Best Beyblade Ever - Austerity

Best Beyblade Ever Amazon Product, Find and Compare Prices Online.
I don't know about you, but I'm all race-baited out. And to top it all off, the Mega Millions people decided that my numbers were not good enough for them. That is okay, I didn't want their stupid $640 million dollars anyway. It would have just complicated my tax return. Okay, I lie. I would love to win the lottery and just the possibility sends my fancy into flight. What would I do with all that money? Would I buy a fancy car, a Park Avenue penthouse, set up my own SuperPAC? So, let your fancy take flight...

Question: If money were not object, what is the first thing you'd do once the bills were paid, the loans paid off, and the family secure?
I don't know about you, but I'm all race-baited out. And to top it all off, the Mega Millions people decided that my numbers were not good enough for them. That is okay, I didn't want their stupid $640 million dollars anyway. It would have just complicated my tax return. Okay, I lie. I would love to win the lottery and just the possibility sends my fancy into flight. What would I do with all that money? Would I buy a fancy car, a Park Avenue penthouse, set up my own SuperPAC? So, let your fancy take flight...

Question: If money were not object, what is the first thing you'd do once the bills were paid, the loans paid off, and the family secure?
Question: What Would You Do?
For more than 125 years, organizations have been trying to figure out ways to help the homeless. Innovative projects, first started by The Salvation Army in the 19th Century, have included "homeless" newspapers to give the chronically homeless a way to collect money with dignity and, in turn, to publicize the plight of the poor and homeless. In 1989, one such newspaper "The Street News" began operation in New York City.

The way Street News works is that they publish and sell daily tabloid-style newspapers to homeless individuals for a small up front fee. Then the homeless people sell the papers on the street or subways for the retail price and get to keep the profits. Therefore, rather than panhandle, they have a job selling newspapers and people were much more willing to buy rather than just hand out spare change for nothing in return. Even better, many of the articles are written by the poor and homeless who sell the paper which helps give a voice and face to their plight. However with the recent proliferation of free daily newspapers readily available at every street corner in New York City and the ever increasing rise of digital papers, the "homeless" papers and street sellers have lost their cachet.

Seeing a looming need to replace these newspapers with the next new innovation, an Austin, Texas-based homeless advocacy group Front Steps partnered with a New York City-based advertising firm Bartle, Bogle and Hegarty, to create "Homeless Hotspots". The new idea was to give homeless people mobile hotspot units and tee-shirts like the one in the photo. They could roam the parks and public areas and offer wireless network connections to tourists and anyone in need of an internet connection for a small fee. So with hardware in hand, the first 13 "homeless hotspots" were introduced at the South By Southwest Festival in Austin in March. If the idea proved successful, they would next be rolled out in New York City.

Well, as you can imagine, everyone across the nation weighed in including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Huffington Post, and the overwhelming opinion was negative. One woman was horrified that human beings would be degraded to the function of mere wireless network access points. As a matter of fact, about the only people who thought it was a great idea were the first 13 homeless "hotspot" men. They thought it was great. Clarence, the man in the photo above who considers himself "houseless" rather than "homeless" said it gave him a chance to interact with many different people and the chance to make an honest living at a real job.

Frankly, I was one of those who, when I first read about this, I thought it was a terrible idea. But after I thought about it awhile and read more about it, I changed my opinion. For the record, Homeless hot spot idea* has been discontinued, but what do you think?

Question: Do you think this is innovative or exploitative?

*You can read a brief biography of each of these thirteen men on this link.
For more than 125 years, organizations have been trying to figure out ways to help the homeless. Innovative projects, first started by The Salvation Army in the 19th Century, have included "homeless" newspapers to give the chronically homeless a way to collect money with dignity and, in turn, to publicize the plight of the poor and homeless. In 1989, one such newspaper "The Street News" began operation in New York City.

The way Street News works is that they publish and sell daily tabloid-style newspapers to homeless individuals for a small up front fee. Then the homeless people sell the papers on the street or subways for the retail price and get to keep the profits. Therefore, rather than panhandle, they have a job selling newspapers and people were much more willing to buy rather than just hand out spare change for nothing in return. Even better, many of the articles are written by the poor and homeless who sell the paper which helps give a voice and face to their plight. However with the recent proliferation of free daily newspapers readily available at every street corner in New York City and the ever increasing rise of digital papers, the "homeless" papers and street sellers have lost their cachet.

