WSR News & Opinions

Dear HP

2011-12-18T17:20:00.000-08:00

I was just on a Website where your 41-second ads were playing. I have to tell you that you and the ads suck for several reasons. First, while you may have been a good company (I have one of your printers), you're not anymore beyond just another computer company (you haven't updated your Mac utility applications for your printers). Second, the ads were set where you couldn't stop them or turn off the sound with the video controls, although they were there.

The last thing I want is to visit a Website and hear a really dumb HP ad and then discover I can't control it except to go somewhere else. I don't like your computers, or anyone which runs any Microsoft operating system or applications (my Mac is MS free) for that matter, so hearing a dumb ad for yours doesn't encourage me to think you have good products or services. You can argue all you want about Apple and Mac's, they're still better than yours.

Now if you would just update your printer untilities, I might have some reason to think differently, a little maybe, but not about the ads. Those you can stuff them in the bit bucket with all the other digital trash. And by the way, the ads themselves also suck, or at least the first 5 second did before I clicked to go somewhere else.

Sorry Mr Cain

2011-11-05T08:11:00.000-07:00

Some thoughts on the republican campaign. Ok, besides being a complete waste of time to follow, let alone pay attention. But that said, here are some thoughts.

First, Mr. Cain is a joke. From my years as a supervisor undergoing sexual harrassment training and some incidents of it in the office I worked, I can say the charges are fair and correct, and with respect to his continual denial and then incremental admissions, face it, you're a sexist in the office. I've seen enough people like you in denial, it doesn't work.

You're also a racist, but not against white but blacks. You can't denigrate black people and play the race card and then whine when you're called for it or it's used against you. That's hypocritical and you know it, and you can't it for political advantage. But we see through it and you. You just an ordinary, everyday racist.

You're economic and tax plan would be a disaster to this country. As Rachael Maddow noted on Friday's (11/4/11) show, your whole campaign is a cruel joke on your followers and the voters. Pokemon is a cartoon show not a poet and your 9-9-9 idea is already taken. You're not qualified to be a candidate and definitely not president.

Second, if all the politicians did what they said, like run government like a business, everyone in Congress would have long been fired as incompetent. But even that and the thought doesn't matter, our government is not a business. It's that simple you can't run government like a business. It's entirely different and running it like a business would bankrupt the country and the people.

No business would hire a politician. They're only hired after they leave Congress to board of directors, think tanks, as spokespersons or similar useless positions for great pay and benefits and little real work. Only those who built their own or work for organizations, like Clinton or Carter, have succeeded to disprove the idea. The rest become empty figureheads. Ok, I'm open to more good examples.

Third, can we actually get some real debates, like long discussions on the issues to show their grasp of the complexity of the issues and the answers. But then would we really want that, knowing all of them are essentially clueless on many issues and idiots on the rest of the issues? But I'm open to be proven wrong.

I'll think of more thoughts, and like everyone else, just my opinion, equal in worth and value to everyone else's, and sometimes just as useless.

A Quick Note

2011-09-03T19:32:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note to say I haven't updated this blog in weeks and probably won't for weeks if not months for awhile. The reason is very simple. I'm tired of all the poltical crap from the Republicans, especially the Tea Party, and I'm tired of the presidential campaign. We still have have another 14 months of anger, hate, and whatever else the candidates want to dish out and blame the ills of the country, the economy and anything else on President Obama.

And I'm angry the number of people eating this crap up as truth. It's nothing but cow pasture material, something ranchers and diary farmers know better to avoid, but it's coming out of their mouths every day. My ears are tired and my brain is fried from this stuff. I stopped listening or watching any news about the campaign and the candidates.

And I can barely stand listening to the President. He should get a backbone, some balls and a voice. It's not his style but it will be his demise if he doesn't. Either he has bad advisors or he not heeding their advice. And he's not listening to all those outside the White House who are giving him good advice what he should do to get re-elected.

And I can barely stand to hear him turn republican. He's jettisoning his base for the moderates and center thinking we'll be there next year because there is no one else. But he's mistaken when we don't write the checks or donate to his campaign. Most of his money is coming from big donors, many of whom also fund Republican candidates.

And I can't stand the Republicans in Congress, especially in the House, sitting on their hands doing nothing except talk in front of cameras to blame everyone but themselves, even for their lack of progress. And they're sitting on their hands in the Senate to filibuster everything, saying they want Obama to be a one-term president.

