Month: August 2019

One Thursday last month while waiting in line to order at In-N-Out, I noticed an unusual site in line just in front of me. I am not sure exactly how to describe Pat/Pat, who was not only wearing a dress, but also had make-up and lipstick on his/her face. The dilemma was that he/she was sporting more than a five-o’clock shadow, and had thick black hair on both calves above the pumps on his/her feet. Not cool.

Years ago I would have chuckled to myself and just shook my head, however on that particular Thursday I had a feeling of sadness for this unfortunate individual with his/her gender confusion. Later I subsequently wondered if he/she was going to get gender transformation surgery . . . irreversible gender transformation surgery, and also simultaneously wondered if he/she had the necessary insurance coverage to pay for this expensive surgery.

By the next day Pat/Pat was no longer on my radar, and for the last month I did not think about gender dysphoria . . . until this morning when I read about one of the latest rulings to come down from The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case involved 31-year-old Adree Edmo, an inmate in an Idaho prison, who was born a male but identifies as female. Edmo sued the state of Idaho for refusing to pay for his gender reassignment surgery. Not unexpectedly, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the State of Idaho must pay for his/her gender reassignment surgery. Oh yeah, BTW Mr./Ms. Edmo is currently serving three to 10 years for sexual abuse of a child.

After reading this I said to myself, “Let me get this straight. The state of Idaho (i.e. the taxpayers of the state of Idaho) must pay upwards of $75,000-$100,000 for sex reassignment surgery for a sex offender.” Granted, The Ninth Circuit never really uses any common sense when it makes these rulings, but if this ruling stands, there will inevitably be some not unforeseen consequences.

Consider the situation of Pat/Pat noted above. He/she wants gender reassignment surgery, but cannot afford it. A dilemma that can potentially be solved by committing and being convicted of a sex abuse offense or any criminal offense, and once imprisoned for his/her crime, demand sex reassignment surgery. Wallah, if in prison in a state which is under the auspices of The Ninth Circuit, he/she will get the surgery paid for by the taxpayers of that state. As Chuck Larabee, the retired black marine on Last Man Standing, would say,”Not cool!”

This will never happen, you say. Actually, there is another much less expensive but potential practical solution to this problem:  When someone in prison demands sex reassignment surgery, release him/her from prison, so that the taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for this questionably effective surgery! Again,”Not cool!”

Obviously, neither of the above would be an acceptable solution for anybody. Is there a solution?

Yes, I have one!!! Create a separate fund for “prisoner sex reassignment surgery (PSRS).” Anyone who thinks that a prisoner deserves to have whatever he/she wishes in terms of this type of surgery, can then contribute to this fund. When enough money for this surgery is contributed to this PSRS escrow account, then the surgery can proceed! I would predict that this escrow account would be funded only by those on the left . . . if at all. It is commonly said that those on the left of the political spectrum have an easy time spending other people’s money, as in this situation is evidenced by this decision by The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I wonder just how much money those jurists Is to on The Ninth Circuit would actually contribute to Pat’s PSRS fund?

Another challenger is stepping into the ring, the political ring, that is. With umpteen people already thinking that they have a chance at the nomination, does America really need another disillusioned individual spouting off as to why he is running for the highest office in the land ? Whether we need it or not we now have another, as the candidate announced in an exclusive interview with George Stephanopolis (G.S.) on his ABC Sunday news show.

The new candidate announced, “Friends, I’m in. We can’t take four more years of Donald Trump. And that’s why I’m running for President. It won’t be easy, but bravery is never easy. But together, we can do it.”

Although I did not listen to the entire interview, I can imagine that the rest went something like this:
G.S.: “Why do you think that you are qualified to be the President?” New candidate: “As you know, George, I do have a radio talk show.”
G.S.: “Do you have any experience in politics?” New candidate: “As you know, George, I have just as much experience in Congress as Beto O’Rourke, as we both served one term in the U.S. House of Representatives.”
G.S. : “Like Beto, after two years in the House, did you then run for the U.S.Senate?” New candidate: “As you know, George, my district was redrawn in 2012, and in my remapped district I was then defeated in 2013.”
G.S.: “Is there anything else that my audience should know about your candidacy?” New candidate: “ As you know, George, I am not a racist even though in 2014, I was pulled off the air during my radio show for using racist slurs. I do stand by my previous “birther” comments that I made during former President Barack Obama’s time in office and I still say that Obama was only elected because he was black.”
G.S.: “Perhaps with your being a new candidate, ABC can arrange for a special debate including yourself, Michael Bennett, Bill de Blasio, Steve Bullock, John Delaney, and Wayne Messam. You get the idea!” New candidate: “But as you know, George, I am a Republican and the rest of those names that you mentioned are all Democrats.”
G.S.: “I am well aware of your political affiliation, Mr. Walsh. This special debate would be a “loser’s debate,” limited only to those ego-maniacs, like yourself, who have no chance whatsoever. However, Joe, to be fair we could include in this debate, Bill Weld, another “no chance in hell” Republican, who has declared himself as a candidate, even though Mr. Weld has even less name recognition than you!” New candidate: “Thank you, George, for getting my sprint to the finish-line campaign off to a rousing start!” 

