Don't give back. Just give.

You see and hear a lot about how great a corporation is. Sometimes you hear about it during the Holidays ("We're giving back this time of year"). Sometimes you hear about it during the Olympics ("Proud sponsor of the U.S. Olympic Team.") One way or another, corporations are making sure you know how much they're giving back to the community.

One thing I don't understand about this is when a company says they are going to donate money but there is a little catch involved. "Everytime you but one of our product, we will donate 10 cents to the National Plant a Tree for World Peace Foundation."

How nice. You pull in millions of dollars every year and you give back by donating a miniscule percentage.

If companies really want to give back, just give. Don't attach it to how much product you will sell in a given month. Don't tell people you will donate as long as they buy a certain brand. Just give to those who are less fortunate.

Donating to causes and charities works in two ways? 1) You are helping people who are less fortunate and 2) It's good P.R. Imagine how much better that P.R. would be if you just gave instead of giving to a cause everytime you used your Visa Card at a participating McDonald's for a qualifying purchase.

Instead of collecting lids, labels and proofs of purchase to track business, why not simply give for the sake of giving and don't attach it to how much business came your way that month. Go ahead and announce it to the masses as you do it. Good P.R. never hurt anybody and it's good to let people know what you are doing for them. Just don't hold hostages by doing it according to what item you can sell.

Welcome Home. Don't have a drink.

I do not serve in the military but I am glad to see that those who do are welcomed back home after their tour fo duty. The campaign that started in Iraq in 2003 began with some uncertainty how soldiers would be treated when they returned home from a war that had many supporting and many opposing it. Some were worried it would be a repeat of Vietnam where soldiers would be disrespected for serving their country in a war that was not popular.

I am one of the people who find it wrong and foolish that an 18-year-old can be drafted into war but cannot be served alcohol. I understand that not everyone is mature enough to handle alcohol. I think those who risk their lives are entitled to a beer.

I propose a new law: Anyone who is at least 18 years old can be served alcohol in a bar or restaurant with a military ID. This law cannot be applied to liquor stores because there is no way to tell who will be getting the alcohol once the person leaves the store.

If someone is mature enough to handle a gun, be sent half a world away and risk their lives, they are certainly mature enough to handle a drink. The idea that somone can be sent far from home into danger but cannot be served a drink because they are now "too young" makes no sense. Make this law. It's the least we can do for those who served their country.

Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann has returned to his role of anchoring "Countdown" on MSNBC. Olbermann was suspended by the network after contributing money to the campaigns of Democratic politicians.
Both sides of the political aisle have been weighing in on the issue. Liberals are running to the old standby known as the First Amendmen. Conservatives are lauding MSNBC's "integrity" while FOX continues to push the conservative agenda.

My take: A journalist should be able to do what they want in their personal life as long as it is off-air and not in print and does not slant the work they are doing.

Does Olbermann have a right to contribute to the campaingns? The biggest factor in deciding this is his contract. I have never seen it but I bet there is something in there that reinforces company policy and specifically prohibits emplpyees from contributing to political campaigns. I am confident Olbermann knew about this and knew he was violating policy by doing it.

An article on abcnews.go.com describes the events leading up to the suspension and how Olbermann handled his return. The article uses two contradictory terms: journalist and commentator. A journalist reports the facts and does not include an opinion in what they report. A commentator takes an issue and gives their opinion regarding the subject they are commenting on.

MSNBC is quoted in the aforementioned article as having a policy which "bans journalists from making political contributions."

If Keith Olbermann is a journalist, why is he allowed to give his opinion on-air when giving a story? Why would such a policy prohibit someone from contributing to a campaign but allow that same person to support an agenda on the airwaves.

MSNBC has opened a can of worms by making Olbermann an example of making someone agree to a policy that compromises First Amendment rights. Hiding behind the now-clich`e term of "integrity" makes viewers wonder what purpose a contradictory policy serves. MSNBC needs to decide if Olbermann is a commentator or a journalist. After that, everyone needs to decide if we want to hold both to the same standard.

