Chicago

My sarcastic letter to the LA TImes Data Desk

"I'm assuming that Brendan Eich was ousted as CEO of Mozilla due to the Data Desk's work on identifying Prop 8 donors.  I'm using it myself to see who else needs to be removed from their jobs!  Good to see that your work is still having an impact, isn't it?  Do you have other donation lists for other issues  or propositions that we can use to take down other people who support incorrect causes?  Your work is very helpful in this regard!  Card-carrying members of the Communi--- whoops, I mean the "Right-Wing" need to be blacklisted, right? "

Brendan Eich fired for 2008 donation

Why should I care about what Mozilla, the developer of the Firefox browser, does with its personnel decisions?  Mozilla doesn't sell anything that I buy.  Well, a statement is being made and to see the gay bullies get their way on pushing this man aside is designed to create a chilling effect on everyone's free speech.  Brendan Eich, as evidenced by Mozilla's since deleted biography of him, is an extraordinarily talented and qualified individual who has been with this company from the very beginning.  Firing him for making a $1000 donation to a political cause that won a majority vote in 2008 demonstrates the cowardice and incredible absence of loyalty by Mozilla to this man.  

In the 1950's, we had the "Red Scare."  Now it looks like the homosexual activists are seeking ti implement the "Rainbow Scare." They will probe your life and see if you have any opinions or actions that demonstrate a failure to fully support their political cause.  To paraphrase a famous line from the 1950's directed to Senator Joseph McCarthy, "Have the homosexual activists no shame?"

Brendan Eich

CTO and SVP of Engineering

Brendan Eich is CTO and SVP of Engineering for Mozilla, and widely recognized for his enduring contributions to the Internet revolution. In 1995, Eich invented JavaScript (ECMAScript), the Internet’s most widely used programming language. He co-founded the mozilla.org project in 1998, serving as chief architect, and has been a board member of the Mozilla Foundation since its inception in 2003. Brendan helped launch the award-winning Firefox Web browser in November 2004 and Thunderbird e-mail client in December 2004.
In August 2005, Brendan became CTO of Mozilla, and today also manages the product and platform engineering teams. His central focus is guiding the future technical work to keep Mozilla vital and competitive. In the greater Web community, Brendan remains dedicated to driving innovation in Internet technology with his work in JavaScript and with the Mozilla platform.
Brendan holds a bachelor of science in math and computer science from Santa Clara University and a master of science in computer science from the University of Illinois. He and his wife have five children.

Website: brendaneich.com

Twitter: @brendaneich

Poverty article in NYT

Obviously, we needed a new President in 2012 because the current one has failed us.  And now we're stuck with the one we have who is stuck in the 1930's.  This story illustrates that perfectly.  His solution will be to raise the minimum wage to what $15, $20?

Romney Revival

I need to look back on U.S. history to find a better example of our nation choosing the wrong candidate and having it be as glaringly obvious so soon after the election.  The economy, Obamacare, and foreign policy are all clearly Obama failures for which Romney had decidedly different approaches.

Nixon was despised in 1974, but that didn't mean people wished that McGovern had won.  Maybe the 1948 election was similar -- before my time but getting into the Korean War just five years after the end of WWII couldn't have made Truman very popular. But I've never heard of a lot of nostalgia for Thomas Dewey.

On Matt

Matt practices the Cold War policy of Massive Retaliation. A commenter must be prepared for the nearly unending barrage of links, quotes, and comments that will buttress his argument. And Matt will never surrender but may instead use the opponents' own arguments AGAINST him.

College Professor Carl Hart

I read Matt's linked Carl Hart interview and the view that drugs are unfairly scapegoated.  "Dr. Hart uses his life and work to reveal that drugs are not nearly as harmful as many think. " Amazing.  Columbia University.  "If you don't fully appreciate the context, and you think that drug users are awful, then you don't think about how a person takes care of their kid, takes care of their family, goes to work, but they also use drugs." Wow.  An AFDC-loving, pot-smoking, coke-snorting professor who makes excuses for drug-using parents.

(And did you see the UCSB "Feminist Studies" Professor -- look up her specialties --  assault a pro-life teen girl the other day?  These are the elite colleges my daughter has to choose from?)

