Just Let Me -- G -- Indoctrinate You!

Friday, May 25, 2012

It's About Sweet Misery and Spilled Milk for Everyone Thing

Dear America,

did you know chocolate chip cookies were a mistake?

total goof.

the intention and assuming purpose of throwing the chocolate chips into the batter was to essentially blend into the whole -- making chocolate flavored cookies.


who would have ever imagined that the chocolate chip cookie, imperfections and all, would become the quintessential American made treat?

Let's pour an icy tall glass of milk and sit with this for a moment; for the symbolism is truly scrumptious.

The chocolate chip cookie -- unpretentious and adored by all -- serves as a fine example of confectionery splendor of who we are.

Alone, each of the ingredients lack something; but together, they combine to create pure decadence of assimilation.   Over generations, its flaws have either been totally forgotten or have become something we never ever knew.  Total acceptance for what it is on its own merit is enough...plenty, actually.

It all comes down to bringing together the finest ingredients, the very best quality, the most highest standards, allowing the integrity of each chip to hold tight to its unique character.  Together, combined, blended, and baked to perfection, we create sweet victory in every way.

Of course, within this theory of operating and baking, we have to remain loyal to the emphasis on quality -- if we begin to fudge a little here or there, try a few shortcuts to save time or money, we lose something.  It's something that is virtually intangible at first, but over time, it becomes noticeable, as the growing distortions from the original become downright unpalatable.  The once elevated cookie crumbles right before our eyes.

And it's not like you can just turn around and blame it on the imitation chocolate chips, or the nuts, or the extra dollop of butter.  No.  It's the whole damn cookie that goes down.  boom.  and not in a good way.

SO, the thing is, something is getting lost in the assimilation these days -- for the pounding mantra of class warfare, the divisiveness splintering Americans into politics-by-demographics, the liberal elite controlling the mainstream media, the overall lack of cohesiveness and unification, the explicit destruction of civility, the rolling over of faith and family, all begin to weigh too heavy upon us.

The solidifying tenets of our exceptional-ism are expressly used against us, as a whole, eventually becoming something so profound, it becomes essentially insurmountable, recognizing (only in hindsight) that most of the destruction is happening from the inside out.

So here's a poem for you.  originally printed in The Daily News, Friday, November 4, 1949.   The article heading was simply called, Ode to the Welfare State.  The poem, inserted into the Congressional Record by Clarence J. Brown (R-Ohio), is claimed to have been written by "a prominent Democrat of the State of Georgia."  And it goes like this:

Father, must I go to work?
No, my lucky son.
We're living on Easy Street
On dough from Washington.

We've left it up to Uncle Sam,
So don't get exercised.
Nobody has to give a damn --
We've all been subsidized.

But if Sam treats us all so well
And feeds us milk and honey,
Please, daddy, tell me what the hell
He's going to use for money.

Don't worry, hub, there's not a hitch
In this here noble plan --
He simply soaks the filthy rich
And helps the common man.

But, father, won't there come a time
When they run out of cash
And we have left them not a dime
When things will go to smash?

My faith in you is shrinking, son,
You nosy little brat:
You do too damn much thinking, son,
to be a Democrat.

The essential ingredient missing these days is that which we cannot see.

The allegiance to turning out a product year after year echoing the same qualities and values and principles becomes an enigma, corrupted by poseurs, flakes, imitation, and frauds; while only a return to excellence, along with years ahead of blood, sweat and tears, can resurrect the brand.  There are no shortcuts.

Yahoo! news was beating the kitchen-aid of class warfare into the granite countertop this morning, chiding the CEO into submission.  Their point:  The CEO simply makes too much money, averaging about 9.6 million/year (of course, if you are really good at CEO'ing than you take a salary of $1.00/year and take stock options -- pending, naturally, the success of said company, pending performance!, but who's counting while I quickly spiral into digression)

Let's review some star players in the world of simply entertainment:  

In sports, baseball offers up an average salary of about 3 million, basketball nearly 6 million --- just to play a game!   Only somebody like Jack Nicholson can afford to go to every game...oh the irony....

In Hollywood, "the star" gets about 20 million a pop!  While Oprah -- gets billions!

And yet, in this "free market" environment -- primarily occupied out of the oven and into the frying pan -- it's the CEO chip (or the private equity firm who saves or recreates businesses all the livelong day)  who gets demonized and ultimately crystallized -- scorched more like it -- to the bottom of the pan.

Burned sugar.  It's the worst.