They want to and will trash this country, the economy, Americans for the White House. They're willing to keep us in a recession and more so put us in a depression to blame Obama. Like we don't see that? Like we're that stupid? They actually think we believe them.

Sadly, though, many do and sadly many more are blaming Obama, some of which is his fault, but most of which is the work of the banks, financial and investments companies, the corporations and everything but Obama. But he's an easy target who doesn't fight back.

And so I'll keep my sanity for awhile and this blog will be on an on-off vacation.

She was no Janis Joplin

2011-07-23T17:58:00.000-07:00

At hearing the news of her death, I can only say while Amy Winehouse was a unique and individual singer, she wasn't Janis Joplin. While they may have had similar lives and deaths, Janis had heart and soul, and a voice which could rock an audience. Just listen to her albums and especially the Big Brother and the Holding company ones. She was a singer. And Amy wasn't much but a one hit wonder. I'm sorry for her death but she made her choices.

Selling Us Fear

2011-05-07T08:26:00.000-07:00

Reading about the treasure trove intelligence agents have with the computers, thumb drives, DVD's, etc. found in the home Osama bin Laden was living in Abbottabad, Pakistan, apparently for at least 5 years and probably longer, with some level of assumed knowledge and perhaps protection of the Pakistan government.

Or so says the US government on the latter issue, demanding names of people in the government complicit in his protection and access to the people left in the house when Navy Seals (Team 6) took bin Laden and his son's bodies where they were buried at sea within the expected 24 hour time in Islam tradition.

But my point here is that already the Obama administration is talking about potential threats found in the material, one on the US rail system, supposedly wanting to create a train wreck where hundreds of passengers are killed or injured. Like that hasn't happened already in the history of the rail system in this country?

Or worse, like when trains transporting hazardous gases and chemical derail and create havoc on local populations and serious damage to the environment. And we're worried about one terrorist threat? Really, hyping one threat against the history of rail accidents?

What's the phrase? Give me a break. We all have or still ride the trains, on the same tracks where many trains carry considerable goods and food throughout this country. We ride with the normal expectation of safety and the normal risk of accidents. It's the nature of the world we live in today.

And we should be worried about a terrorist threat? So much the government can and will impose new restrictions on travel and new rules for passengers? Like the wasted crap we have at the airports and airline travel? And we can expect something similar at train stations? Like watch and no travel lists?

Will the government mandate complete and throughout inspections of all rail shipments? Or is the government only wanting to treat passengers, Americans, as potential terrorists? To screen us with more expensive, taxpayer paid, machines and more TSA worker on government payroll?

And the Republicans, the Tea Party and other less govenment advocates will acquiesce because it's protection from terrorists? Like we're all terrorists? Or just the other people they suspect, like democrats and the really radical leftists? And more so those "people" who to them are obvious, those of Middle Eastern heritage or ancestry.

In the end, what this is and what we'll hear more about all this material is just to sell us fear and sell us the government can protect us if only we pay our taxes and give up a few more rights, liberties and protections guarranteed under the Constitution, but that won't stop Congress from passing more and worse versions of the Patriot Act.

All in the name of fighting the endless war on global terorism. And against Americans too. The government thinks we're the enemy and they'll do anything to sell us fear of our enemy knowing it's us they really don't trust. And in some measure they're right, I don't trust the government anymore.

Amazing what fear will do to people and especially governments. To be enemies, the government and its citizens. The war isn't about or against terrorists, it's against Americans and America. Our government against us.

And the End is When?

2011-05-07T05:20:00.000-07:00

I was listening and reading some of the responses to the recent mission which targeted and killed Osama bin Laden. I don't know the statistics of how many people actually believe this, but I suspect it's more than people are saying or the polls are finding. And that is?

Well, one young soldier, when asked since bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is virtually gone (less than a few hundred and most in Pakistan) should we (US) decide the war in Afghanistan is over and it's time to leave, said, "I think we have an obligation to stay the course and fight for the people there."

Well, all I could think of then was to have asked that young soldier, "So then, when is the end?"

The truth is, as almost everyone with knowledge and experience in or with Afghanistan have said or written, that there is no end to the war in Afghanistan. The reason is that while Al Qaeda is nearly gone the Taliban, now based in Pakistan, is still relatively strong in many areas of Afghanistan.

