Hi Everyone,
On July 23rd of this year, a terrible crash occurred on the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson River between Rockland County and Westchester County, New York. It was one of those unimaginable and horrific crashes due to the fact that Michael Schechel was driving his Ford Explorer the wrong way on I-87. He somehow managed to drive southbound in the northbound lanes. The inevitable happened a short time later when Schechel crashed head on into the car of Newman Ayeh-Brachie and his wife Hannah. Hannah was in the front passenger seat and was killed in the crash; while her husband suffered broken ribs, a broken finger and cuts and bruises. Three other vehicles crashed. Schechel, 69, suffered a head injury and his passenger, his live-in girlfriend, Luz Hoffman, 56, suffered spinal and other injuries. FYI, Schechel is a retired bus driver with a clean driving record.
Ayeh-Brachie survived and did what any normal person would do. He sued Schechel in September stating that Schechel was reckless by driving southbound in the northbound lanes, leaving him (Ayeh-Brachie) with serious and permanent injuries. The suit also states that Schechel ignored warnings by other drivers to turn around. Schechel continued to drive the wrong way until he crashed into the Ayeh-Brachie's car. All this makes sense and Ayeh-Brachie is within his legal rights to sue for the loss of his wife and for the injuries he sustained. But what happened next makes me furious with some lawyers and defendants for their frivolous court filings.
The following is true and accurate and is so outrageous that it seems incomprehensible to me. Schechel's lawyer, Sara Salvi, alleged in court papers filed last month, that Ayeh-Brachie's injuries, were at least partially caused by his "own culpable conduct" by not wearing a seat belt. So let me get this straight, an idiot drives on the wrong side of the road, hits an oncoming car head on and kills one person and injures the driver. Now the driver's injuries are his fault since he wasn't wearing a seat belt? Ayeh-Brachie's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, responded that both Ayeh-Brachie and his wife were indeed wearing seat belts. But for Schechel to pass blame or at least try to pass blame on Ayeh-Brachie's injuries is abominable. Doesn't he or his lawyer have any common sense? Apparently not even a microgram between them!!! As Schechel stated, he had no idea he was driving the wrong way. What country does he live in? Where ever we drive in this country, the median or center lines are always on the left side of the road. So when he was driving, on that fateful day, the median was on his right side and oncoming traffic was on his side, coming right towards him. Being a retired bus driver, he had to have known something was wrong. I hope the Judge in this case throws out Schechel's response claim and eventually throws the book at him.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Time Is Not On Their Side!
Hi Everyone,
As we are all so painfully aware, a little over one year ago, a mad gunman killed 26 people, including 20 six and seven year olds, in a school in Newtown, CT. Soon after the shootings, there was a lot of talk, especially from politicians from both sides, on whether or not to change gun laws to make them stricter. There was news coverage everywhere and then the real fight started between the NRA and DC. As in so many other instances, somehow the minority group was able to completely stop the majority group from passing any kind of new gun control laws. That ending was so predictable and unsettling at the same time.
Some of the people who lost loved ones in the Newtown shootings launched a grass roots campaign soon after the December 14, 2012 massacre to address gun violence. In this day and age of no one agreeing in DC, can you blame them? Of course not! The group, Sandy Hook Promise, goal is to make a cultural change about gun violence. Sandy Hook Promise hasn't completely given up hope on gun legislation coming from DC, but they are certainly not putting all of their eggs in one basket. Sandy Hook Promise's premise begins with them talking to parents. Talking parent to parent I believe is the right and best approach, especially since parents share a common passion for ensuring their children's safety. Waiting for DC to act is a total waste of time, since they can't seem to agree on much of anything.
Grass roots campaigns can and do work. In this instance, the thought of more children being mercilessly killed, while in school, where they are supposed to be safe, is appalling to me. So since DC either can't or won't do anything about finding a solution any time soon in the near future, I fully support Sandy Hook Promise. As I have learned, common sense is not usually associated with DC, so the alternative common sense approach has to be a grass roots campaign that I hope can and will get the job done. Kudos to Sandy Hook Promise.
Very unfortunately, the down side to a grass roots campaign, is that it will most likely take a lot of time (years) to finally getting some federal gun control legislation passed. But in the mean time, how many more innocent children and school teachers, etc., will be needlessly killed? Time is not money in this case, it is lives saved or lost and DC has shown it has no interest in changing anything and that just plain sucks.
FYI, I am not against legal ownership of certain guns, but assault weapons were created for one reason and only one reason, to kill as many people in as short a period of time as possible. I previously blogged about that on 7/22/12.
Til next week.
Peter
As we are all so painfully aware, a little over one year ago, a mad gunman killed 26 people, including 20 six and seven year olds, in a school in Newtown, CT. Soon after the shootings, there was a lot of talk, especially from politicians from both sides, on whether or not to change gun laws to make them stricter. There was news coverage everywhere and then the real fight started between the NRA and DC. As in so many other instances, somehow the minority group was able to completely stop the majority group from passing any kind of new gun control laws. That ending was so predictable and unsettling at the same time.
Some of the people who lost loved ones in the Newtown shootings launched a grass roots campaign soon after the December 14, 2012 massacre to address gun violence. In this day and age of no one agreeing in DC, can you blame them? Of course not! The group, Sandy Hook Promise, goal is to make a cultural change about gun violence. Sandy Hook Promise hasn't completely given up hope on gun legislation coming from DC, but they are certainly not putting all of their eggs in one basket. Sandy Hook Promise's premise begins with them talking to parents. Talking parent to parent I believe is the right and best approach, especially since parents share a common passion for ensuring their children's safety. Waiting for DC to act is a total waste of time, since they can't seem to agree on much of anything.
Grass roots campaigns can and do work. In this instance, the thought of more children being mercilessly killed, while in school, where they are supposed to be safe, is appalling to me. So since DC either can't or won't do anything about finding a solution any time soon in the near future, I fully support Sandy Hook Promise. As I have learned, common sense is not usually associated with DC, so the alternative common sense approach has to be a grass roots campaign that I hope can and will get the job done. Kudos to Sandy Hook Promise.
Very unfortunately, the down side to a grass roots campaign, is that it will most likely take a lot of time (years) to finally getting some federal gun control legislation passed. But in the mean time, how many more innocent children and school teachers, etc., will be needlessly killed? Time is not money in this case, it is lives saved or lost and DC has shown it has no interest in changing anything and that just plain sucks.
FYI, I am not against legal ownership of certain guns, but assault weapons were created for one reason and only one reason, to kill as many people in as short a period of time as possible. I previously blogged about that on 7/22/12.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Lack of Common Sense at its Best
Hi Everyone,
So another November elections has come and gone. Hopefully all registered voters voted. Every vote does indeed count. Sometimes even the underdog wins. Such was the case here the town in which we live.
In one corner was the 3 term incumbent GOP Supervisor with a sizable war chest. In the other corner was the political newbie and Democratic candidate with no chest what so ever. Because of the current Town Supervisor's ill conceived and illegal location of a proposed cell tower, I got politically involved to oust her. I got involved from the get go with getting signatures for the newbie's petitions, fundraising, putting up signs and then making phone calls. It is amazing what a truly grass roots campaign can accomplish. She and her campaign committee were able to get her message out in a big way. Our newbie won by a landslide, 69% to 31%.
Now that you know the back story, the following is the update. So our sour grapes current Supervisor is so upset that she lost and lost by such a huge margin that she is being a true cry baby. How? Well, first of all, at least three town employees that I know of, one is an elected position, took the day after the elections off so they would not have to listen to her rant and rave about the election results, which she definitely thought she would win. The Supervisor elect has called and left two messages for the current Supervisor. The messages were about having a meeting so that there would be a smooth transition come 1/1/14. Well, well, well, the current Supervisor has totally ignored the messages and never called her back. I can understand an incumbent being upset over losing an election. But to not have a sit down with her successor just shows immaturity, a lack of concern for residents and of course a total lack of any common sense. Her actions prove my politician's creed of not having any common sense. I wouldn't put it past the current Supervisor to hide important info, dates etc., etc., to make the Supervisor elect job's more difficult..
It is truly shameful when politicians act in such a manner. All the current Supervisor is concerned about is herself and nobody else. You can't get anymore selfish than that. It is also too bad that she can't act in an adult or professional manner. In personally witnessing her pompous and callous attitude in dealing with residents during public hearings, her ignoring the Supervisor elect really doesn't surprise me or lots of other residents. It is just shows her true disdain for those who disagreed or opposed her.
Come 1/1/14, we won't have to deal with the wicked witch of the east any longer. YEA!
Til next week.
Peter
So another November elections has come and gone. Hopefully all registered voters voted. Every vote does indeed count. Sometimes even the underdog wins. Such was the case here the town in which we live.
In one corner was the 3 term incumbent GOP Supervisor with a sizable war chest. In the other corner was the political newbie and Democratic candidate with no chest what so ever. Because of the current Town Supervisor's ill conceived and illegal location of a proposed cell tower, I got politically involved to oust her. I got involved from the get go with getting signatures for the newbie's petitions, fundraising, putting up signs and then making phone calls. It is amazing what a truly grass roots campaign can accomplish. She and her campaign committee were able to get her message out in a big way. Our newbie won by a landslide, 69% to 31%.
Now that you know the back story, the following is the update. So our sour grapes current Supervisor is so upset that she lost and lost by such a huge margin that she is being a true cry baby. How? Well, first of all, at least three town employees that I know of, one is an elected position, took the day after the elections off so they would not have to listen to her rant and rave about the election results, which she definitely thought she would win. The Supervisor elect has called and left two messages for the current Supervisor. The messages were about having a meeting so that there would be a smooth transition come 1/1/14. Well, well, well, the current Supervisor has totally ignored the messages and never called her back. I can understand an incumbent being upset over losing an election. But to not have a sit down with her successor just shows immaturity, a lack of concern for residents and of course a total lack of any common sense. Her actions prove my politician's creed of not having any common sense. I wouldn't put it past the current Supervisor to hide important info, dates etc., etc., to make the Supervisor elect job's more difficult..
It is truly shameful when politicians act in such a manner. All the current Supervisor is concerned about is herself and nobody else. You can't get anymore selfish than that. It is also too bad that she can't act in an adult or professional manner. In personally witnessing her pompous and callous attitude in dealing with residents during public hearings, her ignoring the Supervisor elect really doesn't surprise me or lots of other residents. It is just shows her true disdain for those who disagreed or opposed her.
Come 1/1/14, we won't have to deal with the wicked witch of the east any longer. YEA!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Now They Have Gone Too Far!
Hi Everyone,
For the past few years and then some, it seems that more and more people, companies, politicians and schools don't want to offend anyone. So the term, politically correct, originated. Being politically correct may be a good thing in some instances, but certainly it is not a good thing in all circumstances. But I was quite surprised to learn how far a school is willing to go to be politically correct. A friend of ours from Long Island, New York, told us about this true story that occurred to his daughter in her elementary school. The daughter told her father that the chorus teacher told them that they were only going to sing holiday songs and Hanukkah songs. Then the daughter told her father that they were going to sing, We Wish You a Swinging Holiday, which is actually, We Wish You a Merry Christmas. The children were not allowed to sing Merry Christmas and were yelled at if they did!
Is this what it is coming to? I certainly hope not. I am a firm believer in a live and let live philosophy. That would include people being able to celebrate their religious holidays including singing songs etc. Where does this school come off changing the words to a beloved and I think almost 140 year old song? In this instance, it appears that the school, in an effort to be somehow neutral by omitting those two words, have instead created a fire storm from her father. He is rightfully furious with the school. The school's position, in my opinion, is far more hurtful than the kids singing the correct words. What actual good can come from this? What does this teach the children? How do you explain to the kids that they can sing the songs correctly anywhere but at school?
Not being allowed to sing songs as they were originally written and intended is tantamount to censorship in the first degree. What state and country do we live in? How is this even allowed? Hopefully the school and the school board will revisit their decision. But maybe the second time around they will use some common sense. Maybe, like I have said about politicians, school professionals, including school board members should be taught lessons in common sense.
Til next week.
Peter
For the past few years and then some, it seems that more and more people, companies, politicians and schools don't want to offend anyone. So the term, politically correct, originated. Being politically correct may be a good thing in some instances, but certainly it is not a good thing in all circumstances. But I was quite surprised to learn how far a school is willing to go to be politically correct. A friend of ours from Long Island, New York, told us about this true story that occurred to his daughter in her elementary school. The daughter told her father that the chorus teacher told them that they were only going to sing holiday songs and Hanukkah songs. Then the daughter told her father that they were going to sing, We Wish You a Swinging Holiday, which is actually, We Wish You a Merry Christmas. The children were not allowed to sing Merry Christmas and were yelled at if they did!
Is this what it is coming to? I certainly hope not. I am a firm believer in a live and let live philosophy. That would include people being able to celebrate their religious holidays including singing songs etc. Where does this school come off changing the words to a beloved and I think almost 140 year old song? In this instance, it appears that the school, in an effort to be somehow neutral by omitting those two words, have instead created a fire storm from her father. He is rightfully furious with the school. The school's position, in my opinion, is far more hurtful than the kids singing the correct words. What actual good can come from this? What does this teach the children? How do you explain to the kids that they can sing the songs correctly anywhere but at school?
Not being allowed to sing songs as they were originally written and intended is tantamount to censorship in the first degree. What state and country do we live in? How is this even allowed? Hopefully the school and the school board will revisit their decision. But maybe the second time around they will use some common sense. Maybe, like I have said about politicians, school professionals, including school board members should be taught lessons in common sense.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Better Food
Hi Everyone,
This week's Time magazine had an interesting article about trimming the fat. Back in the day, prior to the 1950's, food was made with real unadulterated natural ingredients. Real milk, butter, eggs, salt and sugar etc., etc. were the ingredients that were the basis for our food products. But, something happened in the 1950's that changed what we have eaten ever since.
The 1950's saw the introduction of trans fats into the production of everything from crackers to donuts to microwave popcorn to fast food burger and other fast food joints. Artificial trans fats is partially hydrogenated oils. According to the article, trans fats smooth texture, stabilize flavor and improve shelf life. It has been proven that trans fats are linked with heart disease, (clogged arteries). The center for disease control, CDC, states that 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 heart disease related deaths occur each year due to trans fats. And those numbers are sure to increase.
I am keenly aware that there are people in this country who believe that we should have less government interference in our lives. Maybe in some respects they are right. But when it comes to our food safety, I am a strong proponent of the government trying to protect our food. You can't count on big food conglomerates to put our safety ahead of their profits. So on 11/7/13, the FDA announced that it is starting the process of eliminating trans fats from the U.S. food supply. FYI, in 2006, NYC banned trans fats from restaurants. California followed in 2008 by doing the same thing.
The absence of trans fats from our foods will not happen overnight. Most likely, it will take years since food manufacturers who use it must reformulate their products. Maybe, just maybe, they will again use natural ingredients instead of finding a trans fats substitute. Time will tell.
I do believe that eventually eliminating trans fats from our food supply is a good thing and common sense over ruled big food businesses efforts to thwart it. Food is suppose to nourish our bodies and not hurt them.
Til next week.
Peter
This week's Time magazine had an interesting article about trimming the fat. Back in the day, prior to the 1950's, food was made with real unadulterated natural ingredients. Real milk, butter, eggs, salt and sugar etc., etc. were the ingredients that were the basis for our food products. But, something happened in the 1950's that changed what we have eaten ever since.
The 1950's saw the introduction of trans fats into the production of everything from crackers to donuts to microwave popcorn to fast food burger and other fast food joints. Artificial trans fats is partially hydrogenated oils. According to the article, trans fats smooth texture, stabilize flavor and improve shelf life. It has been proven that trans fats are linked with heart disease, (clogged arteries). The center for disease control, CDC, states that 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 heart disease related deaths occur each year due to trans fats. And those numbers are sure to increase.
I am keenly aware that there are people in this country who believe that we should have less government interference in our lives. Maybe in some respects they are right. But when it comes to our food safety, I am a strong proponent of the government trying to protect our food. You can't count on big food conglomerates to put our safety ahead of their profits. So on 11/7/13, the FDA announced that it is starting the process of eliminating trans fats from the U.S. food supply. FYI, in 2006, NYC banned trans fats from restaurants. California followed in 2008 by doing the same thing.
The absence of trans fats from our foods will not happen overnight. Most likely, it will take years since food manufacturers who use it must reformulate their products. Maybe, just maybe, they will again use natural ingredients instead of finding a trans fats substitute. Time will tell.
I do believe that eventually eliminating trans fats from our food supply is a good thing and common sense over ruled big food businesses efforts to thwart it. Food is suppose to nourish our bodies and not hurt them.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Here We Go Again?!
Hi Everyone,
I blogged about this a while ago, but here we go again. My previous blog on this topic will seem like a repeat today, but how low can they really go? What am I talking about? The downsizing of food items.
Last week I read my circular for our local grocery store, which happens to be a Shop Rite. I noticed that a can of spaghetti sauce was on sale for $.99 and was only 24 ounces. Before the downsizing began, some years ago, a jar or can of spaghetti sauce was 28 ounces then 26 ounces and now it is 24 ounces. Coffee was gone through the same downsizing as well as almost everything else except for maybe milk and butter. I fully understand what these companies are up to; instead of rising their prices, they downsize the quantity, while charging the same price as the previous larger size. A price increase without actually raising prices. Crazy like a fox!!! If they continue to par down the volume, they will eventually sell all food in individual sizes. That way we can all pay the most for their product. Just check out the 7 to 9 ounce frozen vegetables packages sold by Green Giant and Bird's Eye. Used to be that the 16 ounce package would be enough for 4 people. Now one package is enough for 2 people, so you have to buy 2 packages for 4 people. So my question of the day is, how low can they go in their downsizing?
I am not sure what can and will stop these companies, other than injecting some much needed common sense into their forward thinking. What they should be thinking about is how to sell more of their products. Again, Economics 101 dealing with supply and demand seems to be a thing of the past. If they sold more of their products, they would increase their production lines and maybe then they could hire more employees. Wishful thinking? I really hope not.
Til next week.
Peter
I blogged about this a while ago, but here we go again. My previous blog on this topic will seem like a repeat today, but how low can they really go? What am I talking about? The downsizing of food items.
Last week I read my circular for our local grocery store, which happens to be a Shop Rite. I noticed that a can of spaghetti sauce was on sale for $.99 and was only 24 ounces. Before the downsizing began, some years ago, a jar or can of spaghetti sauce was 28 ounces then 26 ounces and now it is 24 ounces. Coffee was gone through the same downsizing as well as almost everything else except for maybe milk and butter. I fully understand what these companies are up to; instead of rising their prices, they downsize the quantity, while charging the same price as the previous larger size. A price increase without actually raising prices. Crazy like a fox!!! If they continue to par down the volume, they will eventually sell all food in individual sizes. That way we can all pay the most for their product. Just check out the 7 to 9 ounce frozen vegetables packages sold by Green Giant and Bird's Eye. Used to be that the 16 ounce package would be enough for 4 people. Now one package is enough for 2 people, so you have to buy 2 packages for 4 people. So my question of the day is, how low can they go in their downsizing?
I am not sure what can and will stop these companies, other than injecting some much needed common sense into their forward thinking. What they should be thinking about is how to sell more of their products. Again, Economics 101 dealing with supply and demand seems to be a thing of the past. If they sold more of their products, they would increase their production lines and maybe then they could hire more employees. Wishful thinking? I really hope not.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Do You Believe In.....
Hi Everyone,
I would safely say that the majority of Americans get their local and national news from their TVs. Everyone has their favorite TV news channel. Since I have previously commented on this one particular news channel, I can't believe what Fox News did again. Will they ever learn?
A few weeks ago, during the government shutdown, Fox News host, Anna Koaiman reported on a story, that she reported as factual. She said that, "President Obama was using his own money to keep a museum for Muslim Culture open and operating". For those of you in the know, there is a parody news site on the web called the National Report. They are like SNL, (Saturday Night Live) where they do parody skits and report on bogus news stories. Well, well, well!! That is actually where Koaiman got her President Obama's news story facts from. No seriously, that is her source for the story! Additionally, the higher ups in Fox News, knew that the story was bogus, but they still decided to air the story anyway. Why? Ratings and misinformation are the only answers I can think of. Why else? Fox News wanted to get higher ratings and spread more misinformation regarding the President.
Fox News is not a real news organization, it is hyper-partisan TV entertainment. What made matters worse for the newly renamed Faux News is what they did afterwards. I have seen other news programs give on air apologies for their mistakes. But not Faux News. They had Koaiman retract her story via a tweet and not on air. So her apology was seen only by her twitter followers and not the general public. Shouldn't that give their viewers a moment to pause and think about their reliability? If not, it should!
I feel sorry for every single person who believes everything that they hear from Faux News. Obviously there are other TV stations that are partisan on the other end of the spectrum, but they do not air obvious lies and report them as facts. But Faux News deems the false and misleading stories fit to air. That is so they can continue their mission of spreading any and all misinformation as they deem fit. Such a sorry state of affairs! My advice; be careful of what and whom you believe. Since this is not the first, nor the second, or even their third time Faux News has done this kind of false reporting. So how can their viewers trust what they report on? Or are their viewers just Lemmings, following and believing everything that will eventually lead to their big time disappointments.
If Faux News had just one ounce of common sense, they would stop reporting lies, in this case, a bogus story that was never meant to be taken seriously, to improve their reputation. But since Faux News has done this repeatedly, isn't it painfully obvious that they care more about ratings and spreading false stories, than their reputation. If they continue down this path, in my opinion, they should be at least fined from the FCC. Hopefully Faux News will never start using SNL as their news source for factual news!
Just say no to Faux News.
Til next week.
Peter
I would safely say that the majority of Americans get their local and national news from their TVs. Everyone has their favorite TV news channel. Since I have previously commented on this one particular news channel, I can't believe what Fox News did again. Will they ever learn?
A few weeks ago, during the government shutdown, Fox News host, Anna Koaiman reported on a story, that she reported as factual. She said that, "President Obama was using his own money to keep a museum for Muslim Culture open and operating". For those of you in the know, there is a parody news site on the web called the National Report. They are like SNL, (Saturday Night Live) where they do parody skits and report on bogus news stories. Well, well, well!! That is actually where Koaiman got her President Obama's news story facts from. No seriously, that is her source for the story! Additionally, the higher ups in Fox News, knew that the story was bogus, but they still decided to air the story anyway. Why? Ratings and misinformation are the only answers I can think of. Why else? Fox News wanted to get higher ratings and spread more misinformation regarding the President.
Fox News is not a real news organization, it is hyper-partisan TV entertainment. What made matters worse for the newly renamed Faux News is what they did afterwards. I have seen other news programs give on air apologies for their mistakes. But not Faux News. They had Koaiman retract her story via a tweet and not on air. So her apology was seen only by her twitter followers and not the general public. Shouldn't that give their viewers a moment to pause and think about their reliability? If not, it should!
I feel sorry for every single person who believes everything that they hear from Faux News. Obviously there are other TV stations that are partisan on the other end of the spectrum, but they do not air obvious lies and report them as facts. But Faux News deems the false and misleading stories fit to air. That is so they can continue their mission of spreading any and all misinformation as they deem fit. Such a sorry state of affairs! My advice; be careful of what and whom you believe. Since this is not the first, nor the second, or even their third time Faux News has done this kind of false reporting. So how can their viewers trust what they report on? Or are their viewers just Lemmings, following and believing everything that will eventually lead to their big time disappointments.
If Faux News had just one ounce of common sense, they would stop reporting lies, in this case, a bogus story that was never meant to be taken seriously, to improve their reputation. But since Faux News has done this repeatedly, isn't it painfully obvious that they care more about ratings and spreading false stories, than their reputation. If they continue down this path, in my opinion, they should be at least fined from the FCC. Hopefully Faux News will never start using SNL as their news source for factual news!
Just say no to Faux News.
Til next week.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)