Hi Everyone:
I'm pretty sure that most of this country has heard about the 5 year old case of David Goldman and his son Shawn. I will give a brief history of this long and convoluted story:
In 2004, David's then wife took their 4 year old to Brazil for a 2 week vacation. Instead of returning to their home in Tinton Falls, New Jersey she remained in Brazil and divorced David. She then married a very powerful Brazilian attorney and got pregnant. Unfortunately, she died during child birth. During this entire time David's attorney was unable to win the return of Shawn to his father. It wasn't until about 12 -16 months ago that David was first allowed to visit with his son (in Brazil) with court approved supervision present. David was able to win a number of legal proceedings but the step dad's powerful legal team always figured out a way to keep Shawn in Brazil. And keep him they did. The step dad and the maternal grandparents managed to keep Shawn in Brazil for an incredible 5 years.
What is even more incredible is the fact that the Brazilian family's defense (in the recent court proceedings) was that it would be harmful to remove Shawn from his present environment. They stated that he had now been with them for 5 years and the step dad is now his family where he should remain. David never gave up and finally won this week, when a Brazilian Supreme Court Justice ruled that Shawn had to be returned to his father within 48 hours. The court then gave the step dad 2 options of how to meet at the court: either come in through the more secured back entrance or enter through the front door. The step dad opted for the front door entrance and paraded Shawn through all the photographers and news people. It was a sad site to watch. David and Shawn then were reunited and were almost immediately motorcaded, with 2 police escorts, to the airport where a private jet, rented by NBC news, flew them back to Florida, where I believe they are still.
What an incredible story to say the least. Why it took 5 years to finally have the definitive court ruling that the son should (rightfully) be returned to his biological father and to not remain with his step dad, who is obviously no blood relation, boggles the mind. As I mentioned before, the step dad is a high powered attorney, most likely with high powered attorney/judge friends who helped him try to do the unthinkable. That is to get full custody of his stepson. The step dad knew how to work the Brazilian system and to prolong any decision. To me, it is obvious that the step dad was acting out of spite alone. He had no right to get full custody of Shawn. If the decision from the Supreme court had gone the other way, that would have been tantamount to legalizing child abduction. That would have been an absurd decision.
It is also painfully obvious to me that the step dad and the maternal family had not used any common sense at all in trying to resolve the issue. I know that heartstrings were being pulled (from both sides) but, I think that the maternal family also did not want to lose a part of the daughter that they lost. But the biological father had to win this without a doubt. Not only was the decision the correct legal decision, but it was also the correct common sense decision.
Til next week.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Stupidity or Lack of Common Sense or a Lack of Morality
Hi Everyone:
The past few weeks has been an unbelievable eye opener for most of the world. It just goes to show you that even a world class athlete,who just won the athlete of the decade award, can do really stupid things without thinking of the consequences. Of course I am talking about the now infamous Tiger Woods.
I am not even sure if Tiger ever thought there would be any consequences. Supposedly, to date, 14 women have come forward to say they had a sexual relationship with him while he was married. I am also not sure if the 14 women are telling the truth. But, if there are 14 who have come forward so far, could there be more? Are there more? What really irritates me about Tiger's indiscretions (his own words), who has been married for 5 years to a beautiful woman who bore his 2 children, is that 1) he had sexual relations with women while married, 2) he thought because of his wealth and fame he could do it, 3) he thought he would be able to keep it a secret and get away with it and finally 4) according to some of the women, he didn't even use any protection. He has now most likely ruined his marriage but more importantly, he may have put his wife at risk for any number of std's. What was Tiger thinking? Obviously, he wasn't.
Was this stupidity on Tiger's part? Absolutely! Was it that he lacks morality? Absolutely! Was it that he has a lack of common sense? Again, absolutely. But, if you really think about it, if Tiger had an ounce of common sense, he would have never gotten himself into this situation in the first place. Common sense would have dictated to him that any extramarital affair was wrong and he shouldn't do it. But do it he did again and again and again etc. I have read that he even paid some of the women $5,000 to $10,000 per month to keep quiet. That certainly didn't work.
Of course extramarital affairs happen in "regular peoples" marriages but when it occurs to the rich and famous it makes front page news and then the story takes on a life of its own. How Tiger thought that he could have these affairs with not one but multiple women and that the secret would be kept is astounding to me. Obviously he is a great golfer and no one can take that away from him. But, this sorted tale(s) will always have people thinking differently about him and that will never end. What a legacy to leave. I do feel sorry his wife Elin and his 2 children for they did nothing wrong and they will now have to live with the problems Tiger imposed on them.
Common sense rules and stupidity drools.
Til next week.
The past few weeks has been an unbelievable eye opener for most of the world. It just goes to show you that even a world class athlete,who just won the athlete of the decade award, can do really stupid things without thinking of the consequences. Of course I am talking about the now infamous Tiger Woods.
I am not even sure if Tiger ever thought there would be any consequences. Supposedly, to date, 14 women have come forward to say they had a sexual relationship with him while he was married. I am also not sure if the 14 women are telling the truth. But, if there are 14 who have come forward so far, could there be more? Are there more? What really irritates me about Tiger's indiscretions (his own words), who has been married for 5 years to a beautiful woman who bore his 2 children, is that 1) he had sexual relations with women while married, 2) he thought because of his wealth and fame he could do it, 3) he thought he would be able to keep it a secret and get away with it and finally 4) according to some of the women, he didn't even use any protection. He has now most likely ruined his marriage but more importantly, he may have put his wife at risk for any number of std's. What was Tiger thinking? Obviously, he wasn't.
Was this stupidity on Tiger's part? Absolutely! Was it that he lacks morality? Absolutely! Was it that he has a lack of common sense? Again, absolutely. But, if you really think about it, if Tiger had an ounce of common sense, he would have never gotten himself into this situation in the first place. Common sense would have dictated to him that any extramarital affair was wrong and he shouldn't do it. But do it he did again and again and again etc. I have read that he even paid some of the women $5,000 to $10,000 per month to keep quiet. That certainly didn't work.
Of course extramarital affairs happen in "regular peoples" marriages but when it occurs to the rich and famous it makes front page news and then the story takes on a life of its own. How Tiger thought that he could have these affairs with not one but multiple women and that the secret would be kept is astounding to me. Obviously he is a great golfer and no one can take that away from him. But, this sorted tale(s) will always have people thinking differently about him and that will never end. What a legacy to leave. I do feel sorry his wife Elin and his 2 children for they did nothing wrong and they will now have to live with the problems Tiger imposed on them.
Common sense rules and stupidity drools.
Til next week.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Are Drivers This Stupid or Just Lack Any Common Sense
Hi Everyone:
Today, my wife and I went out to buy our Christmas tree. For the first time ever, the very first tree we saw we bought. Another first was to set it in the stand inside. Usually there is a delay between purchasing it and setting it up, but not today. Next on our agenda was to go back out to try to finish our Christmas shopping. When we left our house a light rain started. We weren't to concerned since the weather forecast called for temps in the 40's with light rain.
My wife's car has an outside temperature gauge on the dash. I noticed that the temp was fluctuating between 31 and 33 degrees but we continued. We drove on Route 6 west so that we could go to a local mall. We stopped at a store and then continued west towards the mall. As we came to a traffic light that was located on top of a hill traffic stopped about 1/2 mile from the light. We noticed about 7 or 8 cars turning around and headed back towards the direction that we came from. My wife and I looked at each other and decided that the roads were getting icy so we too turned around and headed for home. As we got into a town called Mahopac, traffic was at a standstill. We discussed which road was the best way to get back home. By the best way, I mean the roads with the least amount of hills, which we decided we needed to avoid. After being stopped at the same place for 15 minutes or so, I got out of the car so I could try to see if there were any accidents up ahead. I didn't see any accidents and there were only about 7 cars in front of us. When I got out of the car there was enough ice on the road that I could skate on the road with my sneakers on. The first car, of the seven was stopped in the lane and apparently didn't want to go down a relatively steep hill. We decided to wait it out since the best way home was the direction in which we were heading. As we waited, there were numerous 4 wheel drive/ all wheel drive vehicles that couldn't wait and they drove in the oncoming traffic lane to pass the 8 cars that were waiting for a salt truck in order to continue.
I have owned 2 types of 4wd/awd vehicles. My first being a true 4wd with a posi front and a posi rear end. That means that at any given time when in 4wd, there was power to all 4 wheels simultaneously. My second one was an awd vehicle that had limited slip differentials on the front and rear ends. That means that at any given time there are only two wheels with power, one in the front and one in the rear. What I've learned about both these kinds of vehicles is that you may be able to go forward easier/faster then non 4wd/awd vehicles but they don't stop any easier or quicker. If anything it takes them longer since they are almost always heavier then regular vehicles.
As we watched these 4wd/awd vehicles pass us in the wrong lane, we were wondering what was so important and what their big hurry was since the roads were getting worse. After a total of about 40 minutes a salt truck finally appeared on the opposite side and was trying to salt both sides of the road at the same time. I pulled the car over to the right shoulder to let the salter do a better job on our lane. The cars ahead of us started forward. I turned on the emergency flashers and also started forward. We continued about 3-4 miles at about 10 to 12 miles/hour and then we saw it. A 4wd pick-up truck had gone down a hill at a speed to fast for the conditions of the road and hit a telephone pole dead center on the grille. The pole snapped in half leaving the cross member dangling in the air still attached to the wires. The truck looked totalled to me.
As soon as I saw the accident I wondered why any driver, but especially drivers of heavier 4wd/awd vehicles don't drive at a slower speed when road conditions were as bad as they were at the time. It is apparent that people without common sense are not the best drivers, especially when the weather is bad. As I previously mentioned in one of my earliest blogs, common sense should be taught in high schools or colleges but now I believe that common sense should also be taught to new drivers so that they can become better drivers.
Common sense rules and fast driving in bad weather drools.
Til next week.
Today, my wife and I went out to buy our Christmas tree. For the first time ever, the very first tree we saw we bought. Another first was to set it in the stand inside. Usually there is a delay between purchasing it and setting it up, but not today. Next on our agenda was to go back out to try to finish our Christmas shopping. When we left our house a light rain started. We weren't to concerned since the weather forecast called for temps in the 40's with light rain.
My wife's car has an outside temperature gauge on the dash. I noticed that the temp was fluctuating between 31 and 33 degrees but we continued. We drove on Route 6 west so that we could go to a local mall. We stopped at a store and then continued west towards the mall. As we came to a traffic light that was located on top of a hill traffic stopped about 1/2 mile from the light. We noticed about 7 or 8 cars turning around and headed back towards the direction that we came from. My wife and I looked at each other and decided that the roads were getting icy so we too turned around and headed for home. As we got into a town called Mahopac, traffic was at a standstill. We discussed which road was the best way to get back home. By the best way, I mean the roads with the least amount of hills, which we decided we needed to avoid. After being stopped at the same place for 15 minutes or so, I got out of the car so I could try to see if there were any accidents up ahead. I didn't see any accidents and there were only about 7 cars in front of us. When I got out of the car there was enough ice on the road that I could skate on the road with my sneakers on. The first car, of the seven was stopped in the lane and apparently didn't want to go down a relatively steep hill. We decided to wait it out since the best way home was the direction in which we were heading. As we waited, there were numerous 4 wheel drive/ all wheel drive vehicles that couldn't wait and they drove in the oncoming traffic lane to pass the 8 cars that were waiting for a salt truck in order to continue.
I have owned 2 types of 4wd/awd vehicles. My first being a true 4wd with a posi front and a posi rear end. That means that at any given time when in 4wd, there was power to all 4 wheels simultaneously. My second one was an awd vehicle that had limited slip differentials on the front and rear ends. That means that at any given time there are only two wheels with power, one in the front and one in the rear. What I've learned about both these kinds of vehicles is that you may be able to go forward easier/faster then non 4wd/awd vehicles but they don't stop any easier or quicker. If anything it takes them longer since they are almost always heavier then regular vehicles.
As we watched these 4wd/awd vehicles pass us in the wrong lane, we were wondering what was so important and what their big hurry was since the roads were getting worse. After a total of about 40 minutes a salt truck finally appeared on the opposite side and was trying to salt both sides of the road at the same time. I pulled the car over to the right shoulder to let the salter do a better job on our lane. The cars ahead of us started forward. I turned on the emergency flashers and also started forward. We continued about 3-4 miles at about 10 to 12 miles/hour and then we saw it. A 4wd pick-up truck had gone down a hill at a speed to fast for the conditions of the road and hit a telephone pole dead center on the grille. The pole snapped in half leaving the cross member dangling in the air still attached to the wires. The truck looked totalled to me.
As soon as I saw the accident I wondered why any driver, but especially drivers of heavier 4wd/awd vehicles don't drive at a slower speed when road conditions were as bad as they were at the time. It is apparent that people without common sense are not the best drivers, especially when the weather is bad. As I previously mentioned in one of my earliest blogs, common sense should be taught in high schools or colleges but now I believe that common sense should also be taught to new drivers so that they can become better drivers.
Common sense rules and fast driving in bad weather drools.
Til next week.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Out of Touch With Reality
Hi Everyone:
I might be wrong (most probably not), but aren't we still in a recession? Not just any old recession but the great recession? With unemployment now topping 10% in this country and most companies still reeling from lower consumer spending, this recession has a ways to go before the economy becomes healthy again. I say these things because in and around Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Dutchess counties you wouldn't know that we are still in a recession. Now what am I talking about?
I am totally amazed and extremely bewildered about what some of the towns, villages and cities in the above counties, located in New York state, have submitted for their annual budgets. Some of the budgets for their next fiscal year appear, no make that absolutely are out of touch with reality. I have read reports of property tax increases of up to 18%?! While the majority of people are tightening their belts and spending less due to either the higher costs of almost everything or a lay off in the family which translates into less weekly income; there are a lot of municipalities who are increasing their spending, not decreasing. What the hell!!!!!!!!!!!
When economic times are good, municipalities spend our hard earned money like there is no tomorrow. Local governments grew and grew and grew with no end in sight and the end result were property tax increases that never ended. There were always people who rightfully complained about the tax increases but their voices went unheard when the increases were approved and implemented anyway. Now when economic times are hard, very hard, there are unbelievably, municipalities who are spending money, (again our money), like there is no recession. To them it is damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead no matter what. The elected officials have stated every so called reason under the sun as to why the property taxes need to be increased. What I didn't read was about was their cutting costs or saving money any way they could. They don't like layoffs because it is political suicide. Local governments are out of touch with reality and have been for so long that a lot of people seem to be immune to it and don't speak up in any way including voting out the bums who just don't get it. In my area, I was amazed to see the majority of elected officials re-elected again last month. If they didn't get it prior to the elections, what makes people believe that they get it now. Well it is apparent that those same idiots don't get it and are going down that same path of higher property taxes.
New York state has a long standing problem of forcing its residents out of the state to any place with much lower taxes. I'm sure a lot of you have read about NYS's budget problems which seem to be endless, but the problem really starts at the local level and those elected morons seem to have no conscience to the pain they inflict by raising taxes, both financially and physically. I say physically because there are numerous people who cut back on their medications and food so they are able to pay their taxes and remain in their homes.
As I have stated so many, many times before in my blog, politicians just don't seem to have any common sense what so ever and they don't seem to care. If they weren't voted out of office last month what are we to do? Move out of state I guess!
When will this insanity of higher taxes end? Will politicians ever hear the voices of their constituents? Or will this stupidity continue adinfinitum?
Common Sense rules and higher property taxes drool!
Til next
I might be wrong (most probably not), but aren't we still in a recession? Not just any old recession but the great recession? With unemployment now topping 10% in this country and most companies still reeling from lower consumer spending, this recession has a ways to go before the economy becomes healthy again. I say these things because in and around Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Dutchess counties you wouldn't know that we are still in a recession. Now what am I talking about?
I am totally amazed and extremely bewildered about what some of the towns, villages and cities in the above counties, located in New York state, have submitted for their annual budgets. Some of the budgets for their next fiscal year appear, no make that absolutely are out of touch with reality. I have read reports of property tax increases of up to 18%?! While the majority of people are tightening their belts and spending less due to either the higher costs of almost everything or a lay off in the family which translates into less weekly income; there are a lot of municipalities who are increasing their spending, not decreasing. What the hell!!!!!!!!!!!
When economic times are good, municipalities spend our hard earned money like there is no tomorrow. Local governments grew and grew and grew with no end in sight and the end result were property tax increases that never ended. There were always people who rightfully complained about the tax increases but their voices went unheard when the increases were approved and implemented anyway. Now when economic times are hard, very hard, there are unbelievably, municipalities who are spending money, (again our money), like there is no recession. To them it is damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead no matter what. The elected officials have stated every so called reason under the sun as to why the property taxes need to be increased. What I didn't read was about was their cutting costs or saving money any way they could. They don't like layoffs because it is political suicide. Local governments are out of touch with reality and have been for so long that a lot of people seem to be immune to it and don't speak up in any way including voting out the bums who just don't get it. In my area, I was amazed to see the majority of elected officials re-elected again last month. If they didn't get it prior to the elections, what makes people believe that they get it now. Well it is apparent that those same idiots don't get it and are going down that same path of higher property taxes.
New York state has a long standing problem of forcing its residents out of the state to any place with much lower taxes. I'm sure a lot of you have read about NYS's budget problems which seem to be endless, but the problem really starts at the local level and those elected morons seem to have no conscience to the pain they inflict by raising taxes, both financially and physically. I say physically because there are numerous people who cut back on their medications and food so they are able to pay their taxes and remain in their homes.
As I have stated so many, many times before in my blog, politicians just don't seem to have any common sense what so ever and they don't seem to care. If they weren't voted out of office last month what are we to do? Move out of state I guess!