Drug use sucks and anyone who has had to deal with drug users in their lives knows that. A waste of a life. A waste of money. Hart's closing advice is that you shouldn't mix heroin with other sedatives.  The "Just Say No" campaign caused high school pot use to drop by half from '79 to '93.  Clinton turned that around and now Obama's weak leadership is having the same effect as Carter's and Clinton's did.

Overtime Rules for Salaried Employees

Barack Obama has asked/ruled/regulated/required a change in the rule that exempts salaried employees making more than $25,000 a year from being paid overtime for hours in excess of 40 a week.  Frankly, that being just a but more than $10 an hour, I kind of agree that the rules need to be updated.  But is thus something done by executive fiat?  Do we not have laws that are passed by majority vote to make such changes.

Two Kennedy Cousins against marijuana legalization

Bill O'Reilly had Christopher Lawford and Patrick Kennedy on the O'Reilly Factor on March 12th to talk about addiction and their thoughts on the campaign to legalize marijuana.  I would really like it if all of those who have given up on the fight against drug abuse would watch this interview.  Here is some of what Kennedy said:  "And with another drug being commercialized, one that actually has the for-profit motive of hooking new consumers. They are going to target teenagers. They are going to make their money off of people like myself who are addicts and I just don't think this is the kind of thing that makes our country stronger, families stronger and of course jeopardizes the public health at large."

Here's a link to the interview transcript and video:  http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2014/03/13/consequences-marijuana-legalization

Tobacco Bad . . . but

I just saw one of those anti-tobacco Public Service Announcement ads mixed in with one of the previews for a DVD I rented. It followed the path of a cigarette butt as it was disposed into a toilet and went into the sea or some other body of water. The announcer grimly told us that the butt was toxic.  I skipped to the movie then.

Which got me to thinking.  As the marijuana cigarette is being welcomed into our society I wonder when the PSAs will be ordered and the Class Action Settlements be reached with the various state attorneys general in our country?  And before that, when will the commercials begin?  And will not the proponents of legalization finally admit that legalization will lead to an effort to market marijuana to new users?  It was recently revealed or learned that high school aged kids today are twice as likely as teens of two decades ago to have used marijuana.  (Here's a link to a site - www.drugabuse.gov - on that topic.)

How did that happen?  Medical marijuana laws perhaps?  Do the leaders of today want to return to the days of Barack Obama's high school graduation year of 1979 when nearly 40 percent of 12th Graders had used marijuana in the past month?

Everyone is afraid to be called square so we're all just letting it happen under our eyes.  Nancy Reagan was more courageous than we ever realized when she advised "Just Say No." The results of her leadership are as plain as day in the graph above.

Individual Examples of Our Welfare Society

Am I being hard-hearted for noticing these two stories? . . .

I saw a friend comment about a Facebook post where the poster had observed an attempt to use an EBT card to purchase alcohol and cigarettes.  Actually, the first step was to use the EBT card in an ATM to change into cash. The liquor store owner refused to sell the alcohol to the person, but it seems like an easy loophole to bring cash obtained from some other EBT ATM transaction to purchase such items.

The same day, The Washington Post published an article about a blind woman who uses something called Metro Access to get to her job.  It was a fairly long article with a lot of background on this woman, who seems like a good person.  Metro Access is a taxi service subsidized by public transportation monies for the disabled.  The article stated that it is required due to the ADA law.  One of the reasons for the article was to highlight the fact that potential new Metro fare hikes will hit the disabled hard.  They are asked to pay 200% of the equivalent Metro fare for the use of the Metro Access taxi ride.  Currently, that works out to be a maximum of $7 a ride.  Such personalized service obviously costs far more than $7.00 though.  In fact, the total spent by Metro Access is $114 Million for 2 Million rides.  Which works out to a cost of $57 a ride.  Total revenue is $8 Million, an average of $4.00 a ride.  (One thing that bothered me about the blind woman is that she now lives with a man who is perfectly capable of driving her to an from work.  But she doesn't want to out him out. She'd rather have society pay her way, I guess.)

Medicine choices

 Medicine choices have to be guided by reasonableness and cost.  Paying for optional/non-health related costs should be something that is done out of pocket.  Last week it was revealed that testing is being done to create a three-parent baby using genetic modification technologies.  The current purposes are to eliminate diseases passed on through genes.  That's such a waste of resources.  We already offer donor eggs, donor sperm and even donor uteri.  How essential is it that the mother or father pass on their genes to their baby when other options, including regular adoption, exist.

