recent dual-minded thought

Today this was posted by Mr. Allen Icet: http://twitter.com/allenicet/status/15876509297

Which states how his opponent for Auditor opposes Missouri's Immigration Law.

On August 10, 2009 Mrs. Nancy Pelosi called critics of President Obama's Health Care Reform "Un-American" right here!

So someone who is against a law protecting our boarders, which is for our betterment, while not knowing everything that goes into the securing of our boarders, that's all fine and dandy. However, when we, (and I saw we cause we in the Tea Party were against HCR) opposed Health Care reform/takeover we're un-American because we divulge into the pieces that make it up and see we American's are not able to continue to produce at a high enough rate to keep it sustainable.

How is this acceptable? One is for our protecting our land and keeping our homes safe, but the other is going to be the financial demise until it's pulled back and eventually repealed. But the law that deals with protecting ourselves, and making sure everyone here is documented and here on legal terms is okay to oppose while the law that is going to cost this country billions and billions into trillions and trillions of dollars, to oppose that is Un-American??

Well then I'm one of the Un-American American's with a Social Security Number, Driver's License, Job, Paid Taxes (Federal, State, City, County, and Personal Property).

election time yet again

Okay so coming off Tuesday with a huge win for mainly the GOP with Scott Brown in Massachusetts (twitter @ScottBrownMA), a seat firmly in place in Democrat control for nearly 40 years (by the same guy nonetheless) this marks the next page in the re-birthing of the Republican party beginning to be written (notice I said page not chapter, his tenure in office will determine if he gets a paragraph or a chapter or more).

However, this being the 2000's people seem to have forgotten what winning means, so let me give a definition. Winning is when two or more people or teams are competing one team earns more points than the others at the completion of the game's alloted time; at which point anyone who is not declared the winner is thus the LOSER. I'm sorry but apparently people in america don't like to lose so they've eliminated the word from the majority of american dialect. Losing is something that happens in sports and politics just the same. Both sides "fight" furiously to the bitter end in hopes of being declared the winner and earning your title or trophy. In baseball it's the World Series; football the Lombardi trophy; hockey it's the Stanley Cup; in politics however it's a seat or title like Governor or President. Losing in any arena is not an easy thing to do and losing does make you appreciate winning that much more. I should know I lost my share of hockey games in my playing days, and nothing felt better than winning except winning big, and that was only topped by shuting out your opponent.

In sports if you lose the "big game" the news reporters will still be right there with a mic under your nose wanting to know "what happened out there?" or "what could you have done differently?" In politics its a little bit different... if it appears there's no way for you to come back to win, you concede defeat, or give up. In conceding there's still a bouquet of microphones awaiting your very words of defeat, and yet congratulating your opponent and thanking your endless team of people who worked their butts off for you and your shot at that seat, but everyone loves to hear the victory, 'WE DID IT' speech.

Living in St. Louis which in 2000 was voted the number 1 sports city by Sports Illustrated if I'm not mistaken, we've had our share of teams make it to championship games. The Cardinals have won the second most World Series to only the New York Yankees, the Blues had the longest streak of consecutive playoff appearances and had the Stanley Cup won on their home ice in 1968, 1969, and 1970, and the Rams went 3-13 in one season to go on to win the Super Bowl the next year, and 2 years later lost in the Super Bowl. Yet here, we always allowed the eventual winners to have their "We Did It" speech and sat and listened, whether in disbelief or shock or genuine, honest respect for the opposing team and the effort they put into their game, as should be the case. So then why did MSNBC and CNN deem it okay to air all of Martha Coakley's defeat speech and cut Scott Brown's celebratory speech. Johnny Dollar's site goes into the figures of how long they kept Senator-Elect Brown's speech on and can be found here: http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/ilc285709320.html

It's not like it was a big deal cause that was Ted Kennedy's seat for so long but they had another more important election to get to; it was the only one that day so why not give it more pop than usual? The only certain thing when that started was that someone was going to lose, and someone was going to win.

it's been a while

Okay so I know it's been a lil bit since I've posted but I feel it's about time. I've had some personal things to take care of and get straight recently and now that those are done it's time to get back to posting.

