|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Feedback can be sent to "engineer at somethingaintright dot com"
|
OLD POSTS * * THE BIRD NEST AND CRUEL MOTHER NATURE * * * * * * * THE MOST ENDURING IMAGE OF THE 1968 SUMMER OLYMPICS * MUSLIM FANATISM/THE SUICIDE BOMBER * NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS LEFT BEHIND * OTHER VICTIMS OF THE MITCHELL REPORT * POLITICALLY CORRECT CHRISTMAS CAROLS * * * * THE TOP TEN BEST AND WORST PRESIDENTS * THE TOP TEN GREATEST AMERICANS * TOP 10 LIBERAL REACTIONS TO THE BRIAN BILBRAY VICTORY * THE TOP TWENTY LITTLE KNOWN FACTS ABOUT KARL ROVE * Understanding A Man's Hormone Cycle * * WHATEVER HAPPENED TO OUR 4TH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT? *
|
THE MOST ENDURING IMAGE OF THE 1968 SUMMER OLYMPICS
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Too much of John Edwards' confession about his adulterous (nobody uses that word any more) affair with Reille Hunter just outright stinks. There is more to it than he is telling us. I know, I know, it is a private affair and none of our business. But is it just a private affair? The reason John the lawyer is being vague about the details of the adultery is that he knows that it was not a private affair. It happened between him and a paid person working for his campaign. That means that it involved sexual harassment and/or the misuse of campaign funds. The first thing that stinks about the adultery is the timing of John's outing. John bravely made a public confession on a late Friday night news show, on the same day that the Beijing Olympics opened up. He knew that few people would be paying attention. So his degree of remorsefulness is highly suspect. He chose an obscure time to confess, and can now state in the future that he bravely confessed to the American people about the affair. John claimed that the adultery started and ended in 2006. If that is true, then why was he found in a hotel room with Reille Hunter just last month? An incident that was largely ignored (covered up) by the mainstream Democrat media. They claimed that the news source that broke the story, the National Enquirer was not a legitimate source. Despite the witnesses that appeared on television backing their story. If anyone doubts the political neutrality of the mainstream media, just compare this non-coverage of an actual Democrat affair with the full coverage of John McCain's Republican non-affair with a staffer. John was asked about the details of his adultery (the length of time, when it ended, etc.) and he refused to answer, stating that the details where personal. My first impulse was to agree with him. It was none of my business; I did not send him any campaign money to pay for his tryst (However if you sent money to him, you ought to be interested if he misused his campaign funds.). But then I also started thinking that if he had this affair while she was working for him then this was a classic Lewinskyesque definition of sexual harassment where the boss is sleeping with a "powerless" underling. He did confess that he met her in a bar and then sometime later gave her, a film novice, over $100k to produce election documentaries for him. That would seem to indicate that they were having an affair at that time. John claims that the affair took place while his wife's cancer was in remission. Why should we believe that answer? We have already established that he has zero credibility. He broke a promise to his wife and God (marriage vows). What makes you think he would be honest with you and me? But if it is true; how gentlemanly of him. He is oncologically correct. He also claimed that he confessed to his wife before anybody knew about the affair. Why should we believe that answer? The National Enquirer broke the original story, which was largely ignored, in October of 2007. I would assume this was when he told her. John said that the reason he engaged in adultery was that the adulation, respect, and admiration that came with his meteoric political career made him vain. He said that all of this caused him to be self-focused, egotistic and narcissistic enough to believe that he could get away with anything. John, you were a one term senator who lost a bid for the vice-presidency and presidency. Only you could convince yourself that you were that important. What about Reille Hunter's baby? She claims that she does not know who the father is and did not fill in a name on the birth certificate blank. Despite the fact that one of Edwards campaign workers claimed to be the father two months before he was born. So why wasn't his name on the birth certificate? And how many members of the campaign staff did she get passed around to? (I'm sorry, never mind). John states he is willing to take a paternity test, but Reille Hunter rather conveniently does not want one. Why would the mother not want to know who the father was? Wouldn't she need to know this in order to get child support? No. Right now she is getting $15,000 a month from a friend of Edwards. I don't think she is worried about child support. Does that sound like hush money to you? And does this mean that John is a deadbeat dad? As we close, let's not forget Senator Edwards' 1999 quote about President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. "I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen." Finally, if John Edwards believes that we believe his version of his adulterous affair and the paternity of the baby, then maybe he hasn't got over his narcissism. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx My Colorado Concealed Handgun Permit arrived in the mail this week. There is now one more armed, responsible citizen walking the streets of Colorado and helping to control the crime rate. The more of us out there, the fewer cowardly criminals will be preying on victims. They don't tend to hang around areas that have armed citizens. I'm not a crazed gun nut. I just refuse to be a victim, or sit by and watch while somebody else is brutalized by some thug. I am a 20-year military veteran who knows how to fire, and most importantly, when to fire. If I observe a crime my first impulse will be to assume the role of an observer who will be of use to the police once they arrive and need a description of the criminal. Unless of course the perp is threatening to grievously hurt somebody. However if my family or I am about to become the victims of a crime, I will not hesitate to put a .40 caliber hole in his chest. I have two handguns at home. My first is a Taurus .44 special revolver. Very accurate, but it is too heavy and bulky to carry. Despite it's 5-round capacity and 3" barrel. That one sits in a small safe next to my bed. My second is a Kel-Tec P40 pistol. This is the most compact .40 caliber I have ever handled and is perfect for concealed carry. It is so small that I had to buy a magazine extender in order to properly grip it. It gives quite a kick when you fire it. It has no safety, so it is actually safer. There is never any doubt whether or not it is on safe. I have had a concealed carry permit in the past and carried the weapon "on-body," but always felt paranoid about bending over and exposing it to a nervous public. This time around I have decided on an "off-body" holster. I bought a faux day planner that has a holster on the inside. You can carry a day planner most everywhere without arousing suspicion. It's unfortunate that I can't carry it into my kids' schools. They are the most vulnerable because the crazies know that no one inside of a school is prepared to defend themselves. Speaking of school shootings, I have one solution to the problem of college campus shootings. Allow anybody who is attending college on the Montgomery G.I. Bill to own a concealed carry permit. In fact, offer them reduced tuition rates as an incentive. Those veterans are a well-trained force that could stop a Virginia-Tech styled massacre before it gets too bad. Just advertising that the college has "x" number of former military who are authorized to carry concealed weapons will prevent most attacks. I wish the liberals would hang "gun-free zone" signs outside their homes. See how many burglars that attracts. Then they might understand how "gun-free zones" actually make things more dangerous. The concealed carry
permit in Colorado cost me $150 and is good for 5-years. This isn't my
only cost. There is also the price of the handguns, the cost of training
ammunition, and the cost of the time I spend on ranges honing my skills.
