As the administration, Congress and the media on all sides have successfully kept us focused on our supposedly collapsing economy (Read:  Retail sales were up 1% last month), there have been some things developing on the global front that to me could turn out to be WAY bigger deals:

1.  Russia cutting off our supply routes to Afghanistan.

On Tuesday, Russian news sources quoted Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev as saying that he had decided to cancel U.S. access to the Manas Air Base, one of two regional air hubs for resupplying U.S. troops in Afghanistan used since the war began in 2001.

2.  The administration is soft-peddling Poland on our commitment via NATO to provide them with missile defenses.

Obama has not said how he intends to proceed. So far, he has stressed that the system has to be cost-effective and proven and should not divert resources from other national security priorities. Leading defense and foreign policy experts are already taking Obama’s constant repetition of those caveats as hints he is not eager to plow ahead.

3.  As many who are skeptical of Iran’s intentions predicted, the administration’s talk of a change in how we deal with the rogue nation has resulted in public pronouncements by that nation’s representatives of our newly weakend position.

“This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed,” Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

4.  With our new administration, Korea is back to its old habit of flexing its nuclear muscles to get free stuff from the new President and the world.

Observers claim secretive regime is looking to appear on new US administration’s radar and unsettle South Korea.

5.  The democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committe recently outed intel on a U.S. operation in Pakistan.  This is troubling to say the least.  Can she be trusted?  One has to wonder.

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise at Pakistani opposition to the ongoing campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets along Pakistan’s northwest border.

“As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base,” she said of the planes.

Yes….it was on C-Span for all to see.

6. It appears the President is making good on his promise to decrease our defenses.  He has entered talks with Russia on significantly downsizing our nuclear capability (which to me does not make sense considering N. Korea and Iran are working so hard to develop their own weaponized nukes).

Barack Obama will convene the most ambitions arms reductions talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 percent.

Can someone please explain to me how this strengthens our defenses?

All six of these developments concern be greatly.  How about you?  Anything here we should be worried about?  Or is it all good?  Thoughts?

We all have felt the pinch at the pump every time we fill up our tanks lately. Congress has been hammering home the idea that it’s all the fault of big oil companies making a profit at our expense. But the numbers don’t necessarily prove that out:

The 27 largest US energy companies forked over $48 billion in income taxes in 2004, $67 billion in 2005, and more than $90 billion in 2006 – an 87 percent increase. Since 1981, the Tax Foundation calculates, the oil industry has earned a cumulative $1.12 trillion in profits – but it paid a cumulative $1.65 trillion in taxes (add another half-trillion to account for taxes paid to foreign governments).

You can read the whole article here. It’s in The Boston Globe. I think few people (including me until now) realize just how much oil companies have to pay to do business with foreign countries that are actually allowed to drill for and sell oil. So I ask you…who’s the villain here? Is it the oil companies that raise prices just to stay in business, or is it the Congress that not only continually tries to increase already burdensome taxes, but also refuses to allow oil companies to improve and build new refineries or drill for new oil in waters and areas close to home? Something to think about at least….if you’re one who looks at all sides of an issue before making a snap decision.

For a case study in new drilling, I offer the example of Brazil:

By specializing in advanced ultra-deep offshore oil exploration, Brazil has moved from being a country dependent on Ethanol for its gasoline consumption to becoming a net exporter of oil within less than a decade.

You can read the whole article here. Less than a decade to be independent of the world market for oil needs. Can you imagine?

We’ve got naval submarines that have operated with nuclear power plants for decades with no incidents. Yet Congress refuses to allow any new plants for fear that “something” might happen. France now gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. Yet 60% of our power comes from coal, the evil-doer that creates so many greenhouse gasses. I am left wondering…..this democratic Congress which is SO worried about the environment insists upon continuing the use of coal vs. the building of clean, safe, greenhouse-neutral nuclear power plats…for what? Because they don’t want to be blamed for “what if”?

