am/pm showers

I was Wondering:
I was having drinks with some folks last night and the subject of morning versus night time showers generated a very lively discussion. There were moments of levity, one caustic comment, several humorous antidotes and lots of hygiene hyperbole.

My preference is a morning shower. I like starting the day feeling clean, moisturized and refreshed. At night I brush my teeth so little germ condos don't construct in my mouth as a result of my daily debauchery of culinary delights. I wash my face at night and use moisturizing lotion because I have notoriously dry skin. My Dad use to say if I jumped in the ocean, I'd absorb most of the water. No chance of that idiom coming true because I can not swim, and I've almost drown twice in my life. I love playing in water as long as I can stand up, but at 4'11" that limits where I can indulge.

Once a week I love putting on fresh jammies and crawling into a fresh set of sheets, so on that one night (usually a Saturday), I shower at night. Most everyone at the table thought I blew my morning shower theory because of that one nighttime shower. If I don't work on Saturdays, I physically do something like cleaning, grocery shopping, going out and about. Sunday is my day to imitate a slug and truthfully, I may not shower on Sunday, so my Saturday night shower and clean sheets are really indulgent and necessary.

On the other side of this stimulating discussion was night time showers washes away all the germs, dry skin cells and yuk of the day. Most floating dust particles are dead skin cells, right? Put that way, it really does sound kind of disgusting, right? Appealing to the hedonistic part of me, the night folks did point out a night shower is so very relaxing and conducive to a better nights sleep. But, the more I thought about the various ways I can "relax" before going to sleep, well, let's just say I was not convinced.

So, morning shower to start the day off fresh, night shower to wash off the day? I guess what ever works for you.

Independent Party Animal Symbol

I was wondering why there wasn't a symbol or totem for the Independent Party? I wondered about the origins of the symbols for the two major political parties in the US, the donkey and the elephant.. It turns out they were both figments of the imagination of cartoonist Thomas Nast in 1874. Thank goodness the original Whig party no longer exist, can you imagine the cartoons today. Abe Lincoln was a Whig leader in Illinois. In 2008 the Modern Whig Party was born. What made this group interesting to me was that most of it's leaders were ex-vets. I decided all by myself, I might add, that there should be an animal totem for the Independent Party.

Even more interesting to me is that Native Americans believe the Elephant stands for; strength, power, affection, loyalty, royalty, and wisdom,...makes ya think. Never mind that the elephant is not even indigenous to America. Reports are that Nast chose the elephant because of it's size, intelligence, strength, and dignity. Nast was a republican. The democrats simply said the elephant depicted the republicans as impossibly large, foolish and bloated.

There is no Native American symbolic meaning for the donkey, just the horse, which just ain't the same. There is a reference in a Chinese sex novel, "Jin Ping Mei" regarding the donkey but we are not going there. Donkeys on the other hand are known for their stubbornness, foolishness, loudness and unintelligent behavior. It's said that after being called a "jackass" so often by the republicans, Andrew Jackson decided to accept the donkey as his symbol. For a time the democratic party used the rooster as it's symbol. I found references from the Celtics to several far eastern communities that as a totem, the rooster symbolises pride, honesty, courage and vigilance.

The Modern Whig Party uses a red, white and blue owl. The owl is associated with wisdom, truth, patience. I am not sure what animal the original Whig party used if any.

The Independent/Independence Party

The word, "Independent" has been used over the years to come to mean not democratic or republican. If there were to be totem or symbol it would have to encompass ideologies ranging from the extreme left to the extreme right. There is the American Independent Party, America's Independent Party, The Independence Party of New York and Minnesota, and the Independent Green Party of Virginia just to name a few. Third parties are more often than not formed by some really pissed off individuals wanting to make a statement separate from one of the major parties. These parties frequently are formed in response to specific "Base" issues such as, taxes, abortion, immigration, gun control, on-going issues all. For example, the original Whig party separated out due to their belief that Congress should reign supreme over the executive branch and supported economic protectionism. The Libertarian party formed in 1971, believe in total individual liberty. Libertarians are pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, and anti-gun control. They support total economic freedom and are anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of business, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, but are very pro-free trade. Go figure.

In 2000 The Independence Party split off from the Reform Party over "Base" issues and huge ego's. A fine time was had by Ross Perot, Jessie Ventura and toward it's demise, Pat Buchanan. Now if that is not an example of democracy at it's finest, one does not exist. A billionaire obsessed with protectionism and taxes, an ex-wrestler concerned with social issues and a religion based extreme right winger concerned with power.
I guess an Independent symbol would have to be something wise, strong, large, independent, patient, truthful, proud, dignified, intelligent, loyal, courageous and vigilant. I should not forget patriotic. Patriotism is the one attribute that every party claims. Hmm, animals don't know that.

What Conservatism means to ...

I wonder at ; what conservatism means to Jonathan Krohn a 13 year old. Jon boy gave a 10 minute speech at CPAC outlining his 4 points of conservatism. Respect for the Constitution; Respect for life; Small government; and Personal responsibility. Now Jon boy got rattled about some Democratic filibuster 6 years ago and decided he had something to say. He wrote a book called, "Define Conservatism." Jon boy is also involved in theater, has a dog and was voted " Atlanta's Most Talented Child" in 2006. Jon is nicely rounded for his age and I give him kudos's for his accomplishments. I read his blog and little Jon boy has lots to say based on his 6 years of activism and slanted opinions. I really think he has reason to be proud of himself and so does he. He definitely is no Joe the plumber or Sarah Palin and we'll have a new president by the time he is eligible to vote.


