THE TAP PROJECT
WORLD WATER WEEK MARCH 22-28, 2009
BAJA BETTY'S IS PROUD TO BE SUPPORTING UNICEF'S TAP PROJECT--AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR CUSTOMERS TO DONATE $1.00 OR MORE FOR THE TAP WATER THEY USUALLY ENJOY FOR FREE.
ALL FUNDS RAISED SUPPORT UNICEF'S EFFORTS TO BRING CLEAN AND ACCESSIBLE WATER TO MLLIONS OF CHILDREN AROUND THE WORLD. NEARLY 900 MILLION PEOPLE WORLDWIDE LACK aCCESS TO CLEAN WATER. LACK OF CLEAN WATER IS THE SECOND LARGEST KILLER OF CHILDREN UNDER FIVE. EVERY DAY, 4200 CHILDREN DIE OF WATER RELATED DISEASES.
BY PARTICIPATING IN THE TAP PROJECT, YOU ARE HELPING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NEEDLESS DEATHS TO ZERO--JUST ONE SINGLE DOLLAR RAISED CAN PROVIDE A CHILD WITH SAFE DRINKING WATER FOR 40 DAYS.
HELP US MAKE A DIFFERENCE
COME DINE WITH US DURING WORLD WATER WEEK, MARCH 22-28, 2009.
Monday, March 23, 2009
If You Go To Baja Betty's...
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Gotta Brag
This morning I received the following IM from my sister regarding my nephew who is in the first grade:
the school sent H*****'s progress report. Straight A's but they also sent testing results. He is at 4th grade 4th month in reading & scored a 99% which stated that only 1% of kids his age in the NATION (sic) scored higher. He was at 2nd grade 9th month on math & a 94% on the test. Teacher said that was the highest reading score she has ever had!
the school sent H*****'s progress report. Straight A's but they also sent testing results. He is at 4th grade 4th month in reading & scored a 99% which stated that only 1% of kids his age in the NATION (sic) scored higher. He was at 2nd grade 9th month on math & a 94% on the test. Teacher said that was the highest reading score she has ever had!
Monday, March 16, 2009
That Was An Argument?
In the Sunday edition of the San Diego Union Tribune retired Navy Captain J. F. Kelly, Jr. submitted an op-ed supporting the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). If only all opponents to DADT were so weak-minded, this issue would have been concluded years ago and gay men and women would be serving openly. Here is my letter to the editor that I submitted (whether or not it goes beyond this blog I don't know):
That was supposed to be a reasoned argument for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Please. The entire opinion piece can be broken down into three parts each of which are easily refuted: First, gays shouldn't serve because "a large proportion of the population and a number o f mainstream religions and cultures find [gay behavior] immortal and abhorrent". Please, "Tailhook" wasn't a gay scandal. Large numbers of people and religions and cultures find divorce abhorrent but how many people in the military are divorced? Bad road to travel down Mr. Kelly. Second, the privacy issue. Mr. Kelly talks about the military having to separate genders and such actions are too costly to do for gays serving openly. How about why we had to create separate quarters. Societal proprieties demanded it, but it was also to protect the women from the men! Are you saying we would need to protect the few gays who would serve openly from the vast majority of heterosexual men? How silly Mr. Kelly. Even sillier would be the notion of our fighting force having men (and women) of such delicate sensibilities as to be intimidated by being in the same shower/bathroom/berthing with gays (which they already do Mr. Kelly). Finally, Mr. Kelly states that the military does discriminate and provides a list, yet does not says why the military discriminates so I will provide the proper commentary for some of them: overweight (because they can't physically do the job), physically impaired (because they can't physically do the job), mentally impaired (because they can't mentally do the job), those with limited intelligence (because they can't mentally do the job). Their inability to do the job makes them unsuited for such positions. How, Mr. Kelly, does being gay make one physically or mentally unable to do the job at hand?
Reading crap like this makes my blood boil. They have the right to make a case against DADT, but if they can't do any better than this then they really need to keep quiet because they simply make their cause look silly. They're much better off saying gays can't serve because we don't like the idea of f*ggots and be done with it.
