A donation to a locally-based charity is a Christmas gift that can give back throughout the entire year.

I have boxes and bags of clothes. Some adult items, but mostly kids’ clothes, left behind by neighbors who moved, or put out for the trash collectors; very wearable things in good condition, some with the price tags still on them.

“Project Blessing is a local charity, with branches that serve my home town of “Lexington, Michigan, and the nearby towns of “Carsonville and Port Sanilac. It’s funded by local donations only. It receives no government grants. The offices are staffed by volunteers and open only a few hours each week, including Saturdays. Project Blessing also operates a thrift shop in Carsonville.

Every city and town has locally-based charities like Project Blessing, that receive no government funding and are dependent on donations of cash, or items such as clothing and furniture.

Locally-based charities are not top-heavy with levels of bureaucracy and salaried administrators. Your donations of cash or items will go directly to those who need them.

Project Blessing serves part of Michigan’s mostly rural Thumb region. When the economy slows, Michigan’s auto-based economy is affected sooner and deeper than other parts of the country, and the rural parts of the state are hardest hit.

Everyone has clothes they never wear or can’t use, boxed and stored, or in the back of the closet. The need for clothes doesn’t know a season, but Christmas and the approaching winter make donations of clothes at this time of the year more important. To single moms with growing children, clothes are clothes. It doesn’t matter where they came from or who once owned them.

Everyone has extra clothes, boxed and stored, or hanging in the back of the closet. I have things I never wear. Some are slightly too big. Some I’ve outgrown. Others are in colors I really don’t like. Others I rescued from trash piles and kept until I could pass them on to someone who could use them.

I collected my kids’ clothes, and then looked for shirts and pants and sweaters I haven’t worn in a long time, and probably won’t again, and added them to my Project Blessing donation.

Throughout the year, when I see the Project’s name in the news, I’ll be reminded that, back around Christmas, the clothes I donated filled someone’s need. Maybe not as much as an IPOD or a new computer game. It is, however, the smallest light that often shines the brightest.

Gifts that give back is a post from: Government Grant Programs

You’ve been answering the phones for the same company for the past ten years, and as you watch people being promoted above you…all around you…you wonder, “Could I possibly afford to go back to college?” Your pay rate certainly does not support that option, but does that mean you’ll be stuck in this dead end job forever? People like you are making decisions to go back to school every day. People from all walks of life, from all income levels and they are finding success in universities who are now put more of an emphasis on helping their non-traditional students achieve their career goals.

Today, there are more and more ways for people to afford to go to college. There are student loans, both subsidized and unsubsidized provided through the government, but did you know that many states offer grants to help people gain a higher education? And many universities offer scholarships for students not only for academic performance, but for a diverse range of life circumstances. Everything from being a single mom to a student of Latino heritage, to being left handed. The first step after applying to your university is going to: www.fafsa.ed.gov to find out what options the financial aid office at your school can provide for you. It’s easy to fill out, free, and only takes about 45-minutes of your time.

What else can you do to lower the cost of college? Many universities realize that life experience does equal educational experience. There are classes you can receive credit for simply by filling in what you already know. Perhaps you’ve been working with computers as a receptionist, or maybe keeping your books balanced as a truck driver. Whatever the experience, it never hurts to ask if there are any classes you can receive credit for without ever paying. And what about your Discovery Channel addiction? Did you know you can apply the basic lessons you’ve learned from television, reading or even listening to the radio toward testing out of certain classes? You can save over 90% of the money you would pay simply by taking a test for the things you already know.

So stop wishing you had a chance to go back to school and embrace your education today! Whether you choose a four-year university or a local community college, receiving a college education has never been more affordable. Between loans, grants, scholarships, credit for what you know, and testing out of what you’ve learned on your own, you can substantially cut that college bill or even eliminate it altogether.

You know you’re smart, and you’ve certainly done well enough on your own, but don’t you deserve the opportunity to advance in your career? Don’t you deserve the chance to build a stable financial future for yourself and your family? These days more and more employers are looking for people with college degrees to fill jobs that you’ve been doing for years. So why let someone else take your place in the workplace? With flexible hours, evening and weekend classes, and the possibility of eliminating your tuition substantially if not completely, there has never been a better time to work toward your college degree.