When will this insanity of higher taxes end? Will politicians ever hear the voices of their constituents? Or will this stupidity continue adinfinitum?
Common Sense rules and higher property taxes drool!
Til next
Monday, November 30, 2009
Tea Parties
Hi Everyone:
Lately there have been a lot of tea parties around the country. Tea parties are so named due to the reference to the 1773 Boston tea party, where Bostonians dumped English tea into the Boston harbor to protest the high taxes England put on the tea. But are today's tea parties about taxes or an increase in US debt? I believe it is about both. Are today's tea parties really representative of the American people or a select few? Granted nobody likes an increase in taxes in any shape or form or an increase in the national debt. But why are there tea parties now and not in the recent past?
Let's review the recent past:
-When Ronald Reagan was president, our national debt went from $85 billion to $225 billion and there were no tea parties.
-When George H.W. Bush campaigned for president, he was asked about tax increases and he famously said, read my lips, no new taxes. He didn't live up to his promise and did indeed increase taxes and there were no tea parties. Why? Oh and don't forget that the national deficit in his last year in office went up to $399 billion and again, there were no tea parties.
-By the end of Bill Clinton's eight years as president, he turned the national deficit of into a $231 billion SURPLUS! This was the largest surplus in US history.
-When George W. Bush became president, he turned the largest surplus into the largest deficit in our history. When you read about the deficit under his watch you will see 2 numbers: $1 trillion and $10 trillion dollars. Well which one is correct? The correct number is $10 trillion. Why? Bush kept the war spending of the 2 current wars off the books. Don't forget that the greatest recession since the great depression began during his watch due to his economic policies. It was Bush who originally wanted to bailout AIG and other big banks and investment firms with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. Again, there was not one tea party during his eight years in office. Why not?
Now when Obama took office, according to the so-called "Tea-Bag Revolution," it's all his fault that the country is going bankrupt. What? Obama inherited the great recession and all the problems associated with it. Now there are tea parties across this country. Why now and not before? The truth about these tea parties is on the conservative web site AmericanMajority.org. There it states that they are pushing for lower corporate taxes. If you lower corporate taxes during this recession who makes up that loss in revenue? There is nothing about people's incomes taxes or payroll taxes or small business tax breaks in their web site. Small businesses are the backbone of this country.
As a side note, during the recent Governors race in New Jersey, part of Republican Chris Christie's platform was to reduce property and school taxes. Apparently the majority of voters believed him and Christie won, beating incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine. About a week later, Christie viewed New Jersey's budget and he stated that he would probably not be able to lower the taxes after all. There have been no tea parties, why not?
Obviously the tea parties were formed by the Republican/Conservative parties to voice their disapproval of anything Obama does to try to help this country out of the financial mess he inherited. This makes no sense since they never said boo about the deficits of Reagan, Bush and Bush. Why not? It seems that it was alright for their party leaders to have deficits but when the other party has a deficit it is an all out war against it. Someone speaks with a forked tongue. There is no common sense to the tea parties when it is always one sided.
I believe that everyone on both sides of the aisle should work together to solve our financial problems and get off their high horses!!!!! Both sides have worked together previously and they should work together again.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
Lately there have been a lot of tea parties around the country. Tea parties are so named due to the reference to the 1773 Boston tea party, where Bostonians dumped English tea into the Boston harbor to protest the high taxes England put on the tea. But are today's tea parties about taxes or an increase in US debt? I believe it is about both. Are today's tea parties really representative of the American people or a select few? Granted nobody likes an increase in taxes in any shape or form or an increase in the national debt. But why are there tea parties now and not in the recent past?
Let's review the recent past:
-When Ronald Reagan was president, our national debt went from $85 billion to $225 billion and there were no tea parties.
-When George H.W. Bush campaigned for president, he was asked about tax increases and he famously said, read my lips, no new taxes. He didn't live up to his promise and did indeed increase taxes and there were no tea parties. Why? Oh and don't forget that the national deficit in his last year in office went up to $399 billion and again, there were no tea parties.
-By the end of Bill Clinton's eight years as president, he turned the national deficit of into a $231 billion SURPLUS! This was the largest surplus in US history.
-When George W. Bush became president, he turned the largest surplus into the largest deficit in our history. When you read about the deficit under his watch you will see 2 numbers: $1 trillion and $10 trillion dollars. Well which one is correct? The correct number is $10 trillion. Why? Bush kept the war spending of the 2 current wars off the books. Don't forget that the greatest recession since the great depression began during his watch due to his economic policies. It was Bush who originally wanted to bailout AIG and other big banks and investment firms with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. Again, there was not one tea party during his eight years in office. Why not?
Now when Obama took office, according to the so-called "Tea-Bag Revolution," it's all his fault that the country is going bankrupt. What? Obama inherited the great recession and all the problems associated with it. Now there are tea parties across this country. Why now and not before? The truth about these tea parties is on the conservative web site AmericanMajority.org. There it states that they are pushing for lower corporate taxes. If you lower corporate taxes during this recession who makes up that loss in revenue? There is nothing about people's incomes taxes or payroll taxes or small business tax breaks in their web site. Small businesses are the backbone of this country.
As a side note, during the recent Governors race in New Jersey, part of Republican Chris Christie's platform was to reduce property and school taxes. Apparently the majority of voters believed him and Christie won, beating incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine. About a week later, Christie viewed New Jersey's budget and he stated that he would probably not be able to lower the taxes after all. There have been no tea parties, why not?
Obviously the tea parties were formed by the Republican/Conservative parties to voice their disapproval of anything Obama does to try to help this country out of the financial mess he inherited. This makes no sense since they never said boo about the deficits of Reagan, Bush and Bush. Why not? It seems that it was alright for their party leaders to have deficits but when the other party has a deficit it is an all out war against it. Someone speaks with a forked tongue. There is no common sense to the tea parties when it is always one sided.
I believe that everyone on both sides of the aisle should work together to solve our financial problems and get off their high horses!!!!! Both sides have worked together previously and they should work together again.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
NYS Lacks Common Sense re: Pension Reform
Hi Everyone:
Lately I have been reading in the newspaper about retired New York State employees, that has me very po'd. Currently NYS is in dire financial straits. The problems with Wall Street are only part of the problem. The NYS legislature has always been a major part of why this state is so poorly run. It seems that being a NYS employee has more perks after you retire then when one was working for the state.
More and more state employees retire with their full pension and benefits and then are rehired as a NYS employee again. Some retired employees are rehired as police or fire commissioners or elected as a politician or a judge. This double dipping has got to stop ASAP. Somehow this double dipping is legit. I am not sure how that can be? It is great for the retired/rehired employee since they will make more money in a year with their full pension and new salary combined, then they ever did previously. This added cost of paying a pension to a working again NYS employee, is devastating to the state's pension fund. Since the fall of Wall Street, the NYS pension fund has lost billions and billions of dollars. Having double dippers just adds salt to the wound and increases the money necessary to fund the pension fund.
Someone in the NYS legislative branch must see this and hopefully, he/she or they, should write a bill asap. Then the bill should be enacted as law to stop this insanity. When you retire you can always work somewhere else other then for the state, if you are in need of extra income. The law should state that when you retire you are ineligible to work for the state while collecting the pension and benefits. The law should also have some kind of allowance for those retired employees who wish to return to work for the state or are elected to a political position or are requested to return to the state's employment. In that scenario, the retired/rehired employee should have their pensions stopped as well as the benefits that come with it. The new retired/rehired employee can then receive their new salary and the benefits that come with the position.
To me, a bill like that just makes common sense. Double dipping has got to stop!
Common sense rules and double dipping drools.
Til next week.
Lately I have been reading in the newspaper about retired New York State employees, that has me very po'd. Currently NYS is in dire financial straits. The problems with Wall Street are only part of the problem. The NYS legislature has always been a major part of why this state is so poorly run. It seems that being a NYS employee has more perks after you retire then when one was working for the state.
More and more state employees retire with their full pension and benefits and then are rehired as a NYS employee again. Some retired employees are rehired as police or fire commissioners or elected as a politician or a judge. This double dipping has got to stop ASAP. Somehow this double dipping is legit. I am not sure how that can be? It is great for the retired/rehired employee since they will make more money in a year with their full pension and new salary combined, then they ever did previously. This added cost of paying a pension to a working again NYS employee, is devastating to the state's pension fund. Since the fall of Wall Street, the NYS pension fund has lost billions and billions of dollars. Having double dippers just adds salt to the wound and increases the money necessary to fund the pension fund.
Someone in the NYS legislative branch must see this and hopefully, he/she or they, should write a bill asap. Then the bill should be enacted as law to stop this insanity. When you retire you can always work somewhere else other then for the state, if you are in need of extra income. The law should state that when you retire you are ineligible to work for the state while collecting the pension and benefits. The law should also have some kind of allowance for those retired employees who wish to return to work for the state or are elected to a political position or are requested to return to the state's employment. In that scenario, the retired/rehired employee should have their pensions stopped as well as the benefits that come with it. The new retired/rehired employee can then receive their new salary and the benefits that come with the position.
To me, a bill like that just makes common sense. Double dipping has got to stop!
Common sense rules and double dipping drools.
Til next week.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Delware School Board Uses Common Sense
Hi Everyone:
By now I'm pretty sure you have all heard about the Delaware first grader who brought his favorite camping utensil to school; to eat his lunch with. The utensil contained a folding knife, fork and spoon. To make a long story short, he got into a whole lot of trouble. He faced 45 days of suspension from his regular school and to instead attend 45 days in an alternative school for troublemakers as punishment.
The Christina School District has 17,000 students, which includes parts of the city of Wilmington and its suburbs. Due to what has previously happened in schools, it was no wonder that a zero-tolerance took hold and that there was no deviation allowed from the punishments handed out. Last year, a fifth grader in the Christina School District, was ordered expelled after she brought a birthday cake and a serrated knife to cut it with.
Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and the expulsion was overturned and that led to a new state law that gave school districts more flexibility on punishments. Unfortunately, the new law only applied to expulsions and not to suspensions. So the same school board now faced a vote on whether to instead suspend the first grader.
The seven member Christina School Board, using some good old common sense, voted unanimously to reduce the punishment for kindergartners and first graders who take weapons to school to a suspension ranging from three to five days. The first grader would be allowed back in school asap.
I really hope for just three things:
1) That each case is individually looked at and not just rubber stamped with "the" punishment.
2) That common sense is part of the equation.
3) That more school districts adopt a similar policy.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
By now I'm pretty sure you have all heard about the Delaware first grader who brought his favorite camping utensil to school; to eat his lunch with. The utensil contained a folding knife, fork and spoon. To make a long story short, he got into a whole lot of trouble. He faced 45 days of suspension from his regular school and to instead attend 45 days in an alternative school for troublemakers as punishment.
The Christina School District has 17,000 students, which includes parts of the city of Wilmington and its suburbs. Due to what has previously happened in schools, it was no wonder that a zero-tolerance took hold and that there was no deviation allowed from the punishments handed out. Last year, a fifth grader in the Christina School District, was ordered expelled after she brought a birthday cake and a serrated knife to cut it with.
Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and the expulsion was overturned and that led to a new state law that gave school districts more flexibility on punishments. Unfortunately, the new law only applied to expulsions and not to suspensions. So the same school board now faced a vote on whether to instead suspend the first grader.
The seven member Christina School Board, using some good old common sense, voted unanimously to reduce the punishment for kindergartners and first graders who take weapons to school to a suspension ranging from three to five days. The first grader would be allowed back in school asap.
I really hope for just three things:
1) That each case is individually looked at and not just rubber stamped with "the" punishment.
2) That common sense is part of the equation.
3) That more school districts adopt a similar policy.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Paying Bonuses Without Using Common Sense
Hi Everyone:
Before I begin with today's topic I have to correct a statement I made last week. After posting last week's blog, I found out that Bank of America (BOA) will be paying out bonuses that are in the tens of millions of dollars. I sincerely apologize for the mistake. I do try to be a accurate as possible. But what really gets my blood boiling is that BOA will be paying out those bonuses even though they lost approximately one billion dollars in total as a company and also have not fully repaid the bailout money that they received from all of us taxpayers.
That brings me to today's topic. Ask yourself this question, does it make any sense for a company to pay out bonuses when that company (as a whole), lost a lot of money, i.e.: one billion dollars? If you have any common sense, your answer should be a definitive NO!
My business experience has included working for a couple of very large Fortune 100 companies, with tens of thousands of employees world wide. My business experience also includes working for some small and start up ventures with as few as 130 employees. Most of the companies did have something in common which was: bonuses were part of the compensation package. Another commonality of most of the companies that I worked for was that no bonuses were paid out if the company as a whole lost any money. That meant that bonuses were only paid out when the company as a whole turned a profit for the year. In my multiple location companies, the next step was that the regional area (as a whole) also had to be profitable. Then and only then would a bonus be paid out. Now in a regional area that was composed of multiple locations, there were some individual locations that fell short of their profitability goals and even though the company as a whole was profitable and their region as a whole was profitable, if their individual location lost money, that location(s) was/were ineligible for any bonuses, period. That formula made sense to everyone involved in the bonus plan. The formula also made good business sense.
So why does Bank of America think it is okay to pay out almost $30 million dollars? Let's recap:
1) The BOA company as a whole lost almost 1 billion dollars, so no bonuses should be paid out!
2) BOA has not fully repaid the bailout money it so desperately needed and received, so no bonuses should be paid out!
3) In essence, BOA is paying out the bonuses with some part (who knows how much) of the bailout money, so no bonuses should be paid out!
It is painfully obvious that BOA does not use any common sense. Again, as I said last week, we should all be mad as hell and tell them we are not going to take it anymore.
Good common sense makes good business sense and which makes more cents.
Til next week
Before I begin with today's topic I have to correct a statement I made last week. After posting last week's blog, I found out that Bank of America (BOA) will be paying out bonuses that are in the tens of millions of dollars. I sincerely apologize for the mistake. I do try to be a accurate as possible. But what really gets my blood boiling is that BOA will be paying out those bonuses even though they lost approximately one billion dollars in total as a company and also have not fully repaid the bailout money that they received from all of us taxpayers.
That brings me to today's topic. Ask yourself this question, does it make any sense for a company to pay out bonuses when that company (as a whole), lost a lot of money, i.e.: one billion dollars? If you have any common sense, your answer should be a definitive NO!
My business experience has included working for a couple of very large Fortune 100 companies, with tens of thousands of employees world wide. My business experience also includes working for some small and start up ventures with as few as 130 employees. Most of the companies did have something in common which was: bonuses were part of the compensation package. Another commonality of most of the companies that I worked for was that no bonuses were paid out if the company as a whole lost any money. That meant that bonuses were only paid out when the company as a whole turned a profit for the year. In my multiple location companies, the next step was that the regional area (as a whole) also had to be profitable. Then and only then would a bonus be paid out. Now in a regional area that was composed of multiple locations, there were some individual locations that fell short of their profitability goals and even though the company as a whole was profitable and their region as a whole was profitable, if their individual location lost money, that location(s) was/were ineligible for any bonuses, period. That formula made sense to everyone involved in the bonus plan. The formula also made good business sense.
So why does Bank of America think it is okay to pay out almost $30 million dollars? Let's recap:
1) The BOA company as a whole lost almost 1 billion dollars, so no bonuses should be paid out!
2) BOA has not fully repaid the bailout money it so desperately needed and received, so no bonuses should be paid out!
3) In essence, BOA is paying out the bonuses with some part (who knows how much) of the bailout money, so no bonuses should be paid out!
It is painfully obvious that BOA does not use any common sense. Again, as I said last week, we should all be mad as hell and tell them we are not going to take it anymore.
Good common sense makes good business sense and which makes more cents.
Til next week
Sunday, October 18, 2009
They Are At It Again!
Hi Everyone:
Something is about to happen that should make all of us yell out our windows that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore! What I am talking about is that the big banks are about to dole out 140 billion dollars in bonuses. WHAT!!!!!! Yes! JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo are about to do just that. Bank of America will not be joining that group due to the fact that they lost a billion dollars. But the other 3 have just made the most money in their history and therefore feel it necessary to pay out huge bonuses.
Let's look at their recent history. Last year these same big 3 banks paid out 130 billion dollars in bonuses. Lest we forget that it was these same banks that thought it was a good idea to sell sub-prime mortgages which broke the camels back and pushed us into the "Great Recession". The same employees that pushed and sold the sub-prime mortgages were the ones who were rewarded with huge bonuses because they made an obscene amount of money for their employers. But wait, then the mortgagees then started to default on their loans and these banks didn't have enough reserves to cover the defaults. Then what happened? They asked for and received bailout money that was in the billions and billions of dollars. Where did all of that bailout money come from? The U.S. government of course, which we all know is made up of all of the hard working tax payers in this country.
Everyone in this country should be extremely outraged. Why? Well it seems that these banks have not fully paid back their bailout loans yet. They do not seem to care about reimbursing us, the tax payers first. What these banks seem to care about is to pay these outrageous bonuses to keep their so-called top performing employees. Top performing employees? These are the same employees who created the idea and then sold the sub-prime mortgages which led to the, (had to be anticipated) loan defaults, which led to our "Great Recession" which then ultimately led to them receiving the bailout money. These are their best employees? You have got to be kidding to me!
These banks have no right, what so ever, to pay out bonuses with our money without paying us back first. How dare they!!!!!!! The very sad and unfortunate part of this continuing saga is that these banks didn't make their most recent obscene profits from doing what banks used to do best and that was making loans. These banks, even with all of the bailout money they received, didn't make credit more available. They did the complete opposite, by making credit less available. First they used the bailout money to shore up their bottom lines and then they made all of these profits by doing anything but giving out more loans. They invested in risking ventures that happened to turn profitable. Good for them, bad for us. PAY US BACK OUR MONEY FIRST YOU SHYSTERS!
