Taking This Medication Could Cause....

I like to listen to the disclaimers during drug advertisements on TV to hear the risks of taking a particular medication.  Most will go through a line of various ailments or conditions that can be brought on by taking the medication.  I particularly like the ones that say “Some deaths have been associated with taking this medication.”  That really instills confidence in the person who may be interested in taking it, right?

Last night I heard one that caught my attention.  I can’t remember which drug it is but the disclaimer is “If you experience mood changes, rage, depression or suicidal thoughts while taking or after stopping this medication consult your doctor.”  Great.  Not only can you experience these symptoms while taking the medication but you can also experience them after you stop taking it.  Maybe they should say “If you take this medication there is a chance you could experience side effects that last for the rest of your life.”

Several years ago companies were making diet pills and fat burners and various other weight loss supplements designed to block fat from foods from being absorbed into your body.  These were the ones that said you could “eat anything you want and still lose weight.”  I remember one of the disclaimers that said “This product may cause gas with oily discharge.”  In other words, this could cause you to fart and mess up your pants.  But you’ll lose weight.  Now who wouldn’t want to take that pill??!

I’m not sure what caused drug companies to start putting disclaimers in their commercials but I’m guessing it has something to do with a lawsuit.  Every day you see more and more advertisements from attorneys’ offices saying “If you take (or took) this drug you may be eligible for damages.”  One law firm’s number is 1-800-BAD-DRUG.  They make their entire business about suing drug companies.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not an advocate for pharmaceutical companies.  I think what they charge for some medications is outrageous.  They are, however, in business not to be the saviors of all the sick people in the world but to make money.  Saving sick people is a lucrative business and I don’t begrudge them their profits.  Let’s not forget that a large portion of those profits goes to research that has brought us more cancer fighting, AIDS fighting, leukemia fighting drugs, etc. 

Anyway – I got off track.  Just about every product advertised on TV these days has some type of disclaimer attached to it.  Exercise equipment tells you not to begin using their product without approval from your doctor.  Why?  They don’t want to get sued if you have a heart attack while using their equipment.  But hey – at least it doesn’t say you could have a heart attack while using or after stopping use of their product!  Of course, once they get sued after someone has a heart attack AFTER they walk half an hour on the treadmill that will happen.

I won’t even mention the “tags for stupid people” they now put on small appliances and electronic devices.  You know – the one on your hair dryer that says “Do not immerse in water.”  Those tags are a subject for another day.

The Presidential Luncheon That Really Wasn't....

Last night I watched a report about President Obama’s food taster.  That’s correct – his food taster. Apparently, Senator Susan Collins, (R), of Maine, hosted a hill luncheon for President Obama but the President didn’t eat anything.  Collins spoke of it later:

“University of Maine recipe for healthy lobster salad — I pointed that out to the president in keeping with the first lady’s initiatives, and Fox Family Potato Chips made in Aroostook County where I’m from, and wild blueberry pie full of anti-oxidants.  See this was a healthy lunch as well. We did have a little ice cream on the pie too, also made in Maine, Gifford’s Ice Cream.  So in all seriousness this was well received,” Collins told reporters on Thursday after the meeting at the Capitol.

“Unfortunately, you know, the president can’t,” said Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting.
  

“He looked longingly at it,” Collins continued. “He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over so…  But he did look longingly at it and he remarked that we have far better food than the Democrats do.  And I said that was because I was hosting.”

Really?  The President has a food taster?  Is this something that all U.S. Presidents do or just him?  An article I read about it says the Secret Service will not confirm or deny that the President of the United States has a food taster.  If it’s something they all do then hey – who am I to question it?  If it’s something unique to this President then I would wonder why he thinks it’s necessary.  Especially for food served to all of the Senators.

The President ate at the luncheon served after his inauguration.  It was on national television.  And that meal was also served in the Capitol building.  So what was the difference between this luncheon and that one?  Was it because it was hosted by a Republican, perhaps?  Or did the taster take care of his duties while the President was giving his inaugural address?  Why wasn’t he there for this one?  Is he a furlough victim of the sequester, maybe?

I have other questions as well.  First…  how long do you have to wait after someone tastes your food to be sure it’s safe?  A few minutes?  An hour?  A couple of days?  Poison only works immediately in the movies.  OK – I could be wrong about that.  I guess there could be something out there that is instantaneous.  So how long does he have to wait?

