Two days before Christmas, Paul Crabtree had some last minute Christmas 'shopping' to do.
His girlfriend/friend/whatever, Elizabeth Holt, also had some 'shopping' to get done... so she went with him.
Unknown person #3, accompanies Paul and Elizabeth to fight the holiday crowds and the trio sets off to get gifts and spread holiday cheer.
How did they fare?
It turns out, they skipped the malls, the traffic and the crowds. Instead they went to an apartment complex, armed themselves with knives and broke into someone's home.
Those were bad decisions. But then it got much worse.
The resident of the apartment was home. And armed. With a gun.
What's the old saying? 'Never bring a knife to a gunfight?'
I'll give you 3 guesses as to who came out on the short end of the stick here, and the first two don't count.
When Crabtree took a slug from the gun, Miss Elizabeth Holt and the other unnamed person decided they got the wrong apartment and got the heck out of dodge. They left Mr. Crabtree at the apartment to discuss things more in depth with the resident.
Rest easy. The good guy (apartment resident) is alive and kicking and gets to enjoy Christmas of 2007.
As for Crabtree? He's forever on the 'Naughtly List' and enjoying a dirt nap. His two accomplices, Elizabeth Holt and the unknown person... they're on the run. For now.
The good news in all this? There's one less criminal you have to worry about breaking into your home and doing you and your family harm. There are two other criminals who will think twice (hopefully) before doing something like this again and will be caught soon.
And lastly... the guy at home who fended off the intruders... He's alive.
Thanks to his gun.
I can only imagine how this scenario might have turned out had our hero only been allowed by government to be armed with a knife...
Monday, December 24, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Before you sign...
Scenario 1: You're going through 9 pages of paperwork with the bank for the approval of your loan. At the signing, you:
A: Get a short synopsis of each page and then sign where the loan officer tells you to sign.
B: Read and scrutinize through each section, asking questions before you sign anything.
Scenario 2: You are about to sign the contract for your new job. When it comes time to sign your contract, you:
A: Go ahead and sign it. You're certain it says exactly what you agreed it would say.
B: Read and scrutinize through each, making sure everything is correct before you sign at the bottom.
Although entirely different scenarios, the importance of each doesn't change. You have to know, understand and agree to all the terms when you're entering into something that requires your signature.
Sure, going through those nine pages at the loan signing will take an extra 20 to 40 minutes as you read over everything... and yes, you're eating into the loan officer's lunch break. But this is important because once signed, it's fixed.
And re-reading the contract with your about-to-be employer before signing it may make you appear to be a bit paranoid, but if something is wrong and not in your favor, you want to catch it BEFORE you sign.
Home loan. Employee contract.
Important things.
They really don't compare to a hill of beans when it comes to imposing a federal law, right? Once something is law, we're all bound to it and can face severe punishment if we don't comply.
On Wednesday, December 19th, the Energy Bill was signed into law by President Bush.
The bill was about a foot in height and had about three thousand five hundred pages.
Ask yourself: Do you think any member of Congress or President Bush read all 3,500 pages?
Me neither.
That strikes me as irresponsible.
A: Get a short synopsis of each page and then sign where the loan officer tells you to sign.
B: Read and scrutinize through each section, asking questions before you sign anything.
Scenario 2: You are about to sign the contract for your new job. When it comes time to sign your contract, you:
A: Go ahead and sign it. You're certain it says exactly what you agreed it would say.
B: Read and scrutinize through each, making sure everything is correct before you sign at the bottom.
Although entirely different scenarios, the importance of each doesn't change. You have to know, understand and agree to all the terms when you're entering into something that requires your signature.
Sure, going through those nine pages at the loan signing will take an extra 20 to 40 minutes as you read over everything... and yes, you're eating into the loan officer's lunch break. But this is important because once signed, it's fixed.
And re-reading the contract with your about-to-be employer before signing it may make you appear to be a bit paranoid, but if something is wrong and not in your favor, you want to catch it BEFORE you sign.
Home loan. Employee contract.
Important things.
They really don't compare to a hill of beans when it comes to imposing a federal law, right? Once something is law, we're all bound to it and can face severe punishment if we don't comply.
On Wednesday, December 19th, the Energy Bill was signed into law by President Bush.
The bill was about a foot in height and had about three thousand five hundred pages.
Ask yourself: Do you think any member of Congress or President Bush read all 3,500 pages?
Me neither.
That strikes me as irresponsible.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Trumping Contracts
Suppose you work for a multi-million dollar company and have a contract that states the terms, conditions, the salary and the salary increases of your employment.
When the contract was drawn up, you and the company both agreed to the terms. Each side was happy because they felt that they were getting the better end of the deal.
Two years into your employment, the company falls on hard times. Sales are down, the projections are off, etc.
It's unfortunate for the company, but luckily for you, YOU have a signed CONTRACT that specifically states that you still get your raise/bonus from the company. Right?
Not so fast.
The Federal Government steps in.
The government 'suggests' that instead of the company giving you your 15% raise next week, it should 'freeze' your salary right where it is.
For the next FIVE YEARS.
How 'bout them apples?
So when the government 'steps in' and 'suggests' to banks and mortgage companies they should 'freeze' their interest rates so that people who bought houses they can't afford won't have to foreclose or sell their homes when their interest rate increases.... You should be equally miffed as well.
When the contract was drawn up, you and the company both agreed to the terms. Each side was happy because they felt that they were getting the better end of the deal.
Two years into your employment, the company falls on hard times. Sales are down, the projections are off, etc.
It's unfortunate for the company, but luckily for you, YOU have a signed CONTRACT that specifically states that you still get your raise/bonus from the company. Right?
Not so fast.
The Federal Government steps in.
The government 'suggests' that instead of the company giving you your 15% raise next week, it should 'freeze' your salary right where it is.
For the next FIVE YEARS.
How 'bout them apples?
So when the government 'steps in' and 'suggests' to banks and mortgage companies they should 'freeze' their interest rates so that people who bought houses they can't afford won't have to foreclose or sell their homes when their interest rate increases.... You should be equally miffed as well.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Drug Testing Students?
The Madison School Board was about to vote on drug testing students recently but the vote was stalled thanks to three parents who voiced their opposition.
So how could any rational parent be opposed to this vote? The parents 'said they didn't think the proposed policy had been publicized enough and would like to know why the policy is being considered in the first place.'
Good for them! These three parents deserve our thanks. They stopped politicians from sneaking through a vote that would affect their children. That's called being a GOOD parent.
By the way, it IS 'sneaking' when the board doesn't put it on the agenda and doesn't mention it on their website.
The school board says the drug testing would have been 'random.' Random meaning students who drive to school and those who participate in extracurricular activities.
That pretty much covers 90%+ of students age 16 and older... and folks, that's not 'random.'
This is another example of government run schools. First, when your child is ready for school, your local school system sends you a letter. It states that your child is required by law to go to school. Punishment for not complying? Mom and dad go to jail.
Wow! Where do I sign up for that?! (note sarcasm)
(You've already signed up. You don't have a choice.)
Next, after being forced to go to school, the government decides that, for a better, safer and healthier society, that it will test the students for illegal drugs.
Great!
Just show probable cause and get a warrant FIRST.
Yes... GET A WARRANT. People in this country have RIGHTS and it doesn't matter if the person is 40 years old or 15 years old. The same rules apply across the board! EVERYONE is protected by the 4th amendment... which reads:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
What part of the 4th amendment isn't clear about that?
I've heard the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to minors or students... but that's hogwash. The Constitution applies to our GOVERNMENT.
What's sad is that when it comes to 'winning the war on drugs,' the government is quick look past the rules (the Constitution) that impedes their effort.
Which is yet another reason to end the insane war on drugs...
So how could any rational parent be opposed to this vote? The parents 'said they didn't think the proposed policy had been publicized enough and would like to know why the policy is being considered in the first place.'
Good for them! These three parents deserve our thanks. They stopped politicians from sneaking through a vote that would affect their children. That's called being a GOOD parent.
By the way, it IS 'sneaking' when the board doesn't put it on the agenda and doesn't mention it on their website.
The school board says the drug testing would have been 'random.' Random meaning students who drive to school and those who participate in extracurricular activities.
That pretty much covers 90%+ of students age 16 and older... and folks, that's not 'random.'
This is another example of government run schools. First, when your child is ready for school, your local school system sends you a letter. It states that your child is required by law to go to school. Punishment for not complying? Mom and dad go to jail.
Wow! Where do I sign up for that?! (note sarcasm)
(You've already signed up. You don't have a choice.)
Next, after being forced to go to school, the government decides that, for a better, safer and healthier society, that it will test the students for illegal drugs.
Great!
Just show probable cause and get a warrant FIRST.
Yes... GET A WARRANT. People in this country have RIGHTS and it doesn't matter if the person is 40 years old or 15 years old. The same rules apply across the board! EVERYONE is protected by the 4th amendment... which reads:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
What part of the 4th amendment isn't clear about that?
I've heard the argument that the Constitution doesn't apply to minors or students... but that's hogwash. The Constitution applies to our GOVERNMENT.
What's sad is that when it comes to 'winning the war on drugs,' the government is quick look past the rules (the Constitution) that impedes their effort.
Which is yet another reason to end the insane war on drugs...
Monday, October 8, 2007
Torturing Terrorists & Constitutional Rights
Last Friday night I was listening to a local radio talk show. The discussion was about torturing terrorists in order to gain information about future attacks & terrorist activities.
I think I may have been the only individual who called in to think that it's wrong to do so.
Other callers said that torture was completely acceptable... by any means necessary!
Wow. That's just plain scary.
When I called in, I said that I was fairly confident, more than 98% sure, that when the feds apprehend someone they think is a terrorist, they've got the right guy.
Great. Give him a trial and prove it.
That's right. Give the suspected terrorist a trial (and a lawyer). After all, if the government is so certain, the trial should be open and shut in a day!
What ensued quickly thereafter were numerous callers saying that terrorists don't have a right to a trial. In fact, they don't have any rights, period!
Well, that's just plain ignorance of how our government works.
When our government suspects someone of a crime or other illegal activity, there are certain rules that must be followed. The individual(s) must be charged, given a trial, etc.
Other calls didn't seem to think so... that our constitution doesn't apply to others.
That's true. Our constitution applies to our government. It's the set of rules that restricts what our government can and cannot do.
Other callers chimed in using the term 'constitution rights.'
Folks, there are no such thing as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. That's a ridiculous term that implies that the rights and freedoms we have come from a document that specifies what our government can and cannot do.
Not so.
Our rights come from above. Period. Our constitution was created by our founding fathers to ensure that the government does not impede or trample on the rights we, as human beings, have. Our rights are therefore constitutionally protected.
I think I may have been the only individual who called in to think that it's wrong to do so.
Other callers said that torture was completely acceptable... by any means necessary!
Wow. That's just plain scary.
When I called in, I said that I was fairly confident, more than 98% sure, that when the feds apprehend someone they think is a terrorist, they've got the right guy.
Great. Give him a trial and prove it.
That's right. Give the suspected terrorist a trial (and a lawyer). After all, if the government is so certain, the trial should be open and shut in a day!
What ensued quickly thereafter were numerous callers saying that terrorists don't have a right to a trial. In fact, they don't have any rights, period!
Well, that's just plain ignorance of how our government works.