Nothing about any of this makes any sense. Here’s what we should do:

1. Drill offshore on the continental shelf. I get that Anwar is a political hot potato. But for God’s sake…the continental shelf…can’t they give a little to gain a lot since other countries are already there taking the oil so close to our shores?  China has been drilling for oil 50 miles off Florida’s shores since 2006.  Something is wrong with that whole scenario if you ask me.

2. Allow oil companies to build new refineries. If we can’t convert the oil to gas, nothing matters.

3. Build as many nuclear power plants as we can and move away from the use of coal…if you TRULY care about the environment and aren’t just saying you do for the sake of furthering your political careers.

4. STOP GOUGING THE OIL COMPANIES. Near as I can tell from all that I’ve read, currently the government makes more than three times the profit on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do (15 cents for the government vs. 4 cents for the “eveil” oil companies when you factor in foreign taxes and demestic taxes plus the cost of transporting and refining the oil). Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think raising taxes further on big oil will solve the problem of prices at the pump. Jimmy Carter tried that and we all saw how that went.

For once…just once…I wish the Congress would get their heads out of their butts and do what’s right to save the country from crippling fuel and energy costs instead of doing what’s right for their own political careers.

At least, that’s what I think. After thinking about ALL sides and looking at the facts….what say you?

I have to say that my answer to this is yes. How many of us have been on a plane with a family that totes unruly tots, and then expects everyone else to put up with them? How many of us have had our hair pulled or filled with sticky stuff from a toddler’s fingers, had our chair kicked, or had a nap interrupted by a whining obnoxious toddler? I think all of us from time to time have had to deal with the offspring of people who have not made prior preparations to deal with the possibility of an upset or unruly kid.

Recently an Airtran crew made the decision to remove a family with an uncontrollable three year old when they could not get the child into its seat on a flight that was already late.

The flight was already delayed 15 minutes and in fairness to the other 112 passengers on the plane, the crew made an operational decision to remove the family…..Julie and Gerry Kulensza, who were headed home to Boston on Jan. 14 from Fort Myers, said they just needed a little more time to calm their daughter, Elly.

More time to calm their daughter? It’s not like the kid was an infant. She was three. This was a flat-out temper tantrum and a battle of wills with parents who were clearly not in the power seat with their child. What gets me is they were perfectly okay with inconveniencing 112 other people (possibly making some miss their connections). Not to mention the other connecting flights that would have late flight crew arrivals due to their kid’s tantrum.

Now…clearly I don’t know what went on that day with that family or whether or not the kid was sick or had problems that were otherwise not apparent. But come on….those parents should have been able to grab the kid and stick her in the seat and get the seatbelt on her. Which is all the flight crew was asking. It’s against the law to let a three year old sit in someone’s lap when the plane is in motion. It just is. No exceptions. Just a guess, but maybe this was the first flight she’d been on since turning two and was expecting to get to sit in her parent’s lap instead of in the seat. And the blame for this lies totally with the parents who knew this was the case since they had to purchase the extra ticket. They should have prepared the girl for the rule before ever leaving for the airport.

I think this family got much more for their “inconvenience” than the hundred plus other people they inconvenienced by delaying the flight further. They were offered a full refund for all three tickets, for God’s sake. Their fellow passengers had to rush around to get where they were going because this unprepared family stole precious minutes from them by arguing with the flight crew and trying to break the rules.

Yes, they should have been kicked off the plane. And they got much more consideration than they deserved.

for the grossly overweight guy I saw at the grocery store today with the scruffy, greasy hair and beard who was wearing pajama pants and a dirty t-shirt and slippers on the motorized scooter .

The items in his scooter basket included a case of full-fat beer, three Heath Bars, three packs of Rolos, two Snickers Bars, two pounds of bacon, a dozen eggs, two frozen pizzas with the works, and a gallon of whole milk.

Seriously, I could have understood the bacon and eggs (thinking maybe he was on a low-carb diet), but the presence of beer and so many other carb and sugar laden items made it impossible to believe.

