Let's Sue The Judges

It seems you can’t pick up the newspaper today without reading about a frivolous lawsuit. We have become such a litigious society today that it would seem as if no one is safe from being the victim of one of these crazy suits. It has indeed become part of the American way of making big bucks today. Now, I’m not naive enough to think that these lawsuits are the ideas of the accuser. I have enough faith ( I hope it’s not misguided) in the average person that they would not concoct such schemes on their own. But, I also know that for most of us, there would need to be very little arm twisting and rationalization required to be convinced of the worthiness of our cause if by a shrewd lawyer. And shrewd lawyers a plentiful my friends.
Well, I’ve been thinking lately about a lawsuit that I think would be completely justified. Let’s sue judges who let violent criminals back out on the street. How often have we read about a murder or other violent crime that was committed by a person who was out on probation? Well, my proposal is this: When a violent crime is committed by a person on probation, the judge who ordered his or her release should be held responsible. A lawsuit should be brought against them and they should also be disbarred. I know this sounds extreme, but then again, isn’t that the nature of a frivolous lawsuit. I mean, why is bringing a lawsuit against and demanding disbarment of a judge who ordered a psychopath loose on society to create havoc any more extreme than awarding 2.7 million dollars to a woman who got burned with hot coffee from McDonalds. Is it because the defendant in this case would be a judge instead of a private entity? You know the attorney’s have to protect their brethren.

Junk Mail Solution

Are you getting sick of all that junk mail everyday? Have you had to purchase a new shredder because the motor burned up on your old one from shredding all those credit card applications and magazine subscriptions? Or maybe you've exceeded you limit of trash your city allows because you have so much junk mail to toss. Think about all the paper wasted by these companies that send unwanted junk mail to your house.
Well, friends, I have a solution to the problem. Don't throw another piece of junk mail away again. Don't let another unwanted envelope near your trusty shredder, that baby needs a well-deserved rest. Here's what I suggest you do: When you receive a piece of junk mail, take an exacto knife or even the sharper edge of a scissors and cut through the see-through address window. Then, take a black magic marker and black out your address. This will ensure that the envelope does not come back to you again. Then write on the envelope, "return to sender, addressed does not accept unsolicited junk mail." You may even want to go a step further and write on the envelope that you have not received compensation from the entity that sold your address to the sender, therefore you are returning the mail unopened because you will not allow them to make money off the selling of your address without you getting your cut. And the best part is that the sender is then paying the return postage as well.
Now, I know this requires a little more effort than just tossing or shredding the mail, but think about it folks. If we don’t put a stop to this the deluge of junk mail will only increase. We need to send a message to these companies that we are not objects for their enrichment but human beings.
When I want to purchase an item, I will go out and buy it. If I want to order a credit card, I will order it. I don’t need this influx of worthless mail invading the sanctity of my home. I resent it. And you should too. It’s really quite dehumanizing when you really think about it.

School Boards Want To Protect Their Pick-Pocketing Rights

Governor Rendell is trying to give homeowners much needed property tax relief under the Act 72 law. The law would allow school districts to receive a portion of gambling tax revenue from the slots. However, all but five of the state’s school boards have yet to accept the offer.
Why would the school boards turn down this offer from the governor? Because, like all government assistance, it comes with some strings attached. If the school district accepts the financial aid from Act 72, they must agree to voter approval for future tax increases above the inflation index. Obviously, by most districts reticence to accept the offer, we can see that they don’t want to have those limitations imposed on them. I mean, it’s downright un-American to allow the very people who foot the bill to have any say in how much or in what way their tax dollars are spent.
While you and I have to scrape and scrounge to get by as gas prices and cable bills and phone bills go up. While we have to tighten our belts and sometimes go without. Maybe cancel a vacation or hold off on buying that stereo system we’ve been wanting. While we make sacrifices, government bureaucrats just raise taxes or fees. They never have to sacrifice. They don’t even know the meaning of the word.
So here is a chance for a little tax relief and your school board doesn’t want to accept it because they don’t want to have their hands tied incase they decide they need to bilk you out of more of your hard earned money later down the road.
I have an idea, why don’t the lawmakers all take a 10% pay cut across the board and give that money back to the taxpayers they’ve stolen it from. That’s about as likely to happen as the gas prices going back down to under a $1.00 a gallon. The hardworking American citizen is not guaranteed to get a pay raise every year, hell they aren’t even guaranteed to have a job. But rest assured that the politicians will always be well taken care of. They don’t ship their jobs to Mexico, although we can dream.
You may think by what I’ve written that I am against any form of taxation. Actually, no I’m not. I just happen to believe that in this country we are trying to live by two mutually exclusive economic systems. Socialism and Capitalism. We want free enterprise and a competitive market place, but the government stifles it with high taxation and burdensome fees and regulations.
The government needs to choose. Either they let us keep most of our money so we can pay our bills and have a chance to save and invest. Or they can take most of our earnings and give us housing, medical care and food.
As it currently stands, we all have the burden of high taxation, but only a few get the benefits back. Most of us fall through the cracks when it comes to government aid. But very few get by without the local, state and federal government picking our pockets.
So what the government has succeeded in doing is alienating most of it’s citizens and engendered in us a feeling of scepticism and resentment.
So folks, if your not in one of the five school districts that has voted to accept the assistance from Act 72, you may want to let your school board know that you have to sacrifice every day to get by, and maybe they should do the same. Not by short selling your children’s education, but maybe by teachers taking a pay cut or giving up some benefits if they feel they need more money for the schools. Hey, the average American taxpayer has to do that every day.

Numbers

Blue numbers are so much more evocative than red.
Without blue numbers, I'd rather have none by my bed
Green numbers aren't bad, but they will never stir my soul
Only the blue numbers will achieve that surreal goal

Travesty In The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court Of Appeals

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled in favor of businesses being able to intrude on our privacy and against individual rights when it said that employees can be fired if they do not give their employers permission to obtain consumer reports on them.
Lisa Kelcher, a South Williamsport resident was dismissed from her job of seventeen years at Sycamore Manor in Loyasock Township, where she served as recreation director, for refusing on two occasions to sign an authorization permitting them to investigate consumer reports on her.
Ms. Kelcher had this deluded idea that she lived in a country that cared about peoples rights to privacy and that the court would do the right thing and rule in favor of her right to privacy. But, as seems to be the trend in this country, individuals are just objects to be controlled, and their finances pillaged to keep government officials sheltered in their high priced ivory towers and their wallets well padded.
Ms. Kelcher had the audacity to argue that Presbyterian Homes, the owner of the facility, should have to provide her with a reason for wanting to investigate her consumer report and then seek written authorization from her before they obtain the report. Sounds fair and reasonable, doesn’t it? But, no, that wasn’t good enough for Presbyterian Homes. They wanted a blanket authorization to investigate Ms. Kelcher’s consumer report any time and for any reason they fancied. Well, kudos to Ms. Kelcher for not backing down and bending over to be violated by the throbbing penis of Big Brother.
This isn’t the first time that a court has ruled that an employee can be fired for not giving permission to their employer to investigate their consumer reports. Last year, Judge John E. Jones III of U.S. Middle District Court had the distinguished "honor" of being the first judge in the country to rule in such a fashion.
So folks, individual rights took another blow thanks to these misguided judges. The message has once again been clearly delivered: Citizens, shut up and pay up and let those with much greater wisdom decide your fate.