When our government suspects someone of a crime or other illegal activity, there are certain rules that must be followed. The individual(s) must be charged, given a trial, etc.
Other calls didn't seem to think so... that our constitution doesn't apply to others.
That's true. Our constitution applies to our government. It's the set of rules that restricts what our government can and cannot do.
Other callers chimed in using the term 'constitution rights.'
Folks, there are no such thing as CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. That's a ridiculous term that implies that the rights and freedoms we have come from a document that specifies what our government can and cannot do.
Not so.
Our rights come from above. Period. Our constitution was created by our founding fathers to ensure that the government does not impede or trample on the rights we, as human beings, have. Our rights are therefore constitutionally protected.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
What's the alternative?
Recently an older gentleman struck up a conversation with me outside in a parking lot. He told me that he had had a car accident and now his insurance company was stringing him along and not paying for all of his medical care.
Not knowing anything more than what he told me, I responded, 'It beats the alternative.'
I think he was really looking for someone to take his side in the situation. He said that was a good point and then we parted ways.
Rarely do people consider the alternatives in any situation. Take the price of gas today. At 2.50 a gallon, people loathe paying for gas. They feel like they're getting raked over the coals every time they fill up.
But what's the alternative? There's a lot! The alternatives could be walking, carpooling, taking a bus, not doing whatever is needed to have to use gas... or no gas at all! The truth is that getting gas at 2.50 a gallon beats the alternative... otherwise you wouldn't be getting that gas.
That doesn't mean you have to like getting gas for 2.50. But 'liking' something isn't a factor to consider.
Not knowing anything more than what he told me, I responded, 'It beats the alternative.'
I think he was really looking for someone to take his side in the situation. He said that was a good point and then we parted ways.
Rarely do people consider the alternatives in any situation. Take the price of gas today. At 2.50 a gallon, people loathe paying for gas. They feel like they're getting raked over the coals every time they fill up.
But what's the alternative? There's a lot! The alternatives could be walking, carpooling, taking a bus, not doing whatever is needed to have to use gas... or no gas at all! The truth is that getting gas at 2.50 a gallon beats the alternative... otherwise you wouldn't be getting that gas.
That doesn't mean you have to like getting gas for 2.50. But 'liking' something isn't a factor to consider.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
'Illegal' Immigration
Regarding 'illegal' immigration, I used to be of the mindset that those who were against it were probably bigoted in some sense. After all, no one's complaining about immigrants from Canada, right? It's the immigration from Mexico that's causing a stir.
But that's not the reason so many oppose illegal immigration. The issue isn't just Mexicans sneaking across the border & being in the country illegally. The issue is the cost they have on our economy, namely using our system of free education, lack of health insurance, receiving Social Security without paying into it, all while working and getting paid under the table and avoiding our income taxes. Some say that 'they' are a burden on us, slowly bleeding us dry.
To that end, I say 'ROCK ON!' If I could do it too, I would! Heck, who wouldn't?
To those who oppose illegal immigration, examine things closer:
Many years ago, immigrants came to this country to pursue a better life for themselves and their family. They worked. There was no promise of having your children getting a 'free' education. There was no promise that someone else would pick up your medical expenses if something happened and you couldn't pay.
Not anymore.
Now immigrants (not all) come to this country seeking the promises of 'free' education or 'free' housing and the expectation that they'll be taken care of if they get sick.
Reality check: When stuff is being sold as being 'free,' you get more people wanting more of it. (Think of gas being sold for 14 cents today. Imagine the lines at the pump!)
You can't have it both ways. You can't want your 'free' education for you and then not expect MILLIONS of other people in this world to not come and try to get a slice of that pie for themselves. It just doesn't work that way.
I could care less about 'illegal' immigration. The 'burden' they have on this country is our own doing. We offer so many 'services' for 'free' it's no wonder there are people doing ANYTHING they can to get in here.
It's our bed and it has quite a few nails. And it's starting to suck to have lay in it.
But that's not the reason so many oppose illegal immigration. The issue isn't just Mexicans sneaking across the border & being in the country illegally. The issue is the cost they have on our economy, namely using our system of free education, lack of health insurance, receiving Social Security without paying into it, all while working and getting paid under the table and avoiding our income taxes. Some say that 'they' are a burden on us, slowly bleeding us dry.
To that end, I say 'ROCK ON!' If I could do it too, I would! Heck, who wouldn't?
To those who oppose illegal immigration, examine things closer:
Many years ago, immigrants came to this country to pursue a better life for themselves and their family. They worked. There was no promise of having your children getting a 'free' education. There was no promise that someone else would pick up your medical expenses if something happened and you couldn't pay.
Not anymore.
Now immigrants (not all) come to this country seeking the promises of 'free' education or 'free' housing and the expectation that they'll be taken care of if they get sick.
Reality check: When stuff is being sold as being 'free,' you get more people wanting more of it. (Think of gas being sold for 14 cents today. Imagine the lines at the pump!)
You can't have it both ways. You can't want your 'free' education for you and then not expect MILLIONS of other people in this world to not come and try to get a slice of that pie for themselves. It just doesn't work that way.
I could care less about 'illegal' immigration. The 'burden' they have on this country is our own doing. We offer so many 'services' for 'free' it's no wonder there are people doing ANYTHING they can to get in here.
It's our bed and it has quite a few nails. And it's starting to suck to have lay in it.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
The Eye of the Beholder
Recently a friend of mine that I work with made this comment: 'PC's are better than Macs.'
This made my ears perk up because along with a PC, I also own a Mac. The other reason it got my attention is that it was one person's opinion rather than fact, but stated as an absolute.
'PC's ARE BETTER than Macs.'
Really? Then why do so many people spend their money on something inferior when there is obviously a product that is better?
It's not uncommon to hear statements like that one. It could be that Coke is better than Pepsi, or an Izod shirt is better than a Polo shirt, etc. Many people get wrapped up into their OWN opinions and are quick dismiss anybody else's as a viable option.
What, their opinions don't count?!
Recently at my tv station I heard someone make a comment that we had a better lead story than another station's. I'm sure the other station felt they had the better lead story as well.
No one wins. No one loses. It really is in the eye of the beholder.
Making observations about something being better than another is a debate that can be argued until the cows come home because it's never going to be proven. One side can come up with 100 reasons as to why one product is better than another, but someone else can refute those claims and come up with their reasons as to why the other thing is better.
It's like trying to get rid of sand at the beach.
Next time you hear a comment about something being better than another, even if you happen to agree with it, CHALLENGE IT and ask them to PROVE IT. It gets people thinking about what they said and what they believe.
This made my ears perk up because along with a PC, I also own a Mac. The other reason it got my attention is that it was one person's opinion rather than fact, but stated as an absolute.
'PC's ARE BETTER than Macs.'
Really? Then why do so many people spend their money on something inferior when there is obviously a product that is better?
It's not uncommon to hear statements like that one. It could be that Coke is better than Pepsi, or an Izod shirt is better than a Polo shirt, etc. Many people get wrapped up into their OWN opinions and are quick dismiss anybody else's as a viable option.
What, their opinions don't count?!
Recently at my tv station I heard someone make a comment that we had a better lead story than another station's. I'm sure the other station felt they had the better lead story as well.
No one wins. No one loses. It really is in the eye of the beholder.
Making observations about something being better than another is a debate that can be argued until the cows come home because it's never going to be proven. One side can come up with 100 reasons as to why one product is better than another, but someone else can refute those claims and come up with their reasons as to why the other thing is better.
It's like trying to get rid of sand at the beach.
Next time you hear a comment about something being better than another, even if you happen to agree with it, CHALLENGE IT and ask them to PROVE IT. It gets people thinking about what they said and what they believe.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Fred Hicks wears a Confederate cap.
Jackson County, Alabama is attempting to pass a 'junk law' that would get rid of 'illegal junkyards, abandoned vehicles, uninhabitable mobile homes' and other unsightly items (read article here). One has to wonder why a new law is needed to enforce something that's already illegal...
The Huntsville Times has been covering this issue and David Prather recently wrote for the editorial board that 'some people will view all of this as government intrusion upon a sacred right. It's not.'
I am proud to be one of those 'some people.' I believe that I have a right to what is mine and can do with it as I please as long as it does not violate your rights. Private property IS the most sacred of rights.
Prather continues: 'It's an acknowledgment that we live in a civilized society in which we don't harm the property of others by lowering property values and allowing unsanitary conditions.'
Yes, living next door to a trash heap will probably lower your property values. But that's not property being harmed! No one gets their roof replaced or their walls repainted because their next door neighbor doesn't cut their grass or has a car that doesn't run parked in the front yard.
'Well shoot. Ted's '83 Mustang hasn't been running for three weeks now. And now our roof is leaking. It can't be a coincidence!'
Do we have a right to higher property values? Do we get to decide how our neighbors live, look and maintain what is THEIRS? Of course not! If you can justify a law that allows government to dictate how we maintain our property by using the 'property value' argument, then there is no limit on how many laws government can pass continuing to do so. It's not a slippery slope. It's a free-fall.
The real kicker in all this is the elitist, 'I know what's best,' holier-than-thou attitude. If you aren't FOR a law like this, you must be uncivilized! After all, 'in a civilized society, we don't harm the property of others,' etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise? Not civilized.
It's an editorial. That's Prather's personal opinion. So no harm, no foul... as long as it doesn't seep into their news coverage.
And in my opinion, it does. If you read the previously linked to article, you read about a man opposed to the passing of this proposed junk law. His name is Fred Hicks and he thinks we have enough laws.
But The Times made an effort to really identify Fred Hicks. Although you can't see him in a newspaper article, be rest assured that he's wearing a Confederate cap.
Anyone wearing a Confederate cap in 2007 must be a backwoods hillbilly, believing the South is going to rise again! Oh, they must also be uncivilzed!
I wonder if The Times would have felt compelled to bring up Mr. Hicks' cap had it been a Nike one instead.
The Huntsville Times has been covering this issue and David Prather recently wrote for the editorial board that 'some people will view all of this as government intrusion upon a sacred right. It's not.'
I am proud to be one of those 'some people.' I believe that I have a right to what is mine and can do with it as I please as long as it does not violate your rights. Private property IS the most sacred of rights.
Prather continues: 'It's an acknowledgment that we live in a civilized society in which we don't harm the property of others by lowering property values and allowing unsanitary conditions.'
Yes, living next door to a trash heap will probably lower your property values. But that's not property being harmed! No one gets their roof replaced or their walls repainted because their next door neighbor doesn't cut their grass or has a car that doesn't run parked in the front yard.
'Well shoot. Ted's '83 Mustang hasn't been running for three weeks now. And now our roof is leaking. It can't be a coincidence!'
Do we have a right to higher property values? Do we get to decide how our neighbors live, look and maintain what is THEIRS? Of course not! If you can justify a law that allows government to dictate how we maintain our property by using the 'property value' argument, then there is no limit on how many laws government can pass continuing to do so. It's not a slippery slope. It's a free-fall.
The real kicker in all this is the elitist, 'I know what's best,' holier-than-thou attitude. If you aren't FOR a law like this, you must be uncivilized! After all, 'in a civilized society, we don't harm the property of others,' etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise? Not civilized.
It's an editorial. That's Prather's personal opinion. So no harm, no foul... as long as it doesn't seep into their news coverage.
