Hi Everyone:
Yes it is that time of the year again, I mean that it is winter. With winter, (depending on where you live) comes snow. Inevitably with snow comes accidents. Where I live, so far we have only had one snow fall amounting to a whopping 4 inches. That doesn't include today, due to the fact that we are having a snow storm with 12 to 18 inches expected.
During the first snow fall, I passed 2 accidents. Being a normal driver, I had to slow down to check out the accidents. Both accidents involved only a single vehicle. Not to my surprise, both vehicles were large AWD SUV's. Unless there was some kind of mechanical failure that I wasn't aware of, the apparent cause for both accidents was speed. I think that before someone buys a SUV or any AWD vehicle, it should be mandatory that they go through a common sense speech from the seller/dealer. The speech should center around how any AWD vehicle can not stop any faster or easier then any other vehicle on the road. Yes AWD vehicles can accelerate from a stopped position faster then any other vehicle in snow and have better traction going forward, they still can not stop any faster.
Having been an owner of 2 AWD vehicles, I learned early on about the lack of stopping power. Somehow, a lot of SUV owners have not learned that lesson. Common sense should dictate that in bad weather, snow and rain included, your stopping ability is severely hampered and you have to slow down.
Case closed.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
A Duh Moment
Hi Everyone:
I consider myself computer literate, but by no means a computer wiz. A few weeks ago, my wife and I got a new Dell computer. As I was unpacking the machine, I found a card, about the same size as a CD/DVD. It said Do Not Discard twice on the front. So I took time to read it. It was from Microsoft and the card turned out to be the activation key for my Microsoft Office 2010. The card stated to visit microsoft's web site, so I did.
I don't know how much time I spent trying to download office 2010. No matter what I did, the download didn't work. Clicking on Help wasn't any help either since I still couldn't download office. Becoming very frustrated, I called Dell for help. Yes I spoke to someone in India, (I always ask what country I called), but I could not only hear them very clearly, but I could understand every word he said. That is a miracle in and of itself. Anyway the tech told me to click on the paper and pen icon at the top of my screen. Voila, Microsoft Office 2010 starts to download. That was a real Duhhhhh moment for me. The card I had was indeed the activation key for office which I had to enter. I thanked the tech and I told him that I felt so stupid. He told me that it happens all the time now with Windows 7 and also because you no longer actually receive a disc from Microsoft. You just get a Product Identifier card with the activation key code, all 25 or 27 digits.
A few days after receipt of the computer, I got a call from Dell asking me about my new computer. I told him that all was fine except for the problem with office 2010. I told him that the card stated to visit the web site. I then added that the card should have one more sentence included, telling you to click on the pen and paper icon to start the download. He appreciated my comment and thought it was a good idea and would pass it up.
To me, my common sense says that Microsoft should have included that one sentence and then my experience would have been without a flaw. Oh well, live and learn.
Til next week.
Peter
I consider myself computer literate, but by no means a computer wiz. A few weeks ago, my wife and I got a new Dell computer. As I was unpacking the machine, I found a card, about the same size as a CD/DVD. It said Do Not Discard twice on the front. So I took time to read it. It was from Microsoft and the card turned out to be the activation key for my Microsoft Office 2010. The card stated to visit microsoft's web site, so I did.
I don't know how much time I spent trying to download office 2010. No matter what I did, the download didn't work. Clicking on Help wasn't any help either since I still couldn't download office. Becoming very frustrated, I called Dell for help. Yes I spoke to someone in India, (I always ask what country I called), but I could not only hear them very clearly, but I could understand every word he said. That is a miracle in and of itself. Anyway the tech told me to click on the paper and pen icon at the top of my screen. Voila, Microsoft Office 2010 starts to download. That was a real Duhhhhh moment for me. The card I had was indeed the activation key for office which I had to enter. I thanked the tech and I told him that I felt so stupid. He told me that it happens all the time now with Windows 7 and also because you no longer actually receive a disc from Microsoft. You just get a Product Identifier card with the activation key code, all 25 or 27 digits.