I'm thinking about setting up one of those PayPal donation buttons on
my webpage that liberals can click on to help defray the cost. They are
"free-riders" who are benefitting from my willingness to protect
them with my handgun. But I don't think I would get any donations. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OTHER VICTIMS OF THE MITCHELL REPORT The Mitchell Report, the investigation into steroids, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), and other performance enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball has been in the news lately. The key figure in this investigation has been pitcher Roger Clemens. Clemens' notoriety has overshadowed many of the other athletes named in the report. I recently read the Mitchell Report (specifically Appendix E) and learned that this investigation went even further than baseball. Here is a list of other people who have been investigated for performance enhancing drugs. High School basketball- Jason McElwain (2006). Jason was the 5' 6' autistic team manager that came off the bench and scored 20 points in 4 minutes! He had more drugs in his system than the dirt around Jim Morrison's grave. Professional Hockey- Wayne Gretzky (1981-82). Gretzky, who weighed 30 pounds less than your average hockey player went from a season total of 55 goals in 1980-81 to 92 goals during the next season! Previously an unheard of number of goals in professional hockey. Wayne spent more on steroids that season than his wife Janet Jones spends on a long weekend at the blackjack tables. College Cheerleading- Kristi Yamaoka (2006). Kristi was the Southern Illinois University cheerleader who landed headfirst on the court floor following a botched routine during a timeout in a basketball game. As she was led off the court on a stretcher and neck brace she amazed the crowd by continuing the cheering routine using the only parts of her body that had any feeling; her arms. Does this sound normal? Can you say meth? Later on, Kristi managed to make a full recovery from her physical injuries. Let's hope she has a similar recovery from her meth addiction. Professional Basketball-Nate Robinson (2006). 5'7" rookie Robinson won the NBA All-Star weekend slam-dunk competition. That same season he blocked a shot by 7'6" Houston Rocket Yao Ming. Expert commentator Shaquille O'Neal was quoted during the season as saying, "He (Robinson) must be on that HBH Human Growth Hormone stuff." Olympic Figure Skating-Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding (1994). You remember the famous kneecapping of Nancy Kerrigan? The official report said that a small time hood named Shane Stant was paid to kneecap Kerrigan, but it was actually Harding who performed the hit. She was just mistaken for a man due to all of the steroids she was on. And just how did Kerrigan recover so quickly from that injury? She won a Silver medal at the Olympics just a month after the devastating knee wound. College Football-Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger (1975). Ruettiger was the inspiration for the movie Rudy. He was a 5'6" 165 lbs walk-on who played defensive end for one game (2 downs) with Notre Dame. I know what you are thinking. Notre Dame is so bad that anybody could walk on and play. But that wasn't the Notre Dame of today. That was the Notre Dame team that won national championships in 1973 and 1977. He was definitely juiced up. Profession Tennis-The Williams sisters (2000). Venus is built like a Heisman Trophy winner. Venus and Serena could form an effective backfield for most NFL teams. US Politics- John F. Kerry (2004). Senator Kerry has performed more back flips than any other modern day politician. He had so much super strength that it took an entire squadron of Navy Swift Boat Veterans to stop his continuous demeaning of veterans for his own political gain. Kerry's three Purple Hearts in a 4-month period of combat did not even slow down his lifestyle of hunting, bicycling and sail boating. Kerry set a world speed record in pursuit of Theresa Heinz' riches after the death of her multi-millionaire husband. All those Botox injections? They were probably a failed assassination attempt. He is so drugged up nothing seems to stop him. US Women's Soccer Team (Continuous). How could a team of Americans win two World Cup Soccer Championships and be a perennial favorite at each tournament? Pound for pound, these girls are pumped more full of drugs than the starting lineup at the Kentucky Derby. Come to think of it, pound for pound, they are about the size of the lineup at the Kentucky Derby. NASCAR, Jeff Gordon (Continuous). Auto racing fans continue to wonder how Jeff Gordon can continue to do so well in the grueling NASCAR circuit. Jeff is so feminine, he gains man points just by showing up at a bridal shower. They ordered him in for a urinalysis once and he insisted on sitting down while providing the sample. Professional Golfers' Association, Tiger Woods (Continuous). Tiger has been the most dominating golfer through one period of time in golf history. Hello? Did we forget that he is black? At least mostly black. Black people don't play golf. What kind of drugs is he on? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Over the last couple of weeks there were four cultural events that happened in the US that I would like to comment on. 1. The Berkeley Protest
of the USMC Recruiting Office
2. The protesters don't hate the war; they hate the US military. Everybody is anti-war, especially the soldiers who have to put their lives on the line. The liberals use their anti-war meme to disguise their true anti-military, anti-US feelings. After all, how can you protest an all-volunteer military? 3. The protesters are using their first amendment rights to free speech and assembly to squelch the military and military recruits' right to free speech and assembly. This is called fascism. 4. Money is more important than principles when dealing with the shallow, feckless city council. They retreated from their protest once senators in Washington DC threatened to withhold federal dollars from their city. Their "deep" principles have a price tag. 5. It scares the hell out of me that there are citizens living in this country who would vote such a group of fascists into local political office.
If you want a solution to campus shootings, you need to remove the law that makes colleges and high schools into "gun-free zones." Criminals choose campuses for their mayhem simply because they know that no one else there is armed. The law that is supposed to magically protect our children is useless. Criminals bent on conducting a murderous killing spree are not concerned with breaking another law. Once this law is removed, you must allow some students to carry concealed weapons. A well-trained student with a gun can stop an amateur killer. Where do we find these well-trained students? How about allowing anybody who is attending college on a GI Bill the right to concealed carry?
Coach Sampson is currently under investigation by the NCAA for rules violations. He was also punished for rules violations while at his former coaching job at the University of Oklahoma. I watched the end of the Indiana-Michigan State basketball game last weekend where Indiana upset Michigan State. After the game a television commentator interviewed Coach Sampson. She asked him how important that win was to him. He said it has never been about him; it is about the kids he coaches. Is it really about the kids? So why are you cheating coach? Are you trying to teach your kids the finer art of cheating? This job is all about you and doing whatever it takes to win. It is not about the students. Stop lying to yourself.
