Real names only, please

Sue Daugherty
Mar 23, 2010

My previous blog, "My thoughts about angry bloggers and why they exist," seems to have resonated with quite a few people — pro and con.  I enjoyed the largely respectful discourse, but I'd like to experiment with one of the points made by the readers. 

Some bloggers contend that if the person commenting had to put their name to the words they wrote, the comments would be more respectful and less harmful and hurtful.

I'd like to make a request.  If you are going to comment on this week's blog use your real first name and your real last name.  True, I am trusting people will honor the "honor system" and yes, I do recognize that the unscrupulous will play the imposter. But for the sake of the spirit and intent of this blogging experiment, let's give a sincere try at being honest and public with our comments.  

OK,  here is this week's blog.

The high cost of gasoline, home heating and electricity is putting a real clamp on the American economy. Our economy is a mess.  Albert Einstein said something like, "The thinking that got us into this problem, is not the thinking that will get us out of it."

So I propose that we Americans change how we make decisions about consuming. What would happen if we did away with the typical American consumer mentality and stopped buying based on price alone?  What if we bought based on the value of putting an American back to work in addition to the price?  Not just one or the other, but both. It means that instead of having 20 pairs of pants or shirts in our closet, we might only own 7.

How would you respond?  Would you be willing to do that?

Maybe our current economic condition will provoke a new type of consumer mentality. Maybe U.S. citizens will start to understand that consuming doesn't mean you can have it all now and worry about paying for it tomorrow.  Because the reality is you can't.

We complain about the global race to the bottom and how we have to compete against workers in other parts of the world making pennies a day.  But as Americans we are responsible for this. We ourselves chase the cheapest price we can pay. 

Do those who are out of work, and we consumers, finally understand that  a microwave actually costs more than $69 to make? If we want to put Americans back to work, then we need to accept the fact that microwaves would cost more to manufacture "locally." Would the consumer be willing to pay more if it means putting our neighbors back to work?

If Americans would make this choice — the operative word is "choice" — I believe we would be well on our way to reviving our economy while at the same time not having so much "stuff" for the sake of having "stuff" (  I realize that this means the typical American closet would have 7 shirts rather than 20, and each of those 7 shirt would cost much more. But the added benefit is your neighbor now has a job.

So what do you think?  Would you change your consumer habits to change our economy for the better? 

I welcome your comments — only with your real name, please.



is like the Bushes - they all smell.


I only keep coming back because I think she is the hottest reporter at the SR. Well, the hottest besides Westerhold.


There's no question that we need more refineries and newer refineries, but don't blame big oil for their "failure" to build. Unfortunately, refineries require government permission, and the government hasn't been granting it. Same goes for one of the cleanest (and safest) power sources available, nuclear. Hasn't been a new nuclear plant built in forever, either, because the government won't allow it.

In fairness to the government (I can't believe I just said that), its refusal is all too often based on the clamor of people who WANT these things, but "not in MY backyard!"

By its very definition, democracy means the people get the government they deserve. And as H.L. Mencken added, they deserve to get it good and hard. Looks like we are.


Everyday on the news we hear about people going on my space or some other web site and giving out to much info on themselves.
Now we have Sue telling us to get on here and give our real name.
Okay so anyone that wants to go off on Sue can google here home phone number and if you want to pay a little fee you can get her cell phone also. This will make it easy to go off on her 24 hours a day. She doesn't mind being woke up.
Also you can go to and see where she lives and a picture of her house and how much taxes she pays.
Then you can go to a home show at the mall and put her name and address and phone nr. on all kinds of businesses running drawing which she won't win but they will send her junk mail for the next few years.
This is just a start so keep those real names a coming and if I don't like your comment I will give you a call when I get off work at midnight.


So what's the reasoning behind the government not allowing the oil companies to build refineries. Please don't try to convince me it's because the people don't want it. I've never seen an administration who could care less what the people wanted and I've seen 7 administrations that I could be counted in as a voting citizen.


with all these changes how are we to see the daily log


The reasoning behind the government not permitting new refineries is usually couched in environmental terms. That's true whether or not improved technology actually represents any kind of appreciable risk(s).