That was supposed to be a reasoned argument for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Please. The entire opinion piece can be broken down into three parts each of which are easily refuted: First, gays shouldn't serve because "a large proportion of the population and a number o f mainstream religions and cultures find [gay behavior] immortal and abhorrent". Please, "Tailhook" wasn't a gay scandal. Large numbers of people and religions and cultures find divorce abhorrent but how many people in the military are divorced? Bad road to travel down Mr. Kelly. Second, the privacy issue. Mr. Kelly talks about the military having to separate genders and such actions are too costly to do for gays serving openly. How about why we had to create separate quarters. Societal proprieties demanded it, but it was also to protect the women from the men! Are you saying we would need to protect the few gays who would serve openly from the vast majority of heterosexual men? How silly Mr. Kelly. Even sillier would be the notion of our fighting force having men (and women) of such delicate sensibilities as to be intimidated by being in the same shower/bathroom/berthing with gays (which they already do Mr. Kelly). Finally, Mr. Kelly states that the military does discriminate and provides a list, yet does not says why the military discriminates so I will provide the proper commentary for some of them: overweight (because they can't physically do the job), physically impaired (because they can't physically do the job), mentally impaired (because they can't mentally do the job), those with limited intelligence (because they can't mentally do the job). Their inability to do the job makes them unsuited for such positions. How, Mr. Kelly, does being gay make one physically or mentally unable to do the job at hand?
Reading crap like this makes my blood boil. They have the right to make a case against DADT, but if they can't do any better than this then they really need to keep quiet because they simply make their cause look silly. They're much better off saying gays can't serve because we don't like the idea of f*ggots and be done with it.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Same Crap, Different Pile
Here's the opening to an article titled Obama decries earmarks, signs law with 9000 of them:
WASHINGTON — As a candidate, Barack Obama once said that a president has to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Wednesday he proved it, though not in the way he had in mind.
He criticized pork barrel spending in the form of "earmarks," urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress .
"Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability," Obama said.
He said, however, that it was crucial for him to sign the $410 billion bill as soon as it arrived at the White House from Congress because it's needed to finance much of the government for the rest of this fiscal year. It was largely written last year but was held back while Republican George W. Bush was president because he opposed it.
...
Must mark an end? If this man had any real fortitude he would not have signed it and said "This piece of legislation is from the old way of doing business. As we are now in a new era of responsibility and accountability I will not sign it. Congress must do better in affirming this pledge to the American People" (or at least something to that effect). Two things to note from the article (besides Obama showing how he is no different than any other politician):
Some of his own staff were responsible for some of the earmarks. Lovely. So much for his pristine, hand-chosen cabinet.
This piece was held back from Bush because he opposed it. Interesting. If Bush was part of the "old way of doing business" and he opposed pork at this level while Obama who signs it is the "new era", I think I would rather have the old way back.
WASHINGTON — As a candidate, Barack Obama once said that a president has to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Wednesday he proved it, though not in the way he had in mind.
He criticized pork barrel spending in the form of "earmarks," urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress .
"Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability," Obama said.
He said, however, that it was crucial for him to sign the $410 billion bill as soon as it arrived at the White House from Congress because it's needed to finance much of the government for the rest of this fiscal year. It was largely written last year but was held back while Republican George W. Bush was president because he opposed it.
...
Must mark an end? If this man had any real fortitude he would not have signed it and said "This piece of legislation is from the old way of doing business. As we are now in a new era of responsibility and accountability I will not sign it. Congress must do better in affirming this pledge to the American People" (or at least something to that effect). Two things to note from the article (besides Obama showing how he is no different than any other politician):
Friday, March 06, 2009
Who Else Would You Expect?
You Are Most Like Ronald Reagan |
 People tend to think you're a god - or that you almost ruined the country. But even if people do disagree with you, they still fall victim to your charms! |
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Tough Words Of Common Sense
"The loss of confidence is pervasive. There isn't any magic bullet here that's going to save Citi or Bank of America. The only thing that might save them is if the government comes in and sponsors a bankruptcy," said John Schloegel, a vice president of Capital Cities Asset Management in Austin, Texas.
"Until we have some meaningful discussion about doing the right things instead of just throwing money at things like AIG and General Motors, we're not going to solve the crisis we're in."
About $170 billion into AIG so far. To quote Leon from Blade Runner, "Wake up! Time to die!"
"Until we have some meaningful discussion about doing the right things instead of just throwing money at things like AIG and General Motors, we're not going to solve the crisis we're in."
About $170 billion into AIG so far. To quote Leon from Blade Runner, "Wake up! Time to die!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)