Thing of the Day

Everyone has Abilities

2010-01-26T09:41:00.000-08:00

You won't regret watching this amazing video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xwCG0Ey2Mg

2009-07-25T11:33:00.000-07:00

From Bill Maher- BLOGGA PLEASE

Friday, July 24, 2009

New Rule: Not Everything in America Has to Make a Profit
How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are.

Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? But now our war zones are dominated by private contractors and mercenaries who work for corporations. There are more private contractors in Iraq than American troops, and we pay them generous salaries to do jobs the troops used to do for themselves -- like laundry. War is not supposed to turn a profit, but our wars have become boondoggles for weapons manufacturers and connected civilian contractors.

Prisons used to be a non-profit business, too. And for good reason -- who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition you're going to have trouble with the tenants. But now prisons are big business. A company called the Corrections Corporation of America is on the New York Stock Exchange, which is convenient since that's where all the real crime is happening anyway. The CCA and similar corporations actually lobby Congress for stiffer sentencing laws so they can lock more people up and make more money. That's why America has the world;s largest prison population -- because actually rehabilitating people would have a negative impact on the bottom line.

Television news is another area that used to be roped off from the profit motive. When Walter Cronkite died last week, it was odd to see news anchor after news anchor talking about how much better the news coverage was back in Cronkite's day. I thought, "Gee, if only you were in a position to do something about it."

But maybe they aren't. Because unlike in Cronkite's day, today's news has to make a profit like all the other divisions in a media conglomerate. That's why it wasn't surprising to see the CBS Evening News broadcast live from the Staples Center for two nights this month, just in case Michael Jackson came back to life and sold Iran nuclear weapons. In Uncle Walter's time, the news division was a loss leader. Making money was the job of The Beverly Hillbillies. And now that we have reporters moving to Alaska to hang out with the Palin family, the news is The Beverly Hillbillies.

And finally, there's health care. It wasn't that long ago that when a kid broke his leg playing stickball, his parents took him to the local Catholic hospital, the nun put a thermometer in his mouth, the doctor slapped some plaster on his ankle and you were done. The bill was $1.50, plus you got to keep the thermometer.

But like everything else that's good and noble in life, some Wall Street wizard decided that hospitals could be big business, so now they're run by some bean counters in a corporate plaza in Charlotte. In the U.S. today, three giant for-profit conglomerates own close to 600 hospitals and other health care facilities. They're not hospitals anymore; they're Jiffy Lubes with bedpans. America's largest hospital chain, HCA, was founded by the family of Bill Frist, who perfectly represents the Republican attitude toward health care: it's not a right, it's a racket. The more people who get sick and need medicine, the higher their profit margins. Which is why they're always pushing the Jell-O.

Because medicine is now for-profit we have things like "recision," where insurance companies hire people to figure out ways to deny you coverage when you get sick, even though you've been paying into your plan for years.

When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything? When did that become the new patriotism? Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

If conservatives get to call universal health care "socialized medicine," I get to call private health care "soulless vampires making money off human pain." The problem with President Obama's health care plan isn't socialism, it's capitalism.

And if medicine is for profit, and war, and the news, and the penal system, my question is: what's wrong with firemen? Why don't they charge? They must be commies. Oh my God! That explains the red trucks!

Posted by Bill Maher @http://therealbillmaher.blogspot.com/

Fun political link. What do you think?

2009-07-09T17:05:00.000-07:00

http://politicalmath.wordpress.com/

2009-03-25T17:29:00.000-07:00

A little plate spinning for your enjoyment

2009-03-24T17:26:00.000-07:00

Click here to see the plate spinning.

Here's a good quote for you.

2009-03-10T21:07:00.001-07:00

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Dr. Adrian Pierce Rogers (September 12, 1931 - November 15, 2005)

SO FUNNY. it's coming for YOU.

2009-03-07T11:58:00.000-08:00

blinded dumbass homeowners ;)

2009-03-06T18:57:00.000-08:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

2009-02-24T20:10:00.000-08:00

Clearly "The Week" is my 'go to' for news. You can check it out yourself just as easily, I guess. BUT, I would LOVE to hear your opinion on these! What do you think about legalizing marijuana? No judgments will be passed. This could go either way so easily to me...

