I don’t normally watch the Superbowl. I know I know. Please don’t hurt me, but I just don’t get football.  (Baseball however…..)

I did watch the game yesterday, and thought it was pretty good.  Of course, I watched the ads too, and waited with anticipation to see the Tebow ads. When the game came, and went, and I viewed the ads, I kept wondering…where’s the controversial ad? The one the pro abortionists got their panties in a wad over, with NOW president Terry O’Neill claimed that “The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It’s to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned.” Huh?

If you didn’t already know about the controversy surrounding these ads, would you have even known what the message was? You would have had to have been intrigued enough to go to the website to find out. I’m sure a lot of people did, but just as many probably did not. So all they saw was a funny ad with Timmy Tebow tackling his mom.

I thought both ads were very tasteful and understated and sweet. The pro-abortionists have egg all over their faces after this. Now everyone who was paying attention knows their true agenda.

Here’s the ad to see for yourself

Just remember that this was the commercial that infuriated feminists when you’re watching the GoDaddy commercials and skimpily-dressed women selling beer.

Human beings have a 100% mortality rate. At some point in time, you, me, everyone — will kick the bucket.

The President thinks we need to have a conversation about this. One “guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.”

Newsflash, Mr. President: America has been having that conversation all along, and without the benefit of your input, or that of some nebulous ‘independent group.’ Every family at some point struggles to deal with the inevitable mortality of ourselves and our loved ones. In my family, we’re having one of those conversations now.

A ‘democratic conversation?’ Not hardly. There isn’t anything democratic about this. My family isn’t voting on what to do. And certainly no outsiders have (or should have) any input. We don’t agree on the best course of action, and some of us have said things that we regret — but I can promise you that there is no ‘political channel’, normal or otherwise, that could possibly improve this situation.

Guidance? I don’t want ‘guidance’. From doctors and nurses, I want information. From scientists, I want research and new medical advances. From ethicists I want something more than a utilitarian weighing of costs and benefits. And as for government - who presumably would organize and guide these ‘democratic conversations’ about who gets voted off the island - surely it has better things to do than micromanage our deaths?

My parents have both given me a health care power of attorney. And soon it will be my turn to be the decision maker. It’s sobering, terrifying. I’m seriously in doubt about my wisdom in this matter. But what I do not doubt is that I can make a better decision for myself and my family than any government official or committee.

I’ve been trying to avoid the MJ news as much as possible. It’s already been a circus, and it will probably get even worse in upcoming months as the cause of his death becomes known, and more aspects of his bizarre lifestyle come out. But THIS is why we need to more strictly regulate the whole industry of sperm donors, egg donors, surrogate mothers, whom eggs and babies are given (sold) to, etc. Evidently, one surrogate mother had no idea that the child she was carrying (biologically hers? or somebody else’s?) would ultimately be absorbed into Michael Jackson’s freak show. Shouldn’t she have?

My sympathies are with these children. Regardless of whose they may be biologically, Michael Jackson was they only dad they ever knew: now, they’ve lost a father, and they are in danger of becoming victims of those who will spend the next 20 years preying on Michael’s legacy. Weep for the children.

Take 6 minutes and listen to Susan Boyle, another surprising contestant in the Britain’s Got Talent competition:

I came across an excellent article by The Herald’s Colette Douglas Home that sums up just why that performance was such a triumph — and what we should learn from the woman who gave it.

Susan Boyle’s story is a parable of our age. She is a singer of enormous talent, who cared for her widowed mother until she died two years ago. Susan’s is a combination of ability and virtue that deserves congratulation.

So how come she was treated as a laughing stock when she walked on stage for the opening heat of Britain’s Got Talent 2009 on Saturday night? . . .

The answer is that only the pretty are expected to achieve. Not only do you have to be physically appealing to deserve fame; it seems you now have to be good-looking to merit everyday common respect. If, like Susan (and like millions more), you are plump, middle-aged and too poor or too unworldly to follow fashion or have a good hairdresser, you are a non-person. . . .

Susan is a reminder that it’s time we all looked a little deeper. She has lived an obscure but important life. She has been a companionable and caring daughter. It’s people like her who are the unseen glue in society; the ones who day in and day out put themselves last. They make this country civilised and they deserve acknowledgement and respect.

