Hi Everyone,
The season's holiday gift giving is now in the past. Do you find great deals that you couldn't pass up? We all look for great deals to save money to make our money go further during the holiday season and for any other occasion. Unless you plan to buy a knockoff, sales of products that you know are real can save a whole lot of the green stuff.
When you buy merchandise from a company, what kind of guarantee or warranty do they offer? 90 days, 6 months, 1 year, or in the case of a new car; 30,000 miles or even a 100,000 mile power train warranty? Well I found an even better guarantee, which I believe is the best guarantee ever! Everyone has heard of L.L. Bean. This iconic made in America company, actually made in Maine, of all things outdoorsy, has the best guarantee bar none. Their slogan is even, "Guaranteed To Last". In smaller print Bean states, "Our products are guaranteed to give 100% satisfaction in every way. Return anything purchased from us at any time if it proves otherwise. We do not want you to have anything from L. L. Bean that is not completely satisfactory". Sounds to good to be true?
Last month, after years and years of wearing Bean clothes, for the first time, I decided to take them up on their guarantee. I had a pair of lined jeans that were about 10 years old. Not only did the lining give up the ship, so did the outside denim. I went to a brick and mortar store instead of mailing the jeans to them. I found the same exact lined jeans and went to the check out. With no questions asked, the cashier accepted my jeans and the new replacement one. When all was said and done, I received my new jeans and a gift card for $1.93. I questioned why I received the gift card and the cashier told me that was the difference between the old jeans and the new ones.
A few weeks ago, my daughter returned a pair of boots that we had given her a few years ago. Bean didn't have her size, so they had to be ordered. Then they gave my daughter a gift card for $30.00, again the difference? Now I am not one to kick a gift horse in the mouth, but giving money back in addition to the replacement doesn't seem right for the company. I don't think anyone would ever complain about getting free lifetime replacement for a well worn out article of clothing etc that may be years and years old. But giving money back in addition, just doesn't make sense to me or for the company.Yes Bean's merchandise is pricey, but how can you go wrong with the industry's best return policy ever!
I know that I have blogged about companies that rip customers off, but this is way far over the other side of the pendulum. I am not sure that giving away money for something that you purchased for a lesser amount, should equate to a monetary refund. Bean has been around for a long time and most likely know what they are doing. But to me, this doesn't make any common sense, (for the company) other than, as time goes by, my leisure clothes in my closet are more and more Bean then any other manufacturer. Score one for the customer.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, December 28, 2014
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Are You Ready For the Change?
Hi Everyone,
By the results of last months elections, the GOP will gain control of both houses of Congress. My question to you today is, are you ready for the change? What change? Hopefully you are aware of some of the changes that have already occurred.
The first 2 changes have already happened with the passing of the $1 trillion spending bill that will keep the government running for 1 year. I can't believe what compromise now looks like. The first "compromise" with the spending bill means that the GOP, at the last minute, demanded and got a rollback of a regulatory provision of the 2010 Dodd - Frank financial services overhaul that was intended to shield taxpayers from future risks from complex financial trades. So many tens of millions of people were upset with the amount of money the American taxpayer had to pay to bail out big banks and AIG after the 2008 collapse of wall street. AIG has still not repaid all the money it got and is now suing the government. So instead of keeping some form of protection for the taxpayer, the GOP sees fit to allow big banks and wall street to again do highly risky investments; knowing full well that if they screw up again, the American taxpayer will AGAIN bail them out. This isn't fair is it? This rollback no longer protects and favors us, the taxpayer, but rather, this rollback totally favors the big banks and wall street. Now they will have carte blanche to invest in whatever risky investments they can cook up. Thanks GOP.
The second, last minute "compromise" that the GOP added, I mean demanded to the spending bill, is to GREATLY raise the amount of money private donors can give to fund political conventions, (from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars). Money rules again for the GOP. People and corporations, (which per the Supreme Court says are people too), with the huge bucks will be the ones who will then run and steer this country per their greedy vision for their benefit and not for the benefit of the American people. Again, thanks go to the GOP.
So with these first two changes, so sorry, I meant to say "compromises" forced on us, isn't it painfully aware that the GOP really represent its benefactors, i.e.: big business and people, (and corporations) with big money and not the rest of the 99%? There is no other explanation. The path of what they want to do is clear and Americans voted for it?!
The GOP has less then 2 years to prove that they can lead or they will not win the White House in 2016. Well, the first 2 "compromises" don't bode well for the GOP and I foresee much worse things coming to Americans in the next 12 to 18 months. The questions is how much the American voter will take, before the GOP receives a huge defeat in 2016. By their owns actions, the GOP has proven once again that GOP really means, Get Out Peons! We have been warned!
Til next week.
Peter
By the results of last months elections, the GOP will gain control of both houses of Congress. My question to you today is, are you ready for the change? What change? Hopefully you are aware of some of the changes that have already occurred.
The first 2 changes have already happened with the passing of the $1 trillion spending bill that will keep the government running for 1 year. I can't believe what compromise now looks like. The first "compromise" with the spending bill means that the GOP, at the last minute, demanded and got a rollback of a regulatory provision of the 2010 Dodd - Frank financial services overhaul that was intended to shield taxpayers from future risks from complex financial trades. So many tens of millions of people were upset with the amount of money the American taxpayer had to pay to bail out big banks and AIG after the 2008 collapse of wall street. AIG has still not repaid all the money it got and is now suing the government. So instead of keeping some form of protection for the taxpayer, the GOP sees fit to allow big banks and wall street to again do highly risky investments; knowing full well that if they screw up again, the American taxpayer will AGAIN bail them out. This isn't fair is it? This rollback no longer protects and favors us, the taxpayer, but rather, this rollback totally favors the big banks and wall street. Now they will have carte blanche to invest in whatever risky investments they can cook up. Thanks GOP.
The second, last minute "compromise" that the GOP added, I mean demanded to the spending bill, is to GREATLY raise the amount of money private donors can give to fund political conventions, (from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars). Money rules again for the GOP. People and corporations, (which per the Supreme Court says are people too), with the huge bucks will be the ones who will then run and steer this country per their greedy vision for their benefit and not for the benefit of the American people. Again, thanks go to the GOP.
So with these first two changes, so sorry, I meant to say "compromises" forced on us, isn't it painfully aware that the GOP really represent its benefactors, i.e.: big business and people, (and corporations) with big money and not the rest of the 99%? There is no other explanation. The path of what they want to do is clear and Americans voted for it?!
The GOP has less then 2 years to prove that they can lead or they will not win the White House in 2016. Well, the first 2 "compromises" don't bode well for the GOP and I foresee much worse things coming to Americans in the next 12 to 18 months. The questions is how much the American voter will take, before the GOP receives a huge defeat in 2016. By their owns actions, the GOP has proven once again that GOP really means, Get Out Peons! We have been warned!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Greed Rules Again!
Hi Everyone,
Nothing really surprises me anymore regarding the lack of common sense. But an article in my USA Today, Gannett newspaper did catch me off guard.
As you are aware, I worked in the hotel industry for many years. Like any company, hotels have many departments; with department heads charged with operating their department profitably. One of those departments is telecommunications. Back in the day, that meant having telephone switchboard operators scheduled 24 hours per day. Then computers eventually took the place of the majority of operators. Then came cell phones. Again, back in the day, hotels made a lot of money charging quests for use of their phones for all outside calls, both local and long distance. The proliferation of cell phones made telecommunication departments profits plummet. That was even when cell phones calls cost $.45 or more per minute. So what is a hotel suppose to do when Wi-Fi became common place?
Well the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, took it to a whole new level. In order to combat free Wi-Fi, upper management made the decision to install a program and/or system that was able to disable guests own personal Wi-Fi networks. Then the hotel charged, are you sitting down, $250 to $1,000 per device to access the hotel's network. Wow, what an exorbitant amount to charge to get Wi-Fi!!! Management must have patted themselves on their backs when they found this new extremely profitable revenue stream. They probably laughed all the way to the bank, when low and behold, guests started to complain to anyone who would listen.
Their complaints did not go unnoticed, The FCC, heard the complaints and began an investigation. Last month, Marriott, which owns the Gaylord, made the business decision to agree to pay $600,000 to resolve the FCC's investigation. That meant that Marriott did not admit to the illegal scheme.
Hopefully, the $600,000 Marriott paid, was more than the amount the hotel had received from their illegal scheme. If that General Manager had just one ounce of common sense, he or she would have nixed the idea when it was first brought up.
Common sense rules and greed drools.
PS. For those of you not in the know, my neighbors and I have been fighting an ill conceived location for a cell tower in our neighborhood. Instead of erecting the tower on a mountain top, next to the valley, (on town owned property) where the tower will be built. If you want to help us, please check out www.gofundme.com/hmctns. Then if you are so inclined, please forward to any and all of your friends. It is very expensive to fight "city hall" and we have been fighting since 11/2012.
Til next week.
Peter
Nothing really surprises me anymore regarding the lack of common sense. But an article in my USA Today, Gannett newspaper did catch me off guard.
As you are aware, I worked in the hotel industry for many years. Like any company, hotels have many departments; with department heads charged with operating their department profitably. One of those departments is telecommunications. Back in the day, that meant having telephone switchboard operators scheduled 24 hours per day. Then computers eventually took the place of the majority of operators. Then came cell phones. Again, back in the day, hotels made a lot of money charging quests for use of their phones for all outside calls, both local and long distance. The proliferation of cell phones made telecommunication departments profits plummet. That was even when cell phones calls cost $.45 or more per minute. So what is a hotel suppose to do when Wi-Fi became common place?
Well the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, took it to a whole new level. In order to combat free Wi-Fi, upper management made the decision to install a program and/or system that was able to disable guests own personal Wi-Fi networks. Then the hotel charged, are you sitting down, $250 to $1,000 per device to access the hotel's network. Wow, what an exorbitant amount to charge to get Wi-Fi!!! Management must have patted themselves on their backs when they found this new extremely profitable revenue stream. They probably laughed all the way to the bank, when low and behold, guests started to complain to anyone who would listen.
Their complaints did not go unnoticed, The FCC, heard the complaints and began an investigation. Last month, Marriott, which owns the Gaylord, made the business decision to agree to pay $600,000 to resolve the FCC's investigation. That meant that Marriott did not admit to the illegal scheme.
Hopefully, the $600,000 Marriott paid, was more than the amount the hotel had received from their illegal scheme. If that General Manager had just one ounce of common sense, he or she would have nixed the idea when it was first brought up.
Common sense rules and greed drools.
PS. For those of you not in the know, my neighbors and I have been fighting an ill conceived location for a cell tower in our neighborhood. Instead of erecting the tower on a mountain top, next to the valley, (on town owned property) where the tower will be built. If you want to help us, please check out www.gofundme.com/hmctns. Then if you are so inclined, please forward to any and all of your friends. It is very expensive to fight "city hall" and we have been fighting since 11/2012.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, November 23, 2014
You Can't Make This Stuff Up!
Hi Everyone,
Grades kindergarten to high school are extremely important for the education of our children. This is when they learn so much about our world and how we got to this point in time. All subjects taught are obviously important, including arts and physical education. But one of the subjects taught has a special place that needs to be monitored for accuracy.
The subject I am blogging about is history. What's my concern over the teaching of history? As far as I am concerned, history lessons must be based on facts and just the facts on what had previously happened. If history facts are intentionally omitted, overlooked or even changed, that changes what the kids learn about specific events. Changing historical facts will change the course of history, to millions of school kids (who don't know the difference).
So how and can this be possible? Well, if you live in Texas, it seems to be surprisingly simple. Just have the history textbooks changed. Wait, what? Some authority can just make changes to history books and have the new version(s) taught as accurate and correct. This is so wrong on every level. But what facts are the Texas education officials changing? The officials first created the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. That group has rewritten history and just last week it was approved by the Texas Board of Education. Now you might be thinking that this is just one state changing history. Unfortunately, Texas is so large that publishers commonly market the books made for Texas to other states, according to Josh Roseman, of the National Center for Science Education.
Here are just a few historical facts that Texas changed and these textbooks will be sold in other states:
- The Ten Commandments had an influence on the writing of the U.S. Constitution and that Moses was a democratic leader who influenced the founding fathers. No such historical record exists to support any of that!
- All international terrorism is linked to Islamist fundamentalists. Again nothing supports that!
- Slavery was not a key factor in the Civil War. What, are you kidding me?
What planet does this group of people live on? Oh right they live in Texas and they are trying to change history to support their bible belt beliefs and not the facts as history must be taught! Unfortunately, as I said before, these and other changes in history textbooks were approved late last week. Unbelievable!!! It is apparent that the Texas Board of Education totally lacks any common sense what so ever to do the right thing and not rewrite history. Those who ignore "real" history are bound to repeat it. Will Texas ever learn? Maybe they should teach that the Earth is flat, as the church used to teach until science proved that theory wrong.
I really hope that other states will reject these "new" history textbooks and have the changes removed. I fear that other bible states will follow Texas and teach the "new" history. Something is really screwed up in Texas. No one should ever be allowed to change historical facts for any reason even if it is based on one's religious beliefs.
Til next week.
Peter
Grades kindergarten to high school are extremely important for the education of our children. This is when they learn so much about our world and how we got to this point in time. All subjects taught are obviously important, including arts and physical education. But one of the subjects taught has a special place that needs to be monitored for accuracy.
The subject I am blogging about is history. What's my concern over the teaching of history? As far as I am concerned, history lessons must be based on facts and just the facts on what had previously happened. If history facts are intentionally omitted, overlooked or even changed, that changes what the kids learn about specific events. Changing historical facts will change the course of history, to millions of school kids (who don't know the difference).
So how and can this be possible? Well, if you live in Texas, it seems to be surprisingly simple. Just have the history textbooks changed. Wait, what? Some authority can just make changes to history books and have the new version(s) taught as accurate and correct. This is so wrong on every level. But what facts are the Texas education officials changing? The officials first created the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. That group has rewritten history and just last week it was approved by the Texas Board of Education. Now you might be thinking that this is just one state changing history. Unfortunately, Texas is so large that publishers commonly market the books made for Texas to other states, according to Josh Roseman, of the National Center for Science Education.
Here are just a few historical facts that Texas changed and these textbooks will be sold in other states:
- The Ten Commandments had an influence on the writing of the U.S. Constitution and that Moses was a democratic leader who influenced the founding fathers. No such historical record exists to support any of that!
- All international terrorism is linked to Islamist fundamentalists. Again nothing supports that!
- Slavery was not a key factor in the Civil War. What, are you kidding me?
What planet does this group of people live on? Oh right they live in Texas and they are trying to change history to support their bible belt beliefs and not the facts as history must be taught! Unfortunately, as I said before, these and other changes in history textbooks were approved late last week. Unbelievable!!! It is apparent that the Texas Board of Education totally lacks any common sense what so ever to do the right thing and not rewrite history. Those who ignore "real" history are bound to repeat it. Will Texas ever learn? Maybe they should teach that the Earth is flat, as the church used to teach until science proved that theory wrong.
I really hope that other states will reject these "new" history textbooks and have the changes removed. I fear that other bible states will follow Texas and teach the "new" history. Something is really screwed up in Texas. No one should ever be allowed to change historical facts for any reason even if it is based on one's religious beliefs.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, November 16, 2014
It Cost How Much?
Hi Everyone,
I had planned my topic for today's blog a few days ago. But, as has happened before, something came to my attention that I believe is more important than my original topic.
I recently blogged about the current Ebola epidemic. So as I was sitting down to write about my original topic, I watched a very interesting news story on NBC news. The story was about the last Doctor who worked in Africa, caught the Ebola virus and was flown to NYC to be treated in a NYC hospital. He was released after he was cured.
Now don't get me wrong, I am highly impressed with the professionals, Doctors and Nurses etc. who risk their own lives to treat people with this killer virus. But, what really surprised me, no, I should say really shocked me, was the cost to treat this person. Can you guess how much it cost to treat the doctor? $500,000, $1,000,000? Nope you would be wrong. $2,000,000, $3,000,000? Again, you would be wrong. $4,000,000, $5,000,000? Again you would be wrong. The cost for his 3 week +/- in hospital stay was, are you sitting down........$20,000,000!!! Yes you read that correctly. Twenty million dollars. That is approximately $952,381 per day. I know that to the doctor's family, every penny spent on saving him was worth it. But, is that cost the true cost, or is it a hyper-inflated cost? I do not know the answer to that question. All I know is that the cost of say 20-40 protective suits per day that all the caregivers had to wear, for sake of argument, may have cost $1,000 a piece; which equals $40,000 +/- per day. It just seems that $921,381 is such an excessive amount for whatever other costs there were. To me, this cost seems extremely exorbitant.
