The Best of Junk E-mail: Volume I

Junk e-mail. You get it; I get it. I've learned my lessons over the years via the school of hard computer knocks -- in the form of computer crashes and viruses -- not to open the contents.

Most of it is laughably ridiculous -- especially those e-mails which contain a supposed "business opportunity of a lifetime" where one can earn $400 per day doing simple data entry, or notices from, say, the Bank of Ghana, that state I've inherited $3 million.

There's an institution in the River North area of Chicago called the Chicago School of Professional Psychology. If any of its students wants to become the next Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung or B.F. Skinner, I'd suggest rounding up a group of these whack jobs and conducting case studies to determine what compels them to spend all of their waking hours dreaming up (and sending) junk e-mails.

But I must say that I'm tempted to open a few of them just from what appears in the subject line.

I'm sure you've seen portions of those half-hour infomercials hawking album packages such as "Power Ballads of the '80s" hosted by a weepy member of Air Supply, Journey or Night Ranger. (Or if you're like me and don't have a life, you sit through the entire half-hour with a box of Klennex always within reach).

Well, in this vain, let's call today's entry, "The Best of Junk E-mail: Volume I" -- or the best junk e-mail I've received over the past 2-3 months. In another 2-3 months, be on the lookout for "The Best of Junk Mail, Volume II"  because by that time I'm sure I will have collected more memorable junk e-mail.

--From: Home Business Tools; Subject: If you miss this, you are nuts ... Well, since I didn't open this e-mail, I better make an appointment this week to lay on a couch at the Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

--From: TV deals; Subject: Yuck ... your keyboard is gross. For the record, I just purchased a new keyboard a few weeks ago and wiped it down this week with Fantastik, which kills 99.9 percent of all germs.

--From: Free Viagra&Cialis. Subject: Do not underestimate the value of free pills. I grew up thinking Bayer Asprin and Geritol were the wonder drugs. Times have certainly changed, haven't they?

--From: Mandahl Wabasha; Subject: Mandahl was trying to get me to purchase (what else?) either Viagra or Cialis. Sorry Mandahl; Viagra and Cialis are yesterday's news. I got a better offer  ... (see next entry)

--From: Smilin' Bob; Subject: Enzyte: male enhancement -- it works. I'm sure you've been subjected to the Enzyte commercials -- or covered your youngster's eyes whenever they've appeared on the tube -- with Smilin' Bob (right), a throwback to the Ozzie and Harriet era who is always sporting a goofy, toothy grin (persumably because he regularly uses the product). In one commercial, aired during the holidays, Smilin' Bob can be seen playing Santa while 5 or 6 women stand in line eagerly waiting to sit on his lap.

--From: Luis E. Coffman. Subject: Your refill is now available for pickup. You might want to give Smiln' Bob a call, Luis. I think he could use someone like you in Enzyte's customer service department.
--From: A friend; Subject: Someone in Glen Ellyn has a crush on you. Think I'll take a pass, and send her Smilin' Bob's way.

--From: Jessie SweetThing; Subject: My profile. Here's another one for you, Smilin' Bob!

--From: MR COOOL; Subject: haha Mike. Nothing like waking up in the morning and getting taunted by your e-mail inbox.

--From: Have a pain?; Subject: (No Subject). Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have a pain. It's you, MR COOOL and all the other pains who send me these e-mails!

--From: CassandraSchneider@e-mile.co.uk; Subject: I need to talk to you NOW. Cassandra, my dear, I know it's 7:34 a.m. in England, but it's 11:34 p.m. here. Can't it wait until morning? If you don't mind, this old chap is going to call it a night.

--From: John Stalvey; Subject: Mike Sandrolini You are fired! Bet you didn't know I was on The Apprentice recently. (Neither did I!) Donald Trump is a busy man; I guess he didn't have time to give me the pink slip personally. To his credit, John was kind enough to e-mail me several weeks later with the same message in case I didn't receive the message from Mr. Trump the first time around.

--From: Michelle White; Subject: My third and final e-mail to you. Ms. White (whoever she is) sent me another e-mail the next day.

-- From: Genrih Karpinski; Subject: Mike, Warning, Do Not Read This! Thanks for the head's up, Genrih. I just hit the delete button.

--From: Kaylee Wells; Subject: omg Mike! A Valley Girl? Sending me e-mail? Like, oh my God, no way! It's just like ... I'm freaking out totally!

--From: Glen Ellyn Tax Debt Assistance; Subject: Unable to reach Mike - 630- 26-8001 - For Your Tax Debt Refund. Accounting services apparently aren't part of the package with Glen Ellyn Tax Debt Assistance. Its lack of success reaching me could be because phone numbers in the U.S. have 10 digits, not 9.

--From: OSFAFinancialAidServices; Subject: mikesandro@msn.com, Looking for financial aid?‏ Finally, a piece of junk e-mail I can use. I've contacted OSFA, hoping it can negotiate with the Bank of Ghana so I can get my $3 million inheritance.

Tiger Woods and athletes as role models

Fighting for top story honors this week along with the upcoming vote on ObamaCare and rising gasoline prices -- which shot up 20 cents per gallon to $3.09 in my area within a 24-hour period (I guess it's OK to be in oil futures again) -- was our favorite philandering golfer, Tiger Woods.

Tiger announced that he'll be returning to the links for the prestgious Masters in early April. It'll be the first PGA Tour event in which Tiger will compete since all the revelations surfaced just after Thanksgiving about his numerous sex-capades with women other than his wife.

Famous athletes juggling multiple partners -- and in several cases, procreating multiple offspring from those partners -- is nothing new. I found a story on faniq.com, which provides a comprehensive list of former and current jocks who have fathered illegitimate children. According to the story, NFL running back Travis Henry  fathered nine children by nine different women ... all by the age of 28. Boxer Evander Holyfield has nine illegitimate kids, while former Chicago Bulls player Jason Caffey has eight kids from seven different women.

The list is quite long -- and shocking. If you want to delve more into it, check out the story at: http://www.faniq.com/blog/Athletes-With-Illegitimate-Kids-The-Comprehensive-List-Blog-17243

Then there's the late Wilt Chamberlain (left), who claimed in his autobiography that he had sex with 20,000 women (causing someone to jokingly ask if that number included the playoffs, or just the regular season). If Chamberlain's claim is, pardon the pun, legitimate, it's difficult to believe Wilt the Stilt didn't father a few children along the way. Magic Johnson, the former Los Angeles Lakers' star who remains a widely admired celebrity, admitted after testing positive for the HIV virus in the early 1990s that he had multiple sex partners during his career.

Tiger Woods' dalliances, which he rightly deemed "irresponsible and selfish" -- and are particuarly troubling because of his family-man image -- don't seem quite as shocking when put into the context of what other famous athletes have done. Portions of Woods' 13-minute mea cupla last month appeared to be staged (see video above, right). The cynic in me says he only issued a public apology because he got caught, but I'll give him this much: at least he took full responsibility for his behavior. It's also admirable that he's receiving treatment at a sex rehabilitation clinic, and is trying to reconcile with his wife.

But it's going to take a while before Woods restores his tarnished public image. I can't blame him for getting angry with paparazzi vultures who followed his 2 1/2-year-old daughter to school and reported the school's location. However, he better find a way to handle the scrutiny because this story won't go away the moment he steps into the tee box at Augusta National. He can't keep the media -- mainstream or otherwise -- at arm's length forever. And as much as golf is a gentleman's game, you can bet a fan or two will eventually utter something besides "You Da Man!" as Tiger walks past them on his way to 18th green.

Tiger Woods' saga once again brings to the surface the debate of whether or not professional athletes are role models. Ideally, a child's role model should be his or her mother and father, grandmother or grandfather, a teacher, a coach ... someone with whom he or she is in regular, if not daily, contact and provides guidance and influence.

Yet generations of children have grown up idolizing athletes, and athletes have to realize that kids look up to them, whether they see themselves as role models or not. Most professional athletes also are thrust into the public spotlight -- but that's part of the job, too, whether they like it or not.

I don't expect athletes to live squeeky-clean lives. That said, I don't think it's too much to ask athletes to conduct themselves in a respectable manner on the court or on the field ... and in public venues (which an overwhelming majority of them do).

Athletes like Woods are entitled to privacy, particularly when it involves family. But if an athlete's private behavior is reckless, and that athlete knowingly puts himself (or herself) in compromising situations, they shouldn't expect to be treated like an average 9-to-5 citizen if their dirty laundry is ever hung out to dry. Especially if an athlete is world famous, like Tiger Woods.

