Oh my God, no, I do not dress like my mother. She had no style. Well, maybe I don’t have any style, but it’s totally different than what she wore.

Since I do look like her I have to be careful to not cut my hair too short or my husband calls me by her name. That’s a big No No. She used to nag me about my hair, that I was too old to wear it so long (shoulder length) One time when I was getting a haircut she telephoned and my son told her where I was. Of course she made some comment when I called her back. After that, my son and husband had standing orders that if she ever called when I was at the hair salon they were not to divulge my wherabouts.

The left wing media has turned certain politicians into celebrities because that is all they are capable of being- a celebrity. No substance, no experience, no common sense, no patriotic American values. All of this overexposure could possibly be a good thing in that more citizens of voting age will realize that (perceived) good looks are not essential qualities to be the President, the Speaker of the House, a senator or whatever. We need statespeople (we used to call them statesmen) NOT politicians or celebrities. So put those faces on all the magazines, red rag newspapers and talk shows until we all want to puke. Too crass for some of you? Too bad. We don’t like Communism, Socialism, Marxism- whatever ism your guys are trying to force upon us- we don’t like it.  (sorry Vicki, I’m not going off on you, just commenting on your question)

Health care should be and is available to all Americans, whether the individual or the collective pays for it. Affordable health care should be the goal. Not health insurance for everyone- health care. We used to be able to afford to pay for a doctor visit and major medical insurance covered hospital with us paying a deductible. Now everyone thinks that medical insurance should cover everything, even routine visits and tests. Granted, there are more tests and screenings using techniques and machines that hadn’t been invented 40 years ago and that causes the costs to rise, but so does the addition of medical staff to wade through the reams and reams of insurance paperwork. Add in the different tiers of pricing for the different insurance companies, Medicare, welfare and cash patients and it’s just not fair or right. It’s also not fair or right that I choose to be responsibe and pay for medical insurance instead of using that money for vacations, savings or to buy more crap that I don’t really need. It’s about life decisions. And don’t tell me that there are people who just can’t afford medical insurance- i know that, I know it is expensive. I have to pay for my own medical insurance and care as well as that of people who can’t afford to. That’s called Medicare and welfare or whatever form of assistance you want to call it.

These are large issues that need to be dealt with and resolved in a way that is beneficial to America and American citizens. I also feel that there are many issues being discussed that are made more of than should be, as a distraction for the real issues- the eroding of our Constitutional rights. The Constitution provides for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, none of which could be achieved if you don’t have good health but does the Constitution provide for health "insurance" for all?

I plan, research, book B&B’s and have lots of options for what we are going to see, attend or do, plus have a list of restaurant options. As a family we always agreed where the vacation would be, and if there was anything my husband or son really wanted to see or do. I always try to find interesting, educational as well as fun stuff. So while it seems like it’s a deadline-type itinerary there is a lot of flexibility. My son told me recently that while some of the things I choose seemed lame, he did always enjoy himself. My husband has no complaints because if it was up to him vacation day would arrive and he’d get in the car and drive whatever direction the car was headed. I used to promise them that one time, one time, we’d get in the car with no room reservations and just drive and take potluck with motels, but I haven’t had the courage to do that yet.

My husband recently flew to NYC to drive my sister out to Arizona to live. No problem, drive as far as you can, then get a room and sleep, then drive some more. Except for the 75 lb dog that was included.  Since I’m now fairly efficient on planning trips on the Internet, I found a good route, researched all the dog-friendly motels and mapped them all out since I didn’t know exactly what time they would be leaving NYC and how far they would get each day. The trip was successful, except if you are traveling with a smoker and a large dog in motels with no pet deposit, near the Interstate, the available rooms are far away from the wireless computer source so internent service is non-existent.

Cash for Clunkers is just another re-distribution of wealth program, but it actually gives tax dollars to people who can afford to buy a new car, or at least they think they can afford to buy a new car at this point. The cutoff date of only cars from 1984 forward was set by a classic car group- they didn’t want the program because of the amount of cars that were going to be destroyed- some potentially classic in the future in someone’s eye (think of the Edsel). Today’s clunker is a classic in several years. With these cars being destroyed, there will be less affordable used cars, less cars for parts in junk yards, smaller market for parts for the remaining used cars on the road. The cars that are turned in are supposed to be crushed- correct? Even though there are usable parts on them. That seems to me to be wasteful. I won’t even go into the aspect of the pollution created by destroying usable cars and manufacturing new ones. Will the efficiency of the new cars make up for the destruction of still usable cars?

So a program that appears on it’s face to be a good thing is redistribution of taxpayer’s money to benefit a certain class, in this instance the same people who actually paid the taxes.  That’s good, we finally get something. But the flip side of that is that the value of the cars bought now will have a lower resale value becuase of the rebates being given.The future beneficiaries of this program will be the car collectors who can afford to pay the higher prices for the smaller pool of classic cars.

And the poor people that this administration cares so much about- how do they benefit? They can’t afford a new car, yet the price of the remaining used cars will go up. Oh, they can wait a few years and pay the reduced resale price of the curent new cars.

The other losers are the American taxpayers- just add the billions of the cost of this program to the debt and worry about it tomorrow. 

I’m tall and have big feet. A building needs a good foundation.

There’s a really tall man in my building and I always comment in the elevator- "Hey, it’s Tall Man" to which he always replies " and handsome, don’t forget handsome"

The article was rather mean-spirited as many have pointed out. I heard about Annie’s financial problems on NPR and thought it was a series of personal losses and then bad luck with real estate. Rather shocking to think she can loose the rights to all her photos.

As for artists not having financial sense- I don’t agree with that. I worked with a man who was sales manager for a title insurance company and. He was a part time painter, focused on military subjects. He painted Chesty Puller, the last Spanish American War general still alive (at that time). He decided to paint full time, and it was a major decision to leave the title company, as he had a family to support..

I know another painter who is a full time artist since she retired from a big company- IBM or 3M. Financially savvy but artistic also. Does great Day of the Dead paintings.

There are probably a lot of artists that can only pursue their art part time because of the need for a steady income job.