I am not making up this Joe Walsh story, even though, believe it or not, I did make up the dialog of the interview. Joe Walsh did actually declare himself to be a candidate for the Republican nomination.

Who are these yo-yos? . . . Bennett, de Blasio, Bullock, Delaney, etc. and now Joe Walsh. Stephanopolis’ show must be in bad shape if he has to have the likes of Joe Walsh on his show.

BTW: My response to Joe Walsh’s announcement . . . YAWN!

The response of Tim Murtaugh, President Trump’s campaign spokesman . . . “Whatever.”

“We are right! We know what is best for you (wkwibfy). Actually not only do we know what is best for you, but we know what is best for everybody!” Whenever you hear this, or in essence what amounts to the same thing, you should think, “danger,” as these wkwibfy-ers are much more interested in taking away another of yours and my personal freedoms. This way of thinking is becoming more and more often a standard in California, and it is growing, basically because this “we know what is best for you” (wkwibfy) is one of the standard tenets of the present liberal religion here in California. Year after year, the liberal Democratic State Legislature passes bill after bill that espouses this philosophy, and it has spread down to the local community levels. 

This week the city of Santee, a suburb in San Diego County, capitulated to the “wkwibfy” dictum. Santee had been the final holdout for one personal freedom in San Diego County . . . the personal freedom of smoking in a public space, specifically in its city parks, which the last time I checked were open air parks.

Before I go any further, let me explain my position on smoking: 

-Smoking is bad! 

-People die because of their smoking – e.g. my father.

-There is little or no redeeming value to smoking, and it should be discouraged.

-Second hand smoke can be deleterious to exposed individuals.

-Smoking is enclosed spaces (bars, restaurants, airplanes, buses, etc) should be      frowned upon as this practice exposes others to second hand smoke.

-There is no smoking in my house. Those that want can smoke in my open-air back     yard.

-I do not smoke, and no one in my family smokes.

However the fact that I am 100% against smoking does not mean that I would have the chutzpah to demand that an individual cannot smoke. If he/she wants to smoke, as long as it does not infringe on someone else, then that is a personal choice that each individual should be able to make on his/her own. 

Back to Santee where smoking in public places was outlawed this week. The thrust of this restriction was to insure that smoking was prohibited in parks – open air parks. Can anyone explain how cigarette smoke, drifting up into the atmosphere can do any harm to anyone? I am not aware of any scientific data that confirms that smoke from a cigarette is harmful to anybody when it drifts into the open air. Certainly if a smoker blows his/her smoke directly into the face of an asthmatic child, this could aggravate the asthma. Likewise second hand smoke in an enclosed area is deleterious for asthmatics and others with pulmonary disease. However, that is not what this about. This latest Santee ban is very similar to present banning of smoking at San Diego beaches where the wind constantly blows in from the ocean. At the beach any cigarette smoke is instantly dissipated up into the open air. 

Now if the argument is that the cigarette-butt-litter problem makes it imperative to ban the cause of that butt-litter, then that is a different story. Perhaps substantial fines for littering cigarette butts would be appropriate, as it is with any other kind of littering. However in Santee the case was unabashedly not about the litter problem. As Santee City Councilman Stephen Houlihan said, “All that matters is that the parks of Santee will be 100% smoke-free for the children, the elderly, the asthmatic population, and for the people of planet Earth.” 

“The people of Planet Earth!!” Take a guess as to whether or not Mr.Houlihan is a member of the “wkwibfy” church!

