Monday, October 30, 2006

You Want to Patent What!?

According to the International Herald Tribune, patent law is getting tax crazy. Get this: because a U.S. appeals court passed down a ruling that business strategies could be patented in 1998, individuals can now file for patents on tax strategies. As a matter of fact, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already issued around 50 of them and there are more pending.

Andrew Cohen at writes: Don't Take My Advice-It Belongs to Me:

"Attorneys now are patenting their novel ideas, in the tax code area, so as to try to prevent or limit their competitors from also using those ideas to better serve their clients."

It appears now that when your friendly H&R Block tax preparer accepts your shoe box of prized receipts he may need to do a patent search before he can utilize tax strategies to save you a little of your hard earned cash. Do you have any idea how long it takes to do a patent search!? Those of you who are accustomed to e-filing need to crack the old patent law textbooks as well or you could find yourself on the receiving end of a lawsuit for using someone's patented strategy for saving yourself a buck when filing your taxes.

If there was ever a reason to reform our tax system and get rid of the thousands of pages of tax codes, here ya go!

I'd like to continue to voice my grandiose support of the FairTax but let's face it, Americans for Fair Taxation ARE lobbyists. Lobbyists are considered likely beneficiaries of these new patents, considering that they are in the position of lobbying Congress for new tax breaks and often the first to be privy to the information of a passage of a new tax break on behalf of their clients.

I have to confess, while still loving the idea of the FairTax I have become quite disillusioned with the organization which runs the grass roots effort to see it hoisted into law. Get ready to start all over again hitting your Congressmen and Senators up to support it and co-sponsor it under a new Congress and Senate. It just seems like a vicious cycle to me. I agree it is important to educate people about it and yes, it's important to contact your representatives about it, I agree that without Americans for Fair Taxation it wouldn't have the great numbers of supporters it has today (and that said, I didn't hear about the FairTax from Americans for Fair Taxation or one of their grass roots supporters, I heard about it from Neal Boortz) but we get all these co-sponsors in the House and Senate, then we have a new House and Senate and have to start the process all over again.

Will anyone ever actually bring the FairTax to a vote!? Grrrrrrr.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Missouri's Amendment 2

There has been much sensationalism and misinformation spread about Amendment 2 which will be on the Missouri November ballot, with each side accusing the other of misrepresenting the Amendment.

Rush Limbaugh stepped in it when accusing Michael J. Fox of going off his prescribed medication to enhance the debilitating evidence of his disease when making a campaign ad for Claire McCaskill. According to a Washington Post article: Rush Limbaugh On the Offensive Against Ad With Michael J. Fox, Rush reportedly said:

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told listeners. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."

Think Progress weighed in yesterday with: Parkinson Foundation Debunks Limbaugh’s False Smears of Michael J. Fox, which was a misrepresentation, as well...they claim to quote a particular Washington Post article with their link: "According to the National Parkinson Foundation, Limbaugh has no idea what he’s talking about. The Washington Post reports " however, when one clicks on the link, which takes one to this article: Rush Limbaugh On the Offensive Against Ad With Michael J. Fox , the quote they claim comes from that article is not to be found there, rather there is a statement by John Rodgers, Michael J. Fox's political advisor who happens to sit on the board of the Parkinson's Action Network:

""It's a shameless statement. It's insulting. It's appallingly sad, at best.""

It may well have been a "shameless statement" but the quote Think Progress attributed to that Washington Post article is simply not there. That same Washington Post article quotes Limbaugh as saying:

" "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act.""

So, that's fine, Rush has apologized. It doesn't change the issue of Amendment 2 one iota.

For more information about Amendment 2 here is an excellent site:

Let's not get so involved in the rhetoric surrounding the issue that we fail to carefully study the real issue, Amendment 2: 2006 Proposed Initiative Petitions.

Claire McCaskill supports Amendment 2, Jim Talent opposes it.

Monday, October 23, 2006

The good old days?

In the political debate group that Jacke and I both belong to we recently discussed the need for the tone to change in Washington........politics in general, for that matter. Once upon a time I used to believe that politics would be much improved if they were carried on with the same civility, passion and honor our founding fathers had when laying the foundation for this great nation. After all, the words written by those great men live on to support such a notion. Boy oh boy, was I wrong.

