American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

What the heck. Has anyone actually looked at were this 900 BILLION dollars is going? If you want to have a look, you can find the full text of what passed the House here:
The Library of Congress: THOMAS


I have been looking over this, and it basically looks to me like we are funding everything that should already be funded. Most of the stuff is going to wards additional acts and bills that already have funding. But we are just throwing more money at them. Can anyone find anything that is directly related to helping the middle class. I see a lot of military spending, and alternative energy grants. But were is the stuff that is actually going to stimulate the economy. I thought the democrats were against trickle down economics. But they are just giving money to people who they have already given money to. But lets not forget all the special projects they are sending funds to as well.

Please, help me understand how this Act is going to help the middle class get out of a recession besides increasing jobs by increasing government employees?

Awesome Quote - Blagojevich

"I did a lot of things that were mostly right."

What??? Did you do anything that was right, or was everything mostly right? And what about the other things, were they mostly wrong?

Just in case you don't know who this guy is. He is the current Gov. of Ill that is currently in the process of being impeached by his states politicians.

Google News - Funny listing.

I just thought this was funny, and wanted to post it. (Ok, I was told that some people don't get this.) The title is Ice Storm blacks out part of Plains. And then the picture to the left of the post is just a black square. Kinda like someone tried to take a picture of the black out.

It just made me laugh.

HUH?? Which do you think is more EVIL?

OK, so here it is. Pretender-in-chief Obama on Jan 22nd, 2009 executed several Executive Orders. Basically, he limited how and were prisoners of war or terrorists could be held and questioned. He thinks we are being to hard on people that would in a moments notice pick up a gun and kill any citizen of the US they could. We need to be nice to them, and make their stay in our prisons nicer than their own homes. So he made three executive orders.

1. Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities
2. Review of Detention Policy Options
3. Ensuring Lawful Interrogations

And on Jan 23rd, 2009 he did a presidential memorandum that revoked the limitations placed by President Reagan, President Bush, and President George W Bush. These limitations made it so that federal monies and grants could not be used to fund "advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available." [Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationPlanning/]

This is my question.

Is it more important to protect the rights of a person who is willing to kill any American citizen if they can, or is more important to protect the rights of a defenseless baby that could help make American a better country?

I just don't get the logic. Lets make abortion (murder) easier, but also make it better for people that fight against America. I am baffled.

You take the pick... As for me, I would want to see the Anti-American suffer, and the helpless baby live to its potential and increase the value of America.

Ice Cream & The Election

Disclaimer: I got this from a co-worker, so I don't have a source for where it came from, but I think the meaning is well taken.

From a teacher in the Nashville area.

Who worries about "the cow" when it is all about the "Ice Cream?

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.

The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.

I decided we would have an election for a class president.

We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.

To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.

We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.

We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections.

Both candidates were good kids. I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first.

He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best.

Everyone applauded. He sat down and Olivia came to the podium. Her speech was concise.

She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.

The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream." She surely could say more. She did not have to.

A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure.

Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it? She didn't know.

The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream.

Jamie was forgotten.

Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and fifty-two percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream.

The other forty-eight percent of us know we're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.

Board sides with evolution in curriculum debate

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6225827.html
Board sides with evolution in curriculum debate

By APRIL CASTRO Associated Press Writer

Basically, the State Board of Education in Texas changed the wording of the curriculum. It use to say that Evolution had to be taught and that both "strengths and weaknesses" need to be discussed.

The article continues to go on and say:

"It's outrageous that our highest elected education officials voted to silence teachers and students in science class," said Jonathan Saenz, a lobbyist for the Free Market Foundation. "Despite being overwhelmed bye-mails and phone calls to keep strengths and weaknesses, the divided State Board of Education ignored constituents and sided with a small group of activists."

Once again, we see that elected officials think that they know better than we do when it comes to what we want. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I am really tired of hearing how the populous wants one thing, but we are going to do something else. Like the bail out package, the majority of the population said no. Senator Bennett R-Utah even went as far to say that he knows that the people he represents are against it, but that he thinks he knows better than they do. But now that it has passed, and they are asking for more money, he thinks it is a bad idea.

Lets chalk another one up to special interest groups and the minority forcing their agenda on the majority.

