Idol wannabes lack sensibility
AROUND THE BLUHMIN’ TOWN

Judy Bluhm ~ Special to The Foothills Focus ~ Feb. 17, 2010

Do you crave embarrassment? I was watching the show, American Idol, over the past few weeks and have concluded that there are a whole lot of people who are either tone deaf, enjoy humiliation, have serious mental delusions, are gluttons for punishment, or just completely in denial about their singing abilities. When tens of thousands of young folks line up to bray in front of the “judges,” it’s often played out like a dark comedy. Yes, there are lots of people who evidently like to make fools out of themselves.
What are they thinking? Some psychologists say it’s the “quest for fame” that drives people to do just about anything to have a moment in the spotlight. Celebrities are the “new royalty” and the “commoners” will go to any lengths to make it into the ranks of the rich and famous. One young man who auditioned for the show could not sing, carry a tune or hold a note. When banished from the one-minute try-out, he ran out of the room cussing, furious that his hopes were dashed. Oddly, his parents were there to console him, saying things like, “Don’t worry, you’ll be famous one day, you’ll be a big star.” Enough already! Even parents are in on the delusions!
Those parents should have been telling their child to study harder, maybe go to college and become a doctor. At the very least, they could have offered to pay for his voice lessons. On the other hand, they should have scolded their son for using foul language because someone told him the truth. When one of the judges (Simon Cowell) says, “you are the most dreadful singer I’ve ever heard in my life,” maybe it’s time to re-think your talent.
Why do so many go to such lengths to embarrass themselves? Would you show up to an audition wrapped in a pink net, squawking like a crow and rolling around on the floor like demons just took over your body?
Remember the old “Gong Show?” Well, maybe American Idol has become even more weird fun. What are we to do with a guy who dresses like Madonna, or twin girls who yodel and whistle, and a rotund fellow who howls like a coyote? Clearly, we can laugh, but it is rather disturbing.
There are those “shining moments” when you realize you may be listening to the next Garth Brooks or
Frank Sinatra. There are a few stellar performances that make you want to shout, “how did they do that?” I suppose we have to suffer through a few miserable performances to appreciate the greatness in some of the remarkable undiscovered talent that rises to the top.
Need a few laughs? Avoid the news and look no further than the parade of people who will sing, choke, dance, scream, bray, screech, rap, and shout their way to public humiliation. Perhaps the same folks who have no talent, but still audition, should join the military. We need brave folks that can still stand strong after receiving a blast of insults. Maybe next year, we’ll have military recruiters waiting in the wings at
every American Idol’s auditions, ready to enlist those who can’t perform, but had the courage to try.
In the meantime, let’s all enjoy the spectacle of it all and maybe muster up enough guts to fine-tune our own talents so we can join the party! Oh yea, there is always the show America’s Got Talent, which “embraces” people of all ages and is not limited to singing. Can you juggle? Do a magic trick? Dance like Fred Astaire? Maybe dust off the old hula hoop and give it a whirl. Fame is only a heartbeat away. And while we might get sick of the “talent shows,” every now and then, something extraordinary happens. Last year we were thrilled to witness a middle-aged Scottish woman walk out on a stage and wow the world with a voice like an angel. From obscurity to world phenomena with one song!

Got talent? Practice and go to an audition. The world is waiting. If you are like me, just grab the popcorn, turn on the television and hope for the best. A brilliant star may shine right in front of you. Just don’t be surprised if you have to walk outside and look up in the sky to see it.

If you can buy, now might be the time?