And in my opinion, it does. If you read the previously linked to article, you read about a man opposed to the passing of this proposed junk law. His name is Fred Hicks and he thinks we have enough laws.
But The Times made an effort to really identify Fred Hicks. Although you can't see him in a newspaper article, be rest assured that he's wearing a Confederate cap.
Anyone wearing a Confederate cap in 2007 must be a backwoods hillbilly, believing the South is going to rise again! Oh, they must also be uncivilzed!
I wonder if The Times would have felt compelled to bring up Mr. Hicks' cap had it been a Nike one instead.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Defining 'Help'
Before coming to work at WHNT (for the 3rd time), I worked at another station in Huntsville. My job title there was 'Assignment Manager/Editor.' I was responsible for sending news crews out on stories, knowing what and where the stories were and fielding calls from viewers who gave us stories. I was on the phone A LOT.
When a viewer would call us with an idea for a story, it was my job to make sure that it was actually a legitimate story. For example, people would call complaining that the car they just bought from a used car auto lot was a lemon (not a story), or that the jail conditions were filthy (ya think?!). TV stations get at least 10 of those 'stories' a week, sometimes more. Those are fairly easy to dismiss (although not always).
Sometimes when a viewer called and explained their situation, it would sound like a good, legitimate story that we could cover. But that was only scratching the surface. Sounding good doesn't mean it was a story. I had to ask the caller questions that were at times invasive and personal and would put them on the hot seat.
One morning I got a call from a lady saying that her daughter's landlord flat-out REFUSED to fix the bathtub in her apartment. It was backed up and very dirty.
Sounded good so far. 'Slumlord refuses to fix bathtub!' Could make for a good headline, huh? But I had lots of questions to ask first to determine if this story was worth sending a crew out to cover.
For example, why was SHE the one calling us and not her daughter? If her daughter, a grown woman, was that desperate, why didn't she call seeing if her story could be covered? That alone isn't a deal-breaker to say we won't cover the story. But it does raise some flags.
My next line of questions were about her daughter and where she lived, what she did, etc. She lived in some sort of public assisted housing (I think). Her rent: $50 a month. That's 1.66 a day.
The kicker: She was about 2 months behind on her rent and would probably soon be facing eviction.
Now imagine you're a landlord and you have someone who is 2 months behind on rent. What would you do? Would you spend your own money to fix a bathtub for a tenant who isn't paying you?
Me neither.
If I recall, the daughter wasn't working either. I knew for an absolute fact we weren't going to cover this story, so I laid it out there for this lady:
'Ma'am.... your daughter is a bum.'
She didn't get angry. She didn't curse me or yell at me. She just listened.
'Your daughter is a bum. She doesn't work. She's TWO months behind on rent... and you're trying to fix her problems for her. You're enabling her to continue living like this.'
After a brief moment of silence, she finallysaid two words: 'You're right.'
It may have seemed harsh, but I told this woman what she NEEDED to hear. Her heart was in the right place and she was trying to get her daughter some help. But before someone gets helped, you have to first define what 'help' really is.
Is help solving someone's problems for them? Will that really fix things? Or is help hitting rock-bottom and changing your lifestyle on your own?
The woman thanked me for what I said. About two weeks later she called me for another story idea.
I don't know what ever happened with this lady or her daughter, but I hope they are both doing well.
When a viewer would call us with an idea for a story, it was my job to make sure that it was actually a legitimate story. For example, people would call complaining that the car they just bought from a used car auto lot was a lemon (not a story), or that the jail conditions were filthy (ya think?!). TV stations get at least 10 of those 'stories' a week, sometimes more. Those are fairly easy to dismiss (although not always).
Sometimes when a viewer called and explained their situation, it would sound like a good, legitimate story that we could cover. But that was only scratching the surface. Sounding good doesn't mean it was a story. I had to ask the caller questions that were at times invasive and personal and would put them on the hot seat.
One morning I got a call from a lady saying that her daughter's landlord flat-out REFUSED to fix the bathtub in her apartment. It was backed up and very dirty.
Sounded good so far. 'Slumlord refuses to fix bathtub!' Could make for a good headline, huh? But I had lots of questions to ask first to determine if this story was worth sending a crew out to cover.
For example, why was SHE the one calling us and not her daughter? If her daughter, a grown woman, was that desperate, why didn't she call seeing if her story could be covered? That alone isn't a deal-breaker to say we won't cover the story. But it does raise some flags.
My next line of questions were about her daughter and where she lived, what she did, etc. She lived in some sort of public assisted housing (I think). Her rent: $50 a month. That's 1.66 a day.
The kicker: She was about 2 months behind on her rent and would probably soon be facing eviction.
Now imagine you're a landlord and you have someone who is 2 months behind on rent. What would you do? Would you spend your own money to fix a bathtub for a tenant who isn't paying you?
Me neither.
If I recall, the daughter wasn't working either. I knew for an absolute fact we weren't going to cover this story, so I laid it out there for this lady:
'Ma'am.... your daughter is a bum.'
She didn't get angry. She didn't curse me or yell at me. She just listened.
'Your daughter is a bum. She doesn't work. She's TWO months behind on rent... and you're trying to fix her problems for her. You're enabling her to continue living like this.'
After a brief moment of silence, she finallysaid two words: 'You're right.'
It may have seemed harsh, but I told this woman what she NEEDED to hear. Her heart was in the right place and she was trying to get her daughter some help. But before someone gets helped, you have to first define what 'help' really is.
Is help solving someone's problems for them? Will that really fix things? Or is help hitting rock-bottom and changing your lifestyle on your own?
The woman thanked me for what I said. About two weeks later she called me for another story idea.
I don't know what ever happened with this lady or her daughter, but I hope they are both doing well.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Gas Prices
Congress has just passed a bill that would make price gouging a federal crime.
Some of you will think that's great and hoot and holler that our government is finally helping 'the little guy' 'stick it to the man.'
And if that's you... you are just ignorant on how prices work.
But don't feel bad. If you have more than 12 working brain cells, I'm going to make you a bit smarter and enlighten you on this subject.
But... if you're absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prices are 'high' because George Bush wants them that way and 'big oil' is in his back pocket and they're just plain greedy... do me a favor and yourself a favor and please quit reading and go turn on Air America (if you can find it) or go help Jimmy Carter build a house.
Still here?
Good.
First of all... what IS price gouging? I'll bet your definition is something along the lines of charging too much for something. So let's go with that. Let's say I'm going to sell you a box of pencils for $40 bucks. Would you buy it?
Me neither.
Was it a case of price gouging? No, that was me just being stupid and greedy in hopes of trying to sell you a box of pencils for $40 bucks. You didn't buy it and I'm stuck with my pencils.
(By the way, the trusty government defines gouging as prices that are "unconscionably excessive" or "indicate(s) that the seller is taking unfair advantage of unusual market conditions." Best of luck in deciphering that.)
You might try to define price gouging as charging too much for something people NEED. (Who NEEDS a box of pencils?!) Bottled water for $10 bucks a pop like during Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. Let's look at that.
Big, bad natural disaster. People need things. Like water. So you take time off from your job, go buy 2,000 cases of bottled water at Costco, rent a big U-Haul truck and drive 13 hours to the disaster site.
How much will you sell your water for? A buck a bottle? If you do, best of luck making enough money to make it worth your while. And are you really going to drive back home and do it all over again and come back with more water to sell for a whopping buck? I didn't think so. And since you aren't... what about the OTHER people who need water? Since you aren't coming back, what are they to do?
No, you'll sell your bottled water at 5 bucks a pop or more. When the money comes pouring in (hopefully), you can go back home, buy MORE water, then return and sell MORE WATER to MORE PEOPLE.
What's better? Selling your water to 100 people or 500 people? (Forget the emotional aspect... what IS BETTER? 100 people having water or 500?)
'Price gouging' has another advantage. Yeah, you heard me. AN ADVANTAGE. If you were to sell the water for a whole buck a bottle, you're likely to get someone to come in and clean house and buy everything you got.
Which leaves no water for anybody else.
Get the picture?
Here's another example: Hotel rooms. A room that goes for $50 a night might bump up to $200 a night when a disaster strikes.
Now imagine... mom, dad and 2 kids, going elsewhere to leave a disaster decide to go get a hotel room. Usually they get TWO rooms. One for them, one for the kids. But since the room rates are now 400% higher at 200 bucks, they decide to 'rough it' and get ONE room instead.
So now there's another room available for whoever needs it. If the prices had stayed at 50 bucks, the happy family may have gotten two rooms, leaving our nameless, faceless person to sleep in the car instead of a nice, warm hotel room.
I know what you're thinking: 'Yeah, but what about the POOR people who can't afford a 200 dollar room or 10 bucks for bottled water?'
That's secondary. Getting people help first is primary and that's being done. You are more than welcome to dip into your own pocket or take some bottled water to the disaster scene and help. And profits come into play here as well. If you're making a killing on bottled water, you may then be able to AFFORD to give some away to those who can't afford it!
So how does all this translate to what's going on with gasoline prices? Are we really being gouged? Let's look at what goes into setting the price of a gallon of gas.
The oil has to be sucked up from the Earth (expensive process), then refined to make gasoline (another expensive process) and then shipped all over the country to your local gas station (not a cheap process). If you think you can do all that yourself and do it for LESS than three bucks a gallon right, by all means, get to it!
Don't forget that taxes make up a good chunk of the price of gas as well. But don't expect Congress to lower the taxes. Instead, they look to demonize the one's actually making it POSSIBLE to get you gas in the first place: The evil 'big oil' companies.
Now you may hear that 'big oil' makes huge profits every month (or day or hour). True... but at around 10 cents profit (or so) per gallon, you're going to have to pump a lot of gas for them to make that kind of money.
And you are. So essentially... it's YOUR FAULT they make money.
But don't feel bad. I'll gladly share in that blame as well! I'd rather drive my own car than take a bus somewhere or sit at home. Just like you. We're willing to pay that price to drive our own way.
If you think you're getting screwed at the pump now... just imagine what it would be like if 'big oil' decided, 'Screw it. We've made enough. We're outta here.'
Forget that! I'll gladly pay 3.10 a gallon for gas. It sure as heck beats the alternative.
Some of you will think that's great and hoot and holler that our government is finally helping 'the little guy' 'stick it to the man.'
And if that's you... you are just ignorant on how prices work.
But don't feel bad. If you have more than 12 working brain cells, I'm going to make you a bit smarter and enlighten you on this subject.
But... if you're absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the prices are 'high' because George Bush wants them that way and 'big oil' is in his back pocket and they're just plain greedy... do me a favor and yourself a favor and please quit reading and go turn on Air America (if you can find it) or go help Jimmy Carter build a house.
Still here?
Good.
First of all... what IS price gouging? I'll bet your definition is something along the lines of charging too much for something. So let's go with that. Let's say I'm going to sell you a box of pencils for $40 bucks. Would you buy it?
Me neither.
Was it a case of price gouging? No, that was me just being stupid and greedy in hopes of trying to sell you a box of pencils for $40 bucks. You didn't buy it and I'm stuck with my pencils.
(By the way, the trusty government defines gouging as prices that are "unconscionably excessive" or "indicate(s) that the seller is taking unfair advantage of unusual market conditions." Best of luck in deciphering that.)
You might try to define price gouging as charging too much for something people NEED. (Who NEEDS a box of pencils?!) Bottled water for $10 bucks a pop like during Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. Let's look at that.
