So, if a heir wants to assume payments on a mortgage, the bank can refuse them, insisting that the mortgage be rewritten so they can make more money than what was made off the old mortgage? This is not right, just, nor fair. It is predatory.
I signed this petition.
http://www.change.org/petitions/bank-of-america-stop-refusing-to-accept-my-payment-be-a-leader-and-help-change-this-practice?fb_action_ids=10202634067565432&fb_action_types=change-org%3Asign&fb_ref=__bBfjfXFXlD&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582
Monday, March 10, 2014
Who Will We Call Uninformed, Uneducated Voters?
Who are we to call uninformed, uneducated voters? Who will it be? Will it be the ones who do not study the candidates? My friends, perhaps the uniformed voters are more so those who do not study the issues. If they study the candidates just enough to know how they stand on a few key issues, they will say they are informed and have studied the candidates. But, if they don't know the issues to begin with, what difference does it make that they know the candidates' stand on those issues?
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Consider the Story of Francois Verny
If a person declares something to us, gives his witness, sometimes we would be wise to listen, to at least consider if what he is saying is true.
So, we might turn to the story of Francois Verny. Recovering from a surgery, he was lonely, and he prayed a lot. As it was, he happened upon the website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and watched videos of these LDS people. "Videos full of happy, friendly faces," he says. "I thought it was incredible to see all those people with the smiles on their faces, who seemed simply happy, lovely and devoted -- so devoted. So I ask the Lord to bless me that I might meet those people I saw on the Internet and to find this church."
When Francois left for lunch at noon, he walked of his office to see 25 LDS missionaries. "It was incredible, I couldn't believe my eyes. It was really them with their little plaque on the side."
The missionaries shouted, "bonjour" (hello), and Francois was amazed that though they didn't even know him, they were so friendly, saying "hello" with joy and enthusiasm.
As I watched the video of Francois's story, I thought of the scripture in Habakkuk 1:5, which says, "Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you."
So, "ye heathen" (you non-believers), you would be wise to "regard" (consider) if what Francois says is true, and if it can offer direction for your own life. Perhaps you will consider Verny's story, and after much thought, decide it is not enough to warrant believing in the "Mormon" church. But, his story is surely worthy of your consideration.
You can despise this church headquartered in Utah. You can find faults with it. But, is it true, anyway, regardless your ill feelings toward it? Consider that some suggest that when the scriptures refer to "your day," they sometimes are referring to the last days. And, read this verse, Acts 13:41. It says the same thing that the Lord said in Habakkuk, except it came after the life of Christ instead of before.
"Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you."
https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/an-incredible-meeting-an-answered-prayer?cid=HPFR030714548&im=true&lang=eng
So, we might turn to the story of Francois Verny. Recovering from a surgery, he was lonely, and he prayed a lot. As it was, he happened upon the website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and watched videos of these LDS people. "Videos full of happy, friendly faces," he says. "I thought it was incredible to see all those people with the smiles on their faces, who seemed simply happy, lovely and devoted -- so devoted. So I ask the Lord to bless me that I might meet those people I saw on the Internet and to find this church."
When Francois left for lunch at noon, he walked of his office to see 25 LDS missionaries. "It was incredible, I couldn't believe my eyes. It was really them with their little plaque on the side."
The missionaries shouted, "bonjour" (hello), and Francois was amazed that though they didn't even know him, they were so friendly, saying "hello" with joy and enthusiasm.
As I watched the video of Francois's story, I thought of the scripture in Habakkuk 1:5, which says, "Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you."
So, "ye heathen" (you non-believers), you would be wise to "regard" (consider) if what Francois says is true, and if it can offer direction for your own life. Perhaps you will consider Verny's story, and after much thought, decide it is not enough to warrant believing in the "Mormon" church. But, his story is surely worthy of your consideration.
You can despise this church headquartered in Utah. You can find faults with it. But, is it true, anyway, regardless your ill feelings toward it? Consider that some suggest that when the scriptures refer to "your day," they sometimes are referring to the last days. And, read this verse, Acts 13:41. It says the same thing that the Lord said in Habakkuk, except it came after the life of Christ instead of before.
"Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you."
https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/an-incredible-meeting-an-answered-prayer?cid=HPFR030714548&im=true&lang=eng
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Leaders Should Not be Bought and Sold
What if a public official accepted money -- campaign funding, I suppose -- and used it to fight for the defeat of another elected official?