And while we are winning the war against the Taliban, they have lasted nearly 10 years and will last another 10 years and longer. Let's not forget they've been around in Afghanistan since the war against the invasion and occupation by the Soviet Union. And now, after five years of controlling Afghanistan (1996-2001), they're fighting the invasion and occupation by the United States.

While they may be new as an organization, they're not new to war as they were formed by a number of war lords prior to the Soviets. Since the removal from power in 2001, they've tied themselves to many other war lords, militias and other groups to survive, even drug lords. And an estimated one-third or more are Pakistani, some from the Pakistan Army.

We also know we, the Americans, are supplying money and arms to the Taliban. Yes, folks, we're supplying our enemy. We paying Afghan contractors to truck supplies from Pakistan to all the places in Afghanistan. Those contractors are paying the Taliban for protection along their routes from attacks by other enemies and even the Taliban.

The arms are coming through the soldiers we're trainiing for the Afghan army and police, some of whom are secretly members or supporters of the Taliban, and through the supplies to the Afghan government to other forces into the black market. The truth is that we're arming and paying the Taliban, indirectly but the result is the same.

And we know the Karzai government has negotiated with the Taliban for inclusion in his government. The reality is clear, Afghanistan will not have a free and stable government with President Karzai. He's corrupt, his family and friends in the government are corrupt, and wealthy by way of our money, and everyone else in the government is corrupt.

His government, or our puppet government (ala Vietnam), couldn't survive are departure, but you can be sure President Karzai is working to ensure his survival as president after we're gone with our money and arms, which is the question at hand and what those who profess we stay the course to the end.

The government of Afghanistan needs the US and NATO to survive. The country needs us to survive. We're fighting for them to stand up and take over, but the reality and truth is they won't. They're addicted to our money and arms. They'll do enough as they've always done to survive for themselves but not against enemies, not without help, our help.

So to those who still profess we stay until the end, what and when is the end? And will you keep saying this year after year after year from now until when? And at the expense of all those lives, those soldiers, and all that money, taxpayers' money? And for what goal?

Answer that, when is the end?

WTF

2011-05-02T12:06:00.000-07:00

Why is ESPN talking about Osama bin Laden? Why do we have to hear every sports announcer's view of their moment when they heard of the attack on the compound and the killing of bin Laden? Like they're really smart people who's opinion actually matters beyond just their themselves and maybe, and that's a big maybe with many of them, sports?

Who in the hell really cares what they thought or felt then and think now?

So why waste the viewers' time talking about it? I plan to stop listening to any sports or news channel or station until all this blows over. Yes, I'm happy Osama bin Laden is dead, but let's hear about the future and real issues, like what we plan to do in the aftermath. Not opinion but real folks who make real decisions.

And yes, my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's, just two cents. You don't have to read it or listen to it, as I don't have to do the same with you.

For Sale One Estate

2011-05-02T07:00:00.000-07:00

For Sale.-- One large 2-story hilltop estate and compound. Nice hilltop view. Excellent security. 12 foot walls with barbwire. Primitive with water and sewer, but no electricity, telephone or Internet and satellite communications. But excellent potential with close access to power and communications networks and services. Half mile from military academy with other military facilities in city. Excellent access to transportation and other amenities. Fire damage to home as former occupant evicted by US military assault forces in firefight. Owner and family killed, staff arrested. Reasonably priced at $1 Million. See Al Qaeda Realty, Abbotabad, Pakistan.

Reader Advisory

2011-04-16T18:46:00.000-07:00

This is to warn the reader that sometimes the opinions expressed here are from anger at the opinions expressed by other people who don't seem to understand and often don't seem to want to care to understand, and as such I write what I would say what I think, you know those things you'd love to say but never really say.

Well, occasionally I let my anger get the better of me and as such write words not suitable for young people. And while many of them have already heard the words before, it's still not suitable to put in an opinion you want to share with the world, as someone kindly pointed out to me recently.

I sincerely apologize for those words, and have reviewed some of the recent and older posts to substitute less offensive words, but still making the point. Still probably not suitable for young people because the point is still from anger at something done or said by others which I disagree strongly.