Seeing a looming need to replace these newspapers with the next new innovation, an Austin, Texas-based homeless advocacy group Front Steps partnered with a New York City-based advertising firm Bartle, Bogle and Hegarty, to create "Homeless Hotspots". The new idea was to give homeless people mobile hotspot units and tee-shirts like the one in the photo. They could roam the parks and public areas and offer wireless network connections to tourists and anyone in need of an internet connection for a small fee. So with hardware in hand, the first 13 "homeless hotspots" were introduced at the South By Southwest Festival in Austin in March. If the idea proved successful, they would next be rolled out in New York City.

Well, as you can imagine, everyone across the nation weighed in including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Huffington Post, and the overwhelming opinion was negative. One woman was horrified that human beings would be degraded to the function of mere wireless network access points. As a matter of fact, about the only people who thought it was a great idea were the first 13 homeless "hotspot" men. They thought it was great. Clarence, the man in the photo above who considers himself "houseless" rather than "homeless" said it gave him a chance to interact with many different people and the chance to make an honest living at a real job.

Frankly, I was one of those who, when I first read about this, I thought it was a terrible idea. But after I thought about it awhile and read more about it, I changed my opinion. For the record, Homeless hot spot idea* has been discontinued, but what do you think?

Question: Do you think this is innovative or exploitative?

*You can read a brief biography of each of these thirteen men on this link.
Question: Innovative or Exploitative?
Tick, tick, tick...
As we all know, the world is scheduled to end on December 23, 2012. Well, that's according the people who think that the Mayans knew something that we do not know. Personally, I think the stone carver just got tired of carving in a circle, so he decided to just stop. The Mayans probably had it on their "to-do" list, but the Spanish Conquistadors got in the way and they just never got back to it. Or not. [Cue: scary, foreboding music...]

So, just for fun, and on the off chance that the Mayans might be right and the world will be ending on December 23, 2012 at precisely 4:44am, are you making plans?

For me, I am still on the fence about sending out Christmas cards. I mean, what would be the point really?


FYI: Broadway calls to me this afternoon, so I will be late in responding. Have fun!
Tick, tick, tick...
As we all know, the world is scheduled to end on December 23, 2012. Well, that's according the people who think that the Mayans knew something that we do not know. Personally, I think the stone carver just got tired of carving in a circle, so he decided to just stop. The Mayans probably had it on their "to-do" list, but the Spanish Conquistadors got in the way and they just never got back to it. Or not. [Cue: scary, foreboding music...]

So, just for fun, and on the off chance that the Mayans might be right and the world will be ending on December 23, 2012 at precisely 4:44am, are you making plans?

For me, I am still on the fence about sending out Christmas cards. I mean, what would be the point really?


FYI: Broadway calls to me this afternoon, so I will be late in responding. Have fun!
Question: If The World does end on December 23, 2012...
In honor of President’s day, let’s do a discussion question. America has been around for quite some time now. Some of our history is good, some has been bad. We’ve shined and we’ve stumbled (** cough cough Carter years **). What do you think were America’s five greatest moments and our five worst moments? And why? Also, be specific, don’t just tell me “the election of Obama.”
In honor of President’s day, let’s do a discussion question. America has been around for quite some time now. Some of our history is good, some has been bad. We’ve shined and we’ve stumbled (** cough cough Carter years **). What do you think were America’s five greatest moments and our five worst moments? And why? Also, be specific, don’t just tell me “the election of Obama.”
Question: Greatest and Worst American Moments
There have been forty-four of them since April 30, 1789. I think you know who I am talking about. That's right, we have had forty-four Presidents of the United States of America. (Okay, we have had 43 Presidents and one Dictator-wannabe. Yes, I went there!) Here are some other fun facts about our Presidents:

1. Fourteen served as Vice-President before taking the top spot. Eight of them were elevated because the President died in office, and five were directly elected to the highest office. Only one, Gerald Ford, became President after a resignation. He is also our only sitting President who was not elected either Vice-President or President.

2. Twenty have been Governors. Though three of them, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Jackson, and William Taft, were not Governors of a State, but of US Territories. Jackson was the Military Governor of the Florida Territory. Harrison was Governor of the Louisiana District, Northwest Territory, and Indiana Territory. Taft was Governor General of the Philipines.

