The People Behind the Brazil Trip This Spring

It just seemed to be one more of those out of the country trips that Presidents have to make for diplomatic reasons.  That was the Brazil trip Obama made this spring.  Fox News took a lot of heat for reporting it as a vacation.  Media Matters pointed out that it was designed to strengthen US-Brazil economic ties.

Which, apparently, it was - Oh, Brother, it really was.

The list of company execs that accompanied him read like a Left-wing Crush List.  See the List at The Savage Nation.

If Bush had done that, the press would have been all over him and his corporate friends.

For Obama - nada.

Share

Modesty, 2.0

Modesty is natural.  Nobody has to work to teach children to cover up in front of people.  They catch on early, and, if you want to see fast movement, burst in on a 6-year-old in the bathroom.

Our culture works VERY hard to overcome that natural tendency to maintain bodily privacy in front of strangers.  Many, many network shows use young people (and actors playing younger) to systematically break down children's modesty.

The results can have devastating consequences.

Women, don't take naked pictures of yourself for the titillation of boyfriend or husband.  Men, likewise, and also, don't keep those photos - if she sends them, delete them, and send her the link to this for the reason why.

Share

How The Economy Is Linked to Demographics

There are some stats here that I've never seen before; for example:

Now, consider this fact: America's population has risen from 200 million to 300 million since 1970, while the total number of two-parent families with children is the same today as it was when Richard Nixon took office, at 25 million. In 1973, the United States had 36 million housing units with three or more bedrooms, not many more than the number of two-parent families with children–which means that the supply of family homes was roughly in line with the number of families. By 2005, the number of housing units with three or more bedrooms had doubled to 72 million, though America had the same number of two-parent families with children.

The number of two-parent families with children, the kind of household that requires and can afford a large home, has remained essentially stagnant since 1963, according to the Census Bureau. Between 1963 and 2005, to be sure, the total number of what the Census Bureau categorizes as families grew from 47 million to 77 million. But most of the increase is due to families without children, including what are sometimes rather strangely called "one-person families."

Hmmm.  That could explain the rash of foreclosures.  I've never understood the oversized houses - it's just more space to clean and more space to fill with stuff.  A tidier cottage makes sense.

Some of the suggestions seem run-of-the-mill.  But there is one that I really like:

*Shift part of the burden of social insurance to the childless. For most taxpayers, social-insurance deductions are almost as great a burden as income tax. Families that bring up children contribute to the future tax base; families that do not get a free ride. The base rate for social security and Medicare deductions should rise, with a significant exemption for families with children, so that a disproportionate share of the burden falls on the childless.

Other suggestions promote marriage and family formation with tax breaks and the like.  But the previous one realizes that children are NOT just economic burdens, and that our society depends on them.  Laws and rules promoting formation of stable, healthy families with children should be considered.  We have too many benefits that promote family dissolution - i. e., those benefits that can be received by the single parent, not the married couple.  For example, the Head of Household tax credit - NOT available to the intact family.

In essence, the federal government encourages women to look at their husband, and think, "Hmmm, I could make more money without you."

Share

Why The Fight To Keep Marriage Traditional Is Necessary

Robert Stacy McCain explains his stance:

Buckley summed up a basic truth about the conservative instinct. Over and over, we find ourselves fighting what is essentially a defensive battle against the forces of organized radicalism who insist that "social justice" requires that we grant their latest demand.

We know, however, that their latest demand is never their last demand. Grant the radicals everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with new demands that they insist are urgently necessary to satisfy the requirements of social justice.

When they refer to themselves as "progressives," radicals express their own basic truth: Their method of operation is always to move steadily forward, seeking a progressive series of victories, each new gain exploited to lay the groundwork for the next advance, as the opposition progressively yields terrain. Such is the remorseless aggression of radicalism that conservatives forever find themselves contemplating the latest "progressive" demand and asking, "Is this a hill worth dying on?"

My own instinct is always to answer, "Hell, yes." Nothing succeeds like success and nothing fails like failure. Ergo, to defeat the radicals in their latest crusade (whatever the crusade may be) is to demoralize and weaken their side, and to embolden and encourage our side. Even to fight and lose is better than conceding without a fight because, after all, give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. 

I have to agree with him.  I've lived through this time period, from the days of traditional marriage (my husband, and his entire family, was aghast that I didn't plan to change my name to his (later, after the kids, I finally surrendered to convention - it was far easier, and no loss to me).  In my lifetime, marriage transformed from the normal and supported (when a pair of just-past teens conceived, they were persuaded to move up the wedding date by not only their parents, but all of society), to something that is widely seen as "optional" and NOT necessary or even desired.

Understand, it's NOT about the wedding.  It's about the lifelong commitment that marriage traditionally represents.

