I have split my blog and so in the process have created another blog for Parley and Prate.

It's now hosted at Wordpress, so go to http://parleyandprate.wordpress.com.

...what the candidates write on their little tables during a debate.

I'm watching McCain's and Obama's faces as they write with their sharpies during the last debate, and if their expressions are any indication, they are writing something like this:

"Is he ever going to let me talk?!"

"I might kill this man later."

"You didn't answer the question, moron!"

"The American people can't be buying this..."

"What a --------."

We need some parents like this.

"Please send my son to prison! He's a freaking lazy moocher who won't get off his butt and get a job!!  Oh, and beat him with a cane!"

As Mr. Burns would say..."eeeeexcellent."

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE49G43O20081017?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews

For all of you confused about the 2009 digital transition, here's a video that may help. But go to the bathroom first, I don't want you wetting yourself.

I have had several people ask me what exactly Barack Obama says that's socialist. I think that they think that I'm throwing around the word "socialist" the same way you might throw around the word "bastard" - that it used to mean something, but now it's just an insult. It's not - it's a way of thinking about economic and social policies. I never really get to explain myself, however, so here it is, in a nutshell.

Why Barak Obama is a Socialist

From Wikipedia:

Modern socialism, running currently under the guise of the Democratic Party in the United States, originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage of "hope and change" between capitalism and communism. Socialists, including Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama, whole-heartedly share the belief that capitalism by nature concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society, and therefore is evil and unfair. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism and communism are the economical belief that the best thing for a country, economically and socially, is a policy best described as "share the wealth." If someone makes too much money (the government decides how much is too much) then they take it away and give it to someone who doesn't make as much (in the form of cash or services or whatever). If you agree with that policy, then you are a socialist. If you believe that the best economic policy is to leave people alone and basically let them earn their own money and do what they want with it, you are a capitalist.

Now, from a social standpoint, socialism (where it gets it's name) sounds a lot better, right? Practically speaking, however, it never works out well. The people who earn the money don't feel the desire to work hard anymore, as much of their money is just going to be taken away and given to someone else. The people who get the money don't feel the desire to work hard anymore, as they are going to be taken care of no matter what you do. It happens every time - when a nation turns to socialism, its economy collapses. And we're not talking about Wall Street Bailout collapses. We're not even talking Black Tuesday collapses. We're talking fall down and NEVER GET UP AGAIN.


From an economic standpoint, it makes sense why this doesn't work. The rich people aren't just evil capitalist greed mongers hording money in a cave somewhere, as pictured above. They invest in the economy, creating jobs and more wealth. There is infinite wealth, but someone has to create it. If you take away the money of the rich people, the entrepreneurs, they can't make anymore. The economy slows to a crawl, withers, and dies - and, like a parasite, takes it's host nation with it.

Okay, okay. All of you foaming at the mouth that I would cite Wikipedia as an accurate source for any information, take it as tongue in cheek and here's a real source for you: Britannica.

Socialism: social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

For those of you who don't get what you just read, or skipped it entirely (you know who you are), let me break it down for you. In free market capitalism, if you work for money, then you own it. In socialism, if you work for money, then everyone owns it.

"But Obama isn't trying to own your stuff!" Okay, let's look at an example. Bill, Joe, and Mike all live on the same street. Mike goes and gets a job and buys a bike. He rides it to work and to the pool and to the gym and to hang out with his friends. One day Joe comes up to him. "Mike, you're done with the bike. Time to let Bill have a turn." Bill gets to ride the bike for a while. Joe steps in again. "Bill, your turn is up. Time to let Mike ride the bike." Mike rides for a few days, when Joe comes back. "Mike, you're done. Bill's turn." Now tell me - who owns the bike?

