Archive for March, 2011

New Website!!!

I just want to take a moment and thank all my readers who have supported getyourheadaround the past few months.  It was because of you that I kept writing.  You may have recently noticed a new writer to the site: Michael from  He and I have decided to team up and start blogging together, and it’s because of our readers that we have created an entirely new website:  We will no longer be using this site, but we hope you enjoy our combined efforts on the new blog.  Check it out and happy reading!


           I saw on 24-Hour News 8  in Indianapolis this morning that Indiana House Democrats still have no intention of coming back to work anytime soon and that threats to increase fines (or, if I remember correctly, garnish wages) doesn’t bother them.  Let’s not forget the voices of their constituents who are telling them to get back to work.  No.  None of that matters.  So, my question is, where is their confidence coming from?  My guess would be the unions. 

            I, myself, received a union email on Friday asking me to contact local House Democrats in Urbana, Illinois and let them know that I appreciate them being there and “standing up for public education.”  I can’t help but wonder if we shouldn’t instead thank them for standing for the teachers union because I don’t know that this is really about public education—at least not to the Democrats.  It seems most of the teachers in the union are genuinely concerned about the legislation and are falling into a union trap.  One teacher personally said to me last week that she felt Republicans had betrayed her.  She said that she had always considered herself a conservative voter and had always voted mainly Republican, although she was more Independent.  “After this,” she informed me, “I’ll be voting straight Democrat from now on.”

You can’t tell me that the Democrats aren’t milking this for all it’s worth—right along with the union.  In a recent post, I questioned whether or not the protesting and the Democrat walkout had all been planned. It seemed odd to me that as far back as 2009 the NEA would be recommending that Association Representatives (grassroots organizers) read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  There were also other reasons to believe this was planned.  Just read the post.

            If all that isn’t enough evidence, I was recently able to hear District 29 State Senator Mike Delph speak at an event.  The subject of the walkout came up, and Senator Delph referred to it as a tyrannical hijacking of democracy.  For any other Indiana worker, that would be considered job abandonment, which would result in job loss.  He then stated that he felt the walkout had been well orchestrated and planned by the ISTA (Indiana State Teachers Association) possibly since as far back as Oct. 2010.  I don’t know whether or not he’s correct or what information he has to make that claim, but considering everything else, it doesn’t seem too far-fetched. 

            This weekend I spoke with someone who works very closely on a second job with one of the absent Democrats, and I asked how this representative was able to miss work for so long.  This person told me that, basically, the rules of the job don’t always apply to that politician.  Perhaps that’s the case with the other House Democrats.  Perhaps they’re so used to special treatment that they think it’s okay to miss work for a month and hold up everyone’s life instead of going to work like a responsible adult and getting something done.  Senator Delph told his audience that if they have to go into a special session because of the absence, every day of that session will cost taxpayers thousands of dollars.  I’m not okay with that.  If I thought this were really about public education, perhaps things would be different; I don’t know.  But all the evidence points to a political game that I’m not happy funding with my union dues or my taxpayer dollars.

A filibuster is an unlimited debate (or other action) used by the Senate to block or delay the passage of a bill.

Recently, Bill Maher went on a tirade against the Republican party and listed several issues he deemed as “distractions.” If anyone has ever seen the movie, “Wag the Dog,” the president created a fake war in order to distract the public from the breaking story of an illicit affair he had with a girl scout during an election year. That pretty much sums up what a political distraction is. In Maher’s little speech, he lists things like ACORN, public unions, Sharia Law, etc.  that make up the “useless distractions  that make up the Republican Party agenda.” And what are these issues distracting us from? In Maher’s mind, the important issues of the day like climate change.

There is more proof that ACORN facilitated,  intended to commit and did commit, mass voter fraud, than there is supporting climate change. I don’t know if the final results of the 2008 presidential election would have changed had ACORN not been involved. I actually doubt they would – President Obama still would have won. But the numbers certainly would have changed, the gap would have been much closer, and the overwhelming Democrat win wouldn’t have been quite so overwhelming.

