I received a campaign flyer in the mail the other day and had to shake my head. How could someone send something out with a serious error in it?

Wrong date? No. Wrong time? No. Spelling error? Perhaps. Wrong word? Most definitely.

This simple type of error affects me like nails on a chalkboard affects most people. I just don't understand it.

The word ... "insure". It should have been "ensure". But these two words also get confused with "assure". Whats the difference or it really isn't that big of a deal, is it? Yes it is.

These words have completely different meanings -- similiar, but very different. Let's take a look.

First, insure:

1. to guarantee against loss or harm.
2. to secure indemnity to or on, in case of loss, damage, or death.
3. to issue or procure an insurance policy on or for.

Next, ensure:

1. to secure or guarantee
2. to make sure or certain
3. to make secure or safe

Finally, assure:

1. to declare earnestly to; inform or tell positively; state with confidence
2. to cause to know surely; reassure
3. to pledge or promise; give surety of; guarantee
4. to make (a future event) sure; ensure
5. to secure or confirm; render safe or stable
6. to give confidence to; encourage.

Now, this campaign flyer made a point of "insuring" a certain area's lifestyle. Looking at #1,#2 and #3 from "insure" above, I don't see how this can happen. We can't "insure" an area's lifestyle or way of life. If there is an insurance company offering this coverage, they would have the market to themselves. And I don't know of any such coverage.

I'm sure they meant "ensure", especially as it relates to #2 in our list of definitions for "ensure". "Vote for me and I will ensure our way of life is preserved" makes sense to me.

Maybe they meant, "Vote for me and I assure you I will preserve our way of life". That would be #3 from our list in "assure".

No big deal, you might say. My response is a simple one: this is attention to detail and how can we vote for someone that can't pay attention to a simple detail? If you can't pay attention to small stuff, how can I be sure you will pay attention to the big stuff?

Let me say this, I assure you, dear reader (or 3), that I believe they will do everything in their power to ensure our community is preserved, without having to buy anything that will insure it.

> Discuss this entry

Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0) | Share:

Tomorrow is election day and we need to all go out and vote.

Besides the Presidential Primaries, the big issue on the ballot is for Amendment 1.

This amendment has caused much discussion and has, maybe, a 50/50 chance of passing. I'm no expert on this, but I have done some research and my position is to vote YES on this amendment.

Here's why: its a start.

Read this article for background on this issue.

But, regardless of how you vote ... go out tomorrow and vote. It's a right few of us exercise enough and it will be the first step in getting our voices heard.

Take your child(ren) as well. Teach them a great civics lesson.

> Discuss this entry

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Share:

Maybe it’s my nature. Or perhaps it’s what’s happened in my professional life. Then again, maybe it’s because I’m naturally curious. But I have some questions on an issue that is floating around the Village these past few months.

Tom, what the heck are you talking about?

The whole issue of baseball, sports providers and this insane notion of non-residents playing on Village fields. So, what’s the brouhaha all about?

This story.

Before I get to share why this story really ticks me off and why it is inaccurate, let’s get to the basic facts.

This story is about travel baseball and the participation of non-residents in this Village approved program. Many of the sports played in Wellington have two separate and distinct programs – a recreation program and a competitive program.

What’s the difference you may ask?

It’s a simple one. Recreation programs have a “parents pay, children play” philosophy. Yep, in recreation sports, all participants get to play in each and every game. My understanding is that they get to play at least one-third of each game. Competitive programs have try-outs and there is no promise that if a child makes the team that he or she will play. The costs of participating in the competitive programs are higher than in recreation programs. So, normally, the desire to do well is exacerbated.

So, Tom, what exactly are you in a huff about?

Well, let’s get to the story.

A parent of a skilled young ball player has a gripe with the fact that he can’t participate in the Village of Wellington sanctioned league and has to go to Boynton Beach to play. In fact, he quite plainly states "We have all these nonresidents coming in and taking over our programs … They're taking our kids' spots, using our fields and knocking on Wellington doors for fundraisers."

No one took this child’s spot away except his father.

