"Destroying human life, in the hopes of saving human life, is not ethical"

Guess who?

Labels: Gripes, politics

Our sneaky-sneaky Congress and equally sneaky-sneaky president have slipped a minimum wage increase in with the rest of the pork-laden War Funding Bill. Jimmy Dean, anyone??

Labels: Gripes, ground control to major Tom, politics

Breakfast:
1 serving Organic High Fiber cereal ($0.25)
1 banana ($0.19)
1 cup ff milk ($0.17)

Total for breakfast: $0.61

Lunch:
2 slices protein bread ($0.21)
1 scrambled egg (.09)
2 apples (0.40)

Total for lunch: $0.70

Snack:
1 peach (.18)
1 cup milk (0.17)
1 apple (.20)

Total snacks: $0.55

Dinner:
Baked potato (.30)
Broccoli (.22)
1 slice 2% cheese (.16)
1 cup salad greens (.17)
1 T salad dressing (.05)

Total for dinner: $.9o

Day one total: $2.76

Some first day thoughts:

I usually have this hot cereal with blueberries, but the banana was much more economical. I must say, too, that I liked it better. It tasted like warm banana bread. It filled me up well, too. (I had budgeted for a peach with breakfast, but decided to save it for later) I know now that I could have added some nuts for protein. Maybe tomorrow.

I am doing this on my own and not expecting Jon to keep to this budget. In some ways this is easier, as I eat hot cereal for breakfast anyway. In other ways it is more difficult. After all, I can make a yummy casserole for five or six for less than one dollar per serving, but food for one is trickier.

I am also allowing myself some limited "free" condiments: salt, pepper, sugar, sweetener, ketchup, and mustard. Margarine, mayo, and oil will be figured in on a per-teaspoon basis.

Soda and coffee are no problem for me, but I am not having my copious cups of tea. Also, no juice unless it is in the budget. I already drink water most of the time anyway, so I don't anticipate a problem there.

Reading the blogs of Congressional Food Stamp Challenge participants has been interesting. I would like to see these congressmen try my food budget for a week, let alone a food stamp budget. Seriously, how out of touch can a person get????

Labels: food stamp challenge, money, politics

The number twenty-one evokes a certain images. For many teenagers, 21 shines as that magic number- legal beer! In Las Vegas, it may conjure up Blackjack. For 26 million Americans, twenty-one dollars is their weekly food stamp allotment.

Could I do it? Could I eat for and average of $1 per meal? I am sure going to try it out. Read about the Congressional Food Stamp Challenge here

Incidentally, I have lots and lots to say about this, but I am going to exercise some restraint until I complete the task.

Labels: cheap cheap, Gripes, money, politics

Perhaps it is time to get that resume polished and circulated. Now that Mr Bush has given you his support, it is time. If you doubt that, just check with Donald, Harriet, or Michael. They'll tell you-- the death knell has been sounded.

Incidentally, the local news this morning reported that you had been given the "thumbs up"-- it was scrolling across the ticker over and over again. I wonder if the irony was deliberate. You see, contrary to popular belief, the "thumbs up" sign was not given to spare the gladiators, but to slay them. Everything is in place for your demise, sir.

I guess the bright side is that you could have been a fall guy in the last administration.

Labels: politics

I try to avoid controversy here. It is perhaps spineless of me, but that's life. My primary reason for abstaining is that I grew up with the knowledge that opinions are "like a##h@les-- everybody has one." (Pardon me for being so crude) I have since been emboldened, thanks to this post over at Queen of Swords.

Anyway, I heard a blurb on the "news" this morning about a pastor in Amherst who is refusing to marry any couple until the state of Massachusetts allows gay marriage. (I use the quotation marks because this story is far from newsworthy-- pastors have been doing this for at least 5 years)

The story irked me enough to break my blogging silence on this thing we call marriage, and I know that some people will be disappointed with my thoughts. To those who are disappointed or surprised, please remember my crude second sentence.

I am married. Happily, hard-workingly, wonderfully married. I was married according to the traditions of the UMC, and the laws of the state of Maryland. Guess which means more to me? Duh. The fact is, that if the state or federal government decided to revoke my marriage license, I would be no less married. My marriage is a covenant with my husband, and not some social contract. The social contract has nothing to do with that covenant, it is merely a way for the government to keep track of things in case we cancel that contract.

Of course, it is easy for me to say this, right? After all, I "enjoy" the privileges of being "legally married." What privileges are there and why? Why does the government treat people differently anyway?

Here's the thing-- I firmly believe that our current system smacks of clericalism, and that marriage covenants should be left up to the churches. Could the government please get out of the business of marrying people and get to fixing the roads? I am usually the last person to look to European countries as an example, but I think the model is a valid one which has two systems-- one path to be recognized by the government, and the other to be recognized by the Church.

We already have this little law in place to protect the rights of churches and clergy, so I don't think that there will be any problems for those churches which desire to uphold to a Biblical standard. (Whether they choose to do so is something which remains to be seen, and that battle is for church government alone.)

I have very close family members who would love nothing more than to select "M" on forms. Me, I don't think we should be asking at all.

Labels: civil rights, marriage, politics

So Bank of America is offering a credit card for people with no SS number. The idea is to tap into the rapidly growing Hispanic market. Of course, Michelle Malkin is outraged and thinks I should be, too.

But I am not, and this is why:

1) I would rather see BOA open accounts with no SS# than with fraudulent SS# (which is what we know is occurring now).

2) BOA is letting the market drive its decisions. A novel idea for a capitalist nation?!

I have read comment after comment about aiding and abetting. I just to do not see it. Does that mean that the gas station on the corner which sells gasoline to the landscapers is aiding and abetting? After all, they may be hiring illegal immigrants. I love how, instead of outrage that we are seeing no results at whatever it is our tax dollars are going to, we take frustrations out on corporate America.

I would much rather see these people putting their money into our banks than carrying it around in their pockets (which, incidentally is what happens much of the time). Their are many cultural barriers to overcome here, not the least of which is a distrust of institutions (my brother can explain why) such as banks. If Bank of America is able to break through some of these barriers, I am glad to see it.

Labels: politics

I have already mentioned my interest in a particular presidential candidate, so this is not another post cheering on Dr Paul. Election season has already begun, it would seem, so I am thinking about what are important traits in my candidates. What issues REALLY matter to me? Do I care about flag burning, school prayer, and gay marriage? More importantly, does the electorate really care about these things? Do you?

What are your deal breakers? Has that list changed for you? What precipitated these changes? I have finally composed my list of "must-haves," and it is shorter than I thought it would be. My deal-breakers:

1) Must be committed to radical tax reform.

Pretty much everything else is just gravy; I can boil my expectations down to the above mentioned criteria. Of course, I am realistic enough to recognize that I dwell in a lonely lonely place.

Labels: politics

It would seem that there is a possibility, however slight, that I can actually, for the very first time ever, vote FOR a candidate. This is contrary to my usual voting habit, which is to choose the lesser of two evils. I also might be making my first-ever campaign contribution. Dad will be so proud.

I would love to see Dr. No become President No. I would do a little dance for that one!

Oh yeah, and he is a FairTax supporter.

Labels: hero, politics