How to pay for college now is a post from: Government Grant Programs

It takes more than making the grades and scoring high on the SATs for students to be college-bound. Each year, students are faced with the burden of figuring out how they are going to pay for their college education. Knowing how and where to search for aid can make the difference in rather or not many students will be able to attend college.

Outside from personal or family savings, there are government grants, federal or personal loans, and scholarships. Government grants are almost always limited and only cover a fraction of the total cost of attending college. Federal and personal loans are debt, which has to be repaid after graduating. Loans are great resources for covering expenses left over after there is no other source of income available. Scholarships are, for some students, the only hope for attending college with little or no upfront cash and without piling up thousands of dollars of debt.

Each year, there are billions of dollars of free scholarship money that goes unclaimed. Students are just not aware that this money is available. The most visible scholarship monies are offered by large corporations and charities. These scholarships receive thousands of applications for a small pot of available money. It is usually the local, community based scholarships that are overlooked by students.

When applying for scholarships, students must be as diverse as possible with their search. National organizations advertise there scholarship opportunities in widely distributed media outlets. The competition for these scholarships is very high and is limited to a few exceptional students. Students should continue to apply for these scholarships despite the competitiveness, but broadening their search to local opportunities will be to their advantage.

Many scholarships are offered by churches and local small businesses. But these scholarships are not always widely advertised. Finding out about these scholarship opportunities are not difficult with a little work.

Visiting a few churches and reading the news letters can be an effective way to find out if a particular church is offering any scholarships. Listening to the local AM stations is also an effective way to get information about scholarship offers from local churches and charitable organizations. Many churches also have websites that are indexed in the popular search engines. Using Yahoo or Google to search on a few small organizations in town can yield some valuable information as well.

To reach even more scholarship sources, it would be a good idea to take notice of local small businesses. Many small businesses usually give scholarship to students that it has a direct or indirect affiliation with. For example, a local business may offer scholarships to sons and daughters of their employees. Asking mom and dad to keep watch for these opportunities can pay off big, as these types of aid almost always go without notice and have very little competition.

Taking advantage of every opportunity to receive the most scholarship funding can benefit students in two ways. First, students with an abundance of scholarship aid can attend college for little or no out of pocket money. Second, students will not graduate with an enormous amount of debt.

Finding More Scholarship Sources is a post from: Government Grant Programs

The purpose of this piece is to reassure its readers (and perhaps, its author), that civil liberties are not a concern relegated solely to the opponents of the Bush White House. Let me start off this essay by incurring much wrath in clearly identifying myself as a lifelong Republican, and a supporter of this Administration’s policies in the Middle East and in Iraq, in particular. Those whose judgment is so driven by obsessive hatred of George W. Bush that they prefer to see the failure of American interest in the international arena, than to endure a scintilla of success for Team Bush should, in any rational world, be ashamed of themselves for their lack of patriotism, to say the least. In addition, the readiness of some to declare his policies a failure smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Any student of history worth his or her salt knows that the success or failure of a policy—ANY policy—is not evident for at least fifty years, or more. Alas, however, we do not live in a rational, or an intellectually honest, world.

In spite of my political leanings, it is an unfortunate reality that our President is a divisive figure. Part of this is a function of his inability to project intelligence, and the resultant, and mistaken public impression (reinforced relentlessly and cynically by his detractors) of him as shallow and, indeed, stupid. I am naive enough to believe that idiots don’t make it to the White House, and that this President suffers merely from an enhanced form of his father’s estrangement from, and lack of fluency in, the English Language. That, coupled with a Texas drawl, a goofy grin and an inability to put forth bon mots in a spontaneous way, leaves the American public with a perception of him as something of a dimwit. Those who know the President personally (I am not among them) know this to be false. I agree wholeheartedly, in large measure because I have seen the man’s work and am, for the most part, satisfied with it. Irrespective of the views of both his supporters and detractors, history, most importantly, will judge him on his deeds and not on his media-created (or distorted) image.