Robert Holt & Phil Mills ~ www.TheHoltGroupAZ.com ~March 3, 2010

Whether it is a first time buyer, a second home buyer, move up buyer, a family transferring into the area for work, or an investor, the question of “should we buy now?” is often asked. As those of you that frequently read our editorials already know, we do not think we have found the bottom of the market yet. Because of the sheer number of distressed properties, continuing high unemployment, and economic uncertainty, we feel that the Phoenix market will probably see at least a moderate drop in prices in the neighborhood of 10 percent over the next 12-18 months. Of course, some areas might see a little more depreciation while other areas a little less.
However, because prices in many areas have fallen so drastically, a monthly mortgage payment is now on par and often less than what rent would cost for the same property. When this situation exists, it might make good sense to jump into the market and buy. If the buyer is living in the home, he/she will now have the tax benefits of being able to write off the interest. For investors, the all-important factor of having positive cash flow enables them to stay with the property even if prices erode unlike in ’05, ’06, ’07 when nearly all investors were cash flow negative.
In addition, it is pretty clear that interest rates are headed north, especially if the government stops buying mortgage back securities at the end of March 2010, as they have indicated. Personally, I don’t see how they can since there’s no one else lining up to buy them. Whether they continue to buy them or not, we are certainly headed for higher rates, which becomes a factor for every buyer not paying cash. Even a modest 1 percent jump in mortgage rates will influence the buying power of most buyers resulting in buying less house.
Another factor that could influence the decision to buy now are the tax credits that are available to just about everyone except those that need them the most. While I don’t agree with either of the incentives, there’s no reason for a buyer to turn down the money if they happen to fall in one of the two eligible categories.
Announced in November 2009, the new tax credits not only offer first-time buyers incentives to purchase a new home [up to $8,000], but all buyers, even those who already own homes could get some free cash.
So Who’s Eligible? If you’ve owned your principal residence for five consecutive years of the last eight, you’re in. If you’re planning to live in your new home as your principal residence, you’re in. If you’re single, you can earn up to $125,000 adjusted gross income and still receive the full credit of $6,500. For married folks, that’s $225,000 adjusted gross income. Singles earning $125,000 to $145,000 and married couples $225,000 to $245,000 can still get an incremental tax credit.
What’s the Deal? The credit is actually 10 percent of the purchase price up to a limit of $6,500. However, your new home cannot cost more than $800,000. Anything over that, I guess the Feds’ feeling is you can handle the costs yourself. Your purchase contract must be dated between Nov. 7, 2009 and April 30, 2010. You must close on your deal no later than June 30th.
Notice: Your new home’s price is not related to your previous home’s value. This tax credit is for move-up buyers, downsizing buyers and relocating buyers. The legislation has no provision regarding the price of the new home.
In case you were wondering, you are not required to sell your previous home. However, a detail announced by the IRS, states you are not eligible for the credit if you convert your previous home into a rental. Maybe it is just me, but it seems like our government is encouraging what is referred to as “Buy and Bail” where a homeowner purchases a new residence then either short sales the previous home or simply lets it go back to the bank.
What’s the Catch? Well, there’s no catch. The federal government is trying to send some “stimulus” to the average taxpayer and to the suffering housing industry. However, if you want to take advantage of this “free” money, you had better act fast. As we know, the buyers’ tax credit was extended and this one for move-up buyers added back in November of 09, so there’s little likelihood that this will be extended again…but then again our fearless leaders that control the printing press have been known to extend a few programs in the past. And, why not, it is only money.
The main catch to this program is the same for any government program. It requires proper paperwork. Especially this time around, after many proven cases of out-and-out fraud in the buyers’ program, the IRS is determined to make sure all claims are valid.
So, here’s what you need: a copy of the HUD 1 settlement sheet from your new property. This gives the sales price and date of closing. You will need some evidence of the 5 consecutive years at the previous property: property tax, homeowners’ insurance or the like. That’s it. You’re in business. Now go get that property.