Gone is the sweetness and charity for all to share gladly, out of the goodness of their heart.  Gone is the motivation to show up giving it your very best.  Gone is the selfless nature emphasizing assimilation into the whole with integrity, honor, principles, honesty, courage, and a whole lot of love.

We seem to be "evolving" ever so slowly these days, tweaking with the recipe; at this rate, we are pretty much guaranteed to become all about the equal sharing of sweet misery and spilled milk for everyone.

Make it a Good Day, G

Ask not what you can take for yourself, 
but what you can make or bake for the country.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

It's Discrimination by Distinction Thing

Dear America,
The ability or power 
to see or make fine distinctions; 
An act based on prejudice. 

Some discrimination is quite alright; it just depends, doesn't it.

Take, for example, differentiating between two rooms that essentially provide the same purpose or service -- a men's room and a women's room.  They are both bathrooms.  But one is for girls and one for boys.  Society is -- understandably -- more comfortable operating under such special arrangements. We assessed the options, the issues, the exposure, and made a decision -- girls have ya ya's, boys have we we's and the two shall not be co-mingled, thereby totally deserving of special a--commode--dation.

And rules are rules; boys are not allowed in the girl's room, and vice versa.

But let's take a giant leap into a whole 'nother realm -- like Affirmative Action.  It's blatant public policy that discriminates out in the wide open, for all to see.

We are in the process of discriminating against the LEGAL immigrants who wish to come to this country via all the proper channels by condoning, or turning a blind eye, to the millions of illegals rushing over the border through any means they can.

Or how about BET TV.   Yeah, like we could have a television production network that promotes "white" entertainment, and have the balls to call it just that: WET TV.

Oh, here's another easy one -- handicapped parking...handicapped seating...Out of compassion,   we discriminate, and make possible a better, closer parking spot for those who qualify simply because someone is physically challenged in some way.  Due to special circumstances, a handicapped person gets to park right in front, leaving all the rest of us to foot the added distance and inconvenience.

Hey, and even some hoity-toity restaurants still say "jackets required."  The nerve -- talk about knocking out the "99%," oi vay.

We even hold discriminating opinion as to what type of "millionaire/billionaire" is worthy of respect, by virtue of no more information than what it is they do or how they make it (even if its virtually overnight).  Wall Street millionaires are bad, oil/gas millionaires are really bad -- but Hollywood millionaires are good (while some are even really cool), facebook/google geek millionaires billionaires are good (while they make so much dough who needs to worry about being cool).

When confronted with the task of smoothing over a political flip flop on traditional marriage, Obama went to his spiritual advisors for support, surely convinced that no more than a conference call would do it.  As we duly noted days ago, Obama only called upon the black ones, presumably believing that they would follow his lead at the pulpit by color alone.

The Left chooses to segregate the American people every day -- choosing discriminating tactics through the  political narrative, undermining unity with a hidden agenda or two, attacking and dividing and conquering as they go along.

It's common practice for the Left to speak directly to particular segments of the population and think nothing of it -- African-Americans, Hispanics, Women (feminists), Unions, Gay/Lesbian community -- and more than that, commandeer them as their own, in hopes of controlling every vote.  Just how narrow-minded is that?

The thing is, we differentiate, we separate, we give benefits and special accommodation to people all the live long day.

Traditional marriage should be one of those things. 

Perhaps, think of traditional marriage from an aspect similar to taking Affirmative Action in favor of the way it's always been -- preserving culture and family -- while conditionally affirming something that is special, worthy of a discernment.

Both Natural Law and Civil Law support this unconditionally.  And law is law.  It is protected and emboldened by precedence, tradition, and all the ways society has affirmed it over time.

Traditional Marriage -- handicap it, if you must. Whatever gets you through the day.

Make it a Good Day, G

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

It's Because We Love in America Thing

Dear America,

so anywho...my last entry was a bit squirrelly.  I'll admit it.  Straight up.

Propping up America's traditions, including Marriage between a man and a woman, is where I stand all the way around.   It is an issue that, realistically, you simply can't have both ways.

Nature made -- God made -- men to thrive as men and women to revel as women, and by love, come together as one to make a family and grow the next generation.

It's the way it's always been done (since the beginning of man) (all the way back to cavemen) (back to the days of Moses)  (affirmed in the Roman Empire) (past the Middle Ages) (beyond the discovery of the New World) (surviving the American Revolution, and then blowin' on past the Industrial revolution) (even outliving Woodstock).

The entire world supports the family dynamic beginning with a Man and a Woman...because there is a purpose under heaven.

