is from Mark Twain:
Don’t go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
is from Mark Twain:
Don’t go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
Planning to do more Star Wars films, beginning with episode 7. Seeing how Episodes 1 -3 turned out, is this really good news?
The cross-marketing opportunities – Chip and Dale as Ewoks? Darth Goofy?
By the way, LucasFilms is privately owned by George Lucas – that $4 billion is all his.
To think about. From National Review Online:
Why is Mitt Romney rising? Americans who watched the GOP nominee debate President Obama never met the cold, greedy, sexist, racist, carcinogenic tax cheat that Team Obama promised would appear. The calm, steady, and reasonable gentleman who opposed Obama was no Gordon Gekko.
Americans might like Romney even more if they understood his random acts of kindness and significant feats of bravery. As Mara Gay, Dan Hirschhorn, and M. L. Nestel wrote for TheDaily.com: “A man weighed down by the image of a heartless corporate raider who can’t relate to people actually has a history of doing remarkably kind things for those in need.”
• After Joey O’Donnell, 12, died of cystic fibrosis in 1986, Romney built a playground in his honor. “There he was, with a hammer in his belt, the Mitt nobody sees,” the boy’s father and Romney’s neighbor, Joseph O’Donnell, told Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, authors of The Real Romney. A year later, Joey’s Park needed maintenance. “The next thing I know, my wife calls me up and says, ‘You’re not going to believe this, but Mitt Romney is down with a bunch of Boy Scouts and they’re working on the park.’ . . . He did it for like the next five years, without ever calling to say, ‘We’re doing this,’ without a reporter in tow, not looking for any credit.”
• On a chilly December night in the 1980s, a Mormon bishop told Romney about a parishioner’s daughter. This single mom, a non-church member, was shivering after her heating oil had been shut off. Romney and his sons stuffed their Gran Torino with firewood, drove from Boston’s affluent Belmont suburb to the modest Dorchester district, unloaded the logs, and built a fire for the relieved family.
• Ellen Hummel’s father worked with Romney at Bain Capital, but died when she was just 5. She later asked Romney to help her attend Columbia Medical School. He loaned her tuition money. Just before graduation, Hummel received a Christmas letter from Romney. “It was something caring,” Dr. Hummel, now a Michigan general practitioner, told TheDaily.com. “It was something saying, ‘This is a gift.’” Romney forgave Dr. Hummel’s loan.
• In 1995, Romney heard about the Nixons, a family who moved to Boston. Soon after, a car wreck left their sons paraplegic. Romney called and asked if they were available on Christmas Eve. Romney, his wife, and his sons arrived with a stereo and other gifts for the crippled boys. Romney offered to put them through college and supported them through numerous fundraisers. As their father told Kranish and Helman, “It wasn’t a one-time thing.”
Beyond generosity, Romney has demonstrated organizational leadership and personal courage while aiding others:
• Melissa Gay, Bain Capital partner Robert Gay’s daughter, vanished while visiting New York City in July 1996. Then-CEO Romney closed Bain’s Boston headquarters and jetted to Gotham to find the 14-year-old. Romney flew in his private-equity company’s 50 employees and transformed a Marriott Hotel into a command post. He consulted the NYPD and recruited private eyes. He dispatched staffers to enlist Bain’s business associates. Bain’s printer, R. R. Donnelly, produced 300,000 missing-person fliers. Bain’s CPAs at Price Waterhouse placed the handbills all over town. Duane Reade, a Bain-portfolio company, stuck leaflets in shopping bags at 52 local outlets.
Five days after Melissa disappeared, someone rang Bain’s tip line to ask about a reward. The NYPD traced the call to a New Jersey home, where a 17-year-old had, unbeknownst to his parents, hidden the disoriented and drugged child.
Romney’s focus and management saved Melissa. She now is a happily married mother who teaches fourth grade.
• Romney learned that a member of his church fractured his foot after tumbling from a ladder while trying to dislodge a hornet’s nest. As Philip Klein explained in the Washington Examiner, “Romney showed up and devised a way of removing it from the inside of the house.”
• A home once burst into flames near Romney’s residence. Kranish and Helman report that Romney “organized the gathered neighbors, and they began dashing into the house to rescue what they could: a desk, couches, books” until fire fighters arrived.
• The Romneys were vacationing in New Hampshire in 2003 when screams shook the Independence Day air. Some 900 feet from them, New Jersey’s Morrisey family and their leaky boat were sinking into Lake Winnipesaukee.
