I always find it interesting to see how much politicians give to charity. Senator Joe Biden gave a paltry $995 last year, yet he made $2,450,042! And his $995 to nonprofits was over twice his normal yearly giving for the past 9 out of 10 years. Why do I say paltry? Because many teens I know give more money from their part time job income than he gave in his past average donations.  Biden made almost $2.5 million but gave such a little amount... amazing.

Actually, I am surprised at his Scrooge-ishness, because Biden says he is a Catholic. I would have thought he would have given his church more. (David Wade, a spokesperson, said the Bidens did give to their church, “The charitable contributions claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity.” That could be the case. But why they wouldn't record these donations and put them on their tax return is beyond me, since that is such a standard practice. It raises the question, if you aren't claiming the entire amount, then why list any at all?)

I was thinking about stinginess vs. generosity again today when I looked at our church bulletin. I usually check the offering report for the previous week and often am pleasantly surprised at the dollar amounts listed. Our congregation almost always gives above the amount needed to stay on budget, and they do this without coercion.

The associate pastor does remind us from time to time that all we have is from God and that He allows us to keep around 90%. But there is no heavy handed tithe requirement or even a hint that giving more makes God love you more. The love is supposed to be coming from us to God in the giving, and it is evident in our church. Often people give more than the usual 10%. Many of these families are not wealthy and some are large, having 4 or more children.

Given that Al Gore and his wife gave a pittance, coupled with Biden's ridiculous amount, and the Obamas only recently gave above their 1% average, to me shows a selfishness. God instructs us to give Him the first of our fruits, not the left-overs. We are to trust Him to take care of us. (In fact, that was the subject of our sermon today, from a series on The Sermon on the Mount, Oct. 5, 2008)*

It's no wonder these politicians think people must be compelled by the government to give to social programs through taxes. They know they would not give voluntarily. From National Revue:

It has become a common practice, when a presidential candidate releases his or her tax returns, for reporters and pundits to examine how much the candidate gave to charity. In September 1992, for example, when the Washington Post reported that Al Gore, then the Democratic candidate for vice president, had released his tax returns, the second paragraph in the story noted that out of income of $183,558, Gore “donated $1,727 — less than 1 percent — to charity.

But thankfully, plenty of Americans do give voluntarily, and they give a lot!

When the government taxes me more, it reduces my ability to give to the good works I think are worthy. Taxes also compel me to support programs I don't agree with or think are immoral, such as Planned Parenthood or ACORN. My "donation" in the form of taxes gets less bang for my buck because it must first travel through the maze of wasteful government bureaucracy.

If politicians like Biden, Obama, and Gore would give more to charity, maybe they would be less eager to increase taxes to pay for government social programs. Maybe then they would be more understanding of how higher taxes impacts voluntary giving. Obviously they have not tried it.

In case you were interested, McCain's giving, Palin's income and giving. 

*When my husband was laid off in 1982, we were concerned that we would not be able to meet our charitable donation commitments. Thankfully, we got through it.  

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

I know I just cautioned you about purchasing products that are ingested or applied to the skin from China, but here comes another Made in China cautionary tale. This time it is a chair that can cause chemical burns to the skin--just from sitting on it!  French retailer in hot seat over Chinese chairs,

One customer, Caroline Morin, said Friday she was stunned to learn the chair she bought last December appears to have caused the skin problems she says she suffered for months.

"You sit comfortably on something and in fact you have a bomb under your butt," she said.

... 

A rash of cases have cropped up in Britain, too. British attorney Christian Shotton said his law firm, Russell, Jones & Walker, is representing 1,300 people who bought Linkwise recliners and sofas from British retailers and who are suing for compensation. He said there have been other cases in Sweden and Finland.

"Some of the children, some of the babies, are covered head to toe," in burns, rashes and infections, Shotton said.

The Chinese as a culture doesn't seem to have any prohibitions to stealing intellectual property or producing products that are not what they are supposed to be--as in the baby formula and dog food.

This chair problem was more of an "innocent" mistake--one made out of ignorance. The burns and rashes were a reaction to a mold retardant. The manufacturer made an error in judgment in that if a little mold retardant is good, more must be better.