Is a recession coming? There appears to be an intense media drive to convince us that a recession is coming in the near future. Some of the talking heads on MSNC are not only predicting a recession, but are trying to convince us that a recession will be a good thing! . . . perhaps a good thing for most MSNBC viewers who have a vested interest in anything which is anti-Trump. Of course, President Trump says, “I do not think we are having a recession. We’re doing tremendously well.”

Forget MSNBC and ignore what President Trump thinks for a second. Is a recession coming or not? What do those who are supposed to be more learned about the economy think about the question of upcoming recession or no recession? A survey of economists by the National Association of Business Economists reveals that 74% of U.S. business economists expect a recession by the end of 2021. This number is down from 77% in the same survey that was done six months ago. In the same survey, 38% felt that there would be a recession in 2020 – down from 42% six months ago. Within the past week Charles Paine had two separate articles on Townhall Finance. One was titled “Recession? Wishful Thinking While Ignoring the Facts.” The second, “Bottom Line: No Evidence of a Recession.” Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, recently sounded FDR-esque when he said. “We have nothing to fear about a recession right now, except for fear of recession.” . . .  whatever that means!

So what are we left with? 

What would you say, if I told you that one of the best ways to predict “recession or no recession” is to go to Elkhart, Indiana. That’s right, according to the Wall Street Journal, Elkhart, Indiana! That is because Elkhart, Indiana is the capital of this nation’s recreational-vehicle industry. Waning sales of luxury items is often one of the early signs of an upcoming slowdown, and multiyear drops in recreational-vehicle shipments have preceded the last three recessions. Shipments of recreational-vehicles fell 4.1% last year, and shipments to dealers have fallen about 20% this year! This makes it look like a recession is coming! However, some RV shipment skeptics attribute this year’s slowdown merely to overbuilding after an increase in demand in 2017 which left dealers with more than enough inventory. The RV Industry Association is, in fact, forecasting a 2.5% increase in shipments to dealers in 2020. So maybe there will be no recession after all!

I guess the final answer to the question of “recession or no recession” in our future is still up in the air. From my perspective, if a recession is coming, hopefully it will hold off until after November 3, 2020. 🤞🤞

Let’s assume that Joe Biden will be the Democratic presidential nominee. At this point that is a reasonable assumption as he has a significant lead in the latest CNN telephone poll taken August 15-18. (Biden = 29%; Sanders = 15%; Warren = 14%). Is this good news or bad news for my Democratic friends? Although Joe is not nearly as far left as most of the other horses in the Democratic stable, his does have some problems as far as his electability.
Everyone is  cognizant that Joe is gaffe prone . . . his latest being that both MLK and RFK were assassinated in the late 70s. There is not enough time or enough space in this piece to detail his long litany of one faux pas after another. However, from my perspective his multiple verbal blunders are not his biggest problem. 

Joe also has a history of “stretching the truth,” and during his 1988 aborted run for the Democratic presidential nomination, these “mis-speaks” were his downfall. For example, he did not graduate in the top half of his class (in college he ranked 506 out of 688 and in law school he ranked 76 out of 85.) Also his statements back then about getting three degrees in college, about getting a full scholarship to law school, and about marching in the civil rights movement . . . all false! However these past “creative memories,” from my perspective are not his biggest problem.

His proclivity to plagiarism in the past as well as his recent flip-flopping on certain issues are likewise not his biggest problems. Likewise, Joe’s biggest problem is not that he is a white heterosexual male, as his opponent in the 2020 election would also be the same.

From my perspective, J-o-e’s biggest problem is that he is o-l-d. He was born on November 20, 1942 which means that, if elected, he would be 78 years old at his January 2021 inauguration! Recall that President Reagan was 69 in 1980 when he was first elected and was “only 77 years old” at the end of his second term in 1988. Comparatively speaking our present President is “a relative youngster” when compared to Joe, as President Trump was 70 when he was elected in 2016, and will be 74 at the time of the 2020 election. Indeed Joe is o-l-d, and this is his biggest problem, despite that the far-left Politico recently ran with the headline “Why Fears About Biden’s Age are Overblown.” “Good try! But no kewpie doll!” 

Realistically speaking the media will have a difficult time arguing that Joe’s advanced a-g-e is a good thing! According to left-leaning Politico, Joe would have only a 79% chance of completing his first term if he were to be elected. Keep in mind that this is the same Politico that said that John McCain’s age of 71 was “a legitimate issue” when he ran against Barack Obama in 2008. But apparently to the left a-g-e is no longer “a legitimate issue” in 2020?

