Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Where Is The Obama Money Coming From?

I haven't seen campaign donations as suspicious as this since the days of VP Al Gore trolling in Buddhist temples for the dough - and coming away with thousands from vowed-to-poverty monks & nuns.

How suspicious?
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 -- still well over the $4,600 limit.

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.
Go, read the rest of the article - if it doesn't make you go "Huh?", NOTHING that is raised about the Obama campaign will cause you to resume your normal critical facilities.

More troubling are the foreign contributions:
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
Why is that type of contribution "questionable"?
U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.

The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.
It doesn't just raise eyebrows to have foreigners throw money at presidential (and other) candidates, it's ILLEGAL.

So, might I assume that the Obama campaign, when notified of the problems, says "Dearie me, I had no idea! Of course, I'll cut a refund check, right now!"

I may assume, but you remember that action makes an ASS out of U & ME.
the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.

But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.

Why can't such a popular guy just raise the money LEGALLY?

Don't ask such a silly question.

I mean it - don't ask. Come November, it'll be illegal.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Bill Whittle Rides Again!

I normally don't pat myself on the back about beating bloggers to the punch, but, when it's Bill Whittle...

Rats!

I just checked the date on his new piece in the National Review, and he pre-dates me. By a whole day. Doesn't matter that I didn't read it until now.

However, I CAN say that great minds think alike. From Whittle:
And this is my concern about the $700 billion kidney stone the economy is trying to pass. It seems to me that if we are going to change behaviors then the people who got us into this mess need to feel a little pain. If the hospital was handing out free Dilaudid every day my first question would be “what time do you guys open?” I’d pass 50 kidney stones a day if I could get to play with the unicorns instead of suffering for it.

Every decision we make is based on a risk/reward calculation. If we take away the consequences of risky behavior, we will see more of it. And if there’s a money-back guarantee for greedy and stupid decisions, we’re in real trouble, because there is only so much money in the bank but supplies of greed and stupidity are endless.
And, from me:
Really, the argument for NOT funding a bailout is that:

Those of us who are ants really don't want to give the grasshoppers another excuse to NOT learn their lesson. Sometimes, it's the lessons that hurt the most that you need to learn.

I feel strongly that those who lived the high life need to get a wake-up call:

* You don't own your house if you had 100% financing
* You don't own your car if it's leased
* If you bought your possessions on credit, they AIN'T really YOURS
* and, most importantly, if you can't save each month because all your money is committed to paying creditors, you need to reduce your inflated standard of living.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

The Financial "Crisis"

The longer the debate goes on, the more I don't like it.

I'm not the only one - part of the problem is that we were told "act quickly, or the opportunity will disappear!" by Paulson. It has the feel of a VERY high-pressure salesman, looking to get his hands on your cash, before you have the chance to think about it.

SC Conservative (just added to the blogroll) has a breakdown that gives voice to some of my feelings.

I'm not seeing activity that gives me the feeling that The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling - at least, not for real.

The major issue we have right now, in the greater Charlotte region is the lack of gas. We have been hard hit by the offline Galveston refineries - many stations limit customers to 10 gallons. With my husband and I having a daily commute to Charlotte of about 30 miles each way, it's been challenging. School activities have been limited for the duration of the shortage, if they involve the need for transportation.

Really, the argument for NOT funding a bailout is that:

Those of us who are ants really don't want to give the grasshoppers another excuse to NOT learn their lesson. Sometimes, it's the lessons that hurt the most that you need to learn.

I feel strongly that those who lived the high life need to get a wake-up call:

  • You don't own your house if you had 100% financing
  • You don't own your car if it's leased
  • If you bought your possessions on credit, they AIN'T really YOURS
  • and, most importantly, if you can't save each month because all your money is committed to paying creditors, you need to reduce your inflated standard of living.
I just say that Amber woman (from the Scott Peterson case) on the TV the day before yesterday. She was telling a reporter that she had lost her home to foreclosure. She paid a half million dollars for it in the first place. What kind of an idiot buys a house that her REAL income won't support? By real income, I mean don't count on the money from your temporary "fame" to last - she was a brief celebrity. What she really was, was a blue-collar single mom. And, once the fame train left, she was still standing at the station.

Without cash. But, with new bills.

Some of these bankrupt people were making less than $60,000 a year from all sources. Yet, they bought homes 2 or 3 times as expensive as what I have - and my income is about twice theirs. It was a massive case of self-delusion, enabled by the very guys who now want protection from their credit-pushing actions.

