Look at how fast the sticks are moving....
Friday, February 13, 2009
"Successful people are always looking for opportunities
to help others. Unsuccessful people are always
asking, 'What's in it for me?'"
— Brian Tracy
to help others. Unsuccessful people are always
asking, 'What's in it for me?'"
— Brian Tracy
Thursday, February 12, 2009
did you see the AWESOME sunrise this am...
Of course, this photo does not even warm up the sky colors... I seem to have missed the class on taking a great photo... but it was three times as red as this photo earlier... what is the saying? Red in the morning, sailors take warning, Red at night, sailor's delight... well after night before last, let's hope this saying is not right.... wow!!!
Have a great day!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
"If you don't design your own life plan, chances are you'll
fall into someone else's plan. And guess what they
have planned for you? Not much."
— Jim Rohn
fall into someone else's plan. And guess what they
have planned for you? Not much."
— Jim Rohn
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
"Much of the stress that people feel doesn't come from
having too much to do. It comes from not
finishing what they've started."
— David Allen
having too much to do. It comes from not
finishing what they've started."
— David Allen
(Hooray! Garage sales can now be considered patriotic.)
"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a Very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV
set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:
If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to India.
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
If you buy a car it will go to Japan.
If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan.
If you pay your credit cards off, it will go to bank management bonuses and they will hide if offshore. Same with stock investment.
Instead, you can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball, football, basketball game, or spending it on beer and wine (domestic ONLY), or tattoos, since those are the only American businesses still operating in the US
Got'er done!!!
Dear Mr. Lucas;
Please don't vote for this stupid pork barrel spending bill for the sake of our future, our youth... who follow.
email sent and faxed as well...
now... lets see what good it does.. haha... who knows?????
have a great day! s
Oh my God... Have you heard those who serve us in congress defend this dumbass stimulus bill??
I am blown away. I just heard a congressman say... now keep this in mind, this is a bill that is 15 inches high if printed on both sides of plain paper... that "IF" something was in the bill he would vote against it and he could answer NOTHING about the bill in specifics... and he is voting in just hours....
It amazes me how soft and non caring we Americans have become in electing our leaders and officials.. we now have a known proven "IRS TAX CHEAT" as the chief officer of our treasurer and head of the IRS.... We have a proven non electible vice president who should be Dean of the school of bafoons! A President who has apologized for mistakes all ready and can not make up his mind and still had not said one thing concrete regarding the economy other than trying to spread fear among us so this "stimulus" package will pass... and our kids and their kids will suffer for it...
This one bill doubles our national debt in the blink of an eye.. and within a year or two we will see double figure interest rates as a result. so get ready.. those credit cards will have 20 to 30% on them shortly... your interest rate at bank will become 15 to 20 %... seen this in the late 70's and early 80's... except we did not have a leader telling us we were headed down in flames... sigh.. really Mr. President.. REALLY?
The best thing I have heard in this whole discussion is ... instead of a stupid spending bill that does nothing... suspend the IRS tax collections for next two years.. take a deep seat and see what happens.. small business will go to hiring, growing.. spending, folks will instantly have more cash to do with... etc etc.. we would fix the problem without the dumbies in washington craming down our throat... "what we need"!
I am sick and tired of being sick and tired. It is time for leadership. I would bet a 100 dollars that not one person who is reading this has written their elected officials to let them know.. including this author!!
But I am going to fix that right now .... and send a note to each... My dearly elected....
have a great day.. i sure am... haha..
Monday, February 09, 2009
Perkins Fire Department Fundraiser.... this Friday night
Who: The Masonic Lodge
What: Bean and Stew Supper
When: Friday, February 13, 2009 4:00PM - 7:00 PM
Where: High School Commons, Perkins High School
Why: All proceeds will go to the Perkins Fire Department for Fire and Rescue equipment
Friday, February 06, 2009
Hummmmm.......... .darn.. thought I could just coast thru life.. haha...
"Knowing is not enough; we must apply.
Willing is not enough; we must do."
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: was a German writer and polymath
Willing is not enough; we must do."
