Friday Wrap-Up

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Cam’s school district made The Tonight Show this week! It would be wonderful if this was because they were celebrating science fair winners, but that wasn’t the case. The School District Board of Education had to hold a special session this week to vote on an exception to the 2009-2010 school year calendar. Why is this monologue-worthy? Well, they happen to be one of a growing number of public schools who believe Veteran’s Day should now be an attendance day for students and teachers.

What bothers me most about this is the history (and attempted justification) of the School Board's position. The District Superintendent was quoted as saying, “Upon further conversation, we felt that this is really something that we can do in (our district). It would be a very, very powerful day for our kids to actually learn the significance (of Veterans Day) and to honor our veterans by actually being in school and learning about the contributions veterans have made to (our district).” Sounds great, doesn’t it? Spending the day learning why we celebrate the holiday?

Ummmm … Hello? Does this imply the district wasn’t teaching about Veteran’s Day when it was a non-attendance day? Shouldn’t that already be part of the public school curriculum whether kids are in school on that day or not??? Are the contributions of our Veteran's only important if the students attend school on the actual holiday?

That aside (and it is difficult for me to put that aside), the “real” reason this exception was requested has absolutely NOTHING to do with teaching the kids “…the significance (of Veterans Day).” Nope! At our PTO meeting last week, the principal informed us that the teachers and administrators wanted to swap Veteran’s Day for the one attendance day scheduled for Thanksgiving week. Ahhhh … this is all starting to make sense, isn’t it?

Parent/teacher conferences are scheduled for two of the three attendance days of Thanksgiving week – that left just one attendance day (and two teacher work days) during the holiday week. Presto-chango, the district moves conferences from Tuesday and Wednesday to Monday and Tuesday, and makes Wednesday a non-attendance day. The kids get the entire week of Thanksgiving off, the teachers and administrators get to start their Thanksgiving holiday on Wednesday rather than Thursday, and we all live happily ever after … that is, unless you are a veteran …

*EDIT* These are the holidays currently observed by my school district: Labor Day, Columbus Day, Non-Student Attendance Day (November 25 - observed instead of Veteran's Day), Thanksgiving Recess (November 26 & 27), Winter Recess (2 weeks), Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President’s Day, April District Holiday (Good Friday), Spring Recess (1 week), Memorial Day

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

I think I had an anonymous commenter yesterday who mistakenly thought I was an advice columnist. Either that or she was way off when she typed in www.dearabby.com She wrote:

Ummmm lets see. Where do I start? I was shown your interesting but yet disgusting pics by a friend. She was expressing her concern because this is something that her husband finds interesting. Which we cannot for the life of us figure out. Do you have some sort of spell on the guys that open these up? How else would they even find this attractive? Being a woman myself, I have to tell you that what you are doing is a disgrace to women. Just one more loser giving us a bad name. THANKS!!! It is obvious that you are desperate for attention. Its too bad that you have to get it by showing of what you call "ART". Not sure but Im thinking you may need to go back to school or at least pull out a dictionary so that you can find the true meaning of the word. Cause girl...art is meant to be beautiful and you sure haven't shown us anything of the sort yet!!!

With deepest sincerity...

Disgusted

Well … I can’t just let anon be lost out here in cyberspace without answers, can I?

Dear Disgusted,

Where do you start? The best place would be at www.blogger.com where you can sign yourself up for a Blogger profile. You don’t even have to start a blog, but we bloggers are a fickle bunch - we have far more respect for commenters who have the gonads (or, in your case, the lady bits) to stand up and be known when they have an adversarial opinion (i.e., at a minimum, set up a Blogger profile with an email address attached to it). In fact, most of us treat folks who take the time to do that with the utmost respect. But when you post anonymously, it just looks cowardly and petty. Anything you might have said that had an iota of value loses its mojo …

Secondly, yes! I do have magical powers! Things like mind reading, shape shifting, compassion, empathy, brains and a sense of humor. Believe it or not, these are things that most people (not just men) find … well … attractive. I know, it’s hard to believe, but really! It’s true! Most people read my blog in spite of my HNT’s, not because of them! Not only that, but the majority of people who do stop by on Thursdays (HNT day, just in case you want to visit again next week) actually read my blog every day of the week. Imagine! That means that my words are SIX times more magically powerful than my photos. Just call me She-Ra!

