Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 5 Comments

So much to do . . . and Ben Shapiro explores a significant public commentary regarding family-friendly entertainment:


I’m feeling very melancholy right now.  I think I’m overwhelmed by the holidays and all the accompanying prep that must go into it.  I asked my husband last night “do you think we will ever have a quiet, peaceful Christmas?” and he said


DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.  IT’S TOO DEPRESSING KNOWING IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.



A “quick” rundown on what’s ahead for us —


Dec. 2 — Rework quote for potential customer (not real optimistic about this one), laundry, cleaning house, install vertical blind for school district, Jami’s choir sings tonight at “Holiday on the Brazos” . . .


Dec. 3 — CLEAN HOUSE in prep for tomorrow.  Fix fabulous foods for tomorrow.  Bathe dogs.  CLEAN HOUSE.  CLEAN HOUSE.  CLEAN HOUSE.


Dec. 4 — Birthday party for my guy.  Was supposed to be a surprise, but the logistics forced me to spill the beans.  The theme, WILL, however be a surprise.  Look for an update as I’m very excited about this, even with the stress involved!


Dec. 9 — Jami’s choir sings at “Christmas in the Park”. 


Dec. 10 — 4-H Christmas party.


Dec. 12 — Goe Harley Motorcycle Toy Ride


Dec. 13 — Jami’s choir sings at “Christmas Extravaganza”.


Dec. 18 — AJ’s grandmother’s 90th birthday party.


          This is where it gets a little hairy.  I got the dates of her party mixed up and told my sister that I would ride with her to San Antonio to get the puppy that she’s giving her kids for Christmas.  So she’s going to try to see if a girl at work will switch shifts with her so we can go on Sunday.  If she won’t, then I will have to make an appearance at the party and then we’ll leave about 3 pm and probably won’t get home until 2 or 3 am.  (It’s a 5-hour drive one way.)  Pray that the girl will switch with her!


Dec. 23 — Christmas with AJ’s mom and step-dad.


Dec. 25 — Christmas at home in the a.m., Christmas with AJ’s dad and step-mom in the p.m.


Dec. 26 — Christmas with my mom, sister, and kids.


IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE MUCH WHEN YOU TYPE IT ALL OUT.  But, the thing is — in between all this stuff I still have to meet with clients, install products, try to finish the Christmas gifts I’m making and search resourcefully for affordable gifts I can’t make . . .


          Yes.  I’m whining.


My husband would say, “You’d get a lot more done if you’d get off your blog.”


He’s a list man.  Makes a list and works his way through it until everything is completed.  Except he keeps adding things to the bottom of the list, so he’s never really done.  But he does get things done.


I’m a type-A procrastinator.  I want it all done well, perfectly well, but I put it off because I’m worried about doing it well.  And so I stress about the things I need to do.  It’s a bloody blessing that my blood pressure runs on the low side, or as my mom and husband have said before, “You’d probably have a heart attack.”


Well, enough procrastinating.  I need to get to work. 


But before I do, please read the following column.  Ben Shapiro gives us hope that the majority of Americans are decent people who prefer family-friendly entertainment (could it be their VALUES?).  (My question is, if there are soooooo many homosexuals out there, why aren’t they supporting this movie with their $$$?  According to them, there are millions of them, and you’d think they would have sold out box offices for this flick . . .)


Oliver Stone’s ‘Alexander’ is behind the times
Ben Shapiro (archive)

December 1, 2004


    Oliver Stone had a really rotten week.  His huge-budget epic drama “Alexander,” starring Colin Farrell, Angeline Jolie, Val Kilmer, and Anthony Hopkins, premiered to critical raspberries and popular apathy.  “Alexander” reportedly cost over $150 million to make, and over the five-day Thanksgiving weekend, it garnered a mere $21,837,517, finishing sixth at the box office.


    In all likelihood, Warner Bros., which produced the film, will still recoup its costs, despite the probability that “Alexander” won’t come close to $100 million in domestic grosses.  Europeans are expected to turn out in high numbers to see the Macedonian wunderkind; they turned out en masse to see the American box office flop “Troy” as well.


