Tiger Woods apparently managed to back his car into a fire hydrant before he put it into a tree. It didn't trigger the air bags yet from a 911 call a neighbor said he was laying on the ground unconscious. There was no blood in the car or on the steering wheel but Tiger was reported to have major scratches on his face and bruising. Most of the glass was bashed out of the car. The official story? Tiger lost control of his car at 2 mph, hit a hydrant, drove into the yard and hit a tree. His wife then ran out with a golf club to free him by smashing the rear window.
Now the police show up only Tiger refuses to talk to them. When they come back later the police are met by his lawyer who simply hands them copies of Tiger's driver's license, registration, and insurance along with "Tiger doesn't plan on talking to you".
Now the National Inquirer chimes in with a story about Woods cheating on his wife. The woman in question denies the whole thing but immediately hires a lawyer and jets off. Then reporters interview associates of Woods who tell a different tale. From these unsubstantiated stories we hear Woods returned home from a liaison with his floozy only to be confronted by his wife. Woods, doped out of his head on prescription pain drugs, was attacked by her. He stumbles into the car bleeding and bruised but is too doped up (and maybe whacked in the head by a golf club) to drive. His wife is running after him screaming while beating his car all to hell with a golf club. Is it true? Who knows?
The Inquirer often makes up crap but it's also true they're right about 99% of the time. The rumors floating around may be bull but it's pretty obvious the official story is even more bull. The yarn Woods is spouting seems pretty far fetched to me. Why won't he talk to the police? Since when was that even an option?
I'm sure the floozy will start peddling her wares now. Maybe even a couple of book deals. The sensationalist rags will keep having a field day no matter what the truth is. Tiger isn't really helping by hiding under a rock. It's all pretty goofy. Who cares about Tiger Woods? Not me.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Four Police Shot Outside Seattle
PARKLAND, Wash. – A gunman burst into a coffeehouse Sunday and opened fire on four police officers as they sat working on their laptops.
Police sit around coffee shops while surfing on laptops in Parkland? I know they do paperwork but so did I. I never had anyone pay me to sit in a coffee shop.
Streets around the coffee shop were blocked off late Sunday morning, and a police helicopter hovered over a large crowd of investigators. TV video showed police taking possession of a pickup truck parked in a grocery store in Parkland. Dave Gabrielson, a clerk at Foot Mart about a block away from the coffee shop, told the newspaper all was quiet when he opened the store at 8 a.m. About 30 minutes later, "All of a sudden a million cops were zooming up and down the road," Gabrielson said. He said he saw officers bring a police dog into a nearby apartment complex.
If you or I get shot the police fill out a few forms and say "Yeah, it happens sometimes. We'll do the best we can." When it's the police you have a different story don't you? They lock down the town, millions of them zoom the streets, and dogs and helicopters are brought in to search neighboring apartments for...whatever.... Someone important got shot. We'll do whatever it takes to catch the killer.
It's been that way all my life. I hope they catch the nutcase because it was a horrible crime. But no worse a crime than killing anyone else. Everyone's life is equally important although some people obviously don't agree.
Police sit around coffee shops while surfing on laptops in Parkland? I know they do paperwork but so did I. I never had anyone pay me to sit in a coffee shop.
Streets around the coffee shop were blocked off late Sunday morning, and a police helicopter hovered over a large crowd of investigators. TV video showed police taking possession of a pickup truck parked in a grocery store in Parkland. Dave Gabrielson, a clerk at Foot Mart about a block away from the coffee shop, told the newspaper all was quiet when he opened the store at 8 a.m. About 30 minutes later, "All of a sudden a million cops were zooming up and down the road," Gabrielson said. He said he saw officers bring a police dog into a nearby apartment complex.
If you or I get shot the police fill out a few forms and say "Yeah, it happens sometimes. We'll do the best we can." When it's the police you have a different story don't you? They lock down the town, millions of them zoom the streets, and dogs and helicopters are brought in to search neighboring apartments for...whatever.... Someone important got shot. We'll do whatever it takes to catch the killer.