So, if you still want to continue to read the blog, be my guest and feel free to express yourself (it's moderated so I can simply delete comments - remember it's my blog). Just remember it's just my opinion and worth, like everyone else's, just two cents.

And so you can click to continue or you can click to return to where you came.

Thanks Democrats

2011-04-08T19:56:00.000-07:00

For screwing the American people. No, really, many thanks for giving the Republicans nearly everything they wanted, like you did last December in the lame duck session with the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and getting nothing in return except promises on measures the Tea Party and Republicans knew were bargaining chips and wouldn't really be in any final bill.

You got nothing in return and now with the promise of an agreement to prevent the government shutdown, do you really believe they won't renege next week and want more cuts or add the bargaining chips back into the final bill from the House. Do you really trust Speark Boehner after he's lied so many times, agreed and reneged so many times, including to the President?

And now with the Republicans getting $79 billion in tax cuts in non-defense and intelligence discretionary spending, meaning the 12% of the government we all know outside entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), the DOD, the intelligence and HSA and the two wars, they'll come back next week for more cuts. Want to bet?

And you'll cave again and screw the American people again and we'll face more cuts to those monies and services we need while the wealthy and corporations laugh their asses to the bank with our money given to them in tax cuts and break, subsidies, and other funds. It's like a John getting a STD from a prostitue. We still pay her and we pay the doctor.

Gee, thanks Mr. President and Democrats. I'll remember you in 2012 too. Gee, getting screwed, first by the Republicans and now by the Democrats is so much fun. And you still get your paycheck, your lobbyist money, you corporate campaign money and we get cuts and pay more for just living. And being screwed.

Preserve and Fund the USPS

2011-03-30T09:44:00.001-07:00

I'm a great fan of the US Postal Service (USPS). They do what they were chartered to do and what no one else will do, especially for the price. They deserve the funds for their employees, the carriers, their services, their needs and their facilities. And they deserve the funds to upgrade their techonology to be in the forefront of delivery services for the American people.

It's that simple. They are the best, and they don't deserve to be underfunded by Congress. They can't be self-supporting, everyone knows, so don't force them into something less of what we want and need from our Postal Service and their service. Remember, it's our Postal Service, not Congress'.

And now the talk to "improve" the USPS for cutting costs, like stopping Saturday service. Why? There's no real reason for doing so. And there's no real reason to cut hours of carriers or worse lay them off. They have families and can't be expected to bear the brunt of the costs.

And like cutting pay and benefits. The carriers, as a union, are under contract, so their pay and benefits have to be negotiated. Don't take that away. The other employees are civil service employees, and cutting their pay and benefits are frozen like all federal employees and like me, all retirees.

They too have families and shouldn't bear the brunt of the costs, especially when the wealthy are getting richer with lower taxes. You don't balance the budget on the backs of working families, and all of the USPS employees are working families. They don't deserve the Republicans' anger and hate.

I've used the Post Office all my life and still depend it for everything I mail, including packages, my tax return and other important mail (priority registered or tracking). They have only lost a few boxes, all in one shipment in 1987 which was suspected to be a contract shipping company problem (Arizona to Washington), and sadly I lost 8 years of personal field books.

Otherwise, they've been perfect, something I can't say about UPS or FedEx as I've had packages lost or stolen, or as they said "undelivered" or "delivered and customer lost" in the last 10 years. That said, I like UPS and FedEx, but rely on the USPS for my packages because I can use a generic box to avoid disclosing any contents of value.

Anyway, Congress owes this country a postal service which serves everyone everywhere and no one but the USPS has or will do that. We know that. So stop being political with them and keep their funding, or better add to their funding, to ensure their future for all of us.

Dear Democrats

2011-03-30T09:08:00.000-07:00

It appears you, the Democrats, we the people, elected to represent us and make sure our government actually works for us, have decided to become cowards and Republicans, and then sell our values to the Republicans out of fear of being chastised in public and blame for any failures to reach a compromise on the 2010 budget and possible government shutdown.

You have become worst than we could ever imagine. You started down that road over the healthcare reform act, jettisoning good democratic and public supported elements like the public option and women's healthcare, not wanting to provide regulation to curb the cost of healthcare and health insurance, and worse giving in to every Republican stupid demand.