Now since they have no intentions of paying back the bailout money first, I have an idea that we should all consider..................... There are thousands of small town banks and who knows how many small investment firms in this country that did not sell sub-prime mortgages and are consequently in great financial shape. Why don't we all take our money out of the big banks and invest it in the small town banks and financially solvent investment firms? This would send a message to the big banks that they will understand and also tell them that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore.
Common sense rules and greedy banks don't make any sense.
Til next week.
Something is about to happen that should make all of us yell out our windows that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore! What I am talking about is that the big banks are about to dole out 140 billion dollars in bonuses. WHAT!!!!!! Yes! JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo are about to do just that. Bank of America will not be joining that group due to the fact that they lost a billion dollars. But the other 3 have just made the most money in their history and therefore feel it necessary to pay out huge bonuses.
Let's look at their recent history. Last year these same big 3 banks paid out 130 billion dollars in bonuses. Lest we forget that it was these same banks that thought it was a good idea to sell sub-prime mortgages which broke the camels back and pushed us into the "Great Recession". The same employees that pushed and sold the sub-prime mortgages were the ones who were rewarded with huge bonuses because they made an obscene amount of money for their employers. But wait, then the mortgagees then started to default on their loans and these banks didn't have enough reserves to cover the defaults. Then what happened? They asked for and received bailout money that was in the billions and billions of dollars. Where did all of that bailout money come from? The U.S. government of course, which we all know is made up of all of the hard working tax payers in this country.
Everyone in this country should be extremely outraged. Why? Well it seems that these banks have not fully paid back their bailout loans yet. They do not seem to care about reimbursing us, the tax payers first. What these banks seem to care about is to pay these outrageous bonuses to keep their so-called top performing employees. Top performing employees? These are the same employees who created the idea and then sold the sub-prime mortgages which led to the, (had to be anticipated) loan defaults, which led to our "Great Recession" which then ultimately led to them receiving the bailout money. These are their best employees? You have got to be kidding to me!
These banks have no right, what so ever, to pay out bonuses with our money without paying us back first. How dare they!!!!!!! The very sad and unfortunate part of this continuing saga is that these banks didn't make their most recent obscene profits from doing what banks used to do best and that was making loans. These banks, even with all of the bailout money they received, didn't make credit more available. They did the complete opposite, by making credit less available. First they used the bailout money to shore up their bottom lines and then they made all of these profits by doing anything but giving out more loans. They invested in risking ventures that happened to turn profitable. Good for them, bad for us. PAY US BACK OUR MONEY FIRST YOU SHYSTERS!
Now since they have no intentions of paying back the bailout money first, I have an idea that we should all consider..................... There are thousands of small town banks and who knows how many small investment firms in this country that did not sell sub-prime mortgages and are consequently in great financial shape. Why don't we all take our money out of the big banks and invest it in the small town banks and financially solvent investment firms? This would send a message to the big banks that they will understand and also tell them that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore.
Common sense rules and greedy banks don't make any sense.
Til next week.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Motorcycle Riding In CT.
Hi Everyone:
I was in Connecticut last week and I was amazed at what still goes on in this state. As I was traveling on a major highway, Route 84, numerous motorcyclists passed me. What was disconcerting to me is that one can still ride a motorcycle in Connecticut without wearing a helmet. None of the motorcyclists that passed me were wearing a helmet. The funny thing is that a few of them did have a helmet strapped down on the seat behind them. Since New York state requires wearing a helmet, they were prepared to cross the state line.
The lack of a law requiring the wearing of a helmet just doesn't make any common sense to me. A bad accident on a motorcycle is almost always worse for the driver then if they were driving a car. There is obviously no protective barrier in the front, back or sides. There are also no front or side airbags to help protect the driver. There are no seat belts. Though I'm not sure that would even be an option. So what is left to protect the driver? Besides wearing body armor, which no one would wear; wearing a helmet is about the only really protection a driver can wear.
Besides the obvious fact of a fatality due to a catastrophic head injury, non-lethal but severe head injuries can be devastating not only to the driver but also to their families and friends. Coma's are not an unusual result of severe head injuries. Even if the driver does not go into a coma, it is also not unusual for the driver to have to live the rest of their lives with: memory problems, speech problems, eyesight problems, or the loss of the use of a limb or two or all. Even after undergoing intense physical therapy and most likely occupational therapy (to relearn the regular activities of daily living), that can last for weeks and months, there are no guarantees that the person will ever be their normal self again. All of that because they chose not to wear a helmet because there was no law requiring it.
There are a lot of insurance policies that have caps as to how much the insurance will cover over a lifetime. The insurance companies call it the lifetime max. It doesn't take long to max out an insurance policy with severe head and body injuries. When that insurance runs out and they are still in need of medical care, maybe even lifetime care, they will then be covered by medicare which we all pay for via deductions from our paychecks. Then insurance costs increase and is passed on to each and every one of us.
Wearing a helmet doesn't guarantee that the wearer will escape a severe head injury, but it may minimize it. In my point of view, whether or not there is a law requiring the wearing of a helmet, it just makes common sense to wear one! The old saying goes that it is better to be safe than sorry. I'm not sure feeling the wind in your hair is worth the possible lifetime problems that can and do occur in a motorcycle accident.
Common sense rules and hair blowing in the wind looses.
Til next week.
I was in Connecticut last week and I was amazed at what still goes on in this state. As I was traveling on a major highway, Route 84, numerous motorcyclists passed me. What was disconcerting to me is that one can still ride a motorcycle in Connecticut without wearing a helmet. None of the motorcyclists that passed me were wearing a helmet. The funny thing is that a few of them did have a helmet strapped down on the seat behind them. Since New York state requires wearing a helmet, they were prepared to cross the state line.
The lack of a law requiring the wearing of a helmet just doesn't make any common sense to me. A bad accident on a motorcycle is almost always worse for the driver then if they were driving a car. There is obviously no protective barrier in the front, back or sides. There are also no front or side airbags to help protect the driver. There are no seat belts. Though I'm not sure that would even be an option. So what is left to protect the driver? Besides wearing body armor, which no one would wear; wearing a helmet is about the only really protection a driver can wear.
Besides the obvious fact of a fatality due to a catastrophic head injury, non-lethal but severe head injuries can be devastating not only to the driver but also to their families and friends. Coma's are not an unusual result of severe head injuries. Even if the driver does not go into a coma, it is also not unusual for the driver to have to live the rest of their lives with: memory problems, speech problems, eyesight problems, or the loss of the use of a limb or two or all. Even after undergoing intense physical therapy and most likely occupational therapy (to relearn the regular activities of daily living), that can last for weeks and months, there are no guarantees that the person will ever be their normal self again. All of that because they chose not to wear a helmet because there was no law requiring it.
There are a lot of insurance policies that have caps as to how much the insurance will cover over a lifetime. The insurance companies call it the lifetime max. It doesn't take long to max out an insurance policy with severe head and body injuries. When that insurance runs out and they are still in need of medical care, maybe even lifetime care, they will then be covered by medicare which we all pay for via deductions from our paychecks. Then insurance costs increase and is passed on to each and every one of us.
Wearing a helmet doesn't guarantee that the wearer will escape a severe head injury, but it may minimize it. In my point of view, whether or not there is a law requiring the wearing of a helmet, it just makes common sense to wear one! The old saying goes that it is better to be safe than sorry. I'm not sure feeling the wind in your hair is worth the possible lifetime problems that can and do occur in a motorcycle accident.
Common sense rules and hair blowing in the wind looses.
Til next week.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
H1N1 Flu Vaccine vs Common Sense
Hi Everyone:
I learned this week that a while ago, New York State passed a law that mandates all health care professionals to get the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine. Sounds like a good idea right? Well not according to a minority of health care professionals here in New York State.
It seems that there are some health care professionals that are against receiving the vaccine. They say that it is wrong to mandate it because it is against their civil liberties. They plan NOT to get the vaccine and fight having to receive it every step of the way, including filing a lawsuit. Oh you've got to be kidding me. Can these health care professionals be serious? Health care professionals are part of the first responders that care for people who are sick.
The 1918 flu epidemic that swept across the world killed millions of people. Even though this years swine flu will not be that bad, scientists are concerned that this second round of swine flu may mutate and consequently sicken and most likely, more people will die from it then last year, especially if they have other health problems i.e.: any type of lung disease. Why then don't those Health Care Professionals want to get the vaccine? Not receiving the vaccine is extremely short sighted and they are the ones who should and do know better. The bigger picture is that if the vaccine works, then it is good for the larger population so that the flu is not spread by the professionals who treat them. To me that is absolutely the only common sense approach to help stem the spread of the flu by health care professionals to others who may not be infected, including their own families and friends.
Of course there are other ways that all of us can help to stop the spread. A few of those ways are: 1) Sneeze into the crux of your elbow.
2) If you sneeze into a tissue, throw the tissue out asap and don't put it in your pocket.
3) If you are sick, stay home.
4) Wash your hands thoroughly.
5) If you touch handrails, doorknobs, handles or any other surface that other people touch, do not touch your eyes, nose or mouth. Then wash your hands as soon as you are able.
6) Never press elevator buttons with the tip of your finger, use your knuckle instead.
7) Use common sense.
I learned this week that a while ago, New York State passed a law that mandates all health care professionals to get the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine. Sounds like a good idea right? Well not according to a minority of health care professionals here in New York State.
It seems that there are some health care professionals that are against receiving the vaccine. They say that it is wrong to mandate it because it is against their civil liberties. They plan NOT to get the vaccine and fight having to receive it every step of the way, including filing a lawsuit. Oh you've got to be kidding me. Can these health care professionals be serious? Health care professionals are part of the first responders that care for people who are sick.
The 1918 flu epidemic that swept across the world killed millions of people. Even though this years swine flu will not be that bad, scientists are concerned that this second round of swine flu may mutate and consequently sicken and most likely, more people will die from it then last year, especially if they have other health problems i.e.: any type of lung disease. Why then don't those Health Care Professionals want to get the vaccine? Not receiving the vaccine is extremely short sighted and they are the ones who should and do know better. The bigger picture is that if the vaccine works, then it is good for the larger population so that the flu is not spread by the professionals who treat them. To me that is absolutely the only common sense approach to help stem the spread of the flu by health care professionals to others who may not be infected, including their own families and friends.
Of course there are other ways that all of us can help to stop the spread. A few of those ways are: 1) Sneeze into the crux of your elbow.
2) If you sneeze into a tissue, throw the tissue out asap and don't put it in your pocket.
3) If you are sick, stay home.
4) Wash your hands thoroughly.
5) If you touch handrails, doorknobs, handles or any other surface that other people touch, do not touch your eyes, nose or mouth. Then wash your hands as soon as you are able.
6) Never press elevator buttons with the tip of your finger, use your knuckle instead.
7) Use common sense.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Lack of Common Sense or Stupidity
Hi Everyone:
So my wife and I went out to dinner recently and we were astounded at what the waitress did.
The hostess seated us at a table that had just been cleaned off but had not yet been set up. A short while later the waitress arrived to take our drink order. She noticed that there were no placemats, napkins or silverware. She said she would be right back. I went to the bathroom to wash my hands.
While I was walking back towards our table I noticed that the waitress had returned and had already placed down the placemats and napkins. Then she did something that astounded me. She held the silverware by the business ends instead of the handles when she placed them on the table. By the time I arrived at our table the waitress had left. My wife hadn't noticed due to the fact that she was reading the menu. I mentioned to my wife what the waitress had done. My wife, in her infinite wisdom, asked me not to say anything. So we cleaned off our silverware with the napkins and I didn't say anything. My mistake!
The waitress then returned with our drinks. Unbelievably she was holding them by the top of the glasses, where our lips would touch, instead of the body of the glasses. I could not hold my tongue this time and I told her that was not the correct way to hold the glasses. She apologized. My wife and I then wiped off our glasses with our napkins and asked her for some more clean napkins.
Now I would presume and hope that she would have been trained on how to properly hold silverware, that's why there are handles, and the proper way to hold and serve glasses. Even if she had not paid attention to her trainer, you would at least think that common sense would have kicked in. But apparently that was not the case with us. In these times, with the regular flu and the swine flu set to rear their ugly heads, it is very important to try to not spread germs of any kind. Holding silverware and glasses incorrectly will undoubtedly spread any germs that are on the wait staffs fingers and or hands.
I am glad that I spoke up and told the waitress of her mistakes and can only hope that she does not do it again.
Common sense rules!
Til next week.
So my wife and I went out to dinner recently and we were astounded at what the waitress did.
The hostess seated us at a table that had just been cleaned off but had not yet been set up. A short while later the waitress arrived to take our drink order. She noticed that there were no placemats, napkins or silverware. She said she would be right back. I went to the bathroom to wash my hands.
While I was walking back towards our table I noticed that the waitress had returned and had already placed down the placemats and napkins. Then she did something that astounded me. She held the silverware by the business ends instead of the handles when she placed them on the table. By the time I arrived at our table the waitress had left. My wife hadn't noticed due to the fact that she was reading the menu. I mentioned to my wife what the waitress had done. My wife, in her infinite wisdom, asked me not to say anything. So we cleaned off our silverware with the napkins and I didn't say anything. My mistake!
The waitress then returned with our drinks. Unbelievably she was holding them by the top of the glasses, where our lips would touch, instead of the body of the glasses. I could not hold my tongue this time and I told her that was not the correct way to hold the glasses. She apologized. My wife and I then wiped off our glasses with our napkins and asked her for some more clean napkins.
Now I would presume and hope that she would have been trained on how to properly hold silverware, that's why there are handles, and the proper way to hold and serve glasses. Even if she had not paid attention to her trainer, you would at least think that common sense would have kicked in. But apparently that was not the case with us. In these times, with the regular flu and the swine flu set to rear their ugly heads, it is very important to try to not spread germs of any kind. Holding silverware and glasses incorrectly will undoubtedly spread any germs that are on the wait staffs fingers and or hands.
I am glad that I spoke up and told the waitress of her mistakes and can only hope that she does not do it again.
Common sense rules!
Til next week.
Monday, September 21, 2009
They're At It Again
Hi Everyone:
In my college Economics 101 class, I learned about supply side economics. If demand increases, supply goes down and prices rise. On the other hand, if demand decreases, supply increases and prices decrease. Everything you and I learned about supply side economics can now be thrown out the window or better yet flushed down the toilet because that theory no longer holds any water!
I have written about a similar problem twice before on 3/8/09 and 6/21/09; but today's topic is about natural gas prices. On 9/16/09, I read in my newspaper, an article that was buried in the paper and not front page news; that natural gas prices spiked more then 13%, while crude oil prices fell for the second straight day. Natural gas prices settled at $3.297 per 1000 cubic feet. That is up 33.7 cents. Now you might be thinking that natural gas prices usually do climb right before the heating season begins, but a 13% increase in prices? Not so fast with that way of thinking. Presently, there is an enormous glut in the supply of natural gas. We are also obviously still in a terrible recession which means with less money to spend, people conserve and use less natural gas in order to save money. In addition, people buy less manufactured products to also save money. That translates into manufacturers using less natural gas to build less products. All total it means less demand. But wait, supply side economics says that when demand is down and supply is up, prices decrease. That no longer seems to be true in this day and age of never ending greed with the investment banks.
If demand is down and supply up, why then the huge increase in prices when the prices should be going down? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Just like crude oil prices that more then doubled last year, the one and only reason I can figure out why there was such a huge price increase is due to.................drum roll please.................here we go again..................... speculators. What other reason is there? To my knowledge, there are no distribution problems. Last year it was speculators, (not the supposed increase of China's and India's demand as we were told) who drove up the price of crude oil to levels never before seen and they made a ton of money doing it. Investment houses greed is rearing its ugly head again because now they are starting with natural gas prices. What the hell?
With such a huge supply glut of natural gas and prices jumping 13%, why isn't this front page news and a hot topic for TV news. Why aren't all the millions and millions of natural gas customers yelling out their windows that they are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That I do not have an answer for.
I do believe though, that a law should be passed that forbids speculating on natural gas and crude oil. Let the prices of natural gas and crude oil be based solely on supply side economics without any outside influence, i.e.: speculators. Risking the health of our already terribly weak economy is absolutely the wrong way to go and will do more damage. If we head down that road, our recession could very easily turn into a depression and the current 9.7% national unemployment rate will seem like the good old days. Speculators, in my book, started this recession last year with their greed regarding crude oil and have to be stopped ASAP. If anything, our country's economy and also the world's economy needs stable prices in order to help us all climb out of this recession.
Increasing natural gas prices when there is such a glut makes no common sense and we need a whole lot of common sense right about now. Something needs to be done today because waiting until tomorrow just may be the straw that breaks the camels back.
What do you think? Post a comment and let me know.
Common sense rules and greed drools.
Til next week.
In my college Economics 101 class, I learned about supply side economics. If demand increases, supply goes down and prices rise. On the other hand, if demand decreases, supply increases and prices decrease. Everything you and I learned about supply side economics can now be thrown out the window or better yet flushed down the toilet because that theory no longer holds any water!
I have written about a similar problem twice before on 3/8/09 and 6/21/09; but today's topic is about natural gas prices. On 9/16/09, I read in my newspaper, an article that was buried in the paper and not front page news; that natural gas prices spiked more then 13%, while crude oil prices fell for the second straight day. Natural gas prices settled at $3.297 per 1000 cubic feet. That is up 33.7 cents. Now you might be thinking that natural gas prices usually do climb right before the heating season begins, but a 13% increase in prices? Not so fast with that way of thinking. Presently, there is an enormous glut in the supply of natural gas. We are also obviously still in a terrible recession which means with less money to spend, people conserve and use less natural gas in order to save money. In addition, people buy less manufactured products to also save money. That translates into manufacturers using less natural gas to build less products. All total it means less demand. But wait, supply side economics says that when demand is down and supply is up, prices decrease. That no longer seems to be true in this day and age of never ending greed with the investment banks.