I wouldn't mind setting up a fund that gives any foreclosed person a few months rent money. That would be charitable. But we don't OWE them anything.

Except our pity.

The First Debate, and Other Things

OMG!

Does Ace of Spades explain it all to Obama about why meeting with world leaders is not a chance to Jimmy Carter it up, wide-eyed, eager to talk, ready to be The Healer?
You know what would happen if an Obama administration asked to meet face to face with Khamenei? If Obumble-mumble was lucky, his request would simply go unanswered. That's hoping that Obumble-mumble didn't make the request public, but did it through back channels. If he was unlucky, no matter how quiet the request, the Iranians would make the request public and still not answer.

Khamenei would make Obama his bitch. In public. The Islamists like Hezbollah would be repeating it from one end of the ME to the other, showing their followers and wanna be's the power of the Ayatollah to dis the President of the United States. See, he comes on bended knee to the most powerful man in the Middle East. Whatever Syria was thinking about their US relationship, they'd hedge into the Iranian camp further.
It is a bitch-slapping of major proportions.



Plus, don't miss this post by The Volokh Conspiracy that shows a flaw in the bailout (OTHER than the ones already discussed) - it comes down to the meaning of PROFIT. Go check out the post - failure to do so can cost you even more money than you thought the bill would.

Is the Bailout a Good Idea, or Quite Possibly the Worst Idea Since Disco?

I'm getting really torn about this. My first impulse was to say, "yes, of course, we can't have the risk of a meltdown".

I'm not so sure now. It's been several days, and the stock market isn't in free-fall yet. What MAY happen is that financial institutions that made butt-head decisions may take a hit. Some may even be bought out.

I can't say that I really understand why someone would want to buy a failing bank or financial company, but they keep getting scooped up by another company. The new, larger bank always seems to handle it.

Of course, that does leave some workers on the street. Which is tough - particularly for the older workers, who may experience great difficulty getting another job.

There's a lesson here, I think. No matter how great your income, no matter how big the company you work for, you have to be prepared to lose it all.

So, pay down your debt while you have the money. Don't buy the biggest house you can qualify for (that would have been excellent advice for many homeowners - they might have avoided bankruptcy), and don't box yourself in so tight that a few months unemployment will bring your life crashing down.

Palin on Couric

I thought the Couric interview (the parts that I saw - I missed some, due to a telephone call) was not great for Palin. She appeared over-coached and stiff. I think one of the problems is that she's become afraid of making the Ultimate Mistake - the one that sinks the campaign - and is working hard to stay within the set phrases she's been told to use. They don't sound like her, however, and it shows.

What can she do?

  1. Keep interviewing - with the small-town paper and radio stations, and with local television. They'll love the opportunity, and it's a chance to get practice without too much pressure. Nobody's great, at first - it takes some time to make it all seem natural.

  2. Do the hardest thing - tape yourself, and listen to the critiques. It is embarrassing to hear yourself, but it's worth it.

  3. Use the words "for example" - she can't just repeat herself with sound bites. She needs to give concrete examples of her statements. For example, when asked about McCain's economic plans, she needs to use the example of his efforts to tighten up the rules on lending - which, if the legislation had passed, could have prevented this current financial crisis.

  4. Relax. It's unlikely that a single interview will cause an election loss. She's nervous, and it shows. She needs to learn how to take control of an interview, veer off topic with an anecdote, and give herself some breathing space.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Women & Pay Discrimination

I found a reference to the Lily Ledbetter case - she's the one who charged her employer with discrimination, only to be told that she had filed too late. She says that she couldn't have known the men were being paid more, until years later.

Oh, yeah?

Not so. Powerline has the post, and demolishes her claim. Pity that the MSM won't correct their deferential coverage of her "plight".

Guys, I'm all for raising hell when there's a real injustice. And, for some women, pay differences are an injustice.

But, this case isn't one of them.

Further, she contradicts her story - in her own words:
Ledbetter claims that "the only way that I really knew [about the pay discrimination] was that someone left an anonymous note in my mailbox showing my pay and the pay for the three males who were doing the same job, just on different shifts." According to Ledbetter, "when I saw that note, it just floored me. I was so shocked at the amount of difference in our pay for doing the same exact job. And I went immediately to EEOC."