Do you ever think that pompus ass elected officials will EVER listen to what the majority of the people want? And why do you think we keep electing people that WON'T listen to us as a group of individuals? I am sick of it. I hope they realize what they are doing and that they WILL be held accountable for their actions.

Obama Executive Order - Guantanamo Bay Closure

Obama today signed the EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES.

In my opinion, this is just asking for trouble. Why do we want to bring people who fight against American and what its values on US Soil? I feel this is a sign to the World that we are going to get soft on terrorism. Hey, heck, lets do a terrorist act against the US... At least we will get housed in a US prison and won't have to worry about finding food, etc. This makes terrorism a quick one way ticket to the US. I am not condoning torture, but aggressive interrogation tactics need to be done. Thats all we need is to make it so that the military bases can now be picketed by some bleeding heart liberals.

This will cause problems.... But hey, I live in Utah, and at least it is not being requested to send them here, like it has been in Pennsylvania.

Inauguration Benediction - Rev Lowry

Did this make anyone else upset? I thought we were suppose to be looking past color, and embracing change...

"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around -- (laughter) -- when yellow will be mellow -- (laughter) -- when the red man can get ahead, man -- (laughter) -- and when white will embrace what is right." 1/20/2009 - Inauguration of President H Obama

What do you think about his ending remarks?

Full text can be found here: blog.suntimes.com
More info on Rev Joseph Lowery can be found here: wikipedia.org

Margaret Sanger - Mother of Planned Parenthood

From the Planned Parenthood website:

Planned Parenthood dates its beginnings to 1916 when Sanger, her sister, and a friend open America's first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. In Sanger's America, women cannot vote, sign contracts, have bank accounts, or divorce abusive husbands. They cannot control the number of children they have or obtain information about birth control, because in the 1870s a series of draconian measures, called the Comstock laws, made contraception illegal and declared information about family planning and contraception "obscene."

Sanger knows the tragic toll of such ignorance. Her mother had 18 pregnancies, bore 11 children, and died in 1899 at the age of 40. Working as a nurse with immigrant families on New York's Lower East Side, Sanger witnesses the sickness, misery, and death that result from unwanted pregnancy and illegal abortion. The clinic she opens provides contraceptive advice to poor, immigrant women, some of whom line up hours before the doors open. Police raid the clinic and all three women are convicted of disseminating birth control information.

Undaunted, Sanger founds The Birth Control Review, the first scientific journal devoted to contraception. She also appeals her conviction, which leads to a new, liberalized interpretation of New York's anti-contraception statute.

In 1923 Sanger opens the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau in Manhattan to provide contraceptive devices to women and collect accurate statistics to prove their safety and long-term effectiveness.

That same year, Sanger incorporates the American Birth Control League, an ambitious new organization that embraces the global issues of world population growth, disarmament, and world famine. The two organizations subsequently merge, and later become Planned Parenthood® Federation of America, Inc. (PPFA®).
[Source: PlannedParenthood.org]

Now, lets look a little more at the philosophies of Margaret Sanger. Planned parenthood is suppose to help the poverty stricken and the lower middle class. It is suppose to be a tool for them to become educated on birth control and the like. Do you really think that was what Margaret Sanger had in mind? Lets look at some of the things she stood for.

Margaret Sanger was a BIG supporter of Eugenics programs. Eugenics, basically is the political and moral ideology of improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention (including sterilization and abortion).

Here are some of the things that she has said...

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."
Margaret Sanger. The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

"The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order..."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.

In the American Weekly Magazine in 1934. There was an article written by Margaret Sanger entitled "The American Baby Code". This code basically says that a marriage license does not give a couple the right to have a baby. But you have to have a permit to parenthood. And that permit will be issued by the government, if the parents are financially able to support the child, can properly rear the child, have no transmissible diseases, or the women will not be permanently injured.

According to Margaret Sanger, the purpose of Planned Parenthood is to eliminate the under classes from being "Human Waste". To stop undesirable traits from propagating more into society.

Enhancing Child Safety on-line.

A study recently done by the Internet Safety Technical Task Force as been published. They have a Final Report that was published December 31, 2008. The report is written to the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking of State Attorneys General of the United States, but it has a section in it for recommendations for Parents and Caregivers (page 38).

Here are the suggestions they give for Parents and Caregivers, I am paraphrasing.