To try and say that men and women are somehow interchangeable in this area, diminishes the very qualities that shape our persona, our roles, our culture --  from the individual family unit, to the rippling of the extended familial community; of course, knowing full well that, collectively, we are affirming a strong, unified, virtuous, society that continues to honor tradition, Natural Law, along with the importance, vitality, and great responsibility of family itself.

Men, the hunter/gatherer; women, the nurturer/caretaker; and the family grew. and so on and so on.

When the president was asked a pointed question on The View this morning -- being pushed into responding to the inquiry of basically, what's next....ya gonna repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

we got stammering.  uh uh well..."Congress is clearly on notice that I think it's a bad idea."

Ex Squeeze me....can't have it both ways, Mr. President.

Perhaps it was the immediate and critical feedback he received from a group of confidants -- a collection of BLACK pastors only, by the way -- that has made him wish he hadn't flipped so fast after Biden's "gaffe" (not that I believe it was, a gaffe -- the cynical side of G says it was all a set up for the flip, but we digress..).

According to a quote from Reverend Joel C. Hunter, "I would have tried to talk him out of it."  (for more, go here).

[For me, I'm still stuck on the fact that Obama was only interested in touching base with just the black ones.]

whatever...moving on.org...

What it confirms then -- is the political maneuvering of such a stunt.  Coming out to support gay marriage was a conscious decision, as an affront and in direct conflict to his black community, risking that the outreach to the gay community would reap the greater reward.  He weighed the pros and cons and then picked one, politically taking a side.

until uh uh well "Congress is clearly on notice that I think it's a bad idea."

Oh my goodness.  Oh my goodness.

Show some us some hunter/gatherer strength, will ya?  [fyi, I wanted to go crude there...but I didn't..cuz I'm choosing to be a little lady today]

But Mr. President, how come you just didn't say, Damn right I'm gonna repeal it!  and then pull a Michael Jackson on the ladies of The View?

seriously?  you are gonna try stuttering and sputting this away -- passing the buck to the do-nothing Congress -- the same do-nothing congress that can't even pass a budget in over three years, the same do-nothing congress who sits tight on party, partisanship, politics, with, generally speaking, wanton pandering and pandemonium?

Stand your ground, sir; go all in, for pete's sake.  If you are gonna "flip" (if we agree to call it that, that is) -- why the hell would you not take it all the way?  With all due respect, just where is the power in being half-assed about this?

But don't get me wrong; it's not like I want you to (go all in).

No sir ree.  I want you to keep on doing what you are doing.

This political web you weave is getting all tied up into knots.

Ya see, you aren't just "married" to your loyal followers -- you are conjoined with the entire nation by virtue of your position (in other words, the mate comes with the entire family...including the rich uncle, the gun toting grandma, the born-again cousin, the stay@home mother/sister-in-law, and so on and so on...); you are not tied to simply "the gay vote" the "black vote" the "feminist vote" the "union vote" -- your incumbency hangs on the all American vote which so happens to come in a wide variety of tones and highlights, but who pretty much agree to honor traditional marriage.

[not because we hate, but because we LOVE what traditional marriage makes good]

[and not because gays do not deserve the same benefits -- because they do; just call it something else -- because IT IS something else].

Your audience with The View girls is an anomaly of the whole...kind of like gay marriage.

But go ahead and settle in -- get comfy on the couch -- relax -- flash that gorgeous smile of yours and think that you can walk the thin line, the tight rope in between the two widely different worlds of career and family, and do so with flying colors.

In America, and in the world over, over thousands of years -- one has to be more important than the other -- and guess which one it should be?

Sadly, so many men (and these days, even women) fall into making this mistake.

Eventually, something has to give; eventually, mediocrity of the most important things diminishes the integrity of everything. Eventually, we will all fall down.

"It is the man and woman united 
that make the complete human being.  
Separate, she wants his force of body 
and strength of reason; 
he, her softness, sensibility, and acute discernment.  
they are more likely 
to succeed in the world."  
Benjamin Franklin 
[history has been unkind 
and untruthful 
with regards to his so-called philandering.  
The real Ben, 
the real man, emphasized 
the importance of real marriage]

It's because we love marriage, family, and what it stands for (feel free to throw in the fruit cake and the Jello-mold, too).  That's all folks.

Make it a Good Day, G

Thursday, May 10, 2012

It's Civil Unions for All Or Bust Thing

Dear America,

headline: "why did Obama change his mind now?"

when, in fact, it's way too late to be asking that kind of question.

way more accurate:  why did Obama change his mind in 2008?