I am not trying to put a price on how much a life is worth. But $20,000,000 seems to be a whole lot of out of line for 3 weeks. During tonight's newscast, NY Senator Charles Schumer, stated that he is having the bill sent to the federal government for reimbursement to the hospital. Ebola is a deadly virus that needs a special isolation room and special protective outerwear to protect the caregivers, but at almost $1,000,000 per day, my common sense is sending up red flags because something doesn't seem right. The cost seems way out of line, especially since there were no special surgery(s) needed. So what gives?
I hope that the hospital's bills are fully scrutinized and that the hospital doesn't become rich for treating just one patient.
Til next week.
Peter
I had planned my topic for today's blog a few days ago. But, as has happened before, something came to my attention that I believe is more important than my original topic.
I recently blogged about the current Ebola epidemic. So as I was sitting down to write about my original topic, I watched a very interesting news story on NBC news. The story was about the last Doctor who worked in Africa, caught the Ebola virus and was flown to NYC to be treated in a NYC hospital. He was released after he was cured.
Now don't get me wrong, I am highly impressed with the professionals, Doctors and Nurses etc. who risk their own lives to treat people with this killer virus. But, what really surprised me, no, I should say really shocked me, was the cost to treat this person. Can you guess how much it cost to treat the doctor? $500,000, $1,000,000? Nope you would be wrong. $2,000,000, $3,000,000? Again, you would be wrong. $4,000,000, $5,000,000? Again you would be wrong. The cost for his 3 week +/- in hospital stay was, are you sitting down........$20,000,000!!! Yes you read that correctly. Twenty million dollars. That is approximately $952,381 per day. I know that to the doctor's family, every penny spent on saving him was worth it. But, is that cost the true cost, or is it a hyper-inflated cost? I do not know the answer to that question. All I know is that the cost of say 20-40 protective suits per day that all the caregivers had to wear, for sake of argument, may have cost $1,000 a piece; which equals $40,000 +/- per day. It just seems that $921,381 is such an excessive amount for whatever other costs there were. To me, this cost seems extremely exorbitant.
I am not trying to put a price on how much a life is worth. But $20,000,000 seems to be a whole lot of out of line for 3 weeks. During tonight's newscast, NY Senator Charles Schumer, stated that he is having the bill sent to the federal government for reimbursement to the hospital. Ebola is a deadly virus that needs a special isolation room and special protective outerwear to protect the caregivers, but at almost $1,000,000 per day, my common sense is sending up red flags because something doesn't seem right. The cost seems way out of line, especially since there were no special surgery(s) needed. So what gives?
I hope that the hospital's bills are fully scrutinized and that the hospital doesn't become rich for treating just one patient.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, November 9, 2014
What's Going On Here?
Hi Everyone,
It is an unbelievable event, but as every one knows, gasoline prices have dropped dramatically. This is unbelievable since the first OPEC oil embargo occurred in 1974. When prices of a barrel of crude oil heads south, OPEC has always cut output to increase the price per barrel. But not this time. OPEC spigots are still open as much as before the price drop. We all remember 2008, when the price of a barrel of oil went so high that the price for a gallon of gasoline reached and surpassed $4.00.
Last week I took a friend for some errands and we drove through Katonah, New York. Katonah has a lot of very wealthy residents on large estates. The price for a gallon as gasoline was $3.90 and a second gas station was selling gas for $3.89. What is wrong with that picture? The price around where we live, (about 15 miles north of Katonah) is around $3.23/ gallon. How can gas stations in Katonah sell gas for $.60 a gallon more? Their prices are more like 2008. Those gas stations buy their gas from the same places as the gas stations that serve our area.
Can it be true that just because one lives in a rich area that they will pay more for gasoline? That doesn't make sense to me. To me it appears that those stations are price gouging and are getting away with it. It has always been this way in Katonah. There is just no common sense as to why they are able to get away with it. I fully understand that greed overrules common sense with some companies in order to make more money. But this has been going on for too long and someone needs to say something to someone to have these stations investigated for price gouging.
Til next week.
Peter
It is an unbelievable event, but as every one knows, gasoline prices have dropped dramatically. This is unbelievable since the first OPEC oil embargo occurred in 1974. When prices of a barrel of crude oil heads south, OPEC has always cut output to increase the price per barrel. But not this time. OPEC spigots are still open as much as before the price drop. We all remember 2008, when the price of a barrel of oil went so high that the price for a gallon of gasoline reached and surpassed $4.00.
Last week I took a friend for some errands and we drove through Katonah, New York. Katonah has a lot of very wealthy residents on large estates. The price for a gallon as gasoline was $3.90 and a second gas station was selling gas for $3.89. What is wrong with that picture? The price around where we live, (about 15 miles north of Katonah) is around $3.23/ gallon. How can gas stations in Katonah sell gas for $.60 a gallon more? Their prices are more like 2008. Those gas stations buy their gas from the same places as the gas stations that serve our area.
Can it be true that just because one lives in a rich area that they will pay more for gasoline? That doesn't make sense to me. To me it appears that those stations are price gouging and are getting away with it. It has always been this way in Katonah. There is just no common sense as to why they are able to get away with it. I fully understand that greed overrules common sense with some companies in order to make more money. But this has been going on for too long and someone needs to say something to someone to have these stations investigated for price gouging.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, October 26, 2014
It's a Miracle and Deserves Many Kudus!
Hi Everyone,
A short time after the first person to have Ebola arrived in NYC last week , my wife and I had a conversation about how to stop people who come from countries that either have Ebola cases or had worked with Ebola patients. My thought was that any person who fit in either category would be immediately quarantined for 21 days. How else could you prevent an Ebola outbreak in a densely populated city such as NYC? To me that was just a common sense solution that would at the very least, try to prevent a potentially dangerous situation from getting out of hand or actually preventing such an occurrence.
So low and behold, (and boy was I surprised), NY Democratic Governor Cuomo and NJ Republican Governor Christie jointly announced that they both had agreed to implement such a preventative plan in both states. This implemented plan is more restrictive than even the CDC's current Ebola regulations. FYI, the last media report from the CDC, was that they were actively discussing the NY, NJ plan in regards to implementing a similar plan nationally. Finally, politicians, who as a group in my opinion, have the least common sense of any other group, were able to come up with and implement a common sense solution in a timely fashion.
Which is the subject of today's blog. In this day and age, politicians from both sides of the aisle have a terrible and caustic aversion to working together. But here we are now and somehow, someway, Governors Cuomo and Christie found common ground that they were able to work together on and then being able to agree on a plan solution and even implementing it to prevent an Ebola outbreak. Congrats to both of them! Unfortunately in this day and age, politicians also have the unbelievable and stupid ability to take any situation and turn it into a war of ideologies. That's why seemingly simple common sense solutions take an eternity to be agreed upon and then implemented. But that's not what Cuomo and Christie did! Not only was I pleasantly shocked to hear about their agreement, but also the speed in which they were able to come up with a common sense solution and then to implement it to boot. Go figure!
I remember when Governor Christie publicly commended President Obama's help and the federal government's response to the destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy. Christie was vehemently criticized by members of his own party. Now Christie works hand in hand with a Democrat to solve a potential mutual problem and not making it a political issue/problem. They proactively acted for once, instead of reacting, which is usually the way it works these days. Who doesn't see that being used against Christie in the near future. This is the way politicians should work and unfortunately doesn't happen very often.
Again, congratulations to both Cuomo and Christie. My hat is off to you both. Maybe, wishful thinking on my part, others from both parties can and will learn from their experience of being able to work together, hand in hand, to get the job done in a timely fashion.
Til next week.
Peter
A short time after the first person to have Ebola arrived in NYC last week , my wife and I had a conversation about how to stop people who come from countries that either have Ebola cases or had worked with Ebola patients. My thought was that any person who fit in either category would be immediately quarantined for 21 days. How else could you prevent an Ebola outbreak in a densely populated city such as NYC? To me that was just a common sense solution that would at the very least, try to prevent a potentially dangerous situation from getting out of hand or actually preventing such an occurrence.
So low and behold, (and boy was I surprised), NY Democratic Governor Cuomo and NJ Republican Governor Christie jointly announced that they both had agreed to implement such a preventative plan in both states. This implemented plan is more restrictive than even the CDC's current Ebola regulations. FYI, the last media report from the CDC, was that they were actively discussing the NY, NJ plan in regards to implementing a similar plan nationally. Finally, politicians, who as a group in my opinion, have the least common sense of any other group, were able to come up with and implement a common sense solution in a timely fashion.
Which is the subject of today's blog. In this day and age, politicians from both sides of the aisle have a terrible and caustic aversion to working together. But here we are now and somehow, someway, Governors Cuomo and Christie found common ground that they were able to work together on and then being able to agree on a plan solution and even implementing it to prevent an Ebola outbreak. Congrats to both of them! Unfortunately in this day and age, politicians also have the unbelievable and stupid ability to take any situation and turn it into a war of ideologies. That's why seemingly simple common sense solutions take an eternity to be agreed upon and then implemented. But that's not what Cuomo and Christie did! Not only was I pleasantly shocked to hear about their agreement, but also the speed in which they were able to come up with a common sense solution and then to implement it to boot. Go figure!
I remember when Governor Christie publicly commended President Obama's help and the federal government's response to the destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy. Christie was vehemently criticized by members of his own party. Now Christie works hand in hand with a Democrat to solve a potential mutual problem and not making it a political issue/problem. They proactively acted for once, instead of reacting, which is usually the way it works these days. Who doesn't see that being used against Christie in the near future. This is the way politicians should work and unfortunately doesn't happen very often.
Again, congratulations to both Cuomo and Christie. My hat is off to you both. Maybe, wishful thinking on my part, others from both parties can and will learn from their experience of being able to work together, hand in hand, to get the job done in a timely fashion.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Not So Fast!
Hi Everyone,
By now we have all heard of or have read about hackers, hacking into Target, Home Depot and other chain stores. Hackers were even able to get into the supposedly secure J.P. Morgan computer system. What we have also learned is that the majority of these hackers are from Russia and China. I am not going to get into how these companies get hacked, other then saying that maybe they should pay more to get a better firewall or whatever they need to stop the hackers. Today's blog is about a smaller scale business that will have ore important consequences.
For those of you not in the know, on 10/6/14, Hilton Hotels Corp. sold their iconic, flagship hotel, The Waldorf=Astoria, (yes it is correct to use the equal sign, which is another story) located at 301 Park Ave., between 49th and 50th streets, for $1.95 billion. Under normal circumstances, other than the price tag, this would be a non story. Unfortunately though, the sale of this iconic hotel may result in serious implications that may actually harm our national security. How is that possible, you may be thinking?
Before I answer that question, let me preface my answer by stating that I worked at the Waldorf=Astoria as their Assistant Director of Personnel for years, back in the early 80's; before being promoted to another Hilton hotel. Consequently, I have the inside scoop on why national security may be in jeopardy due to the sale. First of all, the company who bought it is Anbang Insurance Group. So what's the big deal? Anbang is a Chinese company, which is based in Bejing, China. Terms of the sale allow Hilton to manage the hotel for the next 100 years and also calls for a "major renovation". Since we are aware of China's ability to hack into American company's computer systems and their eavesdropping capabilities, why would this sale be problematic? What many people don't know is that for the past 50 years, the U.S. State Department has leased a residence on the 42nd floor for the home of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. When I worked at the Waldorf, Jeanne Kirkpatrick was the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and lived in the residence. Yes there was security to protect the residence, but that is not the big issue here. In addition to the residence, every president of the U.S. since FDR has stayed in the Presidential Suite. There are lots of other heads of state from other countries that stay there. Also, hundreds of U.S. diplomats stay at the hotel during the annual U.N. General Assembly. As a side note, back in the day, (I am not sure if they still do it), whenever a head of state stayed at the Waldorf, their country's flag was prominently displayed above the Park Ave. entrance. The U.N. even borrowed some of the Waldorf's flags that they didn't have.
As I stated, under the terms of the sale, a major renovation will take place. So let's look at what will most likely happen with the renovation. As in the case with the U.S. embassy built in Moscow, in the 80's, eavesdropping devices were installed throughout the embassy; even with U.S. contractors overseeing the construction. Knowing who lives and stays in the hotel, does anyone think that China's government won't want to install eavesdropping and other electronic devices everywhere? I believe that not only would they want to, but will do it in a heartbeat. China could then listen to every conversation that the U.N. ambassador has, but also, every U.S. president, all the diplomats, heads of state and U.S. elected officials who stay there. Especially during the annual Al Smith dinner. What a freakin gold mine for the Chinese government; where they would have instant access, in real time, of any and all sensitive conversations that takes place. This just can't ever happen!!!
The way I see it, there are only two common sense options. The first is that the U.S. State Department immediately stops using the 42nd floor and doesn't allow any U.S. presidents, diplomats or any other elected officials from staying there or have any meetings there. Obviously any CEO's of any company who stays there would be fair game for China to listen to for their own benefit and profit. The second option is for the sale not to be allowed, which I am sure there would be lots of people against that due to government interference in a private sale.
I can't imagine that the U.S. State Department would allow anyone to stay there which could jeopardize our national security. When I was at the Waldorf, President Reagan stayed there a couple of times. Six to nine months prior to Reagan's visit, the Secret Service task force was in the hotel, having highly classified meetings with executive management to discuss security and background checks on all current and all recently (past 6 months or so) terminated employees. What a windfall for the Chinese government to learn how the Secret Service and NYC police departments protect the presidents who stay there and their minute by minute and day to day schedules, along with any other high profile guests.
FYI, there are many reasons why the Waldorf is used for the U.N ambassador residence and presidential, other dignitary and heads of state stays. The Waldorf has a private, drive through the building's entrance, which keeps prying eyes away. There is limited access to the towers where these dignitary's stay. And it is located in mid-town, where it is semi-close to the U.N.
Lastly, why is it that the U.S. State Department routinely warns U.S. diplomats in China about physical and electronic surveillance and tells Americans in the country to be aware of similar risks, especially in hotels? Because that is what China does!
If the sale can't be reversed, which I think is the best option, then the only common sense option is for the State Department to immediately stop using it and to find another hotel to use asap! Obviously they can't take the chance of using the Waldorf anymore. Which by the way, will be detrimental to the new owners bottom line. Oh well!
Common sense must rule here, without any second thoughts.
Til next week.
Peter
By now we have all heard of or have read about hackers, hacking into Target, Home Depot and other chain stores. Hackers were even able to get into the supposedly secure J.P. Morgan computer system. What we have also learned is that the majority of these hackers are from Russia and China. I am not going to get into how these companies get hacked, other then saying that maybe they should pay more to get a better firewall or whatever they need to stop the hackers. Today's blog is about a smaller scale business that will have ore important consequences.
For those of you not in the know, on 10/6/14, Hilton Hotels Corp. sold their iconic, flagship hotel, The Waldorf=Astoria, (yes it is correct to use the equal sign, which is another story) located at 301 Park Ave., between 49th and 50th streets, for $1.95 billion. Under normal circumstances, other than the price tag, this would be a non story. Unfortunately though, the sale of this iconic hotel may result in serious implications that may actually harm our national security. How is that possible, you may be thinking?
Before I answer that question, let me preface my answer by stating that I worked at the Waldorf=Astoria as their Assistant Director of Personnel for years, back in the early 80's; before being promoted to another Hilton hotel. Consequently, I have the inside scoop on why national security may be in jeopardy due to the sale. First of all, the company who bought it is Anbang Insurance Group. So what's the big deal? Anbang is a Chinese company, which is based in Bejing, China. Terms of the sale allow Hilton to manage the hotel for the next 100 years and also calls for a "major renovation". Since we are aware of China's ability to hack into American company's computer systems and their eavesdropping capabilities, why would this sale be problematic? What many people don't know is that for the past 50 years, the U.S. State Department has leased a residence on the 42nd floor for the home of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. When I worked at the Waldorf, Jeanne Kirkpatrick was the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and lived in the residence. Yes there was security to protect the residence, but that is not the big issue here. In addition to the residence, every president of the U.S. since FDR has stayed in the Presidential Suite. There are lots of other heads of state from other countries that stay there. Also, hundreds of U.S. diplomats stay at the hotel during the annual U.N. General Assembly. As a side note, back in the day, (I am not sure if they still do it), whenever a head of state stayed at the Waldorf, their country's flag was prominently displayed above the Park Ave. entrance. The U.N. even borrowed some of the Waldorf's flags that they didn't have.