This claim, of course, cannot be reconciled with her sworn testimony that three years before allegedly receiving the "anonymous note," she told her supervisor that she definitively knew that she was making thousands less than her male counterparts for the same work.
Exact same job?

No!

I've worked different shifts - it can be a killer. Your body rebels at staying awake during the day on the weekend, so it interrupts family life. It also works against natural sleep cycles - we are NOT naturally nocturnal, and resist staying awake when it's dark outside.

It's no small inconvenience. It has been shown to reduce life expectancy in shift workers.

So, if she knew that the workers on different shifts were paid more, why didn't she apply to work those shifts? If you know your employer pays more to different shifts, then a smart person, who wants the money, takes the initiative and upends their life for the money.

It's because she didn't want the money badly enough to work for it. She wanted it to fall into her lap, because she's a woman.

Shame on her for lying about the case!

PBS Poll on Palin

Go over and hook a sista' up, would you?

Even with the leftward bias on PBS, Palin is comfortably on the positive side.

Oh, Wow! Bill Whittle Rides Again!

I just saw a reference on iGoogle's Reader (a handy way to get updates on your favorites bloggers) to a Bill Whittle piece - The Undefended City. He is writing about the meaning of today's political contests - which will result in setting up America's defenders for at least the next 4 years. And Mr. Whittle is doing it through the lens of time. He is reflecting on 2001, when the Lord of the Rings came out.
The Lord of the Rings was written between 1937 through 1949… years of dark waters, indeed.

A few years before Tolkien put pen to paper, an event took place that a man of his education would have undoubtedly been aware. On February 9th, 1933, the ruling elite of the world’s great Civilization held a debate in the Oxford Union. With thunderclouds growing dark across the English Channel, at a time when resolute action could still have averted the worst catastrophe the world has ever known, these elites resolved that “This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.”

The Resolution passed by a vote of 275 to 153. Needless to say, this vote did not avert the fight. It guaranteed it.

How much of the weight of that, I wonder, sat along side him as he penned page after page about the decline of the Men of the West. For taken in its entirety, The Lord of the Rings is about the collective regeneration of the will and courage of a previous age, and ends with the hope that the greatest days of the City lie yet ahead.
Although the situation in Iraq has improved - despite the best efforts of the defeatist Democratic Party, inheritors of the "war no more" traditions of Neville Chamberlain - the battle against the Islamofascists continues.

When contrasting our civilization and theirs, ask yourself - which society would I rather live in:
  • if gay
  • if a woman
  • if a poor person
  • if driven to petty thefts by hunger
  • if struggling to start a small business
  • if holding an unpopular opinion
  • if a religious minority

I hear people when they tell me that I can't judge a society by the way they treat their people. After all, I'm told, I have to be fair - why, I might feel the same way, were I living there.

Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. People raised in a society without access to a free press (truly free - and INCLUDING bloggers) tend to accept their norms without thinking. And, if I lived there, I might also dutifully parrot their unthinking prejudices.

Civilization is a construct - that's a fancy way of saying that it doesn't come naturally. What civilization really is, is a legally binding agreement that there are rules, and that ALL shall abide by them. Even the rich. Even the majority. Even the minority. The rules apply to all.

It was a revolutionary idea in 1215, when the Barons of England forced the King to sign the Magna Carta. Later, application of that principle spread to the common man. And, eventually, to the colonies of America.

This week, a student asked whether I was a conservative. She explained that she had been taught that conservatives believed that rules should be applied to all. She said that liberals believed that sometimes, the rules weren't fair, and that they could be ignored, if the situation required it (I'm paraphrasing somewhat, I don't remember her exact words). At the time, I thought, "So?"

Somewhere along the way, she's been given the idea that, as a Black person, bending the rules works in her favor, so is a good thing. While this may have been true recently, she's been cheated of knowledge of history.

"Back in the day", bending the rules allowed White men to escape punishment for crimes against Blacks.

That's what happens when the rules can be bent for the benefit of a few. Whether it benefits you, personally, depends on whether the ones in power are you and your allies, or those who despise you.

Either way, sometimes the application of the rules, or failure to apply them, causes some injustices. I just prefer the system that allows me to predict what the outcomes will be, based on the law (rules).

Sunday, September 14, 2008

No Time, No Energy

I've been dragging for the last week. I was sick the second week of school, and I've not returned to my usual energetic self.