I think it was the eloquence of the words they wrote that clouded the cruelty and backbiting from 20th century eyes. Over the last couple of years, I've taken the time to read more about those days and the men who made them historically significant. Wow, were they ever a wild bunch and and their political fueding was just as wild. In fact, the nastiness we see in politics now often pales in comparison to things that went on back then.

The only difference I really see is the caliber of men in goverment. Now it's like watching a B movie cast trying to revise the roles first played by Oscar winners.

For all their faults, our founders laid the ground work for a nation that has thrived and grown beyond their wildest expectations. For all their differences and conflicts, they built a nation that has stood up to the test of time. They were exceptional me who created a form of government which could flourish despite their flaws and the flaws of all those who followed.

It would be wonderful if the tone in Washington changed. If it doesn't.........well, history has shown us we'll survive no matter what the tone is.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Dog Eat Dog, Dog Eats and That Doggone PJ

Oh my heavens! It's a dog eat dog political mess out there right now isn't it?

I've been dinking around in that political debate group. Trying to remain neutral for the most part, with an occasional good spirited jab at propaganda promoters, that simply can't be helped nor do I make an effort to do so. I've actually been skipping over a lot of the political hype and rhetoric because I recognize it for what it is, a bunch of hype and rhetoric.

My husband and I are a little distressed this week. The kids we have been taking to church with us for about four years have moved away and this morning was the first morning that they weren't telling us long winded stories and singing silly, scary Halloween songs to us on the way to church. For four years we were like a little family unit and it was like part of our family and part of our hearts were missing this morning. We are reminding ourselves that God is with them and they are God's children but it was a difficult morning. Knowing that this is the way it will be until further notice was no comfort. The little children I considered my adopted grandchildren are gone. No curly headed darling sitting in my lap, snuggling against my chest this morning as the choir sang. I was glad I would be in Children's Church rather than sitting in the service without the oldest one, it would have felt like the proverbial salt in a wound when I was already feeling so emotional about it.

I've been waiting for something to come along that I can sink my teeth into but it just hasn't materialized. The few blogs I frequent have been mostly unsatisfying, though Andy Cline at The Rhetorica Network has intrigued me with his entry: What should journalism try next?

I had been enjoying a little innocent banter with John Stone at Curbstone Critic but he seems to have gone a little goofy with his obsession with Vincent David Jericho. Out of his last fifteen postings six of them have been about Jericho. It seems when his coffee maker isn't flooding the countertop or Paris Hilton isn't making public appearances in negligees he has little else on his mind.

What's a person to do for a little thought provoking banter? It's either polls or unfounded claims of a right wing defense of Foley when no one has defended him at all. I'm pretty fed up with people lying and misrepresenting myself and other people.

I did have this thought which I posted as a reply there tonight:

In all honesty, we, all of us, need to move beyond painting each other in sound bytes. The thing is, we let the politicians and Media with a capital "M," divide us. I respect the few politicians who are trying to tone down the rhetoric a little bit. I think there are a few of us who enjoy the rhetoric as if it were a sporting event but do it tongue in cheek. There are some issues which deserve better than to be treated as a political game and the war in Iraq definitely applies. You know, if our two parties, in what has become a two party system can keep the people divided and free from real dialog then that two party system has nothing to fear. Have you noted that some people are now calling both parties by one moniker? "The Republicrats." Status Quo, and as one of my favorite Libertarians often says: "Have a government approved day!"

Of course, I'm referring to the swmolibertarian, known as The Libertarian Guy who has posted some interesting posts lately, see: If you're on the ballot, you deserve to be in the debates. and: Why this election is important..., but do remember, he's way too cool to actually represent any of us average, dull creatures around here. ;)

Tomorrow begins a new week. New adventures with Mother. New adventures with my grousing husband. New adventures with keeping up with myself and that pesky little allergy-ridden, old gray man of a terrier I've been loving for 15 years this month. Geesh, he mopes around these days, that is when he isn't sleeping or eating. Ah, a dog's life!

