Header Image (book)


Saturday, May 16, 2015

Open Thread

(For other material, please scroll down)

So, what's on your mind?

Here is your chance to opine within the parameters listed below:

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: comments consisting of blog gossip will be deleted as soon as an administrator of this blog becomes aware of such comments.

A link to get this thread started: Soon You Might Be Able To Receive Food Stamps Over The Phone.


  1. Someone made this off the wall statement at Facebook, "The Democratic Party is the Party of the Working Man."

    So I came back with, "Let me know when you find him."

  2. The Food Stamp article: "we made it very easy to get on food stamps, and now we've tripled the number of people on them and can't afford to process all those folks. So we need to make it totally the honor system."

    I do believe that's what I read. Even though a functional adult with an IQ above room temperature can figure out this is equivalent to the Menendez brothers asking for mercy because they're orphans.

    1. Baysider,
      An honor system related to acquiring handouts is a farce. Worse than a farce!

      Look. I know that some people, through no fault of their own, visit church food banks and, yes, have food stamps. Certain of the underemployed fall into that category -- and I personally know two such individuals. But we all know that the system is being scammed big time. On the taxpayers' backs so that certain taxpayers (I'm one!) have to struggle physically day after day to make ends meet. It would be a lot easier for me to make ends meet if I didn't have to subsidize others who are more physically capable than I of working 6-7 days a week while caregiving my husband.

  3. Replies
    1. 3 trains within quite a short time period?

    2. It's reported to be an area with a lot of vandalism.
      Combined with the bad curve and you have an accident waiting to happen.

  4. The Tsarnaev verdict is foremost on my mind.
    I oppose the death penalty (big surprise, huh?) and mst in Massachusetts do also but anyone who couldn't accept a death penalty verdict was excluded from the jury. Many of the victims also favored life without parole primarily to be spared the memories as the appeals process progresses.

    So right away you have good basis for an appeal. It's going to drag on for quite some time.

    My opposition doesn't have much to do with any sympathy for Tsarnaev. Letting him go slowly insane in that Colorado supermax seems a worse fate.

    I wonder how so called "small government" advocates can trust the state with taking the life of a citizen. Sure that's less applicable here but you can't be selective. You trust them or you don't.
    You trust a self serving hack like Carmen Ortiz or you don't.

    Odd that the leftist is the one without trust on this one.

    1. Duck,
      I was wondering when someone commenting to this thread would bring up the topic of the Tsarnaev verdict.

      I have read that 17 people lost legs in the jihad attack perpetrated by the Tsarnaev brothers.

      For personal reasons, I have a strong opinion about the matter of yesterday's verdict.

      As I said elsewhere on the web today....

      Just think of what these people and their families will have to go through for year after year!

      Mr. AOW and I know firsthand what it’s like to go out to a restaurant — only to discover that the restroom will not accommodate wheelchair ingress and egress.

      Or we go to a friend’s house — only to discover that Mr. AOW cannot climb the few steps into the house’s entry — or, worse yet, how impossible it is to use "the powder room" because most bathroom doors in standard homes are not wide enough for wheelchair ingress.

      And just think for a moment about housing styles in Boston. So many townhouses! So many houses with long flights of stairs for ingress!

      In a way, the Tsarnaevs killed those people -- the ones who survived severely handicapped, I mean. The lives they had before are dead.

      I wonder how so called "small government" advocates can trust the state with taking the life of a citizen.

      In my view, it's not a matter of government size. It's a matter of justice and the guilty one's ultimate accountability. It is crystal clear that Tsarnaev is guilty. No ambiguity about that.

    2. Naturally there have been quite a few human interest stories about the victims and the prosthetic technology is simply incredible.
      Some of it is cutting edge coming out of M.I.T. and very few have been wheelchair bound.

      The people who seem to be suffering most have shrapnel in locations where it can't be removed and are suffering chronic pain.

      Oh there is no doubt that Tsarnaev is guilty. And I would say that there are no extenuating circumstances when someone can place a bomb next to a little boy (his family was probably most against the death penalty).

      But in many other cases it is not nearly so clear and we no that many have been wrongly accused and sentenced to death.
      You can't pick and chose. There are too many sound arguments against it.

    3. We know only what people are willing to share.

      The disabilities have effects that nobody but an insider will ever know. For example, have any publicly discussed the matter of incontinence (urinary or bowel or both)?

      Or have any discussed what it is like to try to get to the bathroom during the night when, typically, a prosthesis is not being worn?

      These issues related to prostheses get worse with aging. When one is young and strong, things aren't too bad. But in one's 50's, 60's, and beyond, the issues are compounded.

      What I'm saying is this: there is a plethora of medical issues beyond those of prostheses and the management of chronic pain.

    4. AOW... I'm curious... I generally see, and most others here as right of center and as Ducky would say... small government folks.

      In light of your personal situation regarding handicap access, was the Fed making people accommodate disabled people and a good thing, or on balance a bad thing?

      Without federal prodding, do you think businesses, stores, churches, theaters, etc would have moved as fast, or faster to provide access.

      My brother in law did ADA law for justice for a number of years and he used to talk about how hard it was to get business to "do the right thing" and this was in the 90's.

    5. Dave,
      Of course Mr. AOW and I are grateful for ADA regulations regarding ingress and egress! However, sometimes the changes to older buildings are nothing more than cosmetic changes: ramps too steep, ramps with no railings, ramps with dangerous cracks in the surface, etc. And there is also the problem of certain "handicapped" bathrooms not really being functional for those using a wheelchair or a scooter -- not to mention entering and exiting the restroom with multiple stalls. Many restrooms don't have those buttons to push so as to enter or exit.

      Without federal prodding, do you think businesses, stores, churches, theaters, etc would have moved as fast, or faster to provide access.

      Some places would have done so, but probably not as soon. Churches were more willing to comply voluntarily, IMO.

      Today, there is a significant portion of our population using mobility devices. Aging Baby Boomers everywhere! So, it is financially feasible now for business of all sorts to provide handicapped access.

      I do favor universal design, particularly for new homes and new buildings for businesses. Have you heard about that building code? Universal design would allow for many aging people with disabilities to remain in their own homes. Today, I see many homes without even the possibility of wheelchair ingress and egress being built. Long flights of stairs for entry -- and no room in the yard for a wheelchair ramp! Also, many new homes do not have a bedroom on the first floor; back in the day, before AC perhaps, all the homes around here had at least one first-floor bedroom.

    6. PS: Some businesses could not afford to add handicapped access. Also, some businesses were not architecturally figured in such a way as to allow for such adaptations.

    7. I am all for figuring out a way to modify homes so as to allow folks to stay as long as possible. I think I have a few years of real work left in me, so I've already started doing what I can in my house. Bigger doorways, walkin shower, etc.

      I know you're conservative, and please don't take this the wrong way, but where is something like the ADA covered in the constitution? I can't find it, and yet, I know, were it not for the Fed, we'd be nowhere close to where we are not with access.

      I think this is a good example of the Fed doing good.

      On churches, mine hated being forced to spend the $$$ to make it better for ADA stuff. They said we have no, why do it. My experience working with churches around the country is that attitude is more prevalent.

      Sorry it took so long to reply...

    8. Dave,
      where is something like the ADA covered in the constitution?

      It isn't covered in the Constitution. Also not covered in the Constitution: the SSA, Medicaid, and any other number of matters.

      Also, it seems to me to be a stretch to say that the ADA should come under the legal umbrella of civil rights.

      But Congress does have the Constitutional power to legislate. In fact, it is via legislation that so much of the present bureaucracy was created.

      You might find it instructive to read the Wikipedia entry Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for the the ADA.

  5. I think all liberal progressives and worse should be given enough free food to eat their way to 1200 lbs. Then we'll sabotage all the cranes and fork lifts.
    he problem will soon be solved.

  6. The biggest threat to children's health these days is obesity not hunger, and the only place you will find starving children in the US is in the schools that use big Mooshell's lunch program.

  7. When an evildoer is caught red-handed committing mass murder and mayhem, and there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that he or she who has perpetrated the crime should be SHOT DEAD on the SIDEWALK or wherever they are apprehended. At the same time I would hope for minimal damage to surrounding property.

    Both Society and Tsarnaev's rotten, verminous older brother are much better off for his having been shot to death as soon as he was discovered hiding in that boat.

    That said I'd be much in favor of having the STATE pay for the necessary repairs to the boat in question or to REPLACE it completely, if that is needed.

    The idea of using GOVERNMENT FUNDS to RESTORE what has been lost, stolen or destroyed during the commission of a crime appeals to me greatly.

    PS: The Death Penalty should NEVER be imposed where only circumstantial evidence exists.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.