It's been that way all my life. I hope they catch the nutcase because it was a horrible crime. But no worse a crime than killing anyone else. Everyone's life is equally important although some people obviously don't agree.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Clark Bars
For years my favorite candy bar was the Clark Bar but over time it disappeared. It's available in some parts of the country but not around here. After all these years I wondered if they'd ruined it like most candy from my youth. I also loved Powerhouse bars but I had one recently and it was terrible. They had completely changed the taste into something unrecognizable. In fact, virtually all candy bars are pale imitations of what they used to be as companies have substituted cheap ingredients. You'll never find the real cream, butter, sugar, and cocoa they once used. It's all corn syrup, chemicals, and cheap shit now.
But last year I found a Clark Bar in the retro candy isle of a store and it tasted exactly like I remembered. Now I was in trouble. I could no longer tell myself it was ruined and worthless. I couldn't ignore my favorite candy was still out there if I only looked on the internet.
Like an idiot I just ordered a 36 bar case. I started to buy two. I made up a little lie about how I'd freeze them and not eat too many. I'm good at lying to myself. When the candy arrives I'll probably be in a blood sugar coma within hours.
Half of Kids Will Be On Food Stamps
The eye-opening estimate on children is from an analysis published earlier this month in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. The authors, sociologists from Cornell University and Washington University in St. Louis, based their projection on 30 years of national data. They said their results show U.S. kids face a substantial risk for experiencing poverty, which poses a serious threat to their health and well-being.
The big headline this week, aside from the Obama party crashers, was the revelation that during childhood almost half of U.S. kids will be on food stamps. The first thing you do is wonder what it means. Are the limits on food stamps so low everyone qualifies? There is some truth in that since a family of 4 can get stamps at $22,000 a year, which is hardly poverty in my book. Looked at another way it says 50% of the children will be in a household making less than $22,000 at some point. It shows household incomes aren't very stable and it's possible for even middle class to dip into poverty for a period of time.
Then you read this:
Lisa Zilligen of Chicago is an example. The 28-year-old single mother has three young children and has received food stamps on and off for several years and earns about $400 a month from an office job. She's been getting about $600 in food stamps for the past several months; sometimes the allotment runs out before the end of the month and the family ends up visiting a food pantry, she said."My family would not survive without it. Absolutely not," Zilligen said.
Now you see a different story. Here's a woman who clearly can't afford kids yet has 3 for the taxpayer to keep. In times past, these situations were more limited. Only the lowest scum would have kids they couldn't afford. Responsible people had kids as income allowed and anyone who didn't was looked on by society as a worthless leach. We've lost that negative stigma welfare used to bring. Today she's just a poor woman trying to make ends meet and we should feel sorry for her although she brought the situation on herself and I certainly have no responsibility to pay the price for her stupidity.
As we widen the food stamp safety net to accommodate ever higher incomes, it opens new avenues for irresponsible behaviour. You no longer need the security of two incomes a marriage brings or even one good job. Single women can have all the kids they please knowing the safety net will kick in. Even worse, women can pick worthless men who have no income or means to keep the kids they spawn. At one time women paid attention to things like that but not anymore. The government will provide for their needs now.
The rise in single parent households has to play a part. Where one person losing a job in a marriage would be an impact, to a single parent it's a disaster. Many single parents have stable jobs with good incomes but many don't. Those that don't are at greater risk since they can flip instantly into unemployment, and with no partner income to help, instant poverty.
Another interpretation of the study could be that most children are born to low income parents. There's some truth in that too. Hollywood actors aside, large families are almost always in the lowest income of our social strata.
I'm not surprised 50% of the kids end up on food stamps. I would have guessed an even higher percentage. In a society where work is optional and irresponsible behaviour rewarded, people will take advantage of it. I suppose ultimately this study is a very sad statement on how most people manage their lives.
The big headline this week, aside from the Obama party crashers, was the revelation that during childhood almost half of U.S. kids will be on food stamps. The first thing you do is wonder what it means. Are the limits on food stamps so low everyone qualifies? There is some truth in that since a family of 4 can get stamps at $22,000 a year, which is hardly poverty in my book. Looked at another way it says 50% of the children will be in a household making less than $22,000 at some point. It shows household incomes aren't very stable and it's possible for even middle class to dip into poverty for a period of time.