Taxation is not supposed to work like it works now. It's supposed to be more like a membership fee. If you want to join a gym, you pay a fee, get a card, and get to use their equipment, exercise machines, showers, air conditioning, building, etc because you paid for that right. Some people might pay more than others - senior citizens, for instance, might get a discount - but basically everybody pays and gets to use the facilities. That's what government taxation is SUPPOSED to be. Just paying for government services. But what if you went to your gym the next time you wanted to renew and they said, "That'll be $500," and you said, "What?! It was $350 last year!" And they said, "Well, yes, but you make more money this year. Edna Mae is going to pay $200 and you're making up for it." Do you see where I'm going? When you take that out of context of a gym membership and make it the government, then you no longer have the obvious option of just walking away and not joining the gym. You can't just not join the US. You live here, you have to pay it. Which means it's forced. And when it is no longer about paying for services you use, but about redistributing your wealth to other people, that is a socialistic economic policy. Because the government is controlling your assets, not for a service that you will use, but for wealth redistribution. It's the very definition of socialism.

A comment on the CSPAN YouTube video of last night's debate:

"All I heard from McCain was tax cuts for Oil, which is not surprising, since we all already know what the Republican drive is in entering politics. Republicans have and never will be interested in anyone's civil rights, or in the nation's progress or social evolution. They have no idea what the purpose of government is or what the word means. It's all about personal profit and nothing to do with "governing" and the immense responsibilities that come with it. It's just a playground to them."

So...wait. Government is supposed to fix all your problems by throwing money at you that they took from people who worked hard to get it? Social evolution? Socialism is not evolution is deevolution. Yes, it's ALL ABOUT PERSONAL PROFIT. That's the very definition of CAPITALISM, my friend. If I want to give my money to Poor Sallie Sue, that's my business and good for me. But the government FORCING me to? That's COMMUNISM. The government's job is - and always has been - to stay out of the way. Look it up.

Just in case you need to do CPR any time soon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE49F86520081016?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews

And it's not a loose link, either.

http://pressoffice.cornell.edu/oct06/tv_autism.shtml
http://www.whitedot.org/issue/iss_story.asp?slug=ADHD%20Toddlers

Not only may early television watching trigger autism (a possible link), it's been shown that for every 10 minutes a day of TV a child watches before they hit 2 years of age, they have a 10% more likely chance of having ADD when they are older. This includes "infant" television such as Baby Einstein. (Which, by the way, is a JOKE. We studied this in child psych - it's far more harmful than helpful. I can't believe they haven't been sued yet.)

So if a 10 month old watches 30 minutes of TV a day, they are 30% more likely to have ADD. That is a HUGE statistic. And by the time they are six, their TV habits are ingrained - will they be a couch potato? How much they watch TV in the first 2 years will determine that.

Now I should say that Ari watches TV. She'll get an average of about 10 minutes a day of Baby Signing Time or the Signing Baby Einstein DVDs. But - apparently - the key to letting a kid watch TV is to (a) let them say no! I know a lot of parents whose kids aren't interested but basically beg the kid and plop them in a chair and make them watch. (B), be there with the kid. TV should never be used as a babysitter, even for 10 minutes, because the AAP's study directly links this with decreased ability to focus (and they will never learn anything, anyway). A child needs interaction to learn - it is IMPOSSIBLE for a child under 2 to learn anything from TV - IMPOSSIBLE. Their brains cannot process the 2D image. (C), the show should move slowly. One of the problems is kids watch TV that moves fast and they think that this is how fast real life moves and get bored with real life.

So much controversy! What kind of TV and how much do your kids watch?

It is with shock and horror that I write this blog. Please do not think that I care more for this dog than for the 4,000 soldiers that have died in Iraq since the war began. However, this seems so...cruel, so completely pointless, so inhumane that I really am having a hard time believing it is happening. Soldiers make a huge sacrifice in Iraq everyday - and this seems completely unnecessary.

You can read the story for yourself here, but basically it looks like a soldier adopted a dog in the US and it was being sent to the SPCA to be shipped home to her parents when the soldier's commanding officers confiscated the dog and are going to hold it for execution. The outrage is that this dog has served as a "pet therapist" of sorts to the victim (i.e., the soldier) and to rip him away from her to face death is beyond pointless, cruel, pitiless and stupid. If there were something we could do, some petition to sign, I would have posted the link. But there isn't. I feel a terrible loss, not because of the "poor dog" but because the military is treating it's wounded with such incredible insensitivity, disrespect, and arrogance. How can we do something like this to someone who has sacrificed already so much for this country?