Big, bad natural disaster. People need things. Like water. So you take time off from your job, go buy 2,000 cases of bottled water at Costco, rent a big U-Haul truck and drive 13 hours to the disaster site.
How much will you sell your water for? A buck a bottle? If you do, best of luck making enough money to make it worth your while. And are you really going to drive back home and do it all over again and come back with more water to sell for a whopping buck? I didn't think so. And since you aren't... what about the OTHER people who need water? Since you aren't coming back, what are they to do?
No, you'll sell your bottled water at 5 bucks a pop or more. When the money comes pouring in (hopefully), you can go back home, buy MORE water, then return and sell MORE WATER to MORE PEOPLE.
What's better? Selling your water to 100 people or 500 people? (Forget the emotional aspect... what IS BETTER? 100 people having water or 500?)
'Price gouging' has another advantage. Yeah, you heard me. AN ADVANTAGE. If you were to sell the water for a whole buck a bottle, you're likely to get someone to come in and clean house and buy everything you got.
Which leaves no water for anybody else.
Get the picture?
Here's another example: Hotel rooms. A room that goes for $50 a night might bump up to $200 a night when a disaster strikes.
Now imagine... mom, dad and 2 kids, going elsewhere to leave a disaster decide to go get a hotel room. Usually they get TWO rooms. One for them, one for the kids. But since the room rates are now 400% higher at 200 bucks, they decide to 'rough it' and get ONE room instead.
So now there's another room available for whoever needs it. If the prices had stayed at 50 bucks, the happy family may have gotten two rooms, leaving our nameless, faceless person to sleep in the car instead of a nice, warm hotel room.
I know what you're thinking: 'Yeah, but what about the POOR people who can't afford a 200 dollar room or 10 bucks for bottled water?'
That's secondary. Getting people help first is primary and that's being done. You are more than welcome to dip into your own pocket or take some bottled water to the disaster scene and help. And profits come into play here as well. If you're making a killing on bottled water, you may then be able to AFFORD to give some away to those who can't afford it!
So how does all this translate to what's going on with gasoline prices? Are we really being gouged? Let's look at what goes into setting the price of a gallon of gas.
The oil has to be sucked up from the Earth (expensive process), then refined to make gasoline (another expensive process) and then shipped all over the country to your local gas station (not a cheap process). If you think you can do all that yourself and do it for LESS than three bucks a gallon right, by all means, get to it!
Don't forget that taxes make up a good chunk of the price of gas as well. But don't expect Congress to lower the taxes. Instead, they look to demonize the one's actually making it POSSIBLE to get you gas in the first place: The evil 'big oil' companies.
Now you may hear that 'big oil' makes huge profits every month (or day or hour). True... but at around 10 cents profit (or so) per gallon, you're going to have to pump a lot of gas for them to make that kind of money.
And you are. So essentially... it's YOUR FAULT they make money.
But don't feel bad. I'll gladly share in that blame as well! I'd rather drive my own car than take a bus somewhere or sit at home. Just like you. We're willing to pay that price to drive our own way.
If you think you're getting screwed at the pump now... just imagine what it would be like if 'big oil' decided, 'Screw it. We've made enough. We're outta here.'
Forget that! I'll gladly pay 3.10 a gallon for gas. It sure as heck beats the alternative.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Apologize for Slavery?!
The big ruckus in Alabama right now is whether or not the state is going to apologize for slavery.
Should the legislature pass such a measure, Governor Riley has already promised to sign it.
Some think this is just and besides... what would it hurt? Others can't even comprehend the mere thought of allowing it to happen.
Questions to ponder:
The state of Alabama would apologize to whom? Every black in the country or just blacks in the state? And on whose behalf would the apology come from? Mine? Yours? 'White Alabama?' Don't forget, there were blacks that also owned slaves back in the day.
I read (somewhere) that less than 4% of the population owned any slaves at all.
And would the state really be apologizing for the acts of others that happened more than 125 years ago?
If anything, this is nothing more than a 'feel good' measure on behalf of our state legislature. If you can't tell, I'm pretty much against this idea. It's pointless. A waste of time.
And according to some political scientist in Auburn (D'Linell Finley - Home: 334-279-5518, Work: 334-244-3741), I feel this way because of a 'lack of education' on this topic, I'm also afraid... and I'm also a racist! (Huntsville Times, May 22, 2007, B1)
And so are you if you feel the same way.
(Note: The term our distinguised 'scientist' is looking for is actually 'bigot,' not 'racist.')
On another note, when Queen Elizabeth was here (in the country) earlier this month, I was REALLY hoping she was going to offer an apology to all Americans on behalf of England for our mistreatment under the reign of King George the 3rd.
Should the legislature pass such a measure, Governor Riley has already promised to sign it.
Some think this is just and besides... what would it hurt? Others can't even comprehend the mere thought of allowing it to happen.
Questions to ponder:
The state of Alabama would apologize to whom? Every black in the country or just blacks in the state? And on whose behalf would the apology come from? Mine? Yours? 'White Alabama?' Don't forget, there were blacks that also owned slaves back in the day.
I read (somewhere) that less than 4% of the population owned any slaves at all.
And would the state really be apologizing for the acts of others that happened more than 125 years ago?
If anything, this is nothing more than a 'feel good' measure on behalf of our state legislature. If you can't tell, I'm pretty much against this idea. It's pointless. A waste of time.
And according to some political scientist in Auburn (D'Linell Finley - Home: 334-279-5518, Work: 334-244-3741), I feel this way because of a 'lack of education' on this topic, I'm also afraid... and I'm also a racist! (Huntsville Times, May 22, 2007, B1)
And so are you if you feel the same way.
(Note: The term our distinguised 'scientist' is looking for is actually 'bigot,' not 'racist.')
On another note, when Queen Elizabeth was here (in the country) earlier this month, I was REALLY hoping she was going to offer an apology to all Americans on behalf of England for our mistreatment under the reign of King George the 3rd.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Letters To The Editor
Sometimes when I read letters to the editor in The Huntsville Times, I have to wonder if the person writing the letter actually believes what they wrote, are just plain ignorant or like to make it sound like the end is near.
Here's a quote:
'...isn't it... unfortunate that 28,000 children die each day in America from poverty?'
Oh wow. Seriously?
IF that were true (it isn't), that's more than TEN MILLION children dead each year. With a population of a little more than 300 million in this country, the entire United States population would be gone in less than 30 years. Probably quicker.
Does that even sound plausible? TEN MILLION kids die in the U.S. each year?
Please...
Now I never went to medical school and all I know about what a coroner does is from HBO, but in my 30+ years on this Earth, I've never heard a cause of death as 'poverty.'
'Your honor, it is the opinion of this court that little Johnny died from acute poverty.'
Heart attacks, gun shot wounds, car accidents, heart disease... Yes.
Poverty?! In this country?
Please...
Here's a quote:
'...isn't it... unfortunate that 28,000 children die each day in America from poverty?'
Oh wow. Seriously?
IF that were true (it isn't), that's more than TEN MILLION children dead each year. With a population of a little more than 300 million in this country, the entire United States population would be gone in less than 30 years. Probably quicker.
Does that even sound plausible? TEN MILLION kids die in the U.S. each year?
Please...
Now I never went to medical school and all I know about what a coroner does is from HBO, but in my 30+ years on this Earth, I've never heard a cause of death as 'poverty.'
'Your honor, it is the opinion of this court that little Johnny died from acute poverty.'
Heart attacks, gun shot wounds, car accidents, heart disease... Yes.
Poverty?! In this country?
Please...
Thursday, May 3, 2007
3 Cheers For Guns!
Recently The Huntsville Times printed an article about a shooting in Huntsville earlier this week. An armed man wearing a ski mask, Demarcus Williams, broke down the door of an apartment.
Can you guess what his intentions were?
Ski mask. Gun. Breaks down door of apartment.
I'll bet he wasn't trying to deliver a pizza in 30 minutes or less.
Williams decision to arm himself, throw on a ski-mask and break into an apartment wasn't the only bad choice of his day. The resident of the apartment was home when he broke in.
And also armed.
Rest easy. There's now one less person on the street who may break into your home. Demarcus is taking a well deserved dirt nap. Three cheers to the armed individual for protecting himself, his family and his property.
Huntsville Police spokesperson, Wendell Johnson, said, "When somebody breaks in your house and you are in fear of your life, you have the right to self-defense."
I don't know about you, but if someone breaks into my house, I don't have to be in fear of my life in order to introduce the intruder to a severe case of lead poisoning or a Louisville Slugger upside the head.
I have the right to self-defense 24/7. Whether my life may be in danger or not.
Later in the article The Times reported that the '...shooting death was the city's seventh homicide of the year.'
Seventh homicide? At this rate, there will be about 20 (give or take) homicides in Huntsville in 2007.
Hypothetical: Go ahead and assume that there will be 20 homicides this year. Sometime in late January or February of 2008, officials will release those numbers. The press will be quick to run the headlines, 'Record high (or low) of gun-related deaths (or homicides) in 2007.' The anti-gun Nazi's will be quick to scream for more 'gun control' (whatever that means) as 'x amount' of deaths is 'x amount' too many.
What is sure to be missing from these future headlines and stories is what you just read about: An individual who used a gun to shoot and kill an armed intruder in his home.
SELF DEFENSE.
It's my guess that this shooting will be lumped in with all the other shooting deaths in Huntsville in '07. Drug related, domestic related, etc.
That's wrong. But I hope I'm wrong about that.
Can you guess what his intentions were?
Ski mask. Gun. Breaks down door of apartment.
I'll bet he wasn't trying to deliver a pizza in 30 minutes or less.
Williams decision to arm himself, throw on a ski-mask and break into an apartment wasn't the only bad choice of his day. The resident of the apartment was home when he broke in.
And also armed.
Rest easy. There's now one less person on the street who may break into your home. Demarcus is taking a well deserved dirt nap. Three cheers to the armed individual for protecting himself, his family and his property.
Huntsville Police spokesperson, Wendell Johnson, said, "When somebody breaks in your house and you are in fear of your life, you have the right to self-defense."
I don't know about you, but if someone breaks into my house, I don't have to be in fear of my life in order to introduce the intruder to a severe case of lead poisoning or a Louisville Slugger upside the head.
I have the right to self-defense 24/7. Whether my life may be in danger or not.
Later in the article The Times reported that the '...shooting death was the city's seventh homicide of the year.'
Seventh homicide? At this rate, there will be about 20 (give or take) homicides in Huntsville in 2007.
Hypothetical: Go ahead and assume that there will be 20 homicides this year. Sometime in late January or February of 2008, officials will release those numbers. The press will be quick to run the headlines, 'Record high (or low) of gun-related deaths (or homicides) in 2007.' The anti-gun Nazi's will be quick to scream for more 'gun control' (whatever that means) as 'x amount' of deaths is 'x amount' too many.
What is sure to be missing from these future headlines and stories is what you just read about: An individual who used a gun to shoot and kill an armed intruder in his home.
SELF DEFENSE.
It's my guess that this shooting will be lumped in with all the other shooting deaths in Huntsville in '07. Drug related, domestic related, etc.
That's wrong. But I hope I'm wrong about that.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Bias in the press, anyone?
The 'hospital wars' are still going on. But here's something new: The CEO of Crestwood is leaving in May for a job in Florida.