You see, the boy was 9 years old. But the father didn’t want him on the 9 year old team due to a personality conflict with the coach. So he had him try out for the 10 year old team. And he didn’t make it. My understanding is that this young man would have made the 9 year old team, but did not have the ability to make the 10 year old team. So, whose fault is it, really?

This argument had nothing to do with whether there are non-residents trying out, but was a personal choice made by a parent. It was his choice and now he doesn’t play on a Wellington sanctioned team and drives to Boynton Beach.

Doesn't this father's decision to have his child play in Boynton Beach strike anyone as the pot calling the kettle black? He couldn't get on a Wellington team, so he went to Boynton Beach and took a spot from a Boynton Beach child.

Well, you may say, was there any other alternative? In one word, yep.

If this father had an issue with the coach, why didn’t he approach the Board of Directors and ask for a second team to be formed?

Don’t know, maybe someone should ask him.

What about the January try-outs, you may ask? Nope, didn’t show up for those either, I understand. Don't know why he didn't show up.

Maybe someone should ask about that as well.

This was a personal choice that was made and had nothing to do with residents versus non-residents. And now a child has to pay the price.

But what about that percentage requirement of resident participation programs and the use of our facilities? This is a complicated question needs a little explanation.

Right now Wellington residents have the choice to play in a Wellington league or not, whether the program is a recreational or competitive. Many choose not to use the leagues made available through the Village and that is their choice. So be it.

The fact of the matter is the facilities in Wellington really have no equal in the county and teams are clamoring to play on them. If Wellington residents choose not to play on Village sanctioned teams, why should the Village deny anyone else that opportunity?

The real issue revolves around money. Specifically, taxpayer dollars.

The solution, it seems, is to ensure the non-residents of the Village pay their fair share of the expenses required to keep these facilities in the fantastic shape they are kept. The Leisure Services staff is preparing a study on how much of the resident tax liability is devoted to maintenance of these facilities. Then a fair fee can be designed to offset the fact non-residents do not pay taxes in the Village.

Trying to make each individual team at least 51% residents would virtually eliminate these programs in the Village. And the work required to manage this would be overwhelming. The staff does not have the personnel to micromanage the providers of competitive teams, nor should they be required to do so.

As to the percentage of Village residents playing in these programs right now, not one is below 51%. The lowest is 54%. And that’s OK by me.

In closing I lifted this quote out of the article: “Both sides accuse each other of the same thing — putting the game ahead of the kids.” Actually, at least in my opinion, that’s not accurate. Its parents putting their issues ahead of the children.

Let's call this what it is ... a parent did not get his way (note I did not say the child didn't get his way) and now wants to punish every other child in this program as well as every other competititve program the Village sponsors.

What, you think any change is going to be limited to travel baseball? Any changes to this program and policy will affect every team run by a sports provider ... soccer, softball, hockey, football, to name just a few.

Is this what we really want? I don't think so.

> Discuss this entry

Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) | Share:

I read in the paper this morning that the Sunrise Senior Living project may be dead in Wellington. It seems the negotiations have stumbled upon some obstacles in the requirements that the Village Staff is insisting on including in the sales documents.

Apparently the Village Staff is concerned about a property swap occurring between the property in Wellington and another piece of property in Broward County for Sunrise. Village Staff is insisting that if this occurs, the Village has the option to buy back the property at a discounted price. Naturally, the developer is balking at this.

Normally I would say no big deal, after all if the company was savvy enough to get this through the negotiations, then more power to them.

But this is different. A promise was made to the seniors of our community … an ALF to serve their needs. The staff is right in making sure this property swap would not happen. A promise was made and the Staff is right in making sure that promise is carried out for the benefit of Wellington residents.

What really put me over the edge of uncontrollable laughter is what brought this all about and why I can hear the voices in the background say, “See, I told you so. It's Erickson all over again.”

When the Village Council voted on accepting the proposal to negotiate for the sale of a portion of K-Park to Sunrise Senior Living, a second proposal was completely dismissed out of hand.

In hindsight, perhaps the Council should have given fair hearing to the second proposal … a Mizner Park/CityPlace style development that included a white collar employment center, an ALF, a cultural arts center and parks that would fulfill the anticipated needs of the community.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and this is no exception.

