Just curious

I don't understand the need for using psuedonyms or initials in the blogging world. This is not a criticism, just an observation. I know lots (and lots) of people who, in their blogs, will not identify themselves, their husbands or their children by name. They just use initials or fake names. I know this is sometimes a necessity-like when protecting the identity of someone who did something really dumb or protecting the identity of a victim. That's cool, I get that. I tried this once. It was a post about being frustrated with Maryn's grades. And then I thought "This is stupid. Anyone who knows my family knows who I am talking about." Also, why do people make all their facebook pictures private-even to their friends? I probably wouldn't be bothered by it if I wasn't slightly voyeuristic. I like having an inside peek at others' lives. It gives me something to compare to and makes me feel more (or sometimes less) normal. But, if your blog is private and only open to invited users, bring on the pictures and real names, I say. I know many who will disagree with me-and that's fine. Like I said, it's not a criticism, I just don't get it.

Give me a break

I know this is way out of left field, since I haven't blogged in quite a while, but I needed to get this off my chest and facebook wasn't the proper forum on which to do so (you know, what with only allowing 420 characters. Is that really enough to properly rant and rave? I think not). I am so freaking sick and tired of seeing crap like this quoted, printed or posted on facebook:
Doesn't make much sense does it?? Our homeless go without eating .Elderly go without needed medicines. Mentally ill go without treatment. Troops go without proper equipment. Veterans go without benefits that were promised. Yet we donate billions to other countries before helping our own first. 1% will re-post and 99% won't . Have the guts to re-post this.I KNOW I'M in the 1% (Charity begins at home)

Really? Really people? If you think this, you are either ignorant or retarded; or a delightful combination of both. Here are some statistics for you to chew on:

U.S. military budget 2010: $663.8 BILLION
Health care (you know, for poor people)2010: $829 BILLION
Education: $159 BILLION
Veteran's affairs (and yes, this is separate from military spending): $87.6 BILLION
Homeless and Shelter projects: $48.5 BILLION

There are SEVERAL other programs that are funded by and available to U.S. citizens (literally, too numerous to mention); I haven't even touched private organizations like churches, salvation army, etc that assist with food, clothing, shelter and even Christmas presents. Now, you may not like our system; you may think it is broken or spending is out of control-I may be inclined to agree with you. Now ponder this: the United States ranks 18th in foreign aid committments. That means we contribute less aid than 17 other countries to the needy of the world, including Ireland, Austraila, Italy and Japan. Interestingly, we are FIRST in the rankings of all developed nations for national income. Some more statistics (because I love 'em)

U.S. aid to Haiti in 2010 (you knew this one was coming)$229 million (million, with an M)
U.S. aid for Global Health Care: $2.3 million
Foreign Economic Support fund: $6.5 million

I think we can safely put to rest the idea that the poor/homeless/veterans/soldiers in our country are suffering or going without because of our exhorbitant spending to help "those other places.". Have private citizens donated their own, personal, previously taxed by the U.S. money to help others in need? Absolutely, and good for them. Our country doesn't need more money donated in order to feed and shelter the homeless or arm our soldiers. We need to be more fiscally responsible and elect people to office that have some semblance of a brain. We need to hold our elected officials accountable for their spending of OUR tax dollars. Which brings me back to my original point, which I have a roundabout way of getting to because I think too much, talk too much, quote too many statistics and write too many run-on sentences. Is a person more deserving of compassion or help simply because they are a U.S. citizen? This attitude sickens me. I have children who, had they not been adopted, may have been recipients of some of that aid. I would not have begrudged them a single penny. Did those children choose to be born in a country with no clean drinking water? Could you honestly look a starving child in the eye and tell them they are undeserving of your help because A: the are not a U.S. citizen and B: We don't have the latest and greatest technology for our armed services (except, oh yeah, we DO!!)? Do not mistake my feelings as being anti-american or anti-military. I am as patriotic a person as you will encounter. I am also as compassionate a person as you will encounter. The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that our veteran's don't have their benefits is not due to sending aid to other countries. Compassion is: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.
I see no mention of qualifying factors such as nationality or race in that definition. Come on, people, stop reposting and regurgitating this mindless crap and think before you speak.