Smokers: Only a Matter of Time Before Doctors Find the Gene

I am not a smoker. Never have been, and quite frankly, I live in a clean indoor state and love it. I don’t have to worry if I will be sitting near the smoking section in a restaurant (and let’s face it, that smoke always wafts right over the barrier wall, doesn’t it?) or whether or not I will contract a smoker’s tumor because the guy a few cubicles down lights up.

However, I have to say that I am also pretty tired of the Crusade (capitals on purpose) to destroy all vestiges of smoking from our fair society. If I see one more Truth® commercial I might just have to buy a pack and smoke it for spite. I really hate those commercials.

Do you think I am championing for smokers? Why would any non-smoker want people to smoke? Let me be clear, I am not saying that. Very legitimate studies have shown that smoking is harmful to your body and the bodies of those around you. It’s a bad habit that should be kicked. So, is, however, overeating, biting your nails and spitting. Some would say these things cannot be compared to smoking because they have no negative effect on those around you, but can we really conclusively say that? Say that to the person who gets spit on.

I’d like to propose that smoking cigarettes (we have to be specific here because cigars and pipes apparently do not fall under the same curse as cigarettes) is something like a disease. It is an addiction that some are just born with a propensity toward. I feel confident that the same doctors who discovered the gene that makes folks pig out on fatty foods and become morbidly obese will find that elusive smoker’s gene and liberate all smokers forever. It’s not your fault that you are a smoker! Just like it’s not your fault if you are fat, suicidal, abusive, obsessive, a sexual deviant...the list could go on, but I think I will have offended enough people at this point.

Here’s the issue: let’s be fair. If it applies to other things, let’s be fair and apply it across the board and not just to the things that have become socially acceptable over the years. I’m not suggesting that we should tell a severely depressed person to “buck up and get over it” (although some may need to hear that very advice), but let’s not bash those who smoke, because we should let them fall under the protective umbrella of the ‘it’s not your fault, you were born this way’ line of thinking. Instead of vilifying smokers as soft-core criminals who are shortening our lives with every puff, let’s be understanding that they have a problem that cannot be helped. They have tried to quit, they have read every warning label, they have tried the gum, the cold turkey, the social-ostracization guilt – nothing works! We should make concessions for them (and I’m not talking about the million-dollar lawsuits brought against tobacco companies).

Some of you will undoubtedly say, ‘lots of people have quit smoking’ (I know this to be true, my own grandmother quit after smoking for 60 years). And this is true! But what about people who have lost weight, overcome depression, kicked their drinking habit...what about that? Those things don’t seem to stop others from saying that if you can’t stop, then you have a fatal defect in your genetic make up.

Enough of this madness and the needless burdens that have been handed to these poor smokers. We need to do what we’ve done for countless others who refuse or lack the ability to stop whatever destructive or harmful behavior they are involved in: pat them woefully on the head, assure them it’s not their fault they do what they do, but rather a defective gene that was passed on to them...“so sorry, too bad, so sad...this is just how you are”...and then give them an expensive prescription.

why the dollar coin won't make it

Yesterday, the US mint released for sale yet another dollar coin. After Susan B Anthony in 1979 and Sacagawea in 2000 couldn't make the cut, congress decided that (since they had nothing else to do they would pass the $1 Coin Act of 2005. A sort of spin off from the wildly popular state quarters, the presidential dollars with honor the presidents in the order they served with four quarters planned every year until 2016 ending with Reagan (and skipping Carter). It is important to note that during the presidential series and after its closure, Sacagawea coin will continue to be produced and she will function as the face of dollar coin. With 300 million coins ready to be sold at banks across the nation there are still the same old reasons (and a few more) why the program will not stir more interest in the coined dollar.

The Logic
First of all, coins are heavy. As a man who does not frequently carry cash in his wallet, I can recall times when I had seven or eight individual dollar bills in my wallet. Needless to say, that kind of change could get fairly heavy. I hate change as it is. It weighs down my pants and fills up my pockets. Secondly, where can a guy put gold coins? A wallet - a real wallet - has no pouch for coins. America loves its paper money, but the reality is that there are a few other things the mint overlooked when they made these coins.

The Truth
1. Look at his face. He looks so angry.
I'm not sure if its just his brow, his nose or just his generally sharp chin, but Washington looks like he is about to attack the british again. Yes, it just the first in a series, but things don't get much better with the next quarter.







2. Look at the back. It's the only coin with a number
It obvious that americans love their paper, and mostly for sentimental reasons. People don't like change(no pun intended), and no other coin currently in mint has a number on it. Shoot, the dime doesn't even say how many cents it's worth, it just says "one dime." The number is not to be overlooked.

3. It's the only piece of US currency with a $ sign.
One word: Classy

But no congress driven mint program would be complete without a sister program to trip over. That why in the next few months we will have the First Lady program issuing ten dollar golden coins bearing the face of the first lady who served with the featured President. Some of the same problems are apparent.


Here's the bottom line: until phone calls and cokes all cost a buck apiece, America won't embrace the dollar coin.

A living wage

How much does it cost to live? I mean, how much money do we need to really live? I suppose that really depends on the definition of "live". The answer is how ever much money it takes to feed one's self and sleep. That sounds fine to me, but i suppose some might call me rather frugal. Others would argue that the monetary needs of a life include entertainment, a well maintained reputable home, a meal plan that extends beyond ramen, and a generally above average standard of living.

$33 a day
Recently I came across an interesting article that talked about a woman who is trying to live on a mere $12,000 for the entire year of 2007. You may have heard about it on MSN Money and thought (like many individuals) it’s just another The Pursuit of Happiness rip-off that we won’t remember come March. While this sentiment might carry a little weight, there have also been many responses from around the internet which not only applaud Ms. Donna Friedmens efforts, but testify to its accessibility.

One gentleman’s response to this venture noted that it was possible to live on $10,000 for 3 years. He gives 20 tips and tricks to help endure this asserting that “You’d have to give up everything that wasn’t absolutely essential.” While this might sound like a justified statement, The American consumer has no idea how much we can still have with such a small budget.

But really, $12,000?
12 grand may seem like nothing at all, but - for a single individual - it is around two grand more than the poverty rate within the United Sates. The above mentioned people are not novel, they just have made the choice (mostly) to go to school and not work to While poverty is a loaded word which evoke thoughts of cardboard lean-tos and drive by shootings, there are a number of things one should remember.

• In 2005, 37 million people were living in poverty in the US. That’s 12.6% of the population. That’s a lot of people to be classified by the federal government as impoverished.
• Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. I guess I didn’t expect that many would own houses.
• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Shoot, my private college dorms didn’t even have air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. I guess it doesn’t have to be a lean-to.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Who needs living space anyway?
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Yeah, but yesterday’s technology is cheap nowadays.
• 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. I don’t have cable…

Additionally for all the mothers out there who think that some people trade food for tv:

"As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of normandy in World War II."

Where have all the Cookies Gone?
As i gathered the w2's and efiles and turbo taxcuts to do my taxes this year i notes the encome for my 'household.' I guess I was surprised to find that our income was right around double the poverty income level. We did save a portion of our income, but overall I find myself thinking (not in an accusatory or angry way) ‘where did it all go? I look around and I notice a few things in the room that we didn’t necessarily need, but not a large number. As I reflect I realize that there are a number of things that seem to stick most of us.

Sailing the High C’s
So here is the list of things which I feel suck a lot of the money out of lives that we could easily get rid of or at least downplay. For all you southern Baptists outhere I have alliterated them all with c’s so you may better recall them next Sunday.

Cars – The car is perhaps the simplest way to watch money go down the tubes. Eventually, it all adds up: gas, oils changes, insurance, loan payments, and repairs can cost a small fortune. The solution is to utilize public transportation. Although it is not always the most convient method of movement, it just makes sense. It’s cheap, allows free time for thinking, easier on the environment, and keeps you from frequenting the store too much. If this doesn’t seem like a viable option, invest in a bicycle or even a scooter.

Connectivity – I often feel I am a victim here as well. It seems that Americans must be connected in everyway possible to as to create no time where one is not aware of and receptive to information pertinent to ‘everyday’ life. I’m talking about cable, phones, cell phones, internet, and the like. The problem is not that we want to have our cake and eat it too; the problem is that we want to bake three cakes and eat them all. As I stated before, I don’t have cable. I gather entertainment via my low-band internet connection and broadcast channels. I don’t seem to b in want. As far as phones go, perhaps we should spend more time talking to people in person. Really, though, you shouldn’t need more than one phone line. I understand all of the safety advantages to having a cell phone, but why wouldn’t a prepaid cell phone do the trick? Or, if the need isn’t so urgent, how about two quarters to call someone who cares?

Cookies – I chose cookies here because it starts with a C, but really I’m talking about food. I read a great piece about eating for a month on $10.17 and both staving off hunger and malnutrition. It was a truly enlightening work. I thought the first tip on the page was very pointed: don’t eat out ever. Furthermore, I think about the amount of food that we purchase here and I start to think about how so much is of it either brand name foods I can get cheaper or junk that I shouldn’t eat anyway.

Conclusion
Overall, I will not be living on $12,000 this year, but I do think about cutting down on my spending more and more. It seems like everyone is in the same situation – if we only had a few more hundred dollars a month, then things would be perfect. But salaries eventually go up and things aren’t perfect. Rather than striving for more and more, I would be interested to see more people who strive for the most simple life they may achieve.

NFL doesn't like your church Superbowl party

NFL won't let church show game

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- The NFL has nixed a church's plans to use a wall projector to show the Colts-Bears Super Bowl game, saying it would violate copyright laws.

NFL officials spotted a promotion of Fall Creek Baptist Church's "Super Bowl Bash" on the church Web site last week and overnighted a letter to the pastor demanding the party be canceled, the church said.

Initially, the league objected to the church's plan to charge a fee to attend and that the church used the license-protected words "Super Bowl" in its promotions.

Pastor John D. Newland said he told the NFL his church would not charge anyone and that it would drop the use of the forbidden words.

But the NFL objected to the church's plans to use a projector to show the game, saying the law limits it to one TV no bigger than 55 inches.

The church will likely abandon its plans to host a Super Bowl party.

"We want to be supportive of our local team," Newland said. "For us to have all our congregation huddled around a TV that is big enough only for 10 or 12 people to watch just makes little sense."

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league's long-standing policy is to ban "mass out-of-home viewing" of the Super Bowl. An exception is made for sports bars and other businesses that show televised sports as a part of their everyday operations.

"We have contracts with our (TV) networks to provide free over-the-air television for people at home," Aiello said. "The network economics are based on television ratings and at-home viewing. Out-of-home viewing is not measured by Nielsen."

It is also the reason no mass viewings are planned in large arenas like the RCA Dome or Conseco Fieldhouse.

Newland said his church won't break the law.

"It just frustrates me that most of the places where crowds are going to gather to watch this game are going to be places that are filled with alcohol and other things that are inappropriate for children," Newland said. "We tried to provide an alternative to that and were shut down."

Other Indiana churches said they are deciding whether they should go through with their Super Bowl party plans, given the NFL's stance.

tyler, maybe we should reconsider that party...