If demand is down and supply up, why then the huge increase in prices when the prices should be going down? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. Just like crude oil prices that more then doubled last year, the one and only reason I can figure out why there was such a huge price increase is due to.................drum roll please.................here we go again..................... speculators. What other reason is there? To my knowledge, there are no distribution problems. Last year it was speculators, (not the supposed increase of China's and India's demand as we were told) who drove up the price of crude oil to levels never before seen and they made a ton of money doing it. Investment houses greed is rearing its ugly head again because now they are starting with natural gas prices. What the hell?
With such a huge supply glut of natural gas and prices jumping 13%, why isn't this front page news and a hot topic for TV news. Why aren't all the millions and millions of natural gas customers yelling out their windows that they are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That I do not have an answer for.
I do believe though, that a law should be passed that forbids speculating on natural gas and crude oil. Let the prices of natural gas and crude oil be based solely on supply side economics without any outside influence, i.e.: speculators. Risking the health of our already terribly weak economy is absolutely the wrong way to go and will do more damage. If we head down that road, our recession could very easily turn into a depression and the current 9.7% national unemployment rate will seem like the good old days. Speculators, in my book, started this recession last year with their greed regarding crude oil and have to be stopped ASAP. If anything, our country's economy and also the world's economy needs stable prices in order to help us all climb out of this recession.
Increasing natural gas prices when there is such a glut makes no common sense and we need a whole lot of common sense right about now. Something needs to be done today because waiting until tomorrow just may be the straw that breaks the camels back.
What do you think? Post a comment and let me know.
Common sense rules and greed drools.
Til next week.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Lack of Common Sense lead to a Lack of Civility
Hi Everyone:
Something occurred this past Wednesday, 9/8 that has never ever happened before in this country. What I am talking about is what Rep. Joe Wilson said during President Obama's speech to both houses of Congress.
As a side note, from 1800 to 1913, Presidents of the USA never addressed Congress. Since then when Presidents gave speeches to Congress, members of the opposite side of the aisle have occasionally booed or jeered as expressions of dissent on a specific point. Rep. Wilson has now taken it to a whole new level.
As we all know, Wednesday evening, President Obama gave a speech regarding his health plan initiative. I will not, as I said in my first blog, get political in my blog. I will try to stay apolitical. This blog is not about whether you are for or against the Presidents health care ideas. Today's blog is about what Rep. Joe Wilson from South Carolina said during the President's speech. I believe that President Obama gave the speech to correct all the mistruths and inaccuracies about his health care changes. Please see my 8/16 blog. At the point in his speech when he told Congress and the American public that illegal immigrants would not be eligible to receive a health care plan (as part of the uninsured); Rep Wilson took it upon himself to yell at President Obama, "You Lie". You could see the entire room look in the Representative's area with bewilderment and silence. Never before has any person verbally expressed one's opposition to a President's speech. I hope this is not the start of a new way to express one's self during any President's speech.
Prior to President Obama's speech, I firmly believed that the entire debate on health care has become less about facts and more about emotions. Boy I was surprised to hear Joe Scarborough on the evening news saying that exact same thing. Joe Scaborough added that what Rep. Wilson did shows that the Republican party lacks temperament. I am not in agreement with that statement because I do not believe that Rep. Wilson speaks for the entire party. He is though, a member of the GOP and his statement does not bode well for his party. Protocol and civility are both extremely important in both houses of Congress. There are proper channels to vent one's opposition.
To have an elected official call the President of the US a liar is not only a serious breech (accusations of lying are forbidden under House rules) per the Journal News, but also extremely rare in politics. It is okay to disagree, but do it with civility and debate the issue(s) with civility. It is obviously apparent that Rep. Wilson did not show any civility. But even if he didn't have any civility, if he at least had any common sense, he would have known not to have said what he said, when he said it.
I found it interesting though that Rep. Wilson did not issue an apology until forced by his own party to do so. I think he should apologize to the President on the floor. But I don't think that will ever happen, which itself is unfortunate.
As I do more and more posts, I really believe that politicians seem to be the largest group of people who need to learn about common sense and how easy it is to use.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
Something occurred this past Wednesday, 9/8 that has never ever happened before in this country. What I am talking about is what Rep. Joe Wilson said during President Obama's speech to both houses of Congress.
As a side note, from 1800 to 1913, Presidents of the USA never addressed Congress. Since then when Presidents gave speeches to Congress, members of the opposite side of the aisle have occasionally booed or jeered as expressions of dissent on a specific point. Rep. Wilson has now taken it to a whole new level.
As we all know, Wednesday evening, President Obama gave a speech regarding his health plan initiative. I will not, as I said in my first blog, get political in my blog. I will try to stay apolitical. This blog is not about whether you are for or against the Presidents health care ideas. Today's blog is about what Rep. Joe Wilson from South Carolina said during the President's speech. I believe that President Obama gave the speech to correct all the mistruths and inaccuracies about his health care changes. Please see my 8/16 blog. At the point in his speech when he told Congress and the American public that illegal immigrants would not be eligible to receive a health care plan (as part of the uninsured); Rep Wilson took it upon himself to yell at President Obama, "You Lie". You could see the entire room look in the Representative's area with bewilderment and silence. Never before has any person verbally expressed one's opposition to a President's speech. I hope this is not the start of a new way to express one's self during any President's speech.
Prior to President Obama's speech, I firmly believed that the entire debate on health care has become less about facts and more about emotions. Boy I was surprised to hear Joe Scarborough on the evening news saying that exact same thing. Joe Scaborough added that what Rep. Wilson did shows that the Republican party lacks temperament. I am not in agreement with that statement because I do not believe that Rep. Wilson speaks for the entire party. He is though, a member of the GOP and his statement does not bode well for his party. Protocol and civility are both extremely important in both houses of Congress. There are proper channels to vent one's opposition.
To have an elected official call the President of the US a liar is not only a serious breech (accusations of lying are forbidden under House rules) per the Journal News, but also extremely rare in politics. It is okay to disagree, but do it with civility and debate the issue(s) with civility. It is obviously apparent that Rep. Wilson did not show any civility. But even if he didn't have any civility, if he at least had any common sense, he would have known not to have said what he said, when he said it.
I found it interesting though that Rep. Wilson did not issue an apology until forced by his own party to do so. I think he should apologize to the President on the floor. But I don't think that will ever happen, which itself is unfortunate.
As I do more and more posts, I really believe that politicians seem to be the largest group of people who need to learn about common sense and how easy it is to use.
Common sense rules.
Til next week.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Parental Instinct vs Stupidity vs Lack of Common Sense
Hi Everyone:
I have read about these stories for years, but it seems that parents continue to do this no matter how much publicity these stories get. I just don't get it! What I am talking about are parents who leave small children strapped in their car seats in a locked car. Doing this in the winter time is wrong and bad enough, but doing it in the summer time is twice as dangerous and can become lethal in a very short period of time.
Last month on a mid afternoon Sunday, a Bedford Hills, New York couple, yes I said a couple (mother and father), left their 1 year old twins in their car seats in a locked car. The police were called by someone who witnessed the twins in the locked car. Luckily, the police arrived quickly and the children were removed from the car. The twins were not injuired but both parents were arrested and charged with acting in a manner injurious to a child, which is a misdemeanor. The police also called CPS, (Child Protective Services) to look into the situation. There was no more information.
I have read a lot of the "reasons" that the parent(s) have stated as their reasoning for leaving a child(ren) in a locked car i.e.: forgot that they were in the car, the child was asleep and the parent didn't want to wake them up and they were just running into a store and would've been right back. I too am a parent (2 kids) and I never ever left any of my kids in a locked car for any reason. Obviously the reasons that the parent(s) gave were nothing short of excuses albeit poor ones for their mistake. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to leave a child alone in a locked car.
When I read about these incidents, my first thought is where is/are the parent(s) parental instinct? My second thought is that unfortunately there are some people who just don't have that instinct. My third thought is their stupidity in locking their child in the car. Finally I think that if they just had one ounce of common sense those parents would never have done that. They would have realized the inherent dangers of leaving a child in a locked car especially in the summer. I believe that it takes only a few minutes for the inside temperature to reach 90 degrees and then a few more minutes and the temperature will climb into the 105+ degrees. At such high temperatures, in a short period of time, serious medical consequences can and will happen to the child including death. I do not believe that the parents in these incidents willfully want to injure their child but what were they thinking?
In these cases presuming that the parents are of average intelligence but somehow lack basic parental instinct, common sense would then dictate to not do it. But if one doesn't even have a little bit of common sense as a last resort to help one make an appropriate decision, then these kind of incidents will sadly continue to occur.
Maybe common sense courses taught in high school and college is not such a weird or far out idea. It seems that the time has come to implement some kind of common sense courses. I do truly believe that if common sense was used more often in making any kind of decision, the world would be a better and safer place to live.
Til next week.
I have read about these stories for years, but it seems that parents continue to do this no matter how much publicity these stories get. I just don't get it! What I am talking about are parents who leave small children strapped in their car seats in a locked car. Doing this in the winter time is wrong and bad enough, but doing it in the summer time is twice as dangerous and can become lethal in a very short period of time.
Last month on a mid afternoon Sunday, a Bedford Hills, New York couple, yes I said a couple (mother and father), left their 1 year old twins in their car seats in a locked car. The police were called by someone who witnessed the twins in the locked car. Luckily, the police arrived quickly and the children were removed from the car. The twins were not injuired but both parents were arrested and charged with acting in a manner injurious to a child, which is a misdemeanor. The police also called CPS, (Child Protective Services) to look into the situation. There was no more information.
I have read a lot of the "reasons" that the parent(s) have stated as their reasoning for leaving a child(ren) in a locked car i.e.: forgot that they were in the car, the child was asleep and the parent didn't want to wake them up and they were just running into a store and would've been right back. I too am a parent (2 kids) and I never ever left any of my kids in a locked car for any reason. Obviously the reasons that the parent(s) gave were nothing short of excuses albeit poor ones for their mistake. In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to leave a child alone in a locked car.
When I read about these incidents, my first thought is where is/are the parent(s) parental instinct? My second thought is that unfortunately there are some people who just don't have that instinct. My third thought is their stupidity in locking their child in the car. Finally I think that if they just had one ounce of common sense those parents would never have done that. They would have realized the inherent dangers of leaving a child in a locked car especially in the summer. I believe that it takes only a few minutes for the inside temperature to reach 90 degrees and then a few more minutes and the temperature will climb into the 105+ degrees. At such high temperatures, in a short period of time, serious medical consequences can and will happen to the child including death. I do not believe that the parents in these incidents willfully want to injure their child but what were they thinking?
In these cases presuming that the parents are of average intelligence but somehow lack basic parental instinct, common sense would then dictate to not do it. But if one doesn't even have a little bit of common sense as a last resort to help one make an appropriate decision, then these kind of incidents will sadly continue to occur.
Maybe common sense courses taught in high school and college is not such a weird or far out idea. It seems that the time has come to implement some kind of common sense courses. I do truly believe that if common sense was used more often in making any kind of decision, the world would be a better and safer place to live.
Til next week.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
I Couldn't Believe This One!
Hi Everyone:
I read about this story last month and it was put on the back-burner until now. If I gave an award for the complete opposite of a CSA, this would be at or near the top.
This story is absolutely true, believe it or not. Prior to the cash for clunkers program (that ends tomorrow, I think) Mark Muller, a new car/truck dealer in Butler, MO; came up with the most unusual and what I think most outrageous marketing plan to increase his sales.
Muller's unbelievable promotion was this: if you bought a new truck you would receive a voucher for an AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifle. WHAT!!!!!! When Muller was being interviewed about his deal by BBC and CNN interviewers, he was asked about how he could give a voucher to just anyone and everyone? Muller responded that he was only giving vouchers and not the actual guns. The recipients would still have to go through the FBI background check prior to receiving the weapon. "Americans love guns" he told interviewer Robin Lustig, a Newshour host at BBC. "All of them?" Lustig asked. "Except for the Commies," Muller replied.
AK-47's were created, designed and manufactured for one sole purpose................... to kill people. I am so speechless and dumbfounded that someone would actually implement such a program and then to think that it is OK. This is so wrong at every level. It is obvious to me that even if common sense were to hit Muller squarely in the face, he would not recognize it or probably, more sadly, not even want it.
Enough said.
Til next week.
I read about this story last month and it was put on the back-burner until now. If I gave an award for the complete opposite of a CSA, this would be at or near the top.
This story is absolutely true, believe it or not. Prior to the cash for clunkers program (that ends tomorrow, I think) Mark Muller, a new car/truck dealer in Butler, MO; came up with the most unusual and what I think most outrageous marketing plan to increase his sales.
Muller's unbelievable promotion was this: if you bought a new truck you would receive a voucher for an AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifle. WHAT!!!!!! When Muller was being interviewed about his deal by BBC and CNN interviewers, he was asked about how he could give a voucher to just anyone and everyone? Muller responded that he was only giving vouchers and not the actual guns. The recipients would still have to go through the FBI background check prior to receiving the weapon. "Americans love guns" he told interviewer Robin Lustig, a Newshour host at BBC. "All of them?" Lustig asked. "Except for the Commies," Muller replied.
AK-47's were created, designed and manufactured for one sole purpose................... to kill people. I am so speechless and dumbfounded that someone would actually implement such a program and then to think that it is OK. This is so wrong at every level. It is obvious to me that even if common sense were to hit Muller squarely in the face, he would not recognize it or probably, more sadly, not even want it.
Enough said.
Til next week.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Liar, liar pants on fire!
Hi Everyone:
I really hope that politics have come a long way since this country was founded over 225 years ago. I am sure that there were a lot of debates over the wording of our constitution, The Bill of Rights and every admendment to the constitution etc. Debating issues is an important and integral part of our democracy. What I do not know is whether during all those debates if lying on a mass scale was used to change the opposing side minds and hence their votes on the issues before them.
Well it seems that lying and scare tactics are used more and more these days when important issues crop up to the surface. What should be debates with facts to support whatever your position, now a days facts mean nothing and lies and scare tactics seem to be more important. One of today's hot topics is health care and health insurance reform. I think that we can all agree that our health care system, primarily the health care insurance industry needs reforming. It is getting so expensive that if left unchecked, sometime in the future, health care will only be affordable for the rich. In my opinion, one of the biggest problems is that people without health care insurance use emergency rooms as their primary care doctors. ER visits for non-life threatening problems is the most expensive way to receive health care. Another big problem is that a lot of bankruptcies occur due to overwhelming medical bills.
President Obama is trying to change our system. He wants change to make health care more affordable. He has left the bill writing job up to congress in hopes that a bi-partisan bill would emerge. Even with the House's health care bill, done in writing, opponents to the bill instead of debating the issue with facts are using scare tactics and outright lies. I recently read the longest email I have ever received from opponents to health care reform. The email analyzed all the points in the bill. Some examples are as follows:
-Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed.
-Page 42: The "Health Care Commissioner" will decide health care benefits for you. You will have no choice.
-Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not. will be provided with free health care.
All of the above are untrue and not in the House bill! Politifact.com, the fact checking site run by the St. Petersburg Times read the bill and its legislative summary and could not find any of the above in the bill. Katie Couric of CBS News, during an interview, asked President Obama if illegal immigrants should be included in comprehensive health care reform? President Obama's reply was "No"! Even with both Politifact.com checking the wording of the bill and President Obama's response, that no illegal immigrants would be covered the email was still sent out. In fact, a provision in the House measure states, "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." That would seem to clear up any misunderstandings about illegal immigrants receiving free medical care. Not so fast! Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa claims that 5.6 million illegal immigrants may be covered under Obamacare. King went on to say that this is what the Congressional Budget Office's recent analysis said. Rep. King is so wrong! The analysis did not say that, period! Rep. King does not seem to care that his statements and press releases are wrong, inaccurate and are just plain lies that are said to stir up opposition.
Additionally, New York State Assemblyman Greg Ball, R-Patterson, NY, recently told a news conference that that the proposal reforms would "force American taxpayers to foot the bill for taxpayer-funded illegal-alien health care". Where did he get his info? It is obviously another falsehood that is meant to stir up opposition.
Lying and using scare tactics is just plain wrong and should be stopped immediately. I do believe that people are entitled to their opinions and that debating issues should and has to be based on facts and truths. To outright lie makes no common sense. Lies will just come back to bite you. If one feels so adamantly against an issue fight fairly with truths and facts not lies, innuendos and scare tactics. Let the truth be told on both sides of an issue and then let the vote commence with a clear conscience on both sides. That to me would be the common sense approach to the health care/insurance reform that is at hand.
On a side note, if President Clinton was impeached regarding lying about having (oral) sex with Monica Lewinsky, some sort of punishment is needed for politicians who outright lie to use the lie(s) as a scare tactic.
Scare mongers bad, common sense good!
Til next week.
I really hope that politics have come a long way since this country was founded over 225 years ago. I am sure that there were a lot of debates over the wording of our constitution, The Bill of Rights and every admendment to the constitution etc. Debating issues is an important and integral part of our democracy. What I do not know is whether during all those debates if lying on a mass scale was used to change the opposing side minds and hence their votes on the issues before them.
Well it seems that lying and scare tactics are used more and more these days when important issues crop up to the surface. What should be debates with facts to support whatever your position, now a days facts mean nothing and lies and scare tactics seem to be more important. One of today's hot topics is health care and health insurance reform. I think that we can all agree that our health care system, primarily the health care insurance industry needs reforming. It is getting so expensive that if left unchecked, sometime in the future, health care will only be affordable for the rich. In my opinion, one of the biggest problems is that people without health care insurance use emergency rooms as their primary care doctors. ER visits for non-life threatening problems is the most expensive way to receive health care. Another big problem is that a lot of bankruptcies occur due to overwhelming medical bills.