As I stated, under the terms of the sale, a major renovation will take place. So let's look at what will most likely happen with the renovation. As in the case with the U.S. embassy built in Moscow, in the 80's, eavesdropping devices were installed throughout the embassy; even with U.S. contractors overseeing the construction. Knowing who lives and stays in the hotel, does anyone think that China's government won't want to install eavesdropping and other electronic devices everywhere? I believe that not only would they want to, but will do it in a heartbeat. China could then listen to every conversation that the U.N. ambassador has, but also, every U.S. president, all the diplomats, heads of state and U.S. elected officials who stay there. Especially during the annual Al Smith dinner. What a freakin gold mine for the Chinese government; where they would have instant access, in real time, of any and all sensitive conversations that takes place. This just can't ever happen!!!
The way I see it, there are only two common sense options. The first is that the U.S. State Department immediately stops using the 42nd floor and doesn't allow any U.S. presidents, diplomats or any other elected officials from staying there or have any meetings there. Obviously any CEO's of any company who stays there would be fair game for China to listen to for their own benefit and profit. The second option is for the sale not to be allowed, which I am sure there would be lots of people against that due to government interference in a private sale.
I can't imagine that the U.S. State Department would allow anyone to stay there which could jeopardize our national security. When I was at the Waldorf, President Reagan stayed there a couple of times. Six to nine months prior to Reagan's visit, the Secret Service task force was in the hotel, having highly classified meetings with executive management to discuss security and background checks on all current and all recently (past 6 months or so) terminated employees. What a windfall for the Chinese government to learn how the Secret Service and NYC police departments protect the presidents who stay there and their minute by minute and day to day schedules, along with any other high profile guests.
FYI, there are many reasons why the Waldorf is used for the U.N ambassador residence and presidential, other dignitary and heads of state stays. The Waldorf has a private, drive through the building's entrance, which keeps prying eyes away. There is limited access to the towers where these dignitary's stay. And it is located in mid-town, where it is semi-close to the U.N.
Lastly, why is it that the U.S. State Department routinely warns U.S. diplomats in China about physical and electronic surveillance and tells Americans in the country to be aware of similar risks, especially in hotels? Because that is what China does!
If the sale can't be reversed, which I think is the best option, then the only common sense option is for the State Department to immediately stop using it and to find another hotel to use asap! Obviously they can't take the chance of using the Waldorf anymore. Which by the way, will be detrimental to the new owners bottom line. Oh well!
Common sense must rule here, without any second thoughts.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Will Money Rule?
Hi Everyone,
For those of you not in the know, New York State has decided, (with voter approval last November), that the distressed upstate portions of the state need a shot of big business economic development. The big economical development that voters approved is for up to 4 non-Indian owned licenses for full blown casinos in 3 regions. There would be more jobs and extra money for school systems. Basically sounds good until you look at Atlantic City's casinos where 4 casinos have recently closed. But that is not what today's blog is about.
Genting Americas is one of the companies interested in building a casino in Orange County. All of the companies interested in building a casino in the state had to submit a licensing fee of $70 million. Genting in their infinite wisdom wants to pay a fee of $450 million. That is obviously $380 million more than the state is requiring. Why would Genting want to pay that excessive amount? The reason is simple, they want to build their casino not in a distressed region, but rather in Orange County, where unemployment is lower then the rest of the state and the area's personal income is in the top third of the state's 62 counties. Orange County is not distressed! But that is exactly why Genting wants to build it there.
It is obviously more profitable to build a casino in a wealthy area where people have more money to spend. It is also more profitable to tap into the New York City day trippers rather than have to count on overnight visitors. Thirty five miles south of Orange County is the Yonkers Raceway, (Empire City), which has slot machines and no gambling tables. The Yonkers school system receives $20 million each year from Empire City. If a casino is built 35 miles away, that will siphon people and money from Empire City and hence the Yonkers school system which really needs the money. In addition, one of the regions that really needs help is the Catskills, which has never been the same since their heyday of the 50's and 60's. Several potential casino operators said that they will withdraw their plans if a casino opens next door in Orange County.
What Genting is trying to do is build a casino where THEY want and not where the casino is needed. They want the state's gaming commission to throw out the language of last year's amendment and instead accept their whopping, excessive fee. The bottom line is that an Orange County casino will cannibalize a large part of the existing casino gambling market rather than expand it. There will be only one winner if Genting gets its way and that is Genting.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and Genting won't be allowed to buy a constitutional amendment. Only time will tell. Other regions need the economic help, not Orange County. New York State should not sell out and should listen to what the voters approved.
Til next week.
Peter
For those of you not in the know, New York State has decided, (with voter approval last November), that the distressed upstate portions of the state need a shot of big business economic development. The big economical development that voters approved is for up to 4 non-Indian owned licenses for full blown casinos in 3 regions. There would be more jobs and extra money for school systems. Basically sounds good until you look at Atlantic City's casinos where 4 casinos have recently closed. But that is not what today's blog is about.
Genting Americas is one of the companies interested in building a casino in Orange County. All of the companies interested in building a casino in the state had to submit a licensing fee of $70 million. Genting in their infinite wisdom wants to pay a fee of $450 million. That is obviously $380 million more than the state is requiring. Why would Genting want to pay that excessive amount? The reason is simple, they want to build their casino not in a distressed region, but rather in Orange County, where unemployment is lower then the rest of the state and the area's personal income is in the top third of the state's 62 counties. Orange County is not distressed! But that is exactly why Genting wants to build it there.
It is obviously more profitable to build a casino in a wealthy area where people have more money to spend. It is also more profitable to tap into the New York City day trippers rather than have to count on overnight visitors. Thirty five miles south of Orange County is the Yonkers Raceway, (Empire City), which has slot machines and no gambling tables. The Yonkers school system receives $20 million each year from Empire City. If a casino is built 35 miles away, that will siphon people and money from Empire City and hence the Yonkers school system which really needs the money. In addition, one of the regions that really needs help is the Catskills, which has never been the same since their heyday of the 50's and 60's. Several potential casino operators said that they will withdraw their plans if a casino opens next door in Orange County.
What Genting is trying to do is build a casino where THEY want and not where the casino is needed. They want the state's gaming commission to throw out the language of last year's amendment and instead accept their whopping, excessive fee. The bottom line is that an Orange County casino will cannibalize a large part of the existing casino gambling market rather than expand it. There will be only one winner if Genting gets its way and that is Genting.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and Genting won't be allowed to buy a constitutional amendment. Only time will tell. Other regions need the economic help, not Orange County. New York State should not sell out and should listen to what the voters approved.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Another Reason!
Hi Everyone,
The majority of my blogs have been about people who lack any common sense due to greed. Greed seems to be able to make people do acts that defy common sense. We have all seen on TV or in the written media about intelligent people who do or say something soooo stupid and the bottom line for what they said or did was greed.
Today's blog is about another reason for people who prove that they have absolutely no common sense, namely........... rage and in today's case it is road rage. Per my Gannett paper, the story goes: the other day at noon, in South Nyack, New York, on the corner of Clinton Avenue and South Broadway a bicyclist had a road rage incident. For unknown reasons, the bicyclist banged his fist on the hood of a car and then he reached inside the car and grabbed a passenger with both hands. Now here's what really takes the cake; the bicyclist did all that while both the car and the bicycle were moving. Unbelievably, the bicyclist was not hurt and there was no accident during his fit of rage.
To put one's life in extreme jeopardy like this bicyclist did obviously showed his utter lack of common sense. His road rage, for whatever reason he may have had, overpowered his ability to use any common sense, if he had any. I just can't fathom putting my own life in extreme jeopardy, with a high risk of injury or even death for road rage. It just isn't worth it. My common sense would rule over anger. This is another good reason to have some kind of high school or college level course of study on common sense. For some people, life lessons haven't helped them figure out what common sense is and when to use it. Unfortunately, common sense isn't a born instinct, but rather a learned quality that everyone needs to have in our tool box!
Til next week.
Peter
The majority of my blogs have been about people who lack any common sense due to greed. Greed seems to be able to make people do acts that defy common sense. We have all seen on TV or in the written media about intelligent people who do or say something soooo stupid and the bottom line for what they said or did was greed.
Today's blog is about another reason for people who prove that they have absolutely no common sense, namely........... rage and in today's case it is road rage. Per my Gannett paper, the story goes: the other day at noon, in South Nyack, New York, on the corner of Clinton Avenue and South Broadway a bicyclist had a road rage incident. For unknown reasons, the bicyclist banged his fist on the hood of a car and then he reached inside the car and grabbed a passenger with both hands. Now here's what really takes the cake; the bicyclist did all that while both the car and the bicycle were moving. Unbelievably, the bicyclist was not hurt and there was no accident during his fit of rage.
To put one's life in extreme jeopardy like this bicyclist did obviously showed his utter lack of common sense. His road rage, for whatever reason he may have had, overpowered his ability to use any common sense, if he had any. I just can't fathom putting my own life in extreme jeopardy, with a high risk of injury or even death for road rage. It just isn't worth it. My common sense would rule over anger. This is another good reason to have some kind of high school or college level course of study on common sense. For some people, life lessons haven't helped them figure out what common sense is and when to use it. Unfortunately, common sense isn't a born instinct, but rather a learned quality that everyone needs to have in our tool box!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, September 21, 2014
And the Winner of Last Week's Biggest Lie Goes to................
Hi Everyone,
By now you all know that I am an equal party abuser. I call them like I see them, using facts, not innuendo, spin or lies. Just the facts and nothing but the facts!
Last week Michelle Obama gave an interview. During the interview, she was asked what her plans were after her husband leaves office. Mrs. Obama stated that her post-White House chapter life will not be a political one. President Obama confirmed that his wife had no interest in running for office or having a political career after he leaves office. So let me get this correct with her straight forward answer to a straight forward question and her husband's concurrence: Mrs. Obama is not interested and does not want a political career. Her statement obviously means that she is not interested in running for President or any other elected or non-elected political position, period, end of story!
Well not so fast as to the end of the story. Interesting enough, there is a politician who doesn't either: understand the English language, believes the exact opposite of what someone says and/or just doesn't have an ounce of common sense. The politician I am writing about is Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. Senator Kirk is considering a run for President in 2016. So what did this supposedly intelligent politician do? According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Kirk sent out a fundraising letter invoking the first lady as his possible opponent in 2016. Why did he think Mrs. Obama might be his opponent? Kirk stated in his campaign solicitation, that he heard this from "the press and rumor mills." In addition, he stated in his request for money that he takes, "all potential threats seriously." Really? Mrs. Obama is a threat to him? Even when she stated ever so explicitly that she isn't interested in a political career. Any politician who believes rumors as fact ought to be voted out of office ASAP!
Kirk's statements are an outright, bold face lie!!! This is all part of the fear mongering and the spreading of falsehoods based on lies or based on rumor mills that the GOP does oh so well. Since I do not know Kirk personally, nor do I want to, I can't comment on his intelligence. But his utter lack of common sense is self explanatory as evidenced by his own solicitation letter. I can't wait to hear how Kirk or his "people" will spin the facts on his absurd and false written statements. Chicago voters should take heed when he is up for re-election. Additionally, the American voter should also take heed if Kirk absurdly decides to run for President. Once a liar, always a liar.
Enough said.
Til next week.
Peter
By now you all know that I am an equal party abuser. I call them like I see them, using facts, not innuendo, spin or lies. Just the facts and nothing but the facts!
Last week Michelle Obama gave an interview. During the interview, she was asked what her plans were after her husband leaves office. Mrs. Obama stated that her post-White House chapter life will not be a political one. President Obama confirmed that his wife had no interest in running for office or having a political career after he leaves office. So let me get this correct with her straight forward answer to a straight forward question and her husband's concurrence: Mrs. Obama is not interested and does not want a political career. Her statement obviously means that she is not interested in running for President or any other elected or non-elected political position, period, end of story!
Well not so fast as to the end of the story. Interesting enough, there is a politician who doesn't either: understand the English language, believes the exact opposite of what someone says and/or just doesn't have an ounce of common sense. The politician I am writing about is Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. Senator Kirk is considering a run for President in 2016. So what did this supposedly intelligent politician do? According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Kirk sent out a fundraising letter invoking the first lady as his possible opponent in 2016. Why did he think Mrs. Obama might be his opponent? Kirk stated in his campaign solicitation, that he heard this from "the press and rumor mills." In addition, he stated in his request for money that he takes, "all potential threats seriously." Really? Mrs. Obama is a threat to him? Even when she stated ever so explicitly that she isn't interested in a political career. Any politician who believes rumors as fact ought to be voted out of office ASAP!
Kirk's statements are an outright, bold face lie!!! This is all part of the fear mongering and the spreading of falsehoods based on lies or based on rumor mills that the GOP does oh so well. Since I do not know Kirk personally, nor do I want to, I can't comment on his intelligence. But his utter lack of common sense is self explanatory as evidenced by his own solicitation letter. I can't wait to hear how Kirk or his "people" will spin the facts on his absurd and false written statements. Chicago voters should take heed when he is up for re-election. Additionally, the American voter should also take heed if Kirk absurdly decides to run for President. Once a liar, always a liar.
Enough said.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, September 7, 2014
When is The Law of the Land, Not the Law of the Land?
Hi Everyone,
Last week I blogged about the 9 year old girl who accidentally shot her instructor and the NRA's lack of real concern about changing anything, especially any new laws. Well that got me thinking.........
The NRA's biggest defender and maybe its biggest backer, is the Republican party. Any talk of stricter gun control, especially after what happened in Newtown, Ct., becomes a fire storm with the GOP and NRA going hand-in-hand in opposing any and all changes to the constitution that restricts: gun ownership or magazine loads or semi or automatic weapons. So when the GOP likes an amendment, they protect it with all their might and will use all the financial resources they can muster to oppose their opposition.
But, what happens when the GOP doesn't like a constitutional amendment? They try to block and stop the law by using back door means. What law? Legal abortion is what I am talking about. Now I do respect religious women and men whose faith opposes abortion. But, for all the other women, it is their decision to make and not some political group who want their religious beliefs entwined with laws. This country was built on the belief that there should be a separation between church and state. But not if the GOP has its way.
So how does the GOP circumvent Roe vs. Wade? By enacting laws that will close legal abortion/planned parenthood clinics. The GOP should not be allowed to make citizens look up their rights by zip code. Per a recent magazine article, women who live in one of the following states, their rights are especially endangered:
Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee and Utah now have Texas style hospital admitting restrictions. Numerous clinics have shut down since they were too far away from any hospitals. People too poor to travel vast distances are now left out of making their own choice, since their choice was taken away.
Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi and Wisconsin admitting laws are currently held up in court. If approved, Mississippi could end up with no clinics. Again, no choice.
Ohio has a law that providers must have an agreement with a hospital, but public hospitals are banned by law from making such an agreement. Where is their common sense?
Louisiana's admitting law kicked in this month. Three of the state's five clinics might close.
Oklahoma's admitting law goes in effect November 1. Two of the state's three clinics might shut down.
So these new laws are forcing legal clinics to close, leaving women with no choice; which is the choice their political representatives made for them. No clinics, no choice. How sad!!!
Again, politicians have no common sense. The law of the land should apply to all citizens. It amazes me how the GOP circumvents laws that doesn't suit their religious beliefs! I find that oh so tragic. Especially since the GOP was totally against John F. Kennedy running for President because he was a practicing Catholic and the first Catholic elected President. The GOP was very afraid that Kennedy would make decisions based on his religious beliefs or on orders from the Vatican. But isn't that exactly what the GOP is doing now? Of course it is. Talk about flip flopping!
Under the law, women have the right to choice. Interference from the government, in this case state governments, is totally unacceptable. Keep the separation of church and state.
Remember this when you vote.
Til next week.
Peter
Last week I blogged about the 9 year old girl who accidentally shot her instructor and the NRA's lack of real concern about changing anything, especially any new laws. Well that got me thinking.........
The NRA's biggest defender and maybe its biggest backer, is the Republican party. Any talk of stricter gun control, especially after what happened in Newtown, Ct., becomes a fire storm with the GOP and NRA going hand-in-hand in opposing any and all changes to the constitution that restricts: gun ownership or magazine loads or semi or automatic weapons. So when the GOP likes an amendment, they protect it with all their might and will use all the financial resources they can muster to oppose their opposition.
