Sep 13th 2012 11:53AM Obviously, you don't know very much about how public housing actually works. Yes, it was intended to help the very poor find affordable housing, but once you are in, you don't have to leave if your financial circumstances improve. Rather, the amount of rent charged is based on a percentage of one's income.
So, for example, if you were to obtain a public housing apartment during a period of unemployment, when your annual income was only, say, $14,000, then your rent would be 30% of that income, or approximately $4200/year (about $350/month). Once you have the apartment however, you may end up getting a job that increases your income to $35,000 per year. You are not required to move out, but your rent would increase proportionately, with the new rent amount being $10,500/year or $875/month.
The government subsidizes the rent for these apartments, so that the owner of the building is paid "fair market value". Obviously, if the fair market value for a 2 bedroom apartment in NYC is say, $1000/mo, then the government will save a lot more money by allowing those whose incomes increase to remain in the apartments, since that means the government will have to pay out far less for the woman earning $35k and paying $875/mo than they will for the woman making $14k and only paying $350/mo.
Aug 13th 2012 6:49PM First of all, since the article says the law has been on the books for the last 87 years (1925-2012), I doubt an "investigation" would do much good, since those who enacted the law are long dead.
However, I agree that the government is being unreasonable and going after this man just for the sake of flexing it's "authority". As the government representative freely admits, they are after "compliance" regardless of what the people of their state or the nation think about it.
The answer to that is to either elect new leaders or petition to have the law changed. THAT is the only way to end this short of taking the case to the Supreme Court (and yes, that's one option, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that the state "enforces" it's law and drains those reservoirs with or without the man's permission if he waits for SCOTUS to get involved.
Mar 29th 2012 7:11PM Someone needs to remind the condo association that Jesus was also a Jew, and would have hung the same thing on his doorpost.
Mar 2nd 2011 12:39PM I don't think that would work in my house. We have 3 cats, and two are sibling rescues. Those two always eat together - literally standing on opposite sides of the bowl so that each one's head is halfway between the ears and neck of the other as they eat.
It's like they're trying to recreate the feel of being next to each other when they were nursing (not surprising as they were abandoned at 1 week old and I had to feed them with eyedroppers for weeks). They'd never be able to get both heads in that opening at once, and since they enjoy eating together so much, I'd hate to deprive them of that.
Nov 9th 2010 9:17AM Keith is absolutely correct. He and Rachel are the reason I started watching MSNBC, and with the exception of Lawrence's new program that started just in the last few months, theirs are the only two shows I watch on the network. Chris Matthews annoys me because he constantly interrupts his guests instead of letting them answer the question (even if they are evading the answer, it's hard to KNOW that if you can't hear them). Ed Shulz is ok, but he can get a little too rowdy for me. So it's Keith, with his wit and immense intelligence, and Rachel, who always makes me smile even as she reports on some infuriating stories, that grab my attention.
MSNBC does owe Keith an apology, especially if what he stated in his letter is true - that his representative was told there would be no suspension, and then he was suspended anyway, without a hearing, and without notification (he said he found out from the media, like the rest of us). He is also right that there should not be a double standard. Everyone knows that MSNBC is left-leaning - just as we know that Fox has leaned so far right it's laying on it's side - so to have one of their hosts donate money to a couple of Dem candidates is really NOT a big deal. I'd be far more upset if he'd donated to Republicans, but then if he did that, he wouldn't be nearly as popular as he is.
Jul 21st 2010 2:50PM Yes, I support the bill... however, it does NOT go far enough. We need a Tier 5 for those who have reached 99 wks already and still can't find a job.
We also need a jobs program that specifically targets the unemployed by creating a market (such as rehabilitating all federal buildings throughout the country to use solar, wind and other alternative energies for their power and heating/cooling functions - a move that would not only put people back to work, but also save the government money over the long term - money that could be applied to paying down the deficit!), then providing tax breaks to the companies that fill that market IF - and ONLY IF - they hire people from the unemployment rolls FIRST, and train them on the job.
Jul 19th 2010 12:39PM Sorry, Mel, you can't run away from your problems. After most of your life in the spotlight, you should know that.
If Robyn takes you back, she's a fool. I wouldn't, and no self-respecting woman would. You made your own bed, and now you have to sleep in it (with or without your girlfriend).
The one thing you are correct about is that your career is over. No one has any respect for you now, and no one could ever sit through one of your movies where you pretend to be this decent, caring, sensitive and righteous man while knowing what you are like in real life.
It may well be true that you were set up - obviously this woman knew how you'd react and had the recorder ready - but that doesn't excuse your behavior, your words, or the sound of your ranting, screeching, vulgarity-laced monologues. You, sir, have proven yourself to be a loser, and that is the legacy you have chosen to give yourself.
Moving to Australia won't fix that. Nor can you hide from the world. You chose to expose your true self to us, and you can't take that back. The only thing moving and going into seclusion will do is prove that along with all your other faults, you are also too much of a coward to take responsibility for your own actions and face the consequences like a man.
Which is typical of abusive men.
Jul 1st 2010 1:15PM Well, Lisa, maybe the writer felt the need to explain the reason for her choice and how it all worked out because she's sick of taking the same kind of crap from her own family and friends that she's getting in these comments.
Why does anyone write about anything? Maybe, like those who had the courage to speak out about being gay or being molested as children, she wanted to share her experience so that others who have doubts or who already are atheists will know they are not alone in a world where most of their family, friends and neighbors belong to a religion and would judge them as harshly as those here have for choosing not to believe a god exists.
Why are you commenting on it? If her belief, choices, and wedding are of such little importance, why did you click on the article in the first place, or take the time to write a reply? Why not just ignore it if it has so little "value" to you?
Jul 1st 2010 12:11PM Sorry Ron, but you're way off base....
First of all, just about every "blushing bride" in a white dress at all those Christian weddings (and Jewish as well) you have attended is NOT a "pure" virgin. No one gets married these days without having sampled the pleasures of the bed first and making sure they are a good match (especially since the only guys who would want to wait that long to "get laid" are probably not suitable husbands anyway). The white dress is a tradition. You can believe it means purity if you want - but don't fool yourself that the lady wearing it has never been touched by a man (and probably not just the one she's marrying either). Since I've yet to see your god strike anyone with lightning for wearing a white dress, (or strike the priest for being a child molester either), I really don't think your god gives a damn about what she's wearing.
As for your Adam quote - has it occurred to you that the "one flesh" comment is really about coitus and not marriage? After all, the bride and groom do not become "one flesh" at the alter - that happens later, on the honeymoon.
Jul 1st 2010 11:59AM It sounds like you had a beautiful wedding. My husband and I are also non-believers (I'm atheist, he's agnostic). We consider ourselves Humanists, because Humanism embodies the great majority of all the things we DO believe in, but rejects the notion of a "higher power" (or the necessity for one). We both are certified to perform wedding ceremonies and do so only for couples that want non-religious ceremonies like yours.
There was a time when we too thought that we had to actively remove anything that even hinted at "faith" from the ceremonies we performed, but eventually we realized that one can have "faith" in many things without being religious. I have faith that my husband will be there for me when I am feeling down or upset, and I have faith that my aunt, who was always a devoutly religious woman, will never understand how I could "choose" to believe gods do not exist.
You also do not have to remove all references to beauty, peace, serenity, etc. in order to drive home the point of a non-religious ceremony. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the beauty of the natural world - and it does not have to indicate a belief that such beauty was "created" rather than being the result of natural processes.
These are things to think about before you have children. Remember, your kids will have friends from all kinds of religious backgrounds as well, and children especially are susceptible to the kind of "magical thinking" that leads to religious faith. You also don't want them to feel left out at holidays like Christmas and Easter... and you don't have to. You can, for instance, explain to them that your family celebrates Winter Solstice (a pagan celebration that predates Christianity). This would allow you to still have a tree and decorate your home, give them gifts if you choose, and more - all pagan solstice rituals that were incorporated into the Christian celebration of Christmas when the early Church was trying to convert the pagans.
You will always run into those who think that your choice is misguided, or who will try to "save" you, or who will be aggressive & hostile to you once they find out you don't believe in their god. Just remember, that is their problem - not yours - and their reaction is proof that their own faith is not as strong as they try to pretend. If it were, they would be secure enough in it to not feel threatened by your atheism.
Good luck to you both, and congratulations on your marriage. May you have a wonderful life together.