President Obama is trying to change our system. He wants change to make health care more affordable. He has left the bill writing job up to congress in hopes that a bi-partisan bill would emerge. Even with the House's health care bill, done in writing, opponents to the bill instead of debating the issue with facts are using scare tactics and outright lies. I recently read the longest email I have ever received from opponents to health care reform. The email analyzed all the points in the bill. Some examples are as follows:
-Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed.
-Page 42: The "Health Care Commissioner" will decide health care benefits for you. You will have no choice.
-Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not. will be provided with free health care.
All of the above are untrue and not in the House bill! Politifact.com, the fact checking site run by the St. Petersburg Times read the bill and its legislative summary and could not find any of the above in the bill. Katie Couric of CBS News, during an interview, asked President Obama if illegal immigrants should be included in comprehensive health care reform? President Obama's reply was "No"! Even with both Politifact.com checking the wording of the bill and President Obama's response, that no illegal immigrants would be covered the email was still sent out. In fact, a provision in the House measure states, "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." That would seem to clear up any misunderstandings about illegal immigrants receiving free medical care. Not so fast! Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa claims that 5.6 million illegal immigrants may be covered under Obamacare. King went on to say that this is what the Congressional Budget Office's recent analysis said. Rep. King is so wrong! The analysis did not say that, period! Rep. King does not seem to care that his statements and press releases are wrong, inaccurate and are just plain lies that are said to stir up opposition.
Additionally, New York State Assemblyman Greg Ball, R-Patterson, NY, recently told a news conference that that the proposal reforms would "force American taxpayers to foot the bill for taxpayer-funded illegal-alien health care". Where did he get his info? It is obviously another falsehood that is meant to stir up opposition.
Lying and using scare tactics is just plain wrong and should be stopped immediately. I do believe that people are entitled to their opinions and that debating issues should and has to be based on facts and truths. To outright lie makes no common sense. Lies will just come back to bite you. If one feels so adamantly against an issue fight fairly with truths and facts not lies, innuendos and scare tactics. Let the truth be told on both sides of an issue and then let the vote commence with a clear conscience on both sides. That to me would be the common sense approach to the health care/insurance reform that is at hand.
On a side note, if President Clinton was impeached regarding lying about having (oral) sex with Monica Lewinsky, some sort of punishment is needed for politicians who outright lie to use the lie(s) as a scare tactic.
Scare mongers bad, common sense good!
Til next week.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Common Sense Award #2?
Hi Everyone:
I can't believe that I have found another story that may eventually fit into my CSA category. I hope this common sense solution works, but I am not sure yet and only time will tell.
On March 8, 2009, I wrote about why I thought the prices of oil/gasoline went sky high in such a short period of time which had never occurred in the history of oil prices previously. Some of my friends weren't sure if I was correct since the country was fed information over and over, (what I believed was a bunch of BS) on the theory of supply and demand economics. I wrote that the cause was due to speculative trading, not supply and demand.
Well, well, well, go figure, this past July 27, The Wall Street Journal had an article that stated that the volatile oil prices were due to exactly what I wrote about on March 8th. The WSJ blamed the price increases on the energy futures market; specifically the investment houses and their speculators. I will not gloat about what I thought had happened other then to say, I told you so.
It now seems that federal regulators may be moving toward imposing limits on speculative energy trading. Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Traders Commission, said his agency must "seriously consider" imposing stringent limits on speculative trading of energy futures contracts, a move that would mark a major shift for the government. At a hearing organized by the agency, Gensler said the futures exchanges have generally not used their authority to limit the size of positions taken by speculative players - something that on 7/28/09 the Chicago Mercantile Exchange expressed willingness to do. Gensler also said last week that the agency may propose new rules setting limits in the fall. He went on to say that the commission opened the debate to determine how limits could reduce excessive speculation, "not how we can eliminate speculation".
On the other hand, on 7/29/09, the financial firms that play a dominant role in the energy futures market brought their case to federal regulators against any new limits on speculative trading that would apply to them in their role as market middlemen. Of course I would not have expected those financial firms to have done anything else. Their greed is beyond belief and they just want their gravy train to continue indefinitely. Those firms made a ton of money and they don't like or want anybody to step on their toes. But what was the direct end result of those speculators on the oil futures market? Unbelievably high oil prices which led to unbelievably high gasoline prices, which led to higher prices on anything and everything that was either made with oil or delivered using oil, which included everything in this country. The direct results of their actions, in my opinion, also added to the perfect storm which began the recession here in this country and quickly spread to become a global recession that all people of this planet now find themselves in.
As I said before, I am not sure if new limits are imposed that it will work, since it has never been tried before. What I do know is that if no limits are imposed and the speculators are left unchecked, what is to stop the futures market from doing it again and maybe gas prices go up to $5.00/gallon or even higher? Supply side economics has a life of its own and it doesn't need any help from from greedy financial firms and the speculators. So I do believe that imposing some kind of limits, is a good common sense approach. I just hope that it is done correctly and that it works to try to help stem the tide of volatile oil prices as far as speculation goes. Again, only time will tell.
Now I know there will be a whole slew of people and of course financial firms that will be dead set against any kind of government intervention because they think it is none of the government's business being in the commodities market and the market should be left to its own accord to let it work itself out without any outside meddling. All I can say about that is the past policy of no intervention obviously didn't work or we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
What do you all think? Let me know.
Common sense rules and greed drools!
Til next week.
I can't believe that I have found another story that may eventually fit into my CSA category. I hope this common sense solution works, but I am not sure yet and only time will tell.
On March 8, 2009, I wrote about why I thought the prices of oil/gasoline went sky high in such a short period of time which had never occurred in the history of oil prices previously. Some of my friends weren't sure if I was correct since the country was fed information over and over, (what I believed was a bunch of BS) on the theory of supply and demand economics. I wrote that the cause was due to speculative trading, not supply and demand.
Well, well, well, go figure, this past July 27, The Wall Street Journal had an article that stated that the volatile oil prices were due to exactly what I wrote about on March 8th. The WSJ blamed the price increases on the energy futures market; specifically the investment houses and their speculators. I will not gloat about what I thought had happened other then to say, I told you so.
It now seems that federal regulators may be moving toward imposing limits on speculative energy trading. Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Traders Commission, said his agency must "seriously consider" imposing stringent limits on speculative trading of energy futures contracts, a move that would mark a major shift for the government. At a hearing organized by the agency, Gensler said the futures exchanges have generally not used their authority to limit the size of positions taken by speculative players - something that on 7/28/09 the Chicago Mercantile Exchange expressed willingness to do. Gensler also said last week that the agency may propose new rules setting limits in the fall. He went on to say that the commission opened the debate to determine how limits could reduce excessive speculation, "not how we can eliminate speculation".
On the other hand, on 7/29/09, the financial firms that play a dominant role in the energy futures market brought their case to federal regulators against any new limits on speculative trading that would apply to them in their role as market middlemen. Of course I would not have expected those financial firms to have done anything else. Their greed is beyond belief and they just want their gravy train to continue indefinitely. Those firms made a ton of money and they don't like or want anybody to step on their toes. But what was the direct end result of those speculators on the oil futures market? Unbelievably high oil prices which led to unbelievably high gasoline prices, which led to higher prices on anything and everything that was either made with oil or delivered using oil, which included everything in this country. The direct results of their actions, in my opinion, also added to the perfect storm which began the recession here in this country and quickly spread to become a global recession that all people of this planet now find themselves in.
As I said before, I am not sure if new limits are imposed that it will work, since it has never been tried before. What I do know is that if no limits are imposed and the speculators are left unchecked, what is to stop the futures market from doing it again and maybe gas prices go up to $5.00/gallon or even higher? Supply side economics has a life of its own and it doesn't need any help from from greedy financial firms and the speculators. So I do believe that imposing some kind of limits, is a good common sense approach. I just hope that it is done correctly and that it works to try to help stem the tide of volatile oil prices as far as speculation goes. Again, only time will tell.
Now I know there will be a whole slew of people and of course financial firms that will be dead set against any kind of government intervention because they think it is none of the government's business being in the commodities market and the market should be left to its own accord to let it work itself out without any outside meddling. All I can say about that is the past policy of no intervention obviously didn't work or we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
What do you all think? Let me know.
Common sense rules and greed drools!
Til next week.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Very First Common Sense Award (CSA)
Hi Everyone:
I have waited for this week since I began this blog back on February 9th. I have finally learned of a business where common sense has been implemented and the results are pretty impressive. I read about this in my local Gannett newspaper.
When a treatment goes wrong at a U.S. hospital, fear of a lawsuit means never daring to say you're sorry. That's not the way it works at the University of Michigan Health Care System, where lawyers and doctors say admitting mistakes upfront and offering compensation before being sued have brought about remarkable savings in money, time and feelings.
The University of Michigan Health Care System's unique approach with their admitting mistakes goes well beyond decency and common sense. It has proven to be a shrewd business strategy, according to a 2009 article in the Journal of Health & Life Sciences Law written by Richard Boothman, a malpractice defense lawyer and Chief Risk Officer for the health care system with 18,000 employees and a $1.5 billion annual budget.
Boothman stated that since the new practice was implemented, malpractice claims against his health care system fell from 121 in 2001 to 61 in 2006, while the backlog of open claims went from 262 in 2001 to 106 in 2006 and 83 in 2007. Between 2001 and 2007, the average time to process a claim fell from about 20 months to about eight months. In addition, costs per claim were cut in half and insurance reserves dropped by two-thirds. The health care system's doctors and officials offer to meet with patients and their families, sometimes to explain that treatment was appropriate and sometimes to admit a mistake.
Dr. Joan Reede, dean of the Harvard Medical School, said patients and their families can find great comfort when a doctor promptly admits an error. When you get what you consider to be a sincere apology, you always feel better.
In my opinion, using this common sense approach is a much better way of handling an error rather then the usual alternatives of either denying an error and/or hiding behind a team of defense lawyers. The old way almost certainly creates an atmosphere of wanting some kind of "revenge or getting back".
So I heartily congratulate the University of Michigan Health Care System and award them my very first CSA for their taking the unusual step of using a common sense approach that helps first of all the patient/family and then also their own bottom line.
Common sense rules!
Til next week.
I have waited for this week since I began this blog back on February 9th. I have finally learned of a business where common sense has been implemented and the results are pretty impressive. I read about this in my local Gannett newspaper.
When a treatment goes wrong at a U.S. hospital, fear of a lawsuit means never daring to say you're sorry. That's not the way it works at the University of Michigan Health Care System, where lawyers and doctors say admitting mistakes upfront and offering compensation before being sued have brought about remarkable savings in money, time and feelings.
The University of Michigan Health Care System's unique approach with their admitting mistakes goes well beyond decency and common sense. It has proven to be a shrewd business strategy, according to a 2009 article in the Journal of Health & Life Sciences Law written by Richard Boothman, a malpractice defense lawyer and Chief Risk Officer for the health care system with 18,000 employees and a $1.5 billion annual budget.
Boothman stated that since the new practice was implemented, malpractice claims against his health care system fell from 121 in 2001 to 61 in 2006, while the backlog of open claims went from 262 in 2001 to 106 in 2006 and 83 in 2007. Between 2001 and 2007, the average time to process a claim fell from about 20 months to about eight months. In addition, costs per claim were cut in half and insurance reserves dropped by two-thirds. The health care system's doctors and officials offer to meet with patients and their families, sometimes to explain that treatment was appropriate and sometimes to admit a mistake.
Dr. Joan Reede, dean of the Harvard Medical School, said patients and their families can find great comfort when a doctor promptly admits an error. When you get what you consider to be a sincere apology, you always feel better.
In my opinion, using this common sense approach is a much better way of handling an error rather then the usual alternatives of either denying an error and/or hiding behind a team of defense lawyers. The old way almost certainly creates an atmosphere of wanting some kind of "revenge or getting back".
So I heartily congratulate the University of Michigan Health Care System and award them my very first CSA for their taking the unusual step of using a common sense approach that helps first of all the patient/family and then also their own bottom line.
Common sense rules!
Til next week.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Patience is a virtue?
Hi everyone:
Well it seems that the old adage, patience is a virtue, no longer holds much water in our society. In this age of instant information and instant gratification, patience seems to have fallen by the wayside or at the very least been put on the furthest back burner.
President Obama has been in office for about 6 months. He inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy, compounded by the worst recession since the great depression of 1929. Former President Bush tried to help the economy by giving banks and investment firms about $750 million but without any strings attached. The recipients didn't use to money to lesson the lack of money being loaned, and since their were no strings, the money was horded to only help their bottom lines.
When the October 1929 stock market crash happened, that started a terrible recession which then became the great depression. The federal Government did nothing to help either the American people or the banks that were failing. Instead the government watched from the sidelines as the recession worsened. As it turned out, the lack of government intervention most likely created the perfect ingredients to create what turned into the great depression. The great depression was in full swing by the time that newly elected President Roosevelt took office, for his first term in 1933. Once in office, FDR realized that watching from the sidelines wasn't working and would never work. FDR also realized that government intervention was needed and necessary to help the American people and the ailing US economy.
Jump to present day and President Obama is beginning to try, like FDR in 1933, to help the American people and the ailing economy by using government intervention. As history has showed us, FDR's policies didn't help immediately. It took time for the recovery to begin. Why then are their people out there saying that President Obama's stimulus package isn't working and will fail? What happened to patience is a virtue? Our economy would not and obviously did not turn around after only 3 or 4 months. President Obama even told us on numerous occasions that things would get worse before they will get better. But, there are people who want an instant turn around. That thought process doesn't have any common sense basis to it.
I am not saying that President Obama's plan will or will not work, I am only saying that we have to give it more time. How much more time? I don't know. What I do know is that if we are to learn from history, right now is the perfect time to learn from it. I believe that more time is obviously necessary for the recovery to commence and that the naysayers should also be more patient and not be so premature in their very vocal doomsday message!
I cringe to think about what would happen if the government did nothing except watch from the sidelines. Great depression 2.0?
Common sense rules!
Til next week.
Well it seems that the old adage, patience is a virtue, no longer holds much water in our society. In this age of instant information and instant gratification, patience seems to have fallen by the wayside or at the very least been put on the furthest back burner.
President Obama has been in office for about 6 months. He inherited 2 wars and a terrible economy, compounded by the worst recession since the great depression of 1929. Former President Bush tried to help the economy by giving banks and investment firms about $750 million but without any strings attached. The recipients didn't use to money to lesson the lack of money being loaned, and since their were no strings, the money was horded to only help their bottom lines.
When the October 1929 stock market crash happened, that started a terrible recession which then became the great depression. The federal Government did nothing to help either the American people or the banks that were failing. Instead the government watched from the sidelines as the recession worsened. As it turned out, the lack of government intervention most likely created the perfect ingredients to create what turned into the great depression. The great depression was in full swing by the time that newly elected President Roosevelt took office, for his first term in 1933. Once in office, FDR realized that watching from the sidelines wasn't working and would never work. FDR also realized that government intervention was needed and necessary to help the American people and the ailing US economy.
Jump to present day and President Obama is beginning to try, like FDR in 1933, to help the American people and the ailing economy by using government intervention. As history has showed us, FDR's policies didn't help immediately. It took time for the recovery to begin. Why then are their people out there saying that President Obama's stimulus package isn't working and will fail? What happened to patience is a virtue? Our economy would not and obviously did not turn around after only 3 or 4 months. President Obama even told us on numerous occasions that things would get worse before they will get better. But, there are people who want an instant turn around. That thought process doesn't have any common sense basis to it.
I am not saying that President Obama's plan will or will not work, I am only saying that we have to give it more time. How much more time? I don't know. What I do know is that if we are to learn from history, right now is the perfect time to learn from it. I believe that more time is obviously necessary for the recovery to commence and that the naysayers should also be more patient and not be so premature in their very vocal doomsday message!
I cringe to think about what would happen if the government did nothing except watch from the sidelines. Great depression 2.0?
Common sense rules!
Til next week.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
A Dirty Little Secret
Hi Everyone:
Just this week I learned of a dirty little secret regarding Westchester County, New York's assessment practices.
One's property assessment is the basis for the school, town, county and/or village or city taxes. Obviously the lower the assessment, the lower the taxes will be. So one would think that the assessments are or should be based on fair market value. Not so in Westchester County. The appraisals of condos and co-ops are based on 50% of their market value. Why I do not know. That means that one and two family houses are actually subsidizing the condos and co-ops with higher taxes to make up for the 50% shortfall.
I do not know how long this practice has been going on, but I'm pretty sure that it has happening for a while. I have two problems with this obviously unfair practice. The first is that it does not make common sense to appraise condos and co-ops at 50% and secondly, where is the fairness with this practice? If I owned a home in Westchester County I would raise hell about this. What does this practice do other then put more of a financial strain on the owners of one and two family homes? Why do this in the first place? I would suspect that politicians were definitely involved for some type of political gain. Why else would someone make one group subsidize another? If this practice is old enough there may have even been some kind of greasing the palm (payoff) to implement such an unfair practice.
Common sense and fairness dictates that all properties should be appraised at their fair market value, no more and no less. New York State Senator Suzi Oppenheimer's has written a bill to correct this situation and even the playing field. With the stalemate happening in Albany, New York, (please refer to my 7/6/09 blog), time will tell if this bill makes it to the floor for a vote or even more importantly, will this bill win the majority of votes and become law? Unless this bill is attached to some other silly bill, I think that it should become law and make condo and co-ops pay their fair share of taxes.