No big deal, perhaps.
But, what if the person he was fighting to remove from office was working on legislation against the payday loan industry? And, what if the official accepting money was accepting it from the payday loan industry? Now we have the outcome of legislation being affected by who can buy a result by giving money to someone who is running for office.
Brad Daw, a Utah legislator, was the one crafting legislation to restrict payday lenders. John Swallow, a candidate for office, was the one accepting money that was funneled towards attack ads against Daw.
We then have an interesting question: Is it right for a public official or someone aspiring to be a public official to accept money when that money is intended to influence the outcome of legislation?
I don't think it is. Our leaders should not be bought and sold on issues. They should not be accepting money that clearly is being given to affect legislation. Those running for office should not be placed in the position of knowing that once they are elected, their position will expected to be used to benefit someone who has given them money.
We love our American political system, and it is great. But, I tell you, it has a major flaw.
No big deal, perhaps.
But, what if the person he was fighting to remove from office was working on legislation against the payday loan industry? And, what if the official accepting money was accepting it from the payday loan industry? Now we have the outcome of legislation being affected by who can buy a result by giving money to someone who is running for office.
Brad Daw, a Utah legislator, was the one crafting legislation to restrict payday lenders. John Swallow, a candidate for office, was the one accepting money that was funneled towards attack ads against Daw.
We then have an interesting question: Is it right for a public official or someone aspiring to be a public official to accept money when that money is intended to influence the outcome of legislation?
I don't think it is. Our leaders should not be bought and sold on issues. They should not be accepting money that clearly is being given to affect legislation. Those running for office should not be placed in the position of knowing that once they are elected, their position will expected to be used to benefit someone who has given them money.
We love our American political system, and it is great. But, I tell you, it has a major flaw.
Forensic Science International Article Cites Two Cases Of Death by Pot
Speaking of marijuana: ". . . Most importantly, it’s never, ever been associated with death. That is, until now," so says a Boston Magazine article this week, reporting on an article in Forensic Science International.
The FSI article suggests there is such a thing as death by marijuana, citing two case studies.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Death by Marijuana, Can it Happen?
It is said that no one has ever died from marijuana. No one.
I wonder how that is possible, though, if there is a fivefold increase in the chances of a heart attack, as is reported in this study (see link below) from Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School. I do not know if this study is accurate. I do wonder whether a proper conclusion was drawn.
But, I also have to believe that Dr. Murray Mittleman and his colleagues, being scholars, probably had reason for coming to the conclusion that smoking pot increases the chances of a heart attack fivefold.
So, are these deaths being written off as being caused by heart attacks, as if marijuana had nothing to do with them?
Yes, some would say the heart attack is the killer, not the marijuana. But, that doesn't wash, for me. If two men were shot while walking down a street, one of them being old and the other young, and they were both shot in the same spot in the gut, and the old man died because he was more prone to death, and the young man lived, would we say the old-man's death wasn't caused by him being shot, it was caused by him being old? We could point to the fact that the young man lived, and say the old man was surely already predisposed to death, so the gunshot wasn't the cause of his demise.
It makes as much sense to let the shooter of the old man off of murder charges as it does to let marijuana off scot-free for those with heart conditions who die after taking marijuana. This is not to say I am convinced the Harvard study is accurate. But, if it is, then we must believe there is such a thing as death by marijuana.
(Parts of this blog rewritten 3/9/14)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117399&page=1
I wonder how that is possible, though, if there is a fivefold increase in the chances of a heart attack, as is reported in this study (see link below) from Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School. I do not know if this study is accurate. I do wonder whether a proper conclusion was drawn.
But, I also have to believe that Dr. Murray Mittleman and his colleagues, being scholars, probably had reason for coming to the conclusion that smoking pot increases the chances of a heart attack fivefold.
So, are these deaths being written off as being caused by heart attacks, as if marijuana had nothing to do with them?
Yes, some would say the heart attack is the killer, not the marijuana. But, that doesn't wash, for me. If two men were shot while walking down a street, one of them being old and the other young, and they were both shot in the same spot in the gut, and the old man died because he was more prone to death, and the young man lived, would we say the old-man's death wasn't caused by him being shot, it was caused by him being old? We could point to the fact that the young man lived, and say the old man was surely already predisposed to death, so the gunshot wasn't the cause of his demise.