Second…  and equally important – is this job a Presidential appointment, a General Schedule job or what?  What does it pay?  Does the taster get hazardous duty pay on top of his salary?  Or would it simply be the luck of the draw for some unlucky Secret Service agent?  I can hear him telling his wife….  “Baby – for the next three months my life will truly be in danger.  I’ve got Food Taster duties this quarter.” 

I don’t really begrudge President Obama having a food taster, if this story is true.  God knows there are enough people in this world who would want to harm him or see him harmed.  I am not one of those.  I believe the repercussions from someone hurting or killing the President would be devastating to the country.  So even though I disagree with him politically on just about everything, I don’t want anyone to do anything to him. 

Again, I can’t help but wonder if all Presidents have had food tasters.  I’ve never read or heard anything about it and you’d think it would come out sooner or later.  Maybe it just did.  And maybe Mel Brooks was wrong.  When you have to pass up fresh Maine lobster salad - maybe it's not so good to be the king.

Question Dianne Feinstein? How Dare You!

A couple of days ago, during one of her anti-gun hearings, Dianne Feinstein got angry at freshman Senator Ted Cruz for questioning her using factual information from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Senator Cruz asked her if the second amendment could be regulated to allow some guns but not all, could the first and fourth amendment also be modified according to the will of Congress.  Senator Cruz was not disrespectful, nor did he belittle Senator Feinstein in any way.  His questions were as follows:

“The question that I would pose to the senior Senator from California is:  Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

“Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”

Senator Feinstein took immediate offense to Cruz’s questions and made herself look petty.  Rather than answer the questions posed, she became condescending and arrogant, trying to treat Senator Cruz like a young school boy.  Because of her age and experience in politics she apparently believes she is above questioning.  It appeared that since she did not have an intelligent answer to Senator Cruz’s questions she attacked him.

“I’m not a sixth grader,” said responded. “Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons.”

“I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it.  This doesn’t mean weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here.”

“And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it.  Just know I’ve been here for a long time.  I’ve passed on a number of bills.  I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture,” she added.

Feinstein later was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer and said Cruz was patronizing and arrogant toward her – something I certainly didn’t see.  I’m sure it bothered a woman of her stature to be directly questioned by a freshman Senator, even if that freshman Senator happens to be an accomplished attorney who has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and knows the law very well. 

Of course, liberals think Feinstein’s answer was not only a good one but that she put Cruz in his place.  Unfortunately for them, Senator Feinstein knew she was wrong and apologized later to Cruz, saying he had gotten her dander up. 

Feinstein reminded me of John McCain and Lindsey Graham ranting about Rand Paul’s filibuster over the drone program.  McCain, another dinosaur in the Senate, chastised the freshman Senator in a statement that clearly said “You don’t have enough time here to be doing something like that, kid.  Leave that to those of us with more experience.”

I would offer this warning to some of the old dinosaurs in both houses.  There are new, young, intelligent and knowledgeable conservatives up and coming in the Republican Party.  They are not afraid or intimidated by you.  They’ve done their homework and they know how to connect with the American people.  And they were elected to turn the Republican party around and get it back on track with conservative values and principles.  So rather than criticize them, my advice would be to pay attention and join them.  Otherwise some of you dinosaurs might become extinct in Washington.  Just sayin’…

Who Is More Important - The Kids Or The Pedophile?

I have watched with interest the campaign in which Bill O’Reilly is engaged to get “Jessica’s Law” passed, in some form, in all 50 states.  Jessica’s Law, named after little Jessica Lunsford, who was abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered in Florida by John Couey, a previously convicted sex offender, is designed to give mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years to people who sexually assault children.  Sexual assault and murder of children is one of the most vile and disgusting crimes committed in the United States and I fully support the law, as does O’Reilly.  

Recently, the focus has been on the state of Colorado.  The bill has been introduced but the House Speaker, Mark Ferrandino, has refused to allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote.  For whatever reason, Mr. Ferrandino has decided Colorado doesn’t need stiffer penalties for these types of crimes, even though they have a long record of being very lenient, i.e., giving someone a two year sentence for raping a child.  Even without knowing all the circumstances, that’s a pretty pathetic sentence for someone convicted of child rape.

