNN.com disagrees....Under McCain's plan "taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means their after-tax income would rise by 2%." While under Obama's plan, "taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 .... That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%." (I've searched for the source page which states that Obama's plan would increase by 5% by 2012 ...to no avail - no link was provided by the blogger.)

And as to Mike Huckabee's comment on the number of votes....geez, people...it was a "Whopper" .....of a joke. In response to the media's attempt to fry Palin over the days between her nomination and her speech....Meant to get a laugh and applause. Which it did. Biden isn't running for President.....he never ran for President. He ran for the Democratic Nomination for President.

Any one of us can turn a phrase to get a desired result. We all use our words (and our research) to make our own point or prove our own point of view. And we can all find on CBS, various blogs and the associated press just what we need to bolster our own argument.

But, housebloggers.net isn't the place to do it.......

Back to School....

2008-09-02T00:01:00.003-04:00

Today marks the beginning of the second week of back to school for our two boys. Dallas is off at college (with a new girlfriend to begin the year with!) and Hunter is in his second year of middle school.

This time of year always finds me reflecting on what I like and dislike about the way the schools are run; some of these things are a part of every school across the nation - some are to do with only our district or our state or even just the particular school my family is involved with.

This year, its the re-structuring of class periods that I am reflecting on....and the reason it had to be done.....last year, the school was run on blocks i.e. yellow day had three classes, green day had three classes and one class met all week long. Last year, the children had to have one year of Phys Ed in the three years they were in middle school, and could rotate participation through the arts in their elective choices; but now, a new Florida mandate requires they all have to have Phys Ed each year.

So what's my issue? It is in two parts....with the first part being that it is once again an unfunded mandate that has resulted in issues for all of the middle schools in the state. Changes in how the schools are run have to be made to accommodate this mandate - and change costs money (or jobs or choice) but the Florida Legislature hasn't provided funding for these changes (or an answer to the lack of choice it now creates).

Not only have the class periods had to change to get in the required number of hours of P.E. per student but now students who are concentrating in one of the arts (i.e. Hunter is concentrating on Band) will only experience that one art because of the P.E. mandate. Hunter will not be able to take Art, Drama, Computer Arts or Choir without dropping out of the band program because his second elective HAS to be Phys Ed now.

Now, we're lucky that Hunter loves P.E. and had signed up for it anyway, but some of his classmates aren't so lucky. They've had to choose which of the arts they are interested and involved in to drop. Let's say they were in Band and Computer Art (Graphics)....those student's now have to choose which class they will drop..and both classes build upon blocks learned and cannot easily be entered, left, and entered into again.

And the second part? Well, it is an empty mandate that serves only to make those who voted to pass it feel good about themselves. They can pat each other on the back and say "we've done something about childhood obesity".

But have they? Not from my point of view. They would have been of more help to our children (and their parents) if they had simply mandated that all the fast food now being sold in our cafeterias were banned. Or if they had mandated that the schools could no longer allot only 20 minutes for lunch for the students (who stand in line for five to ten minutes and then wolf down their food in whatever time they have remaining). Or if they had voted to increase the hours of school to include an outdoor activity time like my generation had every day after lunch.

Obesity is caused by many things, not just limited to the lack of physical activity. It is caused by the inability of our society to slow down and enjoy every bite of food that passes our lips. We give our stomachs no time to tell our brains that we have been fed, we are full, we are satisfied. It is caused by the limitless choice of fast foods, fatty foods, make you feel better foods like cheese fries, corn dogs, cheeseburgers, huge fried pretzels and pizza which to my way of thinking have NO place in our school cafeterias. And don't forget the soda machines that are allowed on our school campuses now. I cringe every time I pull up to drop off Hunter and see the Pepsi guy out front unloading the liquid sugar from his truck.

Hunter is packing his lunch this year and no, it isn't because of the cost of school lunches. It is because he couldn't always resist the temptation to use his lunch account money to buy pizza or cheese fries or a pretzel for lunch instead of the main menu line of more healthy food. He's a good kid; he's a rule follower for the most part but even he fell under the constant temptation of "just for today, I'll eat that pizza instead of the lunch line stuff"...because all of his friends were, or because it just smelled so good, or just because, well, he decided to buck the rules we have in place and not be such a rule follower all the time.