A few days after receipt of the computer, I got a call from Dell asking me about my new computer. I told him that all was fine except for the problem with office 2010. I told him that the card stated to visit the web site. I then added that the card should have one more sentence included, telling you to click on the pen and paper icon to start the download. He appreciated my comment and thought it was a good idea and would pass it up.
To me, my common sense says that Microsoft should have included that one sentence and then my experience would have been without a flaw. Oh well, live and learn.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Crime Does Pay
Hi Everyone:
Who ever says that crime doesn't pay obviously doesn't live in New York State. New York State is more screwed up then I even imagined. I have said numerous times that a whole lot of politicians, from both sides of the aisle, simply don't have any common sense what-so-ever. Well, hold on to your seats and get ready for an unbelievable story with an even more unbelievable ending.
Vincent Leibell, a lawyer and a Republican, was in the New York state Assembly for 13 years and then was a state Senator for 15 years. Leibell won this past November 2nd election for Putnam County Executive. That is the top political job in the county. He is well liked or should I say used to be.
On December 2nd, he abruptly resigned from his state Senator's seat which shocked a lot of people. On December 6th he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and tax evasion in U.S. District Court in White Plains, New York. He faces up to 24 months in jail. Prosecutors say he extorted money from an attorney who did work for the Putnam Community Foundation, (which Leibell founded) and then urged that lawyer to lie about it to the grand jury during a conversation recorded by investigators. He also took consultant fees from a partner in a Westchester firm doing work for the county and did not pay taxes on that income.
At first glance, this just seems to be another crooked politician's tale. But, Leibell took this to another level. He knew that he was under investigation in April of this year. He knew that what he had done was illegal, but he still ran for County Executive and won. He won because no one knew about the extent of his problems. Why would he do that? The obvious answer is that he has absolutely no common sense! This goes to show that career politicians truly believe that they are above the law and can do whatever they want. The only positive thing I can say about this is that at least Leibell pleaded guilty and didn't force a trial by pleading innocent. Yea for that I guess.
But the conclusion to this sorry tale is that Leibell, even though he pleaded guilty to illegal activities that dealt directly to his elected position, will receive a pension of $71,000 per year. If he lives another 20 years, he will then have received...................$1.4 million. To top that off, the receipt of his pension is all legal. NYS elected officials have never approved making it illegal to use your office for illegal activities. Shame on New York! But then again, why would politicians vote for a bill that would take away their pensions? Common sense dictates that if you plead guilty or are found guilty by trial for using your elected office for illegal activities you should forfeit your entire pension, case closed!!!
Til next week.
Peter
Who ever says that crime doesn't pay obviously doesn't live in New York State. New York State is more screwed up then I even imagined. I have said numerous times that a whole lot of politicians, from both sides of the aisle, simply don't have any common sense what-so-ever. Well, hold on to your seats and get ready for an unbelievable story with an even more unbelievable ending.
Vincent Leibell, a lawyer and a Republican, was in the New York state Assembly for 13 years and then was a state Senator for 15 years. Leibell won this past November 2nd election for Putnam County Executive. That is the top political job in the county. He is well liked or should I say used to be.
On December 2nd, he abruptly resigned from his state Senator's seat which shocked a lot of people. On December 6th he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and tax evasion in U.S. District Court in White Plains, New York. He faces up to 24 months in jail. Prosecutors say he extorted money from an attorney who did work for the Putnam Community Foundation, (which Leibell founded) and then urged that lawyer to lie about it to the grand jury during a conversation recorded by investigators. He also took consultant fees from a partner in a Westchester firm doing work for the county and did not pay taxes on that income.
At first glance, this just seems to be another crooked politician's tale. But, Leibell took this to another level. He knew that he was under investigation in April of this year. He knew that what he had done was illegal, but he still ran for County Executive and won. He won because no one knew about the extent of his problems. Why would he do that? The obvious answer is that he has absolutely no common sense! This goes to show that career politicians truly believe that they are above the law and can do whatever they want. The only positive thing I can say about this is that at least Leibell pleaded guilty and didn't force a trial by pleading innocent. Yea for that I guess.