O’Reilly was attacked recently by an editor of the Denver Post for describing Ferrandino as an openly gay man who supports gay marriage and supported legalizing marijuana.  O’Reilly says he was merely describing Ferrandino the way other articles describe him and was alluding to the fact that Ferrandino’s priorities seem to be a bit skewed given the fact that Jessica’s law is about protecting children.  In an op-ed by Curtis Hubbard, the editorial director of the Post, O’Reilly was judged to be a bigot and accused of using code words to call Ferrandino a perverted pedophile.  The accusation was ridiculous but that’s not the point of my post.

I mention this article because when O’Reilly asked Hubbard his opinion about Jessica’s law, Mr. Hubbard replied that Colorado has a very unique sentence of “lifetime probation”.  He said that was in addition to the prison sentence.  I thought about that for a few minutes.  Lifetime probation – after doing a couple of years for sexually assaulting a child (or even an adult, who knows?)  You can bet that a pedophile will be afraid to assault another child because he’s on probation for life.  Right?  It’s got to make sexual assault victims feel really safe to know that they guy who raped them is on the street but on probation.  Yup.

Child rapists in Colorado seem to be getting an average of three to seven years.  And Mark Ferrandino says the laws in Colorado are sufficient and that child sexual predators are treated appropriately.  Sorry, but I must disagree.

I would like to see Colorado pass some sort of legislation that gives much stiffer sentences to people who prey on children.  It’s a topic that should have easily been more important than legalizing marijuana or same-sex marriage.  If Colorado wants to deal with those issues (the marijuana issue already being settled) that’s OK.  They’re entitled to do that in their state.  But when things like that take precedence over protecting the children of Colorado there’s a problem.  Democrats are always screaming “It’s for the children…!”  But not in this case, it seems.

"Republicans Want Dirty Air and Dirty Water and Hate The Elderly And Disabled Children" Blah, Blah, Blah...

On March 12, 2013, in an interview with George Stephanopouulos, President Obama reacted to Paul Ryan’s proposed budget, not in a surprising way.  The President said Ryan’s budget would “be on the backs of the poor, the elderly and families with disabled children.”  Really, Mr. President?  Is that the best you can do - the same old rhetoric?

Frankly, I’m disgusted with President Obama these days.  I've never been a big fan of his politics - that's no secret.  But as his poll numbers once again fall he is again resorting to petty attacks on Republicans and can’t even remain professional and honest in his rhetoric against those who oppose him.  His supporters should be ashamed of him. Ryan’s budget was the best thing we’ve seen out of Washington in years.  And Obama knows absolutely nothing about budgets and running a country – even with 4 years experience.

President Obama has been using his attack tactics against the Republicans for almost a year now.  Sadly, most of the things he has said are smears, outright lies and Democrat talking points that have no substance.  He has stated more than once that “Republicans want dirty air and dirty water” and that they force people to choose “between poor kids and disabled kids.”  All of these talking points are lies and beneath the integrity of the office of the President.  But President Obama really doesn’t care about the dignity of the office except for the large expense account and travel benefits of that office.  I truly believe that Obama lives by the quotation from Mel Brooks’ “It’s good to be the king”, from “History of the World, Part 1.”  I keep waiting for him to call out “Oh, Piss Boy…”  He’s a Chicago political thug who made it big.  And it shows.

I would have some respect for President Obama if he showed any concern for the American people.  But honestly, the only concern I’ve seen from him is for himself and his re-election – even now, when he’s not eligible for re-election.  He’s still in campaign mode – worried about his popularity numbers.  Instead of digging in and working to fix the problems in the USA, many of them caused by him, he works to raise and/or maintain his popularity and blames every bad thing in the country on someone else.  It’s shameful.

Many of his followers continue to echo Obama’s statements, blaming the Republicans, and even George W. Bush for our current problems – even though Obama is in his fifth year in office.  When is this man ever going to take responsibility for anything except Obamacare and Bin Laden’s death?  He won’t even take responsibility for his inaction in the Benghazi fiasco.  People died and Obama lied.

They say that “only children” learn early to blame other people for things because they don’t have brothers and sisters that can take suspicion away from them if they do something wrong.  President Obama exemplifies that and maybe that’s a part of it that he can’t help.  He lies to the American people on a regular basis – saying one thing one day then denying he ever said it the next.  And even with video evidence, those who worship him will echo his words, regardless of how dishonest they are.  It’s quite an amazing phenomenon.