But, what happens when the GOP doesn't like a constitutional amendment? They try to block and stop the law by using back door means. What law? Legal abortion is what I am talking about. Now I do respect religious women and men whose faith opposes abortion. But, for all the other women, it is their decision to make and not some political group who want their religious beliefs entwined with laws. This country was built on the belief that there should be a separation between church and state. But not if the GOP has its way.
So how does the GOP circumvent Roe vs. Wade? By enacting laws that will close legal abortion/planned parenthood clinics. The GOP should not be allowed to make citizens look up their rights by zip code. Per a recent magazine article, women who live in one of the following states, their rights are especially endangered:
Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee and Utah now have Texas style hospital admitting restrictions. Numerous clinics have shut down since they were too far away from any hospitals. People too poor to travel vast distances are now left out of making their own choice, since their choice was taken away.
Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi and Wisconsin admitting laws are currently held up in court. If approved, Mississippi could end up with no clinics. Again, no choice.
Ohio has a law that providers must have an agreement with a hospital, but public hospitals are banned by law from making such an agreement. Where is their common sense?
Louisiana's admitting law kicked in this month. Three of the state's five clinics might close.
Oklahoma's admitting law goes in effect November 1. Two of the state's three clinics might shut down.
So these new laws are forcing legal clinics to close, leaving women with no choice; which is the choice their political representatives made for them. No clinics, no choice. How sad!!!
Again, politicians have no common sense. The law of the land should apply to all citizens. It amazes me how the GOP circumvents laws that doesn't suit their religious beliefs! I find that oh so tragic. Especially since the GOP was totally against John F. Kennedy running for President because he was a practicing Catholic and the first Catholic elected President. The GOP was very afraid that Kennedy would make decisions based on his religious beliefs or on orders from the Vatican. But isn't that exactly what the GOP is doing now? Of course it is. Talk about flip flopping!
Under the law, women have the right to choice. Interference from the government, in this case state governments, is totally unacceptable. Keep the separation of church and state.
Remember this when you vote.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, August 31, 2014
This Just Isn't Right!!!
Hi Everyone,
This blog is about one of those story's that just boggles the mind. How could such an incident occur? A complete and utter lack of common sense is the only explanation as to why it did happen.
Last week, a 9 year old girl, while taking gun lessons, accidentally shot and killed her instructor. The little girl was taking lessons, with her parents approval and permission, on shooting a Uzi, sub machine gun. My understanding is that there are settings on Uzi's that can make it a single shot or multiple shot, (semi-automatic) gun. The girl was able to handle the recoil of the single shot mode. But when the instructor switched the gun to semi-automatic mode, the girl was not able to handle the recoil; by being unable to hold the gun facing the target. Instead, she unfortunately allowed the gun to veer off to her left side, where her instructor was standing. In a nano second, the gun fired, and the instructor was shot once in the head and died shortly thereafter.
I feel so sorry for this little 9 year girl, who will most likely be scarred for life, with her vivid memory of what happened. What her parents thinking? That a little girl could handle the recoil of a semi-automatic gun? Obviously the parents used absolutely no common sense in allowing their daughter to shoot this weapon. But also, how is this even legal? But what really amazes me is that the gun range thought this was a good idea. Did you know that there are more restrictions on children being able to ride a roller coaster, (they all have height restrictions) than shooting a very dangerous weapon that can easily and in this case did kill a person?
To add salt to this wound, the NRA, in their infinite wisdom, said that gun ranges need to use more common sense, (now they think about common sense?). A little to late for this instructor and little girl. The NRA also stated, as usual, that the need for more laws restricting this activity is not necessary. That the ranges can self police themselves. Really??? I think not, as evidenced by this incident.
Yes, new laws with age restrictions should be passed asap, so this kind of tragedy can never happen again. Leaving gun ranges to "police" themselves will never happen, especially when there is money to make, trying to teach little children to use weapons that should only be used by adults.
It is time for the NRA to get its act together and stop the insanity!!!
Til next week.
Peter
This blog is about one of those story's that just boggles the mind. How could such an incident occur? A complete and utter lack of common sense is the only explanation as to why it did happen.
Last week, a 9 year old girl, while taking gun lessons, accidentally shot and killed her instructor. The little girl was taking lessons, with her parents approval and permission, on shooting a Uzi, sub machine gun. My understanding is that there are settings on Uzi's that can make it a single shot or multiple shot, (semi-automatic) gun. The girl was able to handle the recoil of the single shot mode. But when the instructor switched the gun to semi-automatic mode, the girl was not able to handle the recoil; by being unable to hold the gun facing the target. Instead, she unfortunately allowed the gun to veer off to her left side, where her instructor was standing. In a nano second, the gun fired, and the instructor was shot once in the head and died shortly thereafter.
I feel so sorry for this little 9 year girl, who will most likely be scarred for life, with her vivid memory of what happened. What her parents thinking? That a little girl could handle the recoil of a semi-automatic gun? Obviously the parents used absolutely no common sense in allowing their daughter to shoot this weapon. But also, how is this even legal? But what really amazes me is that the gun range thought this was a good idea. Did you know that there are more restrictions on children being able to ride a roller coaster, (they all have height restrictions) than shooting a very dangerous weapon that can easily and in this case did kill a person?
To add salt to this wound, the NRA, in their infinite wisdom, said that gun ranges need to use more common sense, (now they think about common sense?). A little to late for this instructor and little girl. The NRA also stated, as usual, that the need for more laws restricting this activity is not necessary. That the ranges can self police themselves. Really??? I think not, as evidenced by this incident.
Yes, new laws with age restrictions should be passed asap, so this kind of tragedy can never happen again. Leaving gun ranges to "police" themselves will never happen, especially when there is money to make, trying to teach little children to use weapons that should only be used by adults.
It is time for the NRA to get its act together and stop the insanity!!!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Haves and Have-Nots
Hi Everyone,
Sometimes you hear or read about something and say, what are they thinking, that makes no sense. Well, today's blog is about just that.
And the back story goes like this... In order for a Manhattan condo skyscraper to be built with government incentives/assistance, the developer had to set aside a certain number of units with affordable rents. The rest of the condos are very pricey, they most likely are for the 1% ers. From the outside looking in, the deal seems to be OK. That type of deal is used widely in New York City. But, when you look into the realities, the deal may not be so good, especially for the renters of the affordable apartments.
NYC is a city where the rich and relatively poor have long lived and commuted side by side. The civil rights acts of the 1960's, stopped the segregation of African Americans and other minorities. But now a new trend is appearing that should have people talking about whether it is appropriate and even legal. The new trend is buildings with separate amenities and even entrances for the haves and have-nots. A few buildings now have a side entrance for the renters, with the main entrance only for the people who could afford to buy the pricey condos. There are even some buildings where the renters aren't allowed to use amenities like fitness centers. In those same buildings, the owners of condos don't even have to pay a bloody cent to use their fitness centers.
Is it just me or are the renters being treated like second class citizens? Of course they are. How can this be legal? Owners are using affordable housing tax breaks, zoning breaks and other incentives to create a caste system. Developers say that they are motivated by business, not bias and reserving some prime features for higher paying residents is the price of having affordable housing in hot neighborhoods. I guess a prime feature is the main entrance, which the renters of affordable apartments are forbidden from using. So the developers have the have-nots walk around to the side of of the building where they won't be seen. Doesn't that sound like bias and segregation to you? It does to me. This is all about money and greed.
Will this lead to separate entrances to Neiman-Marcus like stores or high end restaurants, etc., etc.? I think not, but what is happening with the high end residential buildings has got to stop asap. Jean Green Dorsey agrees with me, as she filed a complaint with the NYC Human Rights Commission this past spring over her Upper West Side building's fitness center. She and her fellow rent stabilized tenants are not allowed to use the fitness center even after they offered to pay.
Obviously, common sense was never a consideration and now these developers/owners are receiving the bad publicity that they rightfully deserve.
Til next.
Peter
Sometimes you hear or read about something and say, what are they thinking, that makes no sense. Well, today's blog is about just that.
And the back story goes like this... In order for a Manhattan condo skyscraper to be built with government incentives/assistance, the developer had to set aside a certain number of units with affordable rents. The rest of the condos are very pricey, they most likely are for the 1% ers. From the outside looking in, the deal seems to be OK. That type of deal is used widely in New York City. But, when you look into the realities, the deal may not be so good, especially for the renters of the affordable apartments.
NYC is a city where the rich and relatively poor have long lived and commuted side by side. The civil rights acts of the 1960's, stopped the segregation of African Americans and other minorities. But now a new trend is appearing that should have people talking about whether it is appropriate and even legal. The new trend is buildings with separate amenities and even entrances for the haves and have-nots. A few buildings now have a side entrance for the renters, with the main entrance only for the people who could afford to buy the pricey condos. There are even some buildings where the renters aren't allowed to use amenities like fitness centers. In those same buildings, the owners of condos don't even have to pay a bloody cent to use their fitness centers.
Is it just me or are the renters being treated like second class citizens? Of course they are. How can this be legal? Owners are using affordable housing tax breaks, zoning breaks and other incentives to create a caste system. Developers say that they are motivated by business, not bias and reserving some prime features for higher paying residents is the price of having affordable housing in hot neighborhoods. I guess a prime feature is the main entrance, which the renters of affordable apartments are forbidden from using. So the developers have the have-nots walk around to the side of of the building where they won't be seen. Doesn't that sound like bias and segregation to you? It does to me. This is all about money and greed.
Will this lead to separate entrances to Neiman-Marcus like stores or high end restaurants, etc., etc.? I think not, but what is happening with the high end residential buildings has got to stop asap. Jean Green Dorsey agrees with me, as she filed a complaint with the NYC Human Rights Commission this past spring over her Upper West Side building's fitness center. She and her fellow rent stabilized tenants are not allowed to use the fitness center even after they offered to pay.
Obviously, common sense was never a consideration and now these developers/owners are receiving the bad publicity that they rightfully deserve.
Til next.
Peter
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Fact or Fiction
Hi Everyone,
Today's topic has very unfortunately become a very hot button political issue. The problem should have never become political, but in today's Washington, D.C., what else would you expect. If one side says it is dark outside the other side will disagree saying the opposite.
So what is today's topic? Global warming. As always, I like to deal with facts and just the facts. Not innuendo, spin or outright lies. So let's check out some facts about global warming from the 6/23 issue of Time magazine.
1) Weather records have been kept in this country since the mid 1800's.
2) Since the mid to late 1800's, at the start of the industrial revolution, man has pumped an unknown amount of pollutants into our atmosphere. While at the same time, more forests were being wiped out for their wood.
3) Scientists have already documented a 5" to 8" increase in the sea level around South Florida over the past 50 years.
4) The first 13 years of this century were among the hottest since records have been kept.
5) California is in the midst of the worst ever drought in their history.
6) With each passing year, forest fires burn more and more acreage, especially in the West.
7) Not only the rate, but also the amount of polar ice melting not only affect sea levels, but also affects weather patterns around the world.
8) Just during the last 4 years, from the mid-Atlantic up the northeast coast, has seen more severe summer and winter storms. Just at my home, 60 miles north of NYC, lately when it rains, it's never a little shower, when it rains it is more like the sky just opens up and deluges us. For years now, during the winter, we don't get a lot of little snow storms, we get dumped on with 6 or10 or 14 or more inches of snow. Schools around here been talking about setting aside more snow days in addition to the 5 or so days already allotted.
Those are the indisputable scientifically proven facts. There are more, but you get the picture. But here is another fact, only 40% of Americans "strongly agreed" that the earth is getting warmer. That is a very sad number. I believe that our polarized politics is at the very least, creating our apathy towards global warming. In other countries, it is the majority of people who believe that our earth is getting warmer. The problem here is that Republicans have outright rejected climate science. Kinds of reminds me when the Catholic church told all that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of our universe. A very long time ago science proved them all wrong. So why doesn't the scientific proof convince them now? Good question. Science is science and not believing sends us back to the dark ages.
Global warming is occurring now! And common sense says that now is the time to start acting not in the future. The future is also now! Please don't let spin and deceit guide you into thinking that we humans have not had a lot of influence on this problem and that global warming is happening as you read this.
Enough said.
Til next week.
Peter
Today's topic has very unfortunately become a very hot button political issue. The problem should have never become political, but in today's Washington, D.C., what else would you expect. If one side says it is dark outside the other side will disagree saying the opposite.
So what is today's topic? Global warming. As always, I like to deal with facts and just the facts. Not innuendo, spin or outright lies. So let's check out some facts about global warming from the 6/23 issue of Time magazine.
1) Weather records have been kept in this country since the mid 1800's.
2) Since the mid to late 1800's, at the start of the industrial revolution, man has pumped an unknown amount of pollutants into our atmosphere. While at the same time, more forests were being wiped out for their wood.
3) Scientists have already documented a 5" to 8" increase in the sea level around South Florida over the past 50 years.
4) The first 13 years of this century were among the hottest since records have been kept.
5) California is in the midst of the worst ever drought in their history.
6) With each passing year, forest fires burn more and more acreage, especially in the West.
7) Not only the rate, but also the amount of polar ice melting not only affect sea levels, but also affects weather patterns around the world.
8) Just during the last 4 years, from the mid-Atlantic up the northeast coast, has seen more severe summer and winter storms. Just at my home, 60 miles north of NYC, lately when it rains, it's never a little shower, when it rains it is more like the sky just opens up and deluges us. For years now, during the winter, we don't get a lot of little snow storms, we get dumped on with 6 or10 or 14 or more inches of snow. Schools around here been talking about setting aside more snow days in addition to the 5 or so days already allotted.
Those are the indisputable scientifically proven facts. There are more, but you get the picture. But here is another fact, only 40% of Americans "strongly agreed" that the earth is getting warmer. That is a very sad number. I believe that our polarized politics is at the very least, creating our apathy towards global warming. In other countries, it is the majority of people who believe that our earth is getting warmer. The problem here is that Republicans have outright rejected climate science. Kinds of reminds me when the Catholic church told all that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of our universe. A very long time ago science proved them all wrong. So why doesn't the scientific proof convince them now? Good question. Science is science and not believing sends us back to the dark ages.
Global warming is occurring now! And common sense says that now is the time to start acting not in the future. The future is also now! Please don't let spin and deceit guide you into thinking that we humans have not had a lot of influence on this problem and that global warming is happening as you read this.
Enough said.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Voodoo Economics
Hi Everyone,
Way back when, while I was in college, I took 3 economic courses. During my freshman year, the first course that I took was economics 101. It was during that course that I learned about the fundamental concept of supply and demand. It is a relatively easy concept to understand.
Demand: refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers. The quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price. The relationship between price and quantity demanded is known as the demand relationship.
Supply: represents how much the market can offer. The quantity supplied refers to the amount of a certain good producers are willing to supply when receiving a certain price. The correlation between price and how much a good or service is supplied to the market is known as the supply relationship. Price therefore is a reflection of supply and demand.
So that is what I learned so long ago; about supply and demand and how this fundamental concept has been around for a very long time. Until now that is. Over the last decade, orange juice consumption has dropped a whopping 40%. So you would think that since demand has fallen and supplies increased, the price would drop. Not so fast. When was the last time OJ prices dropped? The prices have not fallen, but have actually risen. So what do you do in this day and age if demand is down and supplies are up? In this day and age, that means charging more for the product. Isn't it obvious that the higher prices of OJ is more about greed than about supply and demand. I am not surprised about this turning against a fundamental concept in order to make more money. Greed certainly rules here and common sense is again either tossed out the window or is totally ignored, which hurts us the consumer.
So today's supply and demand concept no longer means what it used to.
Til next week.
Peter
Way back when, while I was in college, I took 3 economic courses. During my freshman year, the first course that I took was economics 101. It was during that course that I learned about the fundamental concept of supply and demand. It is a relatively easy concept to understand.
Demand: refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers. The quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price. The relationship between price and quantity demanded is known as the demand relationship.
Supply: represents how much the market can offer. The quantity supplied refers to the amount of a certain good producers are willing to supply when receiving a certain price. The correlation between price and how much a good or service is supplied to the market is known as the supply relationship. Price therefore is a reflection of supply and demand.