Michelle said the other day in a speech that this was the first time in her adult life that she was proud of her country. What a self-centered ingrate. She must be a very unhappy person not to have any gratitude for the opportunity that this country has given her. Michelle is an Ivy League educated corporate lawyer who is married to another Ivy League educated corporate lawyer. Gosh, Michelle, life is bad. I'm about her age and I have been very proud of our country, many times. I can remember the 1980 US Hockey Team and any time we do well at the Olympics, I am proud of our space shuttle program, I am proud of how we won the Cold War, I am proud every time we help foreign countries who have natural disasters, I am proud of removing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, I am proud that we have an economy that the whole world envies, I could go on and on. If she was talking in a political sense, where she believes people are coming together politically for the first time, then she has conveniently forgotten about President Reagan's two landslide victories. But for liberals, he doesn't count because he was a conservative. This isn't the first time she has said something stupid. Last year she made some comment about black men in this country living in fear of being shot while filling up their car at the gas station. Gee, Michelle, I believe the last time we went through that, it was a black man (DC sniper) targeting white people. And statistics show that if a black man is shot, the overwhelming odds are that it would be by another black man Michelle is part of the liberal hate America first crowd. And they are all hypocrites. If America is so bad, then why are you living here? Pick a better country. Wait, there isn't one, is there. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You are labeling your child for eternity and this name will affect them for the rest of theiir life. Don't try to show your creativity and originality, and don't try to make a social statement. Remember; you may own this kid for the first 20 years of their life, but he has to endure the merciless teasing. Then he has his own life to live for the next 60 years. Don't name your kid after a celebrity. Sure they have cool names, but that is just for the stage. Sometimes they even name their own kids with something creative, but that is just a fruitless attempt to put some meaning into their empty, vapid lives. And chances are, a few years from now the young pop tart teen star you thought was adorable and named your daughter after will turn out to be a stoned slut. Don't name your kid after a city. That is too ostentatious. And they will forever have to answer the question, "You mean like the city?" Don't let your husband use a macho name like Roman or Hunter. He is just trying to compensate for his own lack of toughness. Don't use something ethereal like Star or Destiny. You will find those names in trailer parks where welfare queens are dreaming of a better life. If you must use a trendy name, that will probably do because those names are mainstream and usually relatively normal. But your daughter will spend every school year of the rest of her life in a classroom with 6 other Madisons. So what do you name your child? Give them a solid tradition they can cling too. Use a family name or a name out of the Bible. Individuality is good,
but not necessarily originality. You might say, "You're too old fashioned.
I want to be creative." The problem with that statement is the "I."
It is not about you, it is about your child. Don't handicap them. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx We recently finished another youth soccer season. I have coached and refereed youth soccer for over ten years. Here is a list of the soccer parent stereotypes that I run into each season. The "I don't care if we win any games," volunteer coach- "I am just here to teach the kids how to play one level higher."-There's some BS for you. Everybody cares if they win. That coach is just trying to make an alibi in case his team has a poor season. The "Winning isn't important," parent. -Yes, winning is important, just ask the kids. It isn't the only thing, at least at this level, but there is nothing wrong with instilling a competitive spirit in the children. These are the same parents who were always picked last for playground games when they were kids. Even though it is politically incorrect to say so, everybody wants to win. That is why they attend practice. The Absentee Parent- This parent signs the kids up for athletic events just to use the team as a babysitter a few nights a week. They have no interest in the welfare of their child or in sports in general. They will drop off the kids for practice and games and go off and do their own business. They sometimes even leave siblings on the sidelines. I had a team rule on any team that I coached with kids that were younger than 8. I would insist that a parent be present at all times. I would recommend it for those older than 8. The "Tiger Woods Sr." Parent-This parent is constantly monitoring the kid and insisting that they stick to it and do it right. Sometimes you see them in the neighborhood at night forcing the kid to practice, practice, practice. They criticize the kid every time they touch the ball. They scream if the kid is not hustling, and tells them to "just walk it off" if they are injured. The "Know it all" Parent- This parent thinks he knows more about the sport than the rest of the parents, the coach, and the officials. He constantly runs his mouth and openly second guesses the coach's decisions. Though he is the most knowledgeable person on the field, he has never volunteered to coach a team. He just likes to hear himself express his opinions. The "No one asked me but…" Parent-This parent is related to the know it all parent but his experience goes beyond the soccer field and into all of life's endeavors. He will offer unsolicited comments on every sideline conversation and refuses to shut up. He doesn't recognize subtle and not so subtle hints to mind his own business. The "Stupid, yet confident" Parent-This big mouth argues with the coach and officials despite not knowing anything about the sport. The "Superfan" Parent- Obnoxiously yells, screams, and shrieks at even the most routine play. This goes well beyond your normal or lively support of the team. This is a real attention whore who probably failed the tryouts for her high school cheerleading squad. The "Get my overweight kid in shape," Parent. Mom forces her 12-year-old couch potato out onto the soccer field for the first time. This kid is a drag on the rest of the team because the other kids have already been playing for 6 or 7 years and are light years ahead of him. The coach has to devote extra time to this one child who doesn't want to be there. Momma thinks that a 2-month soccer season is going to undo 12 years of pizza, root beer and video games. The "El Cheapo" Parent- This parent will not buy the kid the most basic sporting equipment, even though it is evident that they can afford it. I understand that some parents do not have the financial resources and I have even helped some of them out of my own pocket. I'm talking about the parent of means who buys the cheapest, ill-fitting equipment. The "Cheap Snack" Parent- When it is their time to bring a game snack, they bring an airline-size bag of peanuts for the whole team to share. For some of the younger kids, the snack is the highlight of the day. Just watch the disappointment. The "Hilton" Parents- Nothing less than Olympic grade equipment for their kids will due. No big issue here. It's just sometimes interesting to see the kid out there with hundreds of dollars worth of equipment which they will outgrow in 6-months. The compulsive over-scheduling Parent- Johnny is scheduled for soccer, piano, karate, church youth group, and Boy Scouts. Johnny does not have a single free moment during the week to do kid things. He will miss most of your practices but Mom insists that he plays an even amount of time on the field as the other kids who practice all week. The subjective Parent- Their child is an average player but Mom and Dad see the next Freddy Adu on the field. The Emotionally Detached Dad- Dad always sits by himself away from the rest of the parents and won't even acknowledge a friendly hello. Does not even react when his kid scores the last second, winning goal. Probably has a dead hooker in his trunk. Genuine parents- Helpful, always there for the kid and the team, just a pleasure to have around. The Frazzled Parent-Has 3-4 kids who play on 3-4 different teams. Their entire week is spent running from practice field to practice field. Bless their hearts. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx WHATEVER HAPPENED TO OUR 4TH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT? Our Founding Fathers knew that the natural tendency of a central government was to grow in power, and that amendments were needed to help rein it in. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, attempted to limit the power of the central government by giving political power to the citizens and the states. Amendments I-IX dealt specifically with individual rights (Freedom of Speech, the Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of Religion, The Right to a Fair Trial, etc). Amendment X stated that powers that were not granted to the central government were retained by the states. So essentially, our fourth branch of government was originally the individual states and the power that was delegated to them under the Xth Amendment of the Constitution. But that power does not exist anymore. The usurpation of this power started with President Lincoln's invasion of the South, rolled further forward with the passage of the XVIIth Amendment (direct election of Senators), and has been sealed with the more recent central government practice of denying federal funding to states that threaten not to cooperative with federal mandates. When a state believes that the federal government is illegally using its power, it has two choices. Either take them to court or secede. Since the federal government owns the highest courts in the land, they are not likely to rule in favor of the states. This would only leave the secession option. But Lincoln declared that option illegal and this effectively removed the Xth Amendment from the Constitution. Centralizing most of the country's political power in Washington, DC. Up until the time of Lincoln's invasion of the South (Gee, talk about an "illegal war."), it was widely agreed that the states' membership in the Union was voluntary and the states retained the option of seceding. This was one way to help control the central government. The New England states had almost seceded during the War of 1812. They sent representatives to the Hartford Convention to make a plan, and the President of the united States at that time, James Madison (the Father of the Constitution!), did not threaten to use the Army to stop them. The war concluded before the states acted. 50 years later, when the Southern states attempted to secede, President Lincoln acted much differently. He sent in the Federal Army to crush the rebellious states. The next blow to state power came in 1913 with the passage of the XVIIth Amendment. Prior to 1913, the citizens of each state did not vote for their two state senators. The senators were either appointed, or voted in, by the state legislatures. The XVIIth Amendment authorized the direct election of senators by the citizens of each state. On a side note-This also happened to be same year that we got our Federal Reserve System and our modern day Income Tax (I'd say this was one of the worst non-war years in US history.). Part of the impetus for this amendment was the existence of political machines throughout the states. The federal government wanted to end their influence and give political power back to the individual voters. But this amendment was a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. All this amendment did was take the influence in senatorial elections away from the local political machines and give to national political machines and other interest groups. This amendment needs to be repealed because nowadays our senators no longer represent the people who vote for them. They are beholden to the national political organizations and other political and private special interest groups that finance their campaigns and influence the selection of senate candidates. If we repeal the amendment, the senators would have to change their loyalties back to their state legislatures, who in turn are elected by the citizens. The state legislators would have an incentive to help us monitor the activities of the senators who would now be beholden to their state parties and local interests. Political power would shift from Washington DC back to the states. You could argue that this may lead once again to the rise of influential local political machines, but at least they would be local, and not national. A senate race in NH should not be influenced by money coming from liberals in Hollywood or from a conservative political action committee in Washington, DC. Finally, the last technique used by Congress to help control the states (the exact opposite relationship our Founding Fathers had in mind) is the practice of denying federal funding to states who do not wish to comply with federal mandates. Two familiar examples of this practice were the change to the legal drinking age to 21 and the setting of a 55 mph national speed limit. Uncooperative states were threatened with the denial of federal money to maintain their interstate highways. So essentially, Uncle Sam takes money from state citizens (income tax, gas tax, and others) and threatens to withhold that money from the states themselves, thereby coercing their cooperation. This practice is little different than the relationship the corner store owner has with a local gang who he pays protection money to in order to stop robbing him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I love kids. I have four of them. But if there were one annual event that makes me wish I did not have kids, it would be the annual trip for school supplies for my elementary age kids. This year, in addition to the pens, pencils and notebooks on the school lists, I found some rather odd items. Dry erase markers Are those items for the kids or for the teachers? I'm not suggesting that the teachers should buy all of these items, but why can't the school supply them with the money they steal from me each year in the form of property taxes? Here are some more items. Clorox pop up wipes Am I stockpiling their bathrooms? And how about this one. Assorted bandages Huh?
A $15.00 "project fee" was also on the list. But they don't bother to tell us what the project is. I guess it is a slush fund of some sort. And then there is a school agenda that we must buy, which costs $5.70. If my elementary kids need an agenda, I bet I could find a cheaper one. But the school would not be making any money. All right, so I begrudgingly decide to go shopping for these school supplies. After years of making the annual pilgrimage to Wal-Mart, here are a few tips I learned along the way: Shop as early as possible, preferably in July. Most schools post their school supplies list online, year round. Don't procrastinate, or purposely wait until August to see what is fashionable. If you go to Wal-Mart one or two days before school starts, the mothers that you run into are about as courteous as New Orleans looters. If you must shop during this time, go to a 24-hr store late at night when there are fewer mobs and the mothers are usually there without their rotten kids. Moms, please try to avoid bringing your kids when you shop for school supplies, it is already stressful enough for all of us. We don't need to hear hungry infants crying, we don't need to maneuver around your ADHD kids who are running up and down the aisle, or witness your arguments with your 12-year-old over the color of their notebooks. I am a firm believer in bringing my kids with me when I am doing errands so that they can learn public etiquette and see the way the world works, but this is no place for kids. It is already too stressful. Before you go, psychologically prepare yourself for the worst hours of your life and give yourself enough time to do the shopping. Be courteous, because we are all struggling with the same tasks. Have some situational awareness. Don't stand there in the middle of a high travel route trying to read your checklist, and don't park your shopping cart next to the items. Leave it somewhere close by, but out of the way. This is not your private store. If you have more than one kid that you are shopping for, put a few hand baskets inside the shopping cart to keep the supplies separate. Have the cashier bag them separately and then you don't have to sort through them again when you get home. If you can't find an item you are looking for in the back to school aisle, check the office supplies aisle. Read the fine print on the school checklist. There is a nation-wide school conspiracy to hide critical piece of information in fine print at the bottom of the page (item sizes, limits on quantity, items to avoid, etc). This post is too late