Add to this a genuine weakness of this President: his apparent reliance on personal friendship and trust, in lieu, sometimes, of good independent judgment, and his willingness to subscribe to secrecy and close counsel for its own sake, and his constituency is left to wonder: “what is this not-very-intelligent guy up to? Perhaps he really does mean to drop a few nukes on Iran.” Now, as viscerally satisfying as “dropping a few nukes on Iran” may seem to some of us, it is probably bad policy, and even worse policy to leak to the media that it is even being considered.

Putting all of that to the side, however, and given this writer’s support for the War on Terror and the Bush policies in Iraq, what concerns me the most is the utter lack of public discourse on the real issues which arise from these policies. I refer, of course, to the price demanded of our civil liberties and the evolving change of balance as between our rights and the powers ceded to law enforcement. And when I allude to public discourse, of course, I am not referring to the debate among the talking heads on Washington Week in Review, and its three or four weekly viewers, or the weekly bloodsport/screamfest-passing-for-discussion known as The McLaughlin Group. Rather, I am wondering: what happened to the “public” in public discourse? In the middle of a war, in the midst of a crisis in which the “President” of Iran speaks of wiping Israel off the map, and at a time in which the arrogation of power to law enforcement has resulted in so-called “free speech” zones at which the public may gather to express their displeasure with government policy, the public discourse devolves into discussion of such earth-shattering concerns such as who will prevail on American Idol, or who will be America’s Next Top Model.

I am sure, perhaps with some justification, to be accused of intellectual snobbery in appearing to suggest that entertainment and silly diversion has no place in the midst of international crisis. That is not my contention. Indeed, we are nearly always in some international crisis, or other, and people—ALL people, virtually—need diversion from the horrors that face us as members of the human race. We certainly cannot reasonably be expected to devote all of our waking hours to consideration of the horrors of Darfur or the likelihood of a viable nuclear capability in the hands of Pyongyang. That way, of course, lies madness. No, we need Desperate Housewives. We must have Entertainment Tonight. And the goings-on of Scientologist cum Philosopher Tom Cruise as well as the canoodlings of the moment by Lindsay Lohan and her partying in the “boite de jour” with her Mom (am I the ONLY one who finds that more than mildly disturbing?) are of inestimable importance to our national consciousness.

But even allowing for all that, the question remains: why is the public largely apparently indifferent to the invasion of its constitutional liberties? Is it ignorance? Cynicism? Or worse, have we, by silence, tacitly consented to a fundamental shift in our relationship with our government as the payment for the perception (valid or not) of greater personal and national security. I would like to think that ignorance is the culprit, simply because that cause is most readily remedied by a concentration of concerned individuals screaming loudly enough to be heard above the fray of: “would you like fries with that?” Cynicism is a tougher nut to crack, suggesting, as it does, that people have considered the problem, to a greater or lesser extent, but feel themselves so disenfranchised and removed from the scions of power that any efforts would surely prove fruitless. The consent argument is most troubling of all, because it implies that those principles for which our founding fathers bled, and upon which this country stands, are really not very important to us, at least not at the moment the chips are down.

There are, to be sure, legitimate arguments for encroachments upon liberties in times of war. Every schoolchild knows (or would know, if our schools were doing their job) that good old Abe Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus for a time during the Civil War. Parenthetically, the rectitude of that action is still a subject of great debate among historians and constitutional scholars. Japanese-Americans were sent to concentration camps after Pearl Harbor (there’s not much debate about the moral defensibility of that action). And now, of course, we have issues such as the various provisions of the Patriot Act, the prospect of secret military tribunals, domestic spying and indefinite detention without trial at “Gitmo.” Are all these things a clear and present danger, per se, to our freedoms which must be fiercely resisted? Not necessarily. It should be pretty obvious to most people that military activities cannot be prosecuted effectively without a high level of secrecy. Interrogation of enemy operatives, especially in the terror milieu of the Middle East, cannot be accomplished entirely according to the Marquis of Queensbury Rules (there is, of course, a large gulf between fully according due process to enemy combatants and engaging in outright torture, notwithstanding the arguments of the “slippery slope-ists”).

