Courier Life’s

Stan takes on the Santa clause

Brooklyn Daily
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like Brooklyn Daily on Facebook.

Christmas is long past, and it is hard to believe but there are still noisemakers that love to call radio shows to continue the argument about the color of Santa Claus.

Today’s broadcast was not a replay of a month old show. Pinky swear. The jolly fat man in the red suit is an imaginary character. He is a fig-newton of billions of people’s imaginations and could be any color they want him to be. If this continues, by next December there will be arguments about the length of his beard, the realty of flying reindeer, and the color of Frosty the Snowman. No! No! No! He’s a snowman, so Frosty, by definition, is white. According to my Second College Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary snow is the solid precipitation in the form of white ice crystals. Yada, yada, yada. Please don’t mess with my Frosty.

• • •

Either for medical reasons or because of the extra calories, more of us have been laying off the sugar. Of the many substitute sweeteners on the market, the most popular are Splenda (in the yellow envelope and made from sucralose), Equal (in the blue envelope and containing aspartame), and the good old reliable pink envelope of Sweet N’ Low (which contains saccharin).

Saccharin has been around for as long as I can remember. My son, Daryl, is convinced that it is only a matter of time before one of these will be considered unsafe because its long term use will cause something we do not want. So, instead of sticking to one, he bought a box of each and uses one on Monday, another on Tuesday, and the third on Wednesday. He starts all over on Thursday and repeats the cycle. This way he feels that whichever brand leads to a problem he’s only been using one-third of that sweetener reducing the odds by two-thirds. Yes. I do have smart children.

• • •

Fact: in the first 24 hours of the Chris Christie massive traffic jam scandal, there was 17 times more media coverage than there was in the last six months of President Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy. Tell me again that there is no double-standard in the media.

Let me make it clear that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of the Garden State governor. He may still be liked by the voters of New Jersey, but he doesn’t play well with my friends in Kansas and Nebraska.

The left is busy telling us that we are not supposed to believe Christie when he insists that he did not know about the traffic problem but we are supposed to believe Obama when he tells us he didn’t know about whatever one of them is a proven liar. Why should I believe anything he says?

• • •

The ads are asking. “Are you ready for Hillary?” I am with a message for her. Dear Mrs. Clinton: if you run, I will vote for you if you promise to bring back the dishes.

Read Stan Gershbein's column every Monday on
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like Brooklyn Daily on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

Ed Stein from Brighton Beach says:
Damn. I thought there would be nothing for me comment about but ...
The reason the IRS "controversy" got less coverage is that many people understand that the 501 code so abused and misused by the GOP specifically states that:

Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Note the phrase
"may NOT participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates"

... and this phrase:
" it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities "

Since 90% of the misuse is by 501 corporations set up by the GOP -- it stands to reason that more GOP corporations will be investigated.

Not so hard to understand, Stan. Really.
On the other hand, blocking access to a major public bridge to "get back" at a mayor (for not endorsing the gov. candidate that won) by making life miserable for the people both of you (supposedly) represent is something else that is easy to understand (for most of us anyway).
Jan. 27, 2014, 5:16 am
Tinman from Sheepshead Bay says:
So glad, your anti-Obama rant only has three more years to go.
If you notice, even the GOP has put the so-called IRS scandal on the back burner, likely because it lacked any momentum, though it's likely to resurface in the next presidential election.
As far as NJ governor CC, why not just admit, as a leader, he seems to lack any leadership. Even if he knew nothing about Bridegate, he should have looked into the matter after the second day of massive congestion on the GW. By not inquiring, he showed he could care less or that his lackeys employed some vendetta he decided to steer clear of.
Coverage was no media double standard, just focus on a possible 2016 Republican candidate who's no longer a GOP wannabe.
Jan. 27, 2014, 12:51 pm
Paul from Bayridge, NY says:
Mr. Ed,
Can you explain to me if there is no media bias then why wasn't the facts that the President and his staff knew that the attack on our embassy in Benghazi was a terrorist attack covered by the left wing media?
Stan you are correct and a great patriot.
He these lefties in check.
Bayridge, Brooklyn
Jan. 30, 2014, 9:04 am
Paul from Bayridge, NY says:
Keep these lefties in check
Jan. 30, 2014, 9:05 am
Ed Stein from Brighton Beach says:
Paul -

Maybe you never learned to count well, but there are numbers between 1 and 100 (%). Media bias - sure there is. I did not realize we were discussing whether media bias exists or whether there is absolutely none whatsoever. We were discussing points raised by Stan, specifically the "Chris Christie massive traffic jam scandal" and "President Obama’s Internal Revenue Service " and why there was more coverage about one than the other (although I doubt that there really was "17 times more ..." as Stan plays fast and loose with numbers and attribution).

Of course there is media bias ... on all sides (some more than others but that is for another day). Are you happy now?
But the discussion was not about bias. It was why there was (supposedly) more coverage when Christie et al, decided to jam the GW Bridge vs. when the IRS investigated illegal use of tax exempt corporations.

It seems that some people think that they don't have to pay taxes and can cheat when creating tax exempt corporations in order to not pay their fair share.

Some think that is just fine. I don't.
Jan. 31, 2014, 8:37 am

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

This week’s featured advertisers

See all ads
CNG: Community Newspaper Group