    What was the hold-up for American audiences?  It wasn’t the nearly three-hour running time – remember, each movie in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy ran over 178 minutes, with the most successful of the trilogy, “The Return of the King,” running at well over three hours.  It wasn’t the critical coolness toward Stone’s pet project – several of the movies that finished above Stone’s at the box office last weekend were critically panned (although none to the extent of this disaster).


    A large part of “Alexander”’s downfall is attributable to the moral distastefulness of the subject matter.  Alexander the Great is played as a mop-top, indecisive bisexual by Farrell.  During the course of the movie, Farrell kisses a eunuch full on the mouth, and exchanges numerous lingering glances with boyhood chum and grown-up gay lover Hephaiston (played by an eye-liner-wearing Jared Leto).  Anthony Hopkins, playing Ptolemy, intones: ““It was said . . . that Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaistion’s thighs.”


    This stuff doesn’t go over well with most Americans.  Frankly, we don’t want to hear about it, and we’re definitely not going to pay money to see it.  Critics love films with homosexuality, but very few of those films go on to see great popular success.  Since 1994, 17 actors and actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing gay characters; meanwhile, every movie nominated for an Oscar since 1994 containing substantial homosexuality has fallen well-below the $100 million mark, except for “As Good As It Gets” and “American Beauty,” both of which were fueled by Oscar hype.


    You can sense how much the critics wanted to love “Alexander,” too, primarily for its exploration of bisexuality, despite the fact that the movie is simply awful.  Manohla Dargis of the New York Times ripped into the film, but praised Stone’s portrayal of Alexander’s homosexual tendencies: “There are moments in ‘Alexander’ that show Mr. Stone in fine form, including . . . the aching tenderness between the ruler and his longtime lover, Hephaistion . . .”


    Meanwhile, most of the critics complained that “Alexander” failed because it didn’t do enough with Alexander’s sexuality.  Desson Thomas of the Washington Post complains that “Alexander’s homosexual side is only bashfully explored . . . . There are no thighs, just whispers.”  Likewise, Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe writes, “The nervous handling of the important relationship [between Alexander and Hephaiston] lays an absurd emotional dead spot over the picture’s overblown finale.”


    Unfortunately for the critics – and Stone — the cultural pendulum has begun to swing toward traditional morality again.  The five films that beat “Alexander” to a pulp were: “National Treasure,” “The Incredibles,” “Christmas With The Kranks,” “The Polar Express,” and “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie.”  These films were rated, respectively, PG, PG, PG, G and PG.


    These are all family friendly fare.  That’s what Americans want to see nowadays.  That’s why Sharon Stone whined that social conservatism prevented the filmmakers from approving a lesbian kiss between her and Halle Berry in “Catwoman”:  “Halle’s so beautiful, and I wanted to kiss her. I said, ‘How can you have us in the movie and not have us kiss? It’s such a waste.’ But that’s what you get for having George Bush as president.”  That’s why Wayne Llewellyn, president of distribution at Paramount, blamed “Alfie”’s flop on President Bush’s re-election: “It seems to be the result of the election. Maybe they didn’t want to see a guy that slept around.”


    With the shift in social values currently underway, here are a few predictions: “Brokeback Mountain”(2005), starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger as gay cowboys, will be a critical favorite but a box office dud.  So will “Brideshead Revisited”(2005) starring Jude Law and Paul Bettany as love interests.  Meanwhile, anything Pixar puts out will do big business.  Note to Hollywood: welcome to the backlash you inspired.  Hope you enjoy it as much as we do!




©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 2 Comments

And here it is:


I’ve been letting this topic percolate for a while, and I’ve decided to just jump in the deep end and put my thoughts down. I may ramble, I may mumble, but it could be next year before I put anything down if I wait for the guidance of an eloquent muse. Please bear with me . . .


When I was a child of 11, our nation was preparing to celebrate a most momentous birthday . . . 200 years since the beginning of a great experiment, perhaps one of the greatest experiments ever conducted. Born on July 4, 1776, America was an incredibly young nation compared to others around the globe and yet . . . so special, so incredibly unique . . .