So what have I missed? Fort Hood terrorist? Nope I caught that one. I'm still just trying to figure out why he's being treated better than someone arrested for GTA right now, but then again, I'm not in law enforcement so what really do I know.

Navy Seals catching a terrorist suspect and busting his lip in the process, yep caught that one. I wish I had it on camera so it could be shown in court that they didn't cause excessive physical harm to the poor delicate flower of a terrorist they caught. Geezo, the poor sap's lucky he doesn't have a bullet hole through his head right now. 4 American soldiers catch one of the top wanted terrorists and have the restraint to not shoot him a bazillion times, but to bring him in to be tried in a military court and then they get all that thrown at them. Wow, makes you wonder what would have happened if they had to use real force to bring him in and would have broke his arm or dislocated his shoulder.

Massachusetts Senatorial race? Nope been hearing about that one too. I feel this race is more pivotal than the other races that have happened since BHO has taken office as Mass is known as a "democratic" seat and a guaranteed vote for anything liberal or pro-Democrat. If (and I hope when) Scott Brown wins it will mark the second shift in the tides with the first being the tea parties and other various "gatherings" that have happened in the world since the media's promotion of BHO to the office of POTUS.

Haiti earthquake? Nope I did manage to hear about that one through the cracks too. While I do feel for the people of Haiti and understand and realize they're in a time of need right now, there is a limit on how much people are capable to do. Am I able to give $50,000 to donate to relief/help efforts in Haiti no. Would I like to be able to and know it won't effect my personal budget for me and my family, heck yes I would, and anyone who wouldn't is crazy. However there has to be a fine line between giving to benefit a person or group of people who have had a disaster hit them and helping someone to destroy yourself and your family.

Next time you go to write that check with a comma in it for a disaster relief think about this... How many disasters could happen in America without any other country in the world batting an eyelash at it, but once it happens somewhere other than America... If we're not banging down the door to give aid to other countries until it hurts we're the villains. Where's the balance at? Yes I do realize there's people who's life work is to help those who are in disaster areas their whole life and help them out, and there's also those people who are tightfisted and won't give up a dime to help those people even though they bring the collection basket around to them, they don't even have to get up to do it. So why isn't there a balance in how the aid is produced between countries also?

sorry for the delays

Okay everyone, I wanted to make a general post regarding my lack of updates. Yes I know I should be on here more than I am, but with the NHL playoffs going on and my full time job needing more of me I've had less time to hear the news of the day and what all the goings on are in the world. However hopefully soon I can get back to a somewhat normal existence. Just wanted to update y'all on that so no one started to worry about me.

the blame game

First off let me appolgize for my absence here as of late, however as some of you might know I work/volunteer at my church and last Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday we had a guest speaker so needless to say I was happy I had Thursday off to rest lol. Now on to the topic of today's post...

Okay, so let me start off by telling you I've been into game shows my whole life. During summer and winter breaks growing up I would get up at 8am and start off with The All New Let's Make A Deal, and it'd end with The Price Is Right at 11am. So I know a little something about games. However, the blame game is one that really ticks me off.

I have a regular day-job like almost everyone in america. I love the fact I can do a job, and make money doing it. I wish my pay was directly proportional with the quality job I do, but that's another story.

The company I work for is going through some financial difficulties, as are most companies in america it seems.  Now are all these american companies in that dire straits financially or not is beyond me; I'm too honest of a person to be deceptive, especially with money.

Most of the people I work with are die-hard democrats (I don't think we should hold that against them though) who are ready to blame anyone when something doesn't go their way. Case in point, recently we were slated to potentially receive $20 million to keep our service running, despite the voting public voting against a tax that would have gone to our company to keep our service up and running. Unfortunately, that $20 million was voted down and taken off the table as a possibility. Then they modified it to be $12 million; not what we wanted but it's something right? Well needless to say everyone was already counting the money in the account being as they were so sure it was going to be approved, until yep you guessed it.... rejected again. 