The real issue here is that the Democrat machine illegally manuevered an election in order to secure an administration that may or may not be serving legitimately. And Bill Maher calls it “a distraction” from important things like climate change. I’m sorry Bill, but I’m going to have to call you out on this one and say that this is a prime example of the useless distractions that make up the Democratic Party. “Never let a crisis go to waste,” right? So let’s focus on climate change, something that may or may not be real, something with as much evidence against as there is for, so that we can avoid talking about the mass corruption of your very own party.

And this is only one of a long list that Maher lists. The fact is, Sharia law, public unions, Planned Parenthood, the war on Christmas, and everything else he lists, aren’t distractions. They are real issues that Americans face. But since the Democratic Party is on the wrong side of these issues, the best PR move is to label them as distractions, sweep them under the rug, and hope American’s will forget they’re there.

It’s all a big spin game, so I’d advise all readers to beware of any issue the media is calling “a distraction.” If the liberal media is labeling something a distraction, there’s most likely some real substance there.




There’s a story on The Blaze (in case you haven’t noticed, I really like that site) about the new politically correct NIV version of the Bible.  This version uses neutral pronouns to refer to unspecified groups of people.  The Blaze provides this example of how the translations have evolved over the last couple decades:

 NIV(1984) Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

TNIV(2005) Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me.

NIV(2011) Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

The1984 version—whatever.  Some may have a problem with the masculine pronouns, but it doesn’t bother me.  I’ve been noticing a LOT of immaturity in our society lately, and this fits right into that category.  I am a woman, and I’ve read the entire Bible, and never once during my reading was I offended by masculine pronouns because I knew that they were referring to mankind (oops, I just did it) in general—men and women alike.  Political correctness is just a bunch of nonsense.  Get over it and grow up, people! 

 The 2005 and 2011 versions:  Now we have a problem, and it is probably because of this very problem that masculine pronouns were used in the first place (not really, it was probably a cultural thing).  “Anyone” is a singular pronoun.  “That person” is also singular.  However, “they” is plural.  Hmm.  In their attempt at political correctness, the NIV translators have achieved grammatical incorrectness!  Nice.

           As I mentioned earlier, I failed to withdraw my membership earlier this year.  Unbeknownst to me at the time, each year there is a window from Aug. 1-Sept. 1 in which membership can be withdrawn.  Unfortunately, I didn’t meet with my local Association president until Sept 6—five days past the deadline. 

            He called me into his office, and I voiced my request to withdraw my membership.  He politely asked me why—which was what I was afraid of—and asked if there was anything he could do to correct the situation.  I told him that there were some political reasons (that was against my better judgment; I should have kept my mouth shut about that), but more importantly, financial reasons.  With three small children at home, a brand new vehicle to accommodate them, and the likelihood that I would be RIF’d again at the end of the year, I felt that my $720 of dues would be greatly beneficial in preparing for a probable job loss.  Oddly, he gave me the name of a teacher and told me to contact her.  When I did, she acted surprised that he would suggest her name but told me to write a letter expressing my intent and then submit it back to the association president to be presented to the executive board.  I asked when the next executive board meeting was, and she told me it was at the end of the month.  So, I did what she suggested.

            Once September had passed and I still hadn’t heard anything, I contacted the president once again.  He met with me and told me that the executive board decided not to allow my withdrawal, asking, “Your reasons were mainly politically, right.  I asked if he had shown them my letter, and he replied, “Well, no.” WHAT?  He hadn’t shown them my letter? I explained to him that my letter mentioned nothing about politics but did focus strictly on finances.  His reply was, “Oh, well, here’s how I try to explain it to others,”—so there have been others, huh? —“Let’s say you get that $720 back.  The government’s going to take what, $400 of it in taxes?  That leaves you with $300, but the discounts you can get with your membership more than make up for that $300.”