But the conclusion to this sorry tale is that Leibell, even though he pleaded guilty to illegal activities that dealt directly to his elected position, will receive a pension of $71,000 per year. If he lives another 20 years, he will then have received...................$1.4 million. To top that off, the receipt of his pension is all legal. NYS elected officials have never approved making it illegal to use your office for illegal activities. Shame on New York! But then again, why would politicians vote for a bill that would take away their pensions? Common sense dictates that if you plead guilty or are found guilty by trial for using your elected office for illegal activities you should forfeit your entire pension, case closed!!!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, December 5, 2010
To Be Or Not To Be
Hi Everyone:
I'm pretty sure everyone has heard about the controversy about the new screening procedures implemented by the TSA recently. The new screening procedures before being allowed to board a flight include a body scan (think X-ray) or if one doesn't want that they would have to have a full body pat down. So why all the fuss? It seems that there are people who don't want either of them implemented. Some people believe that having either done tramples on their right to privacy.
In today's world, there are people in this world who would like nothing more then to either blow up a plane in flight or use it as a missile to kill as many Americans as possible. In order to make flying as save as possible the TSA implemented these new procedures. Remember last Christmas' underwear bomber? The only reason no one was killed was due to the fact that the bomb in his underwear failed to detonate. If the bomb had detonated, it would have most likely caused the plane to blow up in mid air and/or crash. Either way people would have been killed.
With the old procedures sans body scans or pat downs any other underwear bomber could have tried again and maybe even succeeded. It seems to me that the new procedures are a necessary evil to try to make flying safe for all. If insuring a flight's safety includes either a body scan or a pat down I say just do it. To me, that just makes common sense. If one doesn't like it don't fly! Take a train or a car or a bus. I'm also fairly certain that if the procedures were not implemented and people were killed due to a preventable bomber; these same people against the new procedures would be the first ones, after the victim's families, to complain about the lack of security. You can not have it both ways.
Comprehensive security does work. Just look at Israel and what the flying public there must go through to board a plane.
In this case, the ends do justify the means. And the old saying, it is better to be safe then sorry, says it all.
Til next week.
Peter
I'm pretty sure everyone has heard about the controversy about the new screening procedures implemented by the TSA recently. The new screening procedures before being allowed to board a flight include a body scan (think X-ray) or if one doesn't want that they would have to have a full body pat down. So why all the fuss? It seems that there are people who don't want either of them implemented. Some people believe that having either done tramples on their right to privacy.
In today's world, there are people in this world who would like nothing more then to either blow up a plane in flight or use it as a missile to kill as many Americans as possible. In order to make flying as save as possible the TSA implemented these new procedures. Remember last Christmas' underwear bomber? The only reason no one was killed was due to the fact that the bomb in his underwear failed to detonate. If the bomb had detonated, it would have most likely caused the plane to blow up in mid air and/or crash. Either way people would have been killed.
With the old procedures sans body scans or pat downs any other underwear bomber could have tried again and maybe even succeeded. It seems to me that the new procedures are a necessary evil to try to make flying safe for all. If insuring a flight's safety includes either a body scan or a pat down I say just do it. To me, that just makes common sense. If one doesn't like it don't fly! Take a train or a car or a bus. I'm also fairly certain that if the procedures were not implemented and people were killed due to a preventable bomber; these same people against the new procedures would be the first ones, after the victim's families, to complain about the lack of security. You can not have it both ways.
Comprehensive security does work. Just look at Israel and what the flying public there must go through to board a plane.
In this case, the ends do justify the means. And the old saying, it is better to be safe then sorry, says it all.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Is Taxing Upper Income People A Good Idea?