to help you this year, but maybe you will remember a few of these tips
for next year. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The recent campaign finance scandal from Ms Clinton shows just how ineffective campaign finance reform really is. A man named Norman Hsu has been identified as a "bundler" for campaign contributions going to both Ms. Clinton and Barack Obama. A bundler is someone who works for a candidate by gathering up a lot of campaign money from several different donors who by law, can contribute up to $2,300 per election. So if the bundler finds 20 people who are willing to donate the maximum amount of money, he could bundle $46,000 for his favorite candidate. That is the way it is supposed to work. But in real life, it sometimes works in the opposite direction. A bundler contacts one person, who wants to donate $46,000. So now he must go out and find 20 people who will act as straw donors to cover up that one huge donation. Hsu was a bundler for the Paw family in California. Over the years each member of the Paw family gave the maximum amount of campaign money to a number of Democrats including Hillary. This family, who lives in an extremely modest home, the father worked for the Post Office, managed to donate $290,000 over the years. It obviously isn't their money. And since the Republicans are not raising much of a stink over this, evidently they have some bundlers of their own. Here is an exert about Campaign Finance Reform that I posted last year on my Dump The Incumbents Page Have you ever noticed that any time Congress attempts to reform itself, the abuses become worse? In the early 70s, Congress tried to limit the amount of money a single donor could give to a politician. That legislation limited the amount that individuals could give to their favorite candidates at $1,000 (called "hard" money). Well our dear old legislators dodged that requirement by creating "soft" money. Soft money is money that you give to your favorite candidate without really giving it to your candidate. The money goes to your candidate's party and they spend it for him. In 2002 Congress tried to reform itself again with the McCain-Feingold Law. This silly law, in addition to silencing free speech (limits on issue adds), attempted to remove the influence of soft money. What it ended up doing was moving control of the soft money from the political parties to so-called "527-groups," which are non profits set up to help influence the elections. These attempts at reform are wrong because the reformers have failed to properly identify the problem. The reformers believe that there is too much money in politics and the answer is simply to limit the amount. This is silly. What is the alternative? Who or what would you like to control the elections? The military? The media? The politicians themselves? Money is the lesser of all these evils. There is nothing wrong with having money influence the election. Why? Because it is simply the free market at work. The more popular candidate will draw the most money. Each attempt at limiting the money has failed. The money will always find some way to make it into the process. Let's say you designed the perfect law that limited the amount of money that could enter the political process what do you think the result would be? Only the rich, using their own money, would become elected because we can't make a law that tells someone how much of their own money they can spend on their own election. That money is their private property. The problem in politics is not too much money. The problem is the source of the money and the strings that are attached. Donors expect to be paid back with special treatment and favorable legislation. We cannot eliminate this problem so the only realistic thing we can do is shine some light on it. We need to eliminate all restrictions on campaign contributions (except foreign contributions) and require full disclosure so at least we know whom the candidate is beholden to. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Republican political strategist Karl Rove recently resigned his position. Here are the: THE TOP TWENTY LITTLE KNOWN FACTS ABOUT KARL ROVE
1. When Karl was born in the hospital, he ate all of the baby food and forced the rest of the babies out of the nest. This is not the last time he hurt babies. 2. Though Karl Rove's birthday is actually on Christmas Day, he celebrates it each year on Halloween. 3. When Karl was a Boy Scout he used to push little old ladies into the street. 4. A teenage Karl Rove tried to hang out with Charles Manson in the 60s, but frightened Manson away. 5. While at college, Karl drank a lot of beer. Not to get drunk, but just to prevent his fraternity brothers from drinking the beer and having fun. 6. Though Karl Rove avoided the Viet Nam draft, he did write a letter to the Department of Defense and convince them to use napalm and Agent Orange. 7. Television cameras are so afraid of Karl Rove that they make him look thin to stay on his good side. 8. While Karl Rove is an agent of Satan, the duties are largely ceremonial. 9. Karl Rove invented Global Warming. 10. Karl Rove can eat asbestos and lead paint and not become ill. 11. Karl Rove used his evil powers to steer hurricane Katrina away from his home in Texas and into New Orleans just because a bird pooped on his head once when he was at Mardi Gras. 12. Karl Rove proudly traces his family tree back to Machiavelli. 13. Judith Martin (Miss Manners) cusses whenever she is around Karl Rove. 14. Bill Gates sold his soul to Karl rove, not Satan. 15. Karl Rove has written 25 humorous limericks about the death of Princess Di. 16. Karl Rove designed the computer program that turns popular music into Muzak. 17. Karl Rove owns a fleet of ice cream trucks that drive around with strict orders not to stop and sell ice cream to children. 18. Karl Rove does not support nationalized health care because he wants sick people to die. 19. Karl Rove thinks that only registered Republicans making over $100,000 a year should be allowed to vote. 20. Karl Rove sends Care packages to Africa that contain nothing but diet pills. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Understanding A man's Hormone Cycle
Once you know how his
hormone cycle affects him, you can use it to Morning: His testosterone is at its highest level. He's energetic, talkative, aggressive, focused and confident. He may also be combative, quick to anger and more likely to say "no" to a favor or request. To make your relationship closer: Avoid bringing up "hot button" topics that can be put off till later in the day or not brought up at all. His high testosterone makes him more likely to fly off the handle. Make your guy feel masculine by asking him to fix something around the house-real manly stuff, with tools. Cook him a nice breakfast so that he can concentrate on his chores. His high testosterone makes it easier for him to do anything that requires hand-eye coordination. But once he starts the project, leave him alone-a man's high testosterone makes him feel more independent now, so he's happiest working by himself. Your best option is to do some housework or go to the gym and work off those few extra pounds you have been carrying around. Are you in the mood for some bedroom fun? Fit it in during the morning hours, anytime is good for him, but high testosterone makes a man's libido peak in the early part of the day, which turns these into the most passionate hours for sex with your sweetie. After you are done, don't engage in pillow talk, just go to the kitchen and fix him a hearty lunch. He will need more energy as the day goes on and his testosterone starts to fade. Afternoon (noon to 5pm): He's a tad mellower but still upbeat, chatty, driven and focused. He's also more open to working with others. You'll catch him smiling more now, too. The hidden hormone reason: His testosterone is at the mid-point of its cycle. Want to know how your mate really feels about an issue, say, an impending move or job change? Invite him to join you in a physical activity, such as walking, biking, or