What was everyone's reaction..... "maybe our [acting CEO] (named removed to keep anonymity) will learn those Republicans aren't helpful if it helps the public." Well now let's look at the situation here regarding this: The whole country is worried about economic downturns and watching were every penny goes and you're going to ask for 20 million, then 12 million and say once the 12 is passed the other 8 will be on it's way; you bash Republicans on a whole when the acting CEO is a registered Republican, and the only two state congressmen supportive of the funds are both Republicans, one of who will receive no direct benefit from it, the other will receive the least benefit from it of anyone who receives the service. Granted the rest of the districts who would benefit from the service almost all have Democratic leaders in place, but where was their support of the funds? Only 3 people went to the state capital to campaign for the company to get all this money, all 3 of whom being Republicans. Now how can someone really blame the whole party, when it was only that party working to get the money for this company in the first place. 

Am I saying it's wrong to be a Democrat? no, just like it's not anymore right to be a Republican. What I'm saying is look at the whole situation and see what's going on, instead of just placing instant blame on the group that you don't side with. Secondly, instead of looking for who's to blame, try looking towards the solution instead. If we look at who's to blame, we end up taking our focus off who is capable of providing us the ability to receive the solution. Getting stuck at the "blame game" also keeps you from being able to see past the problem and it subsequently gives you a sense of hopelessness because then you have to blame someone else for what you've put yourself in. 

So let's review, we learned to check to see who's for and against you before you start placing blame; before you begin to blame look to see who's the solution instead and keep your focus on the solution instead of who's at fault. More often than not, the person that's going to help you get your solution isn't the same person that's at fault for the situation.

That's all I have for now..

I just don't get it I guess

I'm sure this'll sound like a re-posting to some, but for real; why is it if a company is failing, they ask for funds to stay in business? Why can't someone provide good service, be it serving my dinner at the restaurant or drive-thru of my choosing in a timely and happy manner, fixing my furnace when it's 95 degrees outside and I need the A/C or when it's 20 degrees and I need the heat. Both of which are good things, and one is neither more important than the other, however, the unhappy serviceman/woman who comes to fix my furnace does not get my repeat business when my furnace needs cleaning or future service due to the service person's attitude about having to fix it the first time, so I take my business to a competitor of theirs and they provide all my services with a smile and handshake. 

Isn't that the ultimate stimulus package available? Repeat business. The ultimate advertising, word of mouth, both positive and negative. When I first had a car and had the freedom to get whatever junk food I wanted for dinner at night, I started visiting a local Jack-in-the-box. Wouldn't you know it my car overheats in the drive-thru and I pull into a parking spot and eat my dinner. What I didn't expect was the Manager on duty, Jessica B. (yes I remember her name) to come out and ask if I was okay and how my food was. Needless to say I was a lil shocked, but it made me confident in returning to that location. Again the following week my car overheated again in the drive-thru and again I pulled into a parking spot and ate my food and she came out to check on me. 

Needless to say, I frequented that particular Jack-In-The-Box on a regular basis, anywhere between 1-3 times a week. Jessica and I built up a certain "relationship" as manager/customer over a period of time. When she informed me she had been talked to regarding "her staff's" performance and if it didn't improve, she would be let go. Well, unfortunately there was no improvement, and she was let go. I went back a couple of times, and got horrible service, not to mention, I didn't even get the food I ordered 2 of the 3 times, so uummm, yeah I didn't go back to that location again. Instead I drive an extra 2 miles, and I go to a Jack-In-The-Box that has a friend of mine working there (that I was unaware of until I saw her) and I get happy people at the drive-thru and the food that I ordered. 