So that is what I learned so long ago; about supply and demand and how this fundamental concept has been around for a very long time. Until now that is. Over the last decade, orange juice consumption has dropped a whopping 40%. So you would think that since demand has fallen and supplies increased, the price would drop. Not so fast. When was the last time OJ prices dropped? The prices have not fallen, but have actually risen. So what do you do in this day and age if demand is down and supplies are up? In this day and age, that means charging more for the product. Isn't it obvious that the higher prices of OJ is more about greed than about supply and demand. I am not surprised about this turning against a fundamental concept in order to make more money. Greed certainly rules here and common sense is again either tossed out the window or is totally ignored, which hurts us the consumer.
So today's supply and demand concept no longer means what it used to.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Tooting My Own Horn
Hi Everyone,
For those of you who don't know, I am the original owner of a 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity Eurosport CL. It has 33 out of 38 options and is still a dream to drive, just like when it was new. But what my car is not, is a muscle car. It was built for high gas mileage and luxury. Through all of the last 28 years, I have somehow managed to keep the car in excellent condition. Actually it is in show condition and going to car shows is what I do with the car. FYI, it has not been a daily driver for over 11 years.
I have been showing the car for 15 years, long before you stopped seeing them on the road. Now when I show it, there are always people who come over to talk to me about my car. Almost all the people either had a similar car or knew someone who did. People tell me that when they go to car shows they expect to see, mustangs, vettes, 57 chevys, camaros, road runners, chargers and cudas, etc., etc., but they never expect to see a celebrity. They all rave about what a great car it was and what a surprise to see one in such great condition at a car show. But it is when they learn how many miles are on it that they are really surprised. My car has over 300,000 miles on it and it still looks almost new. When I talk to other car owners, it is not unusual for classic cars to change hands 3,4,5 or more times since it was new. So if the car was already in show condition, the new owners are just maintaining what prior owners did to the car. But I have taken care of this car for 28 years and have kept it show condition. People can and do really appreciate that fact.
For all the years I have been attending car shows, I never expect to win to any trophies for multiple reasons: it is a 1986, it is a celebrity and it has 300,000 miles. All those are strikes against me for winning anything. For the past 5 years or so, the newest form of collecting cars is what is called a survivor car. It will have original paint, rust is common and it runs. My car is not a survivor car since it was repainted, (due to a GM recall) when it was 6 years old. So I always joke with people that they should give trophies for highest mileage / best looking car. But of course, there is no such award.
Last night, my wife and I attended a local car show. There were approximately 50 or so cars there. Most of the cars were from the 60's and 70's and there were only 2 cars from the 80's. When the trophies were being awarded there was a Judge's favorite 4 cars category. The Judge named the first 3 favorite cars and they were the usual type of winning cars. Then the 4th car number was called. Both my wife and the car owner next to me told me that I had won. The first thing I did was check my number to make sure and sure enough, I had won. I was stunned, excited and couldn't believe it. The Judge was highly impressed on how well an original owner had taken care of a 28 year old car with over 300,000 miles on it.
Although I know I will never win best of show, I used to say that I owned a classic car but now I can honestly say that I own a classic trophy car. Now my ego isn't so big that the trophy will sit on our mantle. But that trophy will always be with the car when I go to other shows.
My horn has been tooted.
Til next week.
Peter
For those of you who don't know, I am the original owner of a 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity Eurosport CL. It has 33 out of 38 options and is still a dream to drive, just like when it was new. But what my car is not, is a muscle car. It was built for high gas mileage and luxury. Through all of the last 28 years, I have somehow managed to keep the car in excellent condition. Actually it is in show condition and going to car shows is what I do with the car. FYI, it has not been a daily driver for over 11 years.
I have been showing the car for 15 years, long before you stopped seeing them on the road. Now when I show it, there are always people who come over to talk to me about my car. Almost all the people either had a similar car or knew someone who did. People tell me that when they go to car shows they expect to see, mustangs, vettes, 57 chevys, camaros, road runners, chargers and cudas, etc., etc., but they never expect to see a celebrity. They all rave about what a great car it was and what a surprise to see one in such great condition at a car show. But it is when they learn how many miles are on it that they are really surprised. My car has over 300,000 miles on it and it still looks almost new. When I talk to other car owners, it is not unusual for classic cars to change hands 3,4,5 or more times since it was new. So if the car was already in show condition, the new owners are just maintaining what prior owners did to the car. But I have taken care of this car for 28 years and have kept it show condition. People can and do really appreciate that fact.
For all the years I have been attending car shows, I never expect to win to any trophies for multiple reasons: it is a 1986, it is a celebrity and it has 300,000 miles. All those are strikes against me for winning anything. For the past 5 years or so, the newest form of collecting cars is what is called a survivor car. It will have original paint, rust is common and it runs. My car is not a survivor car since it was repainted, (due to a GM recall) when it was 6 years old. So I always joke with people that they should give trophies for highest mileage / best looking car. But of course, there is no such award.
Last night, my wife and I attended a local car show. There were approximately 50 or so cars there. Most of the cars were from the 60's and 70's and there were only 2 cars from the 80's. When the trophies were being awarded there was a Judge's favorite 4 cars category. The Judge named the first 3 favorite cars and they were the usual type of winning cars. Then the 4th car number was called. Both my wife and the car owner next to me told me that I had won. The first thing I did was check my number to make sure and sure enough, I had won. I was stunned, excited and couldn't believe it. The Judge was highly impressed on how well an original owner had taken care of a 28 year old car with over 300,000 miles on it.
Although I know I will never win best of show, I used to say that I owned a classic car but now I can honestly say that I own a classic trophy car. Now my ego isn't so big that the trophy will sit on our mantle. But that trophy will always be with the car when I go to other shows.
My horn has been tooted.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, July 6, 2014
This Solution May be a Win - Win
Hi Everyone,
The southern mid-west of this country and all the way to the west coast, has been in a severe drought for some time now. Even the snow pack totals in northern California has been a lot less then usual for years. Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, there are no different weather patterns, consequently the drought will continue for who knows how long. But, while large parts of this country are in a drought, the north and south pole glaciers are melting at an alarming rate due to global warming. The direct result of which is that the ocean levels are rising and will eventually threaten all coastal cities around the world.
As to why global warming is happening is not the subject of today's blog. Today's blog is about a solution to both the drought and rising ocean level problems. I think that a common sense solution would be to build a whole lot of desalination plants along the west coast and if need be, where ever they are needed. The desalination plants could definitely supply the much needed fresh water. But, in addition, depending on how many plants are built worldwide, they could conceivably keep the ocean levels at bay or at the very least, could postpone the threat to coastal cities. Sounds far fetched, but it just might work. The toughest part of this idea is building the tens or hundreds of thousands of miles needed for the pipelines.
Unfortunately, time is not on our side. In order for something this big to happen, countries would need to make a leap of faith and begin the projects sooner rather than later. Even though building the plants would take years, it is the building of the infrastructure that will take many more years. That's why time will eventually be against us all and why forward thinking will be a necessity.
Just some food for thought.
Til next week.
Peter
The southern mid-west of this country and all the way to the west coast, has been in a severe drought for some time now. Even the snow pack totals in northern California has been a lot less then usual for years. Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, there are no different weather patterns, consequently the drought will continue for who knows how long. But, while large parts of this country are in a drought, the north and south pole glaciers are melting at an alarming rate due to global warming. The direct result of which is that the ocean levels are rising and will eventually threaten all coastal cities around the world.
As to why global warming is happening is not the subject of today's blog. Today's blog is about a solution to both the drought and rising ocean level problems. I think that a common sense solution would be to build a whole lot of desalination plants along the west coast and if need be, where ever they are needed. The desalination plants could definitely supply the much needed fresh water. But, in addition, depending on how many plants are built worldwide, they could conceivably keep the ocean levels at bay or at the very least, could postpone the threat to coastal cities. Sounds far fetched, but it just might work. The toughest part of this idea is building the tens or hundreds of thousands of miles needed for the pipelines.
Unfortunately, time is not on our side. In order for something this big to happen, countries would need to make a leap of faith and begin the projects sooner rather than later. Even though building the plants would take years, it is the building of the infrastructure that will take many more years. That's why time will eventually be against us all and why forward thinking will be a necessity.
Just some food for thought.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, June 29, 2014
What a Rip Off for Taxpayers
Hi Everyone,
Due to life happenings, I was unable to blog for the last 2 weeks, but now I'm back. I have nothing against police or firefighters, but this true story may make you think twice about their honesty.
As we all are aware, police and firefighters have the ability to work huge amounts of overtime for 1,2 or3 years immediately prior to their retirement. That excessive amount of overtime is then included in the calculation to determine the amount of their pension. But, what would you say if I told you that there are some police and firefighters who worked the years of excessive amount of overtime, only to apply for a disability pension, (instead of a regular pension), based on a work related injury that occurred prior to their working the excessive overtime. Sound far fetched?
Unfortunately, this is another true story. Somehow, someway, these supposedly dedicated police and firefighters are able to find a doctor that will attest to their full "disability" at their time of retirement. How can someone claim a work related injury after they had worked huge amounts of weekly overtime for years after to their so called injury. There were a bunch of these people who claimed that their work related injury occurred 4,5 or more years prior to their retirement date. Talk about entitlement. This is grand larceny on an indecent scale. I just can't wrap my mind over the fact that these public servants can lie their way, (including their doctor) and the state's doctors to approve that they were disabled at the time of their retirement. But they worked tons of overtime immediately prior to retiring. What is wrong with this picture?
With their new full disability pension, they are collecting yearly pensions in the 6 digits. This is blatant fraud and I, for the life of me, can't figure out how this happens. If you can work excessive amount of overtime for years prior to their retirement, how can they apply for and receive a disability pension? They were obviously not disabled to be able to work the overtime. How can state doctors agree that they are disabled at the time of their retirement. Someone is definitely getting their palms greased to go along with them. If they were truly disabled, they would not have been able to work the excessive overtime, or am I missing something here. I don't think I am missing anything. These are greedy people, who only care about themselves and who have found the golden goose loophole that needs to be corrected ASAP.
Where is the common sense in determining whether someone is disabled? I can only hope that people in authority will be able to stop this insanity, sooner rather than later. If this continues, it will bankrupt the system and then we the taxpayers will pay even more!!!!!!
Til next week.
Peter
Due to life happenings, I was unable to blog for the last 2 weeks, but now I'm back. I have nothing against police or firefighters, but this true story may make you think twice about their honesty.
As we all are aware, police and firefighters have the ability to work huge amounts of overtime for 1,2 or3 years immediately prior to their retirement. That excessive amount of overtime is then included in the calculation to determine the amount of their pension. But, what would you say if I told you that there are some police and firefighters who worked the years of excessive amount of overtime, only to apply for a disability pension, (instead of a regular pension), based on a work related injury that occurred prior to their working the excessive overtime. Sound far fetched?
Unfortunately, this is another true story. Somehow, someway, these supposedly dedicated police and firefighters are able to find a doctor that will attest to their full "disability" at their time of retirement. How can someone claim a work related injury after they had worked huge amounts of weekly overtime for years after to their so called injury. There were a bunch of these people who claimed that their work related injury occurred 4,5 or more years prior to their retirement date. Talk about entitlement. This is grand larceny on an indecent scale. I just can't wrap my mind over the fact that these public servants can lie their way, (including their doctor) and the state's doctors to approve that they were disabled at the time of their retirement. But they worked tons of overtime immediately prior to retiring. What is wrong with this picture?
With their new full disability pension, they are collecting yearly pensions in the 6 digits. This is blatant fraud and I, for the life of me, can't figure out how this happens. If you can work excessive amount of overtime for years prior to their retirement, how can they apply for and receive a disability pension? They were obviously not disabled to be able to work the overtime. How can state doctors agree that they are disabled at the time of their retirement. Someone is definitely getting their palms greased to go along with them. If they were truly disabled, they would not have been able to work the excessive overtime, or am I missing something here. I don't think I am missing anything. These are greedy people, who only care about themselves and who have found the golden goose loophole that needs to be corrected ASAP.
Where is the common sense in determining whether someone is disabled? I can only hope that people in authority will be able to stop this insanity, sooner rather than later. If this continues, it will bankrupt the system and then we the taxpayers will pay even more!!!!!!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, June 8, 2014
What the Tea Party Represents?
Hi Everyone,
Last month another terrible school shooting occurred. This time the massacre happened at and near the University of California, Santa Barbara. The madman killed 7, including himself and wounded 13 more. Again, as in most cases of this type, the killer used a fast-killing gun. If the NRA was serious about helping to stop these mass killings, they would consider curbing the use of semi and fully automatic guns. How? As I said in a previous blog regarding the Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut mass killings; my common sense solution to the people who have to have a semi and/or automatic weapon, must always be stored and used only at licensed gun ranges, period, no exceptions.
But in today's blog, I am not going to rehash that. Today's blog is even more sinister; dealing with people's feelings regarding these mass killings from a Tea Party representative, "Joe the Plumber", whose real name is Joe Wurzelbacher. Joe was made famous by George Bush II, during his first presidential run. After the Santa Barbara killings, Joe had the audacity to say, "your dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights". He acknowledged that his words were "harsh", but claimed pro-gun control activists "don't care about your family or your dead children at all". What hole did this guy crawl out of? What an utterly rude, callous and especially insensitive statement to make. And to think he absolutely believes every word he said. Of course he is a card carrying NRA and Tea Party member and even a darling of that party. Need I say more? Of course I do.....
Joe, the NRA, the Tea Party, almost all of the GOP and a few Democrats don't seem to want to make any changes in national gun control. An article in the May 30th edition of the New York Daily News said it best, "we watch massacre after massacre in this country and people opposing ANY kind of solution or any kind of change talk about infringement on rights and freedoms". But wait, aren't most of these people the same people who have no problem taking away a woman's right to choice when it deals with their own bodies. But that is another issue for another day.
I am sorry to say that Joe and the likes of him are the ones who are out of touch. Gun zealots controlled by the NRA will never change their minds. As I previously asked in a prior blog, how is it possible that the NRA's membership total, which is a small minority of people, (5 million out of 300 million), can control all things related to the Second Amendment? The NRA actually even rates all politicians in DC on issues related to Second Amendment issues and whether they are a NRA member. It is now time for some of these NRA members to stand up and say enough is enough and join the majority of Americans who are for more stricter gun control. Something must be done sooner rather than later, since lives are at stake!!! How many more children and adults must die before any changes are made.
Enough said!
Til next week.
Peter
Last month another terrible school shooting occurred. This time the massacre happened at and near the University of California, Santa Barbara. The madman killed 7, including himself and wounded 13 more. Again, as in most cases of this type, the killer used a fast-killing gun. If the NRA was serious about helping to stop these mass killings, they would consider curbing the use of semi and fully automatic guns. How? As I said in a previous blog regarding the Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut mass killings; my common sense solution to the people who have to have a semi and/or automatic weapon, must always be stored and used only at licensed gun ranges, period, no exceptions.
But in today's blog, I am not going to rehash that. Today's blog is even more sinister; dealing with people's feelings regarding these mass killings from a Tea Party representative, "Joe the Plumber", whose real name is Joe Wurzelbacher. Joe was made famous by George Bush II, during his first presidential run. After the Santa Barbara killings, Joe had the audacity to say, "your dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights". He acknowledged that his words were "harsh", but claimed pro-gun control activists "don't care about your family or your dead children at all". What hole did this guy crawl out of? What an utterly rude, callous and especially insensitive statement to make. And to think he absolutely believes every word he said. Of course he is a card carrying NRA and Tea Party member and even a darling of that party. Need I say more? Of course I do.....
Joe, the NRA, the Tea Party, almost all of the GOP and a few Democrats don't seem to want to make any changes in national gun control. An article in the May 30th edition of the New York Daily News said it best, "we watch massacre after massacre in this country and people opposing ANY kind of solution or any kind of change talk about infringement on rights and freedoms". But wait, aren't most of these people the same people who have no problem taking away a woman's right to choice when it deals with their own bodies. But that is another issue for another day.
I am sorry to say that Joe and the likes of him are the ones who are out of touch. Gun zealots controlled by the NRA will never change their minds. As I previously asked in a prior blog, how is it possible that the NRA's membership total, which is a small minority of people, (5 million out of 300 million), can control all things related to the Second Amendment? The NRA actually even rates all politicians in DC on issues related to Second Amendment issues and whether they are a NRA member. It is now time for some of these NRA members to stand up and say enough is enough and join the majority of Americans who are for more stricter gun control. Something must be done sooner rather than later, since lives are at stake!!! How many more children and adults must die before any changes are made.
Enough said!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Are Your Ready To Get Backdoored?