Hi Everyone:
There is a lot of talk about what to do with the Bush Tax Cuts. The Democrats want to end the tax cuts for people earning over $250,000. The Republicans want to keep all of the tax cuts in place. Who is right and who is wrong? Or is there a right or wrong in this debate? Lets look at the facts as per the Gannet news:
The final 2 years of the George H. W. Bush presidency brought a creeping recession, with an unemployment rate that increased from 5.6% in 1990 to 7.5% in 1992. By June 1992, just 5 months before the elections, the rate reached 7.8%.
Newly elected President Clinton proposed raising the highest marginal tax rate from 31% to 39.6%. President Reagan's chief economic advisor, Martin Feldstein, said that "raising the tax rate of high-income people would hurt incentives, weaken the economy and waste investment dollars."
As you may or may not remember, there was a fierce debate with a lot of mud slinging and fear mongering. Republicans truly believed that Reagan's trickle down theory, tax cuts for the rich would benefit the middle and lower classes. They claimed that raising taxes during a recession was wrong. Even though Reagan's tax cuts among other things created a huge deficit, they still believed their way was correct.
When the debate ended and the votes were counted, the house voted for the tax increases by a vote of 218 to 216. The senate vote was tied and broken by Vice President Gore. So what were the consequences? In the following 7 years the unemployment rate decreased every year until it reached 4% in 2000. Did the tax increase alone cause the drop in the unemployment rate? Probably not. But the increase went a long way towards closing the budget deficit that Clinton inherited from Reagan and Bush and it also raised the incomes of poor families through the Earned Tax Credit. Both of these factors provided major economic boosts. Also don't forget that by the end of Clinton's presidency, the huge deficit that he inherited was gone and a huge surplus was given to Bush #2.
President George Bush #2, not believing in history repeating itself, slashed tax cuts for all individuals. Then the economy fell off a cliff. The tax revenue lost from the tax decreases helped in part to send this country into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
So what is the correct answer regarding keeping the tax rate for the rich as is, or increase their tax rates? Well, using common sense, it appears to me that raising the tax rates for the rich is good economic policy. It worked in the 1990's, so why wouldn't it work now? How can one argue that the trickle down theory of economics works? History has proven twice that it didn't work. It didn't work for Reagan and it didn't work for Bush #2. If history has shown which way works, why would we want to try a failed policy for a third time? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Additionally, please don't forget that keeping the tax cuts for the rich will increase the deficit by almost one trillion dollars. If the GOP was really serious about reducing the deficit, which they say they are, the first thing that they should do is to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich and increase their tax rates. You can't argue with history. It is there for us to learn from and not to ignore.
Common sense rules and poor policies drool.
Til next week.
There is a lot of talk about what to do with the Bush Tax Cuts. The Democrats want to end the tax cuts for people earning over $250,000. The Republicans want to keep all of the tax cuts in place. Who is right and who is wrong? Or is there a right or wrong in this debate? Lets look at the facts as per the Gannet news:
The final 2 years of the George H. W. Bush presidency brought a creeping recession, with an unemployment rate that increased from 5.6% in 1990 to 7.5% in 1992. By June 1992, just 5 months before the elections, the rate reached 7.8%.
Newly elected President Clinton proposed raising the highest marginal tax rate from 31% to 39.6%. President Reagan's chief economic advisor, Martin Feldstein, said that "raising the tax rate of high-income people would hurt incentives, weaken the economy and waste investment dollars."
As you may or may not remember, there was a fierce debate with a lot of mud slinging and fear mongering. Republicans truly believed that Reagan's trickle down theory, tax cuts for the rich would benefit the middle and lower classes. They claimed that raising taxes during a recession was wrong. Even though Reagan's tax cuts among other things created a huge deficit, they still believed their way was correct.
When the debate ended and the votes were counted, the house voted for the tax increases by a vote of 218 to 216. The senate vote was tied and broken by Vice President Gore. So what were the consequences? In the following 7 years the unemployment rate decreased every year until it reached 4% in 2000. Did the tax increase alone cause the drop in the unemployment rate? Probably not. But the increase went a long way towards closing the budget deficit that Clinton inherited from Reagan and Bush and it also raised the incomes of poor families through the Earned Tax Credit. Both of these factors provided major economic boosts. Also don't forget that by the end of Clinton's presidency, the huge deficit that he inherited was gone and a huge surplus was given to Bush #2.