Normally, I have some sympathy for handicapped people since most times they are living with the hand they’ve been dealt. But I have not.one.ounce. of sympathy for someone who has eaten and drunk themselves into handicapped status and then does absolutely nothing to improve his situation, either by eating healthier or at least walking short distances when they can.  The guy at the store? Well – he drove the scooter all the way to his car in the closest handicapped space in the parking lot and the only time I EVER saw him stand up was when he got in the car (making sure that he did not take one single step when he did).

People like that are the result of sloth and self-indulgence. And we are all either supporting them via public assistance now, or will be by the time we pay for all the obesity-related heart problems they have caused themselves. I say self-induced obesity should absolutely not be covered under any public assistance program, unless the person is making at least some attempt to change. The guy today? I shudder to think what we’re all paying for his high-fat, high sugar diet and (no doubt) astronomical medical bills.

You see where I land on this subject. Now it’s your turn. What do you think? Should society be responsible for people that drink and eat themselves into such a state? Or, should these people be required to take some responsibility for their actions and commit to changing their ways before they receive assistance? If they do receive assistance, do you think the grocery list should be regulated to ensure those receiving payments do not go back to their old ways?

Oh, man. Heard about this new screening device the TSA has come up with? First, go check out the link with the actual image that was produced using the machine. You back? Okay, let’s discuss.

First….ewwww. We’ve all seen a lot of really gross looking people in the airport. And that’s with their clothes on! I’m wondering if these images are going to be available for all to see, or will there be a special hooded screen that only the TSA can view? Either way, someone is gonna see your sumpin’ sumpin’ if the TSA decides to go with these babies for secondary screening. I mean, haven’t we all been sent for secondary screening at times, either randomly or because our watch or belt set off the machines?

The Transportation Security Administration said it has found a way to refine the machine’s images so that the normally graphic pictures can be blurred in certain areas while still being effective in detecting bombs and other threats.

Yeah, right. I believe that like I believe those TSA people had to confiscate Cinnabons from pilots right after 9/11. If they can blur the areas, it stands to reason they can switch it back and sharpen what they want to see as well.

You all know I’m a law and order kinda girl. But let’s be serious. Guns, knives, and fake bombs have all made it past standard luggage x-ray machines monitored by the TSA. I can’t help but think the only thing they’ll do with this machine is harass people that they feel slighted them, or ensure they are able to see a porno pic of all the attractive people that pass through their security area.

I really don’t think this will help them prevent terror. All it will do is make TSA workers more power hungry and further invade passengers’ privacy. In my opinion. What’s yours?

It seems there is a growing trend among schools with high dropout rates and low attendance to reward kids that actually show up to class like they’re supposed to. Lately, schools have been working with car dealerships to offer a car as incentive to attend school.

It seems there are things like federal funding that can be effected by dropout and attendance rates, so schools are left with no choice but to reward what used to be an expected, required behavior.

Districts also have a lot to gain and little to lose by holding car drawings. The vehicles are usually free, donated by a local dealership. And in Wyoming, even a one-student increase in average daily enrollment means another $12,000 in state funding for the year.

I don’t know about you, but I believe it’s the parents and not the kids which promote poor attendance. How many families do you know that take their kids out of school for family vacations during required school days for one, sometimes two weeks straight? Increasingly, it seems Hawaiian vacations and family cruises take precedence over education. I’ve known some parents who sometimes keep their kids home for a day “to give their kids a break”.

I feel it’s this kind of attitude that promotes truancy and dropout rates in schools. Kids are simply not given the proper guidance from their parents with regard to education. There are some that feel it’s less important to do well in school and more important to participate in outside activities. It’s almost like they don’t want their kids to feel any pressure at all to succeed academically…even though later in life that is what will help them gain success. In fifteen years, potential employers and business associates aren’t going to care that they took that fabulous cruise or spent the day resting up to participate in the “big game”. Or that they threw the winning pass or were voted most popular student. All they will care about is their job experience and where they got their degrees and in what…not how much fun they had in middle and high school.

