Ouida Wright of Green Bay, Wisconsin, won two tickets to the Super Bowl from the Dallas Convention & Visitors Bureau. Because Ouida and her boyfriend are homeless, the DC & VB threw in airfare.
Ouida says her house went into foreclosure when her husband left her. She's been offered $10,000 for the tickets which she turned down. With $10,000, she could at least put up a deposit and get a place to stay for a few months so she would have an address to give a prospective employer. Instead, she's flying to Texas for one afternoon of fun. Maybe there's a reason her house was foreclosed and she doesn't have a job.
"Jobless woman wins free tickets." The Dallas Morning News; February 1, 2011; p. 10A.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Essie Award Time
It's Essie Award time. The Essie is given anytime Essie comes across someone she deems worthy of the award given on the basis of incredible stupidity.
This Essie goes to Stacey Champion, age 39. Stacey lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She took a package to the post office to mail it to Atlanta, Georgia, on January 25. It was a birthday gift for some unnamed person. As the box sat on a counter at the post office, it moved by itself and fell off. Startled postal workers opened the box to find a 4-month-old panting poodle puppy inside. No food . . . no water.
Stacey probably thought she was being very smart when she punched air holes in the box . . . which she promptly covered over with packing tape. The poor puppy was lucky he was found before he was thrown in the back of a mail truck.
Stacey has been charged with animal cruelty. She's also guilty of gross stupidity, and as such, deserves this Essie!
"Charges filed in mailing of puppy." The Dallas Morning News; February 3, 2011; p. 6A.
This Essie goes to Stacey Champion, age 39. Stacey lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She took a package to the post office to mail it to Atlanta, Georgia, on January 25. It was a birthday gift for some unnamed person. As the box sat on a counter at the post office, it moved by itself and fell off. Startled postal workers opened the box to find a 4-month-old panting poodle puppy inside. No food . . . no water.
Stacey probably thought she was being very smart when she punched air holes in the box . . . which she promptly covered over with packing tape. The poor puppy was lucky he was found before he was thrown in the back of a mail truck.
Stacey has been charged with animal cruelty. She's also guilty of gross stupidity, and as such, deserves this Essie!
"Charges filed in mailing of puppy." The Dallas Morning News; February 3, 2011; p. 6A.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
And City Hall should be involved in this because . . .?
The headline in a recent edition of The Dallas Morning News says: "Dallas City Council: Fitness initiative for kids outlined." The lead paragraphs explains, "Childhood obesity and its terrible corollary, diabetes were the top subject of the Dallas City Council on Wednesday as members listened to details of a new plan aimed at helping kids eat better and get fit."
Where, pray tell, did the City Council get the idea that getting kids to eat right and exercise was its responsibility? It's not like they don't have enough to legitimately work on.
We've got to wake up and get the government, from the municipal to the federal, out of our private lives!
"Fitness initiative for kids outlined." The Dallas Morning News; February 3, 2011; p. 1B.
Where, pray tell, did the City Council get the idea that getting kids to eat right and exercise was its responsibility? It's not like they don't have enough to legitimately work on.
We've got to wake up and get the government, from the municipal to the federal, out of our private lives!
"Fitness initiative for kids outlined." The Dallas Morning News; February 3, 2011; p. 1B.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Hide your salt!
Last month, I warned you about the PETA type folks coming after your catfish. While you're hiding that freezer full of filets, you better find a hole to bury some salt in. The government is on the way to outlawing salt, and they're doing it discriminatorily.
The Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments say that people who are 51 years old or older, all African-Americans, and those with high blood pressure, diabetes, and/or chronic kidney disease should cut the amount of sodium they eat daily to half a teaspoon. The Food and Drug Aministration is going to further that cause by pressuring food industry businesses to reduce the amount of salt in their products. If the pressure doesn't work, the industry will be forced to let the government dictate its recipes. Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the FDA will have to take action for the companies to reduce enough salt to matter.
Our forefathers are sitting in heaven shaking their heads in disbelief. Who would have thought that our government "of the people" would ever get so out of control as to tell us what we may and may not enjoy at our dinner tables? Catfish yesterday, salt today -- what food will they outlaw next?
"Americans urged to slash the salt." The Dallas Morning News; February 1, 2011; p. 1A.
The Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments say that people who are 51 years old or older, all African-Americans, and those with high blood pressure, diabetes, and/or chronic kidney disease should cut the amount of sodium they eat daily to half a teaspoon. The Food and Drug Aministration is going to further that cause by pressuring food industry businesses to reduce the amount of salt in their products. If the pressure doesn't work, the industry will be forced to let the government dictate its recipes. Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the FDA will have to take action for the companies to reduce enough salt to matter.
Our forefathers are sitting in heaven shaking their heads in disbelief. Who would have thought that our government "of the people" would ever get so out of control as to tell us what we may and may not enjoy at our dinner tables? Catfish yesterday, salt today -- what food will they outlaw next?
"Americans urged to slash the salt." The Dallas Morning News; February 1, 2011; p. 1A.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
You'd think a college teacher would know better.
Ray Karrer recently sent a letter to The Paris News in which he opined about the Texas legislature cutting spending. He claims the legislature is balancing the budget by "taxing the least of these." But it's obvious from Karrer's further explanations that this retired college teacher should go back and learn what a tax is.
Is our legislature proposing new taxes for the poor? Not that I know of. What Karrer calls a tax is the lack of a handout. "When we reduce health care for the ones who can afford it least, we are in essence levying a tax on the poor." Hogwash! The "poor" aren't being asked to contribute one dime to the state's coffers. They are merely being told that the state can no longer afford to pay for what they should have been paying for themselves all along. Let me give you an example of "the poor."
I know of a man who has had two children out of wedlock. He refused to marry the mother of his second child because she would lose her medicaid benefits if he did, yet they are living together. Both he and the mother of his child smoke. They can "afford" cigarettes, yet they can't "afford" medical care for their child. Why did they have a child they can't afford? Because they knew someone else would take care of it for them. I am not opposed to these people, as Karrer puts it, being taxed.
Karrer says that when we take away grant funding for those who can't afford to go to college, we are again levying a tax on the poor. That's kind of like saying that GM is levying a tax on me because I can't afford a Cadillac, and they're not giving me the money to buy one. Just as I don't have to contribute one dime to GM (except through government bailouts) those who can't afford to go to college aren't being taxed one dime because of their status.
And Karrer goes on and on in this vein. He "pleads for fairness." I've been pleading for fairness for years. Fairness is not taking my money and giving it to someone who didn't work for it. Karrer must face the reality that the lack of a handout is NOT a tax. He should know better.
"Tax the 'least of these.'" The Paris News; January 23, 2011; p. 4A.
Is our legislature proposing new taxes for the poor? Not that I know of. What Karrer calls a tax is the lack of a handout. "When we reduce health care for the ones who can afford it least, we are in essence levying a tax on the poor." Hogwash! The "poor" aren't being asked to contribute one dime to the state's coffers. They are merely being told that the state can no longer afford to pay for what they should have been paying for themselves all along. Let me give you an example of "the poor."
I know of a man who has had two children out of wedlock. He refused to marry the mother of his second child because she would lose her medicaid benefits if he did, yet they are living together. Both he and the mother of his child smoke. They can "afford" cigarettes, yet they can't "afford" medical care for their child. Why did they have a child they can't afford? Because they knew someone else would take care of it for them. I am not opposed to these people, as Karrer puts it, being taxed.
Karrer says that when we take away grant funding for those who can't afford to go to college, we are again levying a tax on the poor. That's kind of like saying that GM is levying a tax on me because I can't afford a Cadillac, and they're not giving me the money to buy one. Just as I don't have to contribute one dime to GM (except through government bailouts) those who can't afford to go to college aren't being taxed one dime because of their status.
And Karrer goes on and on in this vein. He "pleads for fairness." I've been pleading for fairness for years. Fairness is not taking my money and giving it to someone who didn't work for it. Karrer must face the reality that the lack of a handout is NOT a tax. He should know better.
"Tax the 'least of these.'" The Paris News; January 23, 2011; p. 4A.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
How many chances?
Samuel Moncada was just sentenced to 4 years in prison. That was for raping a 15-year-old girl who then died of a heroin overdose at his house. Prosecutors asked for the maximum sentences which would have amounted to 40 years. But the jurors went with the defense recommendation of the two two-year sentences.
Was it because the girl had previously been in a lot of trouble? Who knows. My take on it, though, is that she was 15 years old. Even if she threw herself at him, he was the adult, and he should have taken her home -- not raped her and drugged her to death. If this man serves the full 4 years, he'll be 30 years old when he gets out of prison. That'll give him plenty of time to wreak havoc with some other young girl's life. Hope it's not the daughter or sister of one of the jurors.
"Girl's rapist to serve 4 years." The Dallas Morning News; January 22, 2011; p. 1B.
Was it because the girl had previously been in a lot of trouble? Who knows. My take on it, though, is that she was 15 years old. Even if she threw herself at him, he was the adult, and he should have taken her home -- not raped her and drugged her to death. If this man serves the full 4 years, he'll be 30 years old when he gets out of prison. That'll give him plenty of time to wreak havoc with some other young girl's life. Hope it's not the daughter or sister of one of the jurors.
"Girl's rapist to serve 4 years." The Dallas Morning News; January 22, 2011; p. 1B.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Texas legislature takes a stand!
I am so proud of the Texas legislature. Last week, the Senate passed 20-12 a preliminary approval of a bill requiring photo ID for voters. Democrats, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Texas NAACP are adamantly opposed to the bill. Guess that gives you some indication as to where the voter fraud is located.
The Mexicans claim the law is discriminatory. I don't know where they get that. It will apply to all voters. If it applied only to Mexicans and blacks, then we could say it was discriminatory, but we're not asking them to do something we're not asking white voters to do. But that's the norm -- if there's no good argument against something, just yell, "Discrimination!"
"Voter ID bill passes first vote in Senate." The Dallas Morning News; January 26, 2011; p. 3A.
The Mexicans claim the law is discriminatory. I don't know where they get that. It will apply to all voters. If it applied only to Mexicans and blacks, then we could say it was discriminatory, but we're not asking them to do something we're not asking white voters to do. But that's the norm -- if there's no good argument against something, just yell, "Discrimination!"
"Voter ID bill passes first vote in Senate." The Dallas Morning News; January 26, 2011; p. 3A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)