Lifelong?  Get real!  NOBODY does that "until death do you part" thing anymore.

Oh, yes we do.

My husband and I - 38 years.

My parents - 46 years.

His parents - 30 years, interrupted by his father's death.

My grandparents - 65 years (approximately, can't remember the exact number, but more than 65).

Many of my closest friends from our Catholic Young Adults (CYA) group can boast similar lengthy marriages, about 8 couples.

Is it hard?  Sometimes.  But, I'll let you in on a secret, it's a lot easier than the alternatives of co-habitating or divorce.  Those wreck many lives, not just the couples involved, but their parents, their children, and their friendships.  Not to mention the many marriages of their friends that fall victim to the domino effect (read the link to see how divorce can be "catching").

Share

Prolife Message Overwhelms the NARAL Site

Who says the conservative forces are Luddites?

Kathleen Gilbert of LifeSiteNews saw the message from NARAL, and decided to add her own, and urged others to do the same.

UPDATE:  I just checked the Flickr site, and it appears that the "delete" forces have won, for now.  I scrolled through many pages, and saw that the prolife messages have been taken down.

Ya know, though, what's interesting is the faces in the messages:

• A single man
• A single woman
• A couple with 1 child
• A group of protestors

What don't I see?  Multiple children in a family.  Grandparents with their grandchildren.  Very many minorities, particularly the teens.  Down's Syndrome kids, or other disabled people.

Share

What I'd Like to See Cities Do About the Homeless

Go here to read about how LA is improving the lives of the homeless - AND how it contradicts what activists insist is the right way to do it.

Share

Enablers

I have a relative, who drinks.

A lot.

And has been off-and-on homeless for some time.

He periodically cleans up.  Goes to the VA, dries out.

Then, once sober and beginning to feel better, promptly hits the bars again.  Until he runs out of money, and is on the street again.

I've spent many winters, hating every call that came in - I was always afraid to answer the phone, because I feared that it would be someone delivering the news that he was dead.  Frozen to death.

I really hate those @#$%&(*&^%$## mother-(*&^%$#&ing enabling social workers, who help him apply for money he can qualify for - back vet's benefits, food stamps, whatever.  He just uses any money he gets to drink more.  He's done that perhaps 3-4 times now.

We've talked to them.  Told him that he is NOT responsible enough to resist throwing it all away on drink.  Asking for them to put the money in the hands of someone who will dole it out, a little at a time.

Oh, no - they CAN'T do that.  He's a grown man, competent to handle his money.

NOT!

If I could, I'd slap them silly.  I'd beat the stupid out of them.  How dare they enable a helpless drunk to kill himself!

Share

Yea! More Oil Drilling!

Or NOT?

If you just read the headlines (which, I suspect many of this nation's citizens do), the news is good:

With Gas Costs High, Obama to Speed Oil Production

But, when you read further, you find out that isn't true:

Answering the call of Republicans and Democrats from Gulf Coast states, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that he would extend all Gulf leases that were affected by a temporary moratorium on drilling imposed after last year's BP oil spill. That would give companies additional time to begin drilling.

The administration had been granting extensions case by case, but senior administration officials said the Interior Department would institute a blanket one-year extension.

New safety requirements put in place since the BP spill also have delayed drilling in Alaska, so Obama said he would extend lease terms there for a year as well. An oil lease typically runs 10 years. 

So, what good will a 1-year extension do?  Only a company already geared up can take advantage of it - many of the previous tenants had to move their rigs or sell them to other companies.  My guess: look for Soros-related businesses to benefit, since they will have had advance warning of the change in regs.

Also, check out in a few months how many Brazilian companies were able to profit from this (Soros has tentacles in both Brazil and Venezula).

Share

Memes - What Are They, And How Do They Work

If you don't know Bill Whittle, you have really missed one of the most influential thinkers and writers (and now multimedia producers) of the conservative movement.  He's more important (although not as well known) as Rush Limbaugh.  He's also closer to the way that Tea Partiers think, as well as a MUCH lower-key speaker than Rush.

In this video, Bill discusses memes, and some that you may recognize from the Liberal Media.  It doesn't take much time to listen to, and I really do think it's worth your while.



Share

Too Busy To Blog

I've been on the go for weeks - no time to do the basics, let alone blog.

When I talked to my eldest daughter this weekend, she indicated that she wanted to understand how I thought about some major topics - the economy, the deficit, social issues.  She wants to understand how I think.

Kind of flattering.  If I didn't suspect that she wants to use that information to subtly convert me to her side.

That, I have no problem with.  I'm for vigorous debate, in politics as well as religion.

So, over the next few months, I'll be expressing my views, and will invite her to do the same.

Share