Hi Everyone,
Here in New York State, Governor Cuomo, signed a law that was suppose to cap taxes at a maximum of 2% each year for both property and school taxes. Of course there are municipalities and school boards that blatantly go over the tax cap, as per the written media. But today's blog isn't about what happens to the municipalities or school boards that go over the tax cap or even the ones that either stay at or below the tax cap. Today's blog is about a blatant taxing entity that is trying a new and more sinister method of raising taxes above the 2% tax cap; but still have their records reflect that they stayed at or below the maximum cap.
How is this possible? How can you raise taxes above 2% and have the "books" legally show that they didn't? That means that the taxing entities found a way around the tax cap. Well the Westchester county, city of Rye school board is thinking about enacting a 3% tax on utility bills to pay for their increased education costs. Believe it or not, this tax would be applied to all electricity, natural gas and telephone services. What a backdoor kick in the butt to each and every taxpayer.
What is even more astonishing is that the city of Rye is not the first municipality or school board to do this. Other Westchester County municipalities that already have utility taxes are: White Plains, New Rochelle, Peekskill and Mount Vernon and in addition, Rockland County even has a county wide 4% tax. If utilities rates are taxed at a fixed rate of 3 or 4% which was approved by some board, that tax increase was not approved by a majority of the voters. So would that mean that voters would only be allowed to vote on the original up to 2% increase as required by law? It certainly seems to be that way. That would mean that the taxing entities couldn't care less about whether their budget votes passed or not. The taxing entity boards would then be able, when needed to make up the difference, to increase the utility taxes without it being voted on. Where will this end and at what cost to the taxpayers? This utility tax makes no sense and to top it off, it might bring the feeling of entitlement and consequently mismanagement.
Now to pour a whole lot of salt on the wounds of these poor taxpayers, they would also not be able to deduct their utility taxes on their tax returns, which eventually could be a sizeable amount.
Hopefully these backdoor taxes will be repealed, sooner rather than later.
Til next week.
Peter
Here in New York State, Governor Cuomo, signed a law that was suppose to cap taxes at a maximum of 2% each year for both property and school taxes. Of course there are municipalities and school boards that blatantly go over the tax cap, as per the written media. But today's blog isn't about what happens to the municipalities or school boards that go over the tax cap or even the ones that either stay at or below the tax cap. Today's blog is about a blatant taxing entity that is trying a new and more sinister method of raising taxes above the 2% tax cap; but still have their records reflect that they stayed at or below the maximum cap.
How is this possible? How can you raise taxes above 2% and have the "books" legally show that they didn't? That means that the taxing entities found a way around the tax cap. Well the Westchester county, city of Rye school board is thinking about enacting a 3% tax on utility bills to pay for their increased education costs. Believe it or not, this tax would be applied to all electricity, natural gas and telephone services. What a backdoor kick in the butt to each and every taxpayer.
What is even more astonishing is that the city of Rye is not the first municipality or school board to do this. Other Westchester County municipalities that already have utility taxes are: White Plains, New Rochelle, Peekskill and Mount Vernon and in addition, Rockland County even has a county wide 4% tax. If utilities rates are taxed at a fixed rate of 3 or 4% which was approved by some board, that tax increase was not approved by a majority of the voters. So would that mean that voters would only be allowed to vote on the original up to 2% increase as required by law? It certainly seems to be that way. That would mean that the taxing entities couldn't care less about whether their budget votes passed or not. The taxing entity boards would then be able, when needed to make up the difference, to increase the utility taxes without it being voted on. Where will this end and at what cost to the taxpayers? This utility tax makes no sense and to top it off, it might bring the feeling of entitlement and consequently mismanagement.
Now to pour a whole lot of salt on the wounds of these poor taxpayers, they would also not be able to deduct their utility taxes on their tax returns, which eventually could be a sizeable amount.
Hopefully these backdoor taxes will be repealed, sooner rather than later.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Stealing Legally
Hi Everyone,
I was reading the newspaper a few weeks ago and again I found an article that blew me away. Highway robbery is a very mild analogy to what I found out. Pew Charitable Trusts did some new research and wrote a report regarding the nation's highest interest rates for payday loans. Keep in mind, that payday loans are used a lot by low income wage earners who desperately need a small loan, when unexpected expenses occur, i.e. car repair bills. So that is why I was blown away by the interest rates that are charged.
So if you were to guess how high you think these payday interest rates can get, what would be your guess? Hold onto to you hats. Somehow all of these rates are legal. The state with the highest rate is Idaho with a rate of 582%! Yes you read that correctly, 582%. South Dakota and Wisconsin are tied in second place with 574%. Then comes Nevada, 521%, Delaware, 517% and Utah, 474%. Some other states that have the lowest of the high interest rates are: Maine, 217%, Oregon, 156% and Colorado at 129%. Fifteen states either ban payday loans or cap interest rates at 36%. Without a limit on interest rates, competition among lenders does not tend to lower rates much, according to Pew's new research.
Now I understand that these loans are made without collateral, other then having a weekly paycheck, to people who most likely don't have anywhere near a good credit score. So the people who need these loans the most, due to their financial circumstances, will always pay the highest interest rates. I am not sure how many of these loans go unpaid, but rates up to 582% seems very unreasonably high, grossly unfair and seems to me to be a legal form of stealing from people and a bonanza to the lenders. But somehow the rates are legit and people continue to use these payday loans.
Til next week.
Peter
I was reading the newspaper a few weeks ago and again I found an article that blew me away. Highway robbery is a very mild analogy to what I found out. Pew Charitable Trusts did some new research and wrote a report regarding the nation's highest interest rates for payday loans. Keep in mind, that payday loans are used a lot by low income wage earners who desperately need a small loan, when unexpected expenses occur, i.e. car repair bills. So that is why I was blown away by the interest rates that are charged.
So if you were to guess how high you think these payday interest rates can get, what would be your guess? Hold onto to you hats. Somehow all of these rates are legal. The state with the highest rate is Idaho with a rate of 582%! Yes you read that correctly, 582%. South Dakota and Wisconsin are tied in second place with 574%. Then comes Nevada, 521%, Delaware, 517% and Utah, 474%. Some other states that have the lowest of the high interest rates are: Maine, 217%, Oregon, 156% and Colorado at 129%. Fifteen states either ban payday loans or cap interest rates at 36%. Without a limit on interest rates, competition among lenders does not tend to lower rates much, according to Pew's new research.
Now I understand that these loans are made without collateral, other then having a weekly paycheck, to people who most likely don't have anywhere near a good credit score. So the people who need these loans the most, due to their financial circumstances, will always pay the highest interest rates. I am not sure how many of these loans go unpaid, but rates up to 582% seems very unreasonably high, grossly unfair and seems to me to be a legal form of stealing from people and a bonanza to the lenders. But somehow the rates are legit and people continue to use these payday loans.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, April 27, 2014
The New Wild, Wild West
Hi Everyone,
OK so maybe it isn't actually the wild west, but it definitely will be the wild, wild south. There is a change coming that I believe will not have the outcome that the politicians are expecting. Changes like this will be detrimental to the health and welfare of its citizens. What am I talking about? I am talking about how the state of Georgia has decided that it is a good thing for all licensed gun owners to be able to carry their firearms almost anywhere. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, a Republican, signed the state's Safe Carry Protection Act. Where will they be able to carry their firearms as of July 1, 2014? How about bars, schools, churches and government buildings that don't have, no gun rules and non-secure areas in airports. The licensed gun owners would be able to carry their firearms without restrictions. The new law also allows school districts to decide whether they want their employees to carry a firearm.
Of course the NRA, (which touts a membership of 5 million, which is a very small minority of Americans), says that Georgia's new law, according to USA Today, is "the most comprehensive pro-gun reform legislation introduced in recent history." The gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.org believes that the law will, "restore our right to carry and be allowed to protect ourselves anywhere we go," executive director Jerry Henry stated. Also remember that the NRA has fought any attempts to just tighten restrictions on acquiring a gun license.
This new, lack of common sense law even removes a restriction that prevented those convicted of certain misdemeanors from getting a gun permit. In addition, this law will unbelievably deny police the ability to detain a person, "for the sole purpose of investigating whether such a person has a weapons carry license." Which means if you can't be stopped by police to check to see if one has a carry license, why get a carry license in the first place? Finally, this idiotic law establishes an absolute defense for the legal use of deadly force of a violent attack.
You've got to be kidding!!! What is happening with this country? If you listen to and believe what the NRA says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well this is the hypothetical scenario I could and probably would see happening after 7/1. Of all the places guns should never be mixed with is bars, where alcohol is served. So there are 2 guys drinking at a bar when an argument ensues. One pulls out his gun and shoots at the other, but misses him. Someone behind the intended target gets shot and the injured person returns fire, but because he was shot, misses his intended target and shoots another innocent bystander and so on and so forth. Then the headlines would read, 10 killed and many more hurt in drunken shooting melee at some bar. Come on, we all know someone that if they drink too much, they take on a different persona and could and would do something stupid. Now suppose that person carried a firearm. Would they be able to restrain themselves? Remember that since the police can't detain someone to check if they have a carry license, why even get a carry license?
Can anyone tell me why this law is a good idea? This law will fail like Florida's, Stand your ground law is failing now. I don't see people feeling safer with this law, but rather more unsafe and afraid with the potential of innocent people getting injured or killed in places where guns were never allowed previously. More guns in public places means more shootings. This law should really be called, the guns everywhere law.
Once again, politicians don't have or won't use any common sense in passing another asinine law. Now it seems that this law will only die after one to many real people die. Go figure! Remind me not to visit Georgia any time soon.
Til next week.
Peter
OK so maybe it isn't actually the wild west, but it definitely will be the wild, wild south. There is a change coming that I believe will not have the outcome that the politicians are expecting. Changes like this will be detrimental to the health and welfare of its citizens. What am I talking about? I am talking about how the state of Georgia has decided that it is a good thing for all licensed gun owners to be able to carry their firearms almost anywhere. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, a Republican, signed the state's Safe Carry Protection Act. Where will they be able to carry their firearms as of July 1, 2014? How about bars, schools, churches and government buildings that don't have, no gun rules and non-secure areas in airports. The licensed gun owners would be able to carry their firearms without restrictions. The new law also allows school districts to decide whether they want their employees to carry a firearm.
Of course the NRA, (which touts a membership of 5 million, which is a very small minority of Americans), says that Georgia's new law, according to USA Today, is "the most comprehensive pro-gun reform legislation introduced in recent history." The gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.org believes that the law will, "restore our right to carry and be allowed to protect ourselves anywhere we go," executive director Jerry Henry stated. Also remember that the NRA has fought any attempts to just tighten restrictions on acquiring a gun license.
This new, lack of common sense law even removes a restriction that prevented those convicted of certain misdemeanors from getting a gun permit. In addition, this law will unbelievably deny police the ability to detain a person, "for the sole purpose of investigating whether such a person has a weapons carry license." Which means if you can't be stopped by police to check to see if one has a carry license, why get a carry license in the first place? Finally, this idiotic law establishes an absolute defense for the legal use of deadly force of a violent attack.
You've got to be kidding!!! What is happening with this country? If you listen to and believe what the NRA says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well this is the hypothetical scenario I could and probably would see happening after 7/1. Of all the places guns should never be mixed with is bars, where alcohol is served. So there are 2 guys drinking at a bar when an argument ensues. One pulls out his gun and shoots at the other, but misses him. Someone behind the intended target gets shot and the injured person returns fire, but because he was shot, misses his intended target and shoots another innocent bystander and so on and so forth. Then the headlines would read, 10 killed and many more hurt in drunken shooting melee at some bar. Come on, we all know someone that if they drink too much, they take on a different persona and could and would do something stupid. Now suppose that person carried a firearm. Would they be able to restrain themselves? Remember that since the police can't detain someone to check if they have a carry license, why even get a carry license?
Can anyone tell me why this law is a good idea? This law will fail like Florida's, Stand your ground law is failing now. I don't see people feeling safer with this law, but rather more unsafe and afraid with the potential of innocent people getting injured or killed in places where guns were never allowed previously. More guns in public places means more shootings. This law should really be called, the guns everywhere law.
Once again, politicians don't have or won't use any common sense in passing another asinine law. Now it seems that this law will only die after one to many real people die. Go figure! Remind me not to visit Georgia any time soon.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, April 13, 2014
2 fer, part deux
Hi Everyone,
For only the second time, I am giving you all 2 quickies today. Every once in a while I find a quote that someone said and to me, makes so much sense that I have to share it.
#1) This is from William Graham Sumner, (1840-1910). "All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of the earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others." This certainly seems true even today.
#2) In today's Sunday paper, there is an article in the Money section about the price of beef. The bottom line is that this country is facing the highest beef prices in 3 decades. This is true with both consumers and restaurant owners. Additionally, it doesn't matter which cut of beef you want, London Broil, T-Bone, Prime Rib, Rib Eye, Hamburger meat, etc., etc. all the prices have risen.
The news media has been talking about a beef shortage since last year when a terrible drought forced many cattle ranchers to sell off their herds prematurely, before they would be normally ready. There were no grasslands and the cost of hay was too expensive to feed their herds. So I figured that, that was the reason for the sharp increases in beef prices we are seeing now. But, oh boy was I wrong! Another part of this equation and is just as equally important, is the growing export demand from countries such as China and Japan. Now that part of the equation was never mentioned in other news outlets. Seems that there is quandary with our US owned cattle ranchers. Keep the price increases to a lesser amount by not selling so much overseas or continue selling overseas and keep the price increases to the max. With 25% price increases so far, how high will the price of beef go?
Unfortunately, as we have seen so many times before, when a food price increases, we never return to the price prior to the increases. A great example is the cost of Orange Juice. Some years ago, there were frosts in Florida, that heavily damaged the citrus crops. OJ prices immediately shot up and the price never returned to pre-frost prices. AND, in a recent study, Americans now drink 40% less OJ then they did 10 or 20 years ago and the price just keep rising. What happened to Economics 101, supply and demand?
So what does this all mean? We obviously can't control Mother Nature in regards to droughts and frosts etc. But the amount of beef sold overseas can and should be controlled, especially in the event of a severe drought like what is currently happening out west. Common sense is never on the front burner with these kind of issues, but greed is, which is unfortunate for all of us.
Til next week.
Peter
For only the second time, I am giving you all 2 quickies today. Every once in a while I find a quote that someone said and to me, makes so much sense that I have to share it.
#1) This is from William Graham Sumner, (1840-1910). "All history is only one long story to this effect: men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of the earth at the expense of others and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others." This certainly seems true even today.
#2) In today's Sunday paper, there is an article in the Money section about the price of beef. The bottom line is that this country is facing the highest beef prices in 3 decades. This is true with both consumers and restaurant owners. Additionally, it doesn't matter which cut of beef you want, London Broil, T-Bone, Prime Rib, Rib Eye, Hamburger meat, etc., etc. all the prices have risen.
The news media has been talking about a beef shortage since last year when a terrible drought forced many cattle ranchers to sell off their herds prematurely, before they would be normally ready. There were no grasslands and the cost of hay was too expensive to feed their herds. So I figured that, that was the reason for the sharp increases in beef prices we are seeing now. But, oh boy was I wrong! Another part of this equation and is just as equally important, is the growing export demand from countries such as China and Japan. Now that part of the equation was never mentioned in other news outlets. Seems that there is quandary with our US owned cattle ranchers. Keep the price increases to a lesser amount by not selling so much overseas or continue selling overseas and keep the price increases to the max. With 25% price increases so far, how high will the price of beef go?
Unfortunately, as we have seen so many times before, when a food price increases, we never return to the price prior to the increases. A great example is the cost of Orange Juice. Some years ago, there were frosts in Florida, that heavily damaged the citrus crops. OJ prices immediately shot up and the price never returned to pre-frost prices. AND, in a recent study, Americans now drink 40% less OJ then they did 10 or 20 years ago and the price just keep rising. What happened to Economics 101, supply and demand?
So what does this all mean? We obviously can't control Mother Nature in regards to droughts and frosts etc. But the amount of beef sold overseas can and should be controlled, especially in the event of a severe drought like what is currently happening out west. Common sense is never on the front burner with these kind of issues, but greed is, which is unfortunate for all of us.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Money to Burn?!
Hi Everyone,
If anyone has had a job where traveling and/or overnight stays were a part of the job, your reimbursement was based on one very important factor. You had to submit your receipts in order to get reimbursed. If you lost or didn't keep your receipts, you were out of luck and didn't get reimbursed. During all my years in the corporate world, I never heard of a company that reimbursed employees without any receipts. No receipts, no payment period!