The Huntsville Times reports (link):
'Brad Jones, the fast-growing hospital's CEO since December 2001, said Monday that he is resigning to become vice president of operations for Health Management Associates Inc., a for-profit hospital chain based in Naples, Fla.'
Did you catch that? Mr. Jones is going to work for ANOTHER hospital... that makes money.
Here's my question to you: What difference does it make that the hospital where Mr. Jones will soon work is for-profit or not?
Here's the answer: NONE.
Even mentioning that the hospital is 'for-profit' adds NOTHING to the story... except to influence the reader that Mr. Jones only works for hospitals that turn a profit.
How many times have you ever heard about a coach leaving a team to go work for another team that's 'for profit?'
Bias, anyone?
The Huntsville Times reports (link):
'Brad Jones, the fast-growing hospital's CEO since December 2001, said Monday that he is resigning to become vice president of operations for Health Management Associates Inc., a for-profit hospital chain based in Naples, Fla.'
Did you catch that? Mr. Jones is going to work for ANOTHER hospital... that makes money.
Here's my question to you: What difference does it make that the hospital where Mr. Jones will soon work is for-profit or not?
Here's the answer: NONE.
Even mentioning that the hospital is 'for-profit' adds NOTHING to the story... except to influence the reader that Mr. Jones only works for hospitals that turn a profit.
How many times have you ever heard about a coach leaving a team to go work for another team that's 'for profit?'
Bias, anyone?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
A new poll shows that...
How many times have you heard that a new study or poll shows that the great state of Alabama has ranked dead last (or near dead last)?
Whether it's education, teacher salaries or highway safety funding, you name it and chances are that Alabama is somewhere in the back or near the bottom.
When I hear about these studies or polls or read about it in some editorial, my first inclination is: So what?
My second thought is about the actual study or poll. Usually there's a motive behind it and the results.
If Alabama widget makers feel they aren't paid enough, they can hire a firm to put together a study that shows that they aren't paid enough. Then they'll push for legislation forcing them to be paid more... at YOUR EXPENSE.
Here's my question to you: If you put 50 multi-millionaires in a room, one of them is going to be ranked #50. Hopefully your first reaction to that is simply, 'So what?'
Whether it's education, teacher salaries or highway safety funding, you name it and chances are that Alabama is somewhere in the back or near the bottom.
When I hear about these studies or polls or read about it in some editorial, my first inclination is: So what?
My second thought is about the actual study or poll. Usually there's a motive behind it and the results.
If Alabama widget makers feel they aren't paid enough, they can hire a firm to put together a study that shows that they aren't paid enough. Then they'll push for legislation forcing them to be paid more... at YOUR EXPENSE.
Here's my question to you: If you put 50 multi-millionaires in a room, one of them is going to be ranked #50. Hopefully your first reaction to that is simply, 'So what?'
'Poor' In America
If there's one thing I loathe seeing on the network news, the newspapers and the like, it's stories of 'the poor' people in this county.
Here's why: Most poor people HAVE GOT IT MADE.
The living conditions of many of America's 'poor' people is greater than that of upper class people in other countries. Walter Williams said it best. If the good Lord came to you and said he was going to send you to live a life of poverty and gave you a choice of what country to live in, where would you pick?
Exactly.
Being 'poor' in America is more a state of mind than anything else. If you are determined to be 'poor,' you are going to have to work at it. Seriously.
Here's what you do to be poor and continue living in a life of poverty in America:
1) Earn minimum wage for the rest of your life. You can do this by job hopping and finding new work every 2-3 months. Since many businesses offer raises after 90 days, you can avoid this by NOT working there for any duration.
2) Start a family that you can't afford to raise with someone you aren't married to. Self-explanatory.
3) Live beyond your means. Simply put, buy everything you want and make the minimum payments for the next 84 years. New car? Buy it! The payment is only x amount a month! Buy a HUGE tv and get every cable channel you want!
4) Save NOTHING. Rely only on social security to fund your golden years.
Doing those 4 things will help ensure a life of misery and poverty in the greatest country in the world and turn the American dream into a nightmare.
What poor people need is something that no one can give them.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Random Thoughts on Don Imus...
Here's the actual dialogue from the Don Imus show last week:
Imus: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGuirk: Some hard-core hos.
Imus: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man...
You know the aftermath.
Imus suspended.
But not now. The suspension starts in a few days, of course. AFTER the charity work is done.
Advertisers on the show pull their money and run.
Imus is then fired.
My thoughts on the matter (not that you asked, but you did come to my blog):
1) All the focus is all on Imus, while his co-host/sidekick/producer, Bernard McGuirk, has quickly evaporated into the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
Who referred to the Rutger's basketball team as 'ho's' first?
Answer: Bernard McGuirk.
Media attention: None.
Who was reacting and REPEATING what McGuirk had just said?
Answer: Don Imus.
Media attention: All.
2) There is a difference between 'ho' and 'whore.' Referring to someone as a 'ho' is offensive and mildly insulting... but usually also meant to be taken in a jestful manner as well. Calling someone a 'whore' is an attack on that person and their character. Had Imus referred to the team as 'whores,' I'll bet the rent money he would have been gone before the close of business that day. And in a hospital no later than 7pm.
3) After playing basketball for an hour in a championship game, even Daddy Warbuck's hair would have looked 'nappy' I'm sure. Whatever that means.
4) It's my belief that Imus was delivering the line tongue in cheek. I don't know what's in his mind or his heart. Neither do you. And neither does Al Sharpton.
Imus: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
McGuirk: Some hard-core hos.
Imus: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man...
You know the aftermath.
Imus suspended.
But not now. The suspension starts in a few days, of course. AFTER the charity work is done.
Advertisers on the show pull their money and run.
Imus is then fired.
My thoughts on the matter (not that you asked, but you did come to my blog):
1) All the focus is all on Imus, while his co-host/sidekick/producer, Bernard McGuirk, has quickly evaporated into the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
Who referred to the Rutger's basketball team as 'ho's' first?
Answer: Bernard McGuirk.
Media attention: None.
Who was reacting and REPEATING what McGuirk had just said?
Answer: Don Imus.
Media attention: All.
2) There is a difference between 'ho' and 'whore.' Referring to someone as a 'ho' is offensive and mildly insulting... but usually also meant to be taken in a jestful manner as well. Calling someone a 'whore' is an attack on that person and their character. Had Imus referred to the team as 'whores,' I'll bet the rent money he would have been gone before the close of business that day. And in a hospital no later than 7pm.
3) After playing basketball for an hour in a championship game, even Daddy Warbuck's hair would have looked 'nappy' I'm sure. Whatever that means.
4) It's my belief that Imus was delivering the line tongue in cheek. I don't know what's in his mind or his heart. Neither do you. And neither does Al Sharpton.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Private Property Rights
When you own something, you can do what you like with it, as long as it doesn't interfere or violate anybody else's rights.
Not so in Athens, Alabama.
The city has passed an ordinance making it ILLEGAL keep a vehicle on your property that isn't able to move under its own power. Those in violation can face a fine anywhere from 100-500 dollars... and even jail time!
It's being called the 'junk car' ordinance.
The purpose is to clean up yards and neighborhoods that look, well... 'trashy.' Afterall, who wants to live next door to someone who has a junkyard in their front yard?
I don't. Do you?
Probably not. But we don't get to decide how ours neighbor live and maintain their home and its appearance. We can't choose our neighbors nor can we dictate how they live their lives. Besides, someone having a defunct car parked in their front yard (or back) doesn't interfere or violate anybody else's rights.
You may not like it. But you may not like the way your neighbor trims his bushes once a month either.
The real travesty in this new ordinance is that those in violation can be face a YEAR IN JAIL if convicted.
Wouldn't you sleep better in Athens knowing that the streets are safer with all of those 'defunct car owners' behind bars?
Afterall, it just looks trashy.
Not so in Athens, Alabama.
The city has passed an ordinance making it ILLEGAL keep a vehicle on your property that isn't able to move under its own power. Those in violation can face a fine anywhere from 100-500 dollars... and even jail time!
It's being called the 'junk car' ordinance.
The purpose is to clean up yards and neighborhoods that look, well... 'trashy.' Afterall, who wants to live next door to someone who has a junkyard in their front yard?
I don't. Do you?
Probably not. But we don't get to decide how ours neighbor live and maintain their home and its appearance. We can't choose our neighbors nor can we dictate how they live their lives. Besides, someone having a defunct car parked in their front yard (or back) doesn't interfere or violate anybody else's rights.
You may not like it. But you may not like the way your neighbor trims his bushes once a month either.
The real travesty in this new ordinance is that those in violation can be face a YEAR IN JAIL if convicted.
Wouldn't you sleep better in Athens knowing that the streets are safer with all of those 'defunct car owners' behind bars?
Afterall, it just looks trashy.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Money For Nothing?
You work and keep what you earn and I'll work and keep what I earn. You are not entitled to what I've earned just as I'm not entitled to what you've earned. What's yours is your and what's mine is mine.
Sound like a fair deal?
Not so fast. Especially if you're a politician in the Alabama Legislature.
The Alabama State Senate Majority Leader, Zeb Little, has introduced a bill that would GIVE 36,000 dollars a year to former Governor Guy Hunt who is battling lung cancer.
Hunt doesn't have much time left on this Earth, but that's not the point.
The real issue is quite simple: Legalized theft performed by the state legislature.
What right does one person have to another person's property? If you said (or screamed) 'none,' move ahead 2 spaces.
Now let's ask it another way: Would a person have the right to another's property if our government said otherwise or tried to arrange the transaction?
Move ahead 2 more spaces if you said no!
In a truly free society and country, people are not enslaved or forced to work for others. No one can stake a claim to what does not belong to them.
Unfortunately, we are not truly free.
Sound like a fair deal?
Not so fast. Especially if you're a politician in the Alabama Legislature.
The Alabama State Senate Majority Leader, Zeb Little, has introduced a bill that would GIVE 36,000 dollars a year to former Governor Guy Hunt who is battling lung cancer.
Hunt doesn't have much time left on this Earth, but that's not the point.
The real issue is quite simple: Legalized theft performed by the state legislature.
What right does one person have to another person's property? If you said (or screamed) 'none,' move ahead 2 spaces.
Now let's ask it another way: Would a person have the right to another's property if our government said otherwise or tried to arrange the transaction?
Move ahead 2 more spaces if you said no!
In a truly free society and country, people are not enslaved or forced to work for others. No one can stake a claim to what does not belong to them.
Unfortunately, we are not truly free.
Friday, March 9, 2007
'Big' Press
Sometimes the press uses silly terms to describe things going on in the news. You've probably heard the term,'If it bleeds, it leads.' That means that murders, shootings or stabbings will find their way to the frontpage or be the first thing you hear about on the news.
The press also uses the same old cliches to describe these stories. For example, when there is a shooting,you may hear a reporter say that 'shots rang out.' After a devastating disaster, families will try to 'pickup the pieces of their shattered lives.' The neighbors are also always going to be 'shocked.' You could almost make a drinking game out of watching the news!
Another example of silly cliches the press uses is their description of the tobacco and oil companies.
Both are described as nothing more than 'big.'
When gas prices rose to more than three dollars a gallon and oil companies were reporting 'record profits' (remember, profit = bad & greedy), the press was quick to demonize them as a whole, calling them 'big.' You probably heard this line a few times: 'Another record for big oil, as profits soared...'