Let the s-p-i-n  begin!

An article in the Wall Street Journal on 8/16/19 stated that President Trump has expressed some interest in purchasing Greenland. As expected his critics have already come out against this, and are describing it as merely a “legacy” item. A legacy Item? Really!

Let’s first look at some past history. Who was the President when the U.S. bought Alaska from Russia? We have heard of this acquisition as “Seward’s Folly,” because William Seward was the Secretary of State at the time. But who was the President? First a little history: In 1859 Russia, who had owned Alaska since 1744, offered to sell the territory because of its debt from the Crimean War, and also supposedly to avoid Great Britain from seizing it in case of war. (The purchase was finalized 4 months before Canada became a country.) Interestingly  the U.S. initially said ,”no,” but finally in 1867 the U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million. Apparently the decision to purchase Alaska passed Congress by one vote! (Amazing How just one vote changed the course of history!) But again, does anybody remember who was the President in 1867? Not exactly a legacy item for . . . President Andrew Johnson!

Ultimately Alaska became a state. Does anybody remember which President admitted Alaska into the U.S., as a state? I had no idea, before I looked it up. Not exactly a legacy item for . . . President Dwight D. Eisenhower!

Other than the Louisiana Purchase can anyone recall another historical U.S. purchase? In 1917 the U.S. purchased “Danish West Indies,” and subsequently renamed it the U.S. Virgin Islands. Who was the President of the U.S. in 1917? Not exactly a legacy item for . . .  President Woodrow Wilson!
Let’s forget for a second that perhaps purchasing Greenland is a Trump idea. Is it a good idea? Has purchasing Greenland ever been considered before? In fact, it has been considered before. Way back in 1867, the U.S. State Department thought that Greenland would an “ideal acquisition,” but that idea never got off of the ground. However, many many years later another U.S.President actually made an offer to buy Greenland from Denmark. Who was this U.S.President? Does anybody know? A potential legacy item for . . . President Truman, whose offer to purchase Greenland from Denmark for $100 million was refused.
One might ask, “Why Greenland?” Greenland is rich in minerals. In 2018 China expressed interest in building three airfields there, probably because of the strategic position of Greenland. The U.S. already has an base in northern Greenland, Thule Air Base, which is well north of the Arctic Circle, again for strategic defense purposes.
Could it be that the purchasing of Greenland by the U.S. might be good for all involved? Who might benefit?

Greenland is 90% covered with ice, and has a population of only 56,000, mostly Greenlandic Inuits, who have a high incidence of suicide, alcoholism, and unemployment. With the U.S. on the scene, almost immediately there would be a plethora of new jobs, which would then most probably lead to less alcoholism and less suicide. This sounds like a winner for the Inuit people.

Denmark would be able to escape the $591 million that goes annually into Greenland’s budget. Denmark would probably require some sort of payback on the minerals subsequently discovered in Greenland, and both the U.S. and Denmark would benefit.

With its strategic importance, the U.S would undoubtedly benefit, and would probably expand its defense capabilities there.The more I think about it, the U.S. purchasing Greenland  . . . What a tremendous legacy item for President Trump!

President Trump’s rally in Manchester, New Hampshire on 8/15/19 was covered on page four of our local newspaper in an article written by Hunter Woodall and Kevin Freking, apparently from the A.P. and WaPo. What I found interesting was that there was only one word, “boisterous” as in “a boisterous crowd,” that described the enthusiasm of those at the speech. But “boisterous” does not do justice to what was happening at ground zero in the SNHUArena. What the reporters from the Main Stream Media do not capture in their articles is the “more than boisterous” enthusiasm at this rally, just as it is at every one of these Trump rallies.

The attendance at the Manchester’s SNHUArena broke the previous attendance record that had been held by Elton John. Inside the arena, President Trump emerged to an ear-splitting, raucous welcome that lasted several minutes. It was “more than boisterous!”
Not mentioned in this article is the fact that this most recent rally was very similar to the last rally a few weeks ago in Cincinnati, Ohio at U.S. Bank Arena. In Ohio, where the  line to get in was wrapped around Great America ballpark hours before the event was to begin. The 17,500 capacity arena appeared packed before Trump even took the stage, and there was an overflow crowd outside! The crowd was “more than boisterous”!