So I just read about how our New York State lawmakers get reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses when they have to travel to Albany. Our state elected politicians collect a $172.00 a day, per diem. That money is suppose to cover their hotel and meals for each and every day they are in the Capitol. The per diem is for lawmakers who come from outside of the Capitol. The lawmakers can and do also claim mileage expenses and train tickets for additional reimbursements. Recently, I was quite shocked when I read a newspaper article that our NYS lawmakers are not required to submit any receipts or documentation, what so ever, in order to receive their per diem payments. What?!
What world do our lawmakers live in? Like so many other ways, our state lawmakers work by a whole other different set of rules which private sector companies would never, ever consider or even implement for that matter. Not having to submit receipts or even documentation leads to misuse and even fraud. Consequently, there is no way to verify what the lawmakers actual expenses are. If our lawmakers had just one ounce of common sense, they would change the rules so that they would have to submit their expenses for an actual dollar for dollar reimbursement. I am not sure how much money could and would be saved if receipts were required, but I bet there would be a substantial savings to the overtaxed NYS residents. For the politicians who make extra money by actually using less than the $172.00 per diem, unfortunately, I don't see them trying to change the rules that would take away their ill gotten gains anytime soon.
If you agree with me, and you live in NYS, you should contact your state representative and tell them to end this absurd and deceitful practice. We've had enough of this kind of wasteful spending. I just don't get why politicians think they are entitled to more money then they actually spend while in Albany.
Til next week.
Peter
If anyone has had a job where traveling and/or overnight stays were a part of the job, your reimbursement was based on one very important factor. You had to submit your receipts in order to get reimbursed. If you lost or didn't keep your receipts, you were out of luck and didn't get reimbursed. During all my years in the corporate world, I never heard of a company that reimbursed employees without any receipts. No receipts, no payment period!
So I just read about how our New York State lawmakers get reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses when they have to travel to Albany. Our state elected politicians collect a $172.00 a day, per diem. That money is suppose to cover their hotel and meals for each and every day they are in the Capitol. The per diem is for lawmakers who come from outside of the Capitol. The lawmakers can and do also claim mileage expenses and train tickets for additional reimbursements. Recently, I was quite shocked when I read a newspaper article that our NYS lawmakers are not required to submit any receipts or documentation, what so ever, in order to receive their per diem payments. What?!
What world do our lawmakers live in? Like so many other ways, our state lawmakers work by a whole other different set of rules which private sector companies would never, ever consider or even implement for that matter. Not having to submit receipts or even documentation leads to misuse and even fraud. Consequently, there is no way to verify what the lawmakers actual expenses are. If our lawmakers had just one ounce of common sense, they would change the rules so that they would have to submit their expenses for an actual dollar for dollar reimbursement. I am not sure how much money could and would be saved if receipts were required, but I bet there would be a substantial savings to the overtaxed NYS residents. For the politicians who make extra money by actually using less than the $172.00 per diem, unfortunately, I don't see them trying to change the rules that would take away their ill gotten gains anytime soon.
If you agree with me, and you live in NYS, you should contact your state representative and tell them to end this absurd and deceitful practice. We've had enough of this kind of wasteful spending. I just don't get why politicians think they are entitled to more money then they actually spend while in Albany.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Say It Ain't So!
Hi Everyone,
Sometimes I get into a mood for searching weird things on the web. I like reading papers from other countries. Seems that we are more alike than not. Especially when it comes to common sense or the lack thereof. A few weeks ago, while perusing the web, an article in the Daily Mail, a British newspaper, caught my eye and then some...
The paper reported that a local new start-up manufacturer had made and sold more than 10,000 bras. Now these weren't just any ordinary bras. They were, what the company said, were high tech made bras!? Not long after women started wearing them, a few surprising problems became quite evident. The problems were unique and unprecedented stated the Daily Mail. But what was even more surprising, was the fact that the problems didn't affect the wearers what so ever. The problems affected the general public at large. What???
Apparently the support wire in these new fangled bras had been made out of a kind of copper wire that was originally and specifically designed for the sole use in very special home alarm systems. So get this... when the copper wire came in contact with nylon and body heat, it produced static electricity. The static electricity then interfered with any cell phone, tablet etc., etc., near the wearer of the bra. Then the unthinkable happened, anyone with a pace maker in close proximity to the wearer of the bra, but not the wearer, reported problems with their pace makers. The Chief Engineer of British TeleCom, Lirpa Sloof, stated that she had never heard of such a problem and that they are looking into all of the reported occurrences and will report on their findings.
Now I can't necessarily fault the company for the weird coincidences that produced the problems. Who could have foreseen such problems occurring by making bras? So who can I fault? Well, all I can say is.. April Fools!!! No such thing ever happened. What did happen was I came upon a web site called, The Museum of Hoaxes and their top 100 April Fool's. This one is #17. Oh and by the way, the phony engineer's name is April Fools spelled backwards.
Til next week.
Peter
Sometimes I get into a mood for searching weird things on the web. I like reading papers from other countries. Seems that we are more alike than not. Especially when it comes to common sense or the lack thereof. A few weeks ago, while perusing the web, an article in the Daily Mail, a British newspaper, caught my eye and then some...
The paper reported that a local new start-up manufacturer had made and sold more than 10,000 bras. Now these weren't just any ordinary bras. They were, what the company said, were high tech made bras!? Not long after women started wearing them, a few surprising problems became quite evident. The problems were unique and unprecedented stated the Daily Mail. But what was even more surprising, was the fact that the problems didn't affect the wearers what so ever. The problems affected the general public at large. What???
Apparently the support wire in these new fangled bras had been made out of a kind of copper wire that was originally and specifically designed for the sole use in very special home alarm systems. So get this... when the copper wire came in contact with nylon and body heat, it produced static electricity. The static electricity then interfered with any cell phone, tablet etc., etc., near the wearer of the bra. Then the unthinkable happened, anyone with a pace maker in close proximity to the wearer of the bra, but not the wearer, reported problems with their pace makers. The Chief Engineer of British TeleCom, Lirpa Sloof, stated that she had never heard of such a problem and that they are looking into all of the reported occurrences and will report on their findings.
Now I can't necessarily fault the company for the weird coincidences that produced the problems. Who could have foreseen such problems occurring by making bras? So who can I fault? Well, all I can say is.. April Fools!!! No such thing ever happened. What did happen was I came upon a web site called, The Museum of Hoaxes and their top 100 April Fool's. This one is #17. Oh and by the way, the phony engineer's name is April Fools spelled backwards.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Lost!?
Hi Everyone,
Who knew that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 with 239 passengers and crew could mimic the ABC TV show Lost. Almost each and every day, for the past week, the search perimeter for the missing 777 jet has increased to the point where now it includes a lot more land areas north of the Indian Ocean. When I first learned of the missing plane, I questioned why the search perimeter did not originally include the full distance the plane could fly with the amount of fuel it departed with, since there was no report or any evidence of the plane crashing.
As the investigation progressed, it is apparent that the person who was flying the plane, manually turned off the plane's transponder, which sends signals and data to whatever ground flight controllers can receive it. The person flying the plane knew exactly when to turn off the transponder, before Vietnam ground controllers would receive the plane's signals. But turning off the transponder didn't stop the plane from automatically emitting an hourly ping to the closest satellite that could receive the signal. That is how investigators were able to determine that shorty after the transponder stopped sending its signal, the plane made an almost 180 degree turn and flew back over Malaysia. Why didn't Malaysia flight controllers pick up the plane on its radar while it was flying over? After flying over Malaysia, the plane then made a few more turns before eventually heading north over the Indian Ocean. The last ping received was almost 7 hours after the transponder was turned off. But, today's blog isn't about the screw ups with the initial and continuing search efforts for the plane.
Today's blog is about just one thing, flight 370's and at least all other Boeing plane's transponders. I would like to know what idiot(s) came up with the idea and what imbecile(s) approved the idea, that plane transponders could and should be allowed to be able to be shut off by someone in the cockpit? What good does it serve by shutting it off? Of course the answer is, it does nothing good, only bad. Turning off the transponder made the plane virtually invisible, except for the hourly pings. Whoever shut it off, knew that no one could then track its whereabouts. Common sense was certainly not on any ones radar when they allowed that option available to cockpits. I mean really, what the hell were they thinking? Obviously, in hindsight, it is a terrible idea and now a plane is missing and this is 2014, not 1914. The only solution to stopping this from ever happening again, is to disconnect that option ASAP!
I certainly don't know any more info than anyone else on what exactly happened with Flight 370. But since there have been no reports of a plane crashing, or any debris found so far, here are my guesstimates as to what may have happened. 1) Maybe one of the pilots, or someone else on board, commandeered the plane to fly it to some remote landing strip to steal the plane or its cargo or take hostages. Or, 2) maybe the plane crashed on some remote, uncharted island and now the Lost TV show becomes reality. Of course I am only guessing, but no one would be guessing if that transponder had not been allowed to be turned off.
Til next week.
Peter
Who knew that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 with 239 passengers and crew could mimic the ABC TV show Lost. Almost each and every day, for the past week, the search perimeter for the missing 777 jet has increased to the point where now it includes a lot more land areas north of the Indian Ocean. When I first learned of the missing plane, I questioned why the search perimeter did not originally include the full distance the plane could fly with the amount of fuel it departed with, since there was no report or any evidence of the plane crashing.
As the investigation progressed, it is apparent that the person who was flying the plane, manually turned off the plane's transponder, which sends signals and data to whatever ground flight controllers can receive it. The person flying the plane knew exactly when to turn off the transponder, before Vietnam ground controllers would receive the plane's signals. But turning off the transponder didn't stop the plane from automatically emitting an hourly ping to the closest satellite that could receive the signal. That is how investigators were able to determine that shorty after the transponder stopped sending its signal, the plane made an almost 180 degree turn and flew back over Malaysia. Why didn't Malaysia flight controllers pick up the plane on its radar while it was flying over? After flying over Malaysia, the plane then made a few more turns before eventually heading north over the Indian Ocean. The last ping received was almost 7 hours after the transponder was turned off. But, today's blog isn't about the screw ups with the initial and continuing search efforts for the plane.
Today's blog is about just one thing, flight 370's and at least all other Boeing plane's transponders. I would like to know what idiot(s) came up with the idea and what imbecile(s) approved the idea, that plane transponders could and should be allowed to be able to be shut off by someone in the cockpit? What good does it serve by shutting it off? Of course the answer is, it does nothing good, only bad. Turning off the transponder made the plane virtually invisible, except for the hourly pings. Whoever shut it off, knew that no one could then track its whereabouts. Common sense was certainly not on any ones radar when they allowed that option available to cockpits. I mean really, what the hell were they thinking? Obviously, in hindsight, it is a terrible idea and now a plane is missing and this is 2014, not 1914. The only solution to stopping this from ever happening again, is to disconnect that option ASAP!
I certainly don't know any more info than anyone else on what exactly happened with Flight 370. But since there have been no reports of a plane crashing, or any debris found so far, here are my guesstimates as to what may have happened. 1) Maybe one of the pilots, or someone else on board, commandeered the plane to fly it to some remote landing strip to steal the plane or its cargo or take hostages. Or, 2) maybe the plane crashed on some remote, uncharted island and now the Lost TV show becomes reality. Of course I am only guessing, but no one would be guessing if that transponder had not been allowed to be turned off.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, March 9, 2014
What to Do With the Unwanted?
Hi Everyone,
For years I have read a lot about how foreign or invasive species have been damaging our ecosystems here in the United States. Invasive species includes plants and fish to mammals. I learned that one of the biggest threats to endangered species isn't hunting, climate or pollution. It is other animals, specifically, invasive species. Invasive species overrun new territory since they have no natural predators. Consequently, they upend the balance of nature and crowd out native species.
From a Time magazine article regarding the same, they comprised a list of some of the worst invasive species:
Species Country of Origin Invaded Threat
Black Spiny Tailed Iguana Central America Florida Eat anything including birds
Asian Carp Asia Missouri & Voracious eaters that disrupt Mississippi rivers the food chain. They also jump
out of water, when hear motors.
Nutria South America Gulf Coast Eat marsh grasses which destroys
wetlands. Also make holes in
levees.
Lion-fish Pacific and Indian The Caribbean Venomous spines are dangerous
oceans to fish and people.
Armadillo Central and South Texas and the Eat anything including endangered
America Gulf Coast sea turtle eggs.
So how to control these invasive species is the question? From what I have read, I believe that the common sense solution is ......... the human appetite. Yes, you read that right! According to the article, if cooked correctly, Iguana tastes like a cross between crab and chicken. Carp tastes like cod. Nutria tastes like chicken. Lionfish tastes like cod and Armadillo tastes like pork. We humans, once we have acquired a taste for certain wild foods, have the potential to over fish and over hunt them to near extinction. So where is the problem of over fishing or over hunting these invasive species? They don't belong here and eating them really makes sense. The problem that I see is getting people to try them. If they like them, they should spread the word.
This is where I have to bring up my own experiences of eating not so normal fare. Since I am from the north east, alligator and snake are not found on menus here. During my travels for an international company, (the world's largest airline catering company, go figure), I made a few trips to Dallas, Texas. That is where, at an Outhouse Steakhouse, at different times, I tried both snake and alligator. Even though the people I was with said that they both tasted like chicken, I was a bit leery. I never knew anyone who had tried either one since it was and still not available around these parts. Much to my surprise, they both tasted great and they both actually did taste like chicken. I would have no hesitation eating them again.
I am sure there are other invasive species that I have not mentioned, lest we forget the wild boars in the Gulf Coast states. They were brought over by Spain, hundreds of years ago and now they are a huge problem, since they eat anything and everything and then some and then some more. And they taste like pork or ham or bacon.......
So to eliminate the above invasive species, my solution is to eat 'em. But first, someone has to catch them, then someone has to bring them to market, then someone has to cook them, then people have to try them and then the word must be spread. Bon Appetit!
Til next week.
Peter
For years I have read a lot about how foreign or invasive species have been damaging our ecosystems here in the United States. Invasive species includes plants and fish to mammals. I learned that one of the biggest threats to endangered species isn't hunting, climate or pollution. It is other animals, specifically, invasive species. Invasive species overrun new territory since they have no natural predators. Consequently, they upend the balance of nature and crowd out native species.
From a Time magazine article regarding the same, they comprised a list of some of the worst invasive species:
Species Country of Origin Invaded Threat
Black Spiny Tailed Iguana Central America Florida Eat anything including birds
Asian Carp Asia Missouri & Voracious eaters that disrupt Mississippi rivers the food chain. They also jump
out of water, when hear motors.
Nutria South America Gulf Coast Eat marsh grasses which destroys
wetlands. Also make holes in
levees.
Lion-fish Pacific and Indian The Caribbean Venomous spines are dangerous
oceans to fish and people.
Armadillo Central and South Texas and the Eat anything including endangered
America Gulf Coast sea turtle eggs.
So how to control these invasive species is the question? From what I have read, I believe that the common sense solution is ......... the human appetite. Yes, you read that right! According to the article, if cooked correctly, Iguana tastes like a cross between crab and chicken. Carp tastes like cod. Nutria tastes like chicken. Lionfish tastes like cod and Armadillo tastes like pork. We humans, once we have acquired a taste for certain wild foods, have the potential to over fish and over hunt them to near extinction. So where is the problem of over fishing or over hunting these invasive species? They don't belong here and eating them really makes sense. The problem that I see is getting people to try them. If they like them, they should spread the word.
This is where I have to bring up my own experiences of eating not so normal fare. Since I am from the north east, alligator and snake are not found on menus here. During my travels for an international company, (the world's largest airline catering company, go figure), I made a few trips to Dallas, Texas. That is where, at an Outhouse Steakhouse, at different times, I tried both snake and alligator. Even though the people I was with said that they both tasted like chicken, I was a bit leery. I never knew anyone who had tried either one since it was and still not available around these parts. Much to my surprise, they both tasted great and they both actually did taste like chicken. I would have no hesitation eating them again.
I am sure there are other invasive species that I have not mentioned, lest we forget the wild boars in the Gulf Coast states. They were brought over by Spain, hundreds of years ago and now they are a huge problem, since they eat anything and everything and then some and then some more. And they taste like pork or ham or bacon.......