It has been awhile since we have written, partly because of the holidays, and partly because there is so much happening in such a short time, it is hard to keep up with the news. Of course, most of the time is taken to sort out the rhetoric from fact. That is the direction almost all of the the media has taken for several years. Doomsayers no matter what. But that goes without saying, you see it everyday. No matter what solution is that is provided, someone HAS to announce the doomsday effect the solution will have. And the politicians are doing the same.

I read several stories that sort of prove my point. One actually said the same thing, just a little more simpler. Part of the article states, “The financial system is still obviously under extreme pressure. It’s not hard to paint a dark picture. Global investors could panic and stop buying the bonds we issue and send interest rates higher. Oil prices could spike again for whatever reason. It’s not hard at all to be pessimistic.” Yup, and everyone is on THAT bandwagon.

With all of the possibilities and end results of President-elect Obama’s plans, it appears media and other various organizations have time to “analyze” what went wrong. Example: “To be sure, housing counselors acknowledge that some borrowers only have themselves to blame. They clearly got in over their heads and many knowingly took out risky loans. But they also say that mortgage brokers and lenders took advantage of the elderly, immigrants and the unsophisticated.”

Well, so now the elderly, immigrants and unsophisticated are at fault. Hmmm. In the same article, it mentions that one out of every four mortgage holders owe more than their property is worth. 13 million, I think they said. So that many people were taken advantage of?

Well, being in one of those minorities, (elderly), I take exception to this. Especially since in about 5 years, we, the elderly, will be the majority if all accounts are correct.

It seems to me that there is another matter that almost everyone has ignored. The lack of control. By the banks, the government, and the people themselves.

Loan officers made loans they KNEW would not hold up if anything happened, which it did. The housing market crashed and values dropped. But they were too busy making money TODAY. Ever run into a Loan officer who said, “No, I’m sorry, you don’t qualify?” And the banks were not the only ones.

The government has never had any real control over the financial markets. Otherwise, how would Mr. Madoff manage to run his scheme for years? How did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac run their operations so sloppy? How did the SEC manage to not see all of the warning signs?

And as far as people, I think most figured, “if the bank says I can do this, so be it”. It does not matter what has been pounded into people’s heads for years. Do not get a mortgage that will exceed 30% of your disposable income. The mortgage is the most important purchase you will do in your life. Etc.

No, there is no one group of people who are responsible. There were a lot of groups not acting responsible. I think that started with Ex-president Clinton, when the government decided to stop holding to a higher level of ethics. And it has escalated since. For example, one of the news articles mentions a nominee who “forgot” to pay his taxes to the tune of $34,000. No matter what the reason, I would have wound up with a lien on my home and constant calls about where the money was. For this guy - “it was just a hiccup”, according to the alleged “leader” in Congress.

Before any of this is fixed, or can be, the government and the Congress needs to raise the level of ethics that they face and act by and stop condoning all of the little “hiccups”. There has been too many recognized and ignored. Convicted of 7 felony counts and still allowed to sit in Congress? That is to me, obscene.

General society will not turn things around until the government does - only then will the investors, bankers, government employees, etc. start being concerned and held responsible for their own actions. Then it will start rolling downhill and the general way of thinking will change. Then perhaps we can handle the billions of dollars going out in a responsible manner and end up with some good results.

Until then, I want to opt out.

Last October, 88-year-old Ohio resident Edna Jester decided she had enough of her neighbor’s children leaving toys on her property, so she refused to return a $15 football that landed in her yard. She ended up arrested for petty theft:

An elderly woman faces charges in a dispute with a neighbor over a football.

Police were called to the home of Edna Jester, 88, on Myrtle Avenue on Thursday, Oct. 16, around 6:30 p.m. Her neighbor, Paul Tanis, 40, told police his football landed in Jester’s yard. Tanis said Jester took the $15 football and refused to give it back.

Police asked Jester several times to return the football or face arrest. Jester told police she would not return the ball under any circumstances. Police then charged Jester with petty theft.

Let me get this straight, the parents are peeved over their poor little one’s losses of a few freaking footballs? And instead of telling their son that he needs to take some responsibility for his actions (he’s 14), they call the cops on her?  The old woman had made her concerns known and the parents ignored them. She acted to teach the children that throwing toys into her yard meant losing the toys. It seems the only alternative that the neighbors will accept is for the old woman to fetch the toys on demand or give the delinquents free run of her property.