One last thing. The most interesting thing I've seen written in days was written by a moderate Democrat and my fellow contributor to this web log, PJ. Doggone it, I wish she'd put her thoughts together and get it posted right here on JackeHammer!

Friday, October 20, 2006

The Preening, Powdering, Pampering and Perfuming of Mother

I love my Mother. Let's say you pretend that I said that 1,000 times before I proceed.

Last Tuesday she had a Doctor's appointment but I got to her house to discover that her water was off, a regular occurrence where she lives. We had to reschedule her appointment because she had no water and no way to get showered, preened, powdered, pampered and perfumed.

The appointment was rescheduled for Tuesday of this week, or so we thought. She even got the regular recorded call from the Doctor's office last Friday to confirm her appointment for Tuesday, she reports. So, Tuesday I arrive at her house early in the morning. I prepare her breakfast as I do every day, I get things set up for her shower...don't ask. She has her shower, slathers up with lotion, preens, powders, pampers, perfumes. We load up in the car, drive all the way across town, make it to the Doctor's office without a minute to spare, head in to the receptionist's desk who sits with her mouth hanging open searching and searching but Mom has NO appointment scheduled. Her appointment, it appears, is for Thursday and not Tuesday at all. I don't know whether she misunderstood or if they really told her Tuesday and called her to confirm Friday like she said for Tuesday or Thursday but she's not senile, at least not yet. ;) Anyway, we got some fast food chicken, came to my house had chicken fast food dinners and I took her home.

Fast forward to Thursday. :/

This morning I took her some Hardee's biscuits and gravy, she's on a Hardee's biscuit and gravy kick...she gets on these food kicks where she craves a certain thing all the time until she gets completely sick of it and never eats it again, recently it's been Hardee's biscuits and gravy, Butter Brickle ice cream and apple sauce, she has left Gordman's Beer Battered fish fillets, apple juice and Orange Dream ice cream in her wake, but I digress.... So, I get her breakfast ready and she eats, she decides she'll just wash up today and that I should go on home for a while, so I tell her I'll be back at 2:30 to take her to the Doctor. Sigh.

While I was gone she lost one of her eyelashes (she uses false eyelashes...again, don't ask) and the first thing she says to me when I come through the door is "come and find my eyelash, I looked for my eyelash for an hour and couldn't find it." I found it in about five minutes but Mother is NOT ready to go to the Doctor's office.

At the time she was supposed to BE there she called the office to tell them she was running late. She was informed that if she was more than 15 minutes late that the Doctor couldn't see her and they'd need to reschedule. So, we've preened, powdered, pampered and perfumed for nothing...what does she say? "Will you take me to Wal-Mart, if you don't have anything else to do?" Loooooooooooong pause....I'm thinking "if I take you to Wal-Mart this afternoon you will NOT have a pleasant shopping experience." Anyway, the good news is WE GET TO DO IT AGAIN TOMORROW! For the THIRD time this week...followed by a trip to Wal-Mart. Yeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaw!

Monday, October 16, 2006

Claire McCaskill's Double Speak

I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence. I imagine that most Missourians realize that Claire McCaskill is pro-choice but I felt the need to point something out because she hit on a pet peeve of mine in one of her statements tonight.

Anytime I hear a person say "I, personally, oppose abortion," it is a red flag for me.

Tonight in the KY3 debate between Claire McCaskill and Senator Jim Talent she made that statement. What she means is she wouldn't have an abortion herself but she wouldn't presume to make that decision for any other woman. Claire McCaskill is pro-abortion not pro-life and when I hear someone make that statement without clarifying that they mean that they wouldn't have an abortion themselves but support abortion rights it leaves me to believe that they are trying to fool unwitting people into thinking they are pro-life. It is double speak. The fact is Claire McCaskill is pro-"choice" not pro-life:

AP Wire 09/25/2006 McCaskill on abortion:

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I believe the decision to have an abortion is up to the woman in conjunction with her family, doctor and whatever spiritual guidance she seeks, not in the hands of the government."