The federal government isn't as much in charge of these issues (although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a federal agency) as are state governments. The best example of the failure to increase infrastructure (and then crying about it) is California.

But if you want to look at something closer to home, consider our local dump. Erie County Commissioners actually used their heads for once and talked about selling methane (a natural byproduct of decay), and some local folks went NUTS to avoid that happening. Let's see: Capture the gas that none of us really want. Sell it so that landfill costs can stay down and maybe we can even make a few extra bucks. And protest it all the way. Sheesh!


What Ms. Daugherty suggests is neither feasible nor wise under current conditions:

1. While items themselves must be marked by country of origin, neither catalogs nor websites are currently required to carry this information.

2. Many items are simply not made in the US. The last American TV manufacturer, for example, folded in the 1980's.

3. Her plan would give identical treatment to Canada, one of our closest allies, China, a totalitarian state with an abysmal human-rights record, and Russia, which appears to be making an honest effort to overcome its own totalitarian past and become a true democracy.

I say give consumers full and accurate information and let *us* decide who we want to do business with.


Sue Just wanted to let you know I am still driving the Escort. It has 220,000 miles on it. Not so pretty since I tangled with a deer last winter, still going. Faith and Norb's, I call him Mr. Majic, keep me on the road. You were a blessing when I bought it, and I wanted you to know.
I try to buy American, and often do without when unable to. It is difficult on a limited buget.


"I say give consumers full and accurate information and let *us* decide who we want to do business with. "

I agree completely, Andrew. The problem is that some people are too stupid to make a good decision, even with all of the pertinent information at hand. While I believe that sort of thing is best solved in the school of hard knocks, the GOVERNMENT believes two different things:

1. EVERYbody is too stupid to make a good decision, and

2. therefore the government must decide for us all.

There's not a problem in this city, county, state, or country that couldn't be solved with the across-the-board application of two things:

1. Personal responsibility, and

2. the Free Market

Without a problem, Sue and people like her would lose all purpose to their existence (the fact that much of the government would also go away is icing on the cake). Solving the problem is a threat, and for that reason alone will never really happen.


hi sue, how have you been? yes i agree we are entitled to our opinions,buthave the cajones to use your name. i use my real name on all,not my last name since i have my opinion that there are a large group of people here and on the reflector blogs taht are mental midget's.and some times the truth may hurt when expressing opinion that some of these may try and take it a step further if they know who you are. well ive said enough,btw great rthings you have been doing with the senior's in our area. take care


Wow! I have read every blog up to my own. What an array of opinions and expressions!I realize my opinion is just that, an opinion. It may matter to none,one, or some.
The point of expressing an opinion is to find out if someone else agrees or disagrees with our own. It's always important to know that, I'm not the only one & what I think actually could matter or make a difference. For this reason I don't mind giving my real name. If my opinion could matter or make a difference, then I most certainly want to take responsibility or rather credit for it.
With that said, and this is MY opinion, those who were offended or bothered by the fact that Sue even suggested such a thing as to give your real name and didn't, that of course is your choice; but a true sign of adult maturity is taking responsibility for what we say, good, bad, or indifferent.
Like Sue herself said, it was an experiment, it was a request, not a demand.
Personal attacks against Sue or anyone else who has said something that is disagreeable to our own opinions,in my opinion, is not an adult mature way to respond. Grow up!

Now to the real root of the blog: To reiterate the question: So what do you think? Would you change your consumer habits to change our economy for the better?
Although I am not that up on politics or the economy, I know enough to form an intelligent opinion. And my opinion is this; I agree with John Mavros. His opinions are intelligent, articulate, knowledgable, and well thought out. I could not have said it better.
Kudos to John and Sue!


Sue is suppose to help our seniors from fraud, and one of the biggest scams is people getting to know a little about the person and then coning them over the phone out of there life saving. Sue was doing a great job a year ago but now she seems to becoming more of a politician. Seems to me it should be one or the other because I'm getting older everyday and hopefully someone who has there heart into there job will be working for SOS.


When I google your name it comes up with and gives all sort of info on you and even a picture.
But this is probably another Ellyn Clark from Norwalk High. "Later Jim S."