CommenTerry

Is New Year's Day Now Celebrated on December 31?

The way government officials and members of the media have been discussing the analog-to-digital TV transition in this country, one would think that New Year’s Day is now celebrated on December 31. Let me explain.

Remember all the talk and public service announcements regarding the originally planned transition date? Nearly everyone claimed that the original date was supposed to be February 17. Even the official government legislation mandating the transition referred to February 17 as the day it would go into effect.

But that just wasn’t the case. The real original transition date was February 18. Note that the transition was scheduled to happen at midnight, a minute after 11:59 pm on February 17. That’s February 18! If that’s not the case, then why do we say January 1, the first day of the New Year, begins a minute after 11:59 pm on December 31? Why the inconsistency?

Now, of course, the transition date has been moved to June 13. However, everyone is saying it will be June 12. But again, it is not scheduled to happen until midnight, a minute after 11:59 pm on June 12.

Now, if you still want to insist that the original digital transition date really was February 17 and new one really is June 12, you should make plans to celebrate New Year’s 2010 on December 31, 2009 and have your New Year’s Eve party the night before that. 

Is Condit Justified in Suing?

Now that a suspect has finally been charged in the 2001 murder of former Washington intern Chandra Levy, former California Congressman Gary Condit has at last been vindicated. Condit, who has been married for more than 40 years, admitted to having an affair with Levy shortly before her death.

Although the police never considered him a suspect, many in the media suggested both directly and indirectly that Condit may have had some involvement in Levy's disappearance and death. In fact, his image was tarnished so much that he was defeated in a Democratic primary for re-election to his House seat a year later and has never served in elective office since leaving Congress in January 2003.

Condit has filed several lawsuits and apparently plans more. But would he be justified in doing so? Some would argue that he brought much of the situation on himself by not being forthcoming when questions began to be raised. I say the way Condit handled himself doesn’t matter. If someone claimed that he killed Levy, they were wrong. Condit was right in maintaining his innocence.

Bottom line, he was right and his accusers were wrong. He is justified in suing. If someone wasn’t sure about his guilt, they should have kept their mouth shut. His actions at the time, however ill-advised they might have been, did not give anyone the right to accuse him of being a murderer.

Autism Ruling a Victory for Practical Medicine

Last week, a special U.S. court ruled against three families seeking damages from a federal program set up to compensate people injured by government-mandated vaccines. These families argued that their children’s autism was brought on by their childhood vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella. They believe the mercury content used as a preservative in those vaccines was the culprit.

However, in denying their claims, the court ruled that these families did not offer convincing proof for their assertions. It was the opinion of the court that autism is not caused by childhood vaccines. This was considered to be a test case for the many American parents who claim those vaccines have left their children autistic, as it is the first one get a definitive ruling from a U.S. court. However, litigation on this matter will likely go on for years, as there are many similar lawsuits in the pipeline.

Although we can all sympathize with parents of autistic children, I believe the court made the correct decision by siding with the long-held opinions of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Medical Association (AMA). I see it as a victory for practical medicine. A ruling to the contrary would not only have cost taxpayers billions of dollars, but it would probably have resulted in a moratorium on all childhood immunizations, leaving children vulnerable to diseases that were once deadly and might soon become deadly again.

Besides, the parents who insist that certain vaccines gave their kids autism can offer nothing more than speculation and anecdotal evidence. So far, they have not been able come up with any kind of hard proof. But why should they pay attention to the medical community when a scholarly intellectual like Jenny McCarthy disagrees? Ironically, many of these same people would ridicule those who, using the same disregard for established science, refuse to acknowledge the existence of global warming.

Basically, they know childhood vaccines cause autism because … well … they just know they do.  I’m sorry, but that’s not good enough – especially when possible epidemics, or even pandemics, of serious childhood diseases could be the product of an unwise decision.

Enough Picking on Michael Phelps Already

First of all, I want to say I’ve never been one to become awestruck by an accomplished athlete like Michael Phelps. In fact, I kind of enjoy seeing people who have been so perfect in everything they have done get taken down a notch a two. It’s one of my guilty pleasures.

In addition, I have difficultly relating to people who party regularly, especially those who drink too much or do illegal drugs. I’ve never even tried alcohol, much less marijuana, cocaine, or the like. I don’t see the attraction.

Now, with all this having been said, I think it’s time for the members of the media to leave Phelps alone.  They making are making much ado about nothing. In these perilous times, one would think they had more important things to cover.

Okay, so someone circulated a picture of him inhaling pot. Obviously he did something he shouldn’t have done, but who did it hurt? Yes, it damaged his standing as a role model for children and young athletes, but that would not have been the case if someone hadn’t been snooping into his private life. What we would not (and should not) have known, would not have hurt us.

I see the media as being the real antagonists here. They must think we care more about voyeurism than hard news. Then again, maybe they’re right. Perhaps, then, the real problem lies with us.