Then you sold us out over the income tax extension for the wealthy. You sold us promises which were emptier than a deflated New Year's Eve party ballon on New Year's day. All for getting a treaty and other bills you could have gotten without selling us out for the rich and corporations.

And now the budget and possible government shutdown. I won't get into where's Obama with this. He's long out to lunch pandering and catering to Wall Street and energy corporations and international interests, albeit his decisions and actions with Libya are decent. But I will ask and argue why you have negotiated for the budget to the first offer the Republicans put on the table.

You left all your bargaining points on the floor, and now being where the Republicans started, they're pushing you more right, right into their agenda and budget, all of which hurts the American people. You sold us out for your political careers and fears of the 2012 election.

You know we won't vote for any republican in 2012 and will consider you the lesser of evils, but you have consistently shown you have no backbone and no balls to be there for the working, retired and needy people of this country. What are you afraid of? Go ahead make the Republicans shut down the government. Get some passion and a voice to speak out for us and against them.

You want to know why you're not liked by the American people and more so the voters? Try Harry Reid for starters. Talk all he wants, he doesn't inspire anyone to back the Demcrats or convince anyone they're on our side. He keeps compromising to the Republicans for fear of the filibuster. He changed the rules but nothing has changed. The rules still keeps the minority in power over the majority.

He screwed himself, the Democrats and the American people. For what? He almost makes the voters want to give the Senate to the Republicans, if only to get him out of power as majority leader and the Democrats will elect a new minority leader. And now he's giving away the store in the name of compromise, but it's not, it's the Republican agenda pure and simple.

So, my advice to the Democrats? Simple. Get some backbone and balls and stand up for America and the American people. Anything less is a sellout on both.

No New War

2011-03-18T17:12:00.000-07:00

Mr. President,

No! No means no. No new war in Libya.The American people don't want it and can't afford it in lives, resources and money. Your statement today (3/18/11) sounds oh so close to what then president Bush said to Saddham Hussein. Too close to history and reality. You're taking us down a deep military rabbit hole we can't get out, in the near future or years. And even with France and Great Britain's help won't offset the problems.

I will hope for the best but this is not what the American people need or want. So, Mr. President, tread lightly because we have long memories and we remember 2003-04 and Bush's bullshit about Iraq. We won't be taken again. You've worn out a lot of your capital from 2008 and are losing support for 2012. Adding a war won't help and will hurt if we're still there next year.

We're not getting out of Iraq for years. We won't be winding down in Afghanistan until 2014-16. And we don't want to be in three wars during the next presidential term. You're turning Republican every day and this proves it even more. Democrats aren't against war, just bad or needless wars. There are other solutions in Libya than war, and you didn't take them.

We'll be with you for awhile, but while you gave Kaddafi notice, we're giving you notice. You made the decision for this country. We get to make the same decision in November 2012. If we're out of Libya by then, ok, we'll consider re-electing you, but you still haven't done enough on your promises. If not, well, maybe we just won't vote for you. Not for your opponent, just not for you.

ABC and ESPN Sucks

2011-03-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

Update.-- Sunday. And just when I find it, or really they, couldn't suck more, they outdo themselves. They scheduled a 90-minute recap of the race today at 3:00 PM except when the men's ATP finals went long and well into the show, they simply didn't air it. It was scheduled in the coming week for several other times in the hours between midnight and 4 am. Gee, like we're all awake. Just record it. And my response? Simple, screw ABC. I already boycott them anyway, so now they can go screw themselves.

Update.-- Saturday. This sucks even more. My ISP doesn't carry ESPN3.com service. So no race on TV. No race on the Internet. No race for me. And so to ABC and ESPN, no viewer and now no customer. I still watch ESPN occasionally but ABC just lost one customer.

Yes, the joint ownership of these networks suck, really suck. I've never liked ABC Sports for the delay broadcasts even in recent years when the news of the events was already known and written. Who wants to watch a race when everything is available on the Internet? And I've never liked their coverage of any sports event with Brent Musburger. He's an ignornate, opinionated jerk who puts his face and voice into something either he doesn't know or is so biased as to demean the opponents.

And now ABC/ESPN who now has the broadcasts rights to the American LeMans series races has decided not to provide live network or cable television coverage of this year's Sebring 12-hour race, the oldest sports car race in the US. It's only available on ESPN3.com, the internet channel, which presumes you have the broadband connection to keep the video running on your browser while doing other work.

In the past years Speed Channel had the ALMS races and put a lot of work into the Sebring race. They did a great job and I could put it on Saturday while doing other things around the house. They have great announcers, excellent television coverage and almost all 12 hours of the race.

I don't know what happened for ABC/ESPN to get the ALMS races but so far they're lost one viewer in me. All of the rest of the season pales in respect to the Sebring race. And they've decided the NCAA tournament reaps more money. Screw the sportscar fans. Just buy the rights and screw the public. At least they could have provided it HD pay-per-view, but no, screw the cable companies and their subscribers too.

Well, for that I can say in return, screw ABC/ESPN and their NCAA coverage. I'll boycott them as they're boycotting me.

New Washington Post

2011-03-16T06:48:00.001-07:00

This week the Washington Post unveiled a newly designed Website for the news with a totally revamped daily newspaper presentation, from the previous style more typical of news Websites to one displaying an image of each page where the reader clicks on the article to expand the view within the window and then offer the print version option. And does it work?

It might for some but for me, it sucks. And for several reasons. First I don't want to see an image version of each page and try to discern the articles which can't be read but only clicked for larger view. Granted the photos are better, but the sizing of the overlay for the article doesn't fit some user set browser windows and it bleeds over the left margin rendering it unreadable.

The reader has to resize the window to accommodate the size. Not smart because a lot the right side is taken up with ads. It's a situation where the coding puts the text along the left margin of a large window size withtout a border or scrolling. And they don't offer the traditional style option. It's the new one or nothing, or go to the individual sections for all the news and not just today.

Well, I like the Washington Post, and I buy several print newspapers several days a week and would buy a copy of the Post but it's not available locally. I love sitting down and spreading the paper out and scanning every page and reading article I see. But I don't want this in my browser. The images are too small to read the article even with a large HD cinema monitor.

I realize offering both style is too much work for a Website newspaper. It's inefficient to format everything twice. I would only suggest they reduce the ad space on the right which takes up too much space and enlarge the image so at least reader might be able to read some of the articles without having to see the expanded view and then add a border and better scrolling on the expanded view.

But all of this seems almost too much too late. Granted they need to attract visitors, preferably beyond their regular readers, but at the expense of the regular readers and in a way that seems more glitz than content? The content is there, it's just more work to read it. And no I won't resize my browser window just for them.

So what would I do? Simple, borrow the NY Times model for on-line subscription with the Times Reader service. I subscribe to and like I can download the entire paper to read off-line with easy readability and printability. Now that's innovative for their readers and makes money for the paper. Something the Washington Post could learn.

Why USA Today lied

2011-03-01T17:01:00.000-08:00

Today the newspaper USA Today published a story, Wisconsin and Private Sector Pay. It's a bogus story with bogus numbers, and it's unfair for USA Today to have published this story suggesting public sector employees earn more than private sector employees, in terms of pay and benefits.

Despite all the statistics in the story, they more than half way into it, wrote:

"The analysis included full and part-time workers and did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience. In an earlier job-to-job comparison, USA TODAY found that state and local government workers make about the same salary as those in the private sector but get more generous benefits."

This means they compared total of all the employees' pay and benefits by state at large. Clearly public sector jobs don't include the vast majority of jobs, especially low wage jobs, and don't include many employers who don't provide or provide only basic healthcare insurance or pension benefits.

They didn't compare similar jobs, employees with similar education or experience, or employees with similar responsibilities. The studies which have done have concluded public sector employees, and especially federal, employees where grossly underpaid with fewer or less benefits.

This is true of federal employees which have consisted been under paid by 20-22% since the first study commissioned by President Carter. Studies by every president since, including Reagan and George W. Bush, have shown this to be true. The benefits of federal employment is in retirement where the annuity is about the middle of state and equivalent private sector empoyees.

Almost all local, state and especially federal employee have rights and protection dictated in local, state and federal laws. The private sector doesn't have such laws and can avoid not providing them to their employees. It has been unions over the decades who have helped private sector workers gain those same benefits.

To compare governments with corporations, and really small to middle sized companies, who short change employees for short term profit is not fair. The writers at USA Today know that and should have written an article which reflected the truth and be fair with all employees, and not bias it against public sector employees.

