Big Girl Pants

not sure how to thank some people.

before i get into the lesson (next post, i promise), i want to take a few minutes and recognize a few people. 

yesterday, uncle joe over at grandma is an idiot honored me with his blog of the week award.  i have long been a fan of webb sloane, grandma and uncle joe as this is a big deal for me.  for those of you unfamiliar with the family, stop on by and check out his site.  it's perhaps the best satirical postings you'll find; be certain you are not trying to swallow any liquids while reading over there.

on saturday, fu manchu dad found my site - still not sure how - and (in a comment on my scalia post) said:

You have no idea how awesome it is to find a well-informed right winger like yourself. You are now my favorite right up there with Michelle Malkin. And that's saying something. Keep it up and I've blogrolled ya'.....Totally!

i have blogrolled him, too, but that's not the point. through his site i have been introduced to just scads of people - not all to my liking, but all are nice and genuine.

my blog is just a little thing and mostly it's just for my venting.  it warms me beyond words to be considered as someone who is an enjoyable read.

thank you to all of you who visit and especially to those of you who comment.  i am in awe of all of you.

going all out for fred!

it's official.  hubby and i will be heading north on the 2nd to work the final hours for fred's campaign.  we believe strongly that of the cast of options out there, fred is the ONLY one fit to be potus.

fred is a consistent conservative - the only one in the field for the 2008 election and the only one any of us should be talking about.  unfortunately the msm know it.

the msm has been working diligently to give a pass on fred since he entered the race - actually even before that.  ever since gary hart was running mcgovern's campaign back in 1972, iowa is sort of the bellwether for who goes the distance in the presidential race.  and despite the best efforts of some other states, this year is no different.

in an effort to lessen the impact of the iowa caucuses on the presidential race some states have moved their primaries closer to what used to be iowa's caucus day - only it's backfired.  all that has happened is that iowa moved its caucus day to 3 january 2007 making it nearly impossible for a candidate who does poorly there to recover before the next primary/caucus.

as you may, or may not, know no candidate who has finished worse than third in the iowa caucuses has gone on to garner the party's nomination.  that is a true statement regardless of the affiliation of the candidate - republican or democrat.  and that makes it all the more important that we give fred the extra push that he so desperately needs RIGHT NOW!

some have said that fred is already an also ran, but with an estimated 40% of iowa voters not making their decision for whom they would vote until the last week before the caucus in 1996, i say GAME ON.  today a new strategic vision poll gives fuel to that sentiment:

Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Iowa. Results are based on telephone interviews with 600 likely Republican caucus goers and 600 likely Democratic caucus goers, aged 18+, and conducted December 26-27, 2007. The margin of sampling error is ±4.5 percentage points for each party.

1. If the 2008 Republican presidential caucus were held today between Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson, for whom would you vote? (Republicans Only; Names Rotated)
Mike Huckabee 29%
Mitt Romney 27%
Fred Thompson 15%
John McCain 14%
Rudy Giuliani 4%
Ron Paul 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 6%

2. Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only)
Yes 7%
No 72%
Undecided 21%

3. How important is it for the Republican presidential candidate to be a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan, very important, somewhat important, not very important, not important, or undecided? (Republicans Only)
Very Important 56%
Somewhat Important 12%
Not Very Important 7%
Not Important 10%
Undecided 15%

4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 48%
No 40%
Undecided 12%

so far the lame stream media (to borrow a phrase from courtney) has done a pretty thorough job of ignoring and/or dissing mr. thompson and his campaign.  and in some cases, where they've lacked in that effort, they've made up for it in flat-out denigrating him. 

some are even saying that fox news, that fair and balanced bastion of the news, is blackballing fred because of his announcement being on jay leno rather than at the new hampshire "debate".  smoothstone indicates that it may be bigger than that - he reminds us that a little more than two years ago prince alwaleed of saudi arabia purchased a 5.46% share of fox news.

right now the media is going all out to promote huckabee because - in my opinion - they want him to win in iowa and win the nomination.  they KNOW that he will not win the election no matter who they put up and so he is the safest bet. 