It appears the Democrats might actually propose a budget this year, as required by law.  The President says he will propose one but yesterday he postponed that until April.  (The last time he proposed a budget it was rejected by his own party.)  The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in the first four years of Obama’s presidency but maybe this year will be different.  I’m thinking they are getting tired of being attacked for it because it makes them look bad.  Then again, Harry Reid doesn’t much care how he looks.  He certainly didn’t care how foolish he looked when he got on national television and stated, matter of factly, that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid any taxes in ten years.  It seems Harry has no scruples or sense of honesty.  He’s perfect for this administration. 

The other day Nancy Pelosi went on television and said that President Obama has been the most bipartisan President in history.  Really?  That same President who says Republicans want dirty air and water, want old people to die and want to cut any and all benefits for poor and disabled children is the most bipartisan President in history?  Whatever Nancy’s smoking….  I want no part of.  It makes you stupid.

I hope in the next year more and more people wake up and smell what Obama has been cooking.  We need a Republican sweep of the elections in 2014 to set up a Republican win in 2016.  It’s the only chance we have to avoid a complete fiscal meltdown of the country.  Obama has us on the road to be Greece.  He keeps claiming to have cut the debt by over $2 trillion but his projected debt by the time he leaves office in 2017 is currently at $20 trillion.  And he doesn’t seem to care at all.  Obamacare, which he guaranteed would cost only $988 billion, has been re-evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office who found that it will cost at least $2 trillion to implement.  Their original estimate was over $1 trillion but after a private meeting with Obama, the head of the CBO lowered his estimate.  Now that estimate is twice as high as the original.  Tell you anything?

Let’s all pray for fiscal sanity and that the President will develop an actual love for the country and what’s best for her people.  If he truly loves America, as some of his followers believe, he certainly isn’t proving it on a regular basis….

Need New Headlights? That'll Be $700....

For those of you over 40 – remember when putting a new headlight in your car meant a quick trip to the auto parts store and about 5 minutes worth of work removing the old one and installing the new one?  That was if you had to replace the entire headlight – round or rectangular (pre-1980s).  If it was simply a bulb it took even less time.  And the cost was usually around $6 per light.  Well, my friends…  those days are gone.

It came to pass that I needed two complete new headlight assemblies on my car.  Whoever owned it before me had put xenon high-intensity bulbs in it and the headlight assembly wasn’t designed to accommodate the extra heat.  The plastic that held the bulb melted, as did the reflectors around it, making the headlights mostly useless as the light didn’t project outward anymore and the bulb flopped around loose in the housing.  Probably not the best way to drive – particularly at night.

I made a few calls to see what it would cost me to replace them.  I figured I could buy the headlight assemblies and do the work myself.  How hard could it be?  They’re just headlights.  Hmmmm.

I called my local dealer first.  They quoted me $204 apiece for the headlight assemblies and at least $300 labor to replace both.  $700 just to replace headlights?  That’s ridiculous!  But it got me to wondering – just how intensive was the labor to replace these lights?  I went out to the car and opened the hood to see for myself.  I took out the three bolts that held the top part of the headlight in place and tried to move it.  It didn’t budge.  So I went to Pep Boys and bought a repair book for that car and began to read.  There are bolts underneath the car that have to be removed and one part of the frame assembly that has to be loosened to gain access to the headlamp assembly.  I decided it was more work than I wanted to do and to let a professional handle it. 

Then I began researching aftermarket headlamp assemblies and found that the price for them varies from $70 to $315 apiece for the same assembly.  (In all fairness, I think the most expensive ones are made of a metal compound that will stand up to the heat of the xenon bulb.)  Since I didn’t want to chance the same thing happening again (and didn’t want to pay over $1000 just to replace my headlights) I chose the $70 one with the regular halogen bulb.  I ordered them both from J.C. Whitney and they were delivered in two days.

I decided to take the car to the dealer to have them put in because I figured they would do it correctly.  A body shop could have done the work but they’re often backed up and can’t get to it right away.  Yesterday morning I packed up the headlamps and headed out to the service garage.  They checked me in and I took my laptop to the waiting area (free WiFi – gotta love it) and sat patiently waiting for the repair, which I knew would probably take a couple of hours. 

About 10 minutes later the Service Advisor came in and said that the replacement headlamp assembly for the driver’s side (the one I needed most because it was melted) had a broken mounting bracket and couldn’t be installed.  I would have to return it and get another one or pay $200 to the dealer for one of theirs.  I told them I would return the broken one and get another and told them to go ahead and install the passenger side, which they did.  The Service Advisor told me of an aftermarket parts store in Arlington, Texas, about 25 miles from my house, where I could get the assembly and it would be about half of what I had paid for it.  He reminded me that I would have to pay $200 for the same part if I bought it from him and didn’t want me to have to do that.  I appreciated it.