I was a sixth-grader that year and little distracted me from all the happenings, both great and small, in preparation for the biggest birthday party the world had ever seen. Much of what I remember is in bits and blips (I am 40 years old, after all, and a good deal has happened since then!). I remember people painting the fire hydrants near their homes to resemble the militia men of the American Revolution. There were commemorative coins minted (I believe the quarter depicted a drummer with a tricorn hat and the years “1776 – 1976”), special programs on television (one children’s program aired each Saturday and told the stories of famous American Revolutionaries such as Deborah Sampson, Crispus Attucks and many others), and “Bicentennial Minutes” highlighted historical events leading up to our independence each evening before the primetime programs began.



There was a great deal of focus at school on the significance of this year. We put on a play, complete with powdered wigs and mop caps, and I will never forget “Benjamin Franklin” admonishing the rest of my classmates that “we should all hang together, or else we shall all hang separately!” Also “John Hancock” signing the Declaration with a big flourish so “King George can read it without his specs!” In history we learned of the risks taken by these brave men to build a nation where its citizens could truly be free. And most of us were truly thankful for this birthday gift that had been so carefully crafted and wrapped for us two centuries before.


I think back and wonder if the difference between then and now is that we were taught to be proud of our heritage, and thankful for the gift of a nation that, while still not perfect, provides the freedom to continually strive for a more perfect nation.


Now, it seems we are constantly apologizing for the success that is America. And before someone starts ranting and raving about the “dismal failure” that is America, let me say . . .


SHUT UP!


We’ve made our mistakes, for sure. But is there any nation on the planet that hasn’t made a mistake now and then? It seems to me that the younger generation (younger than myself), has taken on almost an abusive “parent” role. Let me explain . . .


America is young as nations go. Maybe somewhat like a teenager. Now, tell me what teenager hasn’t made mistakes? A teenager may make mistakes, but if that teenager has a good heart . . . well, more often than not their conscience will get the best of them and they will try to do the right thing to make amends.


Liberals are like the abusive “parent.” No matter what that wayward teenager does to apologize, to make amends, that abusive parent is going to beat them over the head with their mistake. “You good-for-nothing, worthless, piece of crap. I don’t care that you did x, y, and z for the widow down the street! You really screwed up here and I’m NEVER going to let you forget it. In fact, I’m going to make sure that everyone knows what a sorry good-for-nothing you are and tell them all about this mistake of yours, because nothing else you’ve ever done or ever will do can erase this mistake of yours.”


And because the abusive parents run all over creation complaining about the waywardness of their teenager to anyone and everyone who will listen, before long the lie becomes “truth” and everyone believes that the teenager is a good-for-nothing bum who’s never done a decent thing a day in her life.


It breaks my heart, because I know in my heart what a wonderful country this is. Despite the comments of those who, like the abusive parents, would have us all believe that America is not special, is not good-for-anything – I know in my heart of hearts that this is the most wonderful country to live in and I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else on the planet (unless, of course, Hillary returns to the White House – then I’m outta’ here).

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 1 Comment

 


I’m still percolating on that post I mentioned, but in the meantime, this should tickle your funny bone . . . I know it did mine —







You Know You’re From Texas When…
You see more Texan flags than American flags.

You know someone who ate the 72 oz steak and got it for free.

You attend a formal event in your best clothes, your finest jewelry, and your Cowboy Boots.

You can write a check at Dairy Queen for 2 Hungr-Busters and fries.

You prefer Whataburger to McDonalds.

You dress up to go shopping at the mall.

You’ve hung ornaments and tinsel on a tumbleweed and used it as a Christmas tree.

You’re disappointed when a food doesn’t come in spicy flavor.

You know from experience that rattlesnake meat tastes like chicken.

You can tell a rock from an armadillo at 300 yards.

You know what a ‘Cowboy Cadillac’ is.

You have both a dog and a brother-in-law named Bud

Your local grocery store sells cactus in the Fresh Produce department

You watch the movie Urban Cowboy and laugh at the phony Texan accents

You choose a brand of Mexican salsa with the same care that another might use to select a bottle of fine wine

You think that the 4 basic food groups are nachos, bar-b-que, fajitas, and Copenhagen.

