Every year about this time the Merry Christmas vs Happy Holidays debate begins. As I sit here watching the overreaction of many I am reminded of the commercial that was shown a few years ago. “I’m not touching you” You remember it right? The little boy has his finger about 3 inches from his sister a keeps repeating “I’m not touching you” over and over. Technically he’s not doing anything wrong but he knows he is annoying the crap out of his sister and does so to get a reaction.
I see the whole “Happy Holidays” controversy and the same thing. There really is NOTHING wrong with saying Happy Holidays. It’s been an acceptable seasonal greeting for many many years.. till someone decided it was offensive to those who want to say “Merry Christmas. Then the Politically Correct crowd found a way to annoy people without really doing anything wrong. I’m sure they are quite amused at the reaction of those on the right which is why they keep it up. Fact is when people stop being annoyed and reacting they will stop with the whole “happy holidays” thing. But getting that reaction is FUN for them so they keep it up. But then reaction to the 'Happy Holidays" PC crowd is the same behavior. Fact is trying to force everyone to say "Merry Christmas" is just as bad as others trying to make everyone not say it and only say "Happy Holidays". Both sides are behaving EXACTLY the same on this.
Now am I saying you should stop saying Merry Christmas if that is how you chose to greet people this time of year? NOPE. But I am saying stop reacting as if you are offended by the greeting “Happy Holidays” if that is how someone chooses to greet you. And yeah I know some business require their employees to say “Happy Holidays” but it’s still a free country and if you feel that strongly about being able to say Merry Christmas at work… look for another job that allows it.
This time of years is full of celebrations of many kinds and of many faiths. No one faith owns the season. And again it goes back to what I have said for years… you do NOT have a right to not be offended. So stop acting like you do by trying to change how others believe, celebrate or what greeting they use. That goes for BOTH sides of this stupid debate.
It comes down to as long as people have heading spinning “I’m a victim” fits they will keep up the “I’m not touching you” behavior. The solution is simple. Smile and accept whatever greeting you are given in the spirit it is given.
Season Greetings!!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Conservative Thugs
In the past I have heard it often said that those of the Muslim faith who do not speak out against the terrorism and violence are just as guilt of it. Well the same holds true for Americans. As a conservative, albeit not a traditional one, when I hear stories of extreme behavior in the name of Conservatism I feel I must speak out and condemn that behavior.
Recently I was made aware of an incident in Chicago. Midge Hough lost her daughter in law and grandchild to illness and now speaks out in favor of the Obama HealthCare plan. Now I disagree with this woman’s stand. No one in this country is denied medical care. And it is sad that her daughter in law waited too long to seek medical care. But I would never shout her down and call her story a lie. I would never attack a grieving mother or grandmother. I would possibly try to engage her in a conversation and help her see that her view of the facts are shaded with her grief and anger. Sometimes a kind and caring conversation does more good than any other tactic.
But the head of the Chicago tea party felt it was ok to verbal attack this woman. Then this tea partier decided that following her home and invading her privacy was ok. Well I’m sorry it is NEVER ok to treat others in such a disgusting manner. After doing a little research on the head of the Chicago tea party movement I am appalled that I may be associated with such a person. She has turned her anger on those in the conservative movement who did not fall into step with her skewed thinking to the point of making threats on other tea party members lives.. publicly at that. It is these types of extreme behaviors that alienate the general public. How is this different from the SEIU attacking a tea partier? Does her claim to be a conservative make it acceptable?
As much as those in the Conservative movement hate to admit most Americans are moderate. One or two clicks left or right of center. And when extreme behaviors are allowed to define a political party it encourages those moderates to vote and support the opposite party. It’s easy to say these people are fringe groups and don’t represent me… but if we do not actively and publicly denounce these behaviors then we are condoning them. We cannot be passive on these issue. Passive violence is the worst kind.
So here I am… a somewhat moderate conservative American who is speaking out.
· It is NOT ok or justified to attack other people whether you disagree with them or not. Argue the facts, discuss and debate the topics but stop attacking and threatening individuals!
· Stop spreading the crazy conspiracies…it makes you no better than the 9-11 truthers. Yes I am speaking of the birthers. Let it go already and deal with what we have in front of us.
· Stop trying to force your personal life choices on others and calling it conservative.
· Stick to the topics and do not stoop to the level of others.
· If you see someone speaking out for Conservatives who is giving them a “black eye” and giving the liberals ammo.. speak up and denounce the behavior.
We are judged by the company we keep… do you want to be associated with people who chase down, threaten and attack anyone who disagrees with them? Do not be passive.. take a stand to anyone liberal or conservative who uses extreme and morally reprehensible behaviors.
http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/11/23/unruly-teaparty-mob-heckles-couple-who-lost-grandchild/
http://www.streetwisepundit.com/chicago-tea-party-leader-threatens-to-shoot-blogger.php
Monday, September 14, 2009
Supporting the Troops at Walter Reed Hospital (9-11-09)
A link to this video made it's way to me via a good friend. He was at this event...
