Where is the integrity? Loyalty?

I clearly remember the nervousness that I lived with when I was going through the purchase of my first new home. I followed that up several years later when my wife and I decided to 'move back home' and purchase our second new home closer to the in-laws and out-laws. It was very clear, from a financial perspective, what we were up for and I was honestly scared regarding paying it all back. The rules of .28 and .32 were etched in my mind and those numbers seemed way to high. The 28 % of my gross pay could be allocated to paying off my mortgage? And all of my long term debt must fit within 32%.

When I looked at the numbers it was clear that 1) I could not afford much and 2) How was I ever going to be able to spend that much money on those debts. All these years later - I still panic (slightly) when I look at those values - but those numbers are now only mine. The industry has thrown out those 'recommendations' and allowed people to run the numbers way above what could be considered sane. History is prologue.

Today I heard, not that I was completely surprised, that the government is making it easier for those that can't afford their homes. Take a read at the article 'Are you an idiot to keep paying your mortgage?' and tell me what is wrong with this picture. Basically, those of us who care about our word, save for our futures, make wise decisions with taking on obligations are going to support those that can't seem to live within their means.

I understand the way the market turned - I really do. I have lost most of my retirement (401K), but I am not standing on the corner looking for a handout. My loss is my loss - I get that. Why doesn't everyone else need to play by the same rules?

Farewell Chuck

It is a sad day for my family as we prepare to say farewell to one of the good ones. Charles E. (Chuck) Gagen was a family friend for well over 25 years, but he was called home Tuesday evening.

I first met Chuck as a teenager and was fascinated by the man. At that time, Chuck was a good bit older than me - and my father. That never seemed to get in the way. Whether it was talking after mass, carrying on with the guys (mostly my dad's friends) or cleaning my clock on the squash court - Chuck was a man among men. I went to school with two of Chuck's children (Terry and Patrick) but I got to know him through the Knights of Columbus. As a child, I was taught manners so I knew him as Mr. Chuck. There was no way around it - Chuck was one of those guys that carried on the practice of the past, that of teaching and enforcing respect, manners, discipline and a deep respect for women.

Chuck helped me grow as a teenager, though he never knew it. I watched, learned, practiced and grew by watching him and the group he was with. That group was indeed a special group (Tim N., Jack S., John C., Dick M. ....) - one that I am proud to have known. It was through that group that Chuck was the first person to announce that I had arrived as a man. Through a meeting with several of the above mentioned, Chuck congratulated me. I turned, shook his hand and said 'Thanks Mr. Chuck.'. He held my hand tight and with that stern voice welcomed me to the club with a 'Drop the mister Dennis, my name is Chuck'. From that point forward - I was one of the guys.

That moment meant more to me than most will ever understand. Why? Because at that moment, I was one of the few - the select - that were responsible for setting the example. I was now part of something much larger than I knew.

Out of respect to Chuck, and several of the other genuine men that have gone before him I wanted to share just a few words. In life - you taught me, encouraged me, counciled me and guided me. In death you remind me, encourage me and motivate me - to be more, to many ... with a purpose.

Let us always remember: we are constantly observed, our faith judged and our order appreciated.

Thank you Chuck! I am a better man for knowing you.

MANDATE?

To follow up on my previous post ... I had to do a little looking, but remember very clearly the gubernatorial election of 2002 in the state of Maryland. Robert Ehrlich ran for office with a very definitive method of raising revenue though the use of slots. The entire election seemed to be focused on slots and what it would mean to the state. For or against slots - it really does not matter (I was against them then, and am against them now - more in a future post about state run gambling), he won handily. Now, the vote came down roughly 4 points above Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. 4% is not a huge margin, but in a lopsided state like Maryland (heavily democratic) when a Republican wins - you should be able to read MANDATE. This was not to be.

The press hounded Ehrlich and refused to acknowledge that his win, with slots as a key piece of his plan, was a statement on where the citizens wanted to see the country move. As soon as a Democrat was elected to the office of governor - the press immediately jumped on the slots bandwagon and have 'campaigned' for their passage. WHAT A CROCK!
So now, Barack Obama wins with about a 6% lead in the popular vote, the media are calling for complete change in every position the Bush administration has taken. I fear that change is all we are going to have left. Mr. Obama will be the president of the United States. The people have voted and the tranfer of power will occur. This is one of the things that makes this country great. Mandate should not be use in this case. If it is - I think it is time for the rest of the country to wake up and call for the other mandate that was voted in - Proposition 8 in California.

Prop 8 was voted for approval but immediately there were protests held ... If the people vote and the votes are meant to show the opinion of the people - why the protests? Why the media continuing to give credit to the opposition? The people spoke and the liberal media did not like what they said. Therefore, something needs to be done to get what they want - it really is that simple

Face it - the media is biased. It is time for the rest of us to stand up and call them on it.

Mandate? I don't think so

Now that the presidential election of 2008 is almost behind us the news media is headed off on their own again. 'The election of Barack Obama signifies a mandate for change.' - Where do they come up with this stuff. Yes, Mr. Obama won the election, but I don't think you can call less than 6% popular vote a mandate. Personally, I fear what this country has in store for it with the democratic controlled House, Senate and Oval Office - what we can't afford is a media that begs at their feet encouraging even more sweeping change.

StarOffice 9 and the weblog extension

I just downloaded the latest version of StarOffice 9 and found a new extension that adds in weblog publishing. While still not the prolific blogger, I find the ability to just publish from a document a much simpler method. More to follow.