Perhaps, just perhaps, when Council has multiple proposals for something that will have an impact on the community, they should give each of the proposals a fair hearing and then make a decision.

The manner in which the decision was made to move forward with Sunrise reeked of a back room filled with tobacco smoke in some seedy building on a back alley in the Village. The decision seemed to be made before it even came up in the hearing.

It smacked of Boss Tweed, not the Village of Wellington.

Before you dismiss my thoughts here, let me say I support Sunrise Senior Living being in Wellington. I want an ALF here as much as any of our seniors. And Sunrise Senior Living seems to have a pretty good product.

I would hope that Sunrise Senior Living is serious about opening a facility here. But as they say, actions speak louder than words.

Let’s urge Sunrise to follow through on their promise. Comply with the Village Staff’s requirements.

As a taxpayer and resident of Wellington, I expect nothing less of Village Staff to stick to their guns and ensure this serves the best needs of the residents of Wellington.

Don’t back down and protect those of us that are looking to you to serve our interests.

> Discuss this entry

Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0) | Share:

If you missed it, you missed an enjoyable evening, overall. Although I volunteer for the Cultural Trust, I'm not just going to give them a pass on everything ... so here's my take.

Overall, a "B/B+" I think.

If you just looked at the performance, I say a "B". Christian Hoff was good, not great. The show was a little long in my opinion, but the music was good. Mr. Hoff performed a wide variety of tunes, some I enjoyed a great deal, some not so much. Musically, he really showed his range.

Some of his stories were good, but tended to drag on and I think this was what dragged the show down some. A little peppier on the monologues and this show would have been a solid "A" for sure. I suspect the size of the audience threw him just a little bit.

I give the Cultural Trust an "A". Biased you say ... but take a look at what has happened.

Two years ago there few events and they were held all over the community.

Last year the Jazz Festival was truly the only event held on the Trust's "home turf".

This year that has all changed. All the events will be held on the Trust's site. Yes, right now it is just a tent ... but a big tent ... 8,200 square feet. Yes, it could get warm inside. In fact, some patrons were uncomfortable inside the tent on Saturday. I am sure the Trust will get this corrected.

So let me ask a simple question ... When was the last time you could go and see a Cabaret (night club) show in Palm Beach County?

With a Tony Award winner, no less.

Who took a night off his hit Broadway show to be here.

The answer ... Not in the Kravis Center and its beautiful building(s).

But in Wellington and in a tent.

Just for that, the Cultural Trust deserves an A. The fact the show was sold out gets them an A+.

The Cabaret Series continues with great performers such as Christine Ebersole (another Tony Award winner), Jason Graae and Jon Tartaglia (who will perform one show for children and another for adults).

With a community literature event, a comedy series, Second City, the Jazz Festival and the Biennale yet to come, this will be an exciting season.

Enough on programming, let's take a look at the venue.

Yes, the event was held in a tent.

For some it may have been warm inside and some additional ventilation would have been appreciated. I certainly didn't expect 80 degree weather in January and I'm sure neither did the Cultural Trust. Overall it really didn't get that warm inside, in my opinion. And I'm a big guy and know when it gets warm somewhere.

The caterers were pretty good and looked professional. The prices weren't so bad you wanted to run away ... about the same as any other performance or sports event. The food was pretty tasty.

There is one thing that when the weather is good everyone complains about, but when it’s raining they really appreciate ... valet parking. This was a great touch and I don't think anyone waited much more than 15 minutes at the end of the show for their car. Pretty well run if you ask me. And if the weather turns wet, valet parking has a covered area to protect the patrons from the elements.

The bottom line is this ... the Cultural Trust's third season will be held on its own site. A clear tribute to them and the Village of Wellington staff and council for making sure this can happen. We should be applauding all of them. A standing ovation, in fact.

This weekend a musical is on tap. It's called "The Musical of Musicals, the Musical". And it's coming directly from the York Theater in New York. It will be a rousing good time. Get your tickets now ... this will probably be sold out as well.

I'll see you there!