You refer to the Dallas Cowboys as “God’s favorite football team”

You know whether another Texan is from South, West, East, North, or Central Texas as soon as they open their mouth.

You don’t consider people from Austin to be real Texans.

Your Pastor wears boots.

There is no such thing as a “secret” sin.

The Blue Book value on your truck goes up and down depending on how much gas it has in it.

You actually get these jokes and pass them on to other friends from Texas.

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 1 Comment

An excellent article:


The making of the Christian-jihadist myth
Kathleen Parker


November 17, 2004


Following days of spin and commentary, we can confidently declare a new urban legend: George W. Bush was elected by right-wing, science-hating, vengeful Christian zealots – “revved up by rectitude,” as one pundit put it – and America is embarked on a hatchet-wielding jihad against heathens, pagans and infidels.


Colorful. But then so is pollution in certain lights. It’s also wrong and awfully ignorant coming from the side of the political spectrum that considers itself the more intelligent segment of the American population. Not only did the right wing not elect Bush – only slightly more evangelical Christians (5 percent) voted for Bush this time around than in 2000 – but Bush himself is far to the left of the so-called “moral right.”


As former secretary of education William J. Bennett pointed out Monday in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, Bush’s election was a slightly-right-of-center mandate, rather than a far-right one. Of nearly 60 million votes for Bush, some 20 million came from evangelical Christians. The other 40 million votes came from others, including increased numbers of Jews, Catholics, blacks and Latinos.


Yet all the chatter in recent days is about those weird Christians and their bizarre “agenda.” Always preaching about duty to family, making a fuss about pornography and promiscuity, carrying on about homosexual marriage. What’s wrong with those people, anyway?


The media seem suddenly, if belatedly, obsessed, approaching the evangelical Christian voting block as anthropologist Margaret Mead did the Samoans. Chris Matthews suggested on “Hardball” that reporters should be sent out to cover the red states as one might a foreign country. You can imagine the scramble. Among least coveted assignments, embedding with Real Americans would be second only to spending August in Crawford, Texas.


Because I live in South Carolina, I’ve gotten a few calls myself from television and radio producers seeking insight. I feel like Jane Goodall being summoned from the hinterlands to report on the behavioral habits of the indigenous wildlife.


“Fascinating,”   I picture them saying as they stroke their chins. “They even go to church on Wednesdays, too? Whatever for?!”


Why, for the beheadings, of course. OK, I’m kidding. It’s the snakes.


Just as Samoan women are alleged to have lied to Mead about their freewheeling, premarital sex romps, red staters may be sorely tempted to offer exaggerated tales to curious intellectuals. They’re so cute when they’re perplexed. Alas, their own interpretations are sufficiently exaggerated without my help, as this typical reader e-mail suggests:



We will just have to adjust to a new world that was created in six days, where women were created from a man’s rib and where global warming does not exist according to science advisor Rush Limbaugh. Scientists like myself will just have to be wary of stakes with brush piled underneath, and suppress any sign of intellect while mumbling something about being saved and born again.


The urban myth has taken hold even among scientific minds, it seems. Yet objectively, the myth is holier than Peter’s net. Bush, though he identifies himself as an evangelical Christian, isn’t nearly as conservative as those on the far right might wish him to be, nor are Christian evangelicals all knuckle-dragging throwbacks. Last time I checked, not a single one had ordered the murder of an infidel. But you knew that.


Despite our near-pathological need to label and categorize, the United States isn’t really a far-left and a far-right country, bright red and bright blue. While such demographic labels are convenient for political debate – and indispensable to column writing – the fact is that most Americans dwell in that vast lavender (purple?) area in between.


In that middle, people are complex and hold a variety of views, some liberal, some conservative, depending on the issue. Most don’t cleave to an either-or position on even the hot-button issues. Many Americans still support a woman’s right to abortion, for instance, but think reasonable limits can be set without condemning women to life terms in the kitchen.