Normally, just one sachet of the anti-mold chemical is meant to be inserted into the chairs, but some contained as many as 10, said a Conforama spokeswoman, Stephanie Mathieu.

She said the Chinese firm told Conforama that "as it was the monsoon season they decided that they needed to put more sachets in." 

Need another reason to buy only from legitimate manufacturers from more developed countries? How about this latest one?

The toxic chemical, melamine, has showed up in White Rabbit, a taffy type candy sold in China and other countries, including United States. The article said that tiny amounts of melamine would not be enough to be lethal as it was in the infant formula or pet foods, but it still should not be there. It could cause kidney stones or other health problems.

I am afraid to ask this, but what next?

UPDATE: I didn't even get the above posted and the food warning expands. This group, like the White Rabbit candy, included anything creamy, such as chocolate. Melamine again is the culprit.

"We have to think about any processed food with milk or protein in it," said James Rice, a food industry veteran who is now China country manager for Tyson Foods Inc. (TSN), the world's largest meat processor.

None of these products seems to have hit the mainstream American markets, but Kraft Foods was mentioned in the article.

When rumors of melamine-related recalls of Oreos and other sweets spread by phone text messages and on the Internet earlier this week, Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT) hastened to reassure customers that none of its Oreo-brand products contain milk powder from China.

Oreo fillings contain no milk, while Oreo cookies with icing on them use milk powder from Australia, it said. "Regardless of where they are produced, Kraft products are always held to the highest quality and safety standards," the company said.

Who knew their Oreo wasn't 100% made in the USA? 

We are not big Oreo fans, but I can see I am going to have to really start reading that fine print on product wrappers. Ah, the joys of a global market.

UPDATE: There is more...Cadbury pulls Made in China chocolate. (Not US) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

What if I had a cure for Parkinson's, leukemia, diabetes, or paralysis caused by spinal cord injury? All you would have to do is take an infant, remove all of its stem cells (sorry, the infant dies), tweak the cells, and transfer them to the ill patient.

Would you do it?

Most people wouldn't and would consider that murderous act barbaric. Yet those who favor embryonic stem cell research are in effect doing just that in the eyes of those who are pro-life.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then even using an embryo for research purposes is an act of murder.

President Bush has been adamantly opposed to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research for that very reason. (The Bush stance only opposes federal funding--not outlawing private research.)

McCain has voted for existing embryonic stem cell research in the past, but those measures failed. John McCain is opposed to embryonic stem cell research that would encourage growing embryos for the purpose. The Republican platform is against any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but THEY ALL, BUSH, McCAIN, and PALIN FAVOR FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ADULT STEM CELL RESEARCH! 

The outrageous Obama radio ad that distorts McCain's position includes a woman talking about her diabetic daughter. She says that John McCain is opposed to stem cell research. It goes on to say that medical research, benefiting millions, shouldn't be held hostage by a few.

So why do the Democrats constantly tell people that McCain and Bush are against stem cell research?

Two reasons: One, they want to portray the Republicans as heartless cretins, too stuck on religious principal to care about the ill. Two, if the Democrats can get people to buy into the necessity for embryonic stem cell research, it will dilute the anti-abortion/sanctity of life position of conservatives.

The issue should become moot in time, according to CNS, which is consistent with what I have seen reported*,

Stem cells obtained from adult humans have been widely acclaimed for their ability to promote human health and stave off dreaded illnesses. Stem cells obtained from human embryos, however, have not been successful in yielding results in scientific research thus far.

It will be wonderful to cure some of these diseases in the near future. McCain and Palin are in favor of curing these diseases too, just not at the expense of another individual! Remember that next time you hear an Obama ad saying they aren't.

PS Nick Reed (substitute for Vicki McKenna) called the mother, Jody Montgomery, from the ad to ask if she knew she was telling a complete lie. Turns out, this is the same woman who used the same type ad against Mark Green 2 years ago. Listen to the podcast from the 10am hour on Sept. 24th to hear more.