regardless, once fred finishes in the top three in iowa, the media will have to stop panning and poo-pooing him and give him his due.  but don't look to them to be truthful or forthcoming until they are forced to.

getting back to our caucus trip north, i'm not sure what we'll be doing for the cause, but what ever we can do we will.  i know the campaign still needs more bodies - heck, maybe even people to work the phones from wherever to call into iowa to spread the word.

i realize that my little blog doesn't reach very many people, but i believe that every person reached is a person who can cast a vote for fred.  this is why we are doing what we are.

if any out there can help, please contact kristen fuzer (kfuzer@fred08.com) or chris burger (cburger@fred08.com) and see what they have for you to do.  if you can't give any money for his campaign can you spare an hour or two to help out?

UPDATE 12/28/2007:  final fred thompson blogburst and video from john hawkins here - well worth the looksee.

sending back love to my favorite angel at her friday article here.

blogbursting for fred thompson

tuesday, fred at right wing nut house proposed that those of us who support fred make a concerted effort to help raise funds for fred's campaign in iowa.  you can read the whole post, above, but in part he said:

don’t think any of us believe that our endorsement of Thompson alone means that much in the long run. But working together, uniting for one day and speaking with one voice, I think we could make a significant impact on Fred’s chances in Iowa. After all, when the candidate you support rolls the dice as Fred has, the least we can do is back his play to the best of our ability.

then, today, i received this email from fred's campaign - seems like fred was prescient...

The first leg of our Iowa bus tour last week was phenomenal. We visited with voters in 21 cities and towns and did 21 events all across the state. Everywhere we went we were greeted by enthusiastic crowds of Iowans who are looking for a consistent conservative leader who will tell it like it is.

It's working: Just last Friday a new Strategic Vision poll showed me moving into a strong third at 16%.

We are poised for the great showing we want!

Just last week I picked u p the endorsement of Congressman Steve King. He has been a champion in the fight to end illegal immigration, and I am pleased that he has joined our team. He's been with me on the bus and the great reception we've received on the tour has really put a jolt into this race.

This is where you come in.

I have a terrific new TV spot. You can see it now at Fred08.com. Take a look, and forward this message on to 10 of your friends.

I need your help to put it on the air. We need to put $248,846 in the bank before 6 PM EST on Friday, December 28th to do it.

Can you help me by making a contribution today? I know I've asked a lot, and you've done a lot, but this is critical to our success. Help me make history.

The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down bus tour will run from today to caucus day. We have a terrific ground game in place.

All we need is air cover--which the spot on our website will provide.

This ad will help me let the people of Iowa know that my plans for this country are the best that have been presented. It will help me make the case that not only am I the only reliable, consistent conservative in this race, but that I have the experience and the vision to lead our Party and our nation through difficult times.

I've always shot straight with you, now's no different. I need your help. Can I count on you?

if any of you out there like fred but are waiting to see what happens in the primaries, you're waiting too long.  support him now so that he has a strong showing in iowa and he will be the nominee for the gop.

so this is my effort for the cause.  i gave today and i will give again tomorrow.  who among you will join me?

to stay married, move to massachusetts?

been reading a lot over at robert's place in the last week or so.  several different posts and so no single post is really applicable to link to here.  but there's this person "shaw" who has posted a few times that massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate per 1000 people of any state in the nation.

robert tried to challenge him, but he never quite responded with anything more than the information in his original comment.  so it got me to thinking, and researching, about this topic.  what i found wasn't quite so straight forward as shaw and the op-ed page of the boston globe would have us believe.

this post doesn't even begin to examine the sanctity of marriage as one man and one woman.  this deals strictly with trends in marriages and divorces in our great nation.

according the to the boston globe op-ed, from just about 3 years ago, william d'antonio posits that based on the latest data massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.  the divorce rate per 1000 people, for 2002, in the state of massachusetts is 2.4 (or 2.5 depending on the source).  conversely, according to that same data, the divorce rate in the state of texas is 4.1.  well it certainly sounds like married people in massachusetts have a better chance of "making it" - doesn't it?