She is listed as an Endorsed Candidate at NARAL Pro-Choice America and is a featured candidate at EMILY's List which, at its website, describes itself as:

"...the nation's largest grassroots political network, is dedicated to taking back our country from the radical right wing by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office."

Just don't be fooled by her double speak.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Thanks, Vincent David Jericho

Okay, I have to say something here because I want to clarify my position on the topic of local radio talk show host Vincent David Jericho.

Last night and today I've been having a little dialog with John Stone of Curbstone Critic under the blog entry VD(J) is the Antichrist. I'll take a moment to note that I have been conservatively critical of Mr. Jericho myself on more than one occasion, see comment here: Hollow Men at Jericho's Journal.

Anyway, last night after I posted a comment at Curbstone Critic I got to thinking about how I have been effected by allowing who I am to be known among the local bloggers in town and by a publisher of a community newspaper. Though I have tried to fight the effect, it has had one nonetheless. It has made me, to some extent, feel stifled, feel as though I cannot speak my mind as openly as I once did because I have lost the anonymity I had at first. It has caused me to second guess some of the things I have written lately. It has made a difference on the quantity of posts I have been willing to post at my own blog. This got me to thinking about some things that I appreciate and respect about Vincent David Jericho and I don't think it is enough to simply criticize people for what they do that I disagree with, I also believe it is important that, in fairness, I praise the good attributes of people as well and so that is why I am writing this today.

John Stone isn't the only local blogger to bash Vincent David Jericho see: 417 Pundit: Immigrant Talker Should Be Extradited. It is rumored that 417 Pundit is DocLarry of Lost Chord but has not been confirmed. At any rate, anytime Jericho is mentioned in a blog the comments fly, usually accompanied with charges that anonymous commentators are VDJ and he isn't brave enough to attach his own link to his replies. This raises a question in my mind...if Vincent David Jericho is willing to expose himself to Springfield and the larger region by hosting a talk radio show on Newstalk KSGF every morning from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. then why the heck would he not sign his own comments when commenting at blog sites? That doesn't make much sense to me, and we need to keep in mind that Jericho has as many, or more, fans than he does haters.

And that brings me back to my main point. It takes a strong person to be willing to go on the radio five mornings a week and represent KSGF, himself, Conservative Christians and Conservative Republicans in numerous ways all over the region. It takes a strong personality and a certain amount of bravery to bare his soul and private personal thoughts about divisive issues in Springfield and the Nation. He has taken on some pretty powerful people in this City. He has been willing to bare his heart and soul and in doing so he has also opened himself up to criticism. I respect that. I also respect the fact that he has called attention to many worthwhile causes, the illegal immigration debate, what the stem cell research initiative really means to Missouri and the FairTax bill HR 25/S25 among them. He has taken it on the chin for his outspoken views about what Christians should be doing, what Conservatives should be doing. He has stood in the face of extremist anti-war activists and shown their propaganda for what it is, and he has likely received some of the most hate filled private emails that any of us could imagine, yet he has continued to stand by his convictions and be a voice for legitimate viewpoints and concerns here in our City.

I have listened as he has gotten into tiffs with some of his fans when he has given a forum to people with whom his fans disagree but he has done so fairly and in doing so he has exposed the mentality of people who needed to be exposed.

Is he extreme at times? Certainly. How much of his over the top opinions are exaggerated to make a point? I couldn't say.

To be honest, I don't listen to his program as often as I'd like to because it doesn't fit into my schedule very well and I don't have the patience to down load ipod segments like some of his critics do, but as I struggle with my own writing because I am aware that I am not as anonymous as I used to be it has made me think more about what he is exposed to every day.

It's important that we remember that behind the microphone is NOT a cartoon character awaiting his pie in the face, he is a real man with real convictions who, just like the rest of us, does his best to make a difference. Over all, I agree with him more often than not. I don't expect he will be perfect any more than I expect I will be perfect, even though I try my best to be consistent. I'd say he tries his best to be consistent as well and as a public figure, of course he is fair game for criticism. I just got to thinking he should be fair game for praise as well, a little pat on the shoulder for doing his best. Thanks, VDJ!