Don't vote before you watch this.



Things to note: How many times does Barak Obama mention that it "sounded good on paper"? And THAT is the difference between socialism and free market economy. Socialism (Obama) sounds terrific on paper, but in practice? Yeah, we saw how great that turned out.

There is no debate here. No opinions. No commentary. No conspiracy theories. No flashy lights or propaganda. Just a video straight from CNN's coverage of actual congress sessions.

Scary.

...on "If Obama Is Elected President and Actually Does What He Says He Will." Stay tuned.

Joe and Bob are neighbors. Joe started out as a fry cook at McDonald's and worked hard and now is general manager over all the McDonald's in southern Texas. Bob was working as a fry cook at Jack in the Box for 27 years, but was laid off a few months ago and has been unable to find reemployment.

One day, Joe comes home with a big Christmas bonus. Bob is infuriated. He calls up the local NAE (National Association for Equality).

NAE: National Association for Equality, how may I help you?
Bob: I just got laid off and my neighbor just got a big raise!
NAE: Hmm, that is disturbing. How much?
Bob: I just sifted through his garbage...almost $25,000!!! And I can't make my mortgage payment.
NAE: Sir, I completely understand. That is outrageous. I'll bet he bought something pretty with it, yes?
Bob: Yeah, I saw him meeting with someone about a pool yesterday!! And I'm eating Ramen Noodles! This is really ticking me off...
NAE: Sir, it's okay. We'll send someone over right away.

15 minutes later, a car pulls into Joe's driveway. Two men get out and knock on the door.

Joe: Hello? Can I help you?
NAE: Yes, we are from the NAE. We have reports of a large bonus.
Joe: Uh...well, yeah. I worked my butt off last year and my stores are now the highest grossing in the country! [Joe grins, obviously proud of himself] It took a lot, I didn't think I'd be able to...
NAE: [interrupting] How much was the bonus?
Joe: Um, I'm sorry?
NAE: I have a court order here, if you don't want to volunteer the information we can confiscate your bank records.
Joe: Well...um...it was...about $24,000.
NAE: That's too much.
Joe: What? No, I earned all of it.
NAE: Did you know that your neighbor Bob is struggling to make his mortgage? Did you know that he's living on Ramen Noodles?
Joe: He sits in his house and plays Guitar Hero all day! He hasn't looked for a job in 7 months!
NAE: The economy is slow.
Joe: HE IS LAZY! I earned every penny of my...
NAE: No excuses. It's entirely unacceptable what you are doing to Bob. I'm going to have to take $10,000.
Joe: WHAT?!
NAE: I...HAVE...A...COURT...ORDER!

After a bit more arguing, Joe gives the NAE the money and they walk over to Bob's house. They knock on the mostly broken door and hand him the check.

NAE: Here you are, sir. So sorry about that, you just let us know if it happens again.
Bob: Yeah, well, you guys are kind of slacking, I shouldn't have had to call. But I understand, it happens. We all struggle in these hard, hard times.

The NAE gives Bob a knowing, understanding smile and drives away.

What will happen on the next episode of "Someone Needs to Work Hard to Earn Money to Generate Revenue and Investments for our Economy?" Watch the next episode, November 4!

I think the biggest problem with the acceptance of Obama's socialist economic policies is a complete misunderstanding of how economics works. So let me sum it up for you, in a nutshell:

Free Market Capitalism
Someone starts out working minimum wage. Saves almost everything until they have a few thousand dollars. They make an investment and it pays off big. They take that money and make more investments. Eventually they are a millionaire. They make investments overseas that create jobs (and do more for the economy than foreign aid) and boost the finances of that country as well as investments in the US that create jobs and boost our economy. People make more money because there's more money to be shared.