This story was disingenuous of the truth to public sector employees, and should retract it or correct it to use statistics appropriate for the discussion.

Screwing the People

2011-03-01T14:23:00.000-08:00

Rememer when then candidate Obama in 2008 promised that the public option was a must in any healthcare reform legistlation. It was a right of the people to be guarranteed a right to good affordable health insurance and be assured of good healthcare with rights and protections against rejection or denial of coverage or claims or cancellation of coverage.

It seems the public option got lost in his fight to get healthcare reform. It was one of the first, and quickest, casualities of the negotiation with the right wing and tea party members of Congress. And it was Obama who quickly forgot it in the name of getting something. In short he screwed the people who most need health insurance or can't afford it.

Then he negotiated the rights of states for opt out of provisions, including the right to offer insurance pools to low income folks and high risk folks. And already a number of states, under Republican Governorships, have said they won't even consider it let alone even allow them to exist in their states. Again, he screwed the people who most need it or could least afford it.

And now he's decided to let states opt out of the individual mandate without waiting for it to be tested through the courts. There are several cases which will be heard before several different federal appeals courts, and probably eventually the Supreme Court. But he's decided to screw the people and agree with the states to opt out before that.

He's making the court cases moot and giving in to the Republicans who have said it's illegal. While not agreeing with them, he's agreeing to their goal. He's screwing the people again. Those who most need it or can least afford it.

This healthcare reform will slowly be gutted, unfunded or repealled by the time it gets fully implemented in 2013-14. And by then, a significant number of people in this country will be uninsured or underinsured with no options except at public expense, giving arguments to the Republicans the law doesn't work and only adds to our healthcare costs.

In short, President Obama is screwing himself now beside the people. He is slowly returning health insurance back to where we started with only a few changes, which the insurance companies will find ways to avoid.They did they in the negotiation by using the Republicans, and some Democrats, to write provisions and amendments which favored them or didn't help you.

Instead of rejecting you and your family, they'll simply not offer anything. Instead of denying your claim, they'll simply put so many administrative and appeal proceedures in the way, you'll give up. Instead of cancelling your coverage, they'll simply change the plan with reduced coverage and then raise the premiums where you can't afford it.

They will in short, screw the people pushing those most needing care onto the public rolls and sector, forcing Medicare or Medicaid to pick up the cost. But as states reduce their Medicaid coverage and rolls, to save money, it will simply put people out on the proverbial-medical street. And as the Republicans, with Obama's help, change Medicates, it will produce the same result.

In the end, nothing will change and in 2016 will be talking the same issue that our healthcare system and health insurance programs are broken. Health insurance won't be better or affordable. Healthcare will still be the highest in the world and uncontrollable. And we'll have the same percentage then as now of uninsured people.

We simply went in a circle, and while the insurance companies got richer, we, the people, got poorer and less. We got screwed all the way around. No thanks to President Obama and his failed promises.

A Great Idea

2011-02-21T05:30:00.000-08:00

I was reading a story about a family's problems with getting health insurance after her husband lost his job and the family health insurance. She clearly found the new healthcare law excellent and wanted to describe folks why, simply companies can't reject you and your family if they have it and you can pay the premiums, they can't deny any coverage once you are enrolled, and they can't cancel your policy on a whim.

She suggested if the members of Congress thought the old system was so good, they should turn down the government insurance available to all members and partially paid by the government, and get insurance on their own for themselves and their family. They should see what real people experience when families have children, and like all of us, have "pre-existing" conditions, which not suprisingly covers damn near every condition.

I know how grateful I've been with mine from my 4 years in the service and 28 years with the federal government, and now in retirement. I have the same company and policy now as when I was working. The only difference is I pay twice the premium now as then. And coverage can't be denied or the policy cancelled, for the rest of my life, no mater what happens and health issues or problems I encounter.

I know if I had to get private insurance I couldn't. I had Rheumatic Fever when I was a child. Almost all my life I had a heart murmur, and while it's still there, it's almost indiscernible anymore admidst the noise of the heart at my age. I have damage on the edge of one valve but it's not signifiant and not out of the ordinary for someone my age.

But I know with the recently discovered probems with my pulmonary artery (20% blockage), any insurance company would find a way to first deny claims and eventually cancel my policy for the possible costs I may have if things get worse. With the federal active and retired employees' plan, that can't happen.