Click HERE for the original article.

News & Opinion

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Could legalizing marijuana save California?

It's time to admit that the war on marijuana has been "an abject failure," said Dan Walters in the Fresno Bee. It costs taxpayers a fortune every year. "Wouldn't it be smarter to legalize marijuana"—as a San Francisco assemblyman is proposing—"and tax its sale to adults much as we do liquor and cigarettes?"

The idea isn’t as far-fetched as it once was, said Nate Silver in FiveThirtyEight. “Three recent polls show that Americans are more sympathetic to the idea of legalizing marijuana than ever before.” Support for legalization has broken the 40 percent mark, and “the position no longer holds the stigma that it once did.”

And now there’s a new reason to tax pot instead of criminalizing it, said Eric Bailey in the Los Angeles Times. California has been squeezed hard by the financial crisis, and cannabis is widely believed to be the state’s biggest cash crop. San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s proposal to tax marijuana could be the state’s financial salvation.

Sure, in Amsterdam they sell pot and hashish in “coffee shops,” said the Texas Enterprise in an editorial. Some places allow bullfighting; some allow casinos; some allow brothels. But legalizing vices is the easy, and immoral, way out.

O. M. G.

2009-02-12T10:20:00.001-08:00

Click here for original article

"Joaquin Phoenix's Letterman splash

In Joaquin Phoenix's bizarre TV appearance, he forsakes acting for his music career.

(AP Photo/Matt Sayles)
Arts & Leisure
Thursday, February 12, 2009

Joaquin Phoenix's Letterman splash

"Wow. What on Earth is going on with Joaquin Phoenix?" asked Maureen Ryan in the Chicago Tribune. He made a "surreal" appearance on "The Late Show With David Letterman" Wednesday night, speaking in monosyllables, chewing gum, wearing shades, and mumbling about his new rap career (click here for the video). As the interview ended, Letterman said, "Joaquin, I'm sorry you couldn't be here tonight."

This was "an exercise in squirmingly uncomfortable comic gold," said Craig Newman in the Chicago Sun-Times. Phoenix was on to promote his new movie, "Two Lovers," or his rap career, "or ... well ... who knows, really." All mystified viewers seem concerned about is whether he was high or "just a jerk." And, "what's up with the beard?"

Phoenix's behavior has turned Friday's opening of "Two Lovers" into "a circus nearly as surreal as anything staged by Fellini or Cirque du Soleil," said John Horn in the Los Angeles Times. Phoenix says the film is his "swan song"—he's retiring from acting to devote himself to music. The "unusual declaration" is overshadowing the film itself, "seriously testing the long-standing adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity.""

2009-02-11T19:18:00.001-08:00

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

I'm such a baby-- this made me cry.

2009-01-29T09:59:00.000-08:00

learning from Iceland--

I read in a magazine and then googled this- women in Iceland keep their maiden names.
Today, in The Week, I read that Iceland has their first female prime minister. In addition, she is lesbian. Iceland doesn't care. Why do we?I love the line in this article where someone from Iceland says that they view it as perverted to be concerned with someone else's sexual orientation. I also really liked the statement that she is not popular politically because of or inspite of her orientation, but for her success.

Thank you Iceland: for making me feel that much more justified in keeping my maiden name and for providing an example of simply not caring about sexual orientation.

Follow this link to the original, or read below. Iceland's Gay Leadership (yes that is actually the title of the article)

p.s. If you don't know about The Week: it is an excellent and unbiased news source that reports snippets from various other sources in a weekly (daily online) compilation.

Iceland's Social Affairs Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir becomes interim prime minister.