Massachusetts State Ballot Questions 2010

The polls throughout the commonwealth of Massachusetts are opening as I write this. I know I should have done this earlier but I want to give you my proverbial two cents on the ballot questions today.

Question 1 asks whether to repeal the sales tax on alcohol. Alcohol in Massachusetts is already taxed. This additional tax is an unfair and unnecessary double tax. Vote Yes.

Question 2 looks into changing the existing system of applying for building affordable housing. I have been back-and-forth about this and couldn't decide. Normally I am against a bureaucracy but in this case I think it helps to have input from the various departments of a community. Vote No.

Question 3 asks voters if they want to roll the state sales tax from 6.25% to 3%. I have been saying this for almost a year. Rolling back the sales tax will not only help the local businesses but also the state. Vote Yes.

Sabotaging Jill Stein

Green-Rainbow Party Candidate Jill Stein is running for Governor of Massachusetts. Her website gives you information about her campaign. There are links that tout her qualifications for the office, including news articles and there is a link that allows you to contribute money to her campaign.

Stein has done well in the debates she has participated in. Like all candidates who debate, she must get her point across in a limited amount of time. She is intelligent and articulate. She is able to convince voters that she is competent and knows what she is talking about. After all this, she blows her own chances by riding the "Little Person, Third-Party" platform and spends more time talking about how she's not an "Insider" and delivers a new option for voters and can deliver real change.

Here is the truth: All of this was interesting back in 1992 when Ross Perot ran for President, dropped out of the race and re-entered the race. Perot gave Third-Party people everywhere credibility by taking the time to explain his stance on issues and his plans for solving problems in simple terms that were easy to get one's mind around. Dropping out of the race deflated the hopes of some. Re-entering made others question his commitment.

Eightteen years later, the "Outsider" label is worn out. Stein needs to do what all Third-Party candidates needed to do a long time ago: Let the campaign evolve past the "Woe is me. Where is the voice for the Little People?" routine that was fresh back when the word "fresh" meant cool and spend more time explaining why they should vote for you.

While we're at it:

Stop whining about candidates being influenced by lobbyists and stick to how your ideas will work. Otherwise, you just sound like the kid in the playground who stops playing because he's too busy yelling, "He cheated!"

Casinos are not being debated or voted on right now. You're against them. We get it. Move on.

Instead of complaining about the "glut of office parks and malls", talk about making them more eco-friendly, unless you're thinking of razing them.

Spend more attention, focus, and energy on why voters should choose you instead of pushing the "small person vs. Mean Giant" image.

Allow your campaign to evolve. I'm sure it will attract more voters.

Who's asking? Who cares?

"Don't ask, don't tell" was implemented in 1993 by President Bill Clinton ands members of Congress. It was meant as a conter-measure to a directive under President Ronald Reagan that deemed homosexuality "incompatible with military service."

An article on cnn.com reports a temporary halt to the enforcement of DADT as ordered by a federal court. This halt means the policy is still in effect and may be enforced.

While both sides of the argument praise and condemn the measure and remain polarized by the issue of gays serving in the military. Somehow, who someone is attracted to is going to affect the way they can carry out their duty.

Answer this: Are you married or dating someone? How did that happen? Did you wake up one day and decide you were going to be attracted to a specific gender. Did you walk into a bar or down the hall at school, look around and say, "I think I will be attracted to that one."

No. You didn't. It just happened.

Take the argument a step further. Is someone a better fit for a job because they are single? Married? Dating? Dating someone of the same gender? I sincerely doubt that. There are gays all over the world. Some are succesful businesspeople just like heterosexuals. Others are people who have dropped out of high school just like heterosexuals.