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Un-unanimous Agreement

As the news breaks of potential voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN in this STLtoday article, "Suspect voter registration cards found in St. Louis,"it is ironic published this article: Report refutes fraud at poll sites today:

"At a time when many states are instituting new requirements for voter registration and identification, a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud those measures seek to stop.

USA TODAY obtained the report from the commission four months after it was delivered by two consultants hired to write it. The commission has not distributed it publicly."

Reading on I discovered this little tidbit from that same story:

"The bipartisan report by two consultants to the election commission casts doubt on the problem those laws are intended to address. "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters," the report says."

Okay, this is some fine creative writing but, as the guru of The Rhetorica Network might say, it sets up a straw man fallacy. Read the paragraph above carefully, note that there is "widespread but NOT unanimous agreement," what does that mean? How can you have agreement and yet it not be unanimous? Un-unanimous agreement isn't really agreement at all, and yet the writer goes on as if to say this "widespread" DISAGREEMENT is some sort of proof that there is "little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed...." Huh?

Now, let's read on:

"Conservatives dispute the research and conclusions. Thor Hearne, counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights, notes that the Justice Department has sued Missouri for having ineligible voters registered, while dead people have turned up on the registration rolls in Michigan. "It is just wrong to say that this isn't a problem," he says.

That's one reason the commission decided not to officially release the report. "There was a division of opinion here," Chairman Paul DeGregorio says. "We've seen places where fraud does occur."

I wonder if Thor Hearne was counted among those minions in the "widespread but NOT unanimous agreement" department?

Now, another straw man fallacy, in the very next paragraph:

"The consultants found little evidence of that. Barry Weinberg, former deputy chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil rights division, reviewed their work. "Fraud at the polling place is generally difficult to pull off," he says. "It takes a lot of planning and a lot of coordination.""

The USA Today writer sets up another straw man fallacy by pointing out that "the consultants found little evidence of that (voter fraud)" and then quotes Barry Weinberg, an indisputably credible reviewer of their work, as if to support their conclusion when he does not support it at all, at least not in the content of this quote. In fact, he has stated that fraud is "difficult to pull off...takes a lot of planning and...coordination" but does NOT say that there is little evidence to suggest voter fraud exists.

The media wonders why Americans believe that certain things are true when they are not true. Hmmm...this particular writer issued his report in such a slanted manner as to suggest that this report is more credible than it really is, will he later have the gall to suggest that the American people are not following current or political issues when in fact, as he has so clearly exampled, many journalists today make every effort to intentionally confuse the very issues that they claim voters do not understand.

Another instance: repeatedly I have heard liberals claim that the Bush administration said Saddam Hussein was tied to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but when asked for quotes to support this claim they cannot provide them. With reporters promoting that straw man fallacy is it any wonder so many Americans are confused?

Reporters are reporting what they think others have implied rather than what others have actually said. Then they scratch their heads and wonder why so many Americans believe them. Sick.

Monday, October 09, 2006

The Democrat Plan to Win in November: "Conservative, Stay Home!"

Some Democrats are preaching to us that there's a GOP "civil war" commencing. The Republican Party is divided! ::gasp!:: Unlike the united Democrat Party, mind you.

Some grassroots Democrats propose that we should dismiss their arguments that going to war in Iraq preemptively was wrong because Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and was no threat to the U.S., that our attention should have remained exclusively in Afghanistan and firmly on Osama bin Laden. Yes, ignore those talking points they've been spouting for three or four years now and take immediate "cowboy" action against North Korea. Yes, let's just jump right out there and bomb the heck out of North Korea so that two years from now those same Democrats can chime in some more on the "incompetent boob, Bush" bandwagon and explain why this action was the wrong action and the "buck stops at Bush."

Meanwhile, The Smirking Chimp, you know the "All New! Now 150% More Fair and Balanced" Smirking Chimp, writer Margie Burns, brings us this little tidbit:

Tucker Carlson says it aloud. The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals:

"...for my money, the real jaw dropper this morning was Tucker Carlson finally saying publicly what millions of us have known for years: “The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals.”