> Discuss this entry

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Share:

Normally I do not respond to comments to my blog entries. And I do not edit them except when you put something in it that promotes your business, blog, or something that may be for your personal benefit.

But I would like to address a few things. Here is the link to the original blog entry and comments.

The basic fact that applies to this is that the young man violated a legal trespass order. You and I have the right to protect our property and with the people we willingly choose to share it. If someone comes to your property and you don't want them there we (you and I) have the right to call the Sheriff and have them removed. That is what the Mall did, pure and simple. I would expect the Mall to do the same thing for anyone, regardless of nationality or race.

My entry only makes a note about the young man's nationality when it applied to willfully disobeying a legal court order and then assaulting a Sheriff's Deputy and comparing his treatment for this act here versus what may have happened in his native country. There was nothing about this comment that was racially motivated or based.

Now, I understand it is interesting how one's personal background affects their view of a set of facts. Their perception is their reality. However my perception is my reality as well and I do not believe I wrote anything that is racist. I merely made a comment on how people are treated differently by the police in two different countries.

That being said, my comments on teenagers were inclusive of all of them ... it doesn't matter if they are white, black, yellow, blue or green. Just how they dress and act as teenagers. And yes, I am including my teenage daughter in this as well.

My great-grandparents emigrated from Italy. When they came here they worked in the coal mines in a company town. If you don't think this type of economic system was discriminatory, click here. This is an experience from our past that few people today have to endure.

Both of my grandfathers worked in those same coal mines ... at an age when today's teens are more concerned with iPods, computers, text messaging and what new clothes they can get from Abercrombie & Fitch.

And my great-grandparents insisted my grandparents learn both Italian and English. I wish this tradition passed on to my dad and then on to me so I could pass it on as well. Learning a second language now is much harder than I anticipated. I do respect and feel proud of American society when people living in this country speak two or more languages.

When they emigrated, my great-grandparents were poor, dirt poor. All they wanted was to try and make the lives of their children better than theirs. Discrimination against Italians in the early 1900's was pervasive. So too for the Irish and every other immigrant community that came to America during the 1800's and early 1900's.

In many places, it continues on today ... usually in a different guise. Look how people treat Mitt Romney simply because they do not understand his religion. Is that fair? Or even American? I'm not a Romney supporter, but I do respect him for standing up for what he believes is right.

My comments were based on something simple ... a "fashion" trend that is present today, with which many people do not feel comfortable, caused a young man to be asked to leave someone's property and told not to come back or he would be arrested for trespassing.

His right to wear that form of fashion ends where someone else's eyeballs begin. Especially if they find it offensive.

You may wish to base this argument, and its unfortunate results, on race, but race has absolutely nothing to do with it.

He was asked not to return. He chose to come back. He knew the outcome. Then he chose to resist and a deputy was struck. The buck stops with him.

> Discuss this entry

Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) | Share:

You may have read in the paper, or heard on the news, that a young man and members of his family were arrested at the Mall at Wellington Green. And, now there is talk about racism, use of force, discrimination and lawsuits.

All of this peripheral stuff obscures a simple fact: the young man was prohibited from being at the Mall due to his lack of conformity to the Mall's request to "hitch up his britches." He was told that if he were to return he would be trespassing and the Sheriff's office would be called to enforce the trespass order.

He came, the Sheriff's office was called, responded and attempted to execute the arrest for violating the trespass order. Then things got a little messy.

Maybe there were insults hurled back and forth. I don't know as I wasn't there. But an undeniable fact is that a Sheriff's deputy was struck several times by the young man's family.

Not sure about you, but, in my opinion, when a law enforcement officer is assaulted during the performance of his official duties, they have the responsibility to arrest those who broke the law.

I understand this family is from Haiti. Would they have argued or struck a law enforcement officer there? I think not as the end result would not be an arrest, but rather a beating or even death. If they were lucky, I suspect they would receive serious jail time in one of Haiti's prisons, which would make our maximum security prisons here look like kindergarten.

I really don't go to the mall that often (I'm a guy ... shopping isn't in my DNA), but when I do I am put-off by the lack of self esteem and modesty by many today.