If someone is coming under attack and they are being helped, the last thing on the mind of the rescued is, "Are they gay or straight?" No one cares. There are no bigots under attack just as there are no atheists in foxholes.

it is totally ignorant to think that someone can control who they are attracted to. It is just as ignorant to deny that same person a job or a chance to serve their country because some people want to think there is something wrong with someone else because they have a different romantic lifestyle.

The military is committed to recruiting and retaining soldiers and sailors who will not "create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Does anyone want to ask Hilary Clinton or Monica Lewinsky about such a standard?

Who decides an election?

It is once again that most wonderful time of the year: Elections. It's the time where the incumbents jump on the stump with their "experience" and the "Outsiders" try to convince the public that those who were elected are out of touch with the needs and concerns of the people.

The media is certainly jumping on this story. They always do but now that the Unemployment rate is flirting with 10% and the super majority held by the Democrats in Congress has failed to turn the economic woes of the country around, Republicans believe they have the momentum and are confident they will be able to ride the anger and frustration all the way to their rightful place in the majority of both houses on the hill.

While both parties slug it out in the mud pit, another familiar tone is being sounded among the shouting fiascoes of the debates, attack ads and political rally slandering. The often-heard from, little-considered third-party candidates are making the rounds, asking voters to take a look at all of the candidates who are voting and give a shot to someone who is neither a Democrat or a Republican.

My opinion: This idea is long overdue.

For far too long, people have based their decision on who has the best chance of winning. Many people have said they would vote for a third-party candidate if they had a legitimate shot. They want to vote for him/her but doing so would be throwing their vote away.

How many votes would a candidate receive if these people decided to "throw their vote away?"

A recent Gallup Poll shows "36% of Americans have a great deal or fair amount of trust and confidence in the legislative branch of government." This number is down from last year's 45%, the previous low.

The vicious cycle of elections and politics goes like this: People are fed up with their government. People want to vote for someone else but their choice won't have a good chance at winning the election. They go with a "safe candidate". They complain about nothing getting done.

Ask a room full of people who they would vote for then ask them if they would vote for a third-party candidate if they felt that person had a shot at winning. Watch the hands go up. Remind people that is how an election works: By choosing who you want. Not by who you think everyone else is voting for. Voting in an election is not a popularity contest. It's about sending people to do a job that needs to be done.

Why Stop at McDonald's?

Suing seems to be the way to go for years. If you don't like something, you simply take someone to court and get them to change a product, change a way of doing something.

Suing can also be an easy way out of something. If you are having a difficult time quitting smoking, you find a lawyer who will tell you it's alright. It's not your fault you started smoking. It's not your fault you continued to smoke before you got addicted to the point you needed to light a cigarette before you did anything else on a given day.

Lawsuits are now seeking to protect a new breed of victim: the overweight. Unbeknownst to people like me, there is someone besides the one in the mirror to blame for not cutting back on portions or refusing to do a few sit-ups or push-ups during a commercial break.

Meet the fast food industry, a new culprit in the litigation-happy, justice-seeking world we live in. Thanks to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), McDonald's will finally be held accountable for, "using toys to lure small children into McDonald's."

Do you think I'm making this up? Read the press release for yourself. It goes on to call McDonald's "the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children".

Give me a break.

Blaming an industry for the physical decline of a nation is one thing. The CSPI is practically comparing McDonald's to an old lady living in a house made of candy.

What if a judge allows this case to make it to trial? What happens next? Will Hershey's be the next on the dockett? Will the Candyman join Ronald McDonald and Tony the Tiger as the Triumvirate of Tubbiness.

It's not just McDonald's who uses toys to boost their business. Cereals have been doing it for years. Buy a box of Sugar Yums. There's a free toy waiting at the bottom.

Does the CSPI dare go after the thugs at General Millls and Kellogg's? That's a slippery slope. There is an outcry over the future world leaders missing out on the most important meal of the day. Attacking these companies could be counter-productive.