1. Parents and caregivers should educate themselves. Learn what the internet is, and the ways that their children us it.
2. Parents and caregivers should explore and research technologies that they can use to help with the threats children encounter on the internet. (One thing we do as a family is have all our internet traffic use a service called opendns. This service blocks websites that are tagged as adult, and you can add to the list.)
3. You should discuss internet usage with your children, and an early age. Don't wait for them to find the stuff you don't want them to find. Let them know what they can and can't do on the internet.
4. Don't just focus on the hypothetical dangers on the internet. Discuss the common risks with your children and keep open lines of communication about the Internet.
5. Know who your kids are hanging around with, and the at-risk kids in your neighborhoods. Help them get help and be aware of the at-risk behaviors that could affect your children.
6. If you need help as a parent or caregiver, ask for it. Use schools, mental health professionals, social services, law enforcement and others if you need help. Use all of the resources at your disposal and ask for help if you need it.

One thing that is not mentioned here, but that I think is very important. HAVE your computer in a public area (front room, kitchen, etc). Don't let your children on the internet in their own bedrooms, etc.

Intellectual Design vs Evolution (Darwinism)

Intellectual Design vs Evolution (Darwinism)

First, lets define the terms.

Intellectual Design: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Source: http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

Evolution: In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Basically, ID says that the life did not start by chance, but was designed by some intelligence. While evolution says that life started by chance and there was no design involved.

So, since both theories cannot be proven why does the scientific community fight ID so hard? Why do they shun anyone that tries to prove ID and disprove evolution.

There are several parts of evolution that can be proven, but not the origin of life. Natural selection (the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes) does happen in nature. The problem is that Humans are not largely influenced by natural selection. As a species, we have developed the ability to remove natural selection from the equation. We allow the weak the feeble to exist, and have found ways to keep unfavorable traits alive and non lethal.

An example would be of my knee injury. If natural selection and survival of the fittest were a factor in my existence, when I lost the use of both of my legs, I would of lost my life. If I was a species besides Human, I would of either died from exposure to the elements, been left behind by my pack or group, or eaten by a predator. But because I am a human that did not happen. I was able to adapt and with help return to almost normal functioning. Think of the people you know, and how many of them would of fallen to natural selection if Humans did not have the ability to adapt.

But what happens when the idea of an intelligence influencing evolution and the creation of life is removed from the Schools and shunned by the scientific community? It is devastating to the society in which it happens.

Let me explain. Evolution pushes the idea of no God. Life started by chance, and there is no supreme intelligence that helped design life. If there is no God or supreme intelligence, then there is no after life. We are born, we live, and then we die. That is it, nothing after this life. If there is no after life, and this life is all we have, then I am not driven by morals, but driven by physical need and desires. If the law is the only moral type of compass I have, then anything I want to do is fine, as long as the law does not punish me.

See where I am going with this one? If ID was not part of the beginning of life, then all we have for a moral compass is our own physical needs and desires.

Think about that. What happens if everyone in a society believes that? Then society turns to only being driven by personal needs and wants. Imagine the rush hour traffic if all morals go out the window and the only thing people are driven by is the fear of being caught breaking a law, and being punished. The laws are already in place, and how many people do you see breaking them? Take the normal drive home. How many laws do you see broken because people believe they can get away with it?

Now lets take it one more step, and bring Natural Selection back into it. What happens when we as Humans decide that we should stop our ability to control Natural Selection, and let it takes its course, because Evolution is the only answer.

This has already started to happen. Think about it. We can test babies in the womb and abort them if they are not what we want to have. In essence we are self imposing Natural Selection. If the test is positive, and it is going to cause us physical burden to have the baby, then we just abort it. And this is even easier if you believe that there is no after-life, and if the law says it is OK, then it is OK.

Another example, is that of Eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) which is basically the belief that we can improve human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. In other words, you impose Natural Selection on the population in hopes that you can improve future generations. Sound familiar? The Nazi Holocaust was an attempt to try and create the supreme race. As a side note, the modern term was formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883. Guess who's works and writings he used for his work? His cousin Charles Darwin, the father of Evolution or Darwinism.

If the only thing taught is Evolution, and that there is no supreme intelligence, then we are only governed by physical needs and desires. Then the following are OK, as long as they satisfy physical needs or desires and help Natural Selection.