Socialism
Someone starts out working minimum wage. Saves almost everything until they have a few thousand dollars. They make an investment and it pays off big. They take that money and make more investments. Eventually they become a millionaire. Now they are the bad guy because millionaires have money and poor people don't. The government decides this millionaire has too much money, so they take it away and give it to all the poor people. Everyone remains poor.

This is how socialism works in practice, and has always worked in practice. The rich pay the vast majority of our taxes (i.e., keep our government afloat), donate of their own volition millions of dollars to charity, make international, national, and regional investments that create jobs and MAKE YOU MORE MONEY. Rich people are not the bad guys. They are the GOOD guys. So what happens when you take money away from rich people to give it to welfare?

If Obama gets elected, we won't have to ask. We'll be living it. Well, you'll be living it. I'll be in Australia.

No, seriously. I'm SURE it's out of context and Obama is not ACTUALLY suggesting we spend $500,000,000 on a national civilian security force. Would someone tell me what this context was?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20081009/cm_uc_crlelx/op_247678;_ylt=Aqd2pZkOvt5TFYcC4FCBzCn9wxIF

Obama wants "rich" people to pay more taxes, even though most Americans are so clueless as to how much in taxes "rich" people pay that when asked, they think they should pay 25.7% - far less than they pay now!

Obama calls it "neighborliness" to take money from people who have earned it and give it to people who haven't, yet can't find it in himself to even muster to give more than 1% of his personal earnings to charity until he's making $4 million a year.

This post is making me livid. I wasn't even sure of my McCain vote until I read this. I'm sick to my stomach. What a low down, hypocritical, socialist lying -------.

Charitable giving? Here are the facts:

The Bushes, 2007
AGI: $923,807
Tax: $221,635
Charity: $165,660
18% of gross income

The Cheneys, 2007
AGI: $3,040,000
Tax: $602,651
Charity: $166,547
5.5% of gross income

The Obamas, 2000-2004
AGI: Between $200,000 - $300,000
Charity: 1% of gross income

The Obamas, 2007
AGI: $4,200,000
Charity: 5% of gross income

The Bidens, 2007
AGI: $319,854
Charity: $995
0.3% of gross income

The Bidens, past 10 years
AGI (total): $2,450,042
Charity: $3,690
0.1% of gross income

Fascists.

Giving your money to the poor is neighborliness. The government forcing you to give your money to the poor because they decide that you have too much is socialism.

O'REILLY: You can take it from the wealthy and give it to everybody else.
OBAMA: Or we could have across the board tax hikes, what you just talked about.
O'REILLY: It's not income redistribution.
OBAMA: Well, but the problem is, if I am sitting pretty, and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it if she can't, what's the big deal for me to say I'm going to pay a little bit more?
O'REILLY: Because it inhibits…
OBAMA: That is neighborliness.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,419703,00.html

http://shop.cafepress.com/design/9943348

I've been sitting here trying to figure out what to type to explain this or introduce it or...comment or...anything.  I can't think of anything to say.  You're just gonna have to watch it for yourself.

(Includes images of women breastfeeding so don't watch if you don't want to see that.)



Here's the original article.

And I'm not asking how many air bags it has.

Cars and car seats are made with toxic chemicals, including bromine, lead, chlorine, and many others. A new website has tested hundreds of cars and car seats to determine the levels of each chemical present in the cloth, plastic, and metal components. I was afraid to look, but the car seat we bought Ari is listed as a 1.8 - "low risk" on their scale! Yay!

You can go to healthycar.com to see where your car and car seats rank! The chemicals in car seats are especially a problem because chemicals leach over time when exposed to high heat - and you know how hot the inside of a car can get in Texas! So we want to make sure that there are no toxins that our children might be breathing in after years of riding in these seats. :)

I have been trying to write this blog for a while, at the request of a friend. I just keep...not liking it. I can tell I'm coming across not as I mean to. So in order to get my point across easily, I'm cutting it down significantly. I'm just going to make a few key points and raise a few key questions and not go into a lot of detail.