Unfortunately, in an effort to coddle their kids and advance their own personal agendas, I think many parents have lost sight of the big picture for their kids’ futures. So now schools are left holding the bag and looking for ways to incentivize kids to do what is required. Real school funding dollars are at stake here.

In short, I blame the parents – not the kids for this. And I have to commend the schools for at least trying to step in and cajole kids to do what they’re supposed to in the absence of good parental guidance.

So what do you think? Is a chance to win a car for simply attending class a good idea?

Enough of illegal immigrants, that is. In an attempt to cut down on a growing population of illegals, a town on the outskirts of Dallas just passed tough measures :

City Council members unanimously approved fines for landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, making English the city’s official language and allowing local authorities to screen suspects in police custody to check their immigration status.

Of course, there are those that see these measures as an infringement of supposed “rights”:

Attorneys with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a civil rights advocacy group, told council members before the vote that the proposals could violate federal housing laws preventing discrimination and the First Amendment.

Wait…what? They’re talking about OUR Constitution here, and civil rights for American citizens. These people are NOT citizens. They have no protection under the Constitution. And they have no rights. They are law-breakers. Not citizens. End of story. They and those that give them shelter should be penalized, not commended. I am for fining landlords and employers that support them. They are aiding law-breakers and should at least be fined for their actions.

I am at a loss as to what part of the words illegal aliens people do not seem to get. I say good for Farmers Branch and any other town that passes such measures. If states don’t have the fortitude to do it, at least some are taking action. And yes, I do agree with the English as the official language measure.

Why do some seem so intent on making it easy on (and even openly supporting) illegal immigrants? These permissive attitudes toward illegals have led to measures such as these. I’m sure there will be more. We need to make it difficult, not easy for people to enter the country illegally and live within our borders off the books.

Harsh? Yes. Unforgiving? Yes. Sorry, folks. I am not for anyone who knowingly breaks the law or anyone that knowingly supports law-breakers.

So what do you think? Are these measures a good thing, or do you agree with the premise that they are unconstitutional?

Say it ain’t so! For all his dalliances and inattention to certain things during his white house years, it appears former President Clinton is continuing his work on the major problem of childhood obesity in America. I actually agree with a lot of his initiatives in this area. Including more mandated hours of physical education per week, taking sugared sodas out of the school vending machines, etc.

And now he’s made a deal with five major snack manufacturers to cut the sugar and fat content of the snacks they provide to schools as part of their contracts.

Fatty, calorie-ladden candy bars, extra-salty soups and anything with trans-fatty acids will be out. Low-fat chips (baked, not fried) and low-sugar yogurts will be in.

Like I said, I do think this is a good idea. However, there is still the problem of what the schools serve in the cafeteria lunch line. Most kids who take hot lunch have accounts that are funded by their parents, and then the kids use that money as they wish to buy whatever they want. In elementary school, at least here the teachers make sure the kids have eaten something healthy before they go back for dessert. In middle school, it’s Katie Bar The Door! Here’s an example of what’s on the menu for next Monday:

CHICKEN FRIED
STEAK
HOT HAM & CHEESE ON
A BUN
PIZZA HUT CHEESE PIZZA
HAMBURGER
MASHED POTATOES
FRENCH FRIES
GARLIC TOAST
STEAMED ZUCCHINI
TOSSED SALAD
BURGER SALAD
SLICED PEARS
ASSORTED FRUIT
FRUIT PUNCH
SWEETENED ICED TEA
UNSWEETENED ICED TEA
2% WHITE MILK
1% CHOCOLATE MILK
SKIM MILK

Jealous of the chicken fried steak, aren’t you? Nobody can make it like they do here in Texas. Anyway, there are also two other lines that contain deli sandwiches, popcorn chicken, spicy fried chicken sandwiches, chips, cookies, lemonade (full sugar, in the cans) and soft serve ice cream. Any kid with an account has a wide variety of choices, good and bad in the cafeteria.