As I watched this video a few things struck me. Simple things like no one was blocking traffic to make their point. No one was fighting and screaming. I hear thank you's ringing out as cars honk their support. At a 1:22 you see a group of people crossing the street... using the crosswalk with the light.
As I watched this video a few things struck me. Simple things like no one was blocking traffic to make their point. No one was fighting and screaming. I hear thank you's ringing out as cars honk their support. At a 1:22 you see a group of people crossing the street... using the crosswalk with the light.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Did Pres. Obama Lie?
Did Pres. Obama Lie as Rep. Wilson said?
Share
Yesterday at 2:09pm | Edit Note | Delete
I'm sure you have all heard that Rep. Joe Wilson from S.C. called out Obama last night by saying "you lie." You may agree with him or you may not. That's not the issue. Here is an excerpt from the exact copy of HR 3200 if you would like to do your own research.
1. Does Not Require Proof of Citizenship to Obtain Health Services: While Section 246 (page 143) of the bill expressly prohibits illegal aliens from receiving government-run healthcare, the bill does not include a specific requirement that a person prove his or her citizenship in order to obtain affordability credits, which means that illegal aliens could obtain coverage.
Section 152 states that "all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services". This provision has the potential to include illegal immigrants because it may interpret "personal characteristics" to include legal status (Pages 50-51, 143).
2. Requires That If One Family Member Is Covered, All Members Covered: Another provision states that if one member of a family is afforded coverage all members would have coverage, thereby creating another loophole to give taxpayer-subsidized health care to illegal aliens. If a child of illegal aliens is born in the United States, then the entire family becomes eligible for coverage (Page 133).
3. Requires Free Translation Services: Sections 1222 of the bill will provide free translation services and interpreters to those who are not proficient in English. Section 1728 amends SCHIP to provide translation services to children of families and other individuals for whom English is not the primary language (Pages 408-418 and 782).
Share
Yesterday at 2:09pm | Edit Note | Delete
I'm sure you have all heard that Rep. Joe Wilson from S.C. called out Obama last night by saying "you lie." You may agree with him or you may not. That's not the issue. Here is an excerpt from the exact copy of HR 3200 if you would like to do your own research.
1. Does Not Require Proof of Citizenship to Obtain Health Services: While Section 246 (page 143) of the bill expressly prohibits illegal aliens from receiving government-run healthcare, the bill does not include a specific requirement that a person prove his or her citizenship in order to obtain affordability credits, which means that illegal aliens could obtain coverage.
Section 152 states that "all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services". This provision has the potential to include illegal immigrants because it may interpret "personal characteristics" to include legal status (Pages 50-51, 143).
2. Requires That If One Family Member Is Covered, All Members Covered: Another provision states that if one member of a family is afforded coverage all members would have coverage, thereby creating another loophole to give taxpayer-subsidized health care to illegal aliens. If a child of illegal aliens is born in the United States, then the entire family becomes eligible for coverage (Page 133).
3. Requires Free Translation Services: Sections 1222 of the bill will provide free translation services and interpreters to those who are not proficient in English. Section 1728 amends SCHIP to provide translation services to children of families and other individuals for whom English is not the primary language (Pages 408-418 and 782).
House Democrats Break President Obama’s Promise
From the House Republican Conference. Via Rep. Tom Cole (OK -R) office
House Democrats Break President Obama’s Promise
Why Not Require Individuals to Verify Their Identity?
President Obama promised in his address to Congress that, “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false—the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” However, the facts indicate that actions by Democrats in Congress do not comport with the President’s own pledge:
· While Republicans offered common-sense amendments at both the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees requiring applicants for taxpayer-subsidized benefits to verify their citizenship and identity—thus allowing the bill to meet President Obama’s pledge—Democrats rejected these proposals on a party-line 26-15 vote at Ways and Means, and a 29-28 vote at Energy and Commerce.
· Section 245 of House Democrats’ government takeover of health care (H.R. 3200) includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health subsidies under the bill. However, the bill includes no requirement for individuals to verify their citizenship, immigration status, or identity before enrolling in federal government programs, potentially allowing ineligible individuals, including undocumented immigrants, to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits.
· In fact, nothing in any of the Democrat bills would require individuals to verify their citizenship or identity prior to receiving taxpayer-subsidized benefits—making the President’s promise one that the legislation itself does not keep.
· In its preliminary score of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office noted that, “By 2019…the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 37 million, leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants).” Thus, unless the number of undocumented immigrants is projected to be fewer than 8 million individuals in 2019, the CBO score presumes some of the undocumented would have health coverage—raising further questions as to whether or not said coverage would be taxpayer-funded.
· Given town hall events during the August recess—where Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) asked to see one constituent’s drivers license before letting him ask a question, and Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) limited his town hall meetings to constituents with identification—some may ask an important question: Why should the process to ask a question of one’s Congressman be more rigorous than policies to ensure ineligible individuals do not receive taxpayer-subsidized health care?