Of course, don't even get me started on the craziness of spending millions on this research when we have sanctioned the elimination of millions of unborn children since Roe v. Wade.

Democrats praise freedom from jobs

Our political leaders now include Vice-President Biden who declared how great it is that single moms can leave their dead end jobs that they keep only for the health insurance.  They can stay home with the kids. Sure, Joe. One or two questions about that.  People really only have jobs for health care?  Hmmm.. I remember needing to pay rent, buy groceries, buy gas, etc.  So, how are these people going to pay for those things when they have no job?  Joe?

Implicit in this statement is that we've got their housing and food costs covered.  Wow.  Have we really gotten that far away from the 1990's era of welfare reform.  Now the Administration is pushing for more people to sign up for welfare, food stamps, etc.?   I guess that's what an Administration that has utterly failed to make a positive dent with their economic policies would say.

Trans-Sexual Surgery

Washington D.C. Mayor Gray has decreed that insurance companies operating in Washington DC must cover sex reassignment surgery.  Aren't health expenses high enough without requiring coverage of something non-essential like this?

Also related to this issue from National Review, August 2013:

 "We have created a rhetoric of “gender identity” that is disconnected from biological sexual fact, and we have done so largely in the service of enabling the sexual mutilation of physically healthy men and women (significantly more men) by medical authorities who should be barred by professional convention if not by conscience from the removal of healthy organs (and limbs, more on that later), an act that by any reasonable standard ought to be considered mutilation rather than therapy."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356501/bradley-manning-not-woman-kevin-d-williamson

Actual Text not that it matters

One of these laws is (supposedly) terribly homophobic. Which one? Why?  One of these versions has been state law since 1999 and remains in effect regardless of the Brewer veto.

TWO VERSIONS OF THE ARIZONA LAW::

41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected

A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.

B. Except as provided in subsection C, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

C. Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:

1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.

E. In this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.

OTHER VERSION:

41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected

A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.

B. Except as provided in subsection C, of this section, state action shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

C. State action may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the opposing party demonstrates that application of the burden to the person's exercise of religion in this particular instance is both:

1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding. the person asserting such a claim or defense may obtain appropriate relief. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.

E. For the purposes of his section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.

F. For the purposes of this section, "state action" means any action by the government or the implementation or application of any law, including state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether the implementation or application is made or attempted to be made by the government or nongovernmental persons.

NOT a Profile in Courage

Governor Jan Brewer vetoes the Religious freedom act in Arizona yesterday.  It was the easier choice for her.  John F. Kennedy wrote a book, "Profiles in Courage" which included examples of politicians voting to do the right thing despite it not being the popular vote.  Gov. Brewer had the mainstream Republicans, big businesses, and the popular media all pushing her to veto.  So, Brewer took their side instead of standing up for a merchant who will be asked to cater a gay wedding in opposition to their long-held religious beliefs.  So what if that caterer is sued into bankruptcy?  It's just one business versus the dictates of American Airlines or Apple Computer.

Of course that is why it would have taken a politician of courage to stand up for the one versus the many.  Gov. Brewer failed that test.

Here's an op-ed by Tammy Bruce that agrees with me:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/28/brucethe-veto-of-arizonas-religious-freedom-bill-i/?page=all#pagebreak

Gay Bully -- Not an oxymoron

Traditionally, it is assumed that gays are beat up and bullied for their "sissy" behavior by big athletic types.  Nowadays, the tables are turned as gay bullies attempt to force their way onto the rest of us.  Arizona responded to merchant claims that they were being asked to do things that ran counter to their religious beliefs so the legislature passed a law codifying their rights to freedom of religion in conducting their business.  However, the gay lobby has rose up and puit so much pressure on Arizona that even three legislator who voted for the act are now asking the governor to veto it.  Because the next thing that will happen is a boycott would be called and the NFL would be pressured to remove Super Bowls from Arizona, the NCAA would remove BCS Bowls, conventions would be moved, etc.  These are bullies.

(P.S.  My first draft of this post was created before Rush Limbaugh's opening monologue where he too stated that the gay lobby is bullying Governor Jan Brewer.  Great minds . . . )

UAW Defeat

In South Carolina, Volkswagen had an assembly plant that voted on joining the United Auto Workers.  In an unusual move, VW supported the UAW effort to unionize.  So, it was a surprise when the workers voted the union down.  Why?  Maybe because the UAW is so closely associated with President Obama.  Also, wouldn't you be a bit suspicious if your employer wanted you to join the union?

