Looks like ‘Dr. Phil’ has messed up again — or at least one of his producers did
Remember last year when Britney Spears was doing drug rehabilitation or alcohol rehab or whatever it was, and TV's famous Dr. Phil went to visit her? Then got himself in a ton of hot water for talking about it on television?
Some folks just don't seem to "get it," do they? How he stays on TV and remains so popular is beyond me. He seems a likable enough guy, and he projects a real "no nonsense, get tough" image with people who are messed up. I guess the audiences like that.
This time one of his producers showed up and posted bail for one of those teen girls accused of videotaping the beating of another teen over something she said about one or more of them in her "MySpace" pages. What a mess that is in itself, and now Dr. Phil's gotten himself another PR black eye. He had to apologize quickly for his producer's actions, explaining it was not his policy or the policy of the show to bail people out of jail to gain exclusive interviews with them.
Seems to me the moral of this whole story should be this: Dr. Phil may be a nice guy with good intentions, and he may even help some people with their problems -- but never forget that he's on television first and foremost to make money entertaining viewers. Advertisers don't sponsor his show because they think he's a wonderful "Good Samaritan." They sponsor his show because they know he draws viewers to their commercials.
It's when we let our minds blur the line between reality and entertainment that we get ourselves into trouble. Same holds true for Dr. Phil or any other television personality.
[tags]Dr. Phil, teenage beating, bail bonds, just a guy who reads the papers[/tags]
One of my favorite people, the ex-president with nothing to lose, Jimmy Carter
I admired President Jimmy Carter when he was president, and not a year goes by following his presidency that I don't admire the guy a little bit more.
Let me first issue my standard caveat -- nobody morally and ethically clean as a whistle makes it into the presidency. Having said that, I'll have to say that Carter probably comes the closest to being a moral, genuinely good Christian person as anyone could ask.
Given the way Carter was vilified by a couple of generations of neo-con Republicans as though he were personally responsible for all the world's woes from about 1976-2000 (??), he's pretty much faced all the animosity and adversity one ex-president can face. He has very little to lose when it comes to public conduct. What a liberating thing that must be: while other presidents are fawning and fearing about history's judgment of their presidencies, Jimmy Carter seems to smile, continue fishing, pound a few more nails for Habitat for Humanity, and contribute to the common good.
I thought of all that just awhile ago when I read a story on the Internet that Israeli leaders are currently shunning Carter. He's in the midst of a Middle East trip with plans to meet with the head of Hamas -- which is why he's not popular in Israel. Ironic, isn't it, that Carter was responsible for the Arab-Israeli peace deal back in the '70s?
I always thought Carter was a genuinely good man who just simply wasn't a very good president. I never gave him credit for all the woes that hit our economy and the world while he was president -- just as I really don't credit all the evils presently to George W. Bush, though I give him more credit for the boneheaded mess we're in than I gave Carter at the time of his boneheaded mess.
Keep up the good work, Jimmy. The world needs you out there on the front lines!
[tags]Jimmy Carter, Israel, Hamas, Arab-Israeli conflicts, just a guy who reads the papers[/tags]
All you ‘mommy bloggers’ out there — here’s a useful, potentially profitable website
I am not a "mommy blogger," because, well, as a 60-year-old balding guy, I probably won't ever be any sort of "mommy" anything. I guess you'd call me a "daddy blogger," but I've got a great opportunity I want you to look into that might be just what you stay-at-home-mom bloggers (or stay-at-home-dad bloggers) are looking for to make some serious, steady income from your blogging.
The website is SocialSpark, a great place where bloggers seeking to make some money and advertisers seeking to advertise on blogs come together in that perfect blend to generate what all "mommy" and/or "daddy" bloggers are looking for -- income. The concept behind this site, hence the name, is to create a serious "come together" social site which helps advertisers find bloggers -- and those advertisers aren't generally big corporations like IBM or Microsoft. They're companies with educational products or services, books, toys, clothing, vacation deals, shopping discounts -- all the things us "mommy bloggers" and "daddy bloggers" care about for our families and know a lot about from a practical, daily standpoint.
Imagine the "power" this gives advertisers looking for credibility with everyday shoppers, the empowerment it gives us bloggers who take such opportunities, and the steady paycheck jumping right out at you from your computer. (Well, okay, they pay you with deposits in your PayPal account, not through anything jumping out of your computer. Just kidding about that.)