I am just amazed at how the lack of common sense especially when not used by politicians can have a serious financial strain on the constituents that they are supposed to be representing.
Til next week.
Just this week I learned of a dirty little secret regarding Westchester County, New York's assessment practices.
One's property assessment is the basis for the school, town, county and/or village or city taxes. Obviously the lower the assessment, the lower the taxes will be. So one would think that the assessments are or should be based on fair market value. Not so in Westchester County. The appraisals of condos and co-ops are based on 50% of their market value. Why I do not know. That means that one and two family houses are actually subsidizing the condos and co-ops with higher taxes to make up for the 50% shortfall.
I do not know how long this practice has been going on, but I'm pretty sure that it has happening for a while. I have two problems with this obviously unfair practice. The first is that it does not make common sense to appraise condos and co-ops at 50% and secondly, where is the fairness with this practice? If I owned a home in Westchester County I would raise hell about this. What does this practice do other then put more of a financial strain on the owners of one and two family homes? Why do this in the first place? I would suspect that politicians were definitely involved for some type of political gain. Why else would someone make one group subsidize another? If this practice is old enough there may have even been some kind of greasing the palm (payoff) to implement such an unfair practice.
Common sense and fairness dictates that all properties should be appraised at their fair market value, no more and no less. New York State Senator Suzi Oppenheimer's has written a bill to correct this situation and even the playing field. With the stalemate happening in Albany, New York, (please refer to my 7/6/09 blog), time will tell if this bill makes it to the floor for a vote or even more importantly, will this bill win the majority of votes and become law? Unless this bill is attached to some other silly bill, I think that it should become law and make condo and co-ops pay their fair share of taxes.
I am just amazed at how the lack of common sense especially when not used by politicians can have a serious financial strain on the constituents that they are supposed to be representing.
Til next week.
Monday, July 6, 2009
A True Story
Hi Everyone:
For those of you who do not live in New York State, you may or may not be aware of the political turmoil that is currently happening in Albany, New York (New York's state capital). After the November 08 elections, the Democrats won a slim majority in the NY Senate and had a 32 to 30 majority. Then about a month ago, there was an ambush in the NY Senate. It appears that the republican minority did not like being the minority party and losing majority control that they had held for decades. The republicans held some private meetings with at least 2 democratic State Senators and eventually got 2 democratic senators to vote on the republican side. This then turned who held the majority upside down. The republicans then held a 32 to 30 majority. Around a week later, one of the 2 democratic senators, decided to jump ship and return to the democrat side. Now that meant that the split was even at 31 to 31.
From my understanding this was all legal. Unfortunately for the people of New York State this was a disastrous occurrence. So what is the problem you may ask? Well the NYS Senate has since been fighting over who has control of the state senate. One side locking out the other and visa versa. For a month now, the state senate has not done any of the people's work since this has happened. All they have done is fight each other. It is painfully obvious that those elected senators have forgotten that they were elected to represent the people of their districts. Instead, all that is happening in Albany is fighting for control of the Senate and to hell with anything else. This bothers me and probably a lot of other NY residents to no end. But, to add insult to injury, all of those State Senators are and have been collecting their full salaries without doing any of the work that they were elected to do. Would someone please tell me what jobs are available out there that allows you to not do any of the work you are supposed to do and still get your full pay? If someone doesn't do their job in the real world, you would be terminated from that company. Unfortunately, politicians obviously feel that they are above the rest of us and they can do whatever they want to.
Sadly, NYS state senators have made it very clear that party affiliation and control is more important than the needs of the people. The NYS government has previously been called the most dysfunctional state government in the country. Go figure that they have now been able to go above and beyond that label. This is politics at its very worst. This is not politics, this is a circus without a ringleader. Politicians have again proven to me that they either do not possess common sense or refuse to use it. What a shame that supposedly intelligent people can act so stupidly!
My solution to this ongoing problem is a bit radical, but I believe that the only way to fix this is at the next election and every election after that, all of the state senators involved should be voted out of office and replaced with people who will get the job done that they were elected to do. If the new replacements don't do the job, vote them out also!
What do you think? Let me know.
Till next time.
For those of you who do not live in New York State, you may or may not be aware of the political turmoil that is currently happening in Albany, New York (New York's state capital). After the November 08 elections, the Democrats won a slim majority in the NY Senate and had a 32 to 30 majority. Then about a month ago, there was an ambush in the NY Senate. It appears that the republican minority did not like being the minority party and losing majority control that they had held for decades. The republicans held some private meetings with at least 2 democratic State Senators and eventually got 2 democratic senators to vote on the republican side. This then turned who held the majority upside down. The republicans then held a 32 to 30 majority. Around a week later, one of the 2 democratic senators, decided to jump ship and return to the democrat side. Now that meant that the split was even at 31 to 31.
From my understanding this was all legal. Unfortunately for the people of New York State this was a disastrous occurrence. So what is the problem you may ask? Well the NYS Senate has since been fighting over who has control of the state senate. One side locking out the other and visa versa. For a month now, the state senate has not done any of the people's work since this has happened. All they have done is fight each other. It is painfully obvious that those elected senators have forgotten that they were elected to represent the people of their districts. Instead, all that is happening in Albany is fighting for control of the Senate and to hell with anything else. This bothers me and probably a lot of other NY residents to no end. But, to add insult to injury, all of those State Senators are and have been collecting their full salaries without doing any of the work that they were elected to do. Would someone please tell me what jobs are available out there that allows you to not do any of the work you are supposed to do and still get your full pay? If someone doesn't do their job in the real world, you would be terminated from that company. Unfortunately, politicians obviously feel that they are above the rest of us and they can do whatever they want to.
Sadly, NYS state senators have made it very clear that party affiliation and control is more important than the needs of the people. The NYS government has previously been called the most dysfunctional state government in the country. Go figure that they have now been able to go above and beyond that label. This is politics at its very worst. This is not politics, this is a circus without a ringleader. Politicians have again proven to me that they either do not possess common sense or refuse to use it. What a shame that supposedly intelligent people can act so stupidly!
My solution to this ongoing problem is a bit radical, but I believe that the only way to fix this is at the next election and every election after that, all of the state senators involved should be voted out of office and replaced with people who will get the job done that they were elected to do. If the new replacements don't do the job, vote them out also!
What do you think? Let me know.
Till next time.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Greed part deux
Hi Everyone:
Back in March I talked about oil prices. Now I can't believe that Americans are not hanging out of their windows and screaming, I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!
Just in the past 6 weeks or so the price of gasoline has increased almost $.75/gallon. Now let's review what happened about a year ago. We were all told that India and China were using a lot more gas to fuel their economic development and consequently demand was higher and supply was lower. Well we all know now that that wasn't really the case and that speculators were the real culprits in the extraordinary increase in the prices. One year ago, a barrel of oil was selling for $148.00 with the price of gas a little over $4.00 per gallon. Today the cost of a oil is around $75.00 per barrel. That is almost 50% less than a year ago. BUT, the price of gas is closing in at $3.00 per gallon. WHAT? By my math if $148/barrel of oil equates to $4.00+/gallon of gas then $75/barrel of oil should equate to about $2.00/gallon of gas. There is a huge problem here! Doesn't anyone else see this?
Let's further review the differences between now and a year ago. We are now in the worst recession since the great depression of 1929 which lasted for years afterwards. In our current recession, millions of people have been laid off from their jobs which means that there are fewer people commuting to work and people are doing less driving period. It has been published in numerous media outlets that we, as a country, are using a lot less gasoline. Let's also not forget that this current recession is a global one and not just affecting our country. The global economic factor is lowering the global consumption of gasoline/oil. Less global consumption means less demand which equates to a larger supply. This all means that the price of gas (or the price of oil) should not be increasing. If anything, the prices should be decreasing. Six months ago when the OPEC members lowered their production, the prices kept sliding.
Now though it seems that it is business as usual for the oil companies and probably the speculators that the summer driving season means higher prices. It is very apparent that greed rules supreme and damn the people who can hardly afford to live (due to the massive layoffs). Again I repeat, why aren't people mad as hell about the price of gas? It is evident that common sense looses out to greed every time. This is wrong at every level.
Til next week.
Back in March I talked about oil prices. Now I can't believe that Americans are not hanging out of their windows and screaming, I am mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!
Just in the past 6 weeks or so the price of gasoline has increased almost $.75/gallon. Now let's review what happened about a year ago. We were all told that India and China were using a lot more gas to fuel their economic development and consequently demand was higher and supply was lower. Well we all know now that that wasn't really the case and that speculators were the real culprits in the extraordinary increase in the prices. One year ago, a barrel of oil was selling for $148.00 with the price of gas a little over $4.00 per gallon. Today the cost of a oil is around $75.00 per barrel. That is almost 50% less than a year ago. BUT, the price of gas is closing in at $3.00 per gallon. WHAT? By my math if $148/barrel of oil equates to $4.00+/gallon of gas then $75/barrel of oil should equate to about $2.00/gallon of gas. There is a huge problem here! Doesn't anyone else see this?
Let's further review the differences between now and a year ago. We are now in the worst recession since the great depression of 1929 which lasted for years afterwards. In our current recession, millions of people have been laid off from their jobs which means that there are fewer people commuting to work and people are doing less driving period. It has been published in numerous media outlets that we, as a country, are using a lot less gasoline. Let's also not forget that this current recession is a global one and not just affecting our country. The global economic factor is lowering the global consumption of gasoline/oil. Less global consumption means less demand which equates to a larger supply. This all means that the price of gas (or the price of oil) should not be increasing. If anything, the prices should be decreasing. Six months ago when the OPEC members lowered their production, the prices kept sliding.
Now though it seems that it is business as usual for the oil companies and probably the speculators that the summer driving season means higher prices. It is very apparent that greed rules supreme and damn the people who can hardly afford to live (due to the massive layoffs). Again I repeat, why aren't people mad as hell about the price of gas? It is evident that common sense looses out to greed every time. This is wrong at every level.
Til next week.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Car and truck bumpers
Hi Everyone:
Sometimes I think of things and wonder why no one else thought of it. Today I am talking about car and truck bumpers. Not the strength of bumpers, but rather the height of front and rear bumpers. Yes the height. Why? That's a good question.
If you really gave it some thought, all bumpers should be the same height. Not just car vs car bumpers, but all bumpers of all vehicles should be the exact same height. Therefore a tractor trailer would not be able to go over the bumper of a smaller car it hits in front of it. Similarly, SUV's also then would not be able to go up and over the bumper of a smaller car it hits in front of it. The same would hold true for both front and rear end collisions.
Common sense tells me that if bumpers on all vehicles were the same height, a lot of lives (drivers and/or passengers) could conceivably be saved who are involved in these kind of accidents. It would seem that the easiest way to achieve the same height would be to lower the height of bumpers on the larger vehicles such as large cars, SUV's, vans, trucks and tractor trailers. Then when there is an accident different size vehicles would at the very least hit bumper to bumper and not have the larger vehicle ride up on the smaller one.
Cars and trucks have been manufactured for over 100 years and you would think that someone would have thought of this idea before. They certainly have had enough time to solve this problem. The solution is simplicity at its best and does make common sense. Let's also not forget that with higher fuel prices and increases in greenhouse gases of greater concern, it is inevitable that there will be a greater number of smaller vehicles on the roads and they need all the protection that they can get with these type of collisions. I wonder why this isn't so?
I understand why manufacturers are not presently addressing this problem, but hopefully will be in the near future.
Til next time.
Sometimes I think of things and wonder why no one else thought of it. Today I am talking about car and truck bumpers. Not the strength of bumpers, but rather the height of front and rear bumpers. Yes the height. Why? That's a good question.
If you really gave it some thought, all bumpers should be the same height. Not just car vs car bumpers, but all bumpers of all vehicles should be the exact same height. Therefore a tractor trailer would not be able to go over the bumper of a smaller car it hits in front of it. Similarly, SUV's also then would not be able to go up and over the bumper of a smaller car it hits in front of it. The same would hold true for both front and rear end collisions.
Common sense tells me that if bumpers on all vehicles were the same height, a lot of lives (drivers and/or passengers) could conceivably be saved who are involved in these kind of accidents. It would seem that the easiest way to achieve the same height would be to lower the height of bumpers on the larger vehicles such as large cars, SUV's, vans, trucks and tractor trailers. Then when there is an accident different size vehicles would at the very least hit bumper to bumper and not have the larger vehicle ride up on the smaller one.
Cars and trucks have been manufactured for over 100 years and you would think that someone would have thought of this idea before. They certainly have had enough time to solve this problem. The solution is simplicity at its best and does make common sense. Let's also not forget that with higher fuel prices and increases in greenhouse gases of greater concern, it is inevitable that there will be a greater number of smaller vehicles on the roads and they need all the protection that they can get with these type of collisions. I wonder why this isn't so?
I understand why manufacturers are not presently addressing this problem, but hopefully will be in the near future.
Til next time.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Bill O'Reilly
Hi Everyone:
Well it happened again. Another public figure, this time TV personality, Bill O'Reilly used his platform to talk to millions of people without using any common sense what-so-ever!
Today's post isn't about whether one is for or against abortion. It is about public figures thinking they can say anything they want without any consequences. This is what happened. Since 2005, O'Reilly had talked about abortion provider and Kansas resident, Dr. George Tiller 29 times on his TV show, The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly actually used Dr. Tiller's name each time he talked about him. Salon's Gabriel Winant wrote that, "O'Reilly didn't tell anyone to do any violence against the doctor, but he did put the doctor in the public eye and helped make him the focus of a movement with a history of violence against these kinds of targets." O'Reilly even went so far as to call Dr. Tiller, "Tiller the baby killer!" So what was the consequence of O'Reilly's venom against the doctor? Dr. Tiller was murdered in cold blood while he was in his church.
Frank Schaeffer, who with his father Francis in the 1980's said that force could sometimes be justified in fighting abortions, wrote in The Huffington Post that he and the religious right "all contributed to this killing by our foolish words. I am very sorry." The Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote about the online commentary that O'Reilly bears some responsibility for the killing but said he wasn't going to join the attack.
O'Reilly himself said this about Tiller's killing that "quick-thinking Americans" should condemn it. O'Reilly's incendiary words about Dr. Tiller lead to his murder. The Fox News host, O'Reilly and maybe even Fox News should definitely be held accountable for his words and to question whether he had gone to far in personally assailing Dr. Tiller time and time again for years. I think that O'Reilly should be charged with accessory to murder.
If O'Reilly had used common sense, he wouldn't have named Dr. Tiller and where he lived. O'Reilly has the right to voice his anti-abortion views but not in the way he did. I believe that there is a law against someone yelling fire in a crowded place and there should be a law against how O'Reilly used a person's name and address. Because O'Reilly failed to use any hint of common sense in what he said, it lead to the death of a human being. This is just so wrong on any level. I hope the authorities do hold O'Reilly accountable. Freedom of speech can go only so far!
Till next week.
Well it happened again. Another public figure, this time TV personality, Bill O'Reilly used his platform to talk to millions of people without using any common sense what-so-ever!
Today's post isn't about whether one is for or against abortion. It is about public figures thinking they can say anything they want without any consequences. This is what happened. Since 2005, O'Reilly had talked about abortion provider and Kansas resident, Dr. George Tiller 29 times on his TV show, The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly actually used Dr. Tiller's name each time he talked about him. Salon's Gabriel Winant wrote that, "O'Reilly didn't tell anyone to do any violence against the doctor, but he did put the doctor in the public eye and helped make him the focus of a movement with a history of violence against these kinds of targets." O'Reilly even went so far as to call Dr. Tiller, "Tiller the baby killer!" So what was the consequence of O'Reilly's venom against the doctor? Dr. Tiller was murdered in cold blood while he was in his church.
Frank Schaeffer, who with his father Francis in the 1980's said that force could sometimes be justified in fighting abortions, wrote in The Huffington Post that he and the religious right "all contributed to this killing by our foolish words. I am very sorry." The Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote about the online commentary that O'Reilly bears some responsibility for the killing but said he wasn't going to join the attack.
O'Reilly himself said this about Tiller's killing that "quick-thinking Americans" should condemn it. O'Reilly's incendiary words about Dr. Tiller lead to his murder. The Fox News host, O'Reilly and maybe even Fox News should definitely be held accountable for his words and to question whether he had gone to far in personally assailing Dr. Tiller time and time again for years. I think that O'Reilly should be charged with accessory to murder.
If O'Reilly had used common sense, he wouldn't have named Dr. Tiller and where he lived. O'Reilly has the right to voice his anti-abortion views but not in the way he did. I believe that there is a law against someone yelling fire in a crowded place and there should be a law against how O'Reilly used a person's name and address. Because O'Reilly failed to use any hint of common sense in what he said, it lead to the death of a human being. This is just so wrong on any level. I hope the authorities do hold O'Reilly accountable. Freedom of speech can go only so far!
Till next week.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Coupons
Hi Everyone:
During these hard economic times, I have been surprised that there are a lot of people who do not use coupons. Why doesn't everyone use coupons? I don't get it. There is absolutely nothing to lose and money to be gained by using coupons.
My local grocery stores doubles the value of coupons worth up to $.99. Therefore if you have a manufacturers coupon for $.75, you get $1.50 off that product. Now in addition to that $1.50 off, if you have a store coupon worth say $.50, that doubles to $1.00. Combine the two coupons and that means you get $2.50 off that product. Depending on the price of the product, you may even get the product for free. How can you beat free? But still, I witness a lot of people at the check out at grocery stores and they don't use any coupons. Why? How hard is it to cut out coupons in the coupon flyers? Even if you don't get a newspaper, there are web sites where you can print out coupons. How much easier can it get? I get the newspaper every day of the week and I am able to save enough money through the use of the coupons I find that it pays for the yearly subscription. In my case, using coupons each week, equates to a free newspaper each and every day and even delivered to our house to boot! If you save say $5.00 each week at the grocery store, that translates into $250.00 per year. Use more coupons, save even more money.