Major announcements from people you probably have never heard of . . .

A college football player no one had heard of outside of his home town announces his homosexuality in a TV interview the other night and now he is famous.  He is essentially lauded as a future jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier.

A few days later and Ellen Page is a lesbian.  Who is Ellen Page, right?  She was in Juno as the pregnant girl in 2007.  Another "who cares?" announcement.

Organic foods and GMO foods

Lots of friends avoid GMO foods -- genetically modified --  or buy organic foods.  Or maybe they need to avoid wheat products (gluten-free) or just believe they have a food addiction disease.  Here's my question:  What's their goal with that diet?  Athletic success?  Weight loss?  Avoiding illness?  Extended life span?

My philosophy is moderation.  Red meat, doughnuts, apple pie, white bread, beer, hot dogs, coffee, pork chops, tortilla chips, etc  Just not too much.  And add in healthy things like apples, oranges, peas and corn.

Maybe I'm blessed with a genetic disposition that doesn't penalize me for eating this way.  My latest physical exam came out just fine.  The best thing is food is a very small part of my life unlike my friends who must buy organic and avoid the GMO foods and worry about their food addictions.

Hmmm . . .Is this politics?  Well, yes, as people press for legislation to restrict food choices (trans-fat bans, 16 oz. soda limits) or are upset with Monsanto for whatever they do that supposedly modifies foods. Those are political acts.

Greg Gutfeld

I think Greg Gutfeld is very funny and clever and smart.  I watch him as a part of "The Five" on FNC and before that I might have seen him on Red Eye late at night. I hadn't ever read up on his background until just now.  Turns out, we share a lot in common.  From Wikipedia:

Gutfeld was born in San Mateo, California. He attended Junípero Serra High School^[3] and the University of California, Berkeley, graduating in 1987.^[4] In a 2009 interview, Gutfeld explained that he started to experience a change in his political thinking while he was attending UC Berkeley:^[5]

"I became a conservative by being around liberals (at UC Berkeley) and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives. You realize that there's something distinctly in common between the two groups, the left and the right; the worst part of each of them is the moralizing."

He currently resides in New York City with his wife, Elena Moussa, whom he met in London, where he lived for three years. He has described himself as an "agnostic atheist".^[5][6] Gutfeld was raised Catholic and once was an altar boy.^[7]

Which means that he probably had to stop by my office at 120 Sproul Hall sometime between 1985 and 1987 when he graduated from Cal.  

I guess I haven't hung around enough conservatives to become the libertarian that Gutfeld became.

Lay People Following Church Teachings

I'm so confused by a friend's comments about gay marriage.  The friend seems supportive of various gay political issues and I wouldn't inquire about it except that I know this friend became an LDS member 10 to 15 years ago and I checked Mormon.org and it still says this at the FAQ page (and I fully agree with it although I'm not an LDS member):

"People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

AOL - Tim Armstrong

An old friend posted an angry response to AOL CEO Tim Armstrong's recent kerfuffle regarding his mentioning the high health care cost of "distressed babies" born within the past year.  She suffered through  a loss of a preemie 10 years ago, so it hit home for her.

She linked to an article on Slate.com which was written by the mother of one of the babies in question.  And in that article the woman really seems to take after CEO Armstrong.  That cannot put her husband who works at AOL in a comfortable position.   She's made it a battle between her family and Tim Armstrong.  And AOL now owns Huffington Post, so Slate is kind of a competitor.

In truth, shouldn't the mom be eternally grateful for the $1 Million in benefits that were paid to help her beloved child survive and eventually thrive? Instead, she's mad at Armstrong for mentioning that the company had high health expenses and now has to deal with the consequences.

What will happen when ObamaCare is fully implemented and the IPAB decides that it is not cost-worthy to invest the money into this pre-term baby's health?  Because that day is coming.  Unless America acts to change the law soon.

Last week's report on Obamacare effect on jobs

The CBO analysis that ObamaCare will result in 2.2 million fewer jobs was based on the theory that people would choose to work less due to substantial disincentives as salaries increased and health care subsidies decreased.

Democrats are trying to say that fewer hours worked is a good thing for those who can do other things with their time.  Seems like you could say the same about food stamps and welfare payments. I'm sure AFDC was justified because single moms needed to money to take care of their kids.  But we established welfare reform in the 1990's (signed by a Democrat).  Food Stamps are now given out to nearly 50 Million people.