            I guess like a brainless little puppet I was supposed to just accept that and walk away.  Well, I did say thank you and walk away, but I didn’t accept it.  His little explanation was great and all, except for the fact that it was a LIE!  That $700 dollars in dues would not be taxed!  It’s my money that I’m paying to the union after taxes.  It’s withdrawn from my paycheck just like all my taxes each week.  And even if it were taxed, the government wouldn’t take over 50 percent of it! But, he sure did make it sound good, didn’t he?  Great manipulation tactic.  I’m not happy about the fact that he just threw away my letter, and I am certainly not happy that he thought I was stupid.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is just one more reason why I don’t trust my teachers union.

First, watch this video.

I’m obviously all about freedoms and rights, but I think the parents in this video are being a little ridiculous.  The entire argument is just immature and, in my opinion, a little nutty—yes, pun intended.  This is just another example of the lack-of-adult-conversation problem we have in this country. 

 I guess people don’t understand just how big of a deal peanut allergies (or any allergies, for that matter) really are.  Maybe I’m going all liberal, but I can certainly understand why the school has banned the peanuts.  As a mother of a child with an egg allergy, I know the simple solution for our household has been to stop buying eggs.  Why take the risk?  Does that mean that I think every restaurant (or even the school that my child attends one day) should stop serving eggs? No.  That means I prepare before my child goes to these places.  Still, I’m a teacher and, trust me, I have enough to worry about without the fear that a student is going to die in my class after eating a Reese’s Cup.  So, if my school banned peanut products, no big deal.  There are bigger things going on in the world right now than a child’s right to peanut butter and jelly at school.  Eat it at home—geez.  Let’s grow up, shall we?  Now, if the government comes in and starts outlawing peanut butter entirely, we’ll have a problem.  Someone get me a sign because I’ll be ready to protest!

Okay, it’s actually two words.   A concurrent resolution is a legislative action used to amend rules of, express joint feelings of, or deal with matters affecting both chambers (H. Con. Res. and S. Con. Res.).  Concurrent resolutions are passed by both chambers but are not submitted to the president and are not law.

If you’ll recall, in Monday’s post I mentioned how a teacher said to me that the NEA doesn’t support abortion and that’s just the assessment of the “racist Tea Party.”  Well, does it or doesn’t it?  You decide. 

 As seen on the 2010-2011 NEA Resolutions document, Resolution I-17: Family Planning states:

The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom.

The Association urges the government to give high priority to making available all methods of family planning to women and men unable to take advantage of private facilities.

The Association also urges the implementation of community-operated, school-based family planning clinics that will provide intensive counseling by trained personnel. (1985, 1986).

 While you’re at it, also ask yourself if it’s right for taxpayer dollars and membership dues to be used to fund “family planning.”

So, I just read this story on The Blaze which informed me that

A group of legislators in Nevada are proposing a bill that would ban air fresheners and candles in public places because, they say, the fragrances can annoy some. But Critics say the bill would lead to stinky rooms and prohibit priests from using candles in Mass.

Las Vegas Democratic Assemblyman Paul Aizley on Monday presented the proposed legislation, which would set restrictions on pesticides, fragrances and candles to accommodate people with chemical sensitivities.

I’m so tempted to cheer this on because I’m one of those people with chemical sensitivities.  I hate walking into a restroom with a perfumy air freshener.  I’d take the poop smell over that poison any day because, at least when I leave the restroom, the side effects don’t linger with me like they do will the scentsy junk.  And I’m sure I’ve offended several old ladies—you, know, the ones who smell like they’ve bathed in perfume—by moving away from them in church.  I’m sorry, but the migraine and nausea are just too much to handle.

But, as tempted as I am to cheer on this legislation and write to my own representatives and suggest the same thing, I’m not going to because I know this isn’t right.  Businesses should be free to pollute their restrooms if they want to.  So, if this were proposed in Indiana, I’d be willing to take one for team and oppose it.