(What you didn't hear is that government's taxes on a gallon of gasoline are greater than the oil companies'profit off the same gallon! But nowhere did you hear about 'big government.')
It's become so ridiculous that sometimes reporters will talk about 'big oil' like it's a living, breathing, being!
'It depends on big oil.'
'What will big oil do?'
R.J. Reynolds & Philip Morris are tobacco companies that get the label in the news as 'big tobacco.'
These terms are absolutely ridiculous. If the press is going to put the label on the oil and tobacco companies,why not put it on others?
Water would be a perfect example. At Costco, you can purchase 35 bottles of water for less than five dollars. The price per unit is about 13 cents. If you were to sell those bottles of water for a dollar each, the mark-up is more than 750%!
Should the press demonize people who sell bottled water as 'big water?' Trying to use that term would get a journalist laughed out of the newsroom.
So should using 'big tobacco' and 'big oil.'
The press also uses the same old cliches to describe these stories. For example, when there is a shooting,you may hear a reporter say that 'shots rang out.' After a devastating disaster, families will try to 'pickup the pieces of their shattered lives.' The neighbors are also always going to be 'shocked.' You could almost make a drinking game out of watching the news!
Another example of silly cliches the press uses is their description of the tobacco and oil companies.
Both are described as nothing more than 'big.'
When gas prices rose to more than three dollars a gallon and oil companies were reporting 'record profits' (remember, profit = bad & greedy), the press was quick to demonize them as a whole, calling them 'big.' You probably heard this line a few times: 'Another record for big oil, as profits soared...'
(What you didn't hear is that government's taxes on a gallon of gasoline are greater than the oil companies'profit off the same gallon! But nowhere did you hear about 'big government.')
It's become so ridiculous that sometimes reporters will talk about 'big oil' like it's a living, breathing, being!
'It depends on big oil.'
'What will big oil do?'
R.J. Reynolds & Philip Morris are tobacco companies that get the label in the news as 'big tobacco.'
These terms are absolutely ridiculous. If the press is going to put the label on the oil and tobacco companies,why not put it on others?
Water would be a perfect example. At Costco, you can purchase 35 bottles of water for less than five dollars. The price per unit is about 13 cents. If you were to sell those bottles of water for a dollar each, the mark-up is more than 750%!
Should the press demonize people who sell bottled water as 'big water?' Trying to use that term would get a journalist laughed out of the newsroom.
So should using 'big tobacco' and 'big oil.'
Monday, March 5, 2007
'The Media' vs. 'The Press'
From time to time you may hear something about the 'liberal media,' the 'conservative media' or how 'the media got it wrong/right,' etc.
Who or what is this 'media?'
Simply put, the media is where we get our news, information and entertainment. That includes television, radio, internet, movies, cell phones, newspapers, etc. Anyone who is on the radio, television, blogs, writes editorials or stories for newspapers, stars in a movie, etc., by definition, is in the media.
Does that mean that George Clooney, Brian Williams and Rush Limbaugh are all a part of the same media? Not hardly.
This is confusing because many people think they get their news from the media.
They do and they don't. There is a big difference between the media and the press ('The View' vs. ABC World News Tonight).
When you watch CNN, FOX or Brian Williams (the press), you should expect* that you are getting your news from an organization that is presenting the story/topic in a fair light, exploring all sides of the issue, not just two. Personal opinions or thoughts on the stories should be non-existent. You shouldn't know that a news organization or the reporter feels a certain way about the story.** This is the job of journalists who are a part of 'the press.' (You'll never hear a report that came off the wires from the 'Associated Media.')
When you tune in to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or read something from the Huffington Post (all a part of 'the media'), you should expect and know you are going to get those individual's personal take on whatever it is they happen to be talking about. Does that make them less credible? Does that mean that they don't know what they're talking about? YOU have to decide that for yourself.
George Clooney, Rush Limbaugh, Rosie O'Donnell, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Britney Spears and Neal Boortz are all a part of the media.
They are not all a part of the press.
* Actually, you should DEMAND it, not expect it.
** Unfortunately, it's not always that way
Who or what is this 'media?'
Simply put, the media is where we get our news, information and entertainment. That includes television, radio, internet, movies, cell phones, newspapers, etc. Anyone who is on the radio, television, blogs, writes editorials or stories for newspapers, stars in a movie, etc., by definition, is in the media.
Does that mean that George Clooney, Brian Williams and Rush Limbaugh are all a part of the same media? Not hardly.
This is confusing because many people think they get their news from the media.
They do and they don't. There is a big difference between the media and the press ('The View' vs. ABC World News Tonight).
When you watch CNN, FOX or Brian Williams (the press), you should expect* that you are getting your news from an organization that is presenting the story/topic in a fair light, exploring all sides of the issue, not just two. Personal opinions or thoughts on the stories should be non-existent. You shouldn't know that a news organization or the reporter feels a certain way about the story.** This is the job of journalists who are a part of 'the press.' (You'll never hear a report that came off the wires from the 'Associated Media.')
When you tune in to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or read something from the Huffington Post (all a part of 'the media'), you should expect and know you are going to get those individual's personal take on whatever it is they happen to be talking about. Does that make them less credible? Does that mean that they don't know what they're talking about? YOU have to decide that for yourself.
George Clooney, Rush Limbaugh, Rosie O'Donnell, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Britney Spears and Neal Boortz are all a part of the media.
They are not all a part of the press.
* Actually, you should DEMAND it, not expect it.
** Unfortunately, it's not always that way
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Quotes...
(Disclaimer: I wasn't there when these were said or written, so I can't verify or guarantee each and every one of them. However, I trust the site(s) where I got many of them.)
These are just SOME of the quotes that I like to read over from time to time. Enjoy!
Quotes on taxes:
'When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it.' - The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax
'I live in Alexandria, Virginia. Near the Supreme Court chamber is a toll bridge across the Potomac. When in a rush I pay the dollar toll and get home early. However, I usually drive a free bridge outside the down-town section of the city, and cross the Potomac on a free bridge. The bridge was placed outside the downtown Washington D.C. area to serve a useful social service: getting drivers to drive the extra mile to help alleviate congestion during rush hour. If I went over the toll bridge and through the barrier without paying the toll, I would be committing tax evasion. If, however, I drive the extra mile and drive outside the city of Washington, I am using a legitimate, logical and suitable method of tax avoidance, and I am performing a useful social service by doing so. For my tax evasion, I should be punished. For my tax avoidance, I should be commended. The tragedy of life today is that so few people know that the free bridge even exists.' -Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis on tax evasion & tax avoidance
'Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.' - Calvin Coolidge
'A [tax loophole is] something that benefits the other guy. If it benefits you, it is tax reform.' – Russell B. Long
'"Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.' – Joseph Sobran, columnist.
'Liberals love to say things like, "We're just asking everyone to pay their fair share." But government is not about asking. It is about telling. The difference is fundamental. It is the difference between making love and being raped, between working for a living and being a slave. The Internal Revenue service is not asking anybody to do anything. It confiscates your assets and puts you behind bars if you don't pay.' – Thomas Sowell, Forbes, July 1994
'Taxation with representation ain't so hot either.' – Gerald Barzan
'Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.' – Robert A. Heinlein
Quotes on government, freedom & liberty:
'The king has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent Swarms of Officers to harass our People and eat out their substance.' – U.S. Declaration of Independence
'In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.' – Charles de Gaulle
'My freedom is more important than your great idea.' – Anonymous
'Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee.' – F. Lee Bailey
'The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.' – David Friedman
'A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.' – Justice Atonin Scalia
'Live free or die.' – New Hampshire State Motto
'If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.' – George Orwell, 1984
'To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying.' – Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794), Member of Continental Congress, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Senator
'It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.' – Ayn Rand
'Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush.' - Walter Williams
'Faced with the pain of freedom, man begs for his shackles.' – Gerry Spence
'Immigrants used to come to America seeking freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from government. Now they come looking for free health care, free education, and a free lunch.' – Harry Browne
'Painful as it may be to hear it, there's nothing special about the people of this country that sets them apart from the other people of the world. It is the Bill of Rights, and only the Bill of Rights, that keeps us from becoming the world's biggest banana republic. The moment we forget that, the American Dream is over.' – Alexander Hope, "Looking Forward"
'It is no more the function of government to impose a moral code than to impose a religious code. And for the same reason.' [1947] – Robert M. MacIver (1882-1970), Scottish Sociologist
'Government allocation of resources raises the potential for human conflict. Since government can't give what it doesn't first take, in order for government to be benevolent towards one person it has to be malevolent towards another.' - Walter Williams
'No nation was ever ruined by trade.' – Benjamin Franklin
'In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths: The first is that government does not grant rights, it acknowledges them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them.' - Michael Badnarik
A little government involvement is just as dangerous as a lot because the first leads inevitably to the second.' - Harry Browne
'Giving a politician access to your wallet is like giving a dog access to your refrigerator.' – Tim Barber
'One evening, when I was yet in my nurse's arms, I wanted to touch the tea urn, which was boiling merrily … My nurse would have taken me away from the urn, but my mother said "Let him touch it." So I touched it – and that was my first lesson in the meaning of liberty.' – John Ruskin (1819-1900), The Story of Arachne, 1870
'As long as people believe that we can commit crimes against ourselves and that we ARE NOT FREE to do with ourselves as we please, even if we aren't violating or interfering with someone else's rights or property, then there will always be victims for all sorts of newly invented 'crimes.'- Anonymous
'It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.' – Calvin Coolidge
'There can be no freedom without freedom to fail.' – Eric Hoffer (1902-1983), The Ordeal of Change, 1964
'If you have ever seen a four-year-old trying to lord it over a two-year-old, then you know what the basic problem of human nature is – and why government keeps growing larger and ever more intrusive.' – Thomas Sowell
'The gentle government that promises to hold your hand as you cross the street refuses to let go on the other side.' – Theodore J. Forstmann, American Business Executive and Philanthropist
'If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.' – Jacob Hornberger
'Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?'- Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address
'Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.' – George Bernard Shaw
'Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right.' - Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Presidential Candidate, 2004
'It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself.' – Justice Casey Percell
'"Solve" and "Problems" are not in the constitution.' – Doug Newman
'If you create enough laws, everyone will be a criminal.' - Thomas Sowell
'Our Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was formulated to govern the government, to make government the servant and not the master of the people.' – William F. Jasper
'It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle.' – Alexis De Tocquiville
'In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what's for supper. In a constitutional republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what's for supper, and the sheep are well armed.' – Anonymous
'A government is not legitimate merely because it exists.' – Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
'When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.' – Dorothy Thompson, newspaper columnist
Quotes on character:
'The worst day of a man's life is when he sits down and begins thinking about how he can get something for nothing.' - Thomas Jefferson
'Self-pity and gratitude are mortal enemies. Where one exists the other cannot. Since both are highly contagious, individuals must choose gratitude before becoming too thankless to do otherwise.' - Mike Adams
Quotes on guns, gun control and the 2nd amendment:
'I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions – or else it would have read that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise." And because there are no exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong – because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the laws are no inconvenience.' – Harry Browne, meetings with NRA's EVP, Wayne LaPierre and other panelists at a gun rights rally in Hot Springs, AR, 8/8/2000
'To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.' – George Mason
'It is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a "community right", because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights.' - Michael Badnarik
'"A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed."