News & Opinion

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Iceland’s gay leadership

What happened
Icelandic social affairs minister Johanna Sigurdardottir, 66, was tapped to be her country’s first female prime minister, and the world’s first openly gay one, after the island nation’s conservative government fell alongside Iceland’s collapsing banks and currency and soaring unemployment and inflation. Sigurdardottir will serve as interim leader until May elections. (AP in Yahoo! News)

What the commentators said
It’s hard to believe that anything good could come from the global credit crisis, said Britain’s The Independent in an editorial, but Sigurdardottir’s appointment is “one incontrovertibly cheering” result. Of course Iceland is, “to put no fine a point on it, bankrupt,” but perhaps she can succeed where her male predecessor failed—all of Iceland’s major banks are now headed by women, too.

The fact that she’s gay is “bigger news” than that she’s a woman, said Andy Seccombe in the New York Press. But while a gay woman rising to “the Icey Office,” and a black man being sworn in to the Oval Office, are “important milestones,” both leaders face dire fiscal situations, and how they tackle them “is ultimately the real issue.”

Right, so why is everyone outside of Iceland focusing on her sexual orientation? said Icelandic journalist Iris Erlingsdottir in The Huffington Post. Sigurdardottir has been in parliament since 1978 and, with a 73 percent approval rating, is Iceland’s most popular politician—and not because of or in spite of her sexuality. “Who cares?”

Sure, “Icelanders consider it ‘perverted’ to even care about someone’s sexual orientation,” said Rady Ananda in OpEdNews, but it’s “of great relevance in those societies where sexual minorities are criminalized or marginalized.” That includes the U.S., where laws “ban full civil rights” for gays and lesbians.

scientology: ethical?

2009-01-06T19:58:00.000-08:00

not sure whether I feel bad that they are being harshly criticized after their son died or am appalled that they most likely refused him proven treatment because of a religion made up by a science fiction writer. maybe both.

Arts & Leisure
Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Scientology and the death of Travolta's son

The Church of Scientology’s “pharmaceutical-phobia” may have been “part of the short, sad story of Jett Travolta,” said Kevin Libb in the National Post. The official cause of death of John Travolta and Kelly Preston’s 16-year-old son has been determined to be due to a “seizure disorder,” and given that the Travoltas “are devout members of the highest stratum” of the Church of Scientology—which “frequently rejects brain-related diagnoses”—Jett’s “reported brain dysfunctions may never have had a proper medical diagnosis.”

It’s “incredible” how many people who know “so little are nonetheless diagnosing Jett Travolta’s supposed illness,” said Margery Eagan in the Boston Herald, “prescribing the correct treatment for that illness, and judging his devastated parents’ alleged failings.” Not only is this “creepy and vile,” but “judging celebrity victims” so viciously suggests a “whole new layer of entitlement” held by the public. Simply stated: Leave the Travoltas alone.

“My heart goes out to the Travolta family for their devastating loss,” said Kris Rasmussen in Beliefnet. But there are “some pretty big gaps in the details surrounding Jett's death.” The Travoltas “could do a great service” to other families facing similar challenges “by coming out and explaining Jett's condition and the treatment they decided to use.” It might also give them “peace from endless future speculation.”

click here for the original posting

No Mob Veto

2008-12-07T21:40:00.000-08:00

I couldn't copy and past this for some reason. It was in the NY times, apparently. Click on the link to read it. If it is too small, you should be able to click on the text to enlarge it.

Proposition 8-- thoughts from someone else

2008-11-29T10:23:00.000-08:00

This posting is from the blog: Too Long in the Wasteland
I couldn't agree with every word more.

"Dear Dad and Mom:

Mom called me and asked me to explain how I could justify supporting gay marriage. I am leaving for Japan, and will be out of contact for the rest of the week. This is a topic that has vexed me for some time, however, and I'd love to explain to you why I am so offended by the actions of your church over the past decade.

I find failing to support gay marriage indefensible on three levels: Political, Moral, and Personal.

Political:

I hold to the fundamental belief that all people deserve to be treated fairly, and equally, under the law. I do not believe that government has a right to interfere in the personal lives of consenting adults, either on sexual, religious, intellectual, or expressive grounds.

You can dislike gays, and their activities. That is your right. You can discriminate against them personally, and I expect your church will continue to do so. But when you seek to limit the legal rights of decent, honorable people, on the grounds of fear and bigotry, you overreach.