I'll be posting on the weekend, and on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for the next few weeks. Hopefully, I'll be feeling better at that time, and can resume more frequent posting then.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Presidents & Education

Obama is quite clear about his goal to be the Education President. He wants to (according to HometownLife.com:
invest in early childhood education, close the achievement gap, pay teachers more money in exchange for more accountability, make college affordable for everyone, in exchange for community service.
My answer to that?

  • This country HAS tried to invest in early childhood education. While Head Start hasn't reached every eligible child, it has sufficient data to assess the program.

    And, the program has limited effect. Wikipedia says that "The long term effectiveness of Head Start is controversial, with various reports reporting positive, negative, or no impact."

    Not exactly a glowing recommendation for a very expensive program, is it?

  • Close the achievement gap? Gee, when he finishes that, I'd like to see him walk on water.

    It's hard to do. Even now, after many years as a teacher, I find that sometimes my efforts pay off, and sometimes they don't. If I do manage to teach more effectively, and scores raise, but all students gain equally, I haven't closed the gap.

    But, I have improved their learning. So, is that a success, or not?

  • Pay teachers more? Great!

    How do you handle the accountability thing? Will teachers who take on tougher assignments get paid more? Will teachers who have "good" students manage to qualify for the bounty? I can bet that some favored teachers will jockey to have the "better" (translation - easier to teach) students.

  • More money for college? Maybe...but it seems that every time more money is given to students, coincidentally the colleges raise their tuition - by at least that amount.

    Pay for service? It's already available - for vets. I can see the community service option being a real boondoggle - AND a seeding ground for inculcation of radical agendas. If it was real work - such as Meals on Wheels volunteering, tutoring disadvantaged kids, or similar work, maybe. But I'm truly not interested in a make-work program.

    The Work-study program has been around for years. I used it. It paid for about 2 years of my college (along with grant money).


The trouble is, presidents aren't supposed to fund, dictate standards, or put their fingerprints on public schools. That's a local responsibility. Obama needs to read the Constitution.

Before November.

Are You Privileged?

I found this survey on Line 46:

Bold the items that apply to you:

1. Father went to college

2. Father finished college

3. Mother went to college

4. Mother finished college

5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor

6. Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers.

7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.

I guess I am somewhat privileged.

8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.

9. Were read children’s books by a parent.


10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18. (Violin - about 4 months, and ballet - 9 months. Quit when my parents ran out of money)

11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18.

12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively.

13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18.

14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs.

15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs.

16. Went to a private high school.

17. Went to summer camp.

18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18

19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels

20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18

21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them

22. There was original art in your house when you were a child

23. You and your family lived in a single-family house

24. Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home (Well, the bank that owned it let them live in it and take care of it)

25. You had your own room as a child (sometimes)

26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18

27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course

28. Had your own TV in your room in high school

29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college

30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16 (flew to FL to visit my grandparents - funded by an insurance settlement)

31. Went on a cruise with your family

32. Went on more than one cruise with your family

33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up.

34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family. (Nah, I knew just what they were - my Dad kept telling us to close the door, he wasn't going to pay to heat outdoors. Also, had to winterize the windows with plastic covers every winter)

Price Gouging - Why Are Gas Prices So High?

I found a great post on the current gas price situation via iGoogle. The short story:
There are two ways to ration a short supply of a commodity. You allow the market to price it accordingly, and those who really need it will buy it, or you let the government come in and set the price. As a small government supporter, I favor the former. We're still dealing with the fallout of Nixon's wage and price controls from 40 years ago.

Anyway, that's what happened. Bulk storage facilities were acting to minimize the price of fuel and got caught short when the supply was interrupted. Barring major damage from Ike, supplies should be flowing again in a couple of days, and prices will resume their freefall.
Folks, I remember price controls - it wasn't pretty. The disruption it caused to our economy lasted far beyond the immediate time of the controls. It made jobs hard to get, and caused shortages in basic, price-controlled commodities. It was like a short sentence to live in a Soviet world.

The Passport Issue

Whoops! Forgot to mention the link that took me to the article that prompted this post - Kim du Toit.
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
I've been reading criticism about Sarah Palin for the last few days, and one that I just don't understand is the fact that she didn't even possess a passport until a few years ago.

Neither did I, until this year. I didn't need one. I traveled to Canada & Mexico before passports were required. This year, to attend a meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, in Edmonton, CA, I finally went through the process - it wasn't cheap ($ 85), and it took 2 trips to the county courthouse.