Walmart's business has done extremely well during these hard times by using a business plan that fits perfectly in these times by having low prices. Their business plan now includes increasing their grocery items. Now subtract the use of coupons on those low prices and voila, those prices are even lower and affordable. You just can't lose.
I have also recently noticed that there are even more and more coupons in flyers for restaurants to entice people to eat at their establishments. These include chain restaurants as well as local places. During down economic times, people will not go out to eat as much as they did previously. Except for using coupons at restaurants for a date, in a new relationship, using coupons makes eating out more affordable. How can you lose?
There are even coupons for maintenance for your car. The coupons include: oil changes, transmission flushes, brakes and mufflers etc. Why pay $29.00 or higher for an oil change when you can pay $18.00?
To me it is a no brainer to use coupons at every available opportunity. It is just common sense to use them.
Til next week. Remember using common sense makes sense and can even save you cents!
During these hard economic times, I have been surprised that there are a lot of people who do not use coupons. Why doesn't everyone use coupons? I don't get it. There is absolutely nothing to lose and money to be gained by using coupons.
My local grocery stores doubles the value of coupons worth up to $.99. Therefore if you have a manufacturers coupon for $.75, you get $1.50 off that product. Now in addition to that $1.50 off, if you have a store coupon worth say $.50, that doubles to $1.00. Combine the two coupons and that means you get $2.50 off that product. Depending on the price of the product, you may even get the product for free. How can you beat free? But still, I witness a lot of people at the check out at grocery stores and they don't use any coupons. Why? How hard is it to cut out coupons in the coupon flyers? Even if you don't get a newspaper, there are web sites where you can print out coupons. How much easier can it get? I get the newspaper every day of the week and I am able to save enough money through the use of the coupons I find that it pays for the yearly subscription. In my case, using coupons each week, equates to a free newspaper each and every day and even delivered to our house to boot! If you save say $5.00 each week at the grocery store, that translates into $250.00 per year. Use more coupons, save even more money.
Walmart's business has done extremely well during these hard times by using a business plan that fits perfectly in these times by having low prices. Their business plan now includes increasing their grocery items. Now subtract the use of coupons on those low prices and voila, those prices are even lower and affordable. You just can't lose.
I have also recently noticed that there are even more and more coupons in flyers for restaurants to entice people to eat at their establishments. These include chain restaurants as well as local places. During down economic times, people will not go out to eat as much as they did previously. Except for using coupons at restaurants for a date, in a new relationship, using coupons makes eating out more affordable. How can you lose?
There are even coupons for maintenance for your car. The coupons include: oil changes, transmission flushes, brakes and mufflers etc. Why pay $29.00 or higher for an oil change when you can pay $18.00?
To me it is a no brainer to use coupons at every available opportunity. It is just common sense to use them.
Til next week. Remember using common sense makes sense and can even save you cents!
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Overtime in Municipalities
Hi Everyone:
Today's blog is about an astounding fact that I have been recently reading about in my local newspaper. In almost every municipality in Westchester and Putnam Counties, in New York State, the top wage earners are not the elected or salaried people, but hourly employees who are eligible for overtime. I was dumbfounded to learn that there are Police Officers and other municipality employees who made up to $150,000 during the last fiscal year. It was not just one person in a given department, there were numerous people in the same department who made well over $125,000. Those are astronomical amounts.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe in the necessity of Police Officers and the other departments that help to give all the services needed to have a safe, clean and effective municipality. But it is painfully obvious that the upper management in the departments as well as the elected officials do not know how to effectively run them. It is also painfully obvious that again, politicians have zero common sense.
Why? If any business had numerous employees in a given department making such incredible amounts of overtime, that doubles their regular pay, year after year, there is a common sense solution to solve this problem. A company would hire X amount of either full time and/or part time employees to relieve the overtime. The part time employees would not cost the company any additional money for benefits and the full time new hires benefit costs would have to be taken into consideration so as to not incur more money then the total overtime costs. How simple is that solution? You would think someone would implement that plan.
Of course there is always a wrench that is thrown into this overtime mess. That wrench is the unions that these employees belong to. When an union employee retires, their last three years of their pay prior to retirement date are averaged to determine what their yearly pension will be. That in itself is a costly problem due to the fact that three years before an employee retires they volunteer for the most amount of overtime that they can get. I personally believe that a different equation should be used to determine what the yearly pension amount should be. Of course that would have to be negotiated with the unions, which would be a very daunting task. Why? The unions would stand on past practices and that's that, period. When a lot of these employees retire after 20 years or at age 55 yes 55, they go on to another career. Then they get their new salary from their new job and they also receive their pension. So, to get around the sticking point of fruitlessly trying to negotiate with the unions, all that needs to be done is to hire more employees to cut the overtime. A simple solution that does not have to be negotiated.
You would think that politicians should know that running a municipality is very similar to running a business and overtime costs are overtime costs and they need to be controlled. Again, politicians need to learn about common sense and how to use it.
Till next week.
Today's blog is about an astounding fact that I have been recently reading about in my local newspaper. In almost every municipality in Westchester and Putnam Counties, in New York State, the top wage earners are not the elected or salaried people, but hourly employees who are eligible for overtime. I was dumbfounded to learn that there are Police Officers and other municipality employees who made up to $150,000 during the last fiscal year. It was not just one person in a given department, there were numerous people in the same department who made well over $125,000. Those are astronomical amounts.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe in the necessity of Police Officers and the other departments that help to give all the services needed to have a safe, clean and effective municipality. But it is painfully obvious that the upper management in the departments as well as the elected officials do not know how to effectively run them. It is also painfully obvious that again, politicians have zero common sense.
Why? If any business had numerous employees in a given department making such incredible amounts of overtime, that doubles their regular pay, year after year, there is a common sense solution to solve this problem. A company would hire X amount of either full time and/or part time employees to relieve the overtime. The part time employees would not cost the company any additional money for benefits and the full time new hires benefit costs would have to be taken into consideration so as to not incur more money then the total overtime costs. How simple is that solution? You would think someone would implement that plan.
Of course there is always a wrench that is thrown into this overtime mess. That wrench is the unions that these employees belong to. When an union employee retires, their last three years of their pay prior to retirement date are averaged to determine what their yearly pension will be. That in itself is a costly problem due to the fact that three years before an employee retires they volunteer for the most amount of overtime that they can get. I personally believe that a different equation should be used to determine what the yearly pension amount should be. Of course that would have to be negotiated with the unions, which would be a very daunting task. Why? The unions would stand on past practices and that's that, period. When a lot of these employees retire after 20 years or at age 55 yes 55, they go on to another career. Then they get their new salary from their new job and they also receive their pension. So, to get around the sticking point of fruitlessly trying to negotiate with the unions, all that needs to be done is to hire more employees to cut the overtime. A simple solution that does not have to be negotiated.
You would think that politicians should know that running a municipality is very similar to running a business and overtime costs are overtime costs and they need to be controlled. Again, politicians need to learn about common sense and how to use it.
Till next week.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
New York City's Mass Transit
Hi Everyone:
Again, there are things that happen that to me make absolutely no sense. It makes me wonder if people, (in this week's case politicians) even know the term and/or what the meaning of common sense is.
If you or I needed money for whatever reason, we would go to a bank and apply for a loan. Except for the financial mess that the banks are in now, (i.e.: sub-prime mortgage fiasco), banks should verify your income and savings etc. Then a determination is made as to the amount of money (loan) you will receive.
It is now very apparent that the above is not the way New York State's government works. Here in New York City, we have the largest mass transit system in the country. It is called the MTA, (Mass Transit Authority) and it consists of: 4 rail lines (Hudson, Harlem, Long Island and Connecticut), a subway system and a bus system. I am not totally sure of the exact number of daily riders, but it is in the millions per day. A few months ago the MTA stated that there was going to be a deficit in their upcoming fiscal year and that fares would have to go up 25%. The 25% fare increase would go into effect unless either the federal and/or NY state governments came up with some additional money that would reduce the fare increase. To make a long story short, at the eleventh hour, the NYS government (in their infinite wisdom) did figure out a way to give additional funding to the MTA that will reduce the fare increase to 10% this year.
Where did this extra money come from? Among other tax increases, the NYS government will impose a payroll tax of $.33 per $100.00 of a company's payroll in NYC and in all of the surrounding counties of NYC. In the counties furthest north of NYC, that the MTA serves, the payroll tax will be $.25 per $100.00. Somehow, supposedly, health care facilities and schools will be reimbursed for the payroll tax that they pay out so as to not increase school taxes or health care costs. I wonder where that money will come from, since NYS has it own deficit of billions of dollars? NYS will also impose a surcharge on all taxi-cab rides. There are other new taxes but that is not the issue that I am talking about today. It seems that the MTA has not been audited in over 40 years. 40 YEARS!!!! The MTA has always received government handouts to keep them afloat, but never been audited? That is without a doubt a travesty and an injustice to not only the riders of the MTA but also to the companies whose employees don't even use the system but will have to help fund it. I would bet anything that the MTA has massive amounts of wasteful spending, maybe even some fraud, but no one knows since they have not and will not be audited.
How can the NYS government increase taxes on all these companies and people based solely on what the MTA's head honchos say? In this day and age, can we really believe what a company like the MTA says as truthful? WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE here people? NYS should have audited the MTA prior to forking over any additional funding and have the MTA prove that they are running a tight ship and are in need of the funding. Am I crazy here or doesn't that just make common sense to audit them. Better yet, the MTA should have offered to open up their books for a thorough examination. I guess I know the answer as to why they didn't want to voluntarily open up their books; most likely there is massive amounts of money being wasted and the MTA doesn't think it is anybody else's business. How wrong they are and how wrong the NYS government is, in not forcing them to be audited.
Think about this.......maybe a course on common sense should be invented that all politicians and CEO's for that matter, should be mandated to take and pass prior to becoming a politician or CEO. Whoa, what a concept. Enough said.
Until next week.
Remember to use common sense, it will make your life that much easier and better.
Again, there are things that happen that to me make absolutely no sense. It makes me wonder if people, (in this week's case politicians) even know the term and/or what the meaning of common sense is.
If you or I needed money for whatever reason, we would go to a bank and apply for a loan. Except for the financial mess that the banks are in now, (i.e.: sub-prime mortgage fiasco), banks should verify your income and savings etc. Then a determination is made as to the amount of money (loan) you will receive.
It is now very apparent that the above is not the way New York State's government works. Here in New York City, we have the largest mass transit system in the country. It is called the MTA, (Mass Transit Authority) and it consists of: 4 rail lines (Hudson, Harlem, Long Island and Connecticut), a subway system and a bus system. I am not totally sure of the exact number of daily riders, but it is in the millions per day. A few months ago the MTA stated that there was going to be a deficit in their upcoming fiscal year and that fares would have to go up 25%. The 25% fare increase would go into effect unless either the federal and/or NY state governments came up with some additional money that would reduce the fare increase. To make a long story short, at the eleventh hour, the NYS government (in their infinite wisdom) did figure out a way to give additional funding to the MTA that will reduce the fare increase to 10% this year.
Where did this extra money come from? Among other tax increases, the NYS government will impose a payroll tax of $.33 per $100.00 of a company's payroll in NYC and in all of the surrounding counties of NYC. In the counties furthest north of NYC, that the MTA serves, the payroll tax will be $.25 per $100.00. Somehow, supposedly, health care facilities and schools will be reimbursed for the payroll tax that they pay out so as to not increase school taxes or health care costs. I wonder where that money will come from, since NYS has it own deficit of billions of dollars? NYS will also impose a surcharge on all taxi-cab rides. There are other new taxes but that is not the issue that I am talking about today. It seems that the MTA has not been audited in over 40 years. 40 YEARS!!!! The MTA has always received government handouts to keep them afloat, but never been audited? That is without a doubt a travesty and an injustice to not only the riders of the MTA but also to the companies whose employees don't even use the system but will have to help fund it. I would bet anything that the MTA has massive amounts of wasteful spending, maybe even some fraud, but no one knows since they have not and will not be audited.
How can the NYS government increase taxes on all these companies and people based solely on what the MTA's head honchos say? In this day and age, can we really believe what a company like the MTA says as truthful? WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE here people? NYS should have audited the MTA prior to forking over any additional funding and have the MTA prove that they are running a tight ship and are in need of the funding. Am I crazy here or doesn't that just make common sense to audit them. Better yet, the MTA should have offered to open up their books for a thorough examination. I guess I know the answer as to why they didn't want to voluntarily open up their books; most likely there is massive amounts of money being wasted and the MTA doesn't think it is anybody else's business. How wrong they are and how wrong the NYS government is, in not forcing them to be audited.
Think about this.......maybe a course on common sense should be invented that all politicians and CEO's for that matter, should be mandated to take and pass prior to becoming a politician or CEO. Whoa, what a concept. Enough said.
Until next week.
Remember to use common sense, it will make your life that much easier and better.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Driving
Hi All:
For the past couple of years I have noticed that more and more drivers are doing some pretty stupid moves on the road. Besides the point that some of these moves are illegal, the drivers seem to not care about their safety or anyone else's! Here are my top 10 stupid moves done by drivers. These are not in any particular order.
Stupid Move #1: A car passing you on the left or right side and then immediately pulls into your lane without signaling. The worst move is when they pass you, cut you off and then brake to avoid hitting the car in front of them. What was the point of passing you?
Stupid Move #2: You are traveling down a long hill on a highway and the driver in front of you decides to step on the brakes. What???? There was no one in front of them and I can only guess that doing the speed limit while going down hill was to fast for them. I can't figure out any other reason for them to brake while going down hill.
Stupid Move #3: Traffic is backed up for whatever reason, be it congestion or an accident etc.; there is always some idiot that has to drive on the shoulder to pass however many cars that they can.
Stupid Move #4: Women putting on makeup while driving. Why not put on your mascara, lipstick etc. before you leave your home.
Stupid Move #5: Text messaging while driving. WTH!!!! I can understand talking on a hands-free cell phone because your hands are on the wheel but in order to text you need at least one hand typing on the phone. This also includes talking on a non hands-free cell phone.
Stupid Move #6: Driving to slowly. I have no problem when people drive the posted speed limit, but when they drive 10 or 15 or even 20 mph slower then the speed limit that can be just as dangerous as speeding.
Stupid Move #7: Drivers reading newspapers or books while driving. Why is it so important to read while driving?
Stupid Move #8: A driver drops something on the floor and instead of leaving it there, they bend over to pick it up.
Stupid Move #9: Drivers who do not read the signs for EZ pass lanes prior to paying a toll. They get to the toll and realize that they are in the wrong toll lane, (due to the fact that they do not have EZ pass) and then they have to wait for a police officer because the gate won't raise up.
Stupid Move #10: No matter what the speed limit is, there are always people who pass you going at an incredible rate of speed that you seem to be standing still.
All of these are stupid moves, of which some are illegal, but these moves can and do cause accidents. It is obvious that there are a lot of drivers who either don't have or don't use any common sense while driving. Get with the program people and use common sense while driving.
I will be back on May 15th. Talk to you then.
For the past couple of years I have noticed that more and more drivers are doing some pretty stupid moves on the road. Besides the point that some of these moves are illegal, the drivers seem to not care about their safety or anyone else's! Here are my top 10 stupid moves done by drivers. These are not in any particular order.
Stupid Move #1: A car passing you on the left or right side and then immediately pulls into your lane without signaling. The worst move is when they pass you, cut you off and then brake to avoid hitting the car in front of them. What was the point of passing you?
Stupid Move #2: You are traveling down a long hill on a highway and the driver in front of you decides to step on the brakes. What???? There was no one in front of them and I can only guess that doing the speed limit while going down hill was to fast for them. I can't figure out any other reason for them to brake while going down hill.
Stupid Move #3: Traffic is backed up for whatever reason, be it congestion or an accident etc.; there is always some idiot that has to drive on the shoulder to pass however many cars that they can.
Stupid Move #4: Women putting on makeup while driving. Why not put on your mascara, lipstick etc. before you leave your home.
Stupid Move #5: Text messaging while driving. WTH!!!! I can understand talking on a hands-free cell phone because your hands are on the wheel but in order to text you need at least one hand typing on the phone. This also includes talking on a non hands-free cell phone.
Stupid Move #6: Driving to slowly. I have no problem when people drive the posted speed limit, but when they drive 10 or 15 or even 20 mph slower then the speed limit that can be just as dangerous as speeding.
Stupid Move #7: Drivers reading newspapers or books while driving. Why is it so important to read while driving?
Stupid Move #8: A driver drops something on the floor and instead of leaving it there, they bend over to pick it up.
Stupid Move #9: Drivers who do not read the signs for EZ pass lanes prior to paying a toll. They get to the toll and realize that they are in the wrong toll lane, (due to the fact that they do not have EZ pass) and then they have to wait for a police officer because the gate won't raise up.
Stupid Move #10: No matter what the speed limit is, there are always people who pass you going at an incredible rate of speed that you seem to be standing still.
All of these are stupid moves, of which some are illegal, but these moves can and do cause accidents. It is obvious that there are a lot of drivers who either don't have or don't use any common sense while driving. Get with the program people and use common sense while driving.
I will be back on May 15th. Talk to you then.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
US Foreign Policy
Hi All:
One of the big news stories of the past week was President Obama's willingness to want to talk with some foreign countries who are not our friends. These countries are so anti-American that previously we haven't wanted to "sit down" and talk with them. The countries that I am speaking of are: Venezuela, Cuba and Iran. Before I continue, we should look at our country's past history of dealing with countries that also vehemently hated the United States of America.