President George Bush #2, not believing in history repeating itself, slashed tax cuts for all individuals. Then the economy fell off a cliff. The tax revenue lost from the tax decreases helped in part to send this country into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
So what is the correct answer regarding keeping the tax rate for the rich as is, or increase their tax rates? Well, using common sense, it appears to me that raising the tax rates for the rich is good economic policy. It worked in the 1990's, so why wouldn't it work now? How can one argue that the trickle down theory of economics works? History has proven twice that it didn't work. It didn't work for Reagan and it didn't work for Bush #2. If history has shown which way works, why would we want to try a failed policy for a third time? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Additionally, please don't forget that keeping the tax cuts for the rich will increase the deficit by almost one trillion dollars. If the GOP was really serious about reducing the deficit, which they say they are, the first thing that they should do is to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich and increase their tax rates. You can't argue with history. It is there for us to learn from and not to ignore.
Common sense rules and poor policies drool.
Til next week.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Reason # ??? Why School Taxes Are High
Hi Everyone:
Just when you thought you had heard it all regarding high school taxes; Buffalo, New York may well take the cake and win the award for the dumbest ever. Common sense must have been dead and buried in Buffalo because you could never guess, not in a million years, what their teacher contract covers. The Buffalo school union really snowed the taxpayers with an unbelievable pert covered by their contract.
So what is this pert? Before I tell you, keep this in mind; Buffalo taxpayers shelled out $9 million just for last year, to cover this pert for 500 teachers and their dependents who used the pert. And the pert is, drum roll please.............................................................................................. cosmetic surgery?! Now mind you that this is not cosmetic surgery due to an accident or mastectomy etc., which are usually covered under a medical benefits plan, but for elective cosmetic surgery. This is wrong on every conceivable level. Shame on the union for asking for such an outrageous pert like elective cosmetic surgery. Equal shame also has to be placed on Buffalo's school administration for accepting this pert as part of the contract. What were they thinking? Oh yea, they weren't!
Sometimes I feel like the world in which we live is upside down and I am living in a Bizzaro world, (see Seinfeld the TV show). Why would it be necessary to have cosmetic surgery included in any contract what so ever? Are Buffalo teachers and their dependents born so ugly and deformed that only elective surgery can correct their plight? Do Buffalo teachers and their dependents enter lots of beauty contests? Does Buffalo win an award for having the most beautiful teachers? Obviously the answers to all of these is a resounding NO! So the only reason this pert became part of the contract is due to a complete and utter lack of common sense on any one's part. Shame on them all!
This is a prime example of how union contracts have gotten so out of control and so far beyond their scope of coverage since their inception to protect employees rights and pay. Their aren't enough adjectives that the Buffalo taxpayers should be shouting at the top of their lungs to rescind this pert and any others like it. As part of trying to get this country back on its feet, I firmly believe that all union contracts must be reviewed with a fine tooth comb and remove outrageous and costly perts such as cosmetic surgery. If the unions don't like it, TS!!!!!!! They should have never received such a pert in the first place. Shame on everyone!!!
Common sense rules and greed drools.
Til next week.
Peter
Just when you thought you had heard it all regarding high school taxes; Buffalo, New York may well take the cake and win the award for the dumbest ever. Common sense must have been dead and buried in Buffalo because you could never guess, not in a million years, what their teacher contract covers. The Buffalo school union really snowed the taxpayers with an unbelievable pert covered by their contract.
So what is this pert? Before I tell you, keep this in mind; Buffalo taxpayers shelled out $9 million just for last year, to cover this pert for 500 teachers and their dependents who used the pert. And the pert is, drum roll please.............................................................................................. cosmetic surgery?! Now mind you that this is not cosmetic surgery due to an accident or mastectomy etc., which are usually covered under a medical benefits plan, but for elective cosmetic surgery. This is wrong on every conceivable level. Shame on the union for asking for such an outrageous pert like elective cosmetic surgery. Equal shame also has to be placed on Buffalo's school administration for accepting this pert as part of the contract. What were they thinking? Oh yea, they weren't!
Sometimes I feel like the world in which we live is upside down and I am living in a Bizzaro world, (see Seinfeld the TV show). Why would it be necessary to have cosmetic surgery included in any contract what so ever? Are Buffalo teachers and their dependents born so ugly and deformed that only elective surgery can correct their plight? Do Buffalo teachers and their dependents enter lots of beauty contests? Does Buffalo win an award for having the most beautiful teachers? Obviously the answers to all of these is a resounding NO! So the only reason this pert became part of the contract is due to a complete and utter lack of common sense on any one's part. Shame on them all!
This is a prime example of how union contracts have gotten so out of control and so far beyond their scope of coverage since their inception to protect employees rights and pay. Their aren't enough adjectives that the Buffalo taxpayers should be shouting at the top of their lungs to rescind this pert and any others like it. As part of trying to get this country back on its feet, I firmly believe that all union contracts must be reviewed with a fine tooth comb and remove outrageous and costly perts such as cosmetic surgery. If the unions don't like it, TS!!!!!!! They should have never received such a pert in the first place. Shame on everyone!!!
Common sense rules and greed drools.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Florida
Hi Everyone:
I'm back from vacation. Although we all had a great time, vacations always seem to end much to soon. While on vacation though, I unintentionally discovered something that really mystified me. But I am getting ahead of myself. First the back story is that 4 of us went to Florida for some much needed R&R. While there, our friends wanted to check out some retirement homes, condos and townhouses. I believe that we visited about 12. All of the homes etc. were built between 1997 to 2006. So they should have been built with efficiency in mind. Not so fast with that kind of thinking.
Every single house, condo and townhouse had single paned windows, this included the windows in doors and the sliding glass doors. When we visited stores and restaurants etc., they also had single paned windows and doors. Even the resort that we stayed at used single paned windows and sliders. On mildly chilly mornings, we could see condensation on the windows.
Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that having double paned windows in a warm climate can also save a lot of money by lowering one's air conditioning needs which in turn lowers the electricity bills. I really couldn't believe that all these recently built homes etc. were built with not enough attention paid to energy savings. What an absolute shame.
Obviously, common sense was not used in the designing and constructing of all these structures. Money was most likely the determining factor in choosing single paned over double paned windows. Just think about all the energy wasted. It is mind boggling. Again, what a shame!
Common sense rules and inefficient buildings don't.
Til next week.
I'm back from vacation. Although we all had a great time, vacations always seem to end much to soon. While on vacation though, I unintentionally discovered something that really mystified me. But I am getting ahead of myself. First the back story is that 4 of us went to Florida for some much needed R&R. While there, our friends wanted to check out some retirement homes, condos and townhouses. I believe that we visited about 12. All of the homes etc. were built between 1997 to 2006. So they should have been built with efficiency in mind. Not so fast with that kind of thinking.
Every single house, condo and townhouse had single paned windows, this included the windows in doors and the sliding glass doors. When we visited stores and restaurants etc., they also had single paned windows and doors. Even the resort that we stayed at used single paned windows and sliders. On mildly chilly mornings, we could see condensation on the windows.
Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that having double paned windows in a warm climate can also save a lot of money by lowering one's air conditioning needs which in turn lowers the electricity bills. I really couldn't believe that all these recently built homes etc. were built with not enough attention paid to energy savings. What an absolute shame.
Obviously, common sense was not used in the designing and constructing of all these structures. Money was most likely the determining factor in choosing single paned over double paned windows. Just think about all the energy wasted. It is mind boggling. Again, what a shame!
Common sense rules and inefficient buildings don't.
Til next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)