This is an argument the church will eventually lose, just as it lost it's arguments regarding the odious practice of polygamy, and the repugnant practice of withholding the priesthood from blacks. In general, people are decent, and fair minded. In time they will recoil from the ugliness of the current lds campaign against gays.

I realize you feel obligated to defend the actions and decisions of your church leaders. This obligation will lead you to craft any number of justifications. They all come down to one word-- "yuck". You don't like that some people are gay, and you want to treat them differently under the law.

All adults should be able to marry the person they love, and should be able to expect society to support their commitment. In return, society is strengthened by increasing the solidity of the family relationships those consenting adults build.

Let your church believe what it wants- act based on the dictates of your own conscience. but don't seek to impose the dictates of your conscience on others, unless you wish to give up the right yourself as well.

Moral:

I don't like bigotry, I don't like dishonesty, and I don't like those who use fear to manipulate others. The church has done this throughout it's campaign against gay marriage, and it has warped the minds of it's members, resulting in any number of indefensible claims and arguments.

The tactics of the church campaign highlight the flimsy material behind which it hides. And it fails to answer the question at the heart of this debate: When did Jesus say it was okay to treat gay men and women with such wicked disregard for who they are? There is no biblical or christian scriptural basis for disallowing gay marriage. And if you want to argue that, I can quote reams of verses that are ignored by those cherry picking quotes that apologists pretend justify their position.

King Benjamin had a lot to say about helping others. he would certainly be disgusted by a church that thinks preventing gays from having marriage was worth 20 million dollars of mormon money. think of all the good that money could have done in helping people. It was an immoral use of resources.

As for modern day revelation- D&C 132 is still on the books, last time I looked. And the canard of revelation -"the bretheren must know something we don't" - has been used to justify other positions that were eventually reversed, again by modern 'revelation', when it became convenient.

Personal:

You have a son. He is Gay. God made him that way. He has a strong 'spiritual' marriage, with Gregg, that is stronger than many of the marriages you've claimed pride in with your other children. You could choose to praise his love, and his life, and celebrate the way his creator chose to make him.

I do.

I love you, and don't expect you to agree with me. I would like to think that you could at least respect Joe's desire to have a committed relationship, and leave your personal misgivings behind, and that you could allow him to live his life, as an honorable member of society, as he sees fit.

I do.

Love, Seth"

Proposition 8- Thoughts from a Mormon

2008-11-09T19:40:00.000-08:00

After hearing of vandalism on church buildings in California and bricks through church member's windows, spray paint on their homes and vehicles, and other terrible acts from people against prop 8, I just wanted to share this email letter that a church member I know received from a family friend of hers.

Dear Friends,

In the aftermath of the recent election, we may find ourselves oddly on the defensive regarding our support for the Yes on Proposition 8 cause. Our young people have been especially subject to mean spirited comments by high school friends and teachers. We have nothing to be ashamed of. We did nothing wrong. In fact, we did everything that a civic minded American can and should do. I have put together a few facts that help me to appreciate our position better. For example:

1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.

5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.

6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.

7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.

8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).

9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims “ all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members.

10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or herself. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.

11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.

12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do “ we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.

Hold your heads up high “ you did a great job on this most important cause. We will have more opportunities in the future to participate in our democratic process. Let's remember the lessons learned and do an even better job next time.

These are opinions and thoughts; any errors are mine and in no way reflect official Church policy or doctrine.

don't vote, really.

2008-10-12T18:14:00.000-07:00

"Still Undecided? Then just don't Vote"

Check out this brief op-ed from the LA Times.

What do you think of this?

things i am tired of

2008-10-02T19:13:00.000-07:00

With the election just "a heart beat away," it's time to really pay attention to the credentials of our candidates. I like to base my decisions on the vice-presidents and their 'isms.'

How do you choose between a vice-president running mate that refers to Bosnians as "Bosniac's" (Biden) and the other who follows King George's pronunciation of "nucular" (Palin)?