At present, SocialSpark is only in "alpha" testing, and I was fortunate enough to get an invitation to take part in this trial period. Social Spark is run by a company called Izea, which I've been working with online for awhile, hence the invitation to help test their new SocialSpark service. When the company publicly rolls out this wonderful "social gathering" service for advertisers and bloggers, you can become a part of it. Take your unique perspective as a "mommy blogger" or a "daddy blogger" and go right over to the SocialSpark website. Look around for more detailed information, sign up to be notified, and get ready for the fun of Social Spark.
Six steps I recommend to improve the U.S. presidential election system
I have been voting in presidential elections since 1968 (I have been alert and aware of presidential elections since 1952). I'm happy to share my vast background and expertise to help our great nation find a quicker, better way to elect our presidents. At no charge. (Please, please, no applause.) Here goes:
1. Make the job of president no more prestigious than that of a competent office manager. Constitutionally, the president is our chief executive officer -- not a rich, fat-cat CEO like we all love in America, but like a competent manager. If we were to cut out the idiocy of treating the president as a cross between the pope and a king, we'd do well. Even our first president, George Washington, rejected the title "His Excellency." If that was good enough for George Washington, it ought to be good enough for the pipsqueaks we elect these days.
2. Cut back all the perks and benefits of president -- both those prescribed while he's in office and those he looks forward to after the presidency. We already give the president some handsome benefits, free housing and food, and a salary for competent business managers. What the heck, we even let him fly around the world at a cost of millions of dollars on our dime.
3. Elect as president only people who have worked 1) as governors, or, 2) as file clerks. Governors understand a little bit about working for the people and, well, governing. File clerks know a lot about organization and where to find important information. Both are admirable characteristics all presidents should have.
4. Eliminate most campaign funding. Let people who know the candidates help them out. Establish a presidential campaign fund that isn't a joke and levels the playing field. Get rid of this god-awful, moronic, EVIL notion that limiting campaign contributions is limiting Constitutionally protected freedom of speech. What a joke, the lobbiests who pulled off that slight-of-hand and convinced judges to go for it. HAH! The plain truth about that fable is this: "I have more money by millions than you, so I have more freedom of speech than you." Do we really want our country run by such "logic"? Apparently we do.
5. Limit the presidential campaigns from their current 4-8 years in duration to about 10 months, give or take. Starting January 1 of an election year, let those running for president kick off their campaigns. Anyone who campaigns before is to be publicly humiliated and booted from the race. (Yeah, I know. It's impossible to publicly humiliate a serious politician. That's like shaming a car salesman or stopping an insurance salesman.) The idea that any sane voters (maybe that's an oxymoron) actually need YEARS of candidates pandering and babbling to make an informed decision simply demonstrates the scarcity of sane voters.
6. Following a presidential election, require the winner to apologize publicly in advance to the American people for the lies, inconveniences, mistakes, and hardships he's going to make, then make him vow not to run for a second term, under penalty of deportation to any Third World country of his choice.
Okay, maybe I'm a little overboard with that last one. My biggest problem with our current presidential circus is not really the system or the people running -- it's with all of US, the idiots who forget our entire history of past presidents and past elections and continue to tolerate this system election after election -- sort of hoping against all reason that we can do the same thing every four years but we'll see different results THIS time.
Hey, maybe if I had the money to afford it after being so slammed and financially drained by the Bush presidency, I'd up and emigrate to Canada. Not a bad idea. And NOT a Third World country.
[tags]presidential elections, reforming presidential elections, just a guy who reads the papers[/tags]
If you blog, here’s a useful service to stay in touch with your visitors
As a blogger, I'm learning some of the difficulties of staying in touch with my readers. The software I use creates an "RSS" feed containing each of my blog posts. But unless someone refreshes the RSS for my blog(s) in their RSS reader -- they don't know I've posted a new, wonderful gem of wisdom they're missing out on. (Or even all the other stuff that's probably not so "gem like.")
Enter this useful website and useful service for today: Zookoda. Zookoda is a 100% FREE service for bloggers that enables you to create and easily manage a daily, weekly, or monthly email newsletter that goes out to anyone who chooses to join your emailing list via a form on your blog.
In addition to the really funky name (and I failed to find an explanation of the name on their website), they offer you a wealth of tools for this, including a choice of templates to customize how your blog summaries will look and a ready-made, easy-to-install signup form to put on your blog. AND, their emailing service is carefully verified to make sure someone actually chooses to subscribe, with safeguards to eliminate bogus subscriptions. Their emailings are compliant with all the standards and laws regarding anti-spam.