It is not his accomplishments I take issue with, it is his ownership of some mighty fine principles. Now I have not read Jon boys book, nor do I intend to. He did make the following statement during an interview:


"A lot of people say to me, 'oh, you're a Republican.' And I say, 'No, I'm a conservative.' I'm a Republican when I support candidates. When I talk about the party I'm affiliated with I'm a Republican. But when it comes to what I am, I'm a conservative."


I've read that statement several times and I keep coming up with different conclusions. I guess you can be a republican without being conservative, conversely, can you be a liberal conservative.? I love political pegging, don't you? What I do see, is Jon boy is conservative leaning toward republican bilge. To accommodate Jon boy, I shall refer to this view as the conpublicans


1) Respect of the Constitution - Richard Nixon was the one that said 'if the president does it, it is not illegal. Dick was suppose to be a conpublican. Conservative values can find home in a Democratic platform. The difference historically is that Dem conservative values effect a larger portion of society. The Constitution has never been as raped, pillaged, ignored or bastardised under any administration as it was under GW Bush, and Ronald Reagan, with Dick a close third. If by respecting the Constitution Jon boy means following it to the letter, and allowing the process to work, then, no, conpublicans have not met the standard. Respecting the constituition means allowing the checks and balances set forth in the subject document to work. Using signing papers to gut a constitutionally established law or bill is not showing respect. Bush ignored military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. Under no circumstances or interpretation does the constitution allow for the disregard as shown by the Bush and Cheney regime. The Constitution sets forth the sestablisment of three branches of government, not four to increase the power base of a deranged VP. Now we find out they destroyed 92 tapes of interrogations involving torture. Karl Rove has consistently ignored Federal subpoenas regarding his role in firing those that did not agree, illegal wiretaps on citizens, the numerous signing papers expanding not only his authority but Cheney as well. Grade F


2) Respect for Life - I think this means to take ownership of the anti-abortion view the conpublicans have taken. I refuse to call it pro-life because I am pro-life and pro-choice, and it IS a women's right. To say that conpublicans are respectful of all human kind is just ludicrous and to say they respect all life, is absolutely not true so it must be the abortion issue. It certainly does not mean the conpublicans respect the lives of those they are suppose to represent. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. These are not the actions of a person that respects anything but himself. Grade - F


3)Small government - Government should not be the all knowing, all seeing benevolent creator and sustenance of life as we know it. I do not believe that is what democrats want, nor is it what the people expect. However, we do expect, no, demand better support from our government than received after Katrina. There are 15 departments in the administration not including EPA, OMB, Drug Control and Trade. The last two to be added were done so by republican presidents Reagan, Vet affairs 1989, and Bush, Homeland security 2002. The purpose of these offices and of our government is to provide for a safe well maintained prosperous land on which we dwell. The size does not matter as much as the efficiency as has been proven time and time again. When contracts are awarded to private companies the over site must be flawless. When services are provided they must be provided to deserving citizens. When laws are enacted they must apply to all. When the health and welfare of the citizen takes second place to profit for the few, it must be stopped. If these things can be done with fewer departments, then so be it, but do not cut out the heart of the middle class and poor to support the life styles of the rich. This is what conservative values have done in the past, it does not mean that this is what being conservative should be. The GOVERNMENT, (democrats and republicans) destroyed the financial regulations, and over sites which exacerbated the current crisis, it is only fair the government help clean it up. People loss retirement funds and had nothing to do with the housing market, where would the conpublicans put them? McCain wanted to privatize social security and invest SS money in that same failed market. Everyday citizens loss jobs and money. Everyday citizens not directly involved in the failure of this country have been caught in the middle of politicians and wall street. Conservatives want to cut taxes of the rich to help the poor. Learn from the past, Reaganomics did not work! It was greed plan and simple and history should not be re-written to the satisfaction of either party. Grade - F

4)Personal Responsibility - Expecting government assistance during times of duress is not weak, or irresponsible, nor does that mean you are a slacker. Most people just want to be given equal footing, respect, opportunities, equal facilities, education, health care and civil rights protected equality. Generally, people do not want the government in their business. Trite but true, folks don't want a hand out, but some may need a hand up. Get off the soap box conpublicans, you are wrong. I wonder, by conpublican standards, what is acceptable to expect from your government? Grade F

Jon boy's 4 points can be attributed to both major parties and Independents. The Constitution is a living breathing document that has grown and matured over the years, but it is still our guiding document and must remain respected. The checks and balances between the three branches must remain in tack and not be blatantly manipulated as by the recent white house occupants. All three parties may respect life, but choose to display that concern in diametrically opposing methods; one from the top down, the other from the bottom up. One party manipulates and the other massages. Small government can be achieved by either party, but efficient, honest government should be the issue. Finally, Personal responsibility, or lack thereof is an issue on both sides and up the middle. Even now the Dems and Repugs are vollying back and forth on who's fault the crash was, who did what and who was responsible. End game, they both were along with greed, irresponsible baks, and consumers. This is one cake large enough so everyone involed gets a slice. Those not partaking in the greed feast, those not buying homes, not investing, but losing homes, jobs, income...those are the victims. Who will take responsibility for them?