*Nick Reed just name some of the 73 benefits to human patients obtained from ADULT stem cell research on the same radio program. He continued the stem cell discussion into the 11am hour. He mentioned the 73 benefits at about 11:20am if you were listening to the podcast. See Stemcellresearch.org 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

It has happened again. Tainted Chinese made baby formula* has caused 3 infant deaths in that country. More deaths will probably follow since 1,253 babies are already sick, and at least 10,000 infants have been exposed. (In 2004, 13 babies died from "drinking fake milk powder.")

Now the Chinese government is cracking down. China arrests 12 in milk scandal:

Suppliers are believed to have added melamine, a banned chemical normally used in plastics, to watered-down milk in order to make it appear higher in protein.

The additive is blamed for causing severe renal problems and kidney stones.

...Tests have shown that 69 batches of formula from 22 companies contained the banned substance.

If that chemical sounds familiar, it is because melamine was the same culprit in last year's dog food recall that caused thousands of American pets to die. It is not included by mistake; the toxic chemical is added because it is cheaper than producing the product properly. In other words, they do it to cheat. (I don't believe the Chinese have the same ethical prohibitions to cheating that Americans do.)

China's track record on producing safe products is shaky at best. 

It has also raised questions about China's ability to police its food production industries after a series of health scares - and fatalities - in recent years.

These have ranged from the contamination of seafood to toothpaste and, last year, to pet food exported to the US.

Not only are food products in question, but the lead paint on toys scandal last year makes me doubt their veracity on other fronts too.

My advice is to start reading labels--including mainstream American company brands. When you start, you may be as surprised as a family member was to see American Co. juice boxes marked, "Made in China." 

The tilapia I so enjoyed was also marked, "Made in China." Since tilapia is pond raised, I had to wonder, what are the Chinese feeding them? Do I trust them to do the right thing? No. I suddenly lost my appetite.

On non-food products with a more personal connection, such as sun screen, mouth wash, baby bottles and pacifiers, make-up, medications, toddler toys--anything that goes in the mouth or on the skin--I would avoid "Made in China" or made in the 2nd or 3rd world too. (Reputable countries such as Canada, Germany, UK, France, etc. would be probably be OK.)

It is one thing to purchase a pair of "Made in China" shoes that fall apart in a month, quite another to give a toddler a toy with lead paint! I don't mean to suggest that the Chinese are the only people motivated by greed, but your chances of getting what you pay for are higher when you buy "Made in USA."

Not only will you be protecting your family from possible harm by buying American, but you will also be helping our own economy. 

*OK, here is my chance to pitch breastfeeding, which is by far the best method for feeding an infant. La Leche League helps women worldwide to learn how to breastfeed their infants. Nursing provides better nutrition and immune defense to infants, be they in the USA or 3rd world country--and no worries of tainted, improperly, or inadequately configured formulas.

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3 or 6:30-7:30pm

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Evidently Sarah Palin was warned about the potential for vicious attacks from McCain's opponents. She is no shrinking violet though. William Kristol posted this:

"A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she'd be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she'd be facing, etc." Here is what she had to say,

You have got to say she has chutzpah!

I am eagerly anticipating her speech tonight. Will we see the same confidence we saw in her on Friday?

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Last night, Bill O'Reilly was hot under the collar about MSNBC's coverage of McCain's Sarah Palin VP pick. Here is the YouTube clip.

MSNBC really crossed the line by adding the caption, "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" under their breaking news bulletin of the event. I also agree with O'Reilly that Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams bear some responsibility here too. By appearing on MSNBC, they lend credence to this type of snide reporting.

Any wonder MSNBC isn't watched by conservatives?

I used to get all my news from NBC; I've watched ever since the Dave Garaway years! The Today Show used to be the first thing I turned on in the morning and I prepared dinner with Tom Brokaw. But over the years, NBC became so biased (and fluffy), I couldn't take it anymore.

In Googling this topic, I came across a new acronym for NBC: New Barack Channel 

By the way, I think it's odd that MSNBC would even raise the house question since Sarah Palin seems so very mainstream American and working class. There doesn't appear to be an elite bone in her body--she loves moose stew and probably doesn't even know what arugula lettuce is! 