But be that as it may -- the answer -- for both -- POLITICS.

Cue interview with Obama, from The Weekly Standard (circa 2004):

Q: “Excuse me, but as far as, why? What in your religious faith calls you to be against gay marriage?”

A:  "Well, what I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting. But that doesn't mean that that necessarily translates into a position on public policy or with respect to civil unions. What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved, but I also think we have to make sure that gays and lesbians have the same set of basic rights that are in place. And I was glad to see, for example, that the president today apparently stated that he was in favor of civil unions. This may be a reversal of his position but I think it's a healthy one. I think, on this, President Bush and I disagree, apparently, with Mr. Keyes on this, because I think that that kind of basic ethic of regard towards all people, regardless of sexual orientation, is a valuable thing.”

Never mind the overwhelming amount of gibberish -- that was 2004. 

That was then, this is now, and in between we had the election in 2008.

When he told a pastor, Rick Warren, this :

O:  "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix...

because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view."

[full transcript of Rick Warren interview, go here.]

In 1996 -- Obama was totally for it, as he was just starting out on the ground floor of politics, and wishing to represent the Hyde Park area of Chicago.  Answering to a questionnaire, he writes, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." 

Again, it's politics; he's in like Flynn, or Flint, it doesn't really matter -- you pick -- I mean really, who really knows the difference anymore, right?

The thing is -- this morning -- I THINK this is how I feel [not really sure] [I'm distracted by my own evolution, you know] [and rather dizzy].

I'm Taxed Enough Already about this matter.

Besides saving dolphin, and whale, and that little bug in Texas -- let's add marriage.

Perhaps it is time just to take it out of the equation.

Let's protect it, honor it, and love it even more now; let's cease and desist, and stop allowing traditional MARRIAGE to be dragged through the mud slings of politics.  Let's take it out of circulation.  And let it be the Right that leads the way.

Perhaps the Right should unexpectedly give a little and pull a runaway vibe.

There is just no way to "re-define" traditional marriage as anything goes; and then to further violate it, playing fast and loose with what it means and what it looks like, just adds another level of mockery.  

We seem to all agree that same-sex couples have the right to such things as community property, hospital visits, taxation benefits/liabilities across the board.  Nobody seems to say "I don't" to that.

But if you could bear with me -- even when this could be so wrong I don't wanna be right --  

But picture this sketch, if you will:    

If we simply take the term "marriage" out of the dynamic for all of us -- bowing to the use of the secular phrase of "Civil Unions" -- we can save it. The empowerment of either being "for it" or "against it" is totally taken away.  It can no longer be used as a political ploy and toy.

Marriage should be protected -- at least, in the sense of what is left of it.   

Removing the agenda, the activism, the fraud of flip flopping on political whim and fancy, allows Traditional Marriage to be saved overall -- in essence, choosing to lose the battle to win the war (as it's the Good War).

It's the movement, the constant bombardment, of same-sex couples to take something that is simply not genetically possible as their own, and re-defining the sacred, cultural, family structure that begins at a marriage of a man and a woman.  In the process, all civility gets lost in the translation, in the conversation, and we are reduced to in-fighting, forcing a great divide between us.

If the goal is to be ONE people, assimilating, working together, speaking the same language, living under one roof (under God) then we should all accept the fact we are at a crossroads.  And that, sometimes, when in a civil union, it is better to agree to disagree and move on.

I believe it would be overwhelming  healthier, and happier,  to allow marriage to stand alone at the alter, protected under long standing tradition and integrity; and thereby allowing churches and temples to continue honoring the ceremony of marriage as we know it well into the future.  [and yes, I hear you -- there is the principle of it -- there is that -- and again, is this really want we want to spend our time fighting over?]

The future of America does not hang in the balance of making a "politically" "correct" "decision" between gay and. traditional marriage -- no matter how many times we flip on it -- heaven's no.

It's just not worth it.

It diminishes the personal meaning and attachments built over time, as a people, as a community, as brothers and sisters.

The immediate concern upon the horizon shows far greater, and seemingly irreconcilable, issues.  Pending the rise of rather foreign doctrines --  capitalizing on the redistribution of wealth, big government, and growing generations of barbaric, wretchedly dependent populace -- with the sunset of America's ideals of smaller government, free enterprise, and real individual freedoms are at stake.

If you really want a happily ever after, then we must fix these things first and foremost.  