Children are enticed by the burgers and fries that are available at McDonald's and the other fast-food restaurants. To me, the toy was always a little bonus instead of a reason to stop by the Golden Arches. Blaming a corporation for selling a toy with a meal is not the way to combat obesity. Accusing them of a "creepy and predatory practice" (Yes. They said that too) does little for a company's credibility. I hope people will use common sense before going in with legal guns blazing. I hope people realize things like fried foods are not to become habits.

Catholic Church Sex Abuse

As Roman Catholics around the world celebrate the biggest week of the religious calender, Pope Benedict XVI finds himself with another potential episode in the sex abuse story that has dogged the church for 10 years. Although the story is only a decade long, the atrocities and wrongdoings got their start much earlier.

The Holy Father did not mention the abuse cases specifically, but defiantly answered his critics in an indirect manner at the Palm Sunday service at St. Peter's square. Benedict spoke of, "the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion."

With these words, Pope Benedict XVI has further widened the gulf between the church and the people it is charged with leading and shepherding. Benedict's arrogance shows all Catholics that certain people are above the others and there is no need to discipline those who have wronged innocent children for years.

The Church is to care for its people. It is to be the ultimate model of community. If a priest harms a child, or anyone for that matter. he is to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I personally would like to see the law extended further to make an example of anyone who molests a child.

The Vatican and the individual archdioceses under it should work together to expose the priests who have betrayed the trust of the loyal flock. The leader of the flock, His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI shows the ignorance and apathy of the Church's heirarchy by referring to the masses as "petty". The Church as a whole would do well to swiftly and judiciously begin a process where accused priests are put on leave and the ones who are found guilty are removed from their positions, excommunicated from the church and handed over to the local authorities to be dealt with accordingly. Only then will the people realize the church is dedicated to all that is good and begin anew during the joyful celebration of the ressurection.

Right to Repair

Lawmakers in Massachusetts are debating a bill that is currently in the State Senate that would release computerized repair codes to mechanics all over the commonwealth. Right now, some necessary repairs can only be performed by garages at dealerships, which charge more money than your local garage down the street. This practice would make it difficult for independent garages to continue to stay in business.

The US auto industry received almost 25 billion dollars from the federal government as part of the economic recovery plan. In addition to the tax money the auto industry received, it also collects thousands of dollars more than the sticker price of the vehicles sold thanks to financing. Now dealerships are continuing to cry poverty and are hoping they will be able to force consumers to come to them when a car/truck needs servicing. I wonder why sales were slipping.

Joe's Garage didn't recieve a penny when it came time for the bailout pie to be sliced. Local independents take a lot of flak when it comes to the price of gas and how much it costs to fix a car. The price isn't as bad as when it needs to be done by a dealership. Joe didn't take tax money.

The Right to Repair Bill is a good idea for everyone. It gives customers more options when it comes to their cars. It allows businesses to stay open, which means more jobs can be saved, and in some cases, maybe even created. Local gas stations and garages also contribute to local youth organiztions. The Right to Repair Bill will help everyone. Contact your local representative and senator. Make sure they know this. You can find your local legislator at http://www.mass.gov/legis/city_town.htm

Katie Couric

There appear to be some rumblings around CBS regarding Katie Couric and her contract that pays her around $15 million annualy. The complaints around the CBS Evening News anchor and her eight-figure salary come at a time when CBS is trimming its staff and even closing down bureaus around the world.

In 2006, Couric signed a contract to succeed Dan Rather at CBS. This contract was signed four years ago. This was a time before the Recession and the housing crisis that has brought the economy to the state it is in now.

There are a lot of former CBS employees that are upset and rightfully so. This is a terrible time to be out of work, especially in the journalism business where outlets across the country are looking for ways to cut costs. Couric is taking a lot of the heat for what is going on. It is unfair to blame her for the layoffs that are occuring. Would you turn down $15 million? I don't think so.