3. Speaking of William Howard Taft. He was our only President to serve in the judicial branch of our government. Taft was appointed by Benjamin Harrison to serve on the US Court of Appeals before he was President and was appointed by Warren G. Harding to the Supreme Court after his term as President. This also makes him our only former President to serve in an official federal position after his Presidential term.

4. Only three had no prior political experience. They were all former Army Generals - Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Okay, you can count Obama, but that would be just a cheap shot, right?)

5. William Henry Harrison served the least amount of time. His administration lasted all of 30 days - from March 4, 1841 to April 4, 1841. He died following his other claim to fame - the longest inaugural address in US history. He caught pneumonia while he spoke on his cold and rainy inaugural day because he refused to wear a hat or overcoat.

6. Franklin Roosevelt served the longest with 12 years and three full terms. He died shortly after his inauguration to his fourth term in 1944.

7. There have been dynasties too and not one of them named Kennedy. Two fathers and sons (the Bushes and the Adamses), one grandfather and grandson (the Harrisons), and two sets of cousins (Madison/Jackson and the Roosevelts). However, Franklin Roosevelt has the distinction of being related by either blood or marriage to more US Presidents than any other - eleven in all - John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ulysses Grant, William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison, James Madison, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Zachary Taylor, Martin Van Buren, and George Washington. Maybe that is why he served so long!

So now that you may know a little more our Presidents, who is your favorite?

My personal favorite will always be William Henry Harrison. With only 30 days in office, he had not time to do anything wrong!
There have been forty-four of them since April 30, 1789. I think you know who I am talking about. That's right, we have had forty-four Presidents of the United States of America. (Okay, we have had 43 Presidents and one Dictator-wannabe. Yes, I went there!) Here are some other fun facts about our Presidents:

1. Fourteen served as Vice-President before taking the top spot. Eight of them were elevated because the President died in office, and five were directly elected to the highest office. Only one, Gerald Ford, became President after a resignation. He is also our only sitting President who was not elected either Vice-President or President.

2. Twenty have been Governors. Though three of them, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Jackson, and William Taft, were not Governors of a State, but of US Territories. Jackson was the Military Governor of the Florida Territory. Harrison was Governor of the Louisiana District, Northwest Territory, and Indiana Territory. Taft was Governor General of the Philipines.

3. Speaking of William Howard Taft. He was our only President to serve in the judicial branch of our government. Taft was appointed by Benjamin Harrison to serve on the US Court of Appeals before he was President and was appointed by Warren G. Harding to the Supreme Court after his term as President. This also makes him our only former President to serve in an official federal position after his Presidential term.

4. Only three had no prior political experience. They were all former Army Generals - Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Okay, you can count Obama, but that would be just a cheap shot, right?)

5. William Henry Harrison served the least amount of time. His administration lasted all of 30 days - from March 4, 1841 to April 4, 1841. He died following his other claim to fame - the longest inaugural address in US history. He caught pneumonia while he spoke on his cold and rainy inaugural day because he refused to wear a hat or overcoat.

6. Franklin Roosevelt served the longest with 12 years and three full terms. He died shortly after his inauguration to his fourth term in 1944.

7. There have been dynasties too and not one of them named Kennedy. Two fathers and sons (the Bushes and the Adamses), one grandfather and grandson (the Harrisons), and two sets of cousins (Madison/Jackson and the Roosevelts). However, Franklin Roosevelt has the distinction of being related by either blood or marriage to more US Presidents than any other - eleven in all - John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ulysses Grant, William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison, James Madison, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Zachary Taylor, Martin Van Buren, and George Washington. Maybe that is why he served so long!

So now that you may know a little more our Presidents, who is your favorite?

My personal favorite will always be William Henry Harrison. With only 30 days in office, he had not time to do anything wrong!
Question: Presidents Day Special
I hear much about how ignorant, stupid, and other not so nice things that Conservatives are because we only get our "news" from the evil and reviled Fox News organizations or "Faux News" as they are called on liberal-leaning websites. I mean, "they" did a study in an honest-to-goodness university of higher learning, then "they" took a poll! So we must believe "them" when they say Conservatives are ignorant and ill-informed, right? "They" wouldn't lie to us, would they?

Since we at Commentarama are well above-average in intelligence and certainly well-informed, where DO we get our information? Judging from these studies and polls, either we are not true Conservatives or we are just poor, deluded fools who THINK we are intelligent?