The debate, meanwhile, about whether “moral values” was the compelling force behind Bush’s victory seems slightly off point. Exit polls showing “moral values” as the most important issue for voters (22 percent cited it) were refuted subsequently by other polls, leading some to insist that the election wasn’t about values after all.


What they mean, probably correctly, is that the election wasn’t only about far-right concerns such as same-sex marriage, abortion and stem cell research. But of course it was about moral values – what’s right and what’s wrong, from war to national character – and the vote took us right of center.


As for Bush’s alleged “jihad,” only true jihadists have reason to protest. As Christopher Hitchens wrote, Bush fights religious fanaticism while the left apologizes for it. Amen to that.




©2004 Tribune Media Services

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 3 Comments

A comment that I felt needed to be brought to the forefront, as sometimes these things get lost as the comment chains get longer (plus I wanted to make sure it was read since sometimes people don’t always return to the comment chain to read subsequent posts):


USMCwife909, you’re not reading my comments very carefully because you’re only interested in telling me why I’m wrong.  I clearly stated that, and I quote my own words for the refreshment of your memory:


       It seems to me that James Madison, while speaking against establishment of religion by law, still managed to convey a missionary heart.  A heart that firmly believed in God and His commandments, but believed that each man must come to know God of his own free will. 


I am curious that you claim to be Christian, but then you say:


       Christians have a desperate need for some reason to claim our nation’s fathers as their own.


If you are Christian, wouldn’t you be part of that group?  Or are there two sets of Christians, and you belong to the open-minded, live and let live set?  I hate to tell you this, but no matter how you try to twist the words of many of the founders of our nation (Please note, I said MANY, not all.  Do not try to twist my words and say that I believe that ALL good men that helped formed our nation were Christian or think exactly as I do.  I NEVER said that.), this nation was founded on Christian principles, based on their very words.  They had a balanced view — the best foundation for our nation is one of Christian principles, but because they held the free will that God gave each and every man so precious, they promised to never establish a national religion.  It’s so obvious what Madison said — he believed in the light of Christianity, the existence of false religions (directly in conflict with modern day liberals who profess “god, whatever your concept of him or her may be”), and man’s free will to accept or reject the light of Christianity.  Yes, he was speaking against established state religion — but he was not denying his faith in doing so.


It’s a shame that you and so many others who profess to be Christian (and yet demonstrate so differently with your words and actions) twist the words of those who are dead and can’t speak for themselves.  And I am amused that you set yourself up as an authority — “the quote cannot be found in any of Madison’s original writings.”  Perhaps you just haven’t run across the document that contains it?  Why should I believe you?  I’m not going to bore my other readers with lengthy endnotes from Federer’s encyclopedia — I trust the volume and the copious amounts of research that went into it, and anyone who has questions regarding its veracity can research that on their own.

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 8 Comments

A couple of posts back, I seem to have struck a nerve with the funny little story about the father/daughter meeting of minds.  One of the comments that followed that posting decided to use the Founding Fathers of our country as support his point of view.  In particular, this person fell upon James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, to support his point of view.  Why don’t we let James Madison speak for himself?  His written words should suffice, since he’s no longer with us to verbally defend his name.


From his “Religious Freedom, A Memorial and Remonstrance,” given during the 1785 session of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia:


       “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage . . . before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.


       Because the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity.  The first wish of those who ought to enjoy this precious gift, ought to be, that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.  Compare the number of those who have as yet received it, with the number still remaining under the dominions of false religions, and how small is the former!  Does the policy of the bill tend to lessen the disproportion?  No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of Truth, from coming into the regions of it . . .


       Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.  If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man:  To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.


       Earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may, on the one hand, turn their councils from every act which would affront His holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them; and, on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of His blessing.”


James Madison also wrote, regarding the future of America:


       “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it.  We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to government ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.“


(Bold and italicized emphasis added by me.) It seems to me that James Madison, while speaking against establishment of religion by law, still managed to convey a missionary heart.  A heart that firmly believed in God and His commandments, but believed that each man must come to know God of his own free will.  Be that as it may, Madison still believed that the scriptures, particularly the Ten Commandments were the rule by which we should measure and sustain ourselves.