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: was a German writer and polymath
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Secondhand Children
Secondhand Children
by Ann Coulter
Posted 02/04/2009 ET
It's been weeks since the last one, so on Sunday, The New York Times Magazine featured yet another cheery, upbeat article on single mothers. As with all its other promotional pieces on single motherhood over the years, the Times followed a specific formula to make this social disaster sound normal, blameless and harmless -- even brave.
These single motherhood advertisements include lots of conclusory statements to the effect that this is simply the way things are -- so get used to it, bourgeois America! "(A)n increasing number of unmarried mothers," the article explained, "look a lot more like Fran McElhill and Nancy Clark -- they are college-educated, and they are in their 30s, 40s and 50s."
Why isn't the number of smokers treated as a fait accompli that the rest of us just have to accept? Smoking causes a lot less damage and the harm befalls the person who chooses to smoke, not innocent children.
The Times' single motherhood endorsements always describe single mothers as the very picture of middle-class normality: "She grew up in blue-collar Chester County, Pa., outside Philadelphia, and talks like a local girl (long O's). Her father was a World War II vet who worked for a union and took his kids to Mass most Sundays." Even as a girl she dreamed of raising a baby with a 50 percent greater chance of growing up in poverty.
How about some articles on all the nice middle-class smokers whose fathers served in World War II and took them to Mass? Only when describing aberrant social behavior do Times writers even recognize what normality is, much less speak of it admiringly.
According to hysterical anti-smoking zealots at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking costs the nation $92 billion a year in "lost productivity." (Obviously these conclusions were produced by people who not only have never smoked, but also don't know any smokers, who could have told them smoking makes us 10 times more productive.)
Meanwhile, single motherhood costs taxpayers about $112 billion every year, according to a 2008 study by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi.
Smoking has no causal relationship to crime, has little effect on others and -- let's be honest -- looks cool. Controlling for income, education and occupation, it causes about 200,000 deaths per year, mostly of people in their 70s.
Single motherhood, by contrast, directly harms children, occurs at a rate of about 1.5 million a year and has a causal relationship to criminal behavior, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, sexual victimization and almost every other social disorder.
If a pregnant woman smokes or drinks, we blame her. But if a woman decides to have a fatherless child, we praise her as brave -- even though the outcome for the child is much worse.
Thus, the Times writes warmly of single mothers, always including an innocent explanation: "Many of these women followed a similar and familiar pattern in having their first child: They planned to marry, found they hadn't by their 30s, looked some more and then decided to have a child without a husband." At which point, a stork showed up with their babies.
So apparently, single motherhood could happen to anyone!
How about: These smokers followed a similar and familiar pattern, they planned never to start smoking, found themselves working long nights at the law firm and then decided to have a cigarette to stay alert.
Then there is the Times' reversal of cause and effect, which manages to exonerate the single mother while turning her into a victim: "The biggest reason that children born to unmarried mothers tend to have problems -- they're more likely to drop out of school and commit crimes -- is that they tend to grow up poor."
First, the reason the children "tend to grow up poor" is that their mothers considered it unnecessary to have a primary bread-earner in the family.
Second, the Times simply made up the fact that poverty, rather than single motherhood, causes anti-social behavior in children. Poverty doesn't cause crime -- single mothers do. If poverty caused crime, how did we get Bernie Madoff?
Studies -- including one by the liberal Progressive Policy Institute -- have shown that controlling for factors such as poverty and socioeconomic status, single motherhood accounts for the entire difference in black and white crime rates.
The Times' claim that poverty is the "biggest reason" for the problems of illegitimate children is on the order of claiming that the biggest reason that smokers develop heart disease and lung cancer is not because they smoke, but because they tend to work so hard. It's a half-baked, wishful-thinking theory contradicted by all known evidence. Other than that, it holds up pretty well.
Finally, the Times produced an imaginary statistic that is valid only in the sense that no study has specifically disproved it yet. "No one has shown," the Times triumphantly announced, "that there are similar risks for the children of college-educated single mothers by choice."
No one has shown that there are similar risks for smokers who run marathons, either. There are probably about as many college graduate single mothers by choice (7 percent) as there are smokers who run marathons. And, unlike single mothers, smokers who run marathons look really cool.