On the subject of art and beauty, maybe you are familiar with the words of the English dramatist John Lyly?

"...as neere is Fancie to Beautie, as the pricke to the Rose, as the stalke to the rynde, as the earth to the roote."

Shakespeare?

“Good Lord Boyet, my beauty, though but mean,
Needs not the painted flourish of your praise:
Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye,
Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues”

I know! Benjamin Franklin!

“Beauty, like supreme dominion, is but supported by opinion”

No? What about David Hume?

"Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them."

Certainly, a well educated and articulate person like yourself must be familiar with Margaret Wolfe Hungerford (née Hamilton), who, in Molly Bawn, (1878) penned the line,

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

And lastly, I find your disgust with the human body … well … pathetic. You see, the human body – in its many shapes, sizes and colors – is truly a wonderful, amazing and beautiful thing! Holy smokes! Just the fact that it was designed - perfectly - to make reproduction of the human race not only possible, but enjoyable, is amazing in itself. Those *gasp* breasts that I had the audacity to show? They, all on their own, provided all of the nutrients my newborn son needed for the first 8 weeks of his life! Oh … wait … is that why you came to my blog instead of writing on walls in Facebook? You couldn’t find any more breastfeeding photos to gripe about?

Let me help you out. www.facebook.com Just search on the words “breast feeding”. I’m sure you’ll find a handful of “rebels” out there to keep you occupied while you wait for The Jerry Springer Show to start!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

In Response to Unsigned

I wanted to take a moment and respond to an "epic" comment I received on one of my posts earlier in the week. Although the commenter goes by the name "unsigned," he/she is a frequent commenter on some of the other blogs I visit. "unsigned" raised some interesting arguments - ones that I felt were worthy of a response. I've not addressed all of the issues raised as I was working with some limited information (i.e. where it is that "unsigned" lives).

In my country income tax statistics prove that almost 90% of our citizens with a net worth in excess of one million dollars inherited all of their money.

Here in the U.S., the statistics are much different. In 1916, the wealthiest 1% of the population lived almost entirely on previously made wealth (only 20% of their income was generated from actual work). Today, about 60% of the money made by the wealthiest 1% of the population is generated from actual work.

In the 1950's the father would work while mom stayed at home and raised the kids. They had a house and a new car every three years. Try doing that on the pay from a factory job.

In 1973 (I couldn't find any earlier data), the median size of a single family home was 1525 square feet - in 2006 it was 2248 square feet. "Average" families in the 1950's owned one, moderately sized vehicle - today, "average" families own at least two vehicles, one of those is often an SUV or minivan. It's not unusual for there to be an additional vehicle in the home for every child of legal driving age. In the 1950's, there was one TV in the home - today there are an average of 2.24 TV's per U.S. home and 66% of all U.S. homes have more than 3 TV's. You are essentially comparing apples to oranges as what used to be the "standard" of living and what is the "standard" of living now are like night and day.

Try finding a factory job today. They're all in India or China.

I would contend that this is due, in large part, to the demands of the U.S. consumer. The competition for the consumer dollar is such that manufacturers must decrease their costs. Labor costs in the U.S. are extremely high (this actually refutes your minimum wage comment addressed later in this post) so jobs are moved to other countries.

The notion that wealthy people have "earned" what they have is false.

Although this may be your experience, the statistics in the U.S. prove otherwise.

My country also has socialized medicine. My country is a capitalist democracy and we never leave a person to die on the curb because they don't have health insurance.