more romance. While you are outdoors that is also a good time to ask him for sex. The thrill of secretly making love outdoors, while others are nearby, will bring out the primal man in him. This is a good time to ask him about his feelings. Believe it or not, he'll share! The reason? At this point in their hormone cycle, men have energy to burn, so they'll enjoy being active, and males find it easier to open up about their emotions when they're engaged in an activity. But no serious questions please. Unless it is something that will really pique his interest, like a breast enlargement, or the purchase of a new boat. Otherwise, ask him about activities and events that he enjoys. If you've got a problem you're working on, now's the best time to ask your mate to join you in brainstorming solutions. Not only will his hormones have him in a talkative mood, but he'll also be more open to partnering up during these hours. Remember, focus on the problem, not feelings-he's not that open. Save the real hard stuff for your girlfriends. If the solution he gives you makes sense, reward him with more sex, or go quickly to the kitchen and start dinner. Evening (5pm to 7pm): His energy is bottoming out and he's feeling mentally foggy. He craves an hour or so of down-time while he recharges. Bring him a cigar and a shot of bourbon. His testosterone is reaching the low point of its cycle. To make your relationship closer: Avoid pouncing on your sweetie the moment he gets home from school or work. Instead, let him zone out in front of the TV, surf the internet , listen to music or do whatever other low-key activity he likes to do to recharge. To get closer to him during these hours, simply sit silently next to him as he vegges out and give him the remote control. Even though he probably won't say it-he'll appreciate your quiet company. Want to make him feel even closer to you? Bring him pep-boosting snacks, like cheese, crackers, and the finest meats. He'll appreciate your kind nurturing. Plus, eating helps men get their flagging energy back up-and that will make the rest of the night with him even more enjoyable. Night (7pm to bedtime): He's feeling relaxed, agreeable and close to you. The hidden hormone reason: His testosterone has reached the lowest point of its cycle and he's gotten past the zoned-out part of his day. Bring up all those hot button subjects that you need to get out of the way-such as the hockey playoffs and his favorite beer. Because his testosterone levels are lower, he's less likely to get fired up while discussing topics like these. This is also the perfect time to ask the man in your life for a favor-for instance, to pick up a new tool for the next household project or to agree to pay for that boob job. Low testosterone makes men less argumentative and, therefore, more likely to say "yes." If you want to have
a quiet heart-to-heart with your honey about a serious topic, here's your
chance. During these hours, low testosterone makes men most open to sitting
through emotion-filled chats with minimal squirming. But don't overdue
it, remember he has a big day tomorrow, and you still have to put on that
teddy, finish cleaning the house, and iron his shirt. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THE TOP TEN GREATEST AMERICANS Since I did a Top Ten Best and Worst Presidents' list last month I thought I would follow it up with a Top Ten Greatest Americans list. Well, I tried coming up with a Top Ten, but ended up with 17. There are some presidents on the list but they were included for what they accomplished before becoming President. I included founding
fathers, capitalists, inventors, industrialists, authors, warriors, religious
figures, pioneers, and social figures. I would not consider people involved
in the film or television industry because of the lack of substance in
that industry. I could not include musicians because the list would be
too big. Stretching from Stephen Foster, to Irving Berlin, WC Handy, Robert
Johnson, Bob Dylan, and Vanilla Ice (just kidding). MY TOP TEN (17) AMERICANS
IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER Ben Franklin-renaissance man Henry Ford-industrialist Robert E Lee-warrior Lewis & Clark-explorers James Madison-founding
father George S Patton-warrior Henry David Thoreau-literature Mark Twain-literature George Washington-founding father If I could include
some recent Americans I would list Billy Graham, Milton Friedman, Sam
Walton, Bill Gates and Clarence Thomas. It is too early to put those five
on the list because we need more historical perspective. But I believe
the five of them will be better appreciated a hundred years from now.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THE TOP TEN BEST AND WORST PRESIDENTS
My hobby is history, I am not a historian and don't expect anybody to take this too seriously. I was making changes to this list every time I worked on it. One problem with a list like this is that a President who serves during a crisis, often one created by him, is often placed ahead of a President who guides the country during a period of peace and prosperity and who doesn't mess things up. Those guys are quietly forgotten to history. There is also the argument of how much impact the particular President had on the country, how much the Congress was responsible, and how much they were picking up the pieces of the last guy to hold the office. There really are no objective criteria for a list like this and perceptions change over time, so I don't think anybody can fervently argue their own list, not even a scholar. So here is My Top Ten Best and Worst Presidents. Each list and sub list is in the order that the President served the country. In order to find the top ten best and worst the easier way to start is to eliminate some off the list. The following three were eliminated because they have served in the last 20 years. You need at least a generation's time, probably more (50 years?), to accurately judge a President. Any scholar who considers the last few presidents should not be taken seriously. They are just revealing their own political bias. INELIGIBLE PRESIDENTS WHO SERVED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS
Next I eliminated some who did not serve long enough. I arbitrarily set the limit at three-years. But maybe it wasn't so arbitrary. The three-year mark is a good way to keep President Kennedy on the ineligible list and keep President Ford eligible on the worst list. INELIGIBLE PRESIDENTS, DID NOT SERVE AT LEAST 3 YEARS
I know Kennedy is one of the non-thinking man's favorites, but he didn't serve long enough and he did not accomplish much. He is more legend than substance. He did not author, "Profiles in Courage," and he should have been relieved of command for allowing his PT boat to be split open by a much slower and less maneuverable Japanese destroyer. And much of his legacy was just hype from his friend and close advisor Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who, as a historian, new how to write a good story.
Abraham Lincoln, 1861-65 (Republican) The darling of the right, President Lincoln, gets credit for guiding us through the Civil War. My first problem with that was that it was not a civil war. It was a war of succession, something I believe individual states were allowed to do. So it was actually Lincoln who was on the wrong side. My second problem with President Lincoln is that he is credited with freeing the slaves and he did not free the slaves. He merely used the slavery issue expertly for his own political advantage. His Emancipation Proclamation was written to try to start a slave revolt in the Confederacy because the Union was losing the war in late 1862. It freed the slaves in the occupied south while allowing slavery to continue in such northern states as Maryland, home to Washington DC, and Kentucky, Lincoln's own birthplace. Also, The XIIIth Amendment, which actually freed the slaves, was ratified after Lincoln's death. Finally, it was Lincoln who introduced the income tax and conscription to America. Ulysses Simpson Grant,
1869-77 (Republican) Grover Cleveland, 1885-89, 1893-97 (Democrat) -He may move up into the top ten someday. One of the last presidents to try to limit the size of the government. Benjamin Harrison,
1889-93 (Republican) Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-33 (Republican) Blamed, perhaps unfairly, for the Great Depression. A champion of smaller government; so he does not make the worst list.