This isn't Europe - y'all can travel quite a distance without ever entering another country. In that travel, you can cross climate zones, go from below sea level to a mile above, see plains, savannahs, mountains, valleys, seashores, deserts - the range of terrains is broad - and mix among residents speaking a variety of languages - most of them English, in all the varied dialects we Americans use.

So, what's so magical about a passport? I think it stems from the Bad Old Days, when a properly educated university graduate would cap off that education, before taking his rightful place as Lord of the Manor, with a European tour. Discussion of travel abroad is a way of verifying that a newcomer is One of Us - the elite who have the time and money to aimlessly wander.

I doubt that Sarah had those luxuries - especially after she married and had kids. The point is, when she needed to get a passport, to do her job, she did.

Aside from using his travels to sneer at America, and bask in the glow of foreign players, what has Obama done with his passport?

Has he initiated new legislation? No.

Has he negotiated foreign policy? No.

Has he stood up to human rights violations? No.

Has he used his pulpit in foreign countries to promote the interests of American? No.

Having that passport didn't seem to be all that useful for him, or for the country, did it?

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Blogs for Borders Blogburst

Jake takes a lookhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifs at Sarah Palin's position on immigration.

9/11

It's very early in the morning, and I couldn't sleep. I've not been that active in blogging lately - just, no time. By the time I reach home, I'm almost ready for sleep. Last night, I was so tired I skipped dinner, and, shortly after, went to bed.

Today, at school, the ROTC program and the band will be putting on the ceremony in the quad. I'll take my Global Leadership group (kind of like a homeroom, but more) outside to listen.

Other than that, I have no plans for the day.

Saturday, September 06, 2008

This is really getting tiresome.

Found this link on Sexism Watch (ya gotta bookmark it):

Most women in all occupations, including ones of great power and influence, routinely take maternity leave, a minimum of six weeks. It's considered to be best for the mother and the baby. This is an incredibly important time for mothers and their babies to bond. What does it say about a woman who goes back to work on day three? Is this okay because she brings her baby with her? You cannot care for an infant at the same time you run the state of Alaska. You are either paying attention to the baby or to the state. Multi-tasking is not an asset here.
Have these people not got a CLUE?

Sarah Palin gave birth before her due date - about a month before. It's fair to say that she wasn't completely ready to go on maternity leave. She probably had loose ends to tie up.

So, she did what any responsible person would do if they found themselves unexpectedly sidelined - she took herself into work (probably NOT a full day), and started clearing off her desk. I'm guessing that she did that several times in the first week, then, realizing that she was healing faster that she anticipated, worked shorter hours, but continued going in.

I know about showing up at work while sub-par - I did so this week, still putting in a full day, despite having abdominal cramps, and a queasy stomach.

You do what you have to. You let people know you're not at top performance level, minimize movement and unnecessary activities, and chug along. Fortunately, I have WONDERFUL students this year, so it wasn't too bad. I managed.

Heck, I've worked through bronchitis, laryngitis, a BADLY sprained ankle (massive bruising and swelling - and my job involves a LOT of walking), car accident-caused back damage - happened on the way to school, can't get a sub that late, etc. I'm not unusual. A lot of life's work gets done by people who don't feel well.

Has it occurred to these hot-house flowers that MOMS do their work, whether they feel well - or not?

I'll bet Sarah Palin knows that.

As for that columnist's second point - that the new babe needed his mom. Yeah, duh! That's why Palin and women like me nurse - you have to be there, taking care of the baby. She's lucky to have a large family - unlike the Obamas.

Did you see the kids and husband step up to the plate during the convention? Trig was held in loving arms the entire time. That's what a family does. Any member can sub for another in a pinch (well, except for that nursing mother thing).

Wasn't that the feminist ideal?

Before they lost their way.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Update on Palin Story

I've been MIA for the last few days, missing the gigundo story of the election, All About the Palin Uteruses.

I started school last week (officially - that was the week that the kids started), and then yesterday, I was poleaxed by a nasty stomach bug. I'm not 100% yet, but I'm much better, and will go to work today.

Therefore, you can understand why I missed the Palin speech - I hear that she was tough and passionate. The word on the MSM is that she was in attack mode. I get the feeling that she will be just as tough on the stump.

Lies of the Left

This COULD be a lengthy post. But, I'll try to winnow it down to a reasonable length. The CA Parent Bribery 'Scandal' - the 1...