Abortion is OK.

Eugenics is OK.

Euthanasia is OK.

Genocide is OK.

And the list will go on and on. Why not, there is no after-life, there is no GOD, and the law says it is OK.

The death of Direct TV...

Well, we did it. Momzoo and I have been toying with the idea for a while now. Because of the crap that is being shown on T.V. now days (including commercials), and the fact we can't see spending $60.00 a month for T.V., we have canceled our Direct TV account.

Enter NetFlix. So we have signed up for NetFlix to help with our withdraw from mindless nightly entertainment. The main reason we went with them is because you can get documentaries as well.

I will keep you posted. The problem will be punk kid #4 (or 4 of 5). She is going to miss firefighter Sam, and her morning cartoons.

Montana Truck....

I did not take these pictures, they were emailed to me by a friend.

The medical speak.....

I was on my health insurances website http://www.myihc.com/ and found that they have all of the findings for any imaging, etc that I have had done at an IHC facility. So I found what the doctor dictated about the MRI that was taken on my knee. So, being the geek I am, I am going to post it here with links to the terms I don't know. This is more of a learning exercise for me than anything else, so here it goes.

---------

MRI of the right knee without contrast December 30, 2008.

Comparison:

Right knee radiographs from 12/22/2008.

History:

Right medial knee pain since a fall on 12/22/2008.

Technique:

Using a high field magnet, the following sequenceswere obtained: coronal T2 FSE with fat saturation and T1 SE;sagittal PD, T2 FSE with fat saturation, and T1 gradient; axialT2 FSE with fat saturation. No gadolinium contrast agent wasadministered.

---------

Findings:

There is mild blunting of the free edge of the body of the medial meniscus without evidence of a displaced or significant tear. This is likely degenerative.

There is a normal lateral meniscus without evidence of a tear or central degeneration.

There is an intact anterior cruciate ligament with mildly increased central signal near the tibial insertion, a normal variant.

There is a normal posterior cruciate ligament.

There is a normal fibular collateral ligament. The posterolateral corner, biceps femoris tendon, popliteus tendon, and iliotibial band are unremarkable.

There is increased signal around and intact medial collateral ligament. The semimembranosus tendon, and tendons of the pes anserinus insertion are unremarkable.

The visualized portions of the quadriceps tendon and the patellar tendon are normal. The medial retinaculum appears torn. The lateral retinaculum appears intact. While the patella is anatomically located at this time, there is evidence of a recent talar dislocation with a bone marrow contusion along the medial aspect of the talus and a bone marrow contusion and likely a small indentation fracture without displacement involving the lateral aspect of the lateral femoral condyle anteriorly.

There is a moderate knee effusion. There is a fluid/fluid level within it consistent with hemarthrosis.

There is a grade 2 cartilage lesion involving the lateral facet of patella with thinning and irregularity of less than 50%. There is also cartilage thinning measuring less than 50% involving the weight-bearing surface of the medial femoral condyle that appears focal as seen on coronal series 6 image 8 measuring about 3 x 3 mm in size. Mild grade 1 cartilage signal abnormality consistent with degeneration is present in the lateral femoral tibial compartment.

Impression:

1. Evidence of a recent right patellar dislocation with a contusion involving the patella and a contusion as well as small indentation fracture without displacement involving the lateral femoral condyle of the right knee. The medial retinaculum of the knee is torn, and this also contributes to inflammation around the medial collateral ligament.


2. Moderately large effusion with hemarthrosis noted.


3. Cartilage abnormalities as described consistent with degeneration. There is also subtle blunting of the free edge of the body of the medial meniscus without evidence of a significant tear.

Let Bygones....

Let Bygones...

The rest of the world cannot understand how after bitter election campaigns,

American politicians can return to reality. For instance, Sarah Palin has invited to her great state of Alaska the men who defeated her, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

She has provided a moose hunting trip for their enjoyment and has hired two other prominent men to assist them. Dick Cheney will instruct them in safe gun handling, and Ted Kennedy will drive them back to their cabins in the evening.

What a gal! That Sarah is such a sport and thinks of everything!

------

I hope that all of use can do the same as Sarah and let bygones be bygones. Lets bury the hatchet and start anew...