As the father of a teenage girl, I have to think sometimes, what the heck are these parents thinking?

Take a few examples --

The tight sweatpants that have words like "sexy" or "juicy" on the butt?

How about the thong underwear sticking out over those low-cut jeans?

What is with jeans hanging so low that someone's entire butt is above the belt line?

Whose idea was it that wearing "wifebeater" t-shirts was ok as normal attire?

Or that nice woman that lives down the street wearing a t-shirt that says, "Got MILF?"

And please, please tell me why its OK to wear short shorts and a short tank top with spaghetti straps that exposes more skin than is covered?

Don't get me wrong ... I am not some old fuddy duddy or prude ... but come on now people, can't we leave just a little to the imagination?

But I digress ... back to the subject at hand.

The young man's rights end where mine begin. He does not have the right to resist arrest by force. He does not have the right to willfully resist a no trespassing order.

The bottom (pun intended) line is that he broke the law, as did the family. Now it's time to pay the piper.

Thanks to the Mall at Wellington Green for taking a stand and making everyone's shopping experience that much better.

Now, can you get me the number for the woman wearing that "Got MILF?" t-shirt?

> Discuss this entry

Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0) | Share:

Resolutions.

Yep, that New Year's tradition we all try to use to improve our lives. And then try and stick to then as the year moves on.

Fitness clubs and weight loss centers all get a huge influx of new members in January. By February, usually, that crush of new members dwindles down and things get back to normal.

Which reminds me, are you still paying for last year's gym membership? When was the last time you went? See what I mean?

My question is a simple one: why do most people's resolutions seem to be a form of punishment?

I looked around on the internet for the top ten resolutions average Americans make. This is what I found:

1. Quit smoking
2. Lose weight
3. Quit drinking (apropo after New Year's Eve for many)
4. Go back to school
5. Spend more time with family
6. Try something new
7. Work on spiritual growth
8. Take a vacation
9. Pay off my debt
10. Get a better job

Most of these resolutions seem to be tough to continue on a long-term basis. Stuff just happens and we get put off of our course.

Yes all of these resolutions are good ones. Just imagine how much your life would improve if you quit smoking, lost weight, didn't drink as much, went back for some adult education, spent some quality time with your family, went out and tried something you've been wanting to do, grow spiritually, actually took a real vacation, paid off your debt and got a better job.

Wow, that's a lot of stuff to do! In fact a friend of mine would add that it would make you boring as well. But that's another blog entry.

Maybe it's time to look at resolutions a little differently. Instead of making resolutions that are some form of cruel medieval punishment or based on what you want or are self-centered, let's try a different approach.

You do something for someone else. Give a small piece of yourself away.

This idea popped into my head last week when I drove by these two girls on the side of the road with their mom. They had these small signs made with highlighter that I could barely read as I drove by.

The sign just said "Snowcones".

I turned around and went back and bought a snowcone. It was hot that day and it really tasted wonderful -- sugary and cold and really strawberry. It was more of a smoothie than a snowcone but I really enjoyed it.

I asked them how much and they said fifty cents. What a bargain! I gave them a few dollars and told them to keep the change. They were so excited! It really made me smile and gave me a few new ideas.

Here's my list of resolutions ...

1. Keep a few singles in the car in case I pass a lemonade or snow cone stand on the side of the street.

2. Don't ignore the beggars on the side of the road, at least acknowledge them. And you do have those ones in the car.

3. Let those in-a-rush drivers in front of me, even if if they don't use their turn signal.

4. When in the Express Lane at Publix, let that person that has fewer items than me, go first.

5. Volunteer somewhere with my daughter so she begins to understand there is life outside Wellington.

6. Visit more mom-and-pop restaurants than chains. I think they will appreciate it much more. Don't forget to say a blessing.

7. Although I have in each election since I can remember, encourage people to vote.

8. Sit down, turn off the TV and play a board game or read with my daughter each week.

9. Say "please" and "thank you" more often, and really mean it.

10. Take a few minutes each day to admire just how wonderful our world really is.

What about you? How about adding to the list with yours?

Thanks and have a Happy New Year.

> Discuss this entry

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Share: