jump to navigation

BEWARE OF “Debt-Adjustment” Racketeers November 29, 2008

Posted by chrys in : DEBT, FINANCE, HISTORY, OLD READ, READER'S DIGEST , add a comment

To go with the post before this one - another Reader’s Digest article dated October 1955!. I know you’ve seen the commercials . . .

Owe more than you can pay? You can get help from ethical agencies . . .

“Get out of debt!” “Restore your credit without a loan!” “We can help you even if you’ve been turned down by everyone else!”

In the past two years these and similar slogans have lured thousands of debt-ridden families into a scheme for paying off all their financial obligations gradually through one agency. Debt-adjustment is the formal name; often it’s called “prorating,” “debt-lumping” or “debt-pooling.” By any name it’s often an incredibly vicious racket. The operator takes a substantial fee and usually the victims are left more hopelessly in debt than ever.

“These operations are well on their way to becoming a national problem,” warns Allen E. Backman, executive vice-president of the National Association of Better Business Bureaus.

Nearly 350 firms are no in the debt-pooling business, and new ones appear every month. Some conduct their businesses honestly, but the majority are out to get all they can as quickly as possible.

It’s an easy business to get into. Only in Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine and Pennsylvania are there any adequate legal restrictions; in the other 43 states anyone can set up as a debt lumper without a license. He merely contracts to have clients pay him a certain sum every payday so he can pay off their creditors piecemeal. All he needs is a line of smooth talk.

The people who turn to the debt adjusters are truly desperate. Generally they owe about $1500 to small loan companies, auto-finance firms, installment houses. An end of over-time work or a costly illness suddenly makes their burden of debt unbearable.

The debt-adjuster is slickly reassuring when you come to his office. He will shield you from your creditors. They won’t dare bother you any more once you sign up with him. How much can you spare every week to pay off your debt? Twenty dollars? Fine, He will apportion a little to each of your creditors and in 18 months or two years you’ll be out of debt.

How much for his services? Just some bookkeeping charges, a few pennies a day. Even those who read his small-print contract carefully seldom understand that they are committing themselves to pay up to 25 percent of the amount of their debts for the service; that in order to pay off $1000, for example, they are taking on an additional debt of $250.

Consider the case of a Philadelphia postal employee. He owed $2500. A debt-adjustment firm offered to relieve him of all debt worries for $500, so he arranged to pay them $100 every two weeks until the total, $3000, was paid off. Ten weeks later, after he had paid in $500, the auto finance company took his car away: no payments had been made on it. Angry, he tried to withdraw from the clutches of the debt-adjuster. He could get out, they said, but it would still cost him $500.

He now found that a jeweler to whom the debt-lumper was supposed to be paying $24 a month on his behalf hadn’t been getting a cent. The firm made excuses, and started paying $10 a month. But when a third creditor informed him that its payments weren’t begin met, he sensibly went to the Legal Aid Society of Philadelphia - and discovered that 70 others were complaining against the same company. In view of the contracts they had signed, nothing could be done to help them. “It cost me $500 to find out I could handle my debts better than the debt-lumpers could,” the victim commented grimly.

In Columbus, Ohio, the Better Business Bureau checked 28 complaints against one debt-lumping firm and found that although these clients had paid in $3804 the company had paid out only $1224 to their creditors. And nothing could be done about it because of the contracts these clients signed.

By one means or another the prorater makes sure he gets his commission first. Once he does it isn’t surprising that he’s no longer interested in whether the client maintains his payments - in fact, if the debtor drops out it relieves the firm of further paper work.

Can’t the law do something about the racket? It isn’t easy, as Robert D. Abrahams, chief counsel of the Legal Aid Society in Philadelphia, discovered when he saw how ironclad the debt-lumper’s contract is. However, he decided to try to help the 115 persons who had complained about their unhappy relations with two debt-adjustment firms.

After careful planning Abrahams attacked on three points. First he had a warrant issued against one of them on a charge of violating the State’s Collection Agency Act. Then he got the Bar Association to conduct an investigation to see if these firms, by making distinctions between certain classes of creditors, were practicing law without a license. And finally, he got the Philadelphia Credit Bureau to publicize it’s free debt-consultation service.

One of the firms was convicted on trial and has appealed. Both closed their Philadelphia offices. But Philadelphia is an exception. It is one of the few major cities where no debt-lumpers are operating today.

In Boston, District Attorney Garrett H. Byrne faced a similar situation. Hundreds of complaints about six debt-adjustment firms were piling up, but there was nothing in the statue books to cover their operations. Finally, Byrne got one of the more flagrant operators indicted for larceny and “general scheme to defraud.” This indictment, and the consequent refusal of Boston newspapers to take the ads of the unsavory debt-lumpers, quickly drove most of them out of business.

Today four debt-pooling firms in Boston belong to an Advisory Budget Council which has drawn up its own code of ethics. Two of the key rules are; no firm may charge more than six percent of the client’s total indebtedness; the fee is to be prorated over the period in which the debts are being paid off. Such voluntary action, plus unfavorable newspaper publicity on debt-pooling enterprises, has decreased debt-pooling complaints in Boston.

There are several little-known agencies that will help a hard-pressed wage earner liquidate his debts over a long period at no cost or at low cost. For example, many city wide credit bureaus offer such services free or at charges that seldom exceed ten percent. Typical and perhaps best known is the one run by the Spokane Retail Credit Association since 1918. Its Pool Accounts Department has handled more than 5000 accounts successfully and the charges are only $5 plus six percent a year. In some cities the Legal Aid office, working with the family welfare agencies, will render a similar service, usually without charge.

In Ohio, debt-plagued families can turn to the municipal court for free debt-adjustment. Last year in Cleveland alone more than 700 debtors were paying off their obligations under court protection and direction. Your local Legal Aid can tell you whether your state has a similar provisions.

Even at best, none of these methods is an easy way out of debt. And most business leaders agree that, for certain people, credit is too easy to obtain. These people can no more resist excess credit than a drunkard can resist another drink.

“Credit drunkenness is not something you find only among the poor,” says V.N. Thoen of Minneapolis, who runs the oldest private debt-pooling agency in the country. “We’ve had hundreds of well-to-do clients, and people you’d think would know better.

Thoen has drawn up four key points for the “Solvency Code” he gives to every client:

  1. Rigidly control impulse buying.
  2. Shop carefully for the best buy.
  3. Don’t sign any installment contract blindly.
  4. Keep a margin of safety. Anyone who mortgages his income 100 percent is headed for trouble. Remember, you can jump into debt but you have to crawl out.

“If people only kept those points in mind,” Thoen says, “every debt-pooler in the country would be out of business in a month.”

What “Tight Money” Really Means November 28, 2008

Posted by chrys in : FINANCE, HISTORY, OLD READ, READER'S DIGEST , add a comment

Finding it hard to borrow money these days? Here are the reasons why. . .

It is becoming harder and harder to borrow money these days - for businessmen, farmers, home builders, private individuals, even for governments. Money, in other words, is “tight.” Lenders have less of it to provide, and for what they do have, they are charging higher interest rates than at any time since the early 1930’s.

Nearly everybody is affected by “tight money.” Your next car may be harder to buy because money is tight. Instead of 36 months to pay, you are likely to be held to 30 months, maybe to 24 months. Where a monthly payment was around $75, it may now become $100.

If you are thinking of buying a home, you may have some trouble arranging a mortgage. The lender is likely to ask for a larger down payment than he would have required last year, and to insist on a shorter term for repayment. He will want 5 1/2 or even 6 percent interest, instead of 4 1/2 or 5 percent. Farmers and businesses seeking loans are similarly affected.

Why this sudden tightening of money? It is all according to plan. Borrowed money, when spent, adds to demand for materials and labor, both now in short supply. The result is pressure for rising prices. That is what Government planners want to prevent.

There is at present a strong inflationary demand for credit. Industry is seeking record amounts to finance huge expansion programs. State and local governments have vast programs of public works. Builders are pressing for funds to finance more homes. Consumers are spending record sums, and want to borrow to keep on spending. Meanwhile, most of the labor force is already fully occupied and unions are demanding and getting wage increases. Many production lines are operating at capacity. With costs increasing and prices rising, the possibility of greater inflation threatens.

The men on the Federal Reserve Board who shape money policy for the Government are determined to keep this situation under control. Their aim is to supply an amount of money considered adequate for normal needed, but to keep the supply tight enough to discourage lots of undertakings that can be postponed.

Tight money has prompted criticism from home builders, some state and local officials and some members of Congress. This criticism has had little noticeable effect on the Federal Reserve Board. The Board began to let credit tighten more than a year ago, when the **** boom showed strength, and has continued that policy up to the present. Now, with indications of continued strength in business activity, there are no signs that the money managers will change their course.

Signs are that money available for borrowing is likely to become even scarcer and more expensive before it again becomes abundant and cheaper. The day of “cheap” money probably will not return until the upward spiral of wages and prices is brought under control.

NOTE: Sound pretty much like today doesn’t it? Hmmmm - -This is an article written in the December 1956 Reader’s Digest and the number indicated with **** is actually 1955. Apparently things never change!

November 13, 2008

Posted by chrys in : Uncategorized , add a comment

“I Cried but NOT for Irma” June 1, 2008

Posted by chrys in : DEATH, OLD READ, POLITICS, READER'S DIGEST, Uncategorized , add a comment

Sometimes you need to stop and think about what “Do No Harm” means. This article is very much a reminder of what many of us witness as it happens to people whom we love very much. People who have been so much a part of our lives and given so much of themselves to everyone over the years of their lives. We all need to honestly examine where and how we want to be in our final hours and what should be done to allow us to legally make these individual choices.

Max Ferber - - Reader’s Digest - April 1976 - Condensed from the LA Times

It was six months ago that Irma and I first drove to the hospital. The internist had been concerned about my wife’s occasional spotting.  The gynecologist, apprehensive about what his examination indicated, had suggested a hysterectomy.

Following the operation, the surgeon came up to me in the waiting room.  After some preliminary words he said: “it’s terminal cancer.”

It’s terminal cancer.

In something of a whisper, I asked, “How long does she have?”

“It’s difficult to say. I could be six months to five years.”

Now Irma is dead, after six months, at 75.

It was not over her sure death that I cried. It was for the ignominious way of her going: the degradation of the spirit that was once her, the flagellation of her body, the torture inflicted by medical ethics and by a society that values the flesh over the spirit.

Irma recovered from the operation. She came home after three weeks in the hospital.  During her convalexcence she was up and about. She was at the table for meals. We visited friends, attended the theater, dined out. The pills were effective; there was no pain.

Had there been a remission? Were the doctors only mortals who had guessed wrong? Were we witnessing a miracle?

Two months of hope, then began the journey to the other shore. Irma was tired. Tempting her to eat was futile.  Sedation was needed on a regular schedule. In vigils through the night, we reacted to a gesture, kept adjusting her pillow. Terminal cancer: Please let her not have pain.

In time, the burden of caring became too great, even with family members sharing the shifts. Exhaustion set in - physical, mental, emotional. The only alternative was the hospital. “There are to be no heroic measures,” I said. “I just don’t want her to have any pain.”

They said that they understood, but it was not to be.

The first ten days in the hospital were a time for gratitude. The nurses were kind and compassionate.  Medication was given as needed. Irma’s position in bed was changed on schedule to prevent bed sores and to provide comfort. A tube hung from a bedside stand for intravenous feeding.

Irma was not aware of the world - but she was comfortable. There was no pain.

Each day, I watched, wondered - dulled to what was taking place but grateful to the nurses for their concern.

One morning of the third week, I entered the room and was startled. The intravenous tube had been removed from Irma’s arm. Instead, she was being fed through a tube inserted in her nose.

She lay on her back in the bed, her hands tied to the rails. I asked why this had to be. “Because,” the nurse said, “she was pulling out the tube.”

Everyone was considerate.  The nurses changed her position every two hours, retying her hands to the rails.  They provided pillows to support her changed position.  I saw her that evening on her side, tied down for immobility. Only her fingers twitched.

That night, at home in bed, I tried the various positions I had observed Irma take. I could hold each position for only 15 minutes, having to shift to relieve the tension, to release the straining of my muscles. But it was all right. Irma’s position was being changed every two hours.  She had no pain.

In the fifth week, a catheter was introduced to catch her urine.  Now the chemicals that dripped through the tube inserted in her nose passed through her body and emptied efficiently into a pouch at the foot of her bed. In this way Irma was being kept alive. I paled at the sight.

The sixth week showed a change.  Irma looked better: there was a flush in her cheeks. I wondered what this could mean.

“We pulled her through pneumonia by suctioning the mucus from her lungs,” they said.  “she is resting more easily now.”

How thoughtful.  The idea came to me: Irma will make a good looking corpse, thanks to medical science.

Through it all I was led to believe - by comments, by shrugging shoulders - that it would be a matter of only two weeks. Always two weeks, by increments. At the end of three months, I was told Irma could no longer be kept in the hospital: she would have to be moved to a sanitarium.

That night I went to look over the sanitarium they had chosen.  I was disheartened. The place was dim; it seemed gloomy and desolate.

The next morning, as usual, I stopped at the hospital. Irma’s room was empty.  She had been moved to the sanitarium earlier than I had expected.  I hurried there. In daylight it looked better than it had by night.

I found the room where Irma was imprisoned.  Yes, that word was inescapable. She was receiving the same care and attention as in the hospital. Again the tube was inserted in her nose, again the catheter pouch hung at the foot of her bed, again her hand were tied to the bed rails.

Irma’s squirming had caused her sheet to slip off, and she was lying nude. I covered her and kissed her forehead.

The nurses, again, were kind and compassionate. Sedation came on schedule. Irma was suffering no pain.

Another six weeks passed.

Then, at last, I was privileged to watch Irma being ferried across the River Styx. It had been a long journey, not because the river was wide - from where I stood, I had long since seen the opposite shrouded shore - but because the man-made current was almost irresistible. The force of public opinion, of medical and legal ethics, had run furiously, almost vengefully, resisting Irma’s passage.

As I sat, patiently watching, I saw her finally reach the other shore and disappear into the mist of infinity.  Her trials were over. It was Saturday, exactly 11:17 a.m. Society had claimed its last ounce of flesh, and after a while I could stop crying.

I left the sanitarium. As I drove away, a seething anger swept over me.  It was a fetish, nothing less, for society to worship the flesh while it destroyed the spirit.

At any hospital, the dedication is heedlessly to prolong life.  No, not just to prolong life but to do so by using ingenious devices that not only measure the semblance of life but also confirm that the machinery itself is functioning.

Why had Irma been subjected to degradation that made a mockery of living? What does society want, and in heaven’s name, why?

The anger has not left me. It will consume me as long as I live. Why are those who value living so insensitive to dying? In memory of Irma - for all the Irmas of this world - I make a simple but heartfelt plea: let us rise, all of us, to defend the defenseless body against the machine.

The Big Lie About America January 9, 2008

Posted by chrys in : HISTORY, POLITICS, READER'S DIGEST , add a comment
We often hear the complaint that the United States has to regain respect that this administration has eroded? Hmmm - makes me stop to realize that the people saying these things must have had blinders on over the last decades. Other countries have often held negative feelings toward the United States. This post from 1961 and the following article from October 1976 demonstrate just that.

Condensed from Toronto Star - Robert Nielsen - A Canadian journalist asks: How did America ever get cast in the role of a villain?

The most successful Big Lie since Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels were in the mendacity business is that the United States of America is the prime villain in world affairs. How did this whopper come to be widely believed about the nation which 30 years ago, was almost universally regarded as a benefactor to humanity?

Part of the answer is easy. As the powerhouse of capitalism and democracy, the United States had to be discredited if possible by the Soviet Union and its satellites. For decades these communist countries have fed their peoples a diet of lies and distortions picturing the United States as a ruthless imperialist abroad and cruel oppressor at home.

Anti-Americanism in the so-called Third World nations, neither communist nor aligned with the West, is more complex. Here the United States has certainly earned, though not always for dishonorable reasons, some, animosity:

But the United States has not, by its own actions, come close to earning the amount of abuse heaped on it by the Third World. It has done many things that should have earned goodwill there - such as being nearly always first with the most emergency relief in time of famine, flood or earthquake.

Another part of the explanation is simply envy and resentment of the poor and weak toward the rich and powerful. The trend toward authoritarian rule in the new nations has also produced a lot of mangy dictatorships and one-party regimes that would be undetermined if their people could make true comparisons with the biggest democracy; so it profits their rulers to slander the United States.

Now we come to the strangest and saddest part of the story, which is how free and democratic peoples have supported the Big Lie and thereby helped discredit the main champion of freedom. With few exceptions, the Western news media have done this quite innocently, by covering the news as it happens and where it’s available. And about 99 percent of it is available only in open societies like the United States. Totalitarian states simply deny access to everything they don’t want reported. By the time a Solzhenitsyn tells us of the oceans of blood and tears shed in the Gulag Archipelago, the story is “old,” and its continuation hard to report, so the Western media give it only passing attention.