I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms.' – Bruce Tiemann
Quotes on charity:
'If you feel driven to feed the poor, get your checkbook out and keep your tyrannical mouth shut about it.' – Lew Goldberg
Quotes on laws:
'If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.' – Thomas Jefferson
'Jury: Twelve people who determine which client has the better lawyer.' – Robert Frost
Other random quotes:
'If workers struggle for higher wages, this is hailed as "social gains", if businessmen struggle for higher profits, this is damned as "selfish greed".' – Ayn Rand
'A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you.' – Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General, New York Times, 10/02/77
'We're told cars are wasteful. Wasteful of what? Oil did a lot of good sitting in the ground for millions of years. We're told cars should be replaced with mass transportation. But it's hard to reach the drive through window at McDonald's from a speeding train. And we're told cars cause pollution. A hundred years ago city streets were ankle deep in horse excrement. What kind of pollution do you want? Would you rather die of cancer at eighty or typhoid fever at nine?' – P.J. O'Rourke
'The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take people's money away quietly, and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly.' – Thomas Sowell
These are just SOME of the quotes that I like to read over from time to time. Enjoy!
Quotes on taxes:
'When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it.' - The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax
'I live in Alexandria, Virginia. Near the Supreme Court chamber is a toll bridge across the Potomac. When in a rush I pay the dollar toll and get home early. However, I usually drive a free bridge outside the down-town section of the city, and cross the Potomac on a free bridge. The bridge was placed outside the downtown Washington D.C. area to serve a useful social service: getting drivers to drive the extra mile to help alleviate congestion during rush hour. If I went over the toll bridge and through the barrier without paying the toll, I would be committing tax evasion. If, however, I drive the extra mile and drive outside the city of Washington, I am using a legitimate, logical and suitable method of tax avoidance, and I am performing a useful social service by doing so. For my tax evasion, I should be punished. For my tax avoidance, I should be commended. The tragedy of life today is that so few people know that the free bridge even exists.' -Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis on tax evasion & tax avoidance
'Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery.' - Calvin Coolidge
'A [tax loophole is] something that benefits the other guy. If it benefits you, it is tax reform.' – Russell B. Long
'"Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.' – Joseph Sobran, columnist.
'Liberals love to say things like, "We're just asking everyone to pay their fair share." But government is not about asking. It is about telling. The difference is fundamental. It is the difference between making love and being raped, between working for a living and being a slave. The Internal Revenue service is not asking anybody to do anything. It confiscates your assets and puts you behind bars if you don't pay.' – Thomas Sowell, Forbes, July 1994
'Taxation with representation ain't so hot either.' – Gerald Barzan
'Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.' – Robert A. Heinlein
Quotes on government, freedom & liberty:
'The king has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent Swarms of Officers to harass our People and eat out their substance.' – U.S. Declaration of Independence
'In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.' – Charles de Gaulle
'My freedom is more important than your great idea.' – Anonymous
'Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee.' – F. Lee Bailey
'The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.' – David Friedman
'A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless.' – Justice Atonin Scalia
'Live free or die.' – New Hampshire State Motto
'If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.' – George Orwell, 1984
'To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying.' – Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794), Member of Continental Congress, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Senator
'It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.' – Ayn Rand
'Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush.' - Walter Williams
'Faced with the pain of freedom, man begs for his shackles.' – Gerry Spence
'Immigrants used to come to America seeking freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from government. Now they come looking for free health care, free education, and a free lunch.' – Harry Browne
'Painful as it may be to hear it, there's nothing special about the people of this country that sets them apart from the other people of the world. It is the Bill of Rights, and only the Bill of Rights, that keeps us from becoming the world's biggest banana republic. The moment we forget that, the American Dream is over.' – Alexander Hope, "Looking Forward"
'It is no more the function of government to impose a moral code than to impose a religious code. And for the same reason.' [1947] – Robert M. MacIver (1882-1970), Scottish Sociologist
'Government allocation of resources raises the potential for human conflict. Since government can't give what it doesn't first take, in order for government to be benevolent towards one person it has to be malevolent towards another.' - Walter Williams
'No nation was ever ruined by trade.' – Benjamin Franklin
'In crafting the Bill of Rights, the framers were careful to acknowledge implicitly and explicitly two key truths: The first is that government does not grant rights, it acknowledges them. They exist independently of government. They're part of who and what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them.' - Michael Badnarik
A little government involvement is just as dangerous as a lot because the first leads inevitably to the second.' - Harry Browne
'Giving a politician access to your wallet is like giving a dog access to your refrigerator.' – Tim Barber
'One evening, when I was yet in my nurse's arms, I wanted to touch the tea urn, which was boiling merrily … My nurse would have taken me away from the urn, but my mother said "Let him touch it." So I touched it – and that was my first lesson in the meaning of liberty.' – John Ruskin (1819-1900), The Story of Arachne, 1870
'As long as people believe that we can commit crimes against ourselves and that we ARE NOT FREE to do with ourselves as we please, even if we aren't violating or interfering with someone else's rights or property, then there will always be victims for all sorts of newly invented 'crimes.'- Anonymous
'It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.' – Calvin Coolidge
'There can be no freedom without freedom to fail.' – Eric Hoffer (1902-1983), The Ordeal of Change, 1964
'If you have ever seen a four-year-old trying to lord it over a two-year-old, then you know what the basic problem of human nature is – and why government keeps growing larger and ever more intrusive.' – Thomas Sowell
'The gentle government that promises to hold your hand as you cross the street refuses to let go on the other side.' – Theodore J. Forstmann, American Business Executive and Philanthropist
'If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.' – Jacob Hornberger
'Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?'- Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address
'Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.' – George Bernard Shaw
'Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right.' - Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Presidential Candidate, 2004
'It is not the responsibility of the government or the legal system to protect a citizen from himself.' – Justice Casey Percell
'"Solve" and "Problems" are not in the constitution.' – Doug Newman
'If you create enough laws, everyone will be a criminal.' - Thomas Sowell
'Our Constitution is not a body of law to govern the people; it was formulated to govern the government, to make government the servant and not the master of the people.' – William F. Jasper
'It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle.' – Alexis De Tocquiville
'In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what's for supper. In a constitutional republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what's for supper, and the sheep are well armed.' – Anonymous
'A government is not legitimate merely because it exists.' – Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
'When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.' – Dorothy Thompson, newspaper columnist
Quotes on character:
'The worst day of a man's life is when he sits down and begins thinking about how he can get something for nothing.' - Thomas Jefferson
'Self-pity and gratitude are mortal enemies. Where one exists the other cannot. Since both are highly contagious, individuals must choose gratitude before becoming too thankless to do otherwise.' - Mike Adams
Quotes on guns, gun control and the 2nd amendment:
'I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions – or else it would have read that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise." And because there are no exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong – because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the laws are no inconvenience.' – Harry Browne, meetings with NRA's EVP, Wayne LaPierre and other panelists at a gun rights rally in Hot Springs, AR, 8/8/2000
'To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.' – George Mason
'It is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a "community right", because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights.' - Michael Badnarik
'"A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed."
I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms.' – Bruce Tiemann
Quotes on charity:
'If you feel driven to feed the poor, get your checkbook out and keep your tyrannical mouth shut about it.' – Lew Goldberg
Quotes on laws:
'If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.' – Thomas Jefferson
'Jury: Twelve people who determine which client has the better lawyer.' – Robert Frost
Other random quotes:
'If workers struggle for higher wages, this is hailed as "social gains", if businessmen struggle for higher profits, this is damned as "selfish greed".' – Ayn Rand
'A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you.' – Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General, New York Times, 10/02/77
'We're told cars are wasteful. Wasteful of what? Oil did a lot of good sitting in the ground for millions of years. We're told cars should be replaced with mass transportation. But it's hard to reach the drive through window at McDonald's from a speeding train. And we're told cars cause pollution. A hundred years ago city streets were ankle deep in horse excrement. What kind of pollution do you want? Would you rather die of cancer at eighty or typhoid fever at nine?' – P.J. O'Rourke
'The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take people's money away quietly, and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly.' – Thomas Sowell
Monday, February 12, 2007
The Demonization Of Profits
As the decision looms closer as to which hospital is going to receive the state's blessing to operate in Madison, the debate is no longer which will provide better, cheaper care for patients. The issue is money.
Specifically, PROFIT: Who's making it, and who isn't. One of the hospitals, Huntsville, is non-profit. The other, Crestwood, isn't.
A recent letter to the editor in The Huntsville Times shows the absolute disgust of profits held by many in this country.
'Not-for-profit hospitals across America exist to provide the best health care possible for their patients. Conversely, for-profit hospitals (like Crestwood) exist primarily to provide profits for owners and stockholders.'
Get it? One hospital is out there to help everyone and save the world, doing everything it possibly can (and then some) for anyone who is in their care. The other hospital? It must exist only to satisfy the greed of anyone who owns a share in it.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that's true. Just how would a 'for-profit' hospital manage to provide profits for the owners and stockholders? Would they do it by stealing? Would they force people to use their hospital and then bleed them dry (bad pun, sorry) for every last nickel?
Of course not. They'd have to work to earn your business and work even harder to keep it. That means service. That service includes having the best doctors, surgeons and nurses. If you knew a certain hospital had sub-par service would your risk YOUR health or your family's health there or go elsewhere?
The same writer continued:
'The profits generated by for-profit hospitals are divided among owners, corporate executives and shareholders, who generally consider providing unprofitable services to be contrary to their best interests.'
This means if you invest your money into a hospital that turns a profit, you are not only greedy and selfish, you're also cold hearted. (Note the sarcasm.)
It's easy to demonize anybody making a dollar off someone's misfortune, especially when they aren't there in front of you to take the criticism. But thank God someone IS going to make money off someone's misfortune!
I'd hate to have to rely only on a doctor's conscious and heart to give me the best care possible. Instead, I hope the doctor has 3 beach homes along the Florida coast and plans on playing at Pebble Beach next weekend.
Specifically, PROFIT: Who's making it, and who isn't. One of the hospitals, Huntsville, is non-profit. The other, Crestwood, isn't.
A recent letter to the editor in The Huntsville Times shows the absolute disgust of profits held by many in this country.
'Not-for-profit hospitals across America exist to provide the best health care possible for their patients. Conversely, for-profit hospitals (like Crestwood) exist primarily to provide profits for owners and stockholders.'
Get it? One hospital is out there to help everyone and save the world, doing everything it possibly can (and then some) for anyone who is in their care. The other hospital? It must exist only to satisfy the greed of anyone who owns a share in it.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that's true. Just how would a 'for-profit' hospital manage to provide profits for the owners and stockholders? Would they do it by stealing? Would they force people to use their hospital and then bleed them dry (bad pun, sorry) for every last nickel?
Of course not. They'd have to work to earn your business and work even harder to keep it. That means service. That service includes having the best doctors, surgeons and nurses. If you knew a certain hospital had sub-par service would your risk YOUR health or your family's health there or go elsewhere?
The same writer continued:
'The profits generated by for-profit hospitals are divided among owners, corporate executives and shareholders, who generally consider providing unprofitable services to be contrary to their best interests.'
This means if you invest your money into a hospital that turns a profit, you are not only greedy and selfish, you're also cold hearted. (Note the sarcasm.)