The President’s address included a tacit admission that the number of uninsured Americans is overstated, citing a statistic that “there are now more than 30 million Americans without health coverage”—a much lower number than the Census Bureau’s figure of 46.3 million uninsured. According to the Politico, White House aides admit that as many as 10 million of the uninsured are undocumented immigrants—and his use of the lower figure means the President believes the undocumented should not be considered part of the target population to receive assistance. Republicans agree with the President that federal taxpayer subsidies should not be provided to undocumented immigrants—and question why House Democrats opposed the President’s own position in multiple House Committees.
House Democrats Break President Obama’s Promise
Why Not Require Individuals to Verify Their Identity?
President Obama promised in his address to Congress that, “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false—the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” However, the facts indicate that actions by Democrats in Congress do not comport with the President’s own pledge:
· While Republicans offered common-sense amendments at both the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees requiring applicants for taxpayer-subsidized benefits to verify their citizenship and identity—thus allowing the bill to meet President Obama’s pledge—Democrats rejected these proposals on a party-line 26-15 vote at Ways and Means, and a 29-28 vote at Energy and Commerce.
· Section 245 of House Democrats’ government takeover of health care (H.R. 3200) includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health subsidies under the bill. However, the bill includes no requirement for individuals to verify their citizenship, immigration status, or identity before enrolling in federal government programs, potentially allowing ineligible individuals, including undocumented immigrants, to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits.
· In fact, nothing in any of the Democrat bills would require individuals to verify their citizenship or identity prior to receiving taxpayer-subsidized benefits—making the President’s promise one that the legislation itself does not keep.
· In its preliminary score of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office noted that, “By 2019…the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 37 million, leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants).” Thus, unless the number of undocumented immigrants is projected to be fewer than 8 million individuals in 2019, the CBO score presumes some of the undocumented would have health coverage—raising further questions as to whether or not said coverage would be taxpayer-funded.
· Given town hall events during the August recess—where Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) asked to see one constituent’s drivers license before letting him ask a question, and Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) limited his town hall meetings to constituents with identification—some may ask an important question: Why should the process to ask a question of one’s Congressman be more rigorous than policies to ensure ineligible individuals do not receive taxpayer-subsidized health care?
The President’s address included a tacit admission that the number of uninsured Americans is overstated, citing a statistic that “there are now more than 30 million Americans without health coverage”—a much lower number than the Census Bureau’s figure of 46.3 million uninsured. According to the Politico, White House aides admit that as many as 10 million of the uninsured are undocumented immigrants—and his use of the lower figure means the President believes the undocumented should not be considered part of the target population to receive assistance. Republicans agree with the President that federal taxpayer subsidies should not be provided to undocumented immigrants—and question why House Democrats opposed the President’s own position in multiple House Committees.
Remembering Elaine Myra Greenberg
Elaine Myra Greenberg
On Sept. 11th, 2001 Elaine went to work as financial services consultant for Compaq. Like so many others that day she did not come home. She had gone to a meeting at the World Trade Center that morning. As I read through the remarks left on her legacy page I was struck at the repeated statements of those who knew this lady. Consistently she was described as happy witty and full of love ad consideration of others.
I have decided to let those who knew her best share who she was with you. I can only say I wish I had met her. And though I haven’t she has touched my life. Following are quotes left on her legacy page and from interviews of those who knew this lady.
“Her boisterious laugh lingers in the heart of those she knew. “
“Elaine, you embodied all the love one could have from a sister.”
“Elaine managed to get to every family event, the sad as well as the happy.”
“Elaine, I still hear your hearty laugh!”
“She was a wonderful woman, who was cordial and thoughtful and witty and sophisticated.”
“This is a woman who consistently thought of others first. Funny, kind and ever thoughtful, once she knew your taste she would try to find things for you she thought you would appreciate. It saved her boss's life on that black day. That morning, Elaine pulled a box out of a shopping bag and gave it to him. He was surprised because it wasn't his birthday or other gift-giving day, but he opened the box and found a tie. It was an "art" tie,that she had seen in a museum. Monet or Manet, one of the Impressionists- she thought he would like it, which he did. He said, can I put it on now? She told him he couldn't wear it with the shirt he had on, so he said, well, I have a white shirt in the hotel, but it needs ironing. I'll be a few minutes late, but... I really want to wear this tie."
So she went upstairs to the 106th floor and he went to his room. He hadn't ironed anything in some time, so it took him a while to do the ironing. Meantime, Elaine called to say, take this bank of elevators upstairs. OK, he said, and shortly left for the meeting. He was in the lobby when the plane hit.”
“She loved sending people postcards.She would call you up to tell you she had sent you one. Then she would call you up when you got it. She wanted to see if you were enjoying it."
“She was known as the "cool aunt" in her family. And why not? How many aunts teach their nieces and nephews to drink and gamble?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