The moral of the story for athletes, celebrities and other public figures is this: think before you act. It's a TMZ world out there, with Facebook, Twitter, Google Profiles, cell phones, cell phone cameras, text messaging and video cameras -- and creepy paparazzi -- around every corner.

What do you think? Please leave your comments.

U.S. national debt clock: Check it out, if you dare ...

Earlier this year, a friend sent me the link to a Web site that keeps a running tab on the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about: the U.S. national debt. Check it out on: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ . A similar clock displays the U.S. national debt -- and what each family's share of that debt is -- on Sixth Avenue in New York City. (Note: the above photo was taken when the national debt was only $10 trillion.)

Brace yourself when you click on the link, however, because the numbers are staggering. Most of the numbers associated with it -- the national debt, U.S. federal spending, the U.S. federal budget deficit, for example ... all in red (as in red ink) -- continue adding up before your very eyes at a blistering pace.

As of this writing, the current U.S. national debt -- the amount of money the government owes its creditors --stands at $12.5 trillion. That figures to $114,250 per taxpayer and $40,533 per citizen. (It's not stated whether these citizens are legal U.S. citzens only, or a combination of U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants. OK, it's a poor attempt at humor, but work with me here.)

A show of hands if you think the U.S. government will ever pay off this debt, or substantially reduce it. I didn't raise my hand, either.

Other interesting numbers:

• Total U.S. debt (personal, government, the whole shebang) is almost $56 trillion, which breaks down to around $691,000 per family and $180,000 per citizen.
• Total personal debt is $16.6 trillion, or around $53,800 per citizen.
• Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are the largest items in the U.S. budget at $762 billion and $682 billion per year, respectively, while defense is No. 3 at $662 billion. 
• Federal pensions are $189 billion.
• Everyone complains about earmarks, and rightfully so (think "the bridge to nowhere" and other pork barrel spending measures). But in the grand scheme of things, the government has bigger fish to fry. Earmarks amount to just over $19.5 billion.
• The current U.S. population is approaching 309 million (don't forget to fill out your Census forms!). 
• Nearly 15 million of us are officially listed as unemployed. The debt clock says the actual amount of unemployed is closer to 26 million (a new person is added to this list every 8 seconds).
• The U.S. work force stands at over 138 million; state and federal employees number a combined 21 million.
• There are just over 39 million food stamp recipients.

Most of the debt has been accumulated since 1980. The GOP had its man in the White House 20 of the past 30 years, thus The Gipper, Bush 41 and Bush 43 certainly get their share of blame. However, while the President submits a budget every fiscal year, Congress has a significant say in determining the final budget. Democrats have controlled both the House and Senate 12 years since 1980; the GOP 10 -- including six years during the Clinton Administration, when the government had balanced budgets and small surpluses. Congressional power was split during a 6-year span in the 1980s, as Republicans controlled the Senate, while Democrats controlled the House.

Democrats will blame Republicans, and vice-versa, for the national debt. But given the size of this debt, I think there's enough blame to go around.

Recently, some of the so-called "Blue-Dog" Democrats have been talking about introducing legislation to add a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Back in the 1990s, the House passed a balanced-budget amendment, then it fell in the Senate by one vote. It's a nice conversation piece, but it's highly unlikely such an amendment would ever become reality. Two-thirds of Congress, and three-fourths of all the states, would have to support it.

Lawmakers, as well as the news media, usually focus on the deficit -- the difference between what the govenment spends as opposed to the amount of tax revenue it takes in. So far this year, the deficit is a record $1.4 trillion and climbing. But even if the legislative and executive branches somehow exercise fiscal discipline and submit a balanced budget -- or something close to it -- for the President to sign during a given year (or years), it will do little to reduce the national debt unless they're able to run off a string of substantial budget surpluses.

The national debt is virtually ignored, but Neal Boortz of SmallGovTimes.com lays out a compelling scenario as to why more attention should be paid to it:

Boortz writes, "Taking that (national debt) into consideration … add up the interest paid on that debt, plus the cost of entitlement benefits like Social Security and Medicare … and by the year 2020, that spending alone will consume 80 percent of all federal revenues. That does not include any spending for military or homeland security.

"Within the next few years, the national debt is expected to rise to 100 percent of our GDP (gross domestic product). To put into perspective, Greece – which is (currently) going through a major financial crisis – currently has a debt equivalent to 124 percent of the GDP."