Neighbors said there were two sides to the story and the prosecutor may have agreed since the case was later dropped. Now Edna has sued her neighbors:

“An 89-year-old Cincinnati area woman famously arrested for holding on to a neighbor kid’s football is now suing the boy’s parents. The lawsuit filed by Edna Jester’s attorney in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court claims she has suffered emotional distress because the next-door family’s footballs and other playthings keep landing in her yard.”

The neighbors, Paul and Kelly Tanis, say they have 5 kids and can’t afford a lawyer. But Mr. and Mrs. Tanis had no worries about the lawyer fees their 88-year-old neighbor might incur.  Boo-hoo-hoo.  Sorry, no sympathy from me.

My mom occasionally had problems keeping us five kids in perfect control, but such things did not happen to our toys. If we “lost” them in such a fashion, we went and begged for permission to get them, or to have them returned, and if we didn’t get them back, we had to do extra chores to earn the money to buy new ones.  We learned to avoid throwing things over fences…

First there was this story about a bunch of grownups bent on ruining Thanksgiving for a bunch of kindergarteners. 

For decades, Claremont kindergartners have celebrated Thanksgiving by dressing up as pilgrims and Native Americans and sharing a feast. But on Tuesday, when the youngsters meet for their turkey and songs, they won’t be wearing their hand-made bonnets, headdresses and fringed vests.

Parents in this quiet university town are sharply divided over what these construction-paper symbols represent: A simple child’s depiction of the traditional (if not wholly accurate) tale of two factions setting aside their differences to give thanks over a shared meal? Or a cartoonish stereotype that would never be allowed of other racial, ethnic or religious groups?

Now, thankfulness is what the holiday is all about. The act of thanksgiving was a hopeful start for the English settlers and the Native Americans - a start which unfortunately didn’t continue for long.
(As an aside, the book “Mayflower” by Nathaniel Philbrick is the best history of those times that I’ve ever read. )

Today at the grocery store, I was wished not Happy Thanksgiving, but something like Have a nice Holiday.  Then at Starbucks (a PC meter if ever there was one) I noticed various references to Holidays and even “giving thanks.” But no Thanksgiving or any traditional icons of this holiday, such as turkeys, pilgrims, etc.  I am used to the banning of “Merry Christmas” and have come to accept the insipid “Happy Holidays”, but is Thanksgiving poliitcally incorrect now too?  And if so, why?  Because it was at the beginning of stealing the continent from the Native Americans?  Because the Puritans were Christians?  Theocrats?  Because Thanksgiving implies there is Someone to thank?  I’m just asking.  I like to stay abreast of these things.

It’s still illegal to flash someone in Seattle parks, but it’s fine to just run around nude.

Nudists relax.

Seattle Parks and Recreation will drop its pursuit of a proposal that would make public nudity in parks subject to prosecution for criminal trespass.

And, in a nod to tolerance, Seattle’s parks commissioners asked parks officials to explore the possibility of a clothing-optional beach in the city.”

I’m so confused.  A strip club has to be 800 feet from a public park, so why can people strip down and ride bicycles naked in a public park?  And I’d show you pictures, but the newspaper doesn’t post any…apparently the pictures would be offensive, but seeing ‘wobbly bits’ in real life isn’t.  Wonder how that works?

Look, I never thought there would come a time when public nudity would be up for debate. There have been nudist colonies and beaches in existence for years, though not, apparently in Seattle.  (Given our weather in any month other than July and August, that’s no surprise.)

Now ‘naturalists’ (which is probably a code word for ‘pasty-white and flabby’) have decided that the majority of society must succumb to the unique desires of a few.

Don’t get me wrong.  I think that the human body is a beautiful and amazing creation. I do however, find the spectacle of multitudes of flaccid genitalia and other body parts belonging to total strangers being forced upon me offensive.

Even as beautiful as the human body may be, it should remain private and shared with another person or persons only by mutual consent.

You can’t compare a bike ride in a public setting to a nudist colony or clothing optional beach.  Nudist colonies and clothing optional venues are based on the mutual consent of its inhabitants to share in public nudity.

The bottom line is, the majority of society has not mutually consented to public nudity.   So get over yourselves and your adolescent urge to ’make a statement’ and ride nekkid where the rest of us aren’t obliged to see you.

Well, society is doing it to itself again. Let’s legalize suicide. That is all the initiative is for, actually, that and to cover the physicians who prescribe the drugs. But before you get on a high horse, please read further.