It's easy to demonize anybody making a dollar off someone's misfortune, especially when they aren't there in front of you to take the criticism. But thank God someone IS going to make money off someone's misfortune!
I'd hate to have to rely only on a doctor's conscious and heart to give me the best care possible. Instead, I hope the doctor has 3 beach homes along the Florida coast and plans on playing at Pebble Beach next weekend.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
A Quick Follow Up...
'It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.' – Voltaire
In my last column I touched on issues of credibility and motives. Namely, the hype and words of ignorant politicians versus the opinions of actual experts. One example I used was the debate of global warming. On that issue, would you be more inclined to believe a politician who stands to gain something or an actual climatologist who stands to gain nothing from their view of the matter?
It's actually happening right now.
George Taylor is Oregon's State Climatologist and has been for more than 17 years. It's also his belief that humans are NOT the main cause of the Earth's climate change.
Enter politics.
Oregon's Governor, Ted Kulongoski, now wants to strip Taylor of that title and make the position one that he will personally appoint. His reasoning is that Taylor's beliefs on global warming don't coincide with the state's goals to reduce greenhouse gases. (You can read more about it here.)
Notice that the state government already has a predetermined view on how to fight global warming and that man is the root cause of it. Anyone who thinks or says otherwise stands to LOSE in this debate and will be removed from the equation.
The State Climatologist of almost 20 years, George Taylor, stands to gain little or nothing on his expert opinion on the issue of global warming.
Not so for Oregon's politicians.
Is there any mystery as to what will happen to Taylor or the position he holds?
In my last column I touched on issues of credibility and motives. Namely, the hype and words of ignorant politicians versus the opinions of actual experts. One example I used was the debate of global warming. On that issue, would you be more inclined to believe a politician who stands to gain something or an actual climatologist who stands to gain nothing from their view of the matter?
It's actually happening right now.
George Taylor is Oregon's State Climatologist and has been for more than 17 years. It's also his belief that humans are NOT the main cause of the Earth's climate change.
Enter politics.
Oregon's Governor, Ted Kulongoski, now wants to strip Taylor of that title and make the position one that he will personally appoint. His reasoning is that Taylor's beliefs on global warming don't coincide with the state's goals to reduce greenhouse gases. (You can read more about it here.)
Notice that the state government already has a predetermined view on how to fight global warming and that man is the root cause of it. Anyone who thinks or says otherwise stands to LOSE in this debate and will be removed from the equation.
The State Climatologist of almost 20 years, George Taylor, stands to gain little or nothing on his expert opinion on the issue of global warming.
Not so for Oregon's politicians.
Is there any mystery as to what will happen to Taylor or the position he holds?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Who Would You Believe?
Mrs. Knight and I recently rented the movie 'Thank You For Smoking.' It's the story of Nick Naylor who works as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. In one scene, Nick is at his son's school where the class is learning what it is exactly that their parents do for a living. When Nick's turn comes up he explains that he helps promote cigarettes and smoking. This gets the class' attention and sparks some dialogue.
Kid: My Mommy says smoking kills.
Nick: Oh, is your Mommy a doctor?
Kid: No.
Nick: A scientific researcher of some kind?
Kid: No.
Nick: Well then she's hardly a credible expert, is she?
It's actually a pretty funny scene.
When you're 5 or 10 years old, you believe what your parents tell you.
'Brush and floss or you'll lose your teeth.' 'Bundle up so you don't catch a cold.'
Their intentions are in our best interest. We believe them because they're our parents and we trust them, not because we think that they are experts on every subject.
But when politicians tell us something, many are quick to believe them because they're politicians, not because they're experts.
Take for example former Vice-President Al Gore. He tells us the dangers of global warming, and to his credit, he has done his homework on the subject. But is he an expert?
I'm more interested in what a seasoned meteorologist or a climatologist has to say on the subject because they're the people who study weather for a living. Even if some do believe in global warming and its dangers, they're more likely to have based their theory on hard data and their years of experience. They stand to gain little by their stance on it. That's key, too, because they don't have something that a politician does: The ability to use the force of government to restrict the way we live our lives.
A meteorologist or climatologist can't introduce legislation. A politician can and probably will.
Global warming is just one example. How many times have we heard a politician tell us how a new government program or legislation is going to help our economy? Would you be more inclined to listen to a politician explain economics... or an economic professor who stands to gain nothing from his explanation?
People want their elected officials to have answers and provide solutions. But politicians aren't experts on everything. They make our lives worse when they pass laws that deal with things they know little or nothing about. Luckily we have an established set of rules that restricts what our politicians can do to us. It's the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, politicians aren't experts on that either.
Kid: My Mommy says smoking kills.
Nick: Oh, is your Mommy a doctor?
Kid: No.
Nick: A scientific researcher of some kind?
Kid: No.
Nick: Well then she's hardly a credible expert, is she?
It's actually a pretty funny scene.
When you're 5 or 10 years old, you believe what your parents tell you.
'Brush and floss or you'll lose your teeth.' 'Bundle up so you don't catch a cold.'
Their intentions are in our best interest. We believe them because they're our parents and we trust them, not because we think that they are experts on every subject.
But when politicians tell us something, many are quick to believe them because they're politicians, not because they're experts.
Take for example former Vice-President Al Gore. He tells us the dangers of global warming, and to his credit, he has done his homework on the subject. But is he an expert?
I'm more interested in what a seasoned meteorologist or a climatologist has to say on the subject because they're the people who study weather for a living. Even if some do believe in global warming and its dangers, they're more likely to have based their theory on hard data and their years of experience. They stand to gain little by their stance on it. That's key, too, because they don't have something that a politician does: The ability to use the force of government to restrict the way we live our lives.
A meteorologist or climatologist can't introduce legislation. A politician can and probably will.
Global warming is just one example. How many times have we heard a politician tell us how a new government program or legislation is going to help our economy? Would you be more inclined to listen to a politician explain economics... or an economic professor who stands to gain nothing from his explanation?
People want their elected officials to have answers and provide solutions. But politicians aren't experts on everything. They make our lives worse when they pass laws that deal with things they know little or nothing about. Luckily we have an established set of rules that restricts what our politicians can do to us. It's the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, politicians aren't experts on that either.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Hospital Wars
There's a battle going on between two hospitals in Huntsville to determine which one will be able to place a 60 bed facility in the nearby city of Madison.
Huntsville and Crestwood Hospital both want to build hospitals in Madison. Only one will be able to. They've been in this fight for more than five years.
Madison needs a hospital. It isn't a small town and it's growing. Fast. Depending on where you live in Madison, the closest hospital can be anywhere from 20-30 minutes away. Maybe longer.
Standing in the way and preventing a hospital from being built now is the Alabama state government. A judge is going to have to make a recommendation to the state's 'Certificate of Need Board' to determine who wins the rights to build a hospital in Madison.
Put that on the back burner for just a second.
Not long ago I was in Madison with Mrs. Knight shopping for a new refrigerator. We didn't see what we liked at one home improvement store, so we left and went to another where we finally got our refrigerator. I'm glad there are at least two home improvement stores in Madison because it would have been inconvenient to travel 20 minutes in another direction to search for a refrigerator.
Later that day we stopped to get lunch. Thankfully there are dozens of restaurants in Madison to choose from. If you want mexican, there are mexican restaurants. If you want pizza, burgers or sandwiches... Madison offers it.
We do our grocery shopping in Madison as well. If we weren't satisfied with where we get our groceries, there are at least three other businesses that could possibly meet our needs.
Had there only been one home improvement store in Madison, we would have had to have either bought our refrigerator there our make a journey elsewhere to get it. I'm also glad that we had so many choices as to where we could eat, too. If there were only mexican restaurants in Madison and we wanted a pizza, we wouldn't have been able to do it in Madison.
That's the beauty of capitalism. It creates competition, lowers prices and everyone benefits.
Businesses have to compete for your business! If they can't or don't, they'll close shop.
The same holds true for hospitals. They have to work for your business as well and part of that includes getting the best doctors, surgeons and nurses. If you have a choice between hospital A or hospital B, you can choose what's best for you and your family. But if there's only one hospital, you're stuck with it no matter what.
Some argue that because having a hospital is so important, it's too risky to allow more than one because one could possibly close. But that's the reason it's so important to be able to choose which one you'll use! People don't want below par service when it comes to their health. Competing hospitals is the rising tide that lifts all boats!
Unfortunately, only one hospital is going to be allowed to build in Madison and the citizens will be stuck with whatever the state chooses. But why does the state government get to choose? The state certainly didn't determine which hardware store or restaurant won the right to open shop in Madison! If Madison is such a growing city that's big enough to support hundreds of businesses, why not allow multiple hospitals to open and serve the public as well?
Government restricts our choices under the guise of what's best for us. We pay the price.
The citizens of Madison have been paying that price for more than five years.
Huntsville and Crestwood Hospital both want to build hospitals in Madison. Only one will be able to. They've been in this fight for more than five years.
Madison needs a hospital. It isn't a small town and it's growing. Fast. Depending on where you live in Madison, the closest hospital can be anywhere from 20-30 minutes away. Maybe longer.
Standing in the way and preventing a hospital from being built now is the Alabama state government. A judge is going to have to make a recommendation to the state's 'Certificate of Need Board' to determine who wins the rights to build a hospital in Madison.
Put that on the back burner for just a second.
Not long ago I was in Madison with Mrs. Knight shopping for a new refrigerator. We didn't see what we liked at one home improvement store, so we left and went to another where we finally got our refrigerator. I'm glad there are at least two home improvement stores in Madison because it would have been inconvenient to travel 20 minutes in another direction to search for a refrigerator.
Later that day we stopped to get lunch. Thankfully there are dozens of restaurants in Madison to choose from. If you want mexican, there are mexican restaurants. If you want pizza, burgers or sandwiches... Madison offers it.
We do our grocery shopping in Madison as well. If we weren't satisfied with where we get our groceries, there are at least three other businesses that could possibly meet our needs.
Had there only been one home improvement store in Madison, we would have had to have either bought our refrigerator there our make a journey elsewhere to get it. I'm also glad that we had so many choices as to where we could eat, too. If there were only mexican restaurants in Madison and we wanted a pizza, we wouldn't have been able to do it in Madison.
That's the beauty of capitalism. It creates competition, lowers prices and everyone benefits.
Businesses have to compete for your business! If they can't or don't, they'll close shop.
The same holds true for hospitals. They have to work for your business as well and part of that includes getting the best doctors, surgeons and nurses. If you have a choice between hospital A or hospital B, you can choose what's best for you and your family. But if there's only one hospital, you're stuck with it no matter what.
Some argue that because having a hospital is so important, it's too risky to allow more than one because one could possibly close. But that's the reason it's so important to be able to choose which one you'll use! People don't want below par service when it comes to their health. Competing hospitals is the rising tide that lifts all boats!
Unfortunately, only one hospital is going to be allowed to build in Madison and the citizens will be stuck with whatever the state chooses. But why does the state government get to choose? The state certainly didn't determine which hardware store or restaurant won the right to open shop in Madison! If Madison is such a growing city that's big enough to support hundreds of businesses, why not allow multiple hospitals to open and serve the public as well?
Government restricts our choices under the guise of what's best for us. We pay the price.
The citizens of Madison have been paying that price for more than five years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)