Go to their site and take a close look around. I'm in the process of setting all my blogs up in an account with them right away. If you're like me, you blog to be read -- and Zookoda sounds like a great way to get your blog posts out there to your readers. But their website explains things in greater detail than I can, so go take a look for yourself.
[tags]Zookoda blogging email newsletters, useful website, just a guy who reads the papers[/tags]
Top boneheaded distraction in presidential campaign — we have a winner!
I'll have to say, this presidential campaign is truly historic -- and I don't mean because it might be the first time we have a woman or African American for president. I mean that, of the many presidential campaigns I've lived through (the first I remember was 1952), this one has had a record number of asinine or BONEHEADED distractions.
In the past, we've had sudden revelations about candidates' financial dealings, even their sex lives, which caused a flutter and even ended a few candidates' campaigns. But this race -- wow. We've had candidate's spouses slinging accusations and being rebuked (the Clintons), we've had blusters and flurries over a candidate's ex-pastor's remarks (Obama), and we've had hints at a possible sexual flirtation or fling with a candidate's campaign worker (McCain).
But, ladies and gentlemen, I would present as my choice as winner for the most boneheaded presidential campaign distraction of the season (and a contender for all time). Here it is. Drum roll, please:
Some idiots have filed lawsuits challenging Sen. John McCain's citizenship qualifications for the presidency based on his birth at a U.S. military base in Panama instead of on bona fide U.S. soil.
Absolutely astounding. The challenge rests on this wording in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which says:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Of course, the problem is this: No where did the Founding Fathers explain what they meant by "natural born Citizen." Throughout history, various presidential candidates have been attacked or doubt raised over this. I seem to recall reading in a biography of Andrew Jackson (I THINK it was Jackson) that one of his foes challenged his citizenship, claiming that his mother gave birth to him on board a ship from Ireland before it actually arrived in the U.S.
In any case, how dumb can you get: John McCain was born at a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone while his parents were stationed there, his father being a U.S. Naval officer.
Does anyone in their right mind believe this is NOT covered by whatever the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born"??
Incredible, the way people try to distract presidential campaigns from important issues. I'm far more interested in McCain's real attitude about the war in Iraq, tax cuts, government spending, torture as a means of interrogation, etc., than in whether a U.S. military base is considered U.S. territory. My gosh, get serious.
[tags]presidential campaign distractions, presidential campaign issues, presidential qualifications, just a guy who reads the papers[/tags]
Making money online? What ’secrets to success’ have you found that actually work?
Have you tried making money online? I have. And, very frankly, I haven't found a "get rich quick" scheme, or a marketing system, or anything else that works quickly and in large quantity.
I recently read that traditional franchise opportunities still work. But if you've looked into franchising at all, you know it takes a hefty investment to make most franchises work.
There's the "multi-level marketing" or "network marketing" world out there where your closest friends are all happy to show you how they and you can get rich together. I've tried that repeatedly and found the one drawback to be that everyone wants to join to make money -- but no one wants to work the business or sell the products to make it work. Reminds me of the old cliche about "too many chiefs and not enough Indians." (Forgive me if I'm politically incorrect with that.)
The only "small business" or "self-employed" thing I've had even modest success with in recent years has been affiliate marketing. That's been somewhat spotty and not a great deal of income, but it has shown some possibilities.
What's your story? Any success making money online? Or perhaps you're not interested in making money online. If you've had any success making money online, leave a comment and tell us your best "tip" for online money making.
[tags]make money online, self-employment, small business, just a guy who reads the papers[/tags]
Have you spent your economic stimulus money before you’ve even gotten it?
A friend just sent me a Private Message on a forum I belong to, asking me whether I thought we were heading perhaps into another "Great Depression." (For you youngsters not familiar with the expression, the "Great Depression" was that period of worldwide economic depression which took place basically between 1929 and the start of World War II. It sort of defined the expression "hard times.")
No, I told her, we're getting into a recession, but probably not a depression, certainly not another Great Depression. One of the reasons I think we'll make it through this current recession, believe it or not, is because I see a little value in these economic energy pills coming to us in the form of $600-$1,200+ tax rebate checks. (They really aren't "tax rebates," but that's sort of how they've become known.) I know, I know -- that's probably too little money coming much too late to be of great value.
But, as my wonderful grandmother would often say to me when I was a child, "Every little bit counts." I suspect we've all spent most of that windfall long before it gets to us. Or we'll use it to pay down debt from credit cards, past-due bills, or whatever. But then, ANYTHING we do with the money is better than nothing at all.