Octuplet Mom Should Not Profit

While the public doesn’t have a right to impose its views on a woman in regard to her reproductive decisions, it should stand firm in preventing anyone from profiting from unwise choices. If, as has been reported, the California mother who recently gave birth to octuplets is now seeking millions of dollars for her story, she should ultimately come away disappointed.

It is her right to have as many children as she wants, as long as she can take care of them and provide financial support for them.  If she can do that, more power to her. It’s no one’s business but hers and her family’s. However, if and when she begins to depend on taxpayers or even ask for charitable donations to help with the raising of her children, it becomes everyone else’s business. At that point, they a have a right to call her decisions into question.

But whatever help she does get should be just enough to allow her to make ends meet and assure that her 14 children do not grow up in abject poverty. Obviously, they did not choose to be born under such circumstances and should therefore not have to suffer any consequences. Any negative fallout arising from her reproductive choices should be felt solely by the mother.

She should not glean even a penny of personal benefit from them. The media should freeze her out and not allow her to profit from her 15 minutes of undeserved fame. Of course, as we all know, some avaricious TV station, radio station, newspaper, magazine, tabloid, or book publisher is going to swoop in and pay her an ungodly sum of money for the rights to her story.

Once again we’ll have a case of someone doing something stupid and dangerous, only to make out like a bandit for it. If only people were equally rewarded for making wise decisions, working hard, and living quiet and exemplary lives.

Surviving Terrorism at a Hotel

The recent terrorist attacks at a hotel in Mumbai, India has gotten me thinking about what I would do if I found myself in a hotel where terrorists were on the loose. Obviously, I would not want to become a casualty or a hostage. Unless the terrorists blew up the whole place (or a large portion of it), they would likely have to catch me in order to do me any harm. I would have to make sure they didn’t. But how?

While nothing is foolproof, I believe a good way to decrease my chances of being caught would be to hide behind some clothes in a closet inside my hotel room. But wouldn’t that be one of the first places the terrorists would look? It depends how you set things up. First, I would leave the door to my hotel room partially open. A room with an open or partially open door during a crisis sends out a subliminal message that no one is in there. In addition, I would leave the closet door partially open. The same message applies there.

Think about it. If you were a terrorist who had just taken over a hotel and came to a room where the door was partially open and then saw the closet door also partially open, you would probably think anyone who had been in that room had left hastily. It is likely that you wouldn’t even look in the closet. And if you did, you would probably do so halfheartedly or just go through the motions.

Now contrast that to a situation in which the same terrorist comes to a room where the door is locked or even has furniture stacked up against it on the inside. That’s going to be a dead giveaway that someone is hiding in there. Once on the inside, he’s going to thoroughly search the place – especially under any beds and in any closets that are shut tight.

Now I just have to hope and pray that no terrorist ever reads this article.

Should We Bail Out the Big Three?

I don’t think taxpayers should be forced to bail out Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors. They got themselves into their present predicament thanks to poor management, low quality products, aversion to modernization, and too much deference to the powerful United Auto Workers union. Now, does that mean we should allow the Big Three go under? No, that would not be in our best interest. Their demise would create a ripple effect that would likely result in hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs being lost. Still, I think a little blood-letting is in order for the Big Three at this time.

What the federal government should do is grant them a special form of Chapter 11 bankruptcy which would include some incremental loan guarantees that would ensure that they emerge from it as stronger companies. However, there would be a catch. These three companies – including their boards of directors, stockholders, management, unions, employees, and retirees – would have to agree to some serious restructuring.

Their boards of directors would need to agree to steer their companies in the direction of higher quality and more fuel-efficient vehicles – along with the implementation of measurable goals to gage their progress toward this end. Their stockholders would have to agree to forfeit any dividends for a period of at least five years. All levels of their management, including their CEOs, would have to agree to severe limitations on their salaries and stock options.

Their unions, especially the UAW, would have to agree to a rollback of much of the power and influence they’ve gained over the years. Their rank-and-file employees would have to agree to cuts in hourly wages and benefits. Retirees would have to concur with similar decreases in pensions and benefits. Those who took early retirement and are still younger than 60 (and are not disabled) would have to accept even deeper cuts in pensions and benefits.

The current dire straits of the Big Three could well turn out to be a blessing in disguise instead of a disaster. It all depends on how our elected representatives in Washington respond. Bailing them out would not be the right thing to do, but allowing them to be hoisted on their own petard is obviously not the answer either. Putting them under a special form of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, as I have suggested, may be the solution. If nothing else, it would bring the days of multi-million-dollar CEOs and $50-an-hour assembly line workers to a close for the U.S. auto industry.

How the Government Should Bail Out Homeowners

Now that the government has decided to bail out all those financial institutions, it seems only fair that it should also offer a bailout to all of their customers who are behind on their mortgage payments. Any institution benefiting from the government bailout should be required to negotiate with its customers who are currently in danger of having their homes foreclosed.

First of all, the government should mandate that that these institutions convert all variable rate mortgages to fixed market rates. That alone would allow many homeowners to stay in their homes. The institution would just have to eat the cost of this conversion, which would be based the current market price of the property – which is likely to have decreased. Any portion of the old principal balance which exceeds this price would be added to the end of the new mortgage in months to pay.