I wonder what James Madison would think about the Ten Commandments being routinely ripped from the walls of courthouses and town squares throughout the country in our “enlightened” age?  I, personally, think it would break his heart.

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 3 Comments

I posted this in my comments section, but then decided to make it a regular entry — I wanted to be sure that it was read by those participating in the back and forth:


WOW!  I had no idea when I posted the little funny that my DEMOCRAT friend sent me that it would provoke such a firestorm.  Yes, my best friend since 7th grade sent me that little ha-ha and she only recently voted Republican because she’s disgusted with the litigation abuses of the likes of John Edwards, et al.  (As we all know, the greedy legal abuses of ambulance chasers drive up the costs of goods and services for everyone, thus depriving us all of goods and services that are perfectly safe because companies are afraid to similar lawsuits.)


Darkstar218, you can post anything you want on my website anytime.  You are my hero!  Your wife is a blessed woman, and your child(ren), too!


Before I got to your comment regarding the parable of the 10 talents, I was thinking, “has this kid ever heard the parable of the 10 talents?” and then, boom!  You said it for me!  Another that came to mind was the scripture that says (and forgive me for not knowing chapter and verse off the top of my head) that the man who does not provide for his family is worse than the infidel.  To me, this means that you do whatever you have to in order to provide for your family.  So you were a computer geek that got laid off . . . and you can’t find a job computer geeking?  Dig ditches, flip burgers, re-train for something different. 


My husband is an educator — he has almost 20 years of teaching in the public schools and the prison system under his belt.  For a short period of time he was unemployed.  He couldn’t find a job teaching.  Do you know what he did?  He went to work for a car dealership.  Yes, he was a car salesman.  No, he didn’t wear the plaid pants, and he always dealt with potential customers ethically.  But to go from academia to selling cars — it was very difficult for him.


But he did it rather than take a handout from the government.  During that time, he also helped a friend with a construction business bust up old tile in a school (with a jackhammer) and lay the new tile.  The friend’s wife stopped by the job site to bring them lunch and she was seriously worried about my husband.  It was physically demanding work for someone used to teaching and when he got home he was exhausted and had blisters all over his hands.  But he did it.


We’re not wealthy people dollar-wise.  But we are conservative Republicans because the wealth of freedom is more than enough for us.  To choose the liberal path would mean having the government control our lives in every aspect and it’s too great a price to pay considering the sacrifices of those who’ve come before us to give us the gift of freedom.


I’m not afraid of people like Yourmagicalgoat (what kind of name is that?) and their comments.  It would be convenient to block their comments, but then I would be stealing the very freedom of speech from them that I value with my very being.  So post away, liberals — we may read your comments, or we may exercise our freedom to ignore them.  But we will not ever deny you the right to post them.  :0)

Posted on by Laura Jinkins · 48 Comments

Enjoy:

 

A Father/Daughter Talk




A young woman was about to finish her second year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was in favor of distribution of wealth. 



She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, which she expressed openly. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish, desire to keep what he thought should be his.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she said so to her father. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was hard to maintain. She studied all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend and didn’t really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying because she was also taking a more difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Mary doing?”

She replied, “Mary is barely getting by. She has a 2.0 GPA, and all she takes are easy classes and never studies.” “College for her is a lot more fun; she goes to all the parties and sometimes doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.”

Her father then asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter was shocked by her father’s suggestion and fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I worked really hard for my grades. Mary has done little or nothing and played while I worked!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Posted on by Laura Jinkins

Tony Blankley has a great column, “Secession,” you need to read:  http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20041110.shtml


Quoting from his column:


This dominant sentiment of the Democratic Party elite — that scores of millions of Americans are categorically unacceptable as fellow countrymen — is evidence of a cancer in the soul of that party. These Democrats, quite expressly, are asserting that “christers,” people who believe in the teachings of Jesus as described in the inerrant words of the Bible, are un-American, almost subhuman. Some of these Democrats would rather secede than stay in the same country with such people. If they were in the majority with no need to secede, what would they do? Their bigoted and absolutist view of religious people is at least a second cousin to the Nazi view of the Jews.