I love Christmas. It's my favorite holiday for so many reasons: the sights, the sounds, the smells, even the fact that it's an entire season.
But I have a problem with celebrating Christmas long before Thanksgiving. Heck, stores start putting out Christmas candy and decorations before Halloween! Why is that? Do they think people are trying to get a jump on their Christmas decorating and stocking stuffers in October?
Even one local radio station started playing all-Christmas music all the time in October.
So why wouldn't I, a proclaimed Christmas-lover, like seeing people start celebrating early?
First, because it seems to negate the other holidays that precede Christmas.
Second, because by the time Christmas day arrives, it's anti-climactic. By December 25, I'm sick of looking at the tree, watching "How the Grinch stole Christmas," and hearing carols. And that, my friends, is so unlike me!
When I was a younger woman, I used to have all my shopping and wrapping done by Thanksgiving. Then the first week of December I worked on the decorations, the second week I wrote out and mailed the Christmas cards, and leading up to Christmas eve I baked cookies. I was a regular Christmas elf.
Of course that was all B.C. (Before Children.) Now, I'm lucky if I remember to schedule the kids' portraits in time to get the photos into the cards that I'm writing out December 23. Cookies? Who has time for that? Rush, rush, rush. That's reality anymore. And early reminders that Christmas is only so many days away puts people in that secular mindset of what's "expected" to be done by the 25th.
It shouldn't be about buying, buying, buying and debt, debt, debt. Christmas should be recalling the beautiful story of the birth of Jesus. It should be about advent, reflection, and prayer. It should be about doing small kindnesses for others - maybe singing carols to neighbors or the elderly, or making a collage for the special people in your life, or just setting up a manger instead of the 10,000 lights outside the house.
Hmmm...maybe we should be grateful to those "organized" people who have their decorations up by November 15 and start our thinking about Christmas so early.
Nah!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
teachers' conferences
It's that time of year again....
The crisp, fall air is turning colder, the whiff of Halloween chocolate is but a faint memory, Thanksgiving is just around the corner - and teachers' conferences have begun.
You know your child. You know his or her strengths and weaknesses, favorite and least-favorite subjects, interactions with peers, behavior issues, etc.
Or do you?
The most surprising comment at a teacher's conference: How respectful and polite your son or daughter is in school.
Yet you've seen Dr. Jeckyll become Mr. Hyde when it's time to start homework. Why is that?
Do you mean it's not normal to have your child freak out because he wants to do only 5 math problems instead of 20? Don't all children throw their pencil across the room, storm to their rooms, and slam the door because you told them to erase a mistake instead of writing over the wrong answer darker so you could tell which answer he meant to write? Or how about the child who cries for 10 minutes if she got one homework problem wrong?
Is it because the teacher is a different authority figure? Is it because our kids need to vent, and they know that if they vent in front of us, we'll still love them so it's okay to have a meltdown over homework?
Is it time to stuff the turkey yet? Please? Anyone? Anyone?
The crisp, fall air is turning colder, the whiff of Halloween chocolate is but a faint memory, Thanksgiving is just around the corner - and teachers' conferences have begun.
You know your child. You know his or her strengths and weaknesses, favorite and least-favorite subjects, interactions with peers, behavior issues, etc.
Or do you?
The most surprising comment at a teacher's conference: How respectful and polite your son or daughter is in school.
Yet you've seen Dr. Jeckyll become Mr. Hyde when it's time to start homework. Why is that?
Do you mean it's not normal to have your child freak out because he wants to do only 5 math problems instead of 20? Don't all children throw their pencil across the room, storm to their rooms, and slam the door because you told them to erase a mistake instead of writing over the wrong answer darker so you could tell which answer he meant to write? Or how about the child who cries for 10 minutes if she got one homework problem wrong?
Is it because the teacher is a different authority figure? Is it because our kids need to vent, and they know that if they vent in front of us, we'll still love them so it's okay to have a meltdown over homework?
Is it time to stuff the turkey yet? Please? Anyone? Anyone?
Sunday, November 9, 2008
8-year old shot father?
It's always shocking to hear of a child killing someone. Often the case is accidental.
