Celebrate the 4th of July with Veteran Discounts

This 4th of July, I thought I would point out all of the fantastic locations that give our veterans a discount, in thanks for their service to our country!

Aeropostale – 10% off with military ID
Amtrak – 10% off with military ID
AT&T – 10-15% discount off monthly bill, valid military ID required
Avis – 25% off with military ID
Champs Sports – 10% off with military ID (may vary by location)
DSW Shoe Outlet – 10% military discount 1st of every month (may vary by location; in-store only)
Express (clothing store – 10% off with military ID
Foot Locker – 20% off with military ID
Gap – 10% military discount 1st of every month (may vary by location; in-store only)
Geico – Discount varies, valid military ID required
Home Depot – 10% off with military ID
Hooters – 10% off with military ID (may vary by location)
Hot Topic – 10% off with military ID
IHOP – 20% off with military ID (may vary by location)
Lady Foot Locker – 20% off with military ID
Longhorn Steakhouse – 10% military discount
Lowe’s – 10% off with military ID
Macy’s – 10% off on the first Tuesday of every month (may vary by location; in-store only)
Maurices (clothing store) - 10% off with military ID
Meineke – 10% off parts with military ID. In store only
National Car Rental – Discount varies, valid military ID required
Old Navy - 10% military discount on the 1st of each month with military ID
New York and Company - 15% off military discount
Payless Shoe Source – 10% off with military ID (may vary by location; in-store only)
Pep Boys – 10% off with valid military ID
Regal Movie Theaters – Matinee prices for all show times. Requires valid Military ID (may vary by location)
Spencers – 10% off with military ID
Sprint – 10-18% off. Sprint will also put a “hold” on your line when you are deployed, if you provide a copy of your orders, so you still have the same number when you come back and you do not have to pay a monthly fee while deployed
T-Mobile – Discount varies, valid military ID required
Verizon – 23% discount on monthly bills. Applies only to the military member’s primary line
Walgreens – 10% with military ID every Tuesday (may vary by location)

There may be more local discounts available to you. For instance my local hardware store offers veteran discounts as well... but this is a fairly complete nationwide list.

Give a YAY for the Gay! - NY Legalizes Same-Sex Marriages!

In the Great State of New York, our Andrew Cuomo just signed the state’s marriage equality bill, mere hours after it passed the State Senate on Friday night. Making NY the sixth state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriages.

Governor Cuomo signed the bill into law after the legislature voted to legalize same-sex marriage with its 33-to-29 vote. New York makes records by beingthe state legislature with a Republican majority that has approved such a same-sex marriage bill. Although much can be said for NY Republicans being a different breed than say Alabama Republicans.

The new law, will allow same-sex couples in New York to marry within 30 days. Which means that allegedly "well-meaning" groups that were spending millions of dollars to try and stop same-sex marriage (for example) can perhaps take some of that money and feed the hungry or cloth the homeless. Or do something worthwhile.

Governor Cuomo gave credit to the four Republican senators who joined the majority of the State Senate's Democrats to vote for the passage of the bill, stating that they were “people of courage.” “I think it was politically more dangerous for a Republican,” Cuomo told reporters late Friday. “The conservative party was threatening them with consequences . . . and they did it anyway.”

And I agree - props should be given to those who do the right thing, even though it may cost them an election. Not that the NY Senate pays much... but it would be a loss of prestige, or some such.

Texas Rangers Draft Paralyzed Player

This morning on the radio, I heard what I feel like is one of the best pieces of news I have heard in a long time. The Texas Rangers drafted two friends from the University of Georgia: Johnathan Taylor and Zach Cone.

It may not originally sound like much, but Johnathan Taylor is paralyzed from the waist down due to a collision he and Cone had in University of Georgia ball game on March 6th.

The Rangers decided to draft him anyway, because they felt like he was the kind of person that they wanted in their organization. According to Fox News, Texas' Director of Amateur Scouting Kip Fagg said that Taylor's selection was "something we felt was right."

This story made my day today, because it's not often you hear amazingly good news. Usually all I hear on the way to work is war, crime & taxes. But this story made my day, and most likely my week. The Texas Rangers are now my new second favorite baseball team... I'll always be a Yankees girl first.

Cyber Attack = Act of War?

I'm sure you've all seen in the news, that the Pentagon feels that cyber attacks on the United States will constitute an act of war.

I've got mixed feelings on this. Certainly I don't want hostile governments hacking into the United States business, military info, etc. etc. But just how do you go about proving that the cyber attack was directed by a government, and not just some crazy anarchist in a basement looking to start WWIII?

Granted, the fact that the most recent alleged cyber attacks were traced to IP addresses of a Chinese military facility does lead to a certain amount of suspicion... but again - is that some guy in his off time going "HAHA! Got the US!" or did a general direct him to see just how much US info he could get?

I think it's a slippery slope. I don't think you should get to drop bombs in response to a cyber attack. I think you should get to launch a cyber counter-attack. Force should only be answered with like-force. If someone is hacking into the US - we should hack back into them. Or maybe set up a font of mis-information, so whatever they get by hacking only have a 50-50 shot of being true. I just don't think that military response to computer assault may be the best way to go.

Thoughts of the recently engaged...

... so I became engaged over this Christmas, and while it was totally one of the happiest moments of my entire life; the whole wedding planning and ensuing nonsense is truly for the birds.

First and foremost, if one more broad tells me that I HAVE to call boyfriend "my fiancee" now, I will alternatively scream and envision punching her repeatedly. Am I the only one who finds the term "fiancee" outdated and pretentious? Is it seriously just me? He's my boyfriend, we're engaged, whatever... at some point he will be my husband, and then I will start calling him that. In between, I will call him what I please, and you can butt your head out of it friends-of-friends (who are really the only people giving me any flack)... when your SOs get you a shiny diamond, you can call them your fiancee, or "affianced" or "betrothED" or whatever archaic term you please... but butt your meddling heads out of my engagement.

Also - in regards to receptions, I feel like businesses hear "wedding" and internally hear "CHA-CHING!" ... for serious, as I scope out wedding halls, photographers, DJs, etc. etc. etc. They have ONE price for parties and ANOTHER price for weddings

(edit - except my newly hired photographer - who is the best woman on the fact of the earth)

It makes me want to get married in the church, and then change into a prom dress and call the reception a "birthday party" with open bar and dancing. It would literally cost HALF of what a "wedding" reception costs.

Well that's it for me for the moment. But it really gets my goat that people use one of the most joyous occasions in life as an opportunity to price gouge. GAH!

Watch out world: your 4 yr old can now be sued!

Yep, as of Oct 1st, when Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, found a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.

The judge did not find that the tyke was liable, merely that she can be sued.

The relevant facts are as follows... In April of 2009, Jacob Kohn and Juliet Breitman, both 4, were racing their bicycles on the sidewalk of East 52nd St, while being watched by their mothers, Rachel Kohn and Dana Breitman. At some point in their race, they struck an 87-year-old woman, Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and was subsequently “seriously and severely injured,” suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later of unrelated causes, and her estate then brought a suit against the kids and their parents.

The Breitmans lawyers argued that the girl was not “engaged in an adult activity” at the time of the accident and was too young to be held liable for negligence. The Kohns did not try to dismiss the action against them. But, the judge found that while "infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence" Juliet was 3 months shy of her 5th birthday, and there is no bright line rule for those over the age of 4.

He went on to say “A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,” the judge wrote. He added that any “reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. Judge Wooten state that the crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable. Here, however, Mrs. Breitman was not cheering her tyke on as she crashed into an elderly woman.

I find it a bit scary that 4 year olds can be held liable. But it seems a sign of the times, our kids have to grow up faster than ever before. Liable at 4 and potentially sexting or drinking by 12... it's a scary, scary world these days.

Obama Streaker Update

So apparently the Obama streaking does not count. WHAT? According to SiFy news, Alki David does not want to pay unless the White House acknowledges that Obama saw Mr. Rodriquez's nasty bits. Really? REALLY? You want the WHITE HOUSE to acknowledge that the PRESIDENT saw a naked man? First and foremost, the White House is not going to comment, and good for them for not descending to your asinine level Mr. David; second - pay the man the million dollars, he was naked within 10 ft of the president.

Apparently instead, in exchange for an undisclosed sum, Juan Rodriguez has agreed with Alki David to try to streak again, in front of another undisclosed head of state. David apparently spoke with Rodriguez directly, and told the NY Post "Mr. Rodriguez agreed that he was not able to complete all the criteria of the challenge. But he came so very close, and his personal story about why he decided to take such a risk for his family, moved me to provide him with a generous consolation prize."

My thoughts are - you're settling with him Mr. David, you're settling with him so he doesn't sue for the promised $1 million AND damages. However, David has said that despite the "failed attempt," (his words) he has agreed to pay all Rodriguez's sister's hospital bills, Rodriguez's rent for the next year and will provide him with an additional undisclosed amount of cash. This is not too bad, because the rent is supposedly $1,600 a month, and medical bills can get quite, quite costly, so hopefully Rodriguez recovers a couple hundred thousand. It's the least, the very least, Mr. David can do.

Additionally I think Mr. David should pay all of Rodriguez's legal bills. But that may just be me, the rest of you may feel that Rodriguez should pay for his own stupidity.

Obama Streaker Shouldn't Be the One to Pay!

So as most of you probably know, President Obama got to see a naked man the other day. Not that its likely that he had any desire to see Juan James Rodriguez's manly bits, nor is it likely he had to see them long before Rodriguez was hauled off by the cops, but still nudity occurred.

And Mr. Rodriguez got certainly more than he himself bargained for. Roidriguez was egged on by a website, which stipulated it would pay US $1,000,000 to anyone who streaked in front of the president, with the website name written on his or her chest and shouted the website's name 6 times.

However, instead of an easy million, Rodriguez was arrested, charged with indecent exposure, public lewdness, and disorderly conduct and only released on $10,000 bail. He also claims he spent $1,300 of his own money for the prank, some of it on the specially designed tear-away T-shirt and shorts he wore. Now, regardless of the validity of his own spending on his pre-nudity costume, it is likely that he will have to shell out quite a bit in legal fees and court fees in order to keep himself out of serious trouble.

However, the internet mogul Alki David, who's promoted this insane act, is now saying he's not sure Rodriguez met the terms of the wager. "It's a lot of money," David is quoted as saying. "We're not going to give the money away lightly." WHAT?!? You'll advertise that you give away this money lightly, and it didn't strike you as a lot of money when you put the offer up on your website. And seeing all of the stupid things people are willing to do on TV for far less money, you HAD to have a reasonable suspicion that someone would follow through on this nonsense.

Not only do I believe that David should have to pay up, and soon, I also believe he should share in the legal repercussions. He knows that being fully nude is pretty much illegal in all of the States, and he knows that conducting nonsense around and near the President of the US is also pretty much always illegal. He point blank incited illegal activities, and I don't think that Rodriguez should be the only one to suffer. You shouldn't be allowed to pull ridiculous pranks just because you are rich and escape scott-free.

A car that drives me? Sign me up!

Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently announced that the search engine giant is actively testing autonomous cars and has already logged 140,000 miles with its test autos.

The way these cars work is through the use of sensors, video cameras and laser range finders in tandem with info collected by manually driven vehicles that Google has sent out to various map routes. The automated cars is then relayed the info gathered by the other cars after it is processed at Google’s data centers.

One of the primary goals of these cars is to, not only, cut energy consumption but to also cut the amount of deaths currently caused by traffic accidents (roughly 1.2 million people per year). Google hopes that with these cars, traffic accidents can mostly be avoided; because even when a human doesn’t see something coming, the car will and will then act accordingly.

Although these vehicles are self-driving, none of them have yet to make a journey without a driver present to take over and additionally, police officers have always been told as to what is going on when tests have been conducted.

If you're interested in more info, you can read more about it here - LINK! And although skeptics think that a fully automated car is a long way off, I'm still hopeful, I would love to be able to sleep my way through my commute.

This week in stupid lawsuits: Paris Hilton vs Hallmark

This just in, Paris Hilton and Hallmark have finally settled their lawsuit over the use of the catchphrase "that's hot."

Hilton recently sued the Kansas City greeting card maker for portraying her as a waitress in a diner handing a patron a plate and using her "trademark" "that's hot" line. I find the lawsuit completely ridiculous in that Hilton is far from the first person to ever utter the phrase, which she unsuccessfully tried to claim as a tradmark in 2007.

Hallmark argued the card was in the "public interest," which is laughable since Hilton hasn't been of public interest (minus recently being declared persona non grata in Japan) since before her suit was filed in 2007.

The terms of the settlement are unknown and not released by either party, but Hilton had been demanding $500,000. The only word out of Hallmark is the settlement was from the Judge, in that it was a "mutually acceptable conclusion," which hopefully means Hallmark won't be producing any more Hilton cards. And hopefully no one else will for that matter.