The darling of the left. Economists and historians have known all along that President Roosevelt did everything wrong during the Great Depression, but they are just now starting to admit it. He just managed to stay around long enough to see it end when the war started. He pushed this country further to the edge of socialism, and any president could have served his role during WW II. His handing over of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union had a murderous worldwide impact for the next 40 years.
The last good Democrat but not good enough to make the top ten Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953-61 (Republican) Fully capable, served during a time of great prosperity. Most of his greatness was before the presidency. He did disappoint me with his lack of leadership during the 1956 Hungarian revolt. That could have triggered a Soviet collapse thirty years earlier than it happened. Finally, here is the top ten list. I tried to shy away from the first four presidents because much of what they did occurred before they became President. But at the same time they did help define the office. So I ended up choosing three of the four. TOP TEN PRESIDENTS George Washington, 1789-97 (Federalist) Our first President who defined the role. One of the few military figures in history that stuck to his principles by not crowning himself dictator or king. He just wanted to go back to the farm like Cincinnatus, but returned when the country asked him. He refused to run for a third term after two unanimous elections. Thomas Jefferson, 1801-9 (Democratic-Republican) I like Jefferson because he assumed the office peacefully after 12 years of Federalist control. This was probably one of the few times up to that point in history where there was a peaceful transfer of power between two different political parties. The peaceful transition even survived a duel between leaders of the two parties. Jefferson's Vice President, Aaron Burr, shot and killed Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson also doubled the size of the country with the purchase and exploration of the Louisiana Territory. James Madison, 1809-17 (Democratic-Republican). Yes he did do his greatest work before his Presidency; the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a portion of the Federalists Papers. I like Madison because by serving as President he proofed his own Constitutional theories. We have too many politicians who design laws and systems that look good on paper but don't work in the real world. Madison proofed his own work. James Monroe, 1817-25 (Democratic-Republican) He quietly did his job, and created the Monroe Doctrine. Andrew Jackson, 1829-37 (Democrat) Gotta love him. First commoner elected President breaking the hold that the Virginia and Massachusetts aristocracy held on the office. Got blamed for a depression, but all he was doing was trying to limit government power by stopping the Whigs' Central Bank. James Knox Polk, 1845-49 (Democrat) Probably the dark horse on the list and the only one-termer. He was a popular and successful President who declined re-election. His presidency included a war with Mexico, a land acquisition greater than the Louisiana Territory (the Oregon Territory, most of the US southwest-spoils from the Mexican War, and the Gadsden Purchase), the creation of a treasury system that lasted until 1913, the opening of the US Naval Academy, Smithsonian, and Washington Monument, and at age 48, was the youngest President elected up to that point. Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-9 (Republican) Put the finishing touches on the creation of the US as a world power. Calvin Coolidge, 1923-29 (Republican) One of the silent guys who did things right and didn't try grandiose schemes to create a legacy. He maintained prosperity (The Roaring 20s) and brought respect back to Presidency after the scandals of the Harding administration. Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-74 (Republican). His lot will rise with historians as time passes and people take a more objective look at him. He ended a war that he did not start. He broke the Chinese Communist-Soviet Union bloc that opened the door for President Reagan to defeat the Soviets. He was a domestic policy centrist with his economic and environmental policies (Not that I agree with those specific policies). He was reelected in a landslide during an unpopular war. He resigned rather than bring the disgrace of an impeachment to the office of the Presidency. His crime in office was merely covering up for his men who committed a burglary against his political competition. Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-89 (Republican) His lot will rise even further than it is now with the passage of time. After 40 years of the Cold War (WW III), he was the first to have the courage to bust out of the détente role (which had created a stalemate and millions of deaths through proxy wars) and challenge the Soviet Union. He was the last small government President and the ever-eternal optimist. He upset a sitting President in a landslide and was reelected in a landslide.
The bottom ten. We had a lot of lackluster Presidents between 1837 and 1901. That is where 7 of my bottom 10 come from. The other three are modern day Presidents.
Martin Van Buren, 1837-41
(Democrat)
Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr, 1974-77 (Republican) He should have pushed to save South Vietnam. He hired a liberal Rockefeller as VP, he hired the détentist Kissinger, and he should not have pre-pardoned Nixon. (This has made the office of the Presidency too powerful, and I don't think Nixon would have been tried anyway). He made the dumbest statement ever in a Presidential debate (No Soviet influence in Eastern Europe).
My rule when I started
this list was to only mention what the Presidents were doing when they
were in office. But President Carter deserves special mention because
he has not only been our worst President but he has also been our worst
former President. He has lowered the bar with his self-serving behavior.
He was probably the first former President to break the unwritten rule
about not commenting on his predecessors. He is a national embarrassment. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx DON'T ABANDON YOUR KIDS IN DAYCARE Every once in a while I take a look around and see how people are treating their children and I am usually very frightened. I'm not talking about the trauma of physical abuse or divorce. I am talking about the emotional trauma of childcare and absentee parenting. If you are going to start a family and then put your children into storage everyday at daycare, don't bother. You are handing over their care to people with no emotional commitment to their rearing and well being. You are sending your kids into an institution where there isn't enough supervision and they fall under the laws of the jungle. You are also not developing parenting skills and therefore unable to hand those parenting skills down to your children. This is a cycle that will just intensify with each generation. Yes, raising kids is hard work. But there is nothing like the rewards. So stop being so selfish in the near term and think about the future. Don't give me the excuse that you can't afford to have one parent quit their job. I was an enlisted soldier, and my wife and I raised our kids on one salary until all three of the kids were in school-For the most part (When she was working, she was working out of the home.). So I know it can be done. Look at the economics of the dual income family. After paying the daycare bill, buying, maintaining and insuring a second car, buying expensive fast food or prepared food because no one is home to organize a dinner, buying additional work clothes, etc. you are usually barely breaking even. Families these days don't put their kids in childcare in order for them to work. The sad truth is that they go to work in order to put their kids in childcare. Daycare has become a place where parents are paying someone else to give attention to their children because they would rather be working. Nobody who has their kids in daycare can tell me the kids are the most important things in their life. They are doing it out of selfishness and the want of a career. Then they feel guilty about it and end up trying to replace the missing emotional bond with gifts. It's a lot easier to buy stuff for you kids than raise them. Isn't it? Parenting is a hard task. It takes love, courage, devotion, patience, and hard work. But today that can all be replaced with daycare and Ritalin. Moms and Dads, if you want two separate careers, fine. If you want to have children, fine. But you cannot do