But in small-town St. Johns, Arizona, officials are calling a double homicide "premeditated," based on the fact that the two men killed were found in different areas of the home: one at the entrance and one in an upstairs room. One victim was the father of the shooter, an 8-year old boy.
A third grader?
Premeditated?
Speculation already abounds in the news - the first naturally being abuse. Yet the local sheriff's office has no record of calls to the home, and the school counselors have nothing on file indicating any concern about the child and his home life. The boy has nothing negative in his school record.
The family priest told reporters that the father had recently consulted with him for advice on whether the boy should have a gun. The priest did not say what his advice was. One can only hope, in hindsight, that it was, "No."
What parent would even consider giving a gun to an 8-year old? According to the L.A. Times, the father came from a family of "avid hunters," and he taught his son to shoot prairie dogs.
The weapon used was a rifle, powerful kick back and all. The boy shot it, then shot it again, presumably within minutes.
What could possibly have been this kid's reason to aim it at his father and his father's friend/co-worker, who rented a room from the family?
I'm sure details will unfold in the next few weeks. But for now, this tragedy is simply incomprehensible to me.
But in small-town St. Johns, Arizona, officials are calling a double homicide "premeditated," based on the fact that the two men killed were found in different areas of the home: one at the entrance and one in an upstairs room. One victim was the father of the shooter, an 8-year old boy.
A third grader?
Premeditated?
Speculation already abounds in the news - the first naturally being abuse. Yet the local sheriff's office has no record of calls to the home, and the school counselors have nothing on file indicating any concern about the child and his home life. The boy has nothing negative in his school record.
The family priest told reporters that the father had recently consulted with him for advice on whether the boy should have a gun. The priest did not say what his advice was. One can only hope, in hindsight, that it was, "No."
What parent would even consider giving a gun to an 8-year old? According to the L.A. Times, the father came from a family of "avid hunters," and he taught his son to shoot prairie dogs.
The weapon used was a rifle, powerful kick back and all. The boy shot it, then shot it again, presumably within minutes.
What could possibly have been this kid's reason to aim it at his father and his father's friend/co-worker, who rented a room from the family?
I'm sure details will unfold in the next few weeks. But for now, this tragedy is simply incomprehensible to me.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
And so it begins...
Sigh.
It's hard to believe that so many people bought into the phony promises of "tax cuts" from the "most-liberal" Senator in decades.
Mark my words: Within 30 days of Obama's inauguration, he will tell the American people why he can't implement his plan for tax cuts after all. He'll say that the economy was worse than he realized - naturally blaming W. for everything. He won't simply adjust his plans for tax cuts, but rather scrap that promise altogether.
How can I be so sure? Clinton pulled the same routine in 1993. I voted for him way back in 1992 (last time I ever voted for a Dem) because a "panel of economists" judged his economic plan - including tax cuts - the best one for the economy. If I had judged him by his voting record rather than his campaign commercials, I probably wouldn't have been so shocked when he announced - within weeks of his inauguration - that the economy was worse than expected (Bush Sr.'s fault, of course) and that he wouldn't be able to put his plan into action. Not just modify it. No, never even consider using it! And of course, Clinton had no idea things were that bad, even though he started the chant, "It's the economy [stupid]!"
Anyone want to speculate how many days it will take before Obama delivers the same message?
And now, Reid and Pelosi unveiled a plan to take everyone's 401K. They must have worked on this baby for weeks, but never said a word to voters before the election. Heaven forbid a politician should disclose all their plans so that voters can make informed decisions in the voting booths.
So, the government, which has never run any program efficiently and without fraud, is going to take your hard-earned retirement savings. You have no say, unless you want to get hit with heavy penalties for early withdraw. The government will take this money out of Wall Street investments, leading to the official collapse of the market, and invest them in government bonds.
Yes, they're dangling a bone: restoring your portfolio to August figures. But for the rest of your working lives, you will have no control and no say in your investment, with a cap on how much you can contribute and a cap on your return. And Congress will "handle" your money for you!
With Dems controlling the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, who will stop them?
Bend over and grab your ankles for the next four years. This is just the beginning...
It's hard to believe that so many people bought into the phony promises of "tax cuts" from the "most-liberal" Senator in decades.
Mark my words: Within 30 days of Obama's inauguration, he will tell the American people why he can't implement his plan for tax cuts after all. He'll say that the economy was worse than he realized - naturally blaming W. for everything. He won't simply adjust his plans for tax cuts, but rather scrap that promise altogether.
How can I be so sure? Clinton pulled the same routine in 1993. I voted for him way back in 1992 (last time I ever voted for a Dem) because a "panel of economists" judged his economic plan - including tax cuts - the best one for the economy. If I had judged him by his voting record rather than his campaign commercials, I probably wouldn't have been so shocked when he announced - within weeks of his inauguration - that the economy was worse than expected (Bush Sr.'s fault, of course) and that he wouldn't be able to put his plan into action. Not just modify it. No, never even consider using it! And of course, Clinton had no idea things were that bad, even though he started the chant, "It's the economy [stupid]!"
Anyone want to speculate how many days it will take before Obama delivers the same message?
And now, Reid and Pelosi unveiled a plan to take everyone's 401K. They must have worked on this baby for weeks, but never said a word to voters before the election. Heaven forbid a politician should disclose all their plans so that voters can make informed decisions in the voting booths.
So, the government, which has never run any program efficiently and without fraud, is going to take your hard-earned retirement savings. You have no say, unless you want to get hit with heavy penalties for early withdraw. The government will take this money out of Wall Street investments, leading to the official collapse of the market, and invest them in government bonds.
Yes, they're dangling a bone: restoring your portfolio to August figures. But for the rest of your working lives, you will have no control and no say in your investment, with a cap on how much you can contribute and a cap on your return. And Congress will "handle" your money for you!
With Dems controlling the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, who will stop them?
Bend over and grab your ankles for the next four years. This is just the beginning...
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Who is truly worse: Dubya or Reid/Pelosi?
The current congress has the lowest approval ratings in history. Even lower than Bush.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been dubbed the "Do-Nothing Congress."
During the height of the bank failures and economic concerns among all Americans, Reid and Pelosi went on vacation - early. (Did they go to the same spa that AIG executives went?) When Americans couldn't afford to put gas in their tanks to go on vacation or had no home to vacation from, our elected officials broke early to relax rather than deal with our country's economic problems head on. Pathetic.
Yet somehow, the Dems can just keep repeating how Bush caused everything that's wrong in America. And people seem to believe their lies. I'm not saying Dubya has been perfect. He has made mistakes, and I don't agree with everything he has done. But the main economic debacle that everyone seems to blame him for is all due to the Democrats.
The Dems were the cause of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's meltdown. It began with Clinton when he forced these two banking behemoths to make mortgages to low-income families, regardless of their ability to pay the loan. Actually, this idea was relatively good. But...
Problem 1: Clinton created a quoto, and a mimimum percentage of the banks' portfolios had to fit this criteria of money lent.
Problem 2: In 2004, when Republicans tried to sound an alarm over the record number of loan defaults and mortgages at FMae/FMac, Dems (Barney Franks, Maxine Waters, etc.) said there was no problem. See: http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/28/shocking-video-unearthed-democrats-in-their-o/
Problem 3: W. tried to implement greater oversight at FMae/FMac, but again Dems, who had taken money from the banking leaders to keep regulators out, fought Bush's attempts. See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp
Problem 4: Pelosi and Reid's ONLY solution to fix the mess that they blamed on W. was to pass a pork-laden bailout bill with barely any criteria to hold these provenly inept bankers accountable with this new money.
Bush and the Republicans tried over and over again to create oversights for FM/FM. The Dems fought it over and over again. Then Reid, Pelosi, Obama, et al., had the audacity to praise Barney Franks and slam W.
If I had any say, here's how I would have "fixed" this mess:
Solution 1: Make all adjustable mortages illegal. People shouldn't lose their homes because they were offered only an adjustable-rate mortgage; they can afford the mortgage payments based on the monthly payment they start at, but once the rates skyrocket, they can't keep up with the payments and end up losing their homes.
Lenders will say that adjustable rates are a tool that allows them to lend to poorer-risk clients. Bull! I've worked in the banking industry. Lenders just apply higher rates for those with less than perfect credit scores, tighter income-to-bills ratio, etc. But people should not have to face ever-increasing monthly payments. There's no way that they can stay afloat financially with an adjustable rate on their home.