I do not agree with the cry it out method of sleep training, as anyone who knows me probably knows. It has been clinically shown that children raised on cry it out are less trusting of their parents as teenagers. Really, that only makes sense. An infant can't talk to you, or make any sort of meaningful communication besides crying. Crying is not manipulative to an infant. It's not a game or a contest. You aren't "letting your child win" when you go to pick them up. This isn't a competition between you and your child, it's a cooperation. There is no winner and loser. An infant is not crying to get on your nerves, or to be disobedient. An infant cries because she's trying to tell you something. And when you ignore them, they learn that they don't get listened to. A child who repeatedly tries to communicate and is ignored will eventually stop trying to communicate. I know I don't rest well after crying myself to sleep.

When Ari was a few weeks old she was sleeping in the bed next to me and starting crying. I tried to comfort her, feed her. I couldn't get her to stop. This was unusual, but I tried everything. She wasn't crying like she was in pain. I finally realized, when I turned the nightlight on, that she has gotten her leg stuck inside her pajamas and couldn't move. I'm so glad I didn't let her cry it out! My poor child was not being disobedient or manipulative or "bad." She was saying, "Mom! This really hurts, can you fix it please?" If I had ignored her, I would have taught her a valuable lesson - Mom doesn't listen.

Infants learn. Even fetuses learn. A psychologist can recognize a cry it out infant by the time the child is 1 year old.

Cry it out babies, on top of being less trustful, more fearful and more clingy, also cry more. When a child is allowed to sit and cry, they are being taught not how to soothe themselves, but how to cry. They are perfecting the art of crying, and crying is becoming their comfort. (A quick note: letting a child cry it out is an entirely different thing from a child who cries no matter when you do, like colic.)

So there's why I don't like cry it out, in a nutshell. Now some food for thought:

Why do we make our kids grow up so fast? When your kid is 18 they simply aren't going to be coming to you to be rocked to sleep. They aren't going to need to nurse to comfort themselves. You will miss those times. It is only a few short months or years when your infant needs you this desperately, when they are learning to trust you and that the world is basically a good place. Formative doesn't begin to describe the impact of these years on your child, and yet we want to throw them away? Why? Why do we rush things in this country?

At the end of a long day, when we've had fun and laughed and been fussy and met new people and all of life's "stuff," I know that I can sit in our glider in Ari's bedroom and rock her to sleep. I can watch that magical bundle of joy nurse herself contented and slowly become limp with exhaustion in my arms. How long will I get to do this? How long will she be so tiny that I can hold her in my lap, watch her eyes close in perfect contentment and trust, lean down and kiss her tiny forehead before I set her in her bed? How long? A year? Two years? I have a whole lifetime ahead of me to enjoy sleeping through the night. I just really don't feel like rushing this short time that I've been given.

http://www.freerice.com/subjects.php?t=461367491887

Free Rice.com, the popular purveyors of the word definition test that donates 20 grains of rice to starving nations for every answer you get right (paid for by ads on the site) has now added multiple subjects. My favorite is World Geography, because I've always sucked at geography and this is going to help me learn while donating a bit of food in the process. And making me feel like mostly an idiot.

For all you homeschoolers out there with kids old enough to do this, it looks like it might be a good idea. I've only been working for about 10 minutes and I've already learned a lot, and between today and the last time I was on sponsors have donated about a pound of rice. It's not time cost effective (i.e., time wise it would make more sense to work a job for an hour and donate the money) but hey, it's something. :)

I came across this interview on one of the blogs I follow.  It really gives some food for thought about positive discipline and such.  I'm a bit skeptical and at the same time encouraged.  I have personally seen how much better positive discipline (i.e., proactive, empowering, preventative) works than punitive (i.e., reactive, punishment), but only in a day care setting.  ("What do we do when we finish our meal?" empowers kids to remember to put their napkins in the trash, whereas "Okay, it's time to put our napkins away," usually makes them resentful and sometimes angry.)  Has anyone tried this with their kids?  Read the interview and tell me what you think.