UPDATE: Sept. 8, 2008 MSNBC just demoted their anchors Olbermann and Matthews to commentators. "The change reflects tensions between the freewheeling, opinionated MSNBC and the impartial newsgatherers at NBC News."

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

I am a little puzzled by this statement, since the Democrat's presidential candidate and platform are pro-abortion too.

The Roman Catholic group, Fidelis, says Barack Obama's selection of pro-abortion Catholic Joe Biden to be his V.P. running mate "is a slap in the face to Catholic voters" and poses a major challenge for American Catholics.

In a press release sent out overnight, Fidelis president, Brian Burch, declared that Barack Obama has "re-opened a wound among American Catholics" by picking a pro-abortion Catholic politician like Joe Biden.

According to Burch, the American Catholic bishops have made it clear that Catholic political leaders must defend the dignity of every human person, including the unborn. 

The article goes on to state Joe Biden's "steadfast support for legal abortion" in the US Senate. 

This same issue came up in the 2004 election when John Kerry "sparked a nationwide controversy over whether Catholics who support legal abortion can receive communion." 

The Catholic group's president, Brian Burch stated, "Selecting a pro-abortion Catholic is a slap in the face to Catholic voters."

According to Burch, "The American bishops have instructed Catholic voters to consider many issues, but have characterized the defense of human life as foundational and have explained that the issue has a special claim on the conscience of the Catholic voter. This means that a political candidate like Biden, because of his strong support for abortion rights, forfeits any claim for support despite his views on other issues like health care and the economy."

I would agree with Mr. Burch that this issue is foundational.

What I don't quite understand is why would a pro-life Catholic (or a pro-life voter from any other religion) be voting for Barack Obama--the most anti pro-life candidate? 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

I remember being surprised the first time I heard BC(2) was behind in their payments for the artificial turf project at Central High School. Behind?  I would have thought they were required to pay their half up front?  After all, what do you do if they can't or won't pay up?

Best case scenario, even if they only needed to pay their half in installments, that would still mean the school district (us) needed to finance their share until all payments were made. 

Well, BC(2) is still behind and Elmbrook (ultimately us) is holding the bag.

I know the district looked at the artificial turf as a way to cut down on grounds keeping costs. Sports related lawn care accounts for about 80% of the grounds keeping crew's time during turf season (lawn mowing season), according to Rich Basil, our 2007 East High School Mechanical Tour guide. (It's one of the reasons I think we place too much emphasis on sports--it's too expensive! East High School for example has 2 full time groundskeepers--with wage and benefits--and 2 seasonal laborers at hourly wages, we were told.)

Sometimes the cost of a nicety goes beyond the initial purchase price. There is often upkeep associated with that item. In the case of the artificial turf, what happens when the rug wears out and needs replacing? Now who is going to foot the bill for the replacement? What if we did not like the artificial turf? To switch back to grass will be expensive too.

At the very least, I think we need a rule: If a group or club wants a nicety, they must pay their share, in full, up front!  I think the district knows that now.

(H/T Fairly Conservative) 

Yippee! Pier project begins at Kinsey Park pond 

Links: 

UPDATE: Two world-wise, twenty-something young women today and I were talking about the Miley picture. Their reaction surprised me because they did not seem all that conservative. They both thought the picture was in inappropriate. Good, I thought, there is hope for today's youth. They then went on to tell me of another picture from that shoot that they both deemed "creepy". It was of Billy Ray with Miley draped over his leg--hardly a father daughter pose. This photo will be harder for Billy Ray to claim, I would not have allowed that pose had I been there. Obviously, he was!

I had not seen the picture of Miley Cyrus until this morning, but I did hear plenty about it on the radio yesterday. The photo looks pretty much as I expected it to look. It was not the amount of skin--she could have been wearing a halter swim suit at the beach--it was the context.

Actually, I am glad the public is shocked to see "Hannah Montana" portrayed as a sexy woman. It shows at least some concern for the loss of innocence in our children. 