And the good part is that changes only occur once a year starting every January with policy and premium changes overseen the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The companies can't make changes during the year. And as much as people want to bitch about the government, there isn't a loss of companies in the program and applying every year. It's profitable for them and beneficial for the employees.

And above all, it's all guarranteed, for my life. And for members of Congress it's guarranteed for their term in Congress. It's easy, they just pick a plan and they're in no matter their or their families condition. Just like Representative Gabriel Gifford, it's all there and covered minus the fixed deductible. The medical bills won't inundate her family's finances.

So this woman's suggestion is a good one for Congress, and really for any issue. Go live like an ordinary family. With the majority of members being millionaires, they don't have to worrry (except those tax cuts they wanted) about a job, the family expenses and budget, the debt, the mortage, and so on.

And as suggested health insurance. That's something they can do now. Just turn down the government managed plan and go it alone on the market. And if you can't, as Rep. Boehner said, "So be it." There's always the high risk pools, but only if the state you represent has one, except maybe yours who opted out or delayed starting anyone. As any member of Congress would say, "Good luck."

Sexism in Nationwide Series

2011-02-20T05:39:00.000-08:00

Update.--After reading the stories after the race I'll change my words to know Clint Bowyer wasn't being hard on Danica, and had some good words after the race. He dropped out of the push to cool off as Danica hadn't learned the art of the switch in the two-car tandems to push Bowyer and her spotter wasn't interested in her competing for the top spots. Big mistake as she could have done it if any of the other drivers had helped her. They didn't.

Original post.--I like to watch the NASCAR Sprint Cup races now and then, especially the road courses at Watkins Glen, Sonoma and Montreal, and watch the Nationwide Series races when they're at the same venue or at a road course not with the Sprint Cup cars. And I always watch the Daytona races as the inaugural races of the year where all four series race (those with Trucks and ARCA).

And last year was interesting watching Danica Patrick race in her rookie season. She proved she could race with the boys and would have done far better than she did but unfortunate accidents took her out of several races when she was quite competitive. As they say, that's racing.

And this year at Daytona in the Nationwide series she qualified fourth, even getting the pole until the last few drivers ran faster. They have and did praise her, but then the race came. This year, racing is all about pairs, hooking up with another driver to be a tandem and drive 10-12 mph faster than other drivers.

So when Danica was near the front, in the top 6, none of the drivers would hook up with her to push her forward. Clint Bowyer, who later hooked up with other drivers, was behind her for many laps and only after a that did he hook up with her to push her to the front, into first place for a lap, and the drop back, leaving her alone and falling back into the pack.

And in the pack when other drivers had the opportunity to hook up with her, including her teammate, Dale Earnhardt Jr., no one did. Even Dale drove around her and went ahead and didn't let her push him. One of the announcers said it was her responsibility to initiate the hook as the leading car but several were behind her and wouldn't help her.

Another announcers mentioned some of the veterans won't hook up with the younger drivers because they haven't raced with them in practice, where it's key to learn how to drive the tandem and then switch, but even during practice not one driver offered to run in tandem with her to help her learn.

If you didn't think too far you could dismiss it as it's her sophomore season and even then she only ran about a dozen races focusing her career on the Indy car series. But that's not it, and it's not about her inexperience, when some equally inexperienced drivers found others to hook up with, including the race winner Tony Stewart who hooked up with Cassil who he never practiced with.

And when she was at the head of some of the lines of cars or even a pack of cars, not one driver would go near her to push her. The announcers kept saying it was her fault for not helping someone catch and push her, but there were several around and behind her, but none helped her.

They helped other drivers, just not her. If I didn't say so, I would think it was pure and simple sexism about not trusting a woman driver. They'll trust her to race with her but not where you're in tandem and 195+ mph. She can do the work and has proven she's fast.

I have no doubt she could do the job as she showed for the few laps Bowyer helped her before dropping off, and there was no doubt she could run with them as she was frequently in the top 10 throughout the race, leading lines and packs of cars. But not one would hook up with her.

In the end she finished 14th, the second car one lap down from the 12 drivers on the same lap. And through the race she spent it mostly racing alone even in the pack. She was fast and none cared. She raced hard and no cared. So what else can you call it? It seems the good ol' boys club is alive and well in the Nationwide Series.

Women can race, