What a refreshing sight came across the Internet this week - I guess it is called a 'flash-mob'. Whether it was contemporaneous or not, it was a great sight to see. One person started to sing a Christmas song, then another joined in and on and on until there was a crowd singing Christmas carols in the mall. There were 3 floors of shoppers looking on and joining in. Then I went on to You Tube and saw many of these same happenings all over the country whether at malls or in the streets.
In viewing the crowds there were people of all races and cultures. But what I didn't see were any ACLU protesters or anyone protesting these sudden outbursts of Christmas spirit.
The large majority of people in this country who believe in religious freedom are being restrained by the loud secular groups that want to re-interpret the Constitution in an attempt to prohibit religious expression via sullen faces and black-robed judges. Religious Police are inspecting every small town and large city public square for secular neutrality.
BUT TECHNOLOGY TRIUMPHS---Go to 'You Tube Flash Mob Christmas' to view the smiling happy faces and joyful expressions of the people in these crowds.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Nanny Legislation
A DREAM SEQUENCE: I live in New York City and it is March 12, 2013. I wake up and can't decide what country I am living in - am I in Russia? Today is the day Mayor Bloomberg has said I can no longer buy a plus 16 oz. sweet drink in a number of establishments - another infringement of a government interfering with my personal daily life choices.
BACK TO REALITY: First of all, how did the Mayor determine where these restrictions would take place? He targeted movie theaters and stadium concession stands, but not vending machines, newsstands, and 7-11 type stores(where I think most of the large drinks would be sold). How much is it going to cost the taxpayer for this selective enforcement?
Secondly, the garbage industry will benefit because there will be more trash generated. Instead of ordering 1 - 32 oz. drink, customers will order 2 - 16 oz. drinks therefore doubling the amount of containers thrown away.
Thirdly, Did the mayor do the research on diet drinks vs. drinks with sugar? Diet drinks are not part of this proposed ban. There is evidence that regular use of artificial sweeteners may promote weight gain. After an 8 year study in San Antonio, TX, those who drank drinks with artificial sweeteners were more likely to have gained weight than those who didn't drink "diet" drinks.
The purpose of this intrusive "law" is to cut down on obesity. They say large drinks may be the cause. But do we know if the people who are consuming these oversize drinks are washing down the 3 or 4 Big Macs they've just eaten? Is the next step to ban the number of burgers you can order at a burger joint or the number of slices of pizza you can order at a pizza parlor?
The meaning of the word intrude is "to force upon others without being asked or welcomed". At what level does this regulatory intrusiveness stop? We are being subjected to superfluous and self-aggrandizing laws. In the future will the 'Kitchen Police' come to my home to check out my food supply?
We cannot be our brothers' keepers. It is time for people to take responsibility and become aware of how their food choices can negatively affect their health. We do not need or want the government governing every aspect of everything we do. Start educating kids about the importance of nutrition the minute they start school and continue to reinforce this theme for the next 12 years. Will such a program work? I don't know. But I would favor education over legislation
BACK TO REALITY: First of all, how did the Mayor determine where these restrictions would take place? He targeted movie theaters and stadium concession stands, but not vending machines, newsstands, and 7-11 type stores(where I think most of the large drinks would be sold). How much is it going to cost the taxpayer for this selective enforcement?
Secondly, the garbage industry will benefit because there will be more trash generated. Instead of ordering 1 - 32 oz. drink, customers will order 2 - 16 oz. drinks therefore doubling the amount of containers thrown away.
Thirdly, Did the mayor do the research on diet drinks vs. drinks with sugar? Diet drinks are not part of this proposed ban. There is evidence that regular use of artificial sweeteners may promote weight gain. After an 8 year study in San Antonio, TX, those who drank drinks with artificial sweeteners were more likely to have gained weight than those who didn't drink "diet" drinks.
The purpose of this intrusive "law" is to cut down on obesity. They say large drinks may be the cause. But do we know if the people who are consuming these oversize drinks are washing down the 3 or 4 Big Macs they've just eaten? Is the next step to ban the number of burgers you can order at a burger joint or the number of slices of pizza you can order at a pizza parlor?
The meaning of the word intrude is "to force upon others without being asked or welcomed". At what level does this regulatory intrusiveness stop? We are being subjected to superfluous and self-aggrandizing laws. In the future will the 'Kitchen Police' come to my home to check out my food supply?
We cannot be our brothers' keepers. It is time for people to take responsibility and become aware of how their food choices can negatively affect their health. We do not need or want the government governing every aspect of everything we do. Start educating kids about the importance of nutrition the minute they start school and continue to reinforce this theme for the next 12 years. Will such a program work? I don't know. But I would favor education over legislation
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
??OBAMAGATE??
In 1972 Richard Nixon was re-elected by a landslide over George McGovern. Nixon won majorities in 49 states. In 1973 at the start of his 2nd term, a cover-up buzz began swirling around Washington. Two former Nixon aides, Gordon Liddy and James McCord, are convicted of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping (January 30th). Crimes were committed but there were no injuries, no deaths, national security was not compromised, no distractive sex issue, and the election outcome was not affected, yet the cover-up buzz grew louder.
In the ensuing months it became clear there was a cover-up, yet President Nixon continued to deny any knowledge or involvement. The final blow came when Presidential Appointments Secretary Alexander Butterfield reveals that the President had recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his offices. The buzz turned into a roar and the entire episode collapsed after the discovery of the 18 minute gap in the tapes.
February 6, 1974 - The House of Representatives passed Resolution 803 by 410 - 4 to authorize the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment proceedings against President Nixon.
July 28, 1974 - The Judiciary Committee approves Obstruction of Justice Article to impeach President Nixon by a vote of 27 - 11 (21Democrats, 6 Repblicans vote yes).
August 9, 1974 - President Nixon becomes the first President to resign. Whether the House and Senate would have successfully impeached the President is unknown (a 2/3 majority is required), but the President must have considered it probable that there were sufficient Republican "yes" votes.
Today America is faced with a crisis with similar overtones. The American Embassy in Benghazi was attacked on 9/11. Unlike Watergate there were deaths, injuries, a sex scandal, classified document exposure, property damage, possible affected election results and cover-up. Do we dare postulate "OBAMAGATE"? Will the Democrats like the Watergate Republicans willingly empower a select committee to get honest answers and all the facts? which currently seem to me very murky.
If President Nixon would have admitted to knowing about Watergate he might have been forgiven and completed his 2nd term. President Obama's explanation of the Benghazi attack on 9/11 is going to be more difficult and a trip to a Las Vegas fundraiser on 9/12 certainly doesn't help.
God Bless America
In the ensuing months it became clear there was a cover-up, yet President Nixon continued to deny any knowledge or involvement. The final blow came when Presidential Appointments Secretary Alexander Butterfield reveals that the President had recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his offices. The buzz turned into a roar and the entire episode collapsed after the discovery of the 18 minute gap in the tapes.
February 6, 1974 - The House of Representatives passed Resolution 803 by 410 - 4 to authorize the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment proceedings against President Nixon.
July 28, 1974 - The Judiciary Committee approves Obstruction of Justice Article to impeach President Nixon by a vote of 27 - 11 (21Democrats, 6 Repblicans vote yes).
August 9, 1974 - President Nixon becomes the first President to resign. Whether the House and Senate would have successfully impeached the President is unknown (a 2/3 majority is required), but the President must have considered it probable that there were sufficient Republican "yes" votes.
Today America is faced with a crisis with similar overtones. The American Embassy in Benghazi was attacked on 9/11. Unlike Watergate there were deaths, injuries, a sex scandal, classified document exposure, property damage, possible affected election results and cover-up. Do we dare postulate "OBAMAGATE"? Will the Democrats like the Watergate Republicans willingly empower a select committee to get honest answers and all the facts? which currently seem to me very murky.
If President Nixon would have admitted to knowing about Watergate he might have been forgiven and completed his 2nd term. President Obama's explanation of the Benghazi attack on 9/11 is going to be more difficult and a trip to a Las Vegas fundraiser on 9/12 certainly doesn't help.
God Bless America
Thursday, November 15, 2012
AARP
I see AARP advertising health care plans to senior citizens. I would hope that the Medicare eligible would select any other health insurance plan - not AARP's plan.
In order to represent the total membership of AARP, they should not have any political affiliations. But they chose to back Obamacare. Many people dropped their membership because AARP embraced this unpopular and unproven plan. Seniors - you got duped. AARP should stay neutral if they want to represent all their members.
Now that we are entering the implementation phase of Obamacare, all of the items that were buried in the 2000 page document are coming to light. The bottom line is that in the years to come you will be paying more money for your health care and your expectation of the same care as in the past will be seriously threatened.
Shame on you AARP for promoting a plan with so many undisclosed details and touting it as an improvement over our current health care system.
In order to represent the total membership of AARP, they should not have any political affiliations. But they chose to back Obamacare. Many people dropped their membership because AARP embraced this unpopular and unproven plan. Seniors - you got duped. AARP should stay neutral if they want to represent all their members.
Now that we are entering the implementation phase of Obamacare, all of the items that were buried in the 2000 page document are coming to light. The bottom line is that in the years to come you will be paying more money for your health care and your expectation of the same care as in the past will be seriously threatened.
Shame on you AARP for promoting a plan with so many undisclosed details and touting it as an improvement over our current health care system.
Friday, November 9, 2012
We Need A Leader
Where oh where is Ronald Reagan --- remember when he had the support of an entire nation - winning every state except Massachusetts? He was a President who put this country first - he did not kowtow to all our enemies.
Election is over - stock market is down over 300 hundred points. There is doubt about the future ---Will taxes go up in all sectors ( dividends and capital gains tax rate of 15% thanks to George Bush will expire in January-may go up to 20-30%)? Uncertainty about the taxes and the cost of Obamacare are causing employers to shift the work force from full time employees to part time employees. Companies are not going to create new career type jobs.
These are just a few of the issues that were kept low key by the mass media before the election. The campaign is now over; the media has their man in for four more years. Issues that could have hurt Obama will NOW miraculously and finally become front page and prime time news.
Election is over - stock market is down over 300 hundred points. There is doubt about the future ---Will taxes go up in all sectors ( dividends and capital gains tax rate of 15% thanks to George Bush will expire in January-may go up to 20-30%)? Uncertainty about the taxes and the cost of Obamacare are causing employers to shift the work force from full time employees to part time employees. Companies are not going to create new career type jobs.
These are just a few of the issues that were kept low key by the mass media before the election. The campaign is now over; the media has their man in for four more years. Issues that could have hurt Obama will NOW miraculously and finally become front page and prime time news.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Entitlements
Did you know that when you pay your home phone bill and your cell phone bill you are also paying an extra charge so that the government can give cell phones and cell phone service and computers to people who supposedly can't afford either? Check on your wireless telephone bill "Federal Universal Service Charge". This is a monthly fee(tax?) that you pay so low income people can have access to cell phones and computers. This fee is set at a percentage based on the consumer's phone bill.
Where is the incentive to go to work if the government is giving away all these additional life style conveniences that working people have to buy with their own hard earned money? Politicians make it too easy for people to stay home and not seek employment - and once again the working citizenry is footing the bill.
Washington can help out with food, housing, clothing and a traditional phone line(basic needs)-but should not subsidize a free cell phone program that is riddled with abuse (10-20 free cell phones per person) which are then being resold for money.
Where is the incentive to go to work if the government is giving away all these additional life style conveniences that working people have to buy with their own hard earned money? Politicians make it too easy for people to stay home and not seek employment - and once again the working citizenry is footing the bill.
Washington can help out with food, housing, clothing and a traditional phone line(basic needs)-but should not subsidize a free cell phone program that is riddled with abuse (10-20 free cell phones per person) which are then being resold for money.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Economics 101--Part 2 - Another stimulus?
I have been trying to understand how this new stimulus - Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's plan to put $40 billion a month into circulation - is going to work. My husband and I have been reading articles regarding this plan - and if you read 5 articles, you get 5 different interpretations on what it is all about.
This is how I understand what will happen with this new stimulus:
The Federal government is going to purchase from the banks MBS's (mortgage backed securities), formerly called toxic assets, that are corroding the bottom line of the major banks. This stimulus action is expected to enable the banks to provide loans to businesses and individuals. Somehow the money is created out "of thin air" and given to the banks for these worthless assets.
This plan works only if you believe that erasing the 5 on a $5 bill and replacing it with a 6 really puts more money in your pocket. This $40 billion a month that will go into circulation will not come without costs to its citizens. If you are now paying $3 for an item, I believe it will cost you $4 next year. This plan will have a negative effect on your purchasing power.
This is how I understand what will happen with this new stimulus:
The Federal government is going to purchase from the banks MBS's (mortgage backed securities), formerly called toxic assets, that are corroding the bottom line of the major banks. This stimulus action is expected to enable the banks to provide loans to businesses and individuals. Somehow the money is created out "of thin air" and given to the banks for these worthless assets.
This plan works only if you believe that erasing the 5 on a $5 bill and replacing it with a 6 really puts more money in your pocket. This $40 billion a month that will go into circulation will not come without costs to its citizens. If you are now paying $3 for an item, I believe it will cost you $4 next year. This plan will have a negative effect on your purchasing power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)