Then you read this:
Lisa Zilligen of Chicago is an example. The 28-year-old single mother has three young children and has received food stamps on and off for several years and earns about $400 a month from an office job. She's been getting about $600 in food stamps for the past several months; sometimes the allotment runs out before the end of the month and the family ends up visiting a food pantry, she said."My family would not survive without it. Absolutely not," Zilligen said.
Now you see a different story. Here's a woman who clearly can't afford kids yet has 3 for the taxpayer to keep. In times past, these situations were more limited. Only the lowest scum would have kids they couldn't afford. Responsible people had kids as income allowed and anyone who didn't was looked on by society as a worthless leach. We've lost that negative stigma welfare used to bring. Today she's just a poor woman trying to make ends meet and we should feel sorry for her although she brought the situation on herself and I certainly have no responsibility to pay the price for her stupidity.
As we widen the food stamp safety net to accommodate ever higher incomes, it opens new avenues for irresponsible behaviour. You no longer need the security of two incomes a marriage brings or even one good job. Single women can have all the kids they please knowing the safety net will kick in. Even worse, women can pick worthless men who have no income or means to keep the kids they spawn. At one time women paid attention to things like that but not anymore. The government will provide for their needs now.
The rise in single parent households has to play a part. Where one person losing a job in a marriage would be an impact, to a single parent it's a disaster. Many single parents have stable jobs with good incomes but many don't. Those that don't are at greater risk since they can flip instantly into unemployment, and with no partner income to help, instant poverty.
Another interpretation of the study could be that most children are born to low income parents. There's some truth in that too. Hollywood actors aside, large families are almost always in the lowest income of our social strata.
I'm not surprised 50% of the kids end up on food stamps. I would have guessed an even higher percentage. In a society where work is optional and irresponsible behaviour rewarded, people will take advantage of it. I suppose ultimately this study is a very sad statement on how most people manage their lives.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Debit or Credit Card?
I've seen that debit cards exceed normal credit cards in the U.S. Don't you find that rather odd? Debit cards are a straight pipeline into your bank account while credit cards provide a buffer between you and the merchant for dispute protection in case of fraud or a stolen card. You have nothing like that with a debit card. What do you get in return for losing this important protection? Nothing.
If you overdraw a debit card account you've essentially bounced a check only with new penalties that paper checks never had. They have huge fees for overdrafts even if it's $1. There is the famous case where a man went over and coincidentally lost his job the same day. The overdraft was about $27 yet instantly incurred over $100 in penalties. He couldn't pay the $127 which made him $127 overdrawn. Within 2 years that $27 became over $2,000. Maybe you think the answer is to turn off the overdraft protection. Good idea but most banks won't let you because that's where they make money. The whole idea of a debit card is to provide a method for you to become overdrawn so they can jump in with huge fees. And it works great.
You have 30 days to pay off a credit card without any cost to you. If it is stolen you are only liable for $50. Any fraud from a merchant can be disputed, and since you haven't actually paid the merchant, will stop the fraudulent charge. There is no such thing as an overdraft since you're using credit. Even if you slip up and forget to pay one month the interest charges for 30 days will be much less than the overdraft fees charged on debit cards.
Compared to debit cards which can drain your bank account if stolen or hacked, pays the merchant immediately even if the charge is fraudulent, gives you no dispute avenue for charges, no way to refuse the fees associated with overdrafts, and you wonder who would use them?
Money is money no matter how you spend it. Credit card money is exactly the same money you'd spend using a debit card. You either have it or you don't. If you do then there's no difference with either card. If you don't then you have no business spending money you don't have.
So why would you give up the protections inherent in credit cards for no protections whatsoever with a debit card?
I have no idea. Debit cards are rat traps ready to spring huge fees the instant you make even the smallest mistake. The banks know you will. They can wait.