Question: What sources do you use to get news and other information?
I hear much about how ignorant, stupid, and other not so nice things that Conservatives are because we only get our "news" from the evil and reviled Fox News organizations or "Faux News" as they are called on liberal-leaning websites. I mean, "they" did a study in an honest-to-goodness university of higher learning, then "they" took a poll! So we must believe "them" when they say Conservatives are ignorant and ill-informed, right? "They" wouldn't lie to us, would they?

Since we at Commentarama are well above-average in intelligence and certainly well-informed, where DO we get our information? Judging from these studies and polls, either we are not true Conservatives or we are just poor, deluded fools who THINK we are intelligent?

Question: What sources do you use to get news and other information?
Question: What Sources Do You Use?
It is no secret that I spend a fair amount of time at the Huffington Post website deep in discussion with those with whom I politely describe as believing "differently". One of the topics that keeps coming up over and over is the First Amendment battle being wages between Christianity and Atheism. The premise is always that Christians (those who believe in superstitions and "creation myths") or "Believers" are always trying to force their beliefs on the Atheists (those who do not believe in superstitions or "creation myths") or "Non-Believers".

Lately the discussions have revolved around a Rhode Island high schooler, the Atheist in this story, who was distraught at being force to have gaze upon a banner containing a prayer that was hanging in the cafeteria of her public high school**. It upset her so much that she had to sue the school system to have it removed. Of course, we all know that this case is based on the First Amendment argument of separation of church and state. But, as is becoming more common today, the argument is being distorted to include a much broader interpretation of separation of all perceived religious beliefs or religious references from any state-funded institution.

These kinds of cases always baffle me, because I see this young woman imposing her religious belief on others too. So I need your help in defining exactly what "religion" is exactly:

Discussion: Using the same broad interpretation, if one defines "religion" as a system of strongly-held beliefs, should Atheism be considered a religion too?


**FYI - Did I mention that this banner has been hanging in the cafeteria of her high school without incident since 1963?
It is no secret that I spend a fair amount of time at the Huffington Post website deep in discussion with those with whom I politely describe as believing "differently". One of the topics that keeps coming up over and over is the First Amendment battle being wages between Christianity and Atheism. The premise is always that Christians (those who believe in superstitions and "creation myths") or "Believers" are always trying to force their beliefs on the Atheists (those who do not believe in superstitions or "creation myths") or "Non-Believers".

Lately the discussions have revolved around a Rhode Island high schooler, the Atheist in this story, who was distraught at being force to have gaze upon a banner containing a prayer that was hanging in the cafeteria of her public high school**. It upset her so much that she had to sue the school system to have it removed. Of course, we all know that this case is based on the First Amendment argument of separation of church and state. But, as is becoming more common today, the argument is being distorted to include a much broader interpretation of separation of all perceived religious beliefs or religious references from any state-funded institution.

These kinds of cases always baffle me, because I see this young woman imposing her religious belief on others too. So I need your help in defining exactly what "religion" is exactly:

Discussion: Using the same broad interpretation, if one defines "religion" as a system of strongly-held beliefs, should Atheism be considered a religion too?


**FYI - Did I mention that this banner has been hanging in the cafeteria of her high school without incident since 1963?
Question: Is Atheism a Religion?
Smoke signals, messenger on foot or horseback, telegraph, telephone, telex, facsimile machines, internet, cellphone, wireless internet, and smartphones. Did I leave anything out? Since 1837, we humans have been on the fast track in developing newer and faster ways to communicate over long distances. For thousands of years, we communicated between villages, towns, and continents in a matter of months, sometimes years. Families would learn about births, deaths, marriages, and world events only when someone happened through a village or town entrusted with information that may or may not ever reach the recipient.

Most information was exchanged verbally because mostly people did not know how to read or write. As more and more people learned to read and write, faster and more organized ways of exchanging information over long distances developed. With the discovery of electricity, we were off to the races. Expansion of the railroad and the accompanying telegraph brought communication between towns from months or years to weeks or days.

Then came the telephone. Suddenly, we could communicate in a matter of hours or minutes. Within a matter of 50 years, we have graduated to the internet, email, cellphones, wireless/mobile internet and smartphones. With all of this we have gone from communicating in minutes to mere seconds.

With each successive upgrade, it is hard to remember how we ever lived with only smoke signals. But, are we better off? Now that we can carry handheld instant communication devices in which we can share all of the most intimate details of our daily lives as they are happening to anyone in the world, do we communicate better or just faster? What do you think?
Smoke signals, messenger on foot or horseback, telegraph, telephone, telex, facsimile machines, internet, cellphone, wireless internet, and smartphones. Did I leave anything out? Since 1837, we humans have been on the fast track in developing newer and faster ways to communicate over long distances. For thousands of years, we communicated between villages, towns, and continents in a matter of months, sometimes years. Families would learn about births, deaths, marriages, and world events only when someone happened through a village or town entrusted with information that may or may not ever reach the recipient.

Most information was exchanged verbally because mostly people did not know how to read or write. As more and more people learned to read and write, faster and more organized ways of exchanging information over long distances developed. With the discovery of electricity, we were off to the races. Expansion of the railroad and the accompanying telegraph brought communication between towns from months or years to weeks or days.

Then came the telephone. Suddenly, we could communicate in a matter of hours or minutes. Within a matter of 50 years, we have graduated to the internet, email, cellphones, wireless/mobile internet and smartphones. With all of this we have gone from communicating in minutes to mere seconds.

With each successive upgrade, it is hard to remember how we ever lived with only smoke signals. But, are we better off? Now that we can carry handheld instant communication devices in which we can share all of the most intimate details of our daily lives as they are happening to anyone in the world, do we communicate better or just faster? What do you think?
How Did We Ever Live Without...
Since it is cold and a bit dreary today, I thought it would be fun to harken back to those early days of Yester-Commentarama when words were cheap and plentiful. So much has changed since then, but maybe your taste in verbiage has not. Here's a simple question to occupy your late afternoon that shouldn't be too taxing. So relax, clear your mind and...


Question: What is your favorite word or phrase?*

*Choose your word or phrase carefully because there just may be a "Part II" to this question for a later date.
Since it is cold and a bit dreary today, I thought it would be fun to harken back to those early days of Yester-Commentarama when words were cheap and plentiful. So much has changed since then, but maybe your taste in verbiage has not. Here's a simple question to occupy your late afternoon that shouldn't be too taxing. So relax, clear your mind and...


Question: What is your favorite word or phrase?*

*Choose your word or phrase carefully because there just may be a "Part II" to this question for a later date.
Question: What is your favorite word?
Congress has once again proved that they just cannot be trusted. It seems that our esteemed elected officials have been making a killing in the stock market! At the same time many members of Congress have been railing against the Evil Wall Street Robber Barons and "Banksters", they have used pending legislation and lobbyist insider information to make a killing on Wall Street. If only they used pending legislation to balance the budget or help create a healthy climate for job growth. It is getting tiresome to know that what would land private citizens hefty fines and jail time, leads only to rebukes and hand slaps for our elected officials by our elected officials.

When did our government officials stop living by the same laws, regulations, and rules that they foist on us? Probably since the beginning of time, but now is the time to stop. We, the People of Commentarama need a manifesto of regulations and rules for our unruly representatives that we must insist that they follow like the rest of us. So put your thinking caps on.

Discussion: What laws, regulation, and/or rules do our Government officials egregiously flout at the same time they insist that We The People must follow or face the full force of the law?
Congress has once again proved that they just cannot be trusted. It seems that our esteemed elected officials have been making a killing in the stock market! At the same time many members of Congress have been railing against the Evil Wall Street Robber Barons and "Banksters", they have used pending legislation and lobbyist insider information to make a killing on Wall Street. If only they used pending legislation to balance the budget or help create a healthy climate for job growth. It is getting tiresome to know that what would land private citizens hefty fines and jail time, leads only to rebukes and hand slaps for our elected officials by our elected officials.

When did our government officials stop living by the same laws, regulations, and rules that they foist on us? Probably since the beginning of time, but now is the time to stop. We, the People of Commentarama need a manifesto of regulations and rules for our unruly representatives that we must insist that they follow like the rest of us. So put your thinking caps on.

Discussion: What laws, regulation, and/or rules do our Government officials egregiously flout at the same time they insist that We The People must follow or face the full force of the law?
Discussion: Regulations and Rules for Unruly Representatives

It's a slow news day in New York. Now that the #Occupiers are settling in for their second month, let's talk about something else for awhile...

Question: If Commentarama was hosting one of the thirteen remaining Republican Presidential Candidates' debates, what would you ask?

It's a slow news day in New York. Now that the #Occupiers are settling in for their second month, let's talk about something else for awhile...

Question: If Commentarama was hosting one of the thirteen remaining Republican Presidential Candidates' debates, what would you ask?
Question: What would you ask?