Possibly it was because of the juxtaposition of the squeaky clean Hannah image with the sultry photo of Miley Cyrus that the reaction has been so pronounced. Maybe it will serve as a wake up call to parents of girls in particular that allowing our little girls and minor teens to look like sex objects is sending the wrong signal.

Miley's parents, in my opinion, are ultimately responsible for this photo shoot.  A young girl is not going to tell a famous photographer no--especially since young girls are often anxious to look older than their years. The famous photographer Leibovtiz is only after taking another controversial picture featuring a lot of skin. I would have thought that Disney would have been more protective of Hannah's image though.

How could a parent sit by and watch this happen to their daughter? (A comment on Fairly Conservative stated that according to ET, the parents were not there for the actual shoot, but Mercury News indicated otherwise.) 

Whether dad was there or not, may I suggest that in the world of theater and dance, artists have a very casual attitude about their bodies. Modesty is pretty rare.  It is not unusual to see a stark naked actor or dancer sitting at their makeup table or even having a conversation with a wardrobe person as if nothing was odd. I don't know if this was the case with Miley, but she and her dad obviously did not seem to think draping her naked self in a satin sheet was odd.

Sometimes like the frog in the pot being desensitized to rising temperatures, we are desensitized to the increased sexing up of our children. It is only when caught in the stark light of public scrutiny that the Cyrus family seemed to realize how inappropriate this picture and image was.

But before we start pointing our fingers just at the Cyruses, I have seen lots of teen girls in public with their parents dressed in a very trampy way. Ads in the Sunday paper for teen clothing make many of them look like they are looking for night work. Parents often want to keep their girls from looking like that, but when met with resistance they just give in and say, what can we do about it?

It is up to parents to protect their children from losing their innocence. That means not allowing them to be vulnerable to inappropriate situations, not allowing just any PG-13 movie to be viewed--some are very inappropriate, not allowing unlimited access to the internet in remote areas of the home, not allowing access to any TV show, and not allowing the school district to decide what is appropriate information for your child to learn about Human Growth and Development.

Protecting our children's innocence is our responsibility. We must take the time to investigate, filter, and shield.  Hopefully Miley's photo will jolt parents to say, what is going on here?

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

After weeks of anticipation, I went to see the movie Expelled today. It is a documentary by Ben Stein on how the scientific community routinely suppresses legitimate scientists and doctors from expressing any point of view other than that of evolution.

The full name of the movie is, Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed. It is called that because of the many scientists Ben interviewed that have been fired and blacklisted since they published papers hinting that Intelligent Design, I.D., is a valid explanation for how life began.

Despite Ben Stein being a comedic actor, he is deadly serious about this subject. He does a great job of making his series of interviews with numerous scientists and doctors from both schools of thought engaging. Old black and white movie clips from movies such as Frankenstein, Wizard of Oz and I think Inherit the Wind, as well as news clips of Hitler, the Berlin Wall, etc. are used to emphasize various points. Their inclusion makes the documentary more interesting to the viewer.

Ben visits and interviews scientists from all over the world, including the Discovery Institute, Center for Science & Culture, a think tank "challenging various aspects of evolutionary theory." The Discovery Institute is not a religious organization.

Intelligent Design is not faith based. The media and most mainstream scientists, universities, and institutions, however like to brand it as such. I admit, I was not really familiar with exactly what Intelligent Design meant. Although I.D. dove-tails with Creation Science, I.D. does not specify who or what the intelligence is. It just tries to answer the question of who or what started that first cell or created the universe.

I.D. questions evolution and Darwinism in that evolution cannot explain how the one cell began. Some evolutionary explanations defy logic. One scientist, Dr. Ruse (sp?) insisted life got started by certain molecules piggy-backing on top of crystals. (No explanation where the crystals or molecules came from.)

An I.D. Scientist countered that thinking by stating 217 proteins are needed to create life and that those 217 proteins would need to be arranged by accident 250 times in succession for life to have started. That defies logic. Therefore some intelligence had to have created it. 

Back when Darwin published his theory in 1859, little was known about the complexity of the cell. Now, thanks to modern science and sophisticated equipment, doctors and scientists are constantly amazed at how intricate each part of the cell is. The deeper they look, the more complex cellular structure and physiology is.