No, my objection is to the lack of open discussion of these issues. It may be that national security requires that everyone open their bags for inspection as they enter the New York City Subways. It is a debatable proposition whether ethnic profiling for air travelers ought to be a tool available to law enforcement. It may be uncomfortable for some to hear, but it is nevertheless a fact that the horrors of September 11 were perpetrated by Arab Muslims, as has most (not all, to be sure) international terrorism in recent years. Our population needs to be protected by its government and military. Our borders need to be secure (we’re certainly doing a pretty poor job on that front). But the point is that these subjects need to be discussed, debated and yes, screamed about in the public domain, on the street, on blog sites, and around the office water coolers. Most of what I hear in those precincts concerns the latest episode of The Sopranos. (Not that the charms of that show are lost on me. Indeed, I have not missed a single episode of the five or six seasons of that show since it began airing some 27 years ago).

Long ago, we gave up any real right to privacy in this country. Madison Avenue saw to that, with its wholesale trading of customer lists and accompanying marketing data. What little was left was taken by the credit card companies, the internet and spammers. Commercial television ads for heated K-Y Jelly suggesting that we “see where it leads” followed by a knowing wink, have certainly removed what very little was left of the surprise and mystery of the bedroom for those of us who have not already been bombarded by internet porn over the last few years.

What, then, is left to us? Some of our allegedly constitutionally protected rights devolve from the implied right to privacy, to be found in the Bill of Rights. These include reproductive rights and, in recent years, newly “discovered” rights concerning sexual conduct. We still have some protections under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, but domestic spying is a potential threat to that. Do we want to do anything about that? Up to now, America’s answer has been…..silence. Other provisions of the Bill of Rights give us the right to counsel and trial by jury as well as the right to confront our accusers. Secret military tribunals put those rights at risk. Should we care? Do we care? Survey says???……..{Yawn}. Maybe our national security and defense do, indeed, demand the sacrifice of these rights. Maybe not. But the prospect of losing what little we have left of our Constitutional legacy because we are asleep at the switch is a horrifying proposition, to say the least. If we are going to cede these rights to our government in the name of safety and security, we ought to do so consciously. Security and freedom have always worked in inverse proportion. This is basic and self-evident. It has always been the fundamental mission of this Republic to find the ideal balance. I am sorely afraid, however, that we have stopped looking for it. There are a few (very few) people who seem to care. Unfortunately, and embarrassingly to me, personally, they are overwhelmingly to be found on the left. During the 2004 Presidential Election, when President Bush was making campaign appearances, there were, not surprisingly, anti-Bush demonstrators at most major venues. The security people assigned to the campaign designated so-called “free-speech” zones, usually many blocks from the site at which the President was to appear. In the most quotable line in many years, in this writer’s opinion, a woman (to whom I apologize for not knowing her name and thus, not being able to attribute the quote), said: “I thought this WHOLE COUNTRY was a “free speech zone!”"

Alas, however, those sentiments are few and far between. And regardless of whether we vigorously support or actively oppose the foreign policy of this Administration, we have a profound duty to ourselves, our children and our national legacy, to exercise that atrophied muscle we call “freedom of speech” and publicly, and in the harsh light of day, examine what price we are willing to pay in order to keep it, together with the other liberties we routinely take for granted.

Where is the outrage, people?

With Liberty and Justice for All—Even Republicans is a post from: Government Grant Programs

Why do people think the school is responsible for the whole existence of a child? What the hell happened to parental control and responsibility? Okay, that is the venting of teacher who often sees the public expect schools to be teacher, therapist, doctor, mom, dad, priest, and host of other jobs that don’t belong on campus.

I remember the overweight kids being terrorized by the other kids. Now, some well meaning social scientist with a grant and a theory wants to give schools yet another in a myriad of responsibilities? No thanks! First the kid is aware of their weight issue or they are not from this planet. Second, if the school in an official capacity gets involved it becomes responsible for yet another personal issue that it lacks the money, time, and expertise to properly deal with.