Solution 2: These lenders who were so quick to foreclose and evict people but then stick their hands out for a government (i.e. taxpayer-financed) bailout to cover their bad debt should be forced to refinance these loans at fixed rates. By refinancing, their borrowers still owe the money but get a clean slate in that nothing is past due anymore. They start fresh with payments.
This allows borrowers to stay in their homes, take these houses off an already oversaturated housing market, allow the lenders to move the loan from the "red" to the "black" (meaning that the loans are being paid), and improve sales of other real estate across the nation.
For borrowers who already lost their home: if they can prove that they were evicted because of an adjustable-rate mortgage that spiraled the payments, then the original lender must make them a new loan to purchase another home. Again, this would improve the housing market while allowing more people access to home ownership.
Cost to the taxpayer: $0.
And no pork for Hollywood and Arrow Shafts.
Shame on Pelosi and Reid!
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been dubbed the "Do-Nothing Congress."
During the height of the bank failures and economic concerns among all Americans, Reid and Pelosi went on vacation - early. (Did they go to the same spa that AIG executives went?) When Americans couldn't afford to put gas in their tanks to go on vacation or had no home to vacation from, our elected officials broke early to relax rather than deal with our country's economic problems head on. Pathetic.
Yet somehow, the Dems can just keep repeating how Bush caused everything that's wrong in America. And people seem to believe their lies. I'm not saying Dubya has been perfect. He has made mistakes, and I don't agree with everything he has done. But the main economic debacle that everyone seems to blame him for is all due to the Democrats.
The Dems were the cause of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's meltdown. It began with Clinton when he forced these two banking behemoths to make mortgages to low-income families, regardless of their ability to pay the loan. Actually, this idea was relatively good. But...
Problem 1: Clinton created a quoto, and a mimimum percentage of the banks' portfolios had to fit this criteria of money lent.
Problem 2: In 2004, when Republicans tried to sound an alarm over the record number of loan defaults and mortgages at FMae/FMac, Dems (Barney Franks, Maxine Waters, etc.) said there was no problem. See: http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/28/shocking-video-unearthed-democrats-in-their-o/
Problem 3: W. tried to implement greater oversight at FMae/FMac, but again Dems, who had taken money from the banking leaders to keep regulators out, fought Bush's attempts. See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp
Problem 4: Pelosi and Reid's ONLY solution to fix the mess that they blamed on W. was to pass a pork-laden bailout bill with barely any criteria to hold these provenly inept bankers accountable with this new money.
Bush and the Republicans tried over and over again to create oversights for FM/FM. The Dems fought it over and over again. Then Reid, Pelosi, Obama, et al., had the audacity to praise Barney Franks and slam W.
If I had any say, here's how I would have "fixed" this mess:
Solution 1: Make all adjustable mortages illegal. People shouldn't lose their homes because they were offered only an adjustable-rate mortgage; they can afford the mortgage payments based on the monthly payment they start at, but once the rates skyrocket, they can't keep up with the payments and end up losing their homes.
Lenders will say that adjustable rates are a tool that allows them to lend to poorer-risk clients. Bull! I've worked in the banking industry. Lenders just apply higher rates for those with less than perfect credit scores, tighter income-to-bills ratio, etc. But people should not have to face ever-increasing monthly payments. There's no way that they can stay afloat financially with an adjustable rate on their home.
Solution 2: These lenders who were so quick to foreclose and evict people but then stick their hands out for a government (i.e. taxpayer-financed) bailout to cover their bad debt should be forced to refinance these loans at fixed rates. By refinancing, their borrowers still owe the money but get a clean slate in that nothing is past due anymore. They start fresh with payments.
This allows borrowers to stay in their homes, take these houses off an already oversaturated housing market, allow the lenders to move the loan from the "red" to the "black" (meaning that the loans are being paid), and improve sales of other real estate across the nation.
For borrowers who already lost their home: if they can prove that they were evicted because of an adjustable-rate mortgage that spiraled the payments, then the original lender must make them a new loan to purchase another home. Again, this would improve the housing market while allowing more people access to home ownership.
Cost to the taxpayer: $0.
And no pork for Hollywood and Arrow Shafts.
Shame on Pelosi and Reid!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)