There is an initiative on the ballot this year in Washington State, WA I-1000, “Death With Dignity” Act. There have been many, many comments flying around, including who lied about what, who said what, etc. That is all politics of course and rhetoric by people who have not taken the time to read and think about this Act. The Act is allegedly ”similar” to the Oregon initiative that passed in 1997. In a nutshell, it allows people who are diagnosed with 6 months or less to live to get a lethal prescription from a doctor to end their lives. There is more to it, but I am not here to debate the fine legalities of the law, what it specifically says or does, or any of the rest of that.

No, I am here to talk about the issues everyone else has ignored.

From my understanding, a 58 year old man, mentally competent, diagnosed with 6 months left to live can go to his doctor, and in a matter of weeks, get a prescription that when taken, will end a life. Now here is where it starts getting a little hazy.

That same man, a day after he gets the prescription, decides he doesn’t want to do this. So he takes the medicine and puts it in his medicine cabinet, thinking he will do something with it later. We all do that, put prescription medicine in the medicine cabinet, most of which sits in there for years. Go ahead, check it out - how much of that stuff is really, really old?

Anyway, the medicine is now there, available to anyone who has access to the medicine cabinet. Oh, but he can’t do that you say. Sure he can. After all, there is no controls over what happens to the medicine itself once it is prescribed. The State supposedly will track who got the medicine, who issued the prescription and possibly when it was used, as reported, but nothing about where it is stored during the meantime.

Have you seen the TV commerical about the drug dealer standing on the corner complaining that all the drug users are getting their drugs out of medicine cabinets so therefore he is losing business? That was something I thought of when I read this Act.  No control over the medicine after it is prescribed, just like any other medication.

Let’s see. The same 58 year old man is home, is not one of those who can afford hospice care, so he is pretty much on his own during the day because his spouse is out there working to try and cover at least part of the horrendous amount of medical bills that keep piling up. Now, when he was prescribed the medication, he was determined not to be suffering from depression - supposedly one rule of the Act. Today, however, he gets really depressed and also gets angry. He sees all of the bills, can not do half of what he used to be able to do, never mind that age might have something to do with it. He then remembers the medicine, goes to the bathroom and takes it because he is just plain fed up with it all.

His spouse comes home to a corpse. No previous knowledge of the medication, so she has no idea what has happened to her spouse. Oh, did I forget to mention? Under the Act, NO family member is required to be told about this 58-year old man going and getting this prescription. So his wife does not know.

Can you imagine the shock and the anger of the wife? Shocked because he simply did not trust her enough to confide in her. Angry because she is busting her tail to try and make enough money to support the spouse she dearly loves and wants around for as long as possible, even (or especially) knowing time is short?

People get tired of things, sometimes to the breaking point. I am tired of high prices at the grocery store, tired of high gas prices, tired of seeing my savings go down the drain because of the economy. Does that mean I am depressed? No, more like tired and disgusted. And I am sure I am not the only one.

People do stupid things when they are angry. I don’t think I even have to touch that one.

And for those of you interested in actual figures, here is something for you:

In Oregon, during 2007, 85 prescriptions for lethal medications were written under the provisions of the DWDA by 45 physicians (an average of 2 per physician) compared to 65 during 2006. Of these, 46 patients took the medications, 26 died of their underlying disease, and 13 were alive at the end of 2007. In addition, three patients with earlier prescriptions died from taking the medications, resulting in a total of 49 DWDA deaths during 2007. This corresponds to an estimated 15.6 DWDA deaths per 10,000 total deaths.

Under my thinking then, what happened to the medications from the 26 who died of their underlying disease? Or the 13 who were still alive at the end of 2007? Probably in the medicine cabinet, available to anyone with access to the medicine cabinet.

My points are this: There appears to be no control over the medication or the person once the meds are prescribed. You can’t control what someone does every day and not all terminally ill people are invalids - some walk, talk, and run just like you and me. The lack of controls is what makes this Act dangerous, regardless of the intent. Forget all religious and ethical concerns - this puts a lot more people than just that person in jeopardy.

And by the way, don’t tell me that “I knew someone who died a horrible death and I KNOW they would have used I-1000 if it had been available”. Get a clue. I can think of at least a hundred different methods of committing suicide if you really feel that way. You do NOT know unless they told you. And if they told you, they were asking for your help.