But here's the thing. There is enough temptation in our schools for our children to go astray...there are drugs, there is becoming a smart Alec who doesn't listen to anyone in authority, there is sexual experimentation....we don't need to add the temptation of unhealthy, fat laden foods...and then excuse ourselves because hey, we mandated Phys. Education every day...while we took away the time needed for our stomach to tell our brain we've eaten, while we've taken away all opportunity for our children to socialize during their school day and while we allow the vender's to tempt our children with pizza and cheese fries.....but, hey, they can work off that 2000 calorie choice in the mandated P.E. class can't they? Or do the cheese fries cancel out the physical activity?

I'm off to plan Hunter's healthy lunches for the week......and wash his P.E. uniform.

Taking down the Flag...........

2008-09-01T12:53:00.006-04:00

Photograph by John Binkley

Yesterday we had dinner with our returned Hero, my brother in law Darrin, and with my sister Amy and the girls. They all came over (with Nana) to cook out and just enjoy the fact that Darrin has returned safely from Afghanistan. I didn't get any photos because I was too busy enjoying the peace that our being all together again brought to my soul.

Little Ava is the cutest thing. As she and I sat on the front porch swing for our own little quiet time, she said "I really love my daddy". We talked about the trip to the airport to pick him up and how she was "a little bit nervous, and my daddy was a little bit nervous to see me too". We talked about how she had given him all the kisses she had saved up for him during the past 6 months of his absence.....this was an important part of our conversation because for the last several months, Nikki and I couldn't get kisses all the time because sometimes she'd say to us "no, that kiss is for my daddy".

Darrin and I and David had another quiet moment together before the evening ended. Back in October of 2007, we had a going away dinner for Darrin and just the family. On that day, I hung the American Flag from our front porch and quietly told Darrin that I would not take it down until he had returned safely from his tour of duty.

During the course of Tropical Storm Faye, that Flag was battered by winds and rain for more than 48 hours. I watched it and hoped that it would not end up torn and tattered but I refused to take it down because of my promise to Darrin. As the three of us quietly took down that Flag last night, I noticed that it had in fact been a bit worn by the storm with slight tearing on its edges. But, it had held together and flown proudly through out the storm and the days that followed it until its promise was fulfilled.....just as little Ava and her mommy had held it together proudly through the days of weathering lifes' storms without their husband and father. Darrin and David folded it and I placed that proud flag in a protective bad which will be labeled and stored away for posterity. One day, Ava and I will sit once again on the front porch and talk quietly about these days and look at that flag. And little Olivia, who was born while her daddy watched and listened from the lap top beside her mother's hospital bed, will take part in that conversation.

In a few weeks, I'll be hanging another Flag from the front porch of this old farmhouse as Darrin leaves us once again for a 90 day tour of duty, this time in Iraq. But for the moment, peace reigns in our family, if not in the world. I am grateful.

Just sitting

2008-08-23T16:21:00.005-04:00

I've put away the flashlights, the batteries, the candles, matches and various holders of those candles...I've vacumed, wiped, sprayed (spiders), chased a frog out of the house....and now I'm just sitting.

It's Dallas' 22nd birthday today. The cake just came out of the oven. Its cooling. He's softly playing the piano. The wind is soft through the trees unlike the howling we've experienced over the past few days. And, now, I'm just sitting.

The water is receding, some of the limbs have been hauled to the road. There's chicken boiling away in a pot for Chicken and Dumplins this evening before cake and ice cream. And well, you guessed it, I'm just sitting.

Actually, I'm typing aren't I? But, I'm typing and sitting and being thankful. Very, Very, Thankful.

Our roof didn't leak, mom's house on the beach didn't blow away, my skin kids and fur kids are all safe and sound...and....drum roll please....

My brother in law Darrin is on his way home from Afghanistan...he called sister Amy from an airport in Phillidelphia to surprise her. Within a few days, he'll meet his 3 month old baby daughter...he'll kiss and hug his 3 year old little girl...he'll hug his wife, drink some wine, eat a good dinner......and he'll be home.

Twenty-something fun~

2008-08-23T12:29:00.004-04:00

Nikki and her friends holed up in a house not far from here....She still had to work on Thursday and Friday (lunches) so needed to be closer to town in case of flooding. She and her friends found a fun way to pass the time...so fun that the video of their day made the Fox 30 news TWICE!