If you overdraw a debit card account you've essentially bounced a check only with new penalties that paper checks never had. They have huge fees for overdrafts even if it's $1. There is the famous case where a man went over and coincidentally lost his job the same day. The overdraft was about $27 yet instantly incurred over $100 in penalties. He couldn't pay the $127 which made him $127 overdrawn. Within 2 years that $27 became over $2,000. Maybe you think the answer is to turn off the overdraft protection. Good idea but most banks won't let you because that's where they make money. The whole idea of a debit card is to provide a method for you to become overdrawn so they can jump in with huge fees. And it works great.
You have 30 days to pay off a credit card without any cost to you. If it is stolen you are only liable for $50. Any fraud from a merchant can be disputed, and since you haven't actually paid the merchant, will stop the fraudulent charge. There is no such thing as an overdraft since you're using credit. Even if you slip up and forget to pay one month the interest charges for 30 days will be much less than the overdraft fees charged on debit cards.
Compared to debit cards which can drain your bank account if stolen or hacked, pays the merchant immediately even if the charge is fraudulent, gives you no dispute avenue for charges, no way to refuse the fees associated with overdrafts, and you wonder who would use them?
Money is money no matter how you spend it. Credit card money is exactly the same money you'd spend using a debit card. You either have it or you don't. If you do then there's no difference with either card. If you don't then you have no business spending money you don't have.
So why would you give up the protections inherent in credit cards for no protections whatsoever with a debit card?
I have no idea. Debit cards are rat traps ready to spring huge fees the instant you make even the smallest mistake. The banks know you will. They can wait.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
PETA Thanksgiving Commercial
I'm sure you've seen the PETA anti-thanksgiving commercial on the web. It has a little girl giving thanks for all the horrible things we do to turkeys. She even says thanks for the "people who enjoy stomping the little turkey heads". A bunch of NBC affiliates have refused to air it. Vegans can eat whatever they please and I don't try to ruin their enjoyment. They can have the decency to let me enjoy mine in return. No one makes them eat meat. I really don't understand why they think they have the right to preach at me. PETA isn't satisfied letting people live as they choose unless they choose the PETA way. Watching the commercial makes me want to rush out for more turkeys and send them to the PETA organization.
If I ran a TV ad attacking PETA they wouldn't stand for it yet they do the same to me. Where is the tolerance in that? Or the fairness?
If people want to be vegan that's fine with me. It's a personal philosophy. A sort of religion that says it is unethical to use animals to meet human needs. As with all religions, they must understand not everyone is a member of their church.
If I ran a TV ad attacking PETA they wouldn't stand for it yet they do the same to me. Where is the tolerance in that? Or the fairness?
If people want to be vegan that's fine with me. It's a personal philosophy. A sort of religion that says it is unethical to use animals to meet human needs. As with all religions, they must understand not everyone is a member of their church.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Everyone is Entitled To Their Opinion
Everyone is Entitled To Their Opinion -
Translation- You're full of shit but too stupid to change so I'll dismiss you as beneath contempt.
I doubt there's a single more horrible insult than everyone is entitled to their opinion because it is a passive-aggressive attack on your core belief system. The things that define you as a person are being dismissed as contemptible.
It has a twin insult for your actions in It Takes All Kinds, which translates to only a fool would do what you're doing.
Between those two insults they cover your belief system and your lifestyle. They are degrading expressions by people who don't agree with you. A means for them to elevate themselves above you and anything you believe.
I've always been struck by this behaviour since the people doing the judging are usually stupider than the ones they judge. Like all insults, it doesn't say much about the target but tells you a lot about the insulter.
Oh well, it takes all kinds doesn't it?
Translation- You're full of shit but too stupid to change so I'll dismiss you as beneath contempt.
I doubt there's a single more horrible insult than everyone is entitled to their opinion because it is a passive-aggressive attack on your core belief system. The things that define you as a person are being dismissed as contemptible.
It has a twin insult for your actions in It Takes All Kinds, which translates to only a fool would do what you're doing.
Between those two insults they cover your belief system and your lifestyle. They are degrading expressions by people who don't agree with you. A means for them to elevate themselves above you and anything you believe.
I've always been struck by this behaviour since the people doing the judging are usually stupider than the ones they judge. Like all insults, it doesn't say much about the target but tells you a lot about the insulter.
Oh well, it takes all kinds doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