So to eliminate the above invasive species, my solution is to eat 'em. But first, someone has to catch them, then someone has to bring them to market, then someone has to cook them, then people have to try them and then the word must be spread. Bon Appetit!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, March 2, 2014
What Goes Around Comes Around
Hi Everyone,
In this country's insatiable appetite for energy, a large underground stash of oil has been found between Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. There is a whole lot of it, but the problem is that the oil is commingled with shale rock, which makes it extremely difficult to extract the oil. A process was developed that is able to separate the oil from the shale. That process is called hydraulic fracking. The process involves drilling a deep well and under high pressure, pumping in toxic chemicals that fracks the shale rock that then separates the oil and makes extracting it easy.
The biggest hurdle to more fracking, at least here in New York, is it that the "jury" is still out on whether the process is a safe one; especially for community and private wells, which could be contaminated by the highly toxic chemicals. The big oil companies say the process is safe, since the oil/shale is located far deeper than aquifers used for drinking water. Opponents state the opposite and say that the process can and does contaminate underground water sources. There are even videos on line where you can see people igniting the methane gas that comes out of their home faucets. Their homes are located near where fracking already takes place. But still the big oil companies say that it is safe. My opinion is that, if a pipe is placed very deeply in the ground, there is a high potential for the pipes to either crack or separate and which consequently releases the toxic chemicals into the ground and will contaminate the aquifers. Common sense tells me not to do it. The fracking process uses a ton of water that is mixed with the chemicals that are pumped onto the ground. Having to have a steady and large supply of water means that big water towers are erected at each fracking site. But, believe it or not, fracking in and of itself is not my main point in today's blog.
Today's blog is about ExxonMobil's CEO, Rex Tillerson. He is part of the big oil companies push and spread of the fracking process and repeatedly states that it is safe and not a problem to communities located near the sites. That is until that site is located near Tillerson's home in Bartonville, Texas. Tillerson has joined a lawsuit to stop the construction of a water tower, needed for the fracking process, near HIS home. Oh the irony here. The CEO pushes for fracking near other peoples homes, but when it comes to his own home, then he is against it. If it is so safe, why is he part of a lawsuit to stop the most important component of fracking??? His NIMBY attitude is highly questionable. If it is so safe, why is he fighting an integral part of it? Maybe because it isn't so safe? I think Tillerson speaks with forked tongue. As long as it isn't near his home, in his opinion, it is OK to frack. That speaks volumes and maybe the process should continue to be looked into. What does Tillerson know that everyone else doesn't know? Time will tell.
Til next week.
Peter
In this country's insatiable appetite for energy, a large underground stash of oil has been found between Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. There is a whole lot of it, but the problem is that the oil is commingled with shale rock, which makes it extremely difficult to extract the oil. A process was developed that is able to separate the oil from the shale. That process is called hydraulic fracking. The process involves drilling a deep well and under high pressure, pumping in toxic chemicals that fracks the shale rock that then separates the oil and makes extracting it easy.
The biggest hurdle to more fracking, at least here in New York, is it that the "jury" is still out on whether the process is a safe one; especially for community and private wells, which could be contaminated by the highly toxic chemicals. The big oil companies say the process is safe, since the oil/shale is located far deeper than aquifers used for drinking water. Opponents state the opposite and say that the process can and does contaminate underground water sources. There are even videos on line where you can see people igniting the methane gas that comes out of their home faucets. Their homes are located near where fracking already takes place. But still the big oil companies say that it is safe. My opinion is that, if a pipe is placed very deeply in the ground, there is a high potential for the pipes to either crack or separate and which consequently releases the toxic chemicals into the ground and will contaminate the aquifers. Common sense tells me not to do it. The fracking process uses a ton of water that is mixed with the chemicals that are pumped onto the ground. Having to have a steady and large supply of water means that big water towers are erected at each fracking site. But, believe it or not, fracking in and of itself is not my main point in today's blog.
Today's blog is about ExxonMobil's CEO, Rex Tillerson. He is part of the big oil companies push and spread of the fracking process and repeatedly states that it is safe and not a problem to communities located near the sites. That is until that site is located near Tillerson's home in Bartonville, Texas. Tillerson has joined a lawsuit to stop the construction of a water tower, needed for the fracking process, near HIS home. Oh the irony here. The CEO pushes for fracking near other peoples homes, but when it comes to his own home, then he is against it. If it is so safe, why is he part of a lawsuit to stop the most important component of fracking??? His NIMBY attitude is highly questionable. If it is so safe, why is he fighting an integral part of it? Maybe because it isn't so safe? I think Tillerson speaks with forked tongue. As long as it isn't near his home, in his opinion, it is OK to frack. That speaks volumes and maybe the process should continue to be looked into. What does Tillerson know that everyone else doesn't know? Time will tell.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Out of Touch or Out of Their Minds?
Hi Everyone,
Unfortunately, as I have said, too many times before and yet again today, I have to say it again. What the hell is wrong with so many politicians these days? Have they no compassion? Have they no link with reality? Have they no common sense? I have answered that last question, many times before with a definitive no, they absolutely have no common sense what so ever. Of course I am not saying this about all politicians. But unfortunately, in more cases then not, more politicians are proving that they do not have the wherewithal to lead and should be voted out of office asap.
The latest round of idiot politicians is occurring right now in Ramapo, New York. Like other states, New York State has a list of financially stressed municipalities. This list was issued by the state Comptroller's Office in June 2013. Where do you think Ramapo is ranked? If you said first, you would be wrong, but ah so close. In first place for most financially stressed municipality is Monroe County, which includes the city of Rochester. Ramapo is ranked second. Almost all of Rockland County has financial problems, but Ramapo earns the blue ribbon for having the worst, seemingly endless, financial problems.
So what do you do when you have financial issues and are in the red? Lay off employees and/or don't replace employees who have retired or resigned through attrition. Ramapo did reduce the number of their employees. So instead of saving those monies, the Ramapo Supervisor, Christopher St. Lawrence decided to give raises to his department heads effective last month. His raises are as follows:
1) Director of Purchasing: 39% increase, from $105,000 to $145,866 = $40,866 increase.
2) Town Clerk: 19% increase, from $122,614 to $145,866 = $23,252 increase.
3) Justice Court Clerk: 14% increase, from $118,949 to $135,707 = $16,758 increase.
4) Director of Parks and Recreation: 10% increase, from $140,644 to $156,271 = $15,627 increase.
5) Highway Maintenance Supervisor: 9.2% increase, from $129,311 to $141,207= $11,896 increase.
6) Dir. of Bldg, Planning & Zoning: 8% increase, from $150,623 to $163,721 = $13,098 increase.
------------------
Total for just 6 people = $121,497 increase.
The question that begs to be asked is... what is the justification for these large pay increases that totaled at least $121,497? According to the Supervisor, departments have downsized, i.e.: the purchasing department went from 3 employees to 2. So therefore, more work equals more money. It may almost make sense until you remember that Ramapo is the second worst financially stressed municipality in New York State. Ramapo has not been able to get their financial house in order for years and years. So in his, (Supervisor's) infinite wisdom, whatever savings came from downsizing, has now been given to a few management positions. Again they haven't learned their lesson on how to run their town. When will they learn?
So are they out of touch or out of their minds? The answer is resoundingly and very unfortunately yes to both!!! How sad for the residents.
Til next week.
Peter
Unfortunately, as I have said, too many times before and yet again today, I have to say it again. What the hell is wrong with so many politicians these days? Have they no compassion? Have they no link with reality? Have they no common sense? I have answered that last question, many times before with a definitive no, they absolutely have no common sense what so ever. Of course I am not saying this about all politicians. But unfortunately, in more cases then not, more politicians are proving that they do not have the wherewithal to lead and should be voted out of office asap.
The latest round of idiot politicians is occurring right now in Ramapo, New York. Like other states, New York State has a list of financially stressed municipalities. This list was issued by the state Comptroller's Office in June 2013. Where do you think Ramapo is ranked? If you said first, you would be wrong, but ah so close. In first place for most financially stressed municipality is Monroe County, which includes the city of Rochester. Ramapo is ranked second. Almost all of Rockland County has financial problems, but Ramapo earns the blue ribbon for having the worst, seemingly endless, financial problems.
So what do you do when you have financial issues and are in the red? Lay off employees and/or don't replace employees who have retired or resigned through attrition. Ramapo did reduce the number of their employees. So instead of saving those monies, the Ramapo Supervisor, Christopher St. Lawrence decided to give raises to his department heads effective last month. His raises are as follows:
1) Director of Purchasing: 39% increase, from $105,000 to $145,866 = $40,866 increase.
2) Town Clerk: 19% increase, from $122,614 to $145,866 = $23,252 increase.
3) Justice Court Clerk: 14% increase, from $118,949 to $135,707 = $16,758 increase.
4) Director of Parks and Recreation: 10% increase, from $140,644 to $156,271 = $15,627 increase.
5) Highway Maintenance Supervisor: 9.2% increase, from $129,311 to $141,207= $11,896 increase.
6) Dir. of Bldg, Planning & Zoning: 8% increase, from $150,623 to $163,721 = $13,098 increase.
------------------
Total for just 6 people = $121,497 increase.
The question that begs to be asked is... what is the justification for these large pay increases that totaled at least $121,497? According to the Supervisor, departments have downsized, i.e.: the purchasing department went from 3 employees to 2. So therefore, more work equals more money. It may almost make sense until you remember that Ramapo is the second worst financially stressed municipality in New York State. Ramapo has not been able to get their financial house in order for years and years. So in his, (Supervisor's) infinite wisdom, whatever savings came from downsizing, has now been given to a few management positions. Again they haven't learned their lesson on how to run their town. When will they learn?
So are they out of touch or out of their minds? The answer is resoundingly and very unfortunately yes to both!!! How sad for the residents.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, February 16, 2014
The Pope Said It Best
Hi Everyone,
Even though I am not Catholic, I do follow what happens with the Pope. Some of Pope Francis' statements have been very open and honest and a bit surprising, especially the statement he made regarding gay and lesbians.
But, a couple of weeks ago, Pope Francis had a statement of his read to the business and political leaders assembled at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The jist of his statement was about better care for the poor. But one sentence really caught my eye. Pope Francis' statement included, "I ask you to ensure that humanity is served by wealth and not ruled by it". What a great common sense and thought provoking idea.
Just imagine what our world would be like if the wealthy abided by his words. That is not to say that the Gates' and Buffet's of the world aren't already doing that. But there are many more wealthy people who could and should follow their lead. Things that we take for granted: clean water, food, and shelter, should be available to all, but is especially needed in poor third world countries.
Enough said!
Til next week.
Peter
Even though I am not Catholic, I do follow what happens with the Pope. Some of Pope Francis' statements have been very open and honest and a bit surprising, especially the statement he made regarding gay and lesbians.
But, a couple of weeks ago, Pope Francis had a statement of his read to the business and political leaders assembled at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The jist of his statement was about better care for the poor. But one sentence really caught my eye. Pope Francis' statement included, "I ask you to ensure that humanity is served by wealth and not ruled by it". What a great common sense and thought provoking idea.
Just imagine what our world would be like if the wealthy abided by his words. That is not to say that the Gates' and Buffet's of the world aren't already doing that. But there are many more wealthy people who could and should follow their lead. Things that we take for granted: clean water, food, and shelter, should be available to all, but is especially needed in poor third world countries.
Enough said!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, February 9, 2014
The Solution is Available Now!
Hi Everyone,
It started happening last November, but the realization of the enormity of what actually took place, took a while to figure out. There is an excellent article in the February 10th issue of Time Magazine, that is all about this big problem that is just getting bigger and bigger. What am I talking about? I am talking about the hackers who were able to steal from 100 million Target customers, who used a credit card; their account numbers, names, email addresses and other info. Then the same thing unfortunately happened to customers at Neiman Marcus and Michaels stores.
How did this security breach into big businesses occur and could it have been prevented? The answers are simple and yes. Once the hackers got into their computer systems, they downloaded malware which enabled them to receive the data from each card swipe from the store's point of sales, (checkout registers). They were also able to get the info in real time. FYI, in all these cases, it didn't matter whether the customers used a credit or debit card. Any and all info was still stolen.
But could these hacking's have been prevented? How? Again, the answer is simple. Some European banks have already switched from using magstripe cards, which are used in this country, to chip and PIN cards. The difference between the two? Magstripe cards is 40 year old technology and have 3 lines of info: the first and the third lines are used by the bank or card issuer. Your vital info is on the second line. The malware specifically looks for this second line and captures all that info. Whereas the chip and PIN cards makes counterfeits and skimming impossible. When you swipe the card, your personal info is encrypted via the chip. The card also contains a pin number that the purchaser must enter correctly at each and every transaction or the transaction gets rejected. Seems so simple, so why don't we have them in this country?
Of course, money is the reason these new chip and PIN cards are not being used here. The cost of a magstripe card is $1 and the cost for chip and PIN card is $3. The U.S. has approximately 5 billion magstripe credit and debit cards. Multiply the two of them and the replacement cost is around $15 billion. That is a whole lot of greenbacks. Then there is also the cost to businesses to have the point of sales technology to accept the new cards. But finally, let's not forget about credit and debit card fraud. They say that there is approximately $12.4 billion in card fraud on a global basis in 2013. With 44% of that in the U.S., American credit card fraud amounts to about $5.5 billion per year. You can see where this is going...... card issuers have figured out that it is still cheaper to pay off the yearly losses due to fraud, than to pay for the new cards.
Side B of this whole problem is not about card issuers losses, but the losses of the card issuers customers who have had and will, in the future, have their identities stolen. The stress and strain of trying to fix your identity and get your credit score repaired, which may take years to fix, is a terrible fate that the card issuers have bestowed on everyone affected; all because of the amount of money it would cost to replace all of their outdated cards.
Where is the common sense for paying off card fraud every year, year after year, instead of replacing the old tech with new tech and let it pay for itself from the savings from not having to pay off the fraud? Well, app-equipped smart phones and digital wallets use this new tech and are now taking a bite out of the card issuers bottom line. Serves them right.
Til next week.
Peter
It started happening last November, but the realization of the enormity of what actually took place, took a while to figure out. There is an excellent article in the February 10th issue of Time Magazine, that is all about this big problem that is just getting bigger and bigger. What am I talking about? I am talking about the hackers who were able to steal from 100 million Target customers, who used a credit card; their account numbers, names, email addresses and other info. Then the same thing unfortunately happened to customers at Neiman Marcus and Michaels stores.
How did this security breach into big businesses occur and could it have been prevented? The answers are simple and yes. Once the hackers got into their computer systems, they downloaded malware which enabled them to receive the data from each card swipe from the store's point of sales, (checkout registers). They were also able to get the info in real time. FYI, in all these cases, it didn't matter whether the customers used a credit or debit card. Any and all info was still stolen.
But could these hacking's have been prevented? How? Again, the answer is simple. Some European banks have already switched from using magstripe cards, which are used in this country, to chip and PIN cards. The difference between the two? Magstripe cards is 40 year old technology and have 3 lines of info: the first and the third lines are used by the bank or card issuer. Your vital info is on the second line. The malware specifically looks for this second line and captures all that info. Whereas the chip and PIN cards makes counterfeits and skimming impossible. When you swipe the card, your personal info is encrypted via the chip. The card also contains a pin number that the purchaser must enter correctly at each and every transaction or the transaction gets rejected. Seems so simple, so why don't we have them in this country?
Of course, money is the reason these new chip and PIN cards are not being used here. The cost of a magstripe card is $1 and the cost for chip and PIN card is $3. The U.S. has approximately 5 billion magstripe credit and debit cards. Multiply the two of them and the replacement cost is around $15 billion. That is a whole lot of greenbacks. Then there is also the cost to businesses to have the point of sales technology to accept the new cards. But finally, let's not forget about credit and debit card fraud. They say that there is approximately $12.4 billion in card fraud on a global basis in 2013. With 44% of that in the U.S., American credit card fraud amounts to about $5.5 billion per year. You can see where this is going...... card issuers have figured out that it is still cheaper to pay off the yearly losses due to fraud, than to pay for the new cards.
Side B of this whole problem is not about card issuers losses, but the losses of the card issuers customers who have had and will, in the future, have their identities stolen. The stress and strain of trying to fix your identity and get your credit score repaired, which may take years to fix, is a terrible fate that the card issuers have bestowed on everyone affected; all because of the amount of money it would cost to replace all of their outdated cards.
Where is the common sense for paying off card fraud every year, year after year, instead of replacing the old tech with new tech and let it pay for itself from the savings from not having to pay off the fraud? Well, app-equipped smart phones and digital wallets use this new tech and are now taking a bite out of the card issuers bottom line. Serves them right.
Til next week.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)