When this unbalanced access is combined with the critical, negative tradition of Western journalism - things that are going well usually aren’t news - the result is a continuous distortion of the world picture. Russia’s strangling of a whole country, Czechoslovakia, was a nine-day wonder in the media; America’s maladroit and callously executed attempt to keep half of Vietnam from falling to communists was so vividly and copiously reported that it provoked ten years of global outrage, as well as a political convulsion within the United States.

We owe most of our knowledge of the sins and errors of the United States, from My Lai to Watergate, to American reporters. The point here is not that the United States or any other democratic state should be spared close scrutiny and criticism; that’s how we stay free. But we could do more by way of commentary to redress the unavoidable lack of balance in reporting on the free and unfree countries.

In this sorry business of free people tarring Uncle Sam, I’ve given first place to the media only because we deserve it. But the contributions of academics and teachers shouldn’t be overlooked, either. Academics generally don’t admire the Soviet Union anymore, as many tended to do in the 1930s and 1940s. A popular cop-out for liberal-leftists is to find the United States and the Soviets equally reprehensible. They equate a Chile on the American side with ten countries permanently subjugated by the Soviet Union. This relieves them of the responsibility of choosing sides, even where the differences in terms of human decency and liberty are immense.

The United States, notwithstanding grievous errors, mistakes and occasional villainies, is committed by its whole history to fundamental human rights. The Soviet Union, on its record, is inexorably bent on the destruction of those rights. They are the present protagonists in the endless struggle between liberty and tyranny. After a long stalemate, tyranny is clearly gaining ground as the West loses unity and the will to resist. The United States is now retreating toward a new isolationism. One reason is the thanklessness of its task as leader of the democracies.

For democrats of every persuasion - liberal, socialist or conservative - anti-Americanism has become a costly indulgence.

.

10 Things Learned in a Half Century of Living

Posted by chrys in : LIST, MINI READ, OLD READ, READER'S DIGEST , add a comment
  1. A man who wants time to read and write must let the grass grow long.
  2. The hardest part of raising children is teaching them to ride bicycles. A father can either run beside the bicycle or stand yelling directions while the child falls. A shakey child on a bicycle for the first time needs both support and freedom. The realization that this is what the child will always need can hit hard.
  3. It’s impossible to treat a child too well. Children are spoiled by being ignored too much or by harshness, not by kindness. Rich kids are often spoiled not by their toys and automobiles, but by parents who are too busy to pay much attention to them.
  4. It is impossible to treat a woman too well.
  5. The definition of a beautiful woman is one who loves me.
  6. Children go away and live their own lives, starting when they are about 18. Parents who accept this as a natural part of the order of things will see their grown children surprisingly often.
  7. Success in almost any field depends more on energy and drive than it does on intelligence. This explains why we have so many stupid leaders.
  8. When things break around the house, call a handyman. No intelligent man is capable of fixing anything, unless he has made home repair his business.
  9. Either afloat or ashore, it is normal for everything to go wrong. No one should ever be surprised or unduly upset by foul-ups. They are a basic part of the human condition.
  10. When I was young I was briefly interested in politics, but politics soon bored me. I was interested in business for a long while, but business eventually bored me. Religion I never understood at all. Although it may sound sentimental, the only real meaning I have found in life has been in my wife and children. Without them, I would be in more despair than a bankrupt millionaire.

Condensed from “What Shall We Wear to This Party?” by Sloan Wilson. Printed in the Reader’s Digest - October, 1976

Simple Christmas Blessings December 25, 2007

Posted by chrys in : CHRISTMAS, HOLIDAY, POWER POINT , 1 comment so far


Santa Belugas : White Belugas, wearing Santa hats pose with a trainer during a new Christmas show at the Hakkeijima Sea Paradise aquarium in Yokohama, in Kanagawa prefecture.
(AFP/Yoshikazu Tsuno)

I believe the following arrived in my e-mail last year.CHRISTMAS BLESSINGS Download and/or play

SANTA IN IRAQ A good video.

From a familiar site - Click “Rabbit Go Away” and watch the card come to life. Ad or no ad - it’s a peaceful reminder.

If “Simple Secular” is more entertaining for you Click here

THE MARINE POEM - An E-Mail Favorite

Posted by chrys in : CHRISTMAS, HOLIDAY , 1 comment so far
The “Marine” Poem as sent in e-mail along with it’s “Snopes”

A Marine stationed in Okinawa Japan wrote this poem. The following is his request. I think it is reasonable . . . PLEASE. Would you do me a thoughtful favor of sending this poem to as many people as you can? Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is due to our U.S. service men and women for our being able to celebrate these festivities.
________________________________________

Twas the night before Christmas, he lived all alone,
In a one bedroom house made of plaster & stone.
I had come down the chimney with presents to give
And to see just who in this home did live.

I looked all about a strange sight I did see,
No tinsel, no presents, not even a tree.
No stocking by the fire, just boots filled with sand,
On the wall hung pictures of far distant lands.

With medals and badges, awards of all kind
A sober thought came through my mind.
For this house was different, so dark and dreary,
I knew I had found the home of a soldier, once I could see clearly.

I heard stories about them, I had to see more
So I walked down the hall and pushed open the door.
And there he lay sleeping silent alone,
Curled up on the floor in his one bedroom home.

His face so gentle, his room in such disorder,
Not how I pictured a United States soldier.
Was this the hero of whom I’d just read?
Curled up in his poncho, a floor for his bed?

His head was clean shaven, his weathered face tan,
I soon understood this was more than a man.
For I realized the families that I saw that night
Owed their lives to these men who were willing to fight.

Soon ‘round the world, the children would play,
And grownups would celebrate on a bright Christmas day.
They all enjoyed freedom each month of the year,
Because of soldiers like this one lying here.

I couldn’t help wonder how many lay alone
On a cold Christmas Eve in a land far from home.
Just the very thought brought a tear to my eye,
I dropped to my knees and started to cry.

The soldier awakened and I heard a rough voice,
“Santa don’t cry, this life is my choice;
I fight for freedom, I don’t ask for more,
my life is my God, my country, my Corps.”

With that he rolled over and drifted off into sleep,
I couldn’t control it, I continued to weep.
I watched him for hours, so silent and still,
I noticed he shivered from the cold night’s chill.

So I took off my jacket, the one made of red,
And I covered this Soldier from his toes to his head.
And I put on his T-shirt of gray and black,
With an eagle and an Army patch embroidered on back.

And although it barely fit me, I began to swell with pride,
And for a shining moment, I was United States Army deep inside.
I didn’t want to leave him on that cold dark night,
This guardian of honor so willing to fight.

Then the soldier rolled over, whispered with a voice so clean and pure,
“Carry on Santa, it’s Christmas Day, all is secure.”
One look at my watch, and I knew he was right,
Merry Christmas my friend, and to all a good night!

Origins: This piece, which sees wide circulation every Christmastime, is generally credited to “a Marine stationed in Okinawa, Japan” (or, since 11 September 2001, “a Marine stationed in Afghanistan”). More specifically, the poem is often attributed to an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel named Bruce Lovely, who purportedly penned it on Christmas Eve 1993 while stationed in Korea (and saw it printed under his name in the Ft. Leavenworth Lamp a few years later):

I arrived in Korea in Jul 93 and was extremely impressed with the commitment of the soldiers I worked with and those that were prepared to give their lives to maintain the freedom of South Korea. To honor them, I wrote the poem and went around on Christmas Eve and put it under the doors of US soldiers assigned to Yongsan.

This attribution does a great disservice to the poem’s true author, James M. Schmidt, who was a Lance Corporal stationed in Washington, D.C., when he wrote the poem back in 1986.

As Corporal Schmidt told us in December 2002:

The true story is that while a Lance Corporal serving as Battalion Counter Sniper at the Marine Barracks 8th & I, Washington, DC, under Commandant P.X. Kelly and Battalion Commander D.J. Myers [in 1986], I wrote this poem to hang on the door of the Gym in the BEQ. When Colonel Myers came upon it, he read it and immediately had copies sent to each department at the Barracks and promptly dismissed the entire Battalion early for Christmas leave. The poem was placed that day in the Marine Corps Gazette, distributed worldwide and later submitted to Leatherneck Magazine.

Schmidt’s original version, entitled “Merry Christmas, My Friend,” was published in Leatherneck (Magazine of the Marines) in December 1991, a full two years before it was supposedly “written” by someone else on Christmas Eve 1993 (and had appeared in the Barracks publication Pass in Review four years before it was printed in Leatherneck).

As Leatherneck wrote of the poem’s author in 2003:
“Merry Christmas, My Friend” has been a holiday favorite among “leatherneckphiles” for nearly the time it takes to complete a Marine Corps career. Few, however, know who wrote it and when. Former Corporal James M. Schmidt, stationed at Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C., pounded it out 17 years ago on a typewriter while awaiting the commanding officer’s Christmas holiday decorations inspection . . . while other leathernecks strung lights for the Barracks’ annual Christmas decoration contest, Schmidt contributed his poem to his section.

Over the years the text of “Merry Christmas, My Friend” has been altered to change Marine-specific wording into Army references (including the title: U.S. Marines do not refer to themselves as “soldiers”) and to incorporate line-ending rhyme changes necessitated by those alterations.

We reproduce below Corporal Schmidt’s version as printed in Leatherneck back in 1991:Merry Christmas, My Friend

Twas the night before Christmas, he lived all alone,
In a one bedroom house made of plaster & stone.

I had come down the chimney, with presents to give
and to see just who in this home did live

As I looked all about, a strange sight I did see,
no tinsel, no presents, not even a tree.
No stocking by the fire, just boots filled with sand.
On the wall hung pictures of a far distant land.

With medals and badges, awards of all kind,
a sobering thought soon came to my mind.
For this house was different, unlike any I’d seen.
This was the home of a U.S. Marine.

I’d heard stories about them, I had to see more,
so I walked down the hall and pushed open the door.
And there he lay sleeping, silent, alone,
Curled up on the floor in his one-bedroom home.

He seemed so gentle, his face so serene,
Not how I pictured a U.S. Marine.
Was this the hero, of whom I’d just read?
Curled up in his poncho, a floor for his bed?

His head was clean-shaven, his weathered face tan.
I soon understood, this was more than a man.
For I realized the families that I saw that night,
owed their lives to these men, who were willing to fight.

Soon around the Nation, the children would play,
And grown-ups would celebrate on a bright Christmas day.
They all enjoyed freedom, each month and all year,
because of Marines like this one lying here.

I couldn’t help wonder how many lay alone,
on a cold Christmas Eve, in a land far from home.
Just the very thought brought a tear to my eye.
I dropped to my knees and I started to cry.

He must have awoken, for I heard a rough voice,
“Santa, don’t cry, this life is my choice
I fight for freedom, I don’t ask for more.
My life is my God, my country, my Corps.”

With that he rolled over, drifted off into sleep,
I couldn’t control it, I continued to weep.

I watched him for hours, so silent and still.
I noticed he shivered from the cold night’s chill.
So I took off my jacket, the one made of red,
and covered this Marine from his toes to his head.
Then I put on his T-shirt of scarlet and gold,
with an eagle, globe and anchor emblazoned so bold.
And although it barely fit me, I began to swell with pride,
and for one shining moment, I was Marine Corps deep inside.

I didn’t want to leave him so quiet in the night,
this guardian of honor so willing to fight.
But half asleep he rolled over, and in a voice clean and pure,
said “Carry on, Santa, it’s Christmas Day, all secure.”
One look at my watch and I knew he was right,
Merry Christmas my friend, Semper Fi and goodnight.
After leaving the Corps, Corporal Schmidt earned a law degree and now serves as an entertainment attorney in Los Angeles and is director of operations for a security consulting firm.

TO READ THE SAILOR’S VERSION

Politics is for people - Not the “Bigs”

Posted by chrys in : HISTORY, OLD READ, POLITICS, READER'S DIGEST , add a comment

Found this writing from GEORGE Romney - Mitt’s Dad. Condensed from an address to the Commonwealth Club of California.

George Romney - President of American Motors Corp. - Reader’s Digest, May 1960

Some years ago, Justice Louis Brandeis declared, “It is not good for us that we should ever lose the fighting quality, the stamina and the courage to battle for what we want when we are entitled to it.”

Today, I think we have lost a great deal of that “fighting quality.” The majority of our people have few flaming interests that they are willing to struggle for. In larger and larger numbers, the individual is being engulfed in vast power groups. In politics, he is renouncing direct, active participation and transferring his rights of citizenship to the corporation or the union, which concerns itself with his economic interest. This substitution of economic for political citizenship could be the doom of our way of life.

The rights of citizenship must be exercised by individuals - not by big labor, big business or big government.

In the American Revolution, we fought against the power concentration that made our liberty and independence impossible. The weak state of the original Confederation reflected the people’s fear of concentrated authority. The Constitution itself, while providing for a strong central government, bristles with safeguards against excessive power held in the hands of a few. Jefferson’s theory of democracy defeated Hamilton and his ideas of a dominant federal government; Jackson defeated the Bank of the United States; Franklin Roosevelt divided the power of the big finance and big business - in part curbing the power of the business barons, but also helping create barons of unionism. This whole problem of concentrated power we are ignoring today.

Any time we permit a few men in labor or a few men in industry to reach the point where they can shut down a basic industry, cripple the economy and adversely affect the public interest - as in last year’s steel strike - we have a condition completely contrary to the spirit of America. I think that is an excessive concentration of private economic power. I am not seeking increased government regulation. Quite the contrary. But we do need to modernize our vague, outmoded inconsistent labor laws and anti-trust laws, which at present permit or foster labor monopolies and massive coalitions of industrial power. For it is the collision between these two excessive forces that is confronting us with the necessity for government intervention to protect the people - and the end result of that will be some form of totalitarianism.

Concentration of power ought to be fought wherever it exists, or the individual will be smashed. And that includes concentration in the form of a highly centralized government. Certainly big societies, especially those in competition with other big societies, need strong (even big) unions and corporations. But their power can and must be dispersed, with the ultimate control in the hands of the people. This will be impossible unless we recognize that it is morally wrong for either unions or corporations to get into politics.

There is little difference in principle between the present excessive political influence of unions and the earlier excessive political influence of business. One is as wrong as the other. Both are obstacles to political freedom, economic justice and individual rights. I believe we must prohibit business organizations and unions from political activity and expenditures, direct or indirect. What right have they to use the funds of stockholders or members to support specific candidates or issues? What right has either to create an atmosphere wherein a member’s or employee’s economic status can possibly be thought to depend on his political views and convictions?

I believe that corporate officials and union officials should participate in political affairs - but personally, as individuals. They should take every possible step to assure members and employees that this is a personal right not to be abridged in any manner. Each individual must speak for himself, directed by what he believes in. Of course, to be effective he must combine his energies with the energies of others, but through the instrument of a political party, not through his corporation or his union.

Unfortunately, our political parties have allowed themselves, to a large extent, to become the captives of dominant economic groups. In Michigan, for example, one party is largely under the control of big labor, while the other is largely in the hands of big business.

To combat this, we are developing a nonpartisan citizens’ program identified as Citizens for Michigan, made up of individuals acting for themselves. We hope to create an influence greater than that of these minority economic groups. The success of our program can provide the basis for releasing the political parties from their captivity and restoring to the people these necessary instruments for self-government.

There are three important things we must do to stop the drift toward increasingly massive centralized government.

One, make certain, but modernized law, that power outside government is dispersed and dept dispersed, so that big government is not needed to hold it in check.

Two, improve the character of state governments and modernize the smaller governmental units, such as the parish or the county.

There, revive the feeling that people can participate effectively in control of the government. For greater exercise of citizenship is an essential factor in America’s future.

The most effective means of doing this would be for the political parties to reject economic power-group participation and reach out for the citizens. The give-a-dollar-to-the-party-of-your-choice campaigns would be more effective with a give-an-hour campaign. Widely publicized upon forum meetings would put excitement and opportunity back into the political arena at the local level; people are not going to participate if they have no opportunity to choose anything but the word that is passed from the smoke-filled room. We need to bring our political parties and the people together, if our democratic system is to continue to be truly representative.

Today, the individual citizen must fight for his citizenship, or he will find himself, enslaved by the power groups - or by an all-powerful stat that is exercising his inalienable rights on the premise that it must protect him from the excesses of the power groups. This is the age-old struggle to keep power in any form from becoming excessive. The American Revolution was not a distant explosion, from which the dust has long since settled. It is a continuing process, and we should never forget it.

TRUE AMERICAN July 15, 2007

Posted by chrys in : E-MAIL READ, LIST, QUICK READ , comments closed

An E-Mail from Wanda - THANKS

It is time to change from REDNECK humor to TRUE AMERICAN Humor!

Only it isn’t seen as HUMOR, but the correct way to LIVE YOUR LIFE! If you feel the same, pass this on to your True American friends. Y’all know who they are…You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, “One nation, under God.”

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You’ve never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You still say “Christmas” instead of “Winter Festival.”

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You bow your head when someone prays.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You treat Viet Nam vets with great respect, and always have.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You’ve never burned an American flag.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You know what you believe and you aren’t afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You respect your elders and expect your kids to do the same.

You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You’d give your last dollar to a friend.

God Bless the U S A! - - - Amen

OH - AND PLEASE - DO NOT FORGET TO SING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IN ENGLISH.