Parents are the focal point of responsibility and control in any student’s life. To let them off the hook by handing off jobs to institutions is plain stupid. Schools are places of education where in the last twenty years they have become labs for a host of social and cultural experiments. Enough is enough, why not let schools teach students reading, writing, science, mathematics, and some basic civic skills? Why has America decided to let working parents off the hook by making schools responsible for everything from behavior, ethics, values, procreation, and other issues that rightfully are the venue of families?

If a kid is overweight there are two parties at fault; the kid and the parents. An overweight kid does not occur by accident. Heck if its a thyroid or other issues then medical science not schools should be involved.

Look, let me put this in redneck. If your are obese do something about it and quit looking to hang the onus on some institution. If your child is obese then think about the fact that one meal is consumed at school while the other two meals should be at home. In addition would you want the government stepping in to tell you what you can and can’t eat? How about how much exercise you get in a week? If that is an invasion of your privacy what do you think its like for a self conscious kid? The best I can do for you and your student is stop idiots from bullying your overweight kid and then teaching them Social Studies. Beyond that I lack the experience and diplomas to be a dietitian or nutritionist.

Keep in mind the fact that public education is woefully underfunded, understaffed, and over full. On a salary that averages about 40,000 $

Should schools give BMI index scorecards for their overweight students? is a post from: Government Grant Programs

Looking back on my childhood, I never expected what was coming at me. I was a good student, I was a volunteer and nominee of the leader of tomorrow award and I got to do what everyone dreamed – I got to interview your favorite music celebrity. Growing up I had a dream of being a publicist for a record label and with my contact list growing, the dream seemed to be within reach. I had never been to a party, I didn’t drink, smoke or do drugs and my parents will testify I was a good kid, that we always got along. Then boom! I was 17 years old and I was pregnant. I was afraid and I am willing to admit adoption and abortion crossed my mind but when I heard that little heart beat on the sonogram there is no way I could even continue to consider those things. I was extremely lucky because the father of my child actually stuck around even though he was 2 years younger than me and had everything going for him. We were the talk of our ultra conservative city. When my son was born, no one came to visit me in the hospital, none of the friends who had been my friend when I interviewed celebrities, not even the friends I had made going to a Teen Mom school so I could at least graduate from high school. It was me, my baby and my 15 year old boyfriend. When I got pregnant and had my second son, it was 11 1/2 months after I gave birth to my first son. We were really outcasts then. My boyfriend stuck it out with us and continued to go to school because we were able to get student grants from the government to help us to stay in school. There are many misconceptions about teen moms. People including myself before I was in the position say we’re promiscuous, we are on drugs, we drink too much, we weren’t raised right, we’re on welfare, we don’t take care of our kids, etc etc. What people don’t understand is that anyone can get pregnant. I’m not saying that there are not teen moms who haven’t done that stuff because there is but people have to realize that just because some do it not all of us are like that. Whether you are 14 or 34, we all go through the same challenges, we might have a problem in our pregnancy, our baby might have colic and we are afraid just like any person whose a new parent would be. Teen moms actually have more challenges then a “regular” mom. Our friends don’t stick around for the most part, the fathers don’t stick around usually, our families are ashamed of us, we have to take the sneers and the glares and the whispers when we’re in public with our children

Testimonies: Teenage mothers is a post from: Government Grant Programs

The idea of bailing out big business is nothing short of criminal. The government is taking what is referred to as government money but it is truly taxpayer money. Do any of you remember the lowly taxpayer? Yeah, you. The folks who believe that governments should bail out big business; you too are taxpayers.

It’s funny how so many people don’t like giving welfare to individuals but they are in favor giving welfare to corporations. So, if any of the car companies accept bailout money then it stands to reason that the workers for these companies are in fact receiving welfare. Granted the amount of welfare an auto worker would receive would be significantly better than a single mom collecting welfare.

If businesses end up in the kind of position that they are in need of money from the government then perhaps they should close their doors. They should close their doors because it’s obvious that those businesses cannot compete in the marketplace.

Maybe their wages were too high to be sustainable. Perhaps the benefit packages were so inclusive and expensive that they were no longer able to compete with the company down the road. Did unions cause such an obstacle as to render the company impotent at negotiation time? Were the products being manufactured no longer wanted by the marketplace? Were they executives simply no longer capable of doing an effective job? Were government imposed taxes an issue for the company? Was there maybe a combination of factors that led to them pleading for taxpayer oops I mean government money?

No one group would ever take responsibility for a company’s changing fortunes. Workers would never say that their wages were too high. The union would never admit to negotiating unruly benefits packages. The company would not accept the blame either. No, they would find a way to pass the buck to the consumer. The poor consumer, who is also incidentally the taxpayer, would be forced to take the blame somehow. It all falls on the back of the consumer; the blame for the faulty economy and the potential fix for the same economy, it’s all about the individual.

Also, there is little fairness in determining which companies would receive money. One company with a huge operation in some Senators’ state would more readily receive a government hand out than would a company that maybe just as large but is spread over the entire country. It’s all about the power of the vote.

Don’t come asking taxpayers to write a check for your inability to run your business properly. Either fix the problem yourself or go out of business; you don’t really want your employees receiving welfare from the government, do you?

Should the federal government intervene to save big corporations from bankruptcy? is a post from: Government Grant Programs

I am a women and I am working in a kitchen. I was talking with one of the men that just quit not to long ago and he had mentioned that he was making $9 an hour while I am making $8.50 an hour. It’s as if men are now taking over the kitchen as a means to make money. I always thought that women dominated the kitchen as a career, but I learned from one of my culinary instructors its the men that make up a majority of the cooks and chefs and such. Do you hear of more men famous for their work in the kitchen or more women? I see more famous men in the kitchen, like Emeril for example. In San Diego there is Sam the Cooking Guy. I am focusing more on the kitchen as society favoring men because that is usually where women are found in the home. I realize that most women don’t know how to cook or learned from their parents or grandparents. It may look like there are women in the kitchen making money but it seems like more women want to be the full time worker and soccer mom doing all the baking and cooking for all the different things their kids do, but why don’t the men help with that? Why are the men always complaining about helping around the house?

They should trade places with women, because women do so much that men take for granted. For instance, women do the child bearing and the men do nothing but get the woman pregnant. They don’t really do much during the pregnancy, other than get the proper things together for the baby or babies if she is carrying more than one child. He doesn’t have to deal with the pain that women endure during the whole thing. I think that men should take care of the baby for the first several months so that she can go do whatever since she had to carry the baby for nine months or however long she had carried the baby. He should become Mr. Mom so that the real mom should be able to recuperate from the delivery and the time she wasn’t able to do certain activities or have certain things to eat or drink.

Men also have been able to partake in politics since order has been placed upon civilization. Every where you look there is always a man running the country or state or over whatever has a leader. Just take a look at the requirements to become President of the United States, you have to be male. That is sexual discrimination. Men have also been able to vote since the government system has been established in America. Women have only been able to vote for what seems like not long enough. The whole government has been set up to discriminate against women, because women have been able to only be a representative in the house, be a judge, or be a mayor.

In conclusion, yes men are still the favored gender in society. They are taking jobs that are normally what women should be able to do better, they don’t have to deal with childbirth and all that comes with it, and they run the government. Mental anxiety, Mental breakdowns, Menstrual cramps, Menopause… Did you ever notice how all the womens problems begin with Men? It’s mainly the men who cause problems at home mainly because they are too stupid to realize that women are smarter than them and would kill them if they could keep the population and life as we know it going by themselves.

Does society favor men? is a post from: Government Grant Programs

I hate shopping. Even more than that, I hate Christmas shopping. I hate the lines, I hate the expense, and most of all, I hate wandering through the mall with no idea what I’m going to buy for people.

My solution to this is very simple. I buy enough holiday greeting cards for everyone on my list and call it a day. What’s so special about cards? Why, the wonderful services and IOUs I put inside of them, of course! Time and energy are our most valuable resources, even more valuable than money. Nothing means more to a gift recipient than a gift that requires a little of both. Once in awhile, throughout the year, keep a good karma going-sacrifice just a portion of those valuable (and renewable) resources for the people you love. Here are some ideas:

1. A night of babysitting. This is great for many reasons. It doesn’t cost you anything, and you will absolutely thrill the parents on your list with this great gift of time. Take it a step further and offer to watch the children in their home. This extra effort on your part will mean a lot to parents of infants who would have to lug a suitcase full of baby paraphernalia both to and from your place just to get a few hours of fun.