Marine served Congress well

Mark Shields ~ www.creators.com ~ Feb. 24, 2010 ~

Long before he would become the longest-serving congressman in Pennsylvania history and long before would become, on questions of national security, the one House Democrat whose support and counsel U.S. presidents of both parties would seek and value, Jack Murtha — who died last week at 77 — was a Marine.
During the Korean War, the 19-year-old Murtha left the safe harbor of a college deferment to enlist in the Marine Corps. Fourteen years later, the U.S. was involved in a different war in Asia. But as a veteran of active duty service and with a wife and three children, Murtha, then 33, was not eligible for the military draft. Still, he volunteered for combat in Vietnam, where he was twice wounded and received two Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star with Combat 'V,' and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.
In 1974, he became the first combat veteran of that war to win election to Congress.
Like all Marines, Murtha was taught that "officers eat last." Not until after all the men in his command have eaten does the officer even begin to feed himself. A Marine leader, first and foremost, takes care of his people. That was Jack Murtha's guiding value.
Because he was a Marine enlisted man, a private long before he ever became a colonel, Murtha knew that the most important people in the military are not the generals with their flattering entourages, but the sergeants and the junior officers who make everything work. When Congressman Murtha visited the troops, which was every chance he got, he ate with, talked to and listened to the lowliest enlisted men. Their health, safety and well-being were his paramount concern. Their cause and that of their families he made his own.
And ultimately it was his passion for the plight of Marines and soldiers "who cannot speak for themselves" that forced Jack Murtha in November 2005 to leave the comfort of the Capitol's back rooms where he reigned as a legislative giant and go public in calling for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Overnight, Jack Murtha — a pro-labor New Dealer who opposed both abortion and gun control — became the favorite of antiwar liberals and the nemesis of the Bush administration, as well as the target of Republican and conservative groups, who would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, unsuccessfully, trying to defeat him.
Throughout his 36 years in Congress, Murtha never forgot the Marine Corps rule "to take care of his people." He used his great skill and position to fight, successfully, for every dollar, both public and private, that could benefit his untrendy and economically troubled western Pennsylvania district.
Some of the projects were dubious. Editorialists and reformers called him, not without evidence, the King of Earmarks. But let the record be absolutely clear: Jack Murtha, after nearly four decades in power, had a net worth of between $84,010 and $263,000 — about one-twentieth that of the average House member.
Every week, without any cameras or microphones, Jack Murtha went to Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Navy Hospital to honor, to comfort and to encourage those young Americans who had lost their limbs, their sight, and their youth in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, unlike so many of the armchair commandos in high public office with their Old Glory lapel pins and their bottomless enthusiasm for sending young Americans into battle, Jack Murtha attended the wakes and the funerals of those who gave the last full measure of devotion and whose names he knew. A leader takes care of his people first.
Jack Murtha was no plaster saint. Like each of us, he had his faults. But he loved the country he served so bravely and so well and the Marine Corps, whose values he lived.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

He won’t be back

Bill O'Reilly ~ March 3, 2010 ~

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will leave office in November, but, unlike The Terminator, he will not be back.
According to a recent Field Poll, the governor's job approval rating stands at a paltry 27 percent, and 64 percent disapprove of the job he's doing. Also, 59 percent of Californians say Gov. Arnold will leave the state worse off than it was seven years ago, when then-Gov. Gray Davis was recalled; that is, directly thrown out of office by the voters.
Right now, the Golden State is spending $20 billion a year more than it takes in. Even Lehman Brothers could predict looming bankruptcy. In fact, Schwarzenegger flat-out says the state cannot pay its bills. So it is issuing IOUs. Wouldn't you like one of those?
The primary problem out here is massive entitlement spending and out-of-control pensions and disability benefits for state employees. The unions are so strong, they can kick sand in the governor's face any time they want. The golf courses are full of former state employees too impaired to work any longer. Thank God they have enough cash for greens fees.
In addition, elected far-left loons are running wild. In San Francisco, for example, the city now wants to spend taxpayer money on measuring how much sunlight hits city parks. I am not kidding. The environmental nuts rule, and the folks pay and pay and pay.
I believe Schwarzenegger was well-intentioned in the beginning, but the arcane system wore him down. Faced with an overwhelming Democratic presence in the state legislature, the Republican governor simply could not stop the madness.
While his charisma worked with voters, the career politicians mocked it. So he eventually folded, and the rest is history: His approval rating fell from 65 percent to below 30 percent.
A great fear is that President Obama will follow in the big guy's footsteps. The federal government now owes $13 trillion, and if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is tried in New York City, that could quickly add another trillion.
There is little fiscal discipline in Washington right now, and the president has at least three more years in office. If Obama does not rein in federal spending, the USA could very possibly experience a Greece-like economic meltdown. The president only has to look west to California to see the wreckage of poor financial management.
So the folks here in the Golden State can't get rid of Schwarzenegger fast enough. The Terminator has been terminated. A once promising charismatic outsider was elected to run the nation's largest state. Hope was in the air. But good feelings vanished as California's finances collapsed on Schwarzenegger's watch.
Quite the cautionary tale, isn't it?
Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the book "Who's Looking Out For You?" To find out more about Bill O'Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the Web site www.billoreilly.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 BillOReilly.com.