So about an hour later he came and got me and said my car was ready.  We went to the cashier where I had to pay $150 for installation of the passenger side.  Mind you – that’s $150 on top of the $70 I paid for the light.  So far I’m out $220 for one headlight.  Then I headed out to Arlington to get the other one. 

The parts place was called “Certifit.”  I had never heard of it but apparently it’s a chain with stores all over the country.  All I know is there were about four people ahead of me buying everything from bumpers to fenders to headlamps to body molding.  I gave the man my name, he verified my part and sent me next door to the warehouse.  They brought it out, called my name and I checked and verified the part before paying.  And the headlamp, exactly like the one I have to return (except the mounting bracket was intact), was only $45.

I went home then and called J.C. Whitney.  They were very apologetic but it took about 20 minutes on the phone to arrange the return and I never did get to talk to the return specialist.  They woman I talked to took all my information and said I’d receive an e-mail with the Return Authorization number within 24 hours.

 

This morning I checked my e-mail and there was nothing there.  I went back to the dealer and had the other light installed, for another $150.  When I got home I finally had an e-mail from J.C. Whitney that said my return had been approved but there was no Return Authorization number.  So I had to call them again.

Waited on hold for 20 minutes and didn’t get to talk to anyone.  So I called them again about an hour later and finally got through to a live person.  They told me I did not have to return the other light (since they can’t sell it) and I would receive a full refund for it.  They’re refunding me $83 including the tax so I can’t really complain.  Add the $45 onto the $150 I paid in labor today and it only cost me a total of $423 and 5 hours of my time to replace two headlights.  But at least it wasn’t $700.  Maybe next time I buy a vehicle I’ll look around for one from the early 70s.  At least I can do most of the repairs myself – if I can find the parts I need to do them.  Probably cost me just as much in the long run….

Knives Are No Longer Prohibited On Flights?

The Transportation Safety Administration recently announced that beginning in April, small pocket knives, with blades shorter than 2½ inches, will be allowed on flights in the United States.  They also will begin allowing golf clubs and souvenir baseball bats.  Still strictly prohibited, however, are regular size bottles of shampoo and other liquids and box cutters.   Huh?

The TSA says they are changing the rules because they find up to 67 pocket knives per day on passengers they screen and this will expedite processing of passengers.  Seriously?  67?  I can’t imagine the pressure that must put on those poor TSA agents.  Do they realize the average length of a box cutter blade is from ½ to 1 inch long?  Are box cutters prohibited because they’re sharper than a regular knife?  Any knife blade can be sharpened to the point where they’re almost as sharp as a razor.  And what if they found 67 firearms and homemade bombs per day?  Would they make them legal to save time and money?

The TSA also says that with a knife that small a hijacker wouldn’t be able to get through the locked door to the cockpit.  Hmmm.  So if he had a 4 or 5 inch blade he’d be able to break through the door?  Doubt it.  And if no one can break through the door and get to the pilots, and that’s the only worry of the TSA, then why prohibit any knives?  Is it because you can cut someone’s throat or deliver a fatal stab wound with a knife blade over 2½ inches but not with one under 2½ inches long?  I’d challenge you to talk to any maximum security inmate about that.

The Flight Attendants’ Union and airline workers unions have filed their disagreement with the TSA plan.  They believe it will put flight attendants and passengers in greater danger.  And that’s a reasonable belief.  Granted, the way airline passengers are these days anyone wielding a knife would eventually be taken down and restrained by other passengers but why give someone a weapon?  And are there still Air Marshals on airplanes?  You never hear about them.  Ninety-nine percent of the time, if there’s an incident on a plane it’s the passengers who take care of the problem.  Duct tape seems to be available on every plane these days!

So we’re now going to allow people to carry items that are currently classified as dangerous items but somehow, miraculously, in April those items will no longer be dangerous.  People will start carrying knives and golf clubs and bats on flights and, thanks to the sequester, according to Janet Napolitano, there will be less TSA agents screening people for those items.  That’s got to be comforting to frequent flyers.

I’m sure glad Arden and I enjoy driving places.  It’s not always convenient but at least I know what’s in my car and whether or not there are any weapons on board.  And since I only give rides to people I know and trust, I won’t have to search them before they get in the car.