The U.S. has many social programs in place that pay for, or assist in paying for, medical costs. Hospitals do not turn down patients requiring care if they cannot pay. I'm not sure where you got the vision that the U.S. is leaving people to die on curbs because they do not have health insurance. This simply isn't true.

We also don't get involved in wars and bombing people in other countries for the wrong reasons.

I am assuming you are referring to Iraq, but without knowing that for sure, I cannot respond to this accusation.

Socialism isn't bad. It's like salt. You just need a dash.

Socialism may not be bad for your country, but it is not what this country was founded on, nor is it what has made this country successful. Even if you don't care for our political stance, this country has done quite well for its citizens in quite a short period of time. People here are living better than they ever have. Capitalism is what makes this possible.

The decision to go to war is an expensive decision made by rich people. Poor people think harder about the decision to make war. They know they will be the ones fighting it while the rich folks are safe back home.

The decision to go to war is made by politicians, and yes, they often earn above the median income. They don't make this decision because they know they'll be safe at home, they make this decision because it is in the best interest of the country and, often times, for the world. The military in the U.S. is an all VOLUNTEER military - no one is forced/required to enlist, and not a day goes by that I am not grateful for each and every one of those volunteers.

Social programs don't hurt anyone.

I disagree - social programs reinforce the attitude that citizens cannot make it on their own. Social programs become a necessity rather than a temporary help in a difficult time.

Wealth does not trickle down.

Nor should it! People standing at the bottom of the hill waiting for the trickle need to climb up the hill and fill their own bucket.

Try to get a university education while working for an "American" minimum wage.

Relatively few Americans earn the federal minimum wage. In 2005, 1.9 million Americans reported earning $5.15 the Federal minimum wage) or less per hour (this includes workers who earn tips, but tips are not included in this hourly wage). This translates to 2.5 percent of all workers in the U.S. earning hourly wages and only 1.5 percent of ALL workers in the United States. In other words, MOST students in the U.S. are earning ABOVE minimum wage.

It's not impossible to move up but it sure is hard when you have no inherited wealth.

Well, of course it is! I guess I don't understand your point. Is bettering your life supposed to be easy? No challenge? This argument baffles me.

There aren't enough Mc Jobs to sustain your poor population.

Not true ... not at all. There are plenty of jobs to sustain the economy, but due, in part, to social programs currently in place, an illegal immigration problem that has yet to be addressed and the sense of entitlement many of our younger generation seem to have developed, many U.S. citizens refuse to start at the bottom and work their way up. They "deserve" more ... just ask them.

Social programs are a good way to get poor people to "fit in" to the system. Otherwise they get excluded from the system.

Social programs are a good way to keep poor people poor. Study after study shows that poor people on social programs STAY on social programs.

Let me share a personal example. I gave birth to my son as a single mother. My monthly income was $98 TOO MUCH for me to qualify for over $750/month in social program benefits. For a $0.57/hour pay decrease, I stood to make an additional $4.33/hour in social program benefits. Had I not been one who believed I needed to learn to live with the decisions I made in life, I'd have most certainly taken the "low" road.

I suggest that you go to a poor area in your town and talk to the people there about your view on money.

You know, I actually don't need to do that because I am an example of how one can come from moderate upbringings, loose it all, them climb back up and be successful. My views on money are based on not having any and working my ass off (without social programs) to be where I am today. Not wealthy in material things, but certainly not going without.

It's part of being an open minded person.

Wait ... do I hear the implication that because my views tend to lean in the conservative direction, I am not open minded? Hmmm ... dangerous assumption to make.

In my country the average person is healthier, living longer, making more money, better educated, has a better standard of living, and is in a better economy. When it comes to your economy...You're doing it wrong.

You know, if I *knew* what country you lived in, I'd be much better equipped to address your position, but you have neglected to share that information. It's unfortunate because I have no doubt that your country is not as peachy-keen as you might want us to believe. You've got a bit of an advantage in your argument - you know where I live!