And one last point to think about. There are a lot of Powers of Attorney and Living Wills out there. Do they give the holder the right to get the prescription for you and help you with it? I’ll bet someone tries….

Death With Dignity Act? More like Death With Non-Liability Act.

First, my disclaimer: The following are my own personal opinions, and no one is required to agree. I am not a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise. I am someone who wants some good changes for once and tired of hearing the term, “For A Change”, because there is little of it so far. It is not the President’s fault nor any other single person’s fault. 

I have just read a 4-page article that MSNBC copied from The New York Times, a newpaper I consider no better than some of the “newspapers” I see at the checkout stand at the grocery or department stores. Why? Because they do not report anything without bias - instead they make it very clear who they are for and who they are against when it comes to politics. And they are quick to report ANYTHING, whether substantiated or not.

At any rate, I digress again. I found it very interesting that almost 80% of the “bad things” Sarah Palin is responsible for was on the first 3 pages of the article, and some of her accomplishments almost at the bottom of the last page. Also interesting was the fact that almost all of the interviews and comments were from people who had a grudge against Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin got rid of everybody and replaced them with friends and people she knew when she took over as Governor. Okay, and? What government anywhere in the world, whether it is city, state, or federal, do you know of that does not do this? Republicans do it, Democrats do it, Corporations do it. So this is news?

Of course, there are new governments in other countries who take everyone who opposed them out somewhere and shoot them.  We simply do not shoot our opponents, we replace them with people we know. Some countries get rid of the corrupt people they don’t know and just replace them with corrupt people they DO know. Didn’t see where Sarah did either one. No, she replaced some of the existing government with people she knew and could trust. And you know what? It seems to have worked well. So, what was the problem again?

Sarah Palin runs her governorship based upon loyalty and secrecy. Good, I say. An accountable open government doesn’t mean it has to be in a glass house with every act taken shown to every person on earth. It is time everyone figure that one out. Example: On the largest media in the world, the internet, it is announced when we will be pulling troops out of Iraq and roughly when. Great job guys! Nothing like a little bit of NON-National Security. And put our troops in jeopardy to boot!

Just to emphasize my point: Let me know when you are leaving your house on vacation and how long you will be gone. That way I can come over, spend the entire time in your house, eat all your food, sell all of your valuables, and then leave 10 mnutes before you get back. Just make sure you tell me because I have the right to know.

I have been hearing that Mr. Obama wants to have the campaigns on the issues that concerns the public. Okay, sounds good. So why were the interview questions asked of Mr. Obama completely different than those interview questions asked of Mrs. Palin? That is one of my public issues, since I am one of the “public”.

Another one of those public issues: What are you going to do to make sure that food prices in this country are lowered since transportation prices should be going down since oil and gas prices are going down? You have people starving, people who have to choose between 10 pills of badly needed medicine or one bag of groceries.

Sarah Palin has been poked at by the media about the term, “Barracuda”. It is about time we had someone get into the White House who will: 1) Get the Congress motivated to actually pass something that will help the United States Public, 2) Tell the countries that have been doing all of the finger pointing- “We know who you are, and guess what, all of that debt you owe us for all of the aid you have been getting on credit? Pay up or do not expect any more!”, 3) Tell all of the countries who have been upping their prices on their  exports to the United States - “We know who you are - Good-bye, we don’t need your stuff, we will make our own.”, 4) Tell the corporations that are shipping all of the jobs out of the country - “Time you reconsider what you think is more important, this United States, or your profits”, 5) For all of those people who speak to the media anonymously because they do not have the right to speak in the first place - “You are breaking multiple security laws, and breaching national security - Have a nice day because tomorrow you are going to get 3 squares a day and a bed and that is all you are going to have for the next 3 years”.

Get my drift? Well, you may not like the methods of Sarah Palin, but I think the end results are going to be much better for this country. I’m tired of seeing the United States bend over, kiss hands, or crawl away whenever someone starts complaining about the US being too harsh in their policies. And I am tired of paying out the nose for almost everything just to see huge profits reports for a few people.

I am not sayng we need to be a policeman for the entire world and we should not be under the guise of spreading democracy - if they do not know what democracy is, then they never will.

But there is NO reason this country can not be walking tall with pride instead of conceding to everybody and everything. Go Mr. McCain and Sarah Palin - Get it done!

And yeah, I still eat FRENCH fries…..