Anyone who thinks this type of contract would have been given out if people knew what the economic landscape would have been today is out of their mind. CBS at the time was trailing in the ratings. They wanted someone that would give Brian Williams and the late Peter Jennings a run for their money. NBC's "Today" was the Queen of the ratings when it came to morning programming. Couric was a household name and people were able to relate to her. CBS gambled on the prospect of morning ratings carrying over to the evening broadcasts. This hasn't happened. The result is a perfect storm of low ratings and a bad economy that has forced not only CBS, but other companies to trim their workforce and remain afloat. Couric's contract is a burden on the books that must be lived with for a little while longer. She was offered this deal. She would have been crazy to turn it down and she accepted it just like anyone else who would have been offered $15 million.

Scott Brown

Yesterday, Massachusetts voters elected Republican Scott Brown to the United States Senate. Brown will take the seat that belonged to the late Edward Kennedy, who served the people of Massachusetts for 47 years.

Brown becomes the first Republican senator from Massachusetts since Edward Brooke in 1972. The defeat for Democrats is sure to be felt around the country. Mid-term elections are approaching and many Democratic senators are wondering if the frustration felt by Massachusetts voters will be echoed from sea to shining sea.

My opinion: Scott Brown was the lesser of two evils. I wanted to see what Liberty Party candidate Joseph Kennedy (who is of no relation to the late Senator) could do but he did little, if any campaigning. It's hard to vote for someone when you don't know where they stand on the issues.

Coakley was leading by a comfortable margin in preliminary polls going as far back as November. Polls mean nothing. What means something is the slew of attack ads that came out as the campaign wore on. These messages were put out by outside groups and were not endorsed by any candidate. Coakley should have distanced herself from the hate ads showing Brown as this evil force. In all fairness, the ads showing Coakley getting cozy with lobbyists were no better. I also think the electorate was tired of seeing the Kennedy family everywhere on the television whenever a Democratic candidate had a television spot running.

Republicans everywhere are rejoicing and somewhere in Utah, Mitt Romney is lamenting his decision to get out of the political jungle of Massachusetts. The backlash of Massachusetts voters is being felt by lawmakers in Washington, who somehow thought President Barack Obama was going to rescue and repair the country in less than a year with hope and hype. It hasn't happened. Luckily, there is still some time before the crucial mid-term elections for everyone to get back to work.

Mark McGwire

Earlier this week, former baseball player Mark McGwire told fans what they didn't want to hear but needed to know: He used steroids.

McGwire finally came out with the truth. He admitted to the Associated Press that he used anabolic steroids and during the 1998 season in which he broke Roger Maris' record of 61 home runs in a 162-game season. The record has since been broken again by Barry Bonds' 73 home runs in 2001.

McGwire is now the hitting instructor for the Cardinals. Spring Training is less than six weeks away. McGwire should either step down from the position or be removed by the team.
It won't happen. McGwire has been shrewd in this. He has said all the right things. How hard the ordeal has been for his family. He's so sorry. He'll face up to it now. What about when Spring Training starts?

My prediction: McGwire will face the media on his first day on the job and tell the press, "It's over. I addressed the siutation earlier and that's all I'm going to say about it. You guys should focus on the team we have for the 2010 season. I'm not going to be a distraction."

Yes you are.


Mark McGwire cheated. There was no way Major League Baseball was going to let the epic Home Run Chase be tainted with rumors of players injecting themselves with performance-enhancing drugs. The 1998 season was just four seasons after a labor dispute cancelled the World Series; something two world wars and an earthquake couldn't do.

Say what you want about Bud Selig. The man is shrewd. He knew something like this would be just the thing Major League Baseball needed to get the fans back and it worked. Years later ballparks are enjoying record attendences. Now is the time to take the high road and tell the public something must be done.

Something must be done. Mark McGwire must be suspended for at least one year. The Commissioner's Office must look into this matter and see if McGwire should be allowed to work in Major League Baseball. If Selig does not do this, he will continue to fail to convince the fans that Major League Baseball is doing all it can to protect the integrity of the game. And somewhere at a baseball card show, Pete Rose is calling his lawyer with a new sense of hope.