One of the big news stories of the past week was President Obama's willingness to want to talk with some foreign countries who are not our friends. These countries are so anti-American that previously we haven't wanted to "sit down" and talk with them. The countries that I am speaking of are: Venezuela, Cuba and Iran. Before I continue, we should look at our country's past history of dealing with countries that also vehemently hated the United States of America.
Almost sixty eight years ago, back in 1941, we declared war (and rightfully so) against Japan after their unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor that killed thousands of Americans. Japan immediately became our sworn enemy and we were not going to stop fighting them until they capitulated. In addition, we declared war against Germany (another sworn enemy) and were not going to stop fighting them until they also capitulated. It took 4 years and tens of thousands of our troops being killed until the US and our allies declared victory over both countries when they finally surrendered.
During the 1960's we went to "war" against North Vietnam due to their aggression against South Vietnam. Although that "war" lasted almost 10 years we didn't win and tens of thousands of our troops were killed and North Vietnam never surrendered. North Vietnam did take over South Vietnam which we were trying to stop from happening.
Fast forward to the present day. Now Germany and Japan are some of the most important friends this country has. Does that mean that we have to go to war against a country and beat them before we can sit down to talk with them that ultimately leads to our being friends? Not true! North Vietnam won that "war" but now relations with the US are becoming more normalized then anyone could have predicted back in 1973.
So why then it is such a bad idea to want to sit down and talk with other countries who are not our friends? Critics say that the US should never talk to these countries. Unfortunately that policy did not work during the past 8 years.
Common sense must be used here because diplomacy is the appropriate course of action to take. If this country can sit down and talk to these countries that eventually leads to ironing out what ever issues exist, without a single life being lost, then I am all for it. Go common sense!
Until next week.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Assault Weapons
Hi All:
Sometimes I read or watch a news program that makes me think that some people in this country have lost their minds and common sense is the furthest thing in their minds. I know that this subject is a touchy one with a lot of people, but we need a whole lot of good old common sense here!
Last Sunday, 4/12/09, I watched 60 Minutes, a well respected, news magazine show that has been on the air for decades. One segment on the show was about the State of Virginia gun shows. Did you know that in Virginia it is harder to buy an alcoholic drink then to buy an assault weapon? Yes that is unfortunately very true! The segment showed and talked about people selling any type of firearm, including assault weapons, right out of their car trunks in the parking lots at Virginia's gun shows. Now unless you are from Virginia or have attended a gun show there, you might not know that selling guns like that is perfectly legal. WHAT!!!!!!! Not only can guns be sold like that, there is no requirement to do a background check. If you have the money, you can buy any type of gun no questions asked. Some people say, so what, what is the big deal? The big deal is this: people with a criminal history or people mentally challenged can buy an assault weapon(s) that easily.
Now I know that the NRA consistently states their rhetoric that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But what exactly is an assault weapon? Assault weapons like the AK-47 were developed with one and only one goal in mind; to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. In a war, these guns are invaluable. But in private hands, these weapons can and are extremely dangerous. Have you ever heard of a hunter that shot their game with an assault weapon? I didn't think so.
Now the NRA and its members will tell you that according to the Second Amendment, individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. The actual Second Amendment does state that, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The current legal meaning of the Second Amendment was recently addressed in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, with the majority opinion stating that. The majority wrote that "The Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense in the home." But the sole purpose of an assault weapon is to kill people.
I have no objection to people owning non assault weapons. I do though strenuously object to people owning automatic handguns, 50 caliber rifles and AK-47's etc., etc. There is no need to have them. If you like to hunt, so be it, but you don't use those type of weapons. I do not believe that making ownership of those type of weapons illegal, infringes on any ones rights. If anything it will save lives.
Virginia's current law that allows such sales of assault weapons has no common sense and needs to be changed ASAP. I also believe that the Second Amendment's newest ruling by the Supreme Court should have a addendum to prohibit the sale and ownership of assault weapons. Now that would make common sense.
There is no good use for and makes no common sense in the private ownership of any kind of assault weapons, PERIOD!
Talk to you next week.
Sometimes I read or watch a news program that makes me think that some people in this country have lost their minds and common sense is the furthest thing in their minds. I know that this subject is a touchy one with a lot of people, but we need a whole lot of good old common sense here!
Last Sunday, 4/12/09, I watched 60 Minutes, a well respected, news magazine show that has been on the air for decades. One segment on the show was about the State of Virginia gun shows. Did you know that in Virginia it is harder to buy an alcoholic drink then to buy an assault weapon? Yes that is unfortunately very true! The segment showed and talked about people selling any type of firearm, including assault weapons, right out of their car trunks in the parking lots at Virginia's gun shows. Now unless you are from Virginia or have attended a gun show there, you might not know that selling guns like that is perfectly legal. WHAT!!!!!!! Not only can guns be sold like that, there is no requirement to do a background check. If you have the money, you can buy any type of gun no questions asked. Some people say, so what, what is the big deal? The big deal is this: people with a criminal history or people mentally challenged can buy an assault weapon(s) that easily.
Now I know that the NRA consistently states their rhetoric that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But what exactly is an assault weapon? Assault weapons like the AK-47 were developed with one and only one goal in mind; to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. In a war, these guns are invaluable. But in private hands, these weapons can and are extremely dangerous. Have you ever heard of a hunter that shot their game with an assault weapon? I didn't think so.
Now the NRA and its members will tell you that according to the Second Amendment, individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. The actual Second Amendment does state that, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The current legal meaning of the Second Amendment was recently addressed in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, with the majority opinion stating that. The majority wrote that "The Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense in the home." But the sole purpose of an assault weapon is to kill people.
I have no objection to people owning non assault weapons. I do though strenuously object to people owning automatic handguns, 50 caliber rifles and AK-47's etc., etc. There is no need to have them. If you like to hunt, so be it, but you don't use those type of weapons. I do not believe that making ownership of those type of weapons illegal, infringes on any ones rights. If anything it will save lives.
Virginia's current law that allows such sales of assault weapons has no common sense and needs to be changed ASAP. I also believe that the Second Amendment's newest ruling by the Supreme Court should have a addendum to prohibit the sale and ownership of assault weapons. Now that would make common sense.
There is no good use for and makes no common sense in the private ownership of any kind of assault weapons, PERIOD!
Talk to you next week.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Hybrid Vehicles and Radio Talk Show
Hi Everyone:
Today's topic might seem to be a continuation of last weeks blog but with a twist. Today's blog was triggered by something that I had just read and I feel a need to talk about it. I just read an AOL news article about something that Rush Limbaugh recently said on his radio program. FYI, I have not ever listened to his radio show, but it is my understanding that millions and millions of people do listen. Therefore it is safe to presume that when he says something, there are a lot of people who believe him, be it good or bad.
Rush Limbaugh said this about hybrid vehicles: "Nobody's buying them. Nobody wants them! The manufacturers are making them in droves to satisfy Obama! Sorry for yelling. Nobody wants them!" That is quite a statement!!!
Let's look at some facts. Toyota on its own has sold over 1,000,000 Prius hybrids since 1999, when they first became available. Edmunds' Green Car Advisor, per the AOL article, points out that 1.3 million hybrid vehicles have been sold in this country since 1999. It is obvious that the year 1999 was 10 years before President Obama took office.
It is also obvious that Americans do want and do buy hybrid vehicles, otherwise 1.3 million of them would not have been sold. I have heard and read that there are a lot of people who believe that there is no such thing as global warming and hence no need for hybrid cars. Let's put that argument aside for a moment. An undisputed fact is that this country increasingly imports more and more oil with each passing year from foreign countries (some of which are not our "friends"). Doing so does not and will not make us energy independent. If we do not become energy independent, this country will always be beholden to foreign countries that can and will dictate price and availability. This amongst itself affects our country's national security.
We have all recently learned that Honda is now ready to introduce its new Insight hybrid at a cost of about $20,000. That is $3,000 less then the Prius. Let the price wars finally commence and may the buying public, our environment and reducing our dependence on foreign oil be the winners. It is unfortunate that the big 3 are still behind the eight ball and are now beginning to try to play catch up, (see last weeks blog).
Although I agree that hybrid vehicles are a good start, they still use gasoline and the batteries do not last as long as the car itself. In addition, the electric only cars are also a good start, but you need to plug them in to recharge their batteries. There are still an abundance of power plants that use fossil fuels to produce electricity. I personally believe that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be the wave of the future. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles don't use any fossil fuels and produce no harmful emissions, which is called zero emissions. All in all, we are in the infancy of beginning to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, thank goodness!
Now getting back to what Rush Limbaugh said. I am a firm believer that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but the listening public must use common sense to distinguish between what people say as fact and what they say as entertainment. If what he said about hybrid vehicles was meant for entertainment purposes and he said so, then that is fine. Sometimes even saying something as a joke (without using any common sense) on the radio for entertainment purposes can backfire and get you fired, remember Don Imus? But, if what he said was intended as a statement of fact, then Mr. Limbaugh was dead wrong, because the facts don't support him. People in a position of being able to speak to a large audience of people should and must use common sense before opening their mouths.
Thanks for reading. I will be back April 19th. Talk to you then.
Today's topic might seem to be a continuation of last weeks blog but with a twist. Today's blog was triggered by something that I had just read and I feel a need to talk about it. I just read an AOL news article about something that Rush Limbaugh recently said on his radio program. FYI, I have not ever listened to his radio show, but it is my understanding that millions and millions of people do listen. Therefore it is safe to presume that when he says something, there are a lot of people who believe him, be it good or bad.
Rush Limbaugh said this about hybrid vehicles: "Nobody's buying them. Nobody wants them! The manufacturers are making them in droves to satisfy Obama! Sorry for yelling. Nobody wants them!" That is quite a statement!!!
Let's look at some facts. Toyota on its own has sold over 1,000,000 Prius hybrids since 1999, when they first became available. Edmunds' Green Car Advisor, per the AOL article, points out that 1.3 million hybrid vehicles have been sold in this country since 1999. It is obvious that the year 1999 was 10 years before President Obama took office.
It is also obvious that Americans do want and do buy hybrid vehicles, otherwise 1.3 million of them would not have been sold. I have heard and read that there are a lot of people who believe that there is no such thing as global warming and hence no need for hybrid cars. Let's put that argument aside for a moment. An undisputed fact is that this country increasingly imports more and more oil with each passing year from foreign countries (some of which are not our "friends"). Doing so does not and will not make us energy independent. If we do not become energy independent, this country will always be beholden to foreign countries that can and will dictate price and availability. This amongst itself affects our country's national security.
We have all recently learned that Honda is now ready to introduce its new Insight hybrid at a cost of about $20,000. That is $3,000 less then the Prius. Let the price wars finally commence and may the buying public, our environment and reducing our dependence on foreign oil be the winners. It is unfortunate that the big 3 are still behind the eight ball and are now beginning to try to play catch up, (see last weeks blog).
Although I agree that hybrid vehicles are a good start, they still use gasoline and the batteries do not last as long as the car itself. In addition, the electric only cars are also a good start, but you need to plug them in to recharge their batteries. There are still an abundance of power plants that use fossil fuels to produce electricity. I personally believe that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be the wave of the future. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles don't use any fossil fuels and produce no harmful emissions, which is called zero emissions. All in all, we are in the infancy of beginning to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, thank goodness!
Now getting back to what Rush Limbaugh said. I am a firm believer that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but the listening public must use common sense to distinguish between what people say as fact and what they say as entertainment. If what he said about hybrid vehicles was meant for entertainment purposes and he said so, then that is fine. Sometimes even saying something as a joke (without using any common sense) on the radio for entertainment purposes can backfire and get you fired, remember Don Imus? But, if what he said was intended as a statement of fact, then Mr. Limbaugh was dead wrong, because the facts don't support him. People in a position of being able to speak to a large audience of people should and must use common sense before opening their mouths.
Thanks for reading. I will be back April 19th. Talk to you then.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Big 3
Hi Everyone:
This week's topic is again a front page story. The present day big 3 is composed of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. GM and Chrysler are in dire financial straits and have received billions of dollars in federal bailouts. Ford has not received any bailout money yet. All 3 have one thing in common; their sales of new cars is in the toilet.
Obviously, the recession and the credit crunch have hurt the big 3 tremendously. I want to examine another reason for their continuing problems. In order to do that, we must look at the present day big 3's past history. In the not so distance past, 1973-1974, the members of OPEC decided to enforce an oil embargo against the United States. The embargo nearly crippled the US economy. We all learned right then and there that were outside forces (i.e.: foreign countries) that could control both the supply and the price of oil/gas. The majority of American made cars at the time got around 10-15 miles per gallon. At the time, who cared? Gas was cheap and plentiful. At the same time Honda and Toyota were beginning their foothold in this country with relatively inexpensive cars that got much better gas mileage. Let's not forget that there were other foreign car companies already selling cars here. VW, Austin Healey and British Leyland all had cars that got around 30 mpg. VW although plentiful, was not mainstream and was kind of looked down upon. The other car companies were not very popular but owners of all three realized the savings of having a car that got good gas mileage.
The American car companies then decided that they should also make small 4 cylinder cars. Cars like Pinto, Vega, Skyhawk, Pacer, Gremlin, began to appear. Yes they were small but they weren't built very well and certainly didn't get as good gas mileage as the foreign counterparts.
Then came 1979 and the second oil embargo. We as a country hadn't learned our lesson from the first embargo. The country was importing more oil than before and our American made small cars were still inferior especially compared with the Japanese cars. In viewing a 1986 copy of Consumer Reports annual car issue, it shows that there were 4 American made cars that got over 30 mpg and 7 models that got over 40 mpg. Was it the beginning of new thinking in regards to better gas mileage? Not so fast. Sometime soon afterwards the American car companies decided to produce more larger cars with bigger and more powerful engines. This meant a higher profit margin for them, but less fuel economy, (think SUV's) for us. Even though the Japanese companies kept up with the Jones' with larger more powerful cars, their core group of cars still got excellent fuel economy.
In 1999 Toyota took a leap of faith and offered a gas/hybrid car that got over 42 mpg. They have now produced over one million of the Prius'. It always seems that the American car companies are late to the party and a dollar short. Hindsight is 20/20, but who couldn't see what was coming with gas prices. It was inevitable that gas prices would increase each and every year. What no one envisioned or could have even imagined was that the price of a gallon of gas would reach an unbelievable cost of over $4 per gallon. I think it even hit $5 per gallon in California.
Just imagine for a moment that common sense was used way back when and American ingenuity developed both very high mileage and alternate fuel cars. The American car companies would be in a much better situation than they find themselves today. And we the consumer would also find ourselves in much better shape using less gas to go further distances and decreasing not increasing our dependence on foreign oil. The recession and the credit crunch would still hurt, but not as much. You will be hearing a lot more about the electric only Tesla cars that get 300 miles per charge from a 110 volt plug in.
Enough said!
Talk with you next week.
This week's topic is again a front page story. The present day big 3 is composed of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. GM and Chrysler are in dire financial straits and have received billions of dollars in federal bailouts. Ford has not received any bailout money yet. All 3 have one thing in common; their sales of new cars is in the toilet.
Obviously, the recession and the credit crunch have hurt the big 3 tremendously. I want to examine another reason for their continuing problems. In order to do that, we must look at the present day big 3's past history. In the not so distance past, 1973-1974, the members of OPEC decided to enforce an oil embargo against the United States. The embargo nearly crippled the US economy. We all learned right then and there that were outside forces (i.e.: foreign countries) that could control both the supply and the price of oil/gas. The majority of American made cars at the time got around 10-15 miles per gallon. At the time, who cared? Gas was cheap and plentiful. At the same time Honda and Toyota were beginning their foothold in this country with relatively inexpensive cars that got much better gas mileage. Let's not forget that there were other foreign car companies already selling cars here. VW, Austin Healey and British Leyland all had cars that got around 30 mpg. VW although plentiful, was not mainstream and was kind of looked down upon. The other car companies were not very popular but owners of all three realized the savings of having a car that got good gas mileage.
The American car companies then decided that they should also make small 4 cylinder cars. Cars like Pinto, Vega, Skyhawk, Pacer, Gremlin, began to appear. Yes they were small but they weren't built very well and certainly didn't get as good gas mileage as the foreign counterparts.
Then came 1979 and the second oil embargo. We as a country hadn't learned our lesson from the first embargo. The country was importing more oil than before and our American made small cars were still inferior especially compared with the Japanese cars. In viewing a 1986 copy of Consumer Reports annual car issue, it shows that there were 4 American made cars that got over 30 mpg and 7 models that got over 40 mpg. Was it the beginning of new thinking in regards to better gas mileage? Not so fast. Sometime soon afterwards the American car companies decided to produce more larger cars with bigger and more powerful engines. This meant a higher profit margin for them, but less fuel economy, (think SUV's) for us. Even though the Japanese companies kept up with the Jones' with larger more powerful cars, their core group of cars still got excellent fuel economy.
In 1999 Toyota took a leap of faith and offered a gas/hybrid car that got over 42 mpg. They have now produced over one million of the Prius'. It always seems that the American car companies are late to the party and a dollar short. Hindsight is 20/20, but who couldn't see what was coming with gas prices. It was inevitable that gas prices would increase each and every year. What no one envisioned or could have even imagined was that the price of a gallon of gas would reach an unbelievable cost of over $4 per gallon. I think it even hit $5 per gallon in California.
Just imagine for a moment that common sense was used way back when and American ingenuity developed both very high mileage and alternate fuel cars. The American car companies would be in a much better situation than they find themselves today. And we the consumer would also find ourselves in much better shape using less gas to go further distances and decreasing not increasing our dependence on foreign oil. The recession and the credit crunch would still hurt, but not as much. You will be hearing a lot more about the electric only Tesla cars that get 300 miles per charge from a 110 volt plug in.
Enough said!
Talk with you next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)