The real kicker came at the end of the movie. Stein again interviewed Dr. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. Dawkins is an avowed atheist and evolutionist.

Ben asks Dawkins, who created the universe and how did life start? Keep in mind Dawkins cannot accept Intelligent Design in any way, but he answers something akin to this: some other sort of life could have evolved elsewhere and it planted its seed here.

In other words, some sort of alien from another world evolved into some very intelligent being and then came here and planted that first seed of life. (No explanation of how that alien life got started.) I think Dawkins went on to say something about how it (life) couldn't have just happened all at once. (Watch for this part when you see the movie.)

To Dawkins, Alien Design is OK, Intelligent Design, not OK--even if who or what is that intelligence is not identified? 

Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and science are not polar opposites. Noteworthy scientists such as Galileo, Newton, and Kepler were all Christians. If Ben Stein, who is Jewish, has his way, men of other religions besides that of atheism and evolution will again be able to have their voices heard without fear of termination and blacklisting. 

This weekend promises to be quite awful weather wise. It might be a good time to investigate Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for yourself. I saw it at Mayfair at their $5, 10AM showing. It is also at these theaters.  

The movie is rated PG, possibly because they showed some scenes from German death camps? 

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

If you are a parent of an Elmbrook High School student, are you going to be silent about East and Central High School's Day of Silence?

Some parents opt to keep their teens home on this day, others may just inform their children that this is happening on Friday.

Whatever you decide, please read up on the event, read the information from Elmbrook at end of this post, and then guide your child (student) as you see fit. Also, be aware there is a counter homosexual agenda program called the Day of Truth on Monday, April 28th.

Don't know what the Day of Silence is? According to the American Family Association, it is a special day "started a decade ago by an adult homosexual advocacy group, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), with the goal of promoting homosexuality to all students in a given school."

If you check the Day of Silence web page, "The National Day of Silence brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools".(I think LGBT stands for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender/Transexual.) It also mentions that this year's event is to be held in memory of Lawrence King, an 8th grader who was killed in Feb. because of his sexual orientation. (The website does not mention this, but Lawrence was permitted by a residential care center for "abused, neglected, and severely emotionally disturbed children to attend school in nail polish, makeup and high-heeled boots ."

Evidentially, students who participate in this event often wear signs around their necks and remain silent all day--whether a teacher calls on them in class or not. 

I asked Dr. Gibson (Andy Smith) on April 23rd if Elmbrook participates in Day of Silence.

Andy Smith replied the same day with,  "I'll check with the high schools, but let me first make sure I know what I'm looking into."

After a few more back and forth emails, Andy stated "Yes, the Day of Silence is a school sanctioned event, authorized at the principal level. It is part of a nationwide event. The observance of the Day of Silence has taken place for a number of years now at both Central and East."

Here is the information Andy Smith, Director of Communications for Elmbrook Schools sent regarding East High School:

1. Yes, the Day of Silence is a school sanctioned event, authorized at the principal level. It is part of a nationwide event. The observance of the Day of Silence has taken place for a number of years now at both Central and East.

 

2. It is not sponsored or organized by either of the schools, but rather by a student club at each school that promotes respect for all persons and takes a special interest in the personal safety at school of all persons, including those who may consider themselves to have a personal sexual identity different from the mainstream of heterosexual male and female.

 

3. Just as with the activities of any other club or organization, information about the Day of Silence is prepared not by the school but by the club ... if desired, for instance, items could be prepared for the daily announcements. The principal signs-off on poster designs and displays for the Day of Silence, just as with posters for events sponsored by other clubs and organizations. Further, any of the clubs that have met the requirements to be recognized by the school are treated with similarity regarding access to school facilities, use of tables for fundraisers, use of rooms and the like.

 

4. There are two ways that a student may participate in the Day of Silence. A person may be an active participant, or a person may simply show his or her support for the club's purposes and the purposes of the day's observance. An active participant will typically wear black and wear a special pin. A supporter may or may not wear black and wears a different but similar pin. A participant typically chooses not to speak throughout the day, however, such persons are not allowed to fail to respond to a question asked by a teacher, staff person or administrator. A supporter typically does speak (does not participate in the silence) is supportive by use of the pin.