The commentary centered around the Mark Foley scandal and attendant ironies, that a member of Congress who for years ostentatiously paraded his concern for children and for youth has solicited, also for years, the sexual attentions of teenagers, and not just any teenagers, but teenaged pages specifically under the protection of Congress. Furthermore, all signs indicate that the entire top GOP leadership of Congress, even while campaigning aggressively in some bogus morality posture, either covered up for Foley or at best deliberately avoided knowing enough of his activities to do anything about them.

To call this hypocrisy is just an insult to hypocrites...."

"... Following up the statements that “The Republican elite has contempt for the evangelicals,” and “Everybody in our world has contempt for the evangelicals,” he continued, “and “everybody knows that. The evangelicals are beginning to figure it out.”...

"...As for the public pronouncements of their party, and the most prominent of their professional religious spokesmen, they roll their eyes. I have seen them do it. You do not get more eyerolling about the Reverend Mr. Pat Robertson or about the unreverend Ralph Reed anywhere than in the nearest lunch of Republican women at the local country club, and the only people who seem not to know it are the people whose faithful votes keep the corporate hogs in office."

What is missing from Ms. Burns opinion piece is the little discussed "Progressive" Christian movement, which seeks to influence government in directions they feel should be more palatable to Christians, you know, with more of a liberal slant: give peace a chance, feed the poor and hungry, tackle environmental issues and leave the virile gay activists alone, stop defending the unborn's right to life and get on with issues that really matter...these same "Progressive" Christians who bemoan that "Conservative" Christians are seeking to set up a Christian theocracy while excusing their own activism, that bunch of "Progressive" hypocrisy cries of "this hypocrisy is just an insult to hypocrites...." As Ms. Burns pointed out, there is "eyerolling" going on among Republican circles regarding certain spokespersons for the "evangelicals," where is the eyerolling for "Progressive" Christian spokespersons to be found? Good luck, let me know if you find anything but undying, love-filled, googly eyes for Jim Wallis and Jimmy Carter among the "Progressive" Christian movement.

To what rancid pot sticking soup does all this DESTRUCTIVE criticism boil down? Why, the fact that other than a "cut and run" answer to our predicament in Iraq, higher taxes, more taxes on the "rich," and more social programs to balance the wealth of Americans more fairly between the rich and the "least of us,"the Democrats still have no visible plan and no answer for addressing the complex issues of the day.

In fact, when seeking answers from these grassroots Democrats those seeking them receive more of the same..."it isn't our job to provide solutions, why, the Republicans are in charge! The only job we have is to dissent from their foul policies!"

Don't believe me that the Democrats have nothing to offer? Visit The Democratic Party website, where you will find such charming headlines as:

Inaction: Timeline of Denial

Iraq: Torture site may be linked to security forces

Abramoff Republican Culture Of Corruption Leads All The Way To The White House

Iraq: Today in Iraq: Powell Tried to Warn Bush on Iraq, Book Says

Foley: Why Did GOP Leaders Sit On Foley Emails?

The Fear and Smear Tour: DNC on President Bush's Political Fear and Smear Attacks

The Bush Administration's Failed North Korea Policy and how the GOP Implodes Over Foley Scandal

The Democrat Party's Agenda? On security:

"Democrats have a plan that is comprehensive-- from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq and freeing America of its dependence on foreign oil--and it will finally prepare America for the security needs of the 21st Century. And we honor the sacrifices our troops, their families and veterans by making sure we take care of them when they come home."

Gee, thanks. Care to share the plan or as in the past, is it supposed to be enough to announce that you have one without elaborating how you plan to accomplish the objectives of the plan you have but refuse to share?

Regarding Iraq?:

That's interesting, last time I visited they had a few ideas on how to handle Iraq, such as "redeploying" our troops out of Iraq before the end of 2006. Today I find no link for their plans on how to win the war in Iraq at all.

I only point all this information out to remind us all that the only hope that Democrats have to win either the House or the Senate is if they can convince Republican voters to either vote for them or convince us that our party is filled with sexual predatory pedophiles in an effort to dissuade us from voting at all.