Good parents know that there comes a time when you have to stop acceding to every one of your child's demands.  If you never ask the child to take some responsibility, he'll always be dependent upon you.  You can worry and instead continue to keep your child at home as he enters his 20's and 30's, OR you can send him out into the world where he will become an adult and learn to take care of himself.  The Obama Administration is going backwards to the 60's where they seek to have the people dependent upon politicians for their well-being.

Sochi Opening Ceremonies

Started to watch.  Had it on the DVR.  Fast forward and there's Obama again!  Good grief!  When did major sports events begin to require these political interviews?  Enough.  Betcha Obama would have gone in 1980 if it were still the Soviet Union and Brezhnev were the leader.

Anyway, my daughters and wife like the parade of nations.  I quickly remembered that I don't care a whit about it and especially cannot stand the commentary from the Today show hosts Meredith Viera and the closely cropped and nearly bald Matt Lauer.

I'm catching up on American Idol on DVR from Wednesday/Thursday instead.

Pot

In the late 1970s, I had a college roommate who literally smoked marijuana every night.  That might not be fair to Stan, but it's the impression I came away with.  Stan was a nice guy. A smart guy.  I always thought that his drive for success was weakened by the pot smoking, but who knows.  He just enjoyed smoking joints and so did plenty of others at Cal Berkeley in 1979.  Was it illegal?  Yes, sure.  But no one ever acted like there was any penalty. My first rock concert - Paul McCartney and Wings, June 1976 - the smell of marijuana was everywhere and me and my fellow15 year old friends were offered free tokes.  We refused (at least I know I did.)

That's my background on the subject.  Never tried the stuff.  Berkeley was hard enough for me without altering my brain with chemicals.

They say that marijuana isn't addictive -- at least physically -- but is addictive psychologically. How else to explain the persistence of the legalization crowd?  It is unreasonably important to them.

The argument is made that allowing adults the legal use of the drug is harmless and will be beneficial to society as police and court enforcement costs will be saved.  But, no one is saying it should be legal to anyone under 21, so there will still be police enforcing the law and courts adjudicating.  And it's also probably true that almost no one will become a pot smoker if they must wait until 21. (Studies, anyone?)

It is said that marijuana is as safe -- maybe safer - than alcohol.  Perhaps it would be difficult or impossible to die from an overdose of marijuana. Other drugs -- yes.  Alcohol in great excess -- yes.  All true.  But the one thing about pot is that --  unlike alcohol or other pills or powders or needle- based drugs --  the second-hand smoke itself is an intoxicant.  Or at least that is the legend.   Our President Barack Obama himself wrote about the joys of inhaling the second hand smoke for an extra kick.  From the 2012 David Maraniss biography:  "His other innovation was the "roof hit," in which the Choom Gang would roll up the windows of a car and smoke inside. Once all the weed was gone, they would tilt their heads back and suck in the remaining smoke from the car ceiling."   I know that if I lived in an apartment or condo and smelled pot, I'd feel I was within my rights to demand that it be stopped.  As we have established with tobacco smoke, your right to smoke-- anything --  ends where my nose and lungs begin.

Economic Records Matter

I was a liberal Democrat in 1980 and did not support Ronald Reagan, but after five years, it was clear that Reagan was right and I was wrong. The economy was thriving by 1986. Obama's five year economic record is now plain to see and few will be saying that Obama was right on the economy. At this point, I don't even think he cares.

Food Stamp Cut

A comment that I wrote but chose not to post on Facebook recently:

If you believe that the food stamp program was cut, then you must also believe that Obama cut the deficit in half.  Both are technically true but fail to point out that Obama first increased the budget deficit and hiked the food stamp budget to record levels.  48 Million still on food stamps and we've been out of the recession for almost five years. 

Healthcare

A clever friend posted a video by some guy who explained in an entertaining manner that a hip replacement in Spain is so much cheaper than it is in America.  Here's the response I wanted to make:

A cool video link.  Informative.  But most American hip replacements would be covered by Medicare or private insurance and the patient would pay far less than $7,371, let alone $40,364.  We have had a Mervis Diamonds radio commercial out here for decades:  "Nobody pays retail any more.  Why should you?"   That's American healthcare. 