 

5. At East, there is a voluntary end-of-the day meeting in a classroom that is called, "Breaking the Silence," where those in attendance may share their experiences, particularly whether anyone made any disrespectful or hurtful comments to individuals. Those in attendance may talk about the impact they believe they did or did not have in promoting tolerance for others and respect of all persons.

 

6. Just as with any other sanctioned club that has met the requirements for recognition, there is a club adviser, no different from any other organization. This club, like any other can do fundraising to support their various supplies, activities and goals. The adviser is paid from the unit budget of the school, the same as any other adviser.

 

I tried to be as thorough as possible, and I hope this helps with your inquiry. I appreciate your giving me a bit of time to pull together the information. (10:45am)

 

Andy 

F.A.Q. on the Day of Silence 

Links: 4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Former Presidents of the United States are expected to be just that, Former Presidents. Their days of power are to be over once they leave the White House. Sometimes they are called upon to be good will ambassadors, but they are not to give their 2 cents on important issues. Certainly, they are not to meddle in foreign affairs unless asked by the current administration!

Someone must have forgotten to give former President Carter that memo however.

If it bothers you that Jimmy Carter is laying a wreath on Palestinian Yassar Arafat's grave or meeting with Hamas "despite requests from the Bush administration not to interfere in Middle East peace negotiations", you may wish to send Jimmy your 2 cents worth on his conduct.

Rep. Joe Knollenberg introduced the Coordinated American Response to Extreme Radicals Act, which spells out CARTER Act, to keep taxpayer dollars from going to the Carter Center.

There is also an email you can send to various officials including the President and Secretary Condoleezza Rice asking that Carter be prevented from holding future meetings with terrorists outside of the U.S. by revoking his passport. (If this is too drastic a measure for you, you may omit that request from the email.)

Follow this GOPUSA link for more information and the create an email page where you can pick and choose the Carter issues that are important to you.

Most people would agree Jimmy Carter was not much of a president. (I am trying to be kind.) He has done some good work since then, however, with his Habitat For Humanity project. It would be great if Mr. Carter would stick to his Habitat project and leave Hamas and foreign policy to the current administration.

Links: 4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Hard to believe there could be an issue I am as equally passionate about as preventing wasting taxpayers' dollars in our schools, but Human Growth and Development (Sex Ed.) definitely qualifies.

This Tuesday, April 8, 2008, from 7 - 10:15pm at the Central Administration offices, the school board will meet to discuss several important items. The usual agenda items start at 7pm, newly elected officers take their oath at about 7:35, the High Schools Facilities - Next Steps report is scheduled for 7:40. (This is important, but the cows are out of the barn here.)

The BIG issue of the evening is the Human Growth and Development Outcomes and Next Steps  agenda item at 8:00pm.

Parents, you need to be aware of what is going on in your child's classroom. I have a feeling I will be shocked at what is deemed age appropriate.

If you have been following the HG&D issue, you will remember that last fall, one parent sounded the alarm that starting in the 6th grade, students were to learn be warned about oral sex. A letter was sent to all middle school parents and one, who read through the whole thing, noticed the reference. That parent notified Cindy Kilkenny and she posted the letter. 

School districts frequently dismiss parental concerns about HG&D subject matter by saying that they can simply opt their child out of these classes. The trouble is, often there is not a set date these subjects will be taught. Undesired subjects can pop up at any time, which makes planning for an opt out nearly impossible. There is also a stigma attached to a child being opted out. This is why I suggested that these subjects only be taught in an opt IN arrangement.

There are about 45 minutes alloted for this discussion. If you look through the 50 page Human Growth and Development Outcomes, you will note that the criteria is very vague. If you discuss sexually transmitted diseases for example, how much detail do you go into? When they discuss different types of families in elementary grades, is that traditional families? or will there be 2 mommies, etc.? If I were a student's parent, I would want to know that.

What happens if a teacher does not feel right about teaching the material? Do they have the option to OPT OUT? I am wondering if 45 minutes will be enough time for this agenda item.

