THE DEPRIVATION FACTOR: DENIAL OF AID DUE TO STABLE HOMES

It has come to my attention that families who need help in the state of Arkansas may not be able to get any help because of something called "the deprivation factor." The deprivation factor requires a family to be under certain circumstances in order to receive aid. What levels are these? Let me explain.
A family of three is financially eligible to receive Medicaid. This family is expecting their second child. Both of the parents work and they cannot afford health insurance. Yet this family was turned down for aid because the husband of the family would be the father of both children. The couple being married also worked against their qualifying for aid. Am I the only one who sees this as odd in a nation that is trying to pass an amendment to the Constitution protecting the sanctity of marriage? Using tax dollars to promote unstable families while preaching family values at the same time? I understand the kids are the focus of the aid but punishing the kids who just happen to come from a stable home that just happens to need help is just wrong. It's providing the loophole that allows others to take advantage of the welfare program.
On the other hand, I'm sure the family I'm writing about is proud to not be "deprived."

Brian

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PIONEERS SPLIT, CONSIDERING DIVORCE?

I read on Yahoo news that the couple who won a landmark Massachusetts case legalizing their marriage have split up. Why? They're not saying. The couple have a daughter and reportedly married to share responsibility of the child. (You have to ask where the father is.) Everyone knows that marrying because of an expected child will soon lead to divorce. Seems marriage woes know no sexual preference boundaries.

Brian

Yesterday, I was having a conversation with co-workers. The topic was the future of the penny as a form of currency for the United States. It was said that it cost 1.35 cents to make a penny. That means to produce one dollar's worth of pennies (2 rolls), it will cost taxpayers $1.35 to make them. Government waste?

Of course, the topic quickly turned to gas prices as the national average nears $3.00 a gallon. I just read that with Israel waging military actions in Gaza as well as Lebanon, oil futures are now a record $75.88 per barrel. This will definitely make the national average over $3.00 a gallon.

Who did my co-workers blame for the gas prices? The auto industry? OPEC? Venezuela? No, they laid the blame at the feet of President Bush saying that he's reaping the benefits of being a Texas oilman. While I am sure that he is making some money from his oil interests, I doubt he has the power as an oilman to control gas prices by much, if at all. As President, he's doing what he can by pushing for measures that allow oil companies to look for oil elsewhere thereby decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and their power on our gas prices.

Personally, I see free markets overlapping being the culprit of gas prices being where they are.

First, oil is a limited resource. If demand is higher than supply, prices go up. Demand is high in the United States because our economy depends heavily on transportation.
Second,Add in to that the push for sales from the auto industry (is there any family besides mine that just has one car?) and you have too much demand from a limited supply.
Finally, if supply is decreased for whatever reason (war, hurricane damage, etc) and demand doesn't decrease as well, prices go up.

How do we fix the problem? If we rely on Congress to fix the problem, they have three options:

1. Increase the supply of oil by opening new areas to drill for oil.
2. Decrease the demand for oil by imposing a limit for fuel consumption (i.e. rationing).
3. Decrease the price of a gallon of gas by $0.184 by removing the federal gas tax.

There could be a fourth option, limiting the number of vehicles a family can own, but that would be counterproductive at this late stage of the game.

So we analyze the 3 options above:

We'll start with #3: the gas tax is supposed to pay for road improvements and the like. Besides it's a source of revenue for the government so forget their doing away with it.

Option #2: The reasoning for not doing this is somewhat the same as #3; limit the number of sales of gallons of gas, limit the dollars of revenue generated by the gas tax. It won't happen unless supply from foreign oil is cut off (like in wartime).

So that leaves option 1: find new sources of oil to increase supply.

Of course you know that eventually all of the oil in the world will be gone. It's not a replenishing resource.

The Colbert Report says the way to fix the problem is to use up all the oil in the world as quickly as possible so that future generations will not have to deal with an oil crisis.

Makes sense (cents?).

Brian

I received these comments on my Superman post....

------------------------------

This may sound weird, but ---I'm Chinese. And my Chinese name literally translates as "Son of Superman", given by an ego-centric father who lived in the last century of human advancement.Ironically, I'm not strong nor invincible, like Superman on Kryptonite. Then again, I don't wear S-sized red undies insideout either.Anyway, I'm just sharing. I happened to chance upon this blog by accident. --Posted by Red Havoc 2:16 to Rants. Queries, and Other Stuff at 7/10/2006 01:24:38 PM

Because reality no longer leaves any respite for true innocence. Because evil will not hesitate to use whatever means it has to destroy what is good.Or you can just go on and think; it's just a comic / movie. --Posted by Red Havoc 2:16 to Rants. Queries, and Other Stuff at 7/10/2006 01:19:20 PM

--------------------------------------

As I said in my post about Dan Brown and his "DaVinci Code," there is no such thing as "just a" anything anymore. Whether it be a book, a movie, television show, whatever, someone will be influenced by the content one way or the other.

Like "Red Havoc" wrote up there, "...evil will use whatever means it has to destroy what it is good."

Brian

THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER’S SUPERMAN
“Superman Returns,” a movie by Brian Singer, brings the comic book icon, Superman, back to the big screen after being gone nearly 25 years. For those who don’t know, Superman is the sole survivor of the planet Krypton, which was destroyed after its red sun exploded. Superman was sent to Earth to be raised by the Kent’s, his adoptive parents.
I grew up knowing Superman. I watched “Super Friends” on TV. I read the comic books. I watched reruns of the old Superman series starring George Reeves. I watched Christopher Reeve as Superman through four movies. I watched Dean Cain play Superman in the silly “Adventures of Lois and Clark.” I sometimes watch “Smallville,” too.
I’ve seen many versions of Superman and I have to say this latest one leaves a little to be desired. But, even as I write, I know that the reasons I watched Superman as a kid, some of those qualities kids look for, they were not in this movie. This Superman is for today’s generation of kids and it scares me. This movie was more violent, more cruel. The scene where a powerless Superman is beaten by Luthor’s thugs and then stabbed by a kryptonite dagger was almost too much for me to watch, and I’m 33.
Earlier in the day, I had asked my wife what she thought of my taking our 2-year-old son to see the movie. She didn’t like the idea. After watching the movie, I have to agree with her.
Where is the innocence that was in all the comics I grew up reading? They are gone. I’m appalled by the violence in today’s movies, television shows, and even cartoons. Subtly, over the years, even I have been desensitized to violence. And that bothers me, but not as much as knowing my son will be growing up in a world I do not recognize anymore.
I just pledged to my wife that I was done with comic book stuff. She reminded me that “Spiderman 3” will be out next year sometime. I had forgotten about that so I amended my pledge to just not bringing any comic book stuff into our home.
I suppose I just need something to bring closure so that I can walk away. After “Star Wars: Episode 3,” I swore off anything Star Wars because of the violent themes in episodes 2 and 3. I swore off X-Men after “X2: X-Men United” because of the anti-religious undertones that run throughout the movie. Now I have cut Superman loose as well. He’s no longer my hero. It saddens me but I want to delay my son knowing what I know to be true, the world has become a dark place. It’s no longer innocent.
For now, my son’s world is innocent. He loves the Wiggles and loves to paint. As long as possible, I want his world to stay innocent. To help maintain his world, the dark place that is the real world must stay outside our home. It must stay off our television and off our computer. Unfortunately, I know I am only delaying the encounter between my son and the world, but that delay is all I have.