But go ahead, President Obama, ring around the rosy away and keep talking in circles; the longer you spin, the greater the chances of you falling down and going boom.  But then, I guess you are counting on a certain voting block to pick you back up. [but who's to say, right, as he is really not changing a thing -- round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows]

Truth is, for the rest of us -- this is just an evolution backwards, to a time and place of where you started sixteen years ago (which is funny -- usually when speaking of an "evolution"  we are normally referring to something moving forward....cue the snarky snare: badump ba)

Make it a Good Day, G

Monday, May 7, 2012

It's a Tale of Two Very Different People Thing

Dear America,

"That’s why I’ve called on Congress 
to take the money we’re no longer spending 
at war, 
use half of it to pay down our debt, 
and use the other half to rebuild America."  
President Obama
weekly address, Saturday

that is fresh, isn't it?

yeah, remember when he said ...before the end of my first term, I will pay down the debt by half?

yeah, and remember when he said, during his first campaign...if I am elected, I will go line by line eliminating wasteful spending?

Now, my last few entries here in G land have been preoccupied on the business of being a mom, the thankless job that it is, you know --  including the unending pressure to raise decent human beings under the umbrella that is simply recognized as "mom" --  having had the conversation kicked off and forced upon us by the ridiculous commentary coming from Hilary Rosen, attacking the 'wealthy mom' as personified by Ann Romney.

Now, eventually we got down to brass tacks, contrasting the family budget with that of the federal government's.

But all in all -- much like today's anti-male "hidden agenda" in advertising -- we left 'the other half' pretty much out of it.

And, as you can well imagine, this little oversight got me thinking...no, stop, go back G, stop thinking....

so Welcome. 
Mi Casa es Su Casa

 ...oooh, wipe your feet now...
oh never mind, 
it doesn't seem to matter

Let's pick apart the family scrapbook with something I like to call:  Tradition Is as Tradition Does.

Let's begin with a popular belief.  They say that when marriages don't make it -- one of two things is usually at the bottom of it:  Money or Infidelity.

Given the track record, it seems quite plausible America is heading for quite an ugly divorce; and it's gonna get messy.  Not only did the shmuck lie to us about "going line by line" and "cutting the debt by half"  -- we can't trust him farther than we can throw him.

And believe me, we've talked about it -- over and over and over again.  It's all we argue about.

And now listen to him -- "[I asked Congress]  to take the money we are no longer spending on war, use half of it to pay down the debt, and the other half to rebuild America."

That's like saying, "honey, take the money you were gonna spend on the Citibank Card (at 40% interest) and pay down some of the debt we've accrued on the Capital One Card --  and then, let's take the Bank of America card and pay for some repairs around the house."

And just how do you think it goes down?

Picture this:  the little wife turning to him, saying, "I'm done.  I just can't do this anymore."

yeah, Mr. President, that is ripe.  When running, on average, over a TRILLION dollars in debt each year -- you really think the American people are gonna keep buying this garbage? 

America is no longer bringing in enough bacon to cover the expenses -- across the board -- whether it is in love or war.  It all works out the same way.   But feel free -- go ahead -- add up all the wealth of the top 1% -- forcing them to turn over even their designer blouses and dresses -- IT STILL WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH!  

Mr. President:  YOU SPEND the people's MONEY as if it grows on trees. [See also, the old bag blog on  The Giving Tree day.]  now talk about rehashing the same old thing, time and time again...

People really don't change.

We elected an American president -- with every page of family history confirming it along the way -- who came from a Socialist mom and a Marxist dad and a Muslim stepfather and Socialist grandparents in Hawaii and mentored by Socialist/Communist community organizers far and wide.  He studied the Law -- specifically Constitutional Law -- in order to change it.

Redistribution is the way his garden grows.  Government corruption and control comes naturally.  Energy production and distribution, managed by the State, seems downright feasible.  Recreating the tax structure to penalize wealth -- discouraging self-reliance and taking away any and all motivation to risk, invest, and higher educate, to create jobs, opportunities, and expansion in every stretch of the imagination -- comes easily and without any regrets.

Spending money he does not have doesn't even remotely sound foreign.  It's as if he says to himself, 'well I said it, so it must be true...'

Just look at us now.

It's as if he doesn't even realize we are saying two different things, speaking two different languages, living in two entirely different homes and dreams.  Just another tale of two people, in two cities, in two widely different America's.  Who knew?  Changing our traditions and holidays was just the beginning...

He's absolutely nothing like I thought he would be. [actually, that's a lie -- ]

Make it a Good Day, G

Thank you, Michelle, you're right.  We ARE "gonna have to make sacrifices, and change the conversation..."