Romney’s sons Craig and Josh sped into the lake on a Jet Ski. “We tore out of there, and my dad hopped on the other Jet Ski and came out right after us,” Josh Romney told the Boston Herald. They found three men and three women bobbing in the water in barely buckled life vests. Massachusetts’s then-governor pulled the two younger women onto his three-seat Jet Ski, while his sons assisted their mother. They then whisked these women safely to shore, along with McKenzie, their Scottish Terrier. Meanwhile, the three men treaded water under the sons’ watchful eyes until Mitt made two more trips to rush them to dry land.
Previously, while spearheading the 2002 Olympics, Romney and his sons used a boat to rescue several kayakers as high winds slammed them onto rocks.
Why is the real Romney totally unlike the terrifying caricature that has haunted this campaign? Team Obama’s distortions and lies have conspired with Mitt Romney’s modesty to mask his good deeds. Instead, Romney fans should make these secrets famous.
— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a Fox News contributor, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service, and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.
It’s breast cancer awareness month. Our school cheerleaders have pink pom-poms. Our football team wore pink tape on their shoes (although that might be why they played so poorly the other night.) Watching pro football yesterday, players had pink armbands, shoes, tape – even a pink mouthguard (yuk!, I’m talking about you, RGIII) One of my students asked me about all this, and I answered that I have nothing at all against breast cancer research, but I have a wife who has survived colon cancer, a daughter who has survived ovarian cancer, and friends and relatives who have survived other forms of cancer. I support all cancer research, and sometimes I worry whether the emphasis and publicity on one specific type of cancer might hurt research into these other types, some of which are quite honestly nearer and dearer to my heart than breast cancer.
So I thought it was interesting when I ran across this article, pointing out how breast cancer is more favored than other cancers in the actual terms of the so=called “Affordable Care Act” aka Obamacare.
Just to be absolutely clear, I have no objection to breast cancer research. I just want all cancers to be the target of out efforts to eliminate, prevent, and cure them.
Here’s the article I mentioned:
The Affordable Care Act mentions “breast” 44 times, “prostate” not once. It also establishes an elaborate and expensive network of special programs to promote women’s health. Programs for men are nowhere to be found. What explains the imbalance?
When President Obama took office, he promised to insulate his administration from organized lobbyists. Yet, from day one, he granted the women’s lobby unprecedented influence. The results should trouble fair-minded feminists.
The 2009 stimulus program set the pattern. The president had originally called for a two-year “shovel-ready” plan to modernize roads, bridges, electrical grids, and dams. Women’s activists were appalled. Op-eds appeared with titles like “Where Are the New Jobs for Women?” and “The Macho Stimulus Plan.” More than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Mr. Obama not to favor a “heavily male-dominated field” like construction: “We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges.” Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), attacked the “testosterone-laden ‘shovel-ready’ terminology.” Christina Romer, who chaired the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, would later say, “The very first e-mail I got . . . was from a women’s group saying, ‘We don’t want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.’”
The president’s original plan was designed to stop the hemorrhaging in construction and manufacturing while investing in physical infrastructure. It was not a grab bag of gender-correct transfer programs. The whole idea was to get Americans back to work, and it was “burly men” who had lost most of the jobs following the financial collapse of 2008. But as protests mounted, the president’s team reconfigured the bill according to NOW’s specifications. In a column entitled “Economic Recovery: What’s NOW Got to Do with It?” Gandy could hardly contain her elation: “As we looked through the act, over and over we saw reflections of the very specific proposals that we had made, and with big numbers next to them. Numbers that started with a ‘B’ (as in billion).” To read Gandy’s column is to understand why shovels are still standing idle and the stimulus was such a disappointment
A year later, the 2010 Affordable Care Act created an Office of Women’s Health, a National Women’s Health Information Center, a Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health, and more — right down to the mandate that universities pay for students’ birth-control pills.
The average lifespan of American men is five years shorter than women’s, and men contract the big diseases several years earlier. According to the American Cancer Society, men’s lifetime risk of developing cancer is approximately 1 in 2; for women, it is 1 in 3. But the Act is informed by the spirit of NOW and other women’s organizations such as the American Association of University Women. It would never occur to these groups that the health and longevity of men are matters of interest to women. To them, relations between the sexes are a zero-sum game — and their role is to fight for women and against men.