Lawn Surfing

They made this video and sent it in to the news station in the hopes that it would be shown to lighten the mood of broadcast coverage....and it aired both Friday morning and evening news..... oh, and our Nikki is the one in the tie dyed shirt going flying in the recycle bin! Thank God the child took gymnastics and played soccer....she knows how to fall!

Our Daughter The Star....

More about Faye.....and Cabin Fever

2008-08-22T14:50:00.001-04:00

About an hour ago, David and I ventured out to the post office which exactly as the slogan states, delivers through rain, through sleet and through snow......here's a bit of what we saw around our place.....Besides having mail that needed to go out, I was suffering from a bad case of cabin fever....

None of this water is supposed to be here....and without those ditches, we would be completely underwater here in Elkton. The late 1800's saw the Northeast Railroad and Canal company putting in all these ditches to drain the swamp land and make it suitable for habitation and farming.....

It was interesting to note that although our house had a lot of downed limbs and branches, a torn boat cover and lots of other evidence of the storm, most of our area appeared no worse then just after a heavy day of Florida thunderstorms. Other then the water that is.

Nothing like Francis and Jeannie of 2004 both of which tore through our area rather quickly...the thing with Faye was that she lingered and lingered and is still dumping rain from her bands every so often.

Here's to Faye bidding us all a quick farewell.....

Back to school week....

2008-08-18T14:09:00.001-04:00

How did it get to be this week so soon? It seems that school only just let out for the summer; it seems that I only just made the annual summer trip to South Carolina for research and reunions......

One of this summer's memories.........

When the kids were younger, I was always ready for them to go back to school. As they grew older and became companions instead of crying, eating and wetting machines, I wished I had the ability to slow down time; the long lazy days of summer meant mornings at the pool and afternoons on the couch watching movies together and root beer floats after dinner. And as the end neared, I'd find myself double minded....

Dallas - age 9

The end of summer meant routines had to be followed, lots and lots of money had to be spent on school supplies, and I had to send them out the door in an act of faith that they would be safe away from my care. But, it also meant more quiet time for me (which I need to be nice!) and longer lengths of time between cleaning of the kitchens and bathrooms - like twice a day instead of every hour or two!!! I'd mourn the loss of their company for a week or two and then I'd be into the fall decorating and the cooking of slow cooked stews and soups and suddenly be used to their absence again. I'd start to get excited about the prospect of the Christmas shopping I could now do without worrying about sitters....and soon the routines of the school year felt so familiar that I'd be wondering how it got to be three weeks till summer vacation so quickly.

Nothing much has changed....Hunter starts back this week and Dallas heads back up to college next week. I'm sad and glad at the same time. I'm ready and not ready all together....all at once.

Summer at the Farmhouse......

Thought for the day...........

2008-08-16T12:01:00.001-04:00

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Abraham Lincoln

More From the 1909 Farmhouse

2008-08-15T11:44:00.001-04:00

Lately there's been a lot of news items that I've felt a desire to blog about. I've refrained for the most part because my other blog is supposed to be about farmhouse life in a constant construction zone.....today, I decided to get around this by simply adding another blog.....and the following article is why..........

"Groups file elections complaint against Wal-Mart"

This ticks me off. Why does it tick me off? Because it seems that once again, Democrats want to stop the "other side" from doing what they do all the time...influence the way folks vote. Especially how the union membership votes.

You see it in almost every union out there....teachers union, shipping industry unions..you name the union and the pressure is on to vote Democrat in every election. And the union wants into Wal-mart. The Democrats hate Wal-mart. The Democrats and the Union want Wal-mart employees to vote Democrat.....because they want to pass a law that affects the ballot process for all unions.

And Wal-mart has discussed the union and its issues with it in meetings with their employees; educating them on the issue. And of course the Dems and the unions are now filing a lawsuit against Wal-mart.

So how about a law suit against the county in Florida in which its School Board held an all day training session for its teachers and then opened the day with a two hour propaganda message that included films of Obama touting his plans for education? That's not pressuring employees to vote Democrat?

I'm not against unions per se, even though the union in which David was a member did not protect him when he needed its protection. Unions are part of what made the American Dream possible for all citizens of this country....but they've come too far from what they used to be. And politics have gotten too far into the mix. And this frivolous lawsuit just ticks me off!

Done!

More From The 1909 Farmhouse