Clueless Senator has no idea about unemployed's plight

For as long as I can remember, the Republican Party has been labeled -- fairly or unfairly -- as the party of the well-to-do. It also is perceived -- fairly or unfairly -- as not being particularly sensitive to the problems facing middle- to lower-income Americans.

Well, the GOP didn't help shed any of these stereotypes the past week or so, due to Exhibit A: some misplaced posturing by Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, and Exhibit B: remarks that can only be classified as remarkably clueless coming out of the mouth of Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl.

First, Bunning. He drew the wrath of Democrats and Republicans alike when he initially decided to go it alone and block the extension of unemployment benefits on the Senate floor. Then, after GOP leadership pulled him into a back room and told him, "Yo, what are you thinking?" he backed off.

I understand the principle behind Bunning's filibuster. He wanted to call the bluff of Democrats and President Obama, who -- after ringing up an estimated $1.7 trillion of new debt since taking power -- went out of their way to say, "Hey, look at us: we've adopted a pay-as-you-go policy on spending." (In comparsion, the Bush Administration accumulated nearly $5 trillion of new debt in 8 years, for which he, too, has been called to the carpet.)

However, as much as I think it's necessary to admonish politicians on both sides of the aisle for continuing to spend with reckless abandon, Bunning looked foolish using unemployment benefits as a backdrop to make his stand. You end up alienating millions who, by no fault of their own, either have just received a pink slip -- I've met a few this week -- or have been out of work for an extended period and need a hand to help them get by. Further, I can't imagine you win many P.R. points with their immediate families and friends.

That brings me to Sen. Kyl (below), who it was reported earlier this week, tried to make the argument that giving unemployment benefits "dissuades people from job-hunting because people are being paid even though they're not working."

I am one of the unemployed at whom Kyl's remarks are directed. And with all due respect, I'd suggest it would be in the junior Senator from Arizona's best interest to venture outside the Beltway's insulated cocoon once in a while because he has no idea what he's talking about.

I'd love to show him the stack of paper sitting on my dresser, which lists all the contacts I've made to prospective employers the past several months. Or give him an idea of the time I spend on a weekly basis making phone calls, sending resumes, checking online job boards, going to career fairs and attending networking events.

I'd like to introduce him to some of the individuals I've met along the way. I've seen their resumes. Many of them possess years of on-the-job accomplishments that would make them an asset to any company or organization. They're not holding out for their "dream job" or demanding an exhorbitant salary. They're out busting their tails every day, doing everything they can to get back into the work force in some capacity.

For the record, one can't live off unemployment, whether you are single or have a family. The net monthly amount I receive is roughly half of what I made when I had a full-time job. I wish Sen. Kyl could hear some of the stories of unemployed men and women I know with families to raise, COBRA payments to make (provided they had health insurance at their old job to begin with), and college tuition and mortgages to pay off. Ask them, Senator, if they've got their feet propped up on the sofa every afternoon, watching Maury Povich and waiting for a direct deposit from the Department of Employment Security.

Just so I don't leave you with the impression that I'm a registered Democrat who gleefully enjoys browbeating Republicans at every opportunity, I estimate that I vote for GOP candidates well over 90 percent of the time for a variety of reasons. But when they're wrong, they're wrong.  And Sen. Kyl is wrong.

Although any Congressman or Senator can utter stupid remarks regardless of how long he or she has been in Congress, I can't help but think the longer one serves on Capitol Hill, the more one becomes detached from the real world. Kyl and Bunning, for example, have each been lawmakers since the 1980s. So has a Senator in my home state, Dick Durbin, who I personally would like to see on the unemployment after the 2014 elections (when his current Senate term ends).

Then there's the king of career politicians, Robert Byrd of West Virginia (left), who's been in the House and Senate a combined 57 years.

Setting term limits for Congressmen and Senators is wishful thinking, I know. But why not? Two terms for a Senator; 6 terms for a Representative. Twelve years is plenty. Then if you can't make ends meet on your cushy Congressional pension after you leave, go out into the real world and get a job. (Side note: a Congressman who's served 22 years, for example, and whose average salary for their top 3 years was $153,900 stands to collect a pension of just over $84,000 per year. And he or she can begin collecting their pension at age 50 if they're served 20 years -- or collect it at anytime after 25 years of service.)

I wonder if Sen. Kyl would be eligible to collect unemployment ...