Most striking of all is the Obama administration’s blindness to the growing problem of male academic underachievement. Girls outshine boys by nearly every measure of classroom success. They earn better grades, take more advanced-placement and honors courses in high school, and are far more likely to go to college. Women earn 57 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 63 percent of master’s degrees, and 53 percent of doctoral degrees. According to a recent Harvard study (“Pathways to Prosperity”), the new passport to the American Dream “is education beyond high school.” Today, far more women than men have that passport.
Yet the president persists in acting as if our schools are a hostile learning environment for girls, one that warrants aggressive federal intervention. Pressured by groups like the AAUW and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), the White House recently announced that the Department of Education would be adopting a more rigorous application of Title IX to career, technology, and engineering programs in high school and college — to stop the alleged boy-favoritism that is shortchanging girls. To avoid federal investigations that threaten withdrawal of financial support, programs will simply enroll fewer males.
President Obama explained his rationale in a Newsweek op-ed: “Let’s not forget, Title IX isn’t just about sports. . . . Title IX ensures equality for our young people in every aspect of their education. . . . I’ve said that women will shape the destiny of this country, and I mean it.” But it is our underachieving young men that destiny is leaving behind. Using the federal government’s power to unleash divisive gender politics on our schools is the last thing the president should be doing.
Within living memory, the American women’s movement was a broad-based, bipartisan vehicle for social equality. It achieved historic victories that changed American society dramatically for the better. Unfortunately, in recent years it has become a hard-nosed, K Street–style interest group — one that works without embarrassment for special deals for women. Perhaps the White House didn’t notice. More likely, it embraced the lobby’s agenda as part of a conscious electoral strategy. No matter. Treating women as a voting bloc to be appeased with government favors is not social justice. It is a travesty of the ideal of women’s equality.
— Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Her book Freedom Feminism: Its Surprising History — and Why It Matters will be published in 2013 by AEI Press.
This is one of the coolest graphics I’ve ever seen, looking at the changing partisanship of Congress. You need to click on it and zoom to see what’s in it. If it doesn’t zoom, enough, follow the link. I could spend hours trying to understand everything in this!
This is from Bookworm Room’s blog. I repost it in its entirety. Think about it. I’m going to vote on my way home tonight.
I’m not sure I buy the “Mitt was sent by God” part, but otherwise I think this letter, forwarded to me by my Dad, is worth sharing:
This article is for those who are just simply not enthused about voting for Mitt Romney. You may not be thrilled with the idea of voting for Barack Obama, and in fact, you may be repulsed by it. However, for any number of reasons, you feel uncomfortable with a vote for Romney, and are considering sitting this one out or voting for a third-party candidate. It could be the Mormonism of Gov. Romney you do not like, or it could be his various position changes over the years (most notably on abortion). Particularly in states like Nevada, Ohio, Colorado, and Wisconsin, your non-vote for Romney could very well put Obama back in the White House for an additional four years!!! You are the target audience of this article.
I am not going to defend every single piece of Mitt Romney’s record. I have spent a little time with the Governor over the last few years, and I have found him to be an extremely bright and knowledgeable man, but I would not say that ideological conservatism runs through his veins. I doubt he grew up reading Hayek, Kirk, and Buckley. For those of you who are devout evangelicals or Roman Catholics, you are well aware of the differences in his religious viewpoint from yours. He has some stinker votes out there, and he has changed his position on a couple key issues over the years. It is not possible for me to claim he is a perfect man, or a perfect candidate. But I will suggest to you that the negativity some feel towards him is perhaps misguided …
The most common objection lodged against him is his reputation as a “moderate” when he governed the state of Massachusetts. When a Republican Governor is elected head of Ted Kennedy’s state, and asked to serve over an 82% Democratic legislature, I would suggest to you that a little grace and understanding are in order. If you evaluate each and every action he took as the Governor of that state, you will find (as I did) that he was constantly moving his state to the right, even if it never went as far right as you and I may prefer. He is a true incrementalist, and he moved the ball in the right direction, which I believe is what we elect leaders to do.
I would spend more time on the abortion flip-flop except for the fact that I have no doubt that his “pretend position” was when he was pro-choice, not when he became pro-life again. It is inconceivable that he and his devout Roman Catholic pro-life Vice-Presidential selection, Paul Ryan, would select judges who set the pro-life cause back. I have been wrong on issues in the past, and so have you. I encourage you not to hold it against a candidate that before he was right on an issue, he once was wrong. That is backwards thinking, is it not?
I have written in the past of the very limited things a President can actually do. He cannot restore the size of government to the “right size” many of us wish it to be. He can, though, work diligently and intelligently to get the right things done. I would suggest that some of those crying needs of the hour are exactly what Romney will do, and do phenomenally well. He will work with Congress to reform (but not perfect) the tax code. He will reverse the direction of the budget deficit, even if he will not solve it entirely.
The direction he will take the fiscal state of our country vs. Obama is the most important issue in this election. He will flatten the tax rates, which undeniably spurs economic growth, all the while cleaning up many of the silly and price-distorting deductions that have to be reformed (I learned this from Obama’s former economic czar, Christina Romer, by the way). He will assemble a team of competent cabinet members, as he has done his entire career (do any of Romney’s critics want to criticize his eye for talent at Bain Capital, or in Salt Lake City, or in the Governor’s mansion?). Obama has filled his cabinet with cronies, fools, and extremists. This distinction alone is enough to show up and vote.
I do not believe we will run a budget surplus in four years, and I do not believe abortion will be criminalized at the end of Romney’s first term. What I do believe is this: At this time, at this point in history, in this present set of circumstances, God has seen fit to give us a clear and simple choice between a radical, unqualified, dishonest wretch of a President named Barack Obama, and a competent, managerial, efficient, intelligent, decent man named Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney will be a tool God uses to move the ball down the field.
Romney did not have to choose the extraordinary Paul Ryan as his running mate, and in fact took great political risk in doing so. Gov. Romney is a problem-solver in a country filled with problems. He is not a quintessential conservative Libertarian kind of guy, but he is the antidote we have to the Ivy League radicalism of Barack Obama. He is the alternative to four more years of $1 trillion+ deficits and an utter blindness to the train wreck our entitlement system represents. He has the proven ability to work with other people to accomplish something, as opposed to the community organizer we have in office now who has never so much as led a school sports team, let alone a business, a state, or an organization.
I am not writing because Mitt Romney is perfect. I am writing because he is good enough. And I am writing because Barack Obama is the biggest disaster our country has faced as a mature country. If you worry about the direction of the Supreme Court, and you worry about the size of our government relative to GDP, and you worry about confidence in the business community coming back so as to spur economic growth, then you have a man to vote for who will advance your cause(s) – Mitt Romney. You also have a man to vote against who represents the worst of all possible worlds – Barack Obama.
Please, do not sit this one out. Our country – the last, best hope on earth – needs your vote. I have every confidence in the world that we will be pleased we voted for Mitt Romney – every confidence in the world. Share as you wish. And I will see you at the polls.
David L. Bahnsen, CFP®, works as a Senior Vice President in the private client group of one of the premier Wall Street firms in the country where he provides financial planning and investment management services to individuals and families.
Saw this today on The Daily Rant (highly recommended reading, by the way). It spoke to me, and I felt like sharing it.
FOLLOWING WAS WRITTEN FOR OCTOBER 28, 2012 OUR DAILY BREAD BY: David H. Roper
A popular song from years ago titled “From a Distance” envisions a world of harmony and peace. It says, “God is watching us from a distance.” Indeed God is watching us, but not from a distance. He is present, in the room with you, right in front of you, gazing at you with unbounded love in His eyes.
I think of the example of Brother Lawrence, who spent long years working in a kitchen washing pots and pans and repairing the sandals of other monks. He wrote: “As often as I could, I placed myself as a worshiper before Him, fixing my mind upon His holy presence.”
That is our task as well. But we forget and sometimes need reminders of His presence. I have driven an old handmade nail into the shelf over my desk to remind me that the crucified and resurrected Jesus is always present. Our task is to remember to “set the Lord always before [us]” (Ps. 16:8)—to know that He is with us to “the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20) and that “He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27).
Remembering may be as simple as calling to mind that the Lord has promised to be with you all through the day and saying to Him, “Good morning,” or “Thank You,” or “Help!” or “I love You.”
So near, so very near to God—
I cannot nearer be;
Yet in the person of His Son,
I am as near as He. —Paget
No one can come so near that God is not nearer still.
The great movement toward government has not come about as a result of people with evil intentions trying to do evil. The great growth of government has come about because of good people trying to do good. But the method by which they have tried to do good has been basically flawed. They have tried to do good with other people’s money. Doing good with other people’s money has two basic flaws. In the first place, you never spend anybody else’s money as carefully as you spend your own. So a large fraction of that money is inevitably wasted. In the second place, and equally important, you cannot do good with other people’s money unless you first get the money away from them. So that force – sending a policeman to take the money from somebody’s pocket – is fundamentally at the basis of the philosophy of the welfare state.
Thanks to Cafe Hayek.