In New Hampshire, on 8/15/19 15,000 people applied for tickets at the 11,700 capacity arena of SNHU in Manchester. There were few if any no-shows and so about 4,000 had to watch the speech on outside screens in the overflow area. Tickets do not guarantee a seat, and seating is always on a first-come first-served basis. Some people were outside waiting in line for two days to guarantee that they would get in, and have good seats. 

Lisa Belanger, the first in line, talked to a local radio station about why she got there so early. “This may be the only opportunity I’ll ever have to go to a Trump rally and I was not going to miss it,” she said. An hour before the rally began there appeared to be some empty seats, but at that time the line outside still stretched for blocks, and by a half an hour before it started, the venue looked packed, and the crowd was “more than boisterous”!

“I’ve never experienced anything like this, but I knew I wanted to be right where he was. I’m probably going to faint,” Darlene Weeks of Waltham, Mass. said, wearing a Trump 2020 hat.

“More than boisterous” is going to continue in future rallies and this is going to translate into a 2020 Trump victory.

Last week ICE conducted raids in Mississippi searching for illegals working at factories. Of course, CNN played the sympathy card, emphasizing the trauma that these arrests had on the children of those that were arrested. I do not know of any other situation where the child gets to accompany the parent when the parent is taken into custody . . . but CNN played this to the hilt, even emphasizing that this all occurred on the first day of school!

“I need my dad . . . he’s not a criminal,” one little girl cried as she spoke on camera with CNN.

The headline on CNN: “680 undocumented workers arrested in record setting immigration sweep on the first day of school.” CNN continued, “Children sobbed as they waited for word on what had happened to their parents, as shown by video footage.” BTW: Way down in the article, “In Forest, Mississippi hours later, all the kids had been reunited with family members. “
A few days before, there was an article on Townhall concerning S.B. who was separated from his children, because of something that should never have happened. (BTW: This was not reported on CNN!) Mr. S.B. woke up that particular morning, and was just minding his own business when he was tragically separated from from his five children . . . not temporarily, but permanently! “He was amazing,” said his grieving wife Kathy, struggling to cope with an unimaginable loss. “It’s trying to figure out what the new normal looks like when the old normal was so good.”
No, this did not happen in Mississippi, but rather in Colorado. No, it wasn’t ICE who separated him from his family, but rather it was it was an illegal immigrant, Miguel Ramirez Valiente, who killed Sean Buchanan. Mr. Buchanan was struck while he was riding his motorcycle on Highway 83. Colorado State Patrol troopers said Ramirez Valiente was driving recklessly, swerved into Buchanan’s lane and killed him. Again from Townhall:Valiente had previously pled guilty to reckless endangerment of a child & DUI, but escaped deportation claiming sanctuary at a church while media gave him sympathetic coverage. 

But those who know Ramirez said his arrest history tells a different story, and they want the Buchanan family to know it. “This family deserves to know who they’re dealing with,” said a close acquaintance of Ramirez Valiente. “He’s an alcoholic and an abuser.” His arrest record shows charges for reckless endangerment in 2011 in Douglas County and domestic violence in 2016 in El Paso County. In 2018, he plead guilty to a 2017 charge of driving under the influence and his license was revoked, according to court records and Colorado State Patrol. On Aug. 1, one day before the deadly crash, his probation for that DUI was extended because he had not completed alcohol therapy and community service. He was driving without a license when troopers said he over-corrected and swerved into Buchanan’s lane on Aug. 2.

In Mississippi ICE temporarily separated a bunch of probable illegals from their children . . . CNN was close to apoplectic. In Colorado, an illegal without a valid driver’s license,  permanently separated a father from his five children . . . CNN was strangely quiet.

What is wrong with this picture?

What is the deal with bottled water? I can basically only think of a few reasons for buying bottled water. Obviously if your local water tastes really awful, bottled water may be your only option, but in most places in the U.S. bottled water and tap water taste pretty much the same. I can understand that a lot of people want some bottled water on hand in case of an emergency, like an earthquake or an approaching hurricane. This makes a lot of sense, and when we lived in Florida bottled water became a scarce commodity in stores when a hurricane was heading our way. The only other truly justifiable reason to have bottled water is if you were traveling to a country whose water is questionable in terms of its purity. Better to drink bottled water instead of getting Montezuma‘s revenge.

In this day and age with the taking away our use of plastic bags in order to save the planet, why are plastic bottles not close to extinction? These days beer comes mostly in cans or glass bottles. Most soda comes in cans or less frequently in the larger liter plastic bottles, although I do not recall the last time I bought a liter bottle of soda.