After that very important issue, the Pilgrim Park Middle School Boiler Study report at 8:45. Since Pilgrim is about the same age as Central, I am very interested in their solution to repair/replace.

Please spread the word about the HG&D agenda item to parents of Elmbrook students. They should be part of this discussion.

Other meetings of interest:

Park land for fire station? Monday, April 7, 7pm

District 7 and Concerned Calhoun Community meetings April 9th and 10th

Links:

I heard Dr. Alveda King speak yesterday on Vicki McKenna's radio program. Alveda is following in her uncle Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s footsteps in speaking out for civil rights for all. But the issue near and dear to her heart is one that her uncle could not even imagine--civil rights for the unborn.

Dr. King will be the keynote speaker for the Pregnancy Help Center fund raising Gala this Thursday, March 6, at Brookfield Suites. Contact Julie Caltreaux: 414-687-1691

Her mission is to make people aware that you cannot help the Dream survive while murdering children. She then gave the statistics on Planned Parenthood's genocide against Black babies. I had heard Vicki McKenna speak about this before, so  it caught my attention.

Vicki asked Alveda if she was going to vote for Barack Obama for President. Alveda stated she voted for Huckabee in the primary. (Huckabee is the most pro-life candidate.)

Dr. King then added if you are automatically voting Barack just because he is Black, go back and read King's I Have a Dream speech. His (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's) Community is not based on color of his skin but the contend of his character.

Vicki brought up how Sen. Obama used his Christian faith to defend his position on abortion and mentioned that while in the Illinois Senate, he wouldn't even vote for basic comfort care for babies that survive botched abortions. (If you are unfamiliar, read the post and excerpts below.)

The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image:

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act...  Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

Alveda also mentioned Barack's Sermon on the Mount speech, where Barack stated that Jesus approved of same sex marriage. "What flawed reasoning" she said. I see some flaws in his content, she added.

Obama: Sermon on Mount OKs Same-Sex Unions:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him "less Christian."

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." ... St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful. (Hardly obscure, Romans 1: 25-28 is specific, plus the Bible teaches that all scripture is inspired.)

Dr. Alveda King is the perfect person to address these issues. She continues the great message of what America should be all about: We should judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

I hope people will look into the "content of their character" in their own lives as well as in their candidates.

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

One reader sent me this link: Obama and Infanticide

The technical often precedes the ethical. For me, the lines of what is legal get very blurry when you look at another side of the issue.  Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep, Portraits of Love

"From: Paul Olsen
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 7:43 AM

Subject: State Sen. Olsen drops role in pushing

alternative fuel mandate

Renewable fuels...
creates jobs $$$$
clean environment $$$$$
supports local economy $$$$$$$
keeps our dollars home $$$$$$$$$$$
its the future $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
a flip flop senator who doesn't defend reality

WORTHLESS !!!"

Now for the conflict of interest issue.

We know that Senate Bill 380 sponsor Senator Olsen removed his name from the bill and will abstain from voting for it due to a perceived conflict of interest. That article from the Oshkosh Northwestern paper stated: (Emphasis added)

Olsen came under fire shortly after the bill was introduced in early January because he has family ties to the ethanol industry and is a part owner of a grain mill that sells corn for ethanol production. Olsen was a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 380, which would require vehicle fuel distributors to make renewable fuels 25 percent of their total sales volume by 2025.

On Wednesday, Wisconsin Government Accountability Board Director Kevin Kennedy indicating Olsen's support of the bill would not violate conflict of interest statutes even though Olsen has a one-third ownership stake in Olsen's Mill, a family business that sells corn to Olsen's brother's ethanol plant, Utica Energy LLC...

...The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board's Standards of Conduct for elected officials generally requires legislators to step away from discussions, votes or support for legislation that will have a benefit for the legislator, a member of the official's immediate family or any organizations with which the legislator is associated...

...Kennedy's decision indicates "immediate family" applies to a spouse or children, but not to brothers or sisters. He said the actual impact of the legislation on Olsen's Mill, in which Luther Olsen has a financial interest, would be "unspecific and speculative."

"Thus, based the facts y