For example, let’s say someone still owed $220,000 on a property whose market price is now $200,000. Since what they owe is 10% more than the market price, 10% more mortgage payments would be added to the end of the mortgage. Therefore, their mortgage would take 33 years to pay off, not 30 years. If the borrower wanted to pay off the mortgage early or sell the property before the mortgage was paid off, the extra three years' worth of payments would be due in the form of a lump sum at that time.

Of course, some homeowners would still have trouble making their payments even after this kind of rate conversion. Lenders who benefit from the government bailout should be forced to offer these people mortgages on houses that they can afford. In this case, the lender would get the borrower’s current home and the borrower would be offered a mortgage on a less expensive home that would be within their means. This means test would be done the old-fashioned way.

Now, any of these borrowers who had back-due payments on their original homes would still be obligated to pay up. The amount that they were behind would be rolled up and added to the cost of their new home as additional payments beyond the normal 30 years, as I outlined above for anyone whose mortgage on their current home exceed its current market price.

I believe this would be a fair way for the government to deal with homeowners who are delinquent on their payments to corporate beneficiaries of the bailout. It would give them an opportunity to keep their homes, while not actually letting them off the hook for anything or giving them a handout – which would be unfair to everyone else.

Prayer Ruling Makes No Sense

The superintendent of the Virginia State Police has ruled that public prayers given by his chaplains will be limited to the non-sectarian variety. That means they will not be allowed to make references to Jesus Christ or use any other kind of Christianity-specific terminology in their public prayers, although this restriction will not apply to prayers conducted with individuals and families. As a result, six chaplains have resigned from the force in protest.

This ruling is apparently a politically-correct effort to avoid offending people who adhere to other faiths. However, it makes no sense. If the goal is to avoid offending people, why even allow public prayers at all? Aren’t there atheists who live in Virginia? Some of them surely take exception to the idea that some state employees publicly pray to a higher being while on the job.

Obviously, this is nothing more than a politically motivated move – an effort to appease a vocal, yet powerful, minority of Virginians who worship in mosques on Fridays or synagogues on Saturdays. I have nothing against Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or anyone else, and I believe they should be allowed to practice their religions as they see fit, without interference from the government. But at the same time, I don’t see why the government can’t show some favoritism to the majority religion, just as it shows favoritism to religious people in general over non-religious people. There is an inconsistency here. 

And Governor Tim Kaine’s response to lawmakers’ criticism of this ruling was just as ridiculous. He claims to be a “devout Christian,” but part of the logic he uses to defend the ruling calls his knowledge of Christianity into question. Initially, he said he was going to support this ruling because Virginia is, religiously, a diverse and pluralistic state. He should have quit while he was ahead. He then went on to say that a lack of references to Jesus Christ doesn’t adversely affect his prayer life. Really? Does he not understand that Christians believe Jesus (the Son) is the only path to God (the Father)? Doesn’t he know that it is not possible for a Christian to pray directly to God and that Jesus must act as his or her intercessor? Apparently, he doesn’t.

Current Financial Crisis Is Just Temporary

Despite what the doomsayers and Chicken Littles of the world would have us believe, our current financial crisis (if we can even call it that) is just temporary. Yes, the vultures are circling, but there will be no carcass for them to consume. All of this is merely a bump in the road and we will come out of it just fine – as we always have. The U.S. has had (and will continue to have) its ups and downs and this is just one of the downs.

At the end of the day, America will emerge once again as the great nation it has been more than 230 years, and still as the world’s only remaining super power. Before you start believing those who are predicting some kind of cataclysmic conclusion to these events, please consider this: Those people are almost always … well … wrong! Another Great Depression, you say? I’ll believe it when I see it.

How soon we forget. Things were much worse during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. We had gas shortages, interest rates that were through the roof, and much higher unemployment and inflation than we have now. Yes, the housing and financial markets are not looking good right now, but they will make a comeback in due time – just like things did in the 1980’s. And when they did, we all became proud Americans again.

We have gotten so spoiled! If things are so bad now, why are people still buying big-screen TVs and subscribing to expensive cable, satellite, Internet, land line, and cell phone packages? Some just want to complain and bellyache just because they have to tighten their belts a little. Still, though, there are many others who have lost their jobs, their homes, or even both. No one can blame them for worrying and losing sleep over the current state of financial affairs.

But I’m not going to panic. I’m going to leave my 401(k) dollars in the same stock funds I’ve had them in. In fact, I’m even planning to increase my contributions to take advantage of the cheap stocks that are now available. I can handle a temporary downturn. It’s just a paper loss for now and I have 20 years until retirement – plenty of time for those losses to be recouped. And I if don’t live until retirement, none of it will matter anyway.

Also, I’m not touching the savings that I have in the bank. It is all 100% insured by the U.S. government. Keep in mind that, if the government ever defaulted on this guarantee, the money you’re hiding under your mattress wouldn’t be any good either. But not to worry, that’s not going to happen.