When will Conservatives wake up? This is not about the entire Republican party being more corrupt than Democrats and it isn't about "Conservative" Christians being hypocritical, it should be about who, at least, has a plan and is willing to discuss options as opposed to who is so cognizant of the fact that the American people would not support their plan that they will not even share it with the voters. Just as in shopping for a bargain you get what you pay for, when it comes to elections you get who you vote for. Make sure you make the right choice based on fact and not smear job propaganda spread by those who either can't or won't even tell you their plan for America.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Just a Little Update on KOLR 10's Town Hall Meeting on the War on Terror

In my recent post on KOLR 10's Town Hall Meeting on the War on Terror I provided a link to KOLR 10, who had said that they would be continuing the discussion.

I also sent them a link to my blog entry. I did receive an email acknowledgement from Ms. Polly VanDoren-Orr of KOLR 10 thanking me for my insight. I was, however, somewhat disappointed when I watched their coverage of the emails received on the next day's news broadcasts. They chose one paragraph emails from two viewpoints, either praising the Town Hall Meeting or bashing it as one sided. So much for continuing the discussion. The next day when I emailed that address again my mail could not be delivered, so I suppose they really had no intention of "continuing the discussion," after all. They seemed to only be interested in whether their viewers either approved or disapproved of their Town Hall Meeting.

Oh, well.

Anyway, I thought I should update that entry since, apparently, that email link no longer exists and as far as KOLR 10 goes they seem to have ended the discussion with a superficial reading of fairly superficial emails which critiqued them rather than continued the discussion.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Jest fer Laffs

Heh, heh.

I got an email from the owner of that far lefty group I mentioned in The Controversy isn't about "The Path to 9/11," it's about Freedom of Speech, "FREEDOM'S FORUM," and in case you don't remember they banned me and another conservative for life because they felt that the group of more than 200 far lefty members was out of balance due to the influx of THREE (:0) conservative Republicans. This is the group that claims:

This is the place where all ideas,pro or con can be expressed without the use of personal attacks on judgment, intelligence, or motive. We all agree to disagree without being disagreeable.

Actually, the owner sent an invitation to a very close friend of mine who in turn forwarded it to me, and the owner had a new introduction, sounded really exciting!

XXXXXX has invited you to join the FREEDOMSFORUM group!


In a private exchange the owner said to another friend of mine:


Another unwelcome conservative. Another unwelcome poster. Another person apparently unentitled to his own opinion...go figger. Far lefties ur so purdictible, thay jest cain't hep provin' muh poynt. ;)

Was that YOUR fork in my ear?

Okay, so everybody else bitches and complains on their blogs, why can't I?

I generally reserve my bitching for my husband who seems to enjoy it because it affords him the excuse to bitch and complain back at me and since we usually end up laughing at each other and eventually at ourselves over how ridiculous we're acting it lets off a lot of pressure and we're no worse for the wear. I sure do like my husband, he's a lot of fun to irritate and he admittedly feels the same way about me...isn't that the sign of a good marriage? :(I)

But, dang it! I was thinking I had a job writing some articles for a local community paper, but apparently and for some reason which isn't clear to me, the person I thought I'd hit it off with so well isn't calling, isn't emailing, isn't communicating with me at all so I'm thinking that ain't happenin' now. Oh, bother.

This has done a little bit of damage to my own self confidence regarding my ability to write.

In the meantime I'm running back and forth to Mother's, making special trips to special stores to buy her whatever flavor of ice cream she has chosen as her personal flavor of the month and keeping a highly flexible schedule which IS required by that little *queen bee* who has a sweeter face than that Welch's Grape Juice girl who says words way beyond her little four year old comprehensive skills.

I try to remember life is messy. I try to remember that other people are juggling things just like I am, they may be different things but just as time consuming and frustrating to the things they'd like to be spending time on and I try to remember that it's the people we love in life that are most important.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see if I can find something to irritate my husband about so we'll find ourselves laughing in a little while...or maybe a nap, since we were both up till 1:00 in the morning playing a video of the KOLR 10 Town Hall meeting backwards and forwards 214 times...or maybe I'll load the dishwasher, clean the toilet and vacuum the house....

...We're having fried catfish and baked potatoes for dinner, if my husband behaves himself. ;)