Category Archives: Social

Food Stamps or Paycheck?

2
Posted by on in Social

Newt Gingrich said today that black folks should choose a pay check over food stamps.  How this is limited to black folks is something only Newt could explain.  I hope for his sake that he does.

I don’t use food stamps.  I live alone, and I stocked up on emergency food boxes while I was still working regularly.  I would use a paycheck, once I get one of the jobs for which I have applied.  I’m not black, but again, how that matters is something only Newt could explain.

He also was quoted as saying that, if he went to any given neighbourhood in America and polled the residents, a majority would choose food stamps over a paycheck.  Really?  I see lots of people going into work, every day.  8.7 % of  working-age Arizonans are unemployed.  That means at least a majority of working-age  Arizonans are working.  The rest are off the grid, or like me, semi-retired and still willing to work.  I don’t know what percentage of Arizonans are black, and I really don’t care.  People are people.

I am getting some money from SSDI each month.  If I get a job that pays over the maximum that SSDI allows, I’ll give up that benefit.  It’s not the end of the world.   Fair is fair.

It was not fair that I was let go by a social service agency three years ago this May, because  the director was uncomfortable with my having a disabled wife, and thought I wasn’t bringing in enough money to the agency.  I cringe that those people are still allowed to present themselves as “mental health professionals”.  Life went on anyway, and guess what, Don and Dave, I’m still here.  I will continue to work with children,  because that’s where my heart is.

Lots of things are unfair in this life, as JFK once said.  The course of Newt Gingrich’s campaign from here on may strike him as unfair, but let’s see him spend just 48 hours being told he’s too old, too ethnic, wrong gender, overqualified, underqualified, wrong background, wrong personality.  The voters of New Hampshire may just tell those very things, next Tuesday.

Centenarians

4
Posted by on in Social

I read a piece in Yahoo! yesterday, about a 100-year-old woman who met her natural daughter only six years ago.  The daughter is now 77.  This seems to be a very positive, life-affirming event, for both women, and for their families.

This is one of the many anomalies that have arisen, and will continue to arise, as more and more people reach the century mark.  If you aspire to attain Methuselah status, what are your plans for such an event, and, more importantly, for the time afterward? Some, like George Burns and Bob Hope, just barely crossed the finish line and made it their last race.  Others, like all those who become the Oldest Man/Oldest Woman in the World, or like Frank Buckles and Claude Choules, the two last surviving combat veterans of World War I, (both of whom died last year),have plans for staying in the game and achieving real goals.

If I am so indulged, I want to leave this all behind with my hips swinging and my arms outstretched, in embrace of all that life has to offer, and with an appreciation for what this life has taught me.  As my Penny said, “I want to die with my boots on.”  She did so, when it was her time, though far from the century mark.  I wouldn’t mind going the distance, since her spirit is always around, and I have this thirst for achievement and experience.

Adam vs. The Man

0
Posted by on in Social

I had a chance to view this broadcast, online yesterday.  ‘Adam’ promises to be a regular feature on Real Truth network.  The host is a veteran of the Iraq War, and considers himself a Libertarian- neither “right” nor “left”, thus reserving the prerogative of calling out the self-appointed experts of both ideological poles, and those in-between.

He regards everyone from Barack Obama to Sean Hannity as being full of hot air, and has no use for social icons, such as Bill Clinton and Bill O’Reilly.  Adam seems more of a down-to-Earth, let’s have a drink together kind of guy, but is deadly serious about the need for a more intensely people-centered system of government.  He refers to his concept as “Love-olution”.  It is, so far, short on specifics (surprised?) and long on name-calling (SHOCKED?).

Here in righteous land, I will be addressing social and cultural issues, specifically, one at a time.  As with yesterday’s post, “Who Owes Whom?”, I want to be focused on these things, avoid platitudes and not seem dreamy-eyed.  It didn’t work in the ’60’s, and won’t now.

I believe in the power of Millennials (born 1980-1998) and “Generation Wired” (born 1999-present) to act more cohesively, and less self-centered than those who came before them.  They have had plenty of training in attention to detail, even to minutiae, on a minute-by-minute basis.  What is needed along with this skill, however, is patience.  The idea of processes versus events does not come easy to those raised in an age of instantaneous communication and problem-solving,.  The notion of overcoming setbacks comes hard to many who have been raised in a climate of political correctness and inviolable self-esteem.  Hard Knocks is an alien concept, for those raised to act entitled.

So, my challenge to the young Libertarians is this:  Develop a Five-Year Plan, a Ten-Year Plan, for the “Love-olution”.  My son, a young conservative, has lots of ideas for building a society based on empowerment, group cohesion and good, old-fashioned elbow grease.  He is learning patience; learning that a setback or delay does NOT mean, instantly, that someone or some “They” must be to blame.  Put together the best qualities of the rising generations and of those who came before them, and we will actually see a global civilization based on love and harmony, rather than tyranny and division.

Who Owes Whom?

0
Posted by on in Social

The Arizona Senate, in its “wisdom”, is actively considering a bill which would require anyone whose mortgage is foreclosed, or whose house is transferred by short sale, to reimburse the lender for any amount over  the sum recouped by said bank. It is said by the bill’s author that this is necessary, in order to not cheat the small investors whom the bank represents. I am among those who are currently short-selling a house.  My mortgage payments went adrift when my late wife and I were dealing with her failing health, and the peripheral expenses that come with day to day living.  We went through bankruptcy, put the house up for short sale, and began waiting.  She passed away ten months ago.  I am still waiting, still in the process, with help from a competent real estate agent. As I stated in an earlier post, I am anticipating being asked to make amends for the difference between the short sale price and the actual mortgage, in the event this bill passes and is signed into law.  I am not a gold-digger, or a leech, and so will work with the “small investors”, as the law requires. I do have a couple of questions, though. 1.  In 2009, the Obama Administration released billions of dollars to several large banks, my mortgage holder among them.  This was to- HELP THE BANKS RECOUP THEIR MORTGAGE LOSSES!  It must have been a drop in the bucket, because now, people are running to their conservative, “Tea Party” politicians, saying they are losing millions of dollars to the feckless, irresponsible foreclosees.  Where did all the money go? 2.  Much of the overage, which State Senator Jack Harper and others want to see come out of our pockets, is due to interest charged at a rate well above 12% APR.    Time was, such an interest rate was usury, forbidden by law as exorbitant.  The question begs answering: How much money does any individual, any corporation, really NEED? I know what many people WANT- as much as they can get!  What do they NEED? Maybe I will hear from thoughtful people about this, instead of the current-“The crazy pinko liberals want to destroy capitalism”.  It was the liberals who gave the banks their 2009 bailouts.  The liberals (I’m NOT one of them, by the way) are not the problem here.