If the establishment media wrote about smoking the way they write about unwed motherhood, I think people would notice that they seem oddly hellbent on destroying as many lives as possible.
by Ann Coulter
Posted 02/04/2009 ET
It's been weeks since the last one, so on Sunday, The New York Times Magazine featured yet another cheery, upbeat article on single mothers. As with all its other promotional pieces on single motherhood over the years, the Times followed a specific formula to make this social disaster sound normal, blameless and harmless -- even brave.
These single motherhood advertisements include lots of conclusory statements to the effect that this is simply the way things are -- so get used to it, bourgeois America! "(A)n increasing number of unmarried mothers," the article explained, "look a lot more like Fran McElhill and Nancy Clark -- they are college-educated, and they are in their 30s, 40s and 50s."
Why isn't the number of smokers treated as a fait accompli that the rest of us just have to accept? Smoking causes a lot less damage and the harm befalls the person who chooses to smoke, not innocent children.
The Times' single motherhood endorsements always describe single mothers as the very picture of middle-class normality: "She grew up in blue-collar Chester County, Pa., outside Philadelphia, and talks like a local girl (long O's). Her father was a World War II vet who worked for a union and took his kids to Mass most Sundays." Even as a girl she dreamed of raising a baby with a 50 percent greater chance of growing up in poverty.
How about some articles on all the nice middle-class smokers whose fathers served in World War II and took them to Mass? Only when describing aberrant social behavior do Times writers even recognize what normality is, much less speak of it admiringly.
According to hysterical anti-smoking zealots at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking costs the nation $92 billion a year in "lost productivity." (Obviously these conclusions were produced by people who not only have never smoked, but also don't know any smokers, who could have told them smoking makes us 10 times more productive.)
Meanwhile, single motherhood costs taxpayers about $112 billion every year, according to a 2008 study by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi.
Smoking has no causal relationship to crime, has little effect on others and -- let's be honest -- looks cool. Controlling for income, education and occupation, it causes about 200,000 deaths per year, mostly of people in their 70s.
Single motherhood, by contrast, directly harms children, occurs at a rate of about 1.5 million a year and has a causal relationship to criminal behavior, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, sexual victimization and almost every other social disorder.
If a pregnant woman smokes or drinks, we blame her. But if a woman decides to have a fatherless child, we praise her as brave -- even though the outcome for the child is much worse.
Thus, the Times writes warmly of single mothers, always including an innocent explanation: "Many of these women followed a similar and familiar pattern in having their first child: They planned to marry, found they hadn't by their 30s, looked some more and then decided to have a child without a husband." At which point, a stork showed up with their babies.
So apparently, single motherhood could happen to anyone!
How about: These smokers followed a similar and familiar pattern, they planned never to start smoking, found themselves working long nights at the law firm and then decided to have a cigarette to stay alert.
Then there is the Times' reversal of cause and effect, which manages to exonerate the single mother while turning her into a victim: "The biggest reason that children born to unmarried mothers tend to have problems -- they're more likely to drop out of school and commit crimes -- is that they tend to grow up poor."
First, the reason the children "tend to grow up poor" is that their mothers considered it unnecessary to have a primary bread-earner in the family.
Second, the Times simply made up the fact that poverty, rather than single motherhood, causes anti-social behavior in children. Poverty doesn't cause crime -- single mothers do. If poverty caused crime, how did we get Bernie Madoff?
Studies -- including one by the liberal Progressive Policy Institute -- have shown that controlling for factors such as poverty and socioeconomic status, single motherhood accounts for the entire difference in black and white crime rates.
The Times' claim that poverty is the "biggest reason" for the problems of illegitimate children is on the order of claiming that the biggest reason that smokers develop heart disease and lung cancer is not because they smoke, but because they tend to work so hard. It's a half-baked, wishful-thinking theory contradicted by all known evidence. Other than that, it holds up pretty well.
Finally, the Times produced an imaginary statistic that is valid only in the sense that no study has specifically disproved it yet. "No one has shown," the Times triumphantly announced, "that there are similar risks for the children of college-educated single mothers by choice."
No one has shown that there are similar risks for smokers who run marathons, either. There are probably about as many college graduate single mothers by choice (7 percent) as there are smokers who run marathons. And, unlike single mothers, smokers who run marathons look really cool.
If the establishment media wrote about smoking the way they write about unwed motherhood, I think people would notice that they seem oddly hellbent on destroying as many lives as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)