both at the same time. One of you has to stop their career and stay at home. This is non-negotiable. Don't get fooled by the social engineers who think you can replace a relationship with your children with stuff. They would rather have you present than two cars, a swimming pool, and video game. What about single mothers? I would first ask, why is she a single mother? No birth control? Divorce? We have too many single mothers. Don't believe the liberals, just being a single mother does not make one virtuous. Divorced and absentee dads wreck kids. And don't ever try to say you divorced for the kids' sake. When you divorce you rip out every strand of the fabric of their lives. Give your kids the attention they need. I knew a lady where I used to work who had two kids being raised by a nanny while her and her husband both worked at $60,000 a year jobs. They also spent their weekends dragging their kids around the state selling sports drinks at athletic events. Then she told me one day that they sponsor 30 needy children each month at $20 a head through a Christian charity. Tell me that money isn't guilt money handed over to absolve them of their own lack of parenting. Whenever we had a company function that the families were invited to, she would show up with her kids and I would watch a duo of rotten kids being herded by a frazzled mother who had developed no parenting skills. We knew another family that let their 13-year-old-boy go just about anywhere by himself. He would ride his bike all over town at all hours. And they have a habit of dumping him at the mall every Saturday and Sunday. They tell us that they are not worried about him because he has a cell phone. A cell phone is the new babysitter? She says that she raised him right and that she does not have to keep tabs on him and that she is confident that he will do the right thing. A 13-year old? She decided she could stop raising her son right in the middle of puberty? And what about people you hear about who need to go on dates without their children so that they can get away and work on their marriage. They need "alone time" to work on their marriage? Aren't these the same people who put their kids in daycare? Then each evening they medicate their children with drugs or video games and television until bedtime. Why do they have to get away from parenting if they are not parenting? If you think that one day after you have kids you might need to get away from the kids for a while to work on your marriage. Don't have any kids until you work on your marriage. Just get back to the
basics. Children need and deserve a married mom and dad with one of them
at home and the other ready to give them some attention at night. They
can do without the pool, tennis lessons and game stations. They can't
do without a home with parents that love each other and love and commit
to the rearing of their children. Sacrifice your own needs and selfishness.
That is what parenting is about. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx THE BIRD NEST AND CRUEL MOTHER NATURE In the weeks leading up to the 4th of July last summer I started observing some peculiar behavior from a small bird outside of my former residence in Tacoma, WA. I noticed that every time I came home from work, a Junco, a Washington bird that resembles a dark Chickadee, would always meet my truck when I pulled into my driveway. We always had birds in our yard due to some bird feeders so I didn't pay too much attention at first. I thought, the only reason this bird would be meeting my truck would be if there was a nest in my truck and that was impossible. I used this truck almost every day of the week and since there was no way there could be a nest in my truck I just shrugged off the bird's odd conduct. Well one day I decided to take a closer look and lo and behold there was a bird nest built onto the radiator of my truck. It came complete with two baby birds and three unhatched eggs. This truck is my primary form of transportation. Sometimes it will sit idle all weekend, but Monday through Friday it brought me back and forth to my office. My job was only a few miles from my house and the local speed limit was only 25 mph, so the baby birds did not get jostled around too much. But I still couldn't figure out why momma bird built the nest there, and how the baby birds had survived without starving or dehydrating while I was at work. I came home every day for lunch so momma bird did get a chance to feed them. But I thought that growing nestlings needed constant feeding. And I did occasionally drive the truck for short distance on I-5 at highway speeds. I don't understand why the birds did not get bumped out of the nest on the highway or were not sucked into the radiator. I started thinking about a plan to move the nest. I put on surgical gloves and tried to reach it. Well, momma bird picked a good spot for the nest. I could not reach it from the front, top, or underside of the truck. She had it tucked in nice and tight between the radiator, part of the truck frame, and some plastic molding. Since it was the 4th of July weekend and I did not need the truck I decided to just leave it alone for the next few days hoping on an outside chance that the hatchlings would grow very quickly and fly away. Tuesday morning came and the hatchlings were still there and I took the truck to work. I told my wife that the birds were out of luck. I was not going to disassemble the front end of my truck for some baby birds that probably would not even survive the move. I liked feeding birds in my yard with bird feeders, but I did not think I was responsible for housing them too. Darwin was going to take care of these birds. I went to work and when I arrived home for lunch my wife informed me that we were going to perform a rescue mission. I didn't think it was possible because they were too hard to get to and if we moved the nest, there was no guarantee that they mother bird would accept it. My wife decided that I would get on the ground under the truck with a pair of surgical gloves and she would reach in through the grill with two sticks and lift the nest up off of its ledge and then drop it into my waiting hands. Before we started the rescue mission I located a safe place that I thought I would move the nest to. I planned to move it a few feet at a time, allowing the mother bird to locate it each step of the way. Well my wife reached in through the grill with the sticks. In hindsight, she probably wasn't the best person suited for this part of the job. She tends to get very nervous. As soon as she lifted the nest with the sticks the baby birds freaked out and started squawking as loud as they could. They probably felt the nest move and thought momma had arrived with some food and were just doing their "feed me, feed me" routine. But this startled my wife who screamed, jumped, and clumsily flipped the nest over. The nest, two live birds, and three eggs all went in different directions. I didn't catch anything. I picked up the nest and gathered the two baby birds into it and laid it on the ground a few feet from the front of the truck. Two eggs had broken. I tried to gently pick up the third egg but the thin shell collapsed in my fingers. We backed up to let the momma bird, who was patiently watching from the garage roof, fly in to assess the situation. That is when things got real interesting. Momma bird swooped in to evaluate the state of affairs near her nest. She ignored the nest and started looking at the eggs. Suddenly several other Juncos swooped down from out of nowhere. Were they there to help? Nooooooo. They were there to eat. A cannibalistic orgy started as the other Juncos started battling over the remains of the eggs. The birds were in a frenzy fighting for the food and the mother bird was putting up a heroic yet doomed attempt to protect the eggs. Needless to say she was not successful and the little savages carried all the egg remains away. When the whirlwind ended the mother bird's behavior grew even more interesting. She completely ignored the bird nest and squawking babies a couple of feet away from her and flew up into the truck to search the original nest location. I sat by and watched hoping that she would see her nest. Well she finally found the nest but did not seem to be too interested in it. I moved it another few feet and waited for her to find it again. She did not come back and I had to go to work. So I left my 8 and 9-year-old out in the backyard with the mission to keep an eye on the nest and to move it a few feet toward its new location every time momma bird returned to the nest. I came home from work at the end of the day and my kids ran up to the truck to meet me. They told me in a rather matt |