Joggers are road hazard to cyclists

~March 3, 2010 ~

After reading some recent letters regarding bicycle rules of the road, I’m inspired to write in about a practice I witness just about every day in Anthem. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am an avid cyclist and while I don’t run much anymore I used to run regularly and think what I have to say is unbiased.
I ride my bike frequently on the major roads in Anthem, roads that have designated bike lanes. I almost always encounter runners, sometimes two or even three abreast, in the bike lane running opposing traffic including bicycles, and I believe this is both illegal and, much more importantly, dangerous. So, I will attempt to explain this from both legal and logical points of view.
The Law
ARS.28-796. Pedestrian on roadways
A. If sidewalks are provided, a pedestrian shall not walk along and on an adjacent roadway.
B. If sidewalks are not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall walk when practicable only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic that may approach from the opposite direction.
C. A person shall not stand in a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride from the driver of a vehicle.
The Legal Argument
Since there are spacious sidewalks everywhere there are bike lanes in Anthem, item A applies. If it weren’t for those sidewalks, item B would explain the behavior and one can understand some of the logic under that circumstance (facing traffic allows the pedestrian to anticipate and react to an imminent car/pedestrian accident). The law falls short of explicitly addressing the situation in which there is no sidewalk but there is a bike lane, if that situation ever exists.
The Logical Argument
As for my contention that it is also dangerous, I think it is true that the most common automobile/bicycle collision is at a side street intersection when the bicycle is going in a direction opposing traffic. A driver intending to enter that roadway, whether turning left, right or crossing the roadway, will always look left but maybe not right (not expecting any threat from his right). While drivers should look to their right before rolling, conditioning sometimes overrides that and a collision can occur. This logic also applies to runners (pedestrians).
Cyclists, legally, must ride with traffic whether in a bike lane or not. Many use mirrors for that reason. What should a cyclist do when confronted with oncoming runners in the bike lane? I can tell you from personal experience what usually happens. Because cyclists know they are required to overtake to their left and are conditioned to do that, the cyclist (the one not viewing the threat of oncoming cars) is typically the one moving into the roadway. Logical? No. Dangerous? Potentially.
Consider this. If a cyclist rides against traffic in the bike lane, an observing police officer will likely stop him and tell him he belongs on the other side of the road. If a runner is running facing traffic in a bike lane, both illegal and dangerous for the same reasons it is for a cyclist, what do you suppose a police officer will do?
I am not trying to be confrontational and I have great respect for my running friends. I just thought “riding a mile in the cyclists cleats,” might be enlightening.

Chad Kurtzman
Anthem

Joggers are road hazard to cyclists

~March 3, 2010 ~

After reading some recent letters regarding bicycle rules of the road, I’m inspired to write in about a practice I witness just about every day in Anthem. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am an avid cyclist and while I don’t run much anymore I used to run regularly and think what I have to say is unbiased.