Either way, my being was overcome with warmth when I heard Palin refer to a couple of issues as "Near and dear to my heart." So sweet.

Bite Me

2008-10-01T18:48:00.000-07:00

Here is what Gracie said to me today (word for word as well as I can remember):

Gracie: Mom, I wish Mathew would go to heaven.

Mom: You wish Mathew would go to heaven? But that would make me sad.

Gracie: You would be sad. But I would not be sad.

Mom: Don't you love your brother?

Gracie: Yes.

Mom: Don't you like to play with your brother?

Gracie: Yes.

Mom: If Mathew was in heaven you wouldn't be able to see him any more. We would miss him.

Gracie: But Heavenly Father can see us.

Mom: Heavenly Father can see us, but we can't see him. So we wouldn't be able to see Mathew if he was in heaven.

Gracie: But Mathew bited me today.

***I cut and pasted this from Kelli's blog. This is HILARIOUS*** And seriously she thought about him being able to see her?? That's enough apparently.

Living Vicariously, and BEYOND

2008-09-25T08:52:00.000-07:00

"Stealing a daughter's identity
A Wisconsin woman allegedly stole her daughter’s identity to become a high school cheerleader. Wendy Brown, 33, enrolled in Ashwaubenon High School with documents belonging to her daughter, who was living out of state. Brown attended practice and parties with the cheerleading squad before the ruse was exposed. Police charged Brown with identity theft, and said she “had no childhood and was trying to regain a part of her life she missed.” "

Quoted directly from The Week Daily

2008-09-21T17:55:00.000-07:00

"A Rare Flower" by Lenaah

I found this adorable, yet sophisticated and striking. Found this on Flickr, the photographer goes by Lenaah and has some other beautiful photos. You can get to her flickr page clicking on the above photo. Her "Home project" pictures are neat.

Palin

2008-09-18T21:45:00.000-07:00

Palin is a nut job. For lack of more intelligent words. Or maybe it's just the right choice of words. She's tried to ban books, attempted to fire the librarian that refused to ban books (1984 and Fahrenheit 451 anyone?), she has lied about the "Bridge to Nowhere," along with other claims.

The one that really "gets my goat" (I had to say that since I had a 'goat' conversation today... seriously), is that she is "pro-life" to such an extreme that she surpasses the LDS stance. She actually believes that even in the case of rape, the woman should go to prison for aborting a fetus. A fetus that has no neurons firing. A fetus without a beating heart. Cells. "Pro-life" is so frustrating to me too, by the way. What? Am I "Pro-Death???" I am "Pro-CHOICE." I believe in the right to choose. I believe in the right to privacy. I believe that MY body is not yours to dictate. Please please please please please... don't let her into that beautiful white building. That White House.

At least she looks experienced here.

Is this her high school photo?

What?

thank you

2008-09-04T20:10:00.000-07:00

The political situation in this country has long been a mess. Everybody's in denial. The Democrats believe that a Democrat will actually get off his / her ass to accomplish something and the Replicans think that nominating a woman will win all women's votes. Heather, of Dooce.com, recently posted about this vice-presidential nominee. It is a great read and takes (some) of the words right out of my mouth. Thank you Heather, for your honesty. It is often difficult to speak sincerely about how pressing the issues are in our country. Weigh in on her post or what you think of McCain's choice.

"dead characters"

2008-08-29T09:28:00.000-07:00

http://www.markryden.com/paintings/index.html

Weigh in on what you think of this. I think it's amazing and comical. If you visit the link above, you can look at his other artwork by following links on the left side of his page. Some of his work is a little odd, but it's all fascinating. The painting with Corkey, the dog, ascending into heaven and of "Saint Barbie" are great. There is a serious obsession with Abe Lincoln in his work that's definitely interesting.

naughty avril

2008-08-27T05:22:00.000-07:00

Avril Lavigne Banned?

YOUR E-MAIL
RECIPIENT E-MAIL
SUBJECT
YOUR COMMENT (optional)

YOUR E-MAIL
RECIPIENT E-MAIL
SUBJECT
YOUR COMMENT (optional)