What’s left? Which plastic bottles are the culprits? Plastic water bottles! Ah yes, you say, but each of these plastic bottles has a deposit of a nickel or a dime, and so are most likely recycled. You might think so, but actually this is not the case. Less than a third of six billion pounds of plastic most commonly used for drink bottles and food containers is recovered by U.S recycling programs! So what happens to the over two-thirds of this plastic that  is not recycled? Obviously most of this recycleable  plastic ends up as litter, or ends up in our landfills or in the oceans. 

Since it appears to me that non-recycled plastic bottles, especially plastic water bottles, are a much bigger problem than plastic bags, why have we banned the useful plastic bag and not the plastic bottle? (In general, if there seems to be an unanswerable question, always follow the money!) Lo-and-behold if you follow the money here, the answer becomes obvious. What do you think happens to those billions of nickels and dimes that were paid on those billions of plastic water bottles that never make it to recycling? The government gets to keep this money. It is really a tax that is not referred to as such. Perhaps if the state or the local government called it by its real name, “a tax,” maybe the people, especially the thirsty ones, would raise a ruckus. Oops, I forgot that in California, most of the voters are too dense and cannot understand anything that is basic economics even when they are the ones being screwed!

Last week I read two different pieces in two different newspapers that emphasized the difference between what is happening in the liberal world of California and what is happening in the real world.

The first article was by Tricia Gallagher-Guertsen (TGG), who is the co-chair of the Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee of San Diego Unified School District. (In the guise of being fair and equal, I must again admit my visceral distrust of anything written by someone with a hyphenated last name!) TGG was extolling the praises of Assembly Bill 331, which would require a semester course in ethnic studies for high school graduation. As TGG states, “These ethnic studies courses instead of focusing on the contributions, history and perspective of European Americans, would present content of understudied populations, like women, blacks, and Pacific Islanders, for example.” AB 331 . . . that is insane!

TGG feels that this bill will increase “cumbia” amongst the many, many ethnic groups in this state. Those of us who happen to live in California realize that this type of liberal drivel is just the sort of thing that will sail through the California Legislature in Sacramento, and will be signed by our uber liberal governor.

The second article was about how “the American middle class is falling deeper into debt to maintain a middle-class lifestyle.” There was a lot of numbers and figures comparing consumer debt adjusted for inflation over the last two decades. “Consumer debt, not counting mortgages has climbed to $4 trillion – higher than it has ever been adjusting for inflation. Student debt totaled about $1.5 trillion. Auto debt is up nearly 40% adjusting for inflation in the last decade to $1.3 trillion. The average loan for new cars is up 11% in a decade to $32,187.” That is insane! $32,000+ for the average car loan! I have never paid close to this for a car. Some 85% of new cars were financed in the first quarter of this year. 32% of new car loans are for six or seven years. A decade ago only 12% were for that long. And so a third of new car buyers roll debt from their old loans into the new one. The average amount that is rolled over is $5000. That is insane!
In the body of the article were stories about three different families who were having difficulty making it, despite earning good salaries, because of all that they owed. One of the husbands, aged 33, had to cash out $8000 from his pension to pay off credit card debt. Credit card debt of $8000! That is insane!

But not as insane as a second couple who in addition to their $51,000 in student loan debt, have $18000 in auto loans, and $50,000 spread across eight credit cards. This is insane, and to make matters worse both the husband and the wife are college graduates, and have about double the median income. Still they cannot come close to making ends meet. Did they ever learn about budgeting? Do they think that using eight credit cards is like using free money?

Another couple vowed to stop using their credit cards, but broke that promise when they were invited to an out of town wedding. Airfare, hotel accommodations, and a rental car meant that they started that uphill trek of trying to pay off their maxed out credit card all over again! (What about, “Sorry, we cannot come to your wedding as we cannot afford it. Good luck to you.”) That is insane!

Who taught them about the wisdom of not getting into debt? Nobody did!! It would seem to me that “common sense personal financial management” should be a semester high school class, a class required for graduation. Learning some basic financial planning strategy will be much more useful than ten classes in ethnic studies! If individuals wish to learn more about how important their ancestors were, I think that is very commendable . . . but do it after school or as an elective. That, my friends, would be the sane way to re-write and then pass A.B. 331!