My personal concern is more with the lousy value of the dollar against foreign currencies right now than it is with other economic factors. The decreasing value of the dollar, you know, is the biggest single reason for the astronomical jump in crude oil prices -- which have "trickled down" to jack up the price of gasoline, jacking up the cost of everything from food to funny papers.
So for goodness sakes, when you get that hefty rebate check -- be a good American and SPEND it, will you??
[tags]economic recession, government rebate checks, rising prices, devalued dollar, just a guy who reads the papers[/tags]
Global warming? Maybe we’ll just boil like the frog in the slowly heating pot
I don't know when I first heard this, or whether it's even true. The story goes that if you put a frog in a large part of water and very slowly raise the temperature under the pot, the frog will sit in the water as it gets hotter, hotter, and finally boils the frog.
Sounds sort of like the frog should be a lobster for the story to work, but I THINK when I first heard it, the creature was a frog.
Whatever the creature was in the story, the danger is that WE are the real-life "frogs," and the increase of global warming is going to boil us all as we share the common soup pot we call Earth.
Okay, that's hokey, I know. But there's nothing hokey about polar ice shelves melting at an unprecedented rate. There's nothing hokey about record warm winters followed by record warm springs, summers, and autumns -- certainly where I live anyway.
Sadly, when someone tries to resolve the problem with legislation, whether state or federal, interest groups and people who just don't take this whole thing seriously manage to sabotage it. I just read about a failed bill in Maryland which would have cut down on on greenhouse gas emissions. The reason? Opponents say it would have cost the state jobs and had a negative impact on many in the state.
Herein lies the basic problem -- no one knows of a way to cut back on greenhouse gases and calm global warming without hurting the economy. And I certainly understand that, I do. No one wants to lose a job or lose income -- especially if their loss will do little or nothing to the "big picture" worldwide.
What are we going to do about global warming? Sit here in the pot and mop our sweating brows as the water boils? I don't know. Leave a comment and offer YOUR suggestions on all this, please.
[tags]global warming, greenhouse gases, economic loss, Maryland legislation, just a guy who reads the papers[/tags]
Charlton Heston, wonderful as a man and in movies, lousy in politics, dies at 83
Charlton Heston, the actor who went through life being "typecast" in popular culture as "God," died last night in his home in Los Angeles. He was a consummate actor to whom the cliche "larger than life" really did seem to apply.
He also was a leader in conservative political movements -- and president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the toughest, nastiest political lobbying groups you'll find in the world. Heston always disappointed me with his strong, very vocal adherence to the NRA's extremist "party line" on weapons. The now famous video of him one-handedly waving a rifle overhead and shouting about taking it from his "cold dead hand" or some-such, I'm willing to give him. I just saw that particular clip this morning in a tribute to Heston, and I think I detected a bit of the actor's tongue-in-cheek fun involved.
Because if there was one GOOD thing about Heston as a conservative it was this: He seemed to have a warm, genuine sense of humor and was able to poke fun at himself. That's unlike today's crop of silly "neo-cons" who take themselves FAAARR to seriously. Can you even imagine Ann Coulter or James Dobson poking fun at themselves? I doubt it.
And Heston, unlike today's neo-con pipsqueaks, seemed to understand compassion and stood for individuals and for helping people. He was in the vanguard of those back in the 1950s and '60s who marched and called out publicly for equal rights and the end of segregation.
So, here's to you, Chuck Heston, and all your complexity. I quote the wonderful Shakespearean quotation you used when you announced to the world that you had the horrible Alzheimer's Disease:
"We are such stuff as dreams are made on; and our little life is rounded with a sleep."
Sleep well, Mr. Heston. Like all of us, you were human, you realized both the grand and the ignoble in those years you lived here with us. Take your rest with God.
[tags]Charlton Heston, neo-cons, National Rifle Association, acting, entertainment news, just a guy who reads the papers[/tags]
Keep Up To Date!
Bid on Classic Newspapers on eBay!
1688 NEWSPAPER ROYAL BIRTH PRINCE OF WALES
See Full Details
Rare1899 Native American Indian newspaper SANTEE AGENCY
See Full Details
Rare1898 Native American Indian newspaper SANTEE AGENCY
See Full Details
MORRISTOWN NJ Revolutionary War 1780 Enemy Newspaper
See Full Details
REVOLUTIONARY WAR ERA Original 1777 Enemy Newspaper SEE
See Full Details
Newspaper 1816 Connecticut Journal New Haven as found
See Full Details-