Now that to me is an example of proper stimulus. I didn't get the service which appeals to me enough to return as a customer.... so I go somewhere else. Now yes I understand I'm going to the same chain, but not that location. Same with my grocery store. I drive an extra 2 miles to go to a cleaner store, even though it's the same store chain, the cleanliness of it has me sold. Same with the Wal-Mart. I refuse to go to the Wal-Mart that's right down the street from me, so instead I drive probably an extra idk, 10 miles to go to a Wal-Mart I like. 

Why can't our companies accept lack of clients as a sign maybe they're doing something wrong? I understand with the whole Auto-bailouts there's many reasons for it, however, the average car should last a person 10 years total (roughly speaking). My car is a 2002 so I should expect it to last until 2012, anything longer than that, is gravy to me. However with the care I give it, even just the simple things like getting the oil changed every 3000 miles, my car should last me at least 200,000 miles if not more. So I will not be buying a car out of necessity in the near future. I would venture to guess a lot of people are in that same scenario too,  they feel what's wrong with my car so why get another? 

It really angers me that companies feel they need to be saved after having bad business practices for so long that it's finally able to be seen by anyone with a tv and they just want some money to throw at the problem while never doing anything about the cause of the storm. When Jesus and the disciples were in the boat when the storm came, what did Jesus do first after he was waken up from his sleep? Did he stop the waves??? Nope sure didn't, he first stopped what was causing the waves, the wind. Then after he stopped the wind, that's when he stopped the waves. If he had stopped the waves first, the wind would have continued to another batch of waves would have come. How does this relate.... Well if the companies applying for the "bailouts" haven't changed the business models which have landed them in this situation, what's another $800,000,000,000 going to do for them? Nothing but prolong the suffering and misery. What am I looking for out of all this? I just want companies to get back to their roots, honoring the people who keep their business running, not the CEO, CFO, COO, or any other 3 letter title, but the people who bring themselves into their stores and spend their hard earned money and say, yes I value your business and I want to see you continue. That's really what it's about. If you have happy customers, they'll keep coming back. But if you let a few too many unhappy customers go, you'll even lose your die-hard customers too.

That's all I have for now.

multiple thoughts here

Okay well first off I'd like to say.. this is my first post while being on my "new-to-me" PowerBook G4, and I've loved every minute of it. I got a deal on it from a website so I'm not gonna complain at all. 

Speaking of complaining....

I have a lil bit of a bone to pick with CNN and their idea of a "journalist". I've taken journalism classes, and I was even on the school newspaper staff my senior year, so this isn't my first entrance into the world of journalism. Specifically, Susan Roesgen and her reporting from the Chicago area Tea Party from Wednesday afternoon. As a representative of the news media she should have held some integrity and inquired to the reason for people's attendance to the tea parties. Instead she found someone who appeared to be the most ticked off person there, and when she asked him his reasoning for attending, she began to recite back the Obama idea for the solution to the financial problems hitting this country currently. Instead of asking a few people there and at least getting 2 or 3 answers, she got one, and she began to debate him. Why does the news media feel the need to shut down a totally logical side of the argument, and restate the liberal solution for the problems of america currently. 

She mentioned to him Obama's bill signing allowed for Illinois citizens to get a $400 tax credit. When Bush signed his stimulus bill into action I received $600 which went right into the bank and then I have to spend it on having my wisdom teeth removed, so yeah that lasted a little while. Now how long do you think that $400 is going to last? Yep, that's right, about 2/3 the time. What's $400 anyways? I pay that much each paycheck in Payroll taxes (that's twice a month by the way). I would rather only have to pay $200 each paycheck and have the other $200 to go and stimulate the economy in my own unique way to keep the stores open I want. Which in my case would be the Mac Store to get some new programs for my new laptop or maybe some clothes. 

But I'm tired so I'm gonna keep this one short so I'll leave y'all with a phrase I saw many times at my local area tea party. Spread my work ethic, not my money. Basically, we'd be more willing to give people money if they're working, and I'd be willing to pay more if they work smart, as opposed to just giving out a check every week. 

Until Next time.....