But at the end of the day it IS about choice. Taking it out of the school doesn’t mean that kids won’t find another place to get the stuff they’re not supposed to have – either at a friend’s house or at the convenience store with their pocket money.

Yeah, yeah, it takes a village and all that. And it’s a good idea. But nothing would work better than parents actually teaching their kids how to eat right at a young age and then enforcing it with lots of healthy choices (with a few treats thrown in here and there – they’re still kids after all). Less fast food and eating out and more cooking at home would be a good start, I would think.

So do you agree? Limit the choices in schools to give kids a fighting chance? Is this a good idea? Is it fair to remove those choices from kids who have a hard time keeping weight on? Where do they fall into the mix? I don’t think any one thing can solve the problem of overweight kids. I do think it’s a shame that this is one more thing the schools and others feel they need to address because it is not being addressed at home by the parents.

Here in Dallas recently, a middle schooler died during his P.E. class. If you follow the link, you’ll see from the picture that clearly this was an obese child. And he probably had all the health issues associated with obesity. He had passed out in P.E. previously. The parents had filled out forms telling the school this. But the school is saying it was a form that applied to participation in sports and not necessarily P.E. participation.

The Dallas Independent School District acknowledged the family filled out the form, but said it applies to sports and not the physical education class.

“And we did notice that there were some indications that he would be short of breath on occasion and so forth,” said Celso Martinez, a DISD spokesman. “This would have disqualified him from a team, but not necessarily from physical education classes.”

The Boy has a friend who participates in a AAA soccer team as one of its goalies, and at times he has problems with his knees. So his parents write him notes so he won’t have to participate in P.E. so he can rest the tendons in his knees. I’ve talked to his parents, and apparently the coaches at school disregard these notes and still make the kid participate. Even though it’s in the printed district policy that parents can write notes such as this up to three times a semester for their kids, for illness or other reasons.

So what I’m saying is I’m not surprised that since a form that was filled out that didn’t even apply was either ignored or not given to this kid’s P.E. instructor.

We’ve all heard from our kids that while the kids are “doing work” (work sheets or reading or whatever), the teachers are more involved with what’s on their computer screens that what’s going on in class. It does not surprise me the coach was on the phone while the students were doing the drills.

I think there are multiple parties at fault here. First, the coaches should have been paying more attention to the kids while they were doing the difficult drills. That particular child had fainted before in class doing strenuous activity. Yes, it is required at least twice a week in Texas (they call them “fitness days”). But the coach should have some common sense and at least monitor the kids that are extremely overweight or that have asthma, etc. more closely on these days.

The person that took the form from the parents should have made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the child would still have to participate in P.E., including the state mandated fitness days.

And then there are the parents. Clearly, they are at fault for letting this child get so big. Instead of trying to make sure the school didn’t make him participate in strenuous activities, maybe they should have done something that would have really helped him – like restrict his diet and get him into some sort of physical activity most days of the week. Maybe they did. We’ll probably never know.

At the end of the day, this is a very sad story. A child has died. Whether it was the parents for feeding him too much and not making him go outside to play, or the extreme Texas heat that contributed to heat stroke, or the coach not noticing the warning signs….he is still gone. Hopefully the coach will learn from this, the state will put things in place that will protect extremely obese kids and make sure they work at a level they can handle, and maybe other parents with obese kids will take notice and try to help their kids before it’s too late.

At least, that’s what I hope.

What do you think? Who’s at fault here?

As far as I’m concerned, this woman should have had the same or worse done to her. But unfortunately if that were to happen I’m sure she would find a way to blame her son and do even worse damage.

What do you think? Should abusers receive the same treatment they gave their victims, or is removing them from society a better option? In my view, like bullies…these people need to be given the same or they will continue their behavior because they never receive any real consequences. For me, jail is not a real consequence for this type of behavior.