But I don't think it's really fair to compare between countries.  Quality might be different.  We go out of plan to choose our pediatric dentists and are amazed at the difference in how much insurance pays for a procedure and what we are charged.  But it is our choice. We choose quality over price.

Here's an author that discusses how his American private hospital hip replacement was probably better than a run-of-the mill operation done by an American doctor or a Canadian one would have been.  http://whostolemycareer.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/my-hip-replacement-and-obamacare/

Total Government Spending Chart

Facebook postings and comments are great for inspiring thoughts and ideas.  When I saw someone posted that federal DISCRETIONARY spending shows 57% being spent on Defense, I thought that was an incomplete statistic. For a different, comprehensive perspective, this pie chart shows ALL spending - discretionary and mandatory - for Federal, State, Local governments.

Anyway, an argument could be made that the ONLY necessary federal spending is for Defense.  All other functions could be left to the states.
 
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2014_US_total

Medical Billing

Steven Brill wrote an excellent piece in TIME last year which included some discussion of the "list prices" and real prices for various services and products. As with many issues, the problems are easier to identify than the solutions. 
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf
Brill- "thousands of nonprofit institutions have morphed into high-profit, high-profile businesses that have the best of both worlds." The article pointed out that "non-profit" MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas had an operating profit of "$531 million. That’s a profit margin of 26% on revenue of $2.05 billion, an astounding result for such a service-intensive enterprise."

"Mitt" Netflx Movie Review

"Mitt" was good but I was hoping for a different ending. (ha ha) Romney demonstrated that he understood his strengths and weaknesses and was able to realistically assess his own performances. He appreciated the fact that he started life with great advantages due to his father's business and political success. I didn't see him surrounded by yes-men. He gave a great analysis in the middle of the movie that the basic flaw of the Obama Administration is that Obama's people have no clue what it is like to be in the business world because they are all lawyers.

So much to say . . .

My daughter is noticing that I get into political "conversations" with friends on Facebook.  And she's concerned that the Facebook friend's family will not like her any more because of my political views.  I don't think she's right, but I have always felt uncomfortable using Facebook for political expressions.  My practice of late has been to merely comment on the political posts of others.  Little bugs me more than when someone posts a political view as though it were the last word and that no one of any intelligence could disagree.  I feel obligated to say something.  So, maybe I will try to just say it here.

It was two or three  four years ago that there was so much made about a Focus on the Family commercial starring Tim Tebow and his mom which gently supported the cause of the right to life.  We have so lost the social values battle in our mainstream media.  The one 30-second FOTF ad versus a mass gay wedding at the end of the Grammys last month.  As I almost posted to a Facebook comment: That mass "SLGBTQ wedding" had nothing to do with music and everything to do with politics. It reminded me of the Moonie mass weddings of the 80's.  (I guess they still have them!)  Weird.   Especially since this was a music show.  Next year, perhaps it  will be polygamous marriages hooking up legally?  Why not?  Those "sister wives" probably feel oppressed too.  

I choose to teach my children that marriage is between males and females.  Why shove that in our faces when you know that a large segment of the population feels strongly about that issue. Their goal is to marginalize opponents, shut them up and call them names. If you disagree, you will be ostracized.  It's a brutal industry your daughter has chosen that will try to chew up her values.  

 Not my quote, but I agree with it:  "It's clear what they were doing at the Grammys [Sunday] night -- and the same at the Academy Awards.  They make fun of the people in flyover country, which is the bulk of the audience. They laugh at them, or they purposely try to offend. They make fun of their own audience -- and they laugh all the way to the bank doing it."

Oh, and guess who's hosting the Academy Awards?  Ellen "Yep, I'm Gay" Degeneres.

And the Disney Channel (!) aired a kids show that same night that highlighted a gay couple.  No warning. No ratings modification.

Many of our Republican colleagues are buckling in the face of the media onslaught.  Consistency doesn't matter.  The fact that almost all of the Democrats had stated their opposition to gay marriage over the past 20 years doesn't matter.  No core values to guide them. Mere political opportunism.

The State of Virginia's Attorney General is refusing to defend the constitution of his own state in the Gay Marriage issue.  Somehow, for the nearly 225 years of the United States Constitution, states were committing violations by only permitting men and women to marry each other.  Isn't that something?  Isn't that infuriating?  Just make it all up after hundreds of years of precedent because it suits one's cause.