2. A day off work, penalty free. You would think this would be possible only if you were an employer. I gave this gift to my best friend one Christmas, not sure how well it would go over. She showed the card to her boss and he granted it! The day off was not counted against any of her vacation, personal or sick days-it was just a free day off. Naturally, you’d have to be a little choosy about who you gave this to. I’m sure this would not be a good gift for the government (or other strict corporate) employees on your list.

3. A sleepover for all your girlfriends at your place. Too old for sleepovers? Nonsense. You provide the chick flicks, pizza, drinks and games. By giving this as an IOU, you allow time for everyone to check their schedules and agree on a good night.

4. Are you good at cleaning? Offer to clean someone’s house for them! The best candidates for this gift are bachelors-they will really appreciate it. Don’t be picky either. Make it an all-inclusive deal. Wash the windows, launder the bedding, flip the mattress-all the stuff bachelors don’t think to do on a regular basis. Or ever, probably.

5. Offer to care for a close friend or family member’s newborn overnight so they can sleep. Take this one additional step and offer to do it on a weeknight, even if you have to work the next day, too. If mom is breastfeeding, offer to bring the baby to her so she doesn’t have to get out of bed. After baby’s meal, you can take care of putting her back to sleep. Just one full night’s rest means the world to new parents-especially parents who have to work!

These are just a few ideas. Services you can provide for your family can also be specific to your skills. Anyone getting married the following year? Offer to take one of the planning chores from the bride, particularly one that would otherwise require her to hire someone (decorating, invitation design, DJ, cake, etc.) Would you feel comfortable doing the taxes of someone else, perhaps someone who would have a simple return (single, no dependents?) Offer to do their income tax return for them the coming year!

Services are cheap, but way more meaningful than anything you could buy. Give throughout the year! This should be what Christmas is all about.

Christmas shopping: Tips for getting a gift for everyone without breaking the bank is a post from: Government Grant Programs

This is a hard question. The humanity stand point would be for me to say yes you have to help these people. Then I step back and look at the whole situation and I have to say my views change.

This recently happened near where I live. The people were told to get out or face certain death. Now if there were reasons people couldn’t leave then I would say you have to go in and help these people because they didn’t leave for a good reason. That’s not the case though. These people were all supplied a form of transportation to leave and a place to stay. To me that removes all the reasons of why a person would have to stay. They have been provided a way to leave, a place to stay, food, everything they need.

So why stay? Being there will not stop their things from being ruined. They can’t stop the storm. Can’t stop the water from harming the contents of the house. So what exactly is the point of staying behind? That’s like me saying “I know my house is burning but if I stay I may keep my things from burning with it”. That’s just plain stupid.

Now let me get down to the real reason I don’t think the government should send people to the rescue. There are millions of people in this world. Yet there are only a select few who are willing to give their lives and risk their lives to protect us Americans. Then you also have to consider the families who give up their husband, son , daughter, wife, dad, mom, brother, or sister so that we can enjoy the things we take for granted. If these people are so selfless then why should any of us have the right to be so selfish that we have to put these men and women on the line? These people have far more important things they could be doing rather than risking themselves to help somebody who had the chance to leave but chose to ignore warnings and ride out a storm even though they were given everything they needed to leave?

So you see a part of me says these are people so you have to help them, you can’t just leave them. Then there is the part of me that wins out in the end. These people made their choice why do we need to risk our few brave men and women over something so trivial as to choose to stay so you can save contents of your house or what ever they think they are doing by riding out the storm? Yes it is a tragedy when people lose their home and all it’s contents and it is an even bigger tragedy when it is thousands who lose it all at once. Tragedies happen and what becomes of them is up to the one who lost everything.

Should the government be obligated to rescue people who ignore evacuation warnings in natural disasters? is a post from: Government Grant Programs