It makes as much sense to let the shooter of the old man off of murder charges as it does to let marijuana off scot-free for those with heart conditions who die after taking marijuana. This is not to say I am convinced the Harvard study is accurate. But, if it is, then we must believe there is such a thing as death by marijuana.
(Parts of this blog rewritten 3/9/14)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117399&page=1
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Four Plans, and Mine -- Which Would be Unpopular -- Makes Five
Four plans on the table for poverty insurance in Utah. I'll add a fifth plan, and it'll be the most unpopular of the bunch.
First there is medicaid expansion. Second, there is House Speaker Becky Lockhart's proposal to reject federal medicaid expansion money and do what we can on our own. Third, there is Gov. Gary Herbert's plan to get federal assistance for a private industry plan. Fourth, there is Sen. Brian Shiowaza's plan, which I believe is similiar to the governor's.
I've liked Lockhart's plan, for the reason that the money to pay for Medicaid expansion would end up contributing to the national deficit, and to me, that is a major concern. Trouble with Lockhart's proposal, it wouldn't cover but a fraction (I think it's like a tenth) of those that the Medicaid expansion plan would.
I heard a friend tell me tonight about how he is headed to a funeral tomorrow, for the wife of a man who lost his job and couldn't afford insurance. So, she didn't see the doctor, and ended up with stage 4 cancer before it was discovered.
Yes, I believe we should provide a way for everyone to have health care.
So, what's the answer? What do you do if you want everyone to have health care, but you don't want to run up the national deficit?
You take Lockhart's proposal and amp it up to the extreme. If you take federal money, it will end up contributing to the national deficit. So, don't take it. Instead, fund the insurance out of your own pocket, even though it means leaving millions of "free" federal money on the table.
But, dig deep enough to cover everyone who needs to be covered. If the program needs to be 10 times bigger, make it 10 times bigger.
And, raise taxes to pay for it.
See, I told you my idea would be the most unpopular of all.
I will only say that if a bill has to be paid, you pay it. You don't borrow. And, if a service is necessary, you provide it.
I think about paring this with Gov. Herbert's suggestion that we have private enterprise administer the money. I love private enterprise. But, I don't like the idea of government money paying the way for private companies. If it is to be state money, allow, then, that it will be a state-operated program.
There are two things we should do, going along with this. One, provide a way for those who receive the Utah insurance to work for what they get, or to provide some work. Two, work like the dickens to reduce the high cost of health care. I am not convinced health care has to be this expensive.
First there is medicaid expansion. Second, there is House Speaker Becky Lockhart's proposal to reject federal medicaid expansion money and do what we can on our own. Third, there is Gov. Gary Herbert's plan to get federal assistance for a private industry plan. Fourth, there is Sen. Brian Shiowaza's plan, which I believe is similiar to the governor's.
I've liked Lockhart's plan, for the reason that the money to pay for Medicaid expansion would end up contributing to the national deficit, and to me, that is a major concern. Trouble with Lockhart's proposal, it wouldn't cover but a fraction (I think it's like a tenth) of those that the Medicaid expansion plan would.
I heard a friend tell me tonight about how he is headed to a funeral tomorrow, for the wife of a man who lost his job and couldn't afford insurance. So, she didn't see the doctor, and ended up with stage 4 cancer before it was discovered.
Yes, I believe we should provide a way for everyone to have health care.
So, what's the answer? What do you do if you want everyone to have health care, but you don't want to run up the national deficit?
You take Lockhart's proposal and amp it up to the extreme. If you take federal money, it will end up contributing to the national deficit. So, don't take it. Instead, fund the insurance out of your own pocket, even though it means leaving millions of "free" federal money on the table.
But, dig deep enough to cover everyone who needs to be covered. If the program needs to be 10 times bigger, make it 10 times bigger.
And, raise taxes to pay for it.
See, I told you my idea would be the most unpopular of all.
I will only say that if a bill has to be paid, you pay it. You don't borrow. And, if a service is necessary, you provide it.
I think about paring this with Gov. Herbert's suggestion that we have private enterprise administer the money. I love private enterprise. But, I don't like the idea of government money paying the way for private companies. If it is to be state money, allow, then, that it will be a state-operated program.
There are two things we should do, going along with this. One, provide a way for those who receive the Utah insurance to work for what they get, or to provide some work. Two, work like the dickens to reduce the high cost of health care. I am not convinced health care has to be this expensive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)