according to the op-ed:

The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people." The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

not so fast, bozo boy.  first of all, when did arizona become a "southern state"?  also, that number is per 1000 people in the state.  how many people in the state got married?  what is the percentage of people who marry that end up in divorce.  how are "marriages" counted?  upon further review, the rates listed per 1000 people aren't really so impressive.  i found the rates at the cdc and they appear to be the same ones referenced by this doc.  i also found them from the census bureau, but they didn't have it such a nifty document...

for instance when you compare the divorce rates for the the nine northeast states he lists as among the lowest divorce rates you will notice that they do not have such a high marriage rate, either.  so to extrapolate the information for the actual divorce rate you merely need to divide the divorces per 1000 people by the marriages per 1000 people.

for instance the nine lowest states by percentage of people divorcing vs. marrying is are south carolina (37%), south dakota (38%), tennessee (39%), utah (39%), massachusetts (42%), rhode island (42%), arkansas (43%), vermont (43%), and illinois (44%).  so essentially, massachusetts, rhode island and vermont stay in the top nine.  south carolina moves to the number spot in terms of lowest rate of divorce and arkansas moves the bottom nine to the top nine...

i do feel it is important to note that i exclude hawaii and nevada because the numbers for those states are skewed by the sheer number of people who get married there and then go home (for instance nevada is 67.4 marriages out of 1000 people with a percentage of divorce of 11%).  i also ignored states for whom there is no data for both divorce and marriage for the 2002 year.  a friend of mine points out that this necessarily skews the numbers for the rest of the country, but i can only do so much with the data presented to me.

the nine highest rates of divorce become mississippi (77%), arizona (71%), washington (71%), west virginia (64%), pennsylvania (60%), colorado (59%), connecticut (58%), michigan (58%) and new jersey (57%).  that makes three of the best nine in the divorces per 1000 people fall to the worst nine in percentages of divorce versus marriage.  only arizona and mississippi are in the bottom nine in both lists.  the rest are all in the middle somewhere.  the percentage of people, nationwide, who get divorced vs. married (including hawaii and nevada) is 49%.  texas is the worst on the list in terms of divorces per 1000 people, but it's below the national average with a percentage of 46.

i'm pretty certain that south carolina, illinois, tennessee, and arkansas are in the bible belt and they're in the lowest nine states for percentage of divorces vs. marriages.  also, utah has an extremely religious population and they're in the best nine as well.  and six out of the nine highest in terms of divorces vs. marriages are very liberal states. 

so what is one to surmise from all this number crunching and data?  beats me.  but i'm pretty sure it doesn't mean that you're less likely to get a divorce is you live in massachusetts.  or more likely to get a divorce is you live in texas or "the bible belt".  please tell me i'm not the only one who thinks the boston op-ed is just a tad offbase.

definitely NOT green with envy...

did you know that we've painted the empire state building green!?!?  well not paint, really, but it appears to be green to honor the end of ramadhan.  angel has a great post and great imagery here and both defiant infidel and debbie over at right truth add to angel's information.

i have placed a call to their pr department - specifically a ms. melanie marsh - and left a message that i am appalled at the idiocy of honoring a group especially in new york where we should all still have such a violent recollection of what the muslim terrorists did to our nation.  i am not going to hold my breath waiting for a return call.

the empire sate building's official internet site has an entire page devoted to the history of the lighting of the building and another for the upcoming schedule.  it's important to note that several people are saying that this is the first time the building will be completely green, but clearly this isn't the case:

October 09, 2007

Green/Green/Green*

New York Restoration Project and NYC Parks Department - Million Trees NYC

wow, i wonder if they did it that way because they wanted to be able to say it wasn't the only thing that warranted an all green e.s.b.?!?!

please join us in calling and registering your dissatisfaction over this horrendous act of political correctness.  i wonder what color they light the building to commemorate easter or jewish passover?  perhaps the other jewish holidays?

anyone?