Thanksgiving Twister Fun!

The kids, of course, are eager with anticipation.

Mom and Chris tangle. (Why doesn't Chris look happy?)

We were all impressed when GrandMom got in on the action.

And we could hardly believe it when GrandDad played, too.

THE END.

Cool Video

After watching all the torrid political videos this year on my computer, I was so pleased Leslie suggested I watch this one. The votes are cast. It is time to get back to doing the other things we can to make a difference in the world.

 

Check out the Hanna's Hope video at this site:

 

http://www.allgodschildren.org/about/videos/

Why People Should be Ashamed They Voted for Obama

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2008, AND THEREAFTER

 

Evil Concealed by Money

 

Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism.

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Shannon went to a Glamour Party

Before:

After:
Crazy 3D glasses fun:

Thanksgiving surprise -- Snow in November!!

Only Chris felt like leaving the warm house to explore it this morning

Aaron had a bowling party for his 8th Birthday. Here is a tast for those who couldn't be there. See if you can find out who gets a strike.

One Weekend - One Project

Doug spent all of last weekend installing an attic access over the garage, putting in a floor and shelves and installing two lights. Today, he "gets" to help Leslie move storage stuff up there from the basement.

The Kids were ecstatic to "help" me, but I got it done anyway. Chris was amazing. He loved working with my tools so much, he even skipped a snack!

Chris really learned, too. By the end of the weekend he could change the drill bits in the drill himself. He even drilled through a pressure-treated 2X4 with a 3/8" spade bit all by himself!

Obama Promises to Beat the 10th Man

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer, and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.  If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this:

The first four  men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would  pay  $1.
The sixth would  pay $3.
The seventh would  pay  $7.
The eighth would  pay $12.
The ninth would  pay  $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what  they decided to do.  The ten men drank in the bar every
day and seemed quite happy with the  arrangement, until one day, the  
owner threw them a curve.  'Since you are all such good customers,' he  
said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'  Drinks for
the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers?  How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized
that $20 divided by six is $3.33  But if they subtracted that from every-
body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up
being paid to drink his beer.  So, the bar owner suggested that it would be
fair to reduce each  man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he pro-
ceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man,  like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before.  And the first four  
continued to drink for free.  But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.  He pointed
to the tenth man, 'But he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man.  'I only saved a dollar, too.  
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.  'Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two?  The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.  'We didn't get any-
thing at all.  The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat  
down and had beers without him.  But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something  important.  They didn't have enough money  
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works.  The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction.  Tax them too much, attack them for being  
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.  In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.