Here's the deal. Does the U.S. have it all figured out? Not by any stretch of the imagination, but for a county that is 232 years old (a new country by comparison) we are doing a damn good job. Can we do better? Absolutely!

But do you know what the best part about living in the U.S. is? If I decide some other country is doing it better, I can leave! I can benefit one last time from all of the freedoms this great country offers me.

What is it About Annonymity?

Does anyone else write posts then leave them sitting trying to decide if they are post-worthy or not? This was one of those posts and since I am uninspired by words on this HNT eve (I spent the better part of this morning trying to decide if I could actually post a photo of my ass derriere tomorrow), I thought I'd post one of my orphaned posts ...

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

I got my first wac-a-doodle commenter. No surprise it was on my Which is Worse? post. Even less of a surprise, it was an anonymous commenter. Now, I probably shouldn't even acknowledge this commenter, but I'm such a politics whore I just can't stop myself. Besides, it gives me an opportunity to spew my venom express my conservative views.

I'm not going to post the entire comment - if you'd like to read the senseless ramblings other perspective you can find it [HERE]. RED text below is copied from the comment. There were some points I'd say are valid, and others that are just so completely wrong I couldn't let them go unchallenged.

In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH.

So? Why is this a problem? For the most part they've worked hard to get that money. This really should motivate the rest of us to push ourselves harder so that we can earn more.

THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.

Now there's an uplifting thought! Make people believe they can't better themselves and they'll be dependent on your help. You can spend billions of dollars on social programs to keep them believing they can't do it themselves. Here's reality - the average family's income rose by 35 percent (adjusted for inflation), and the income per person in the household was up 153 percent (adjusted for inflation) in just the last generation.

So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty.

Let's look at what really leads to poverty in America (from An Inconvenient Book by Glenn Beck):

• About 2/3 of "poor" children reside in single-parent homes


• 92 percent of children who live in families that make more than $75,000/year live with two parents; 80 percent of those who live in families that make less than $15,000/year do not.


• Kids who do not live with two biological parents are more than five times as likely to be poor and twice as likely to drop out of high school and have behavioral problems.

This isn't about where the wealth accumulates, this is about what has happened to the American family.

The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class.

If you are looking for income equality, you best find yourself a home in a communist country. The only down side to that is that most communist leaders tend to kill millions of their own citizens.

If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives.

Yes, the sub-prime fiasco was lead by greedy bankers, but guess what? They were catering to a market that was demanding loans. This was a high risk group that was more likely to default on their loans. Do I think this means we should bail out sub-prime lenders? Absolutely not, nor should we bail out those that ignored the terms of their loans. Learn to live with the decisions you make in life.
Sub-prime. Their idea. NAFTA. Their idea. Outsourcing. $200 cell phone bills. Their idea. $200 basketball shoes. Their idea. $30 late fees. Their idea. $30 NSF fees. Their idea.

It must be a warm fuzzy place that allows one to blame all of their personal woes on "them." Who was it that accepted sub-prime loans? Who is it that demands lower prices (NAFTA, outsourcing)? Who is it that racks up a $200 cell phone bill? Who is it that must have the latest and greatest in basketball shoes? Who is it that pays their bills late and overdraws their checking account?

Oh! That would be "us"!

Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same.

Since I'm not rich, I must be an ignorant fan, however something tells me I may not be the ignorant one in all of this.

Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

I actually do believe one of the worst economic crises may be looming on the horizon. I believe we are headed for a significant recession (at the least) and possibly another depression. What I don't believe is that this is due to those who are wealthy. This has to do with trying to artificially fix things (sub-prime bail-outs for example) rather than allowing the economy to self adjust. This has to do with our inability to live in a cash (rather than credit) society. This has to do with the loss of our country's moral compass.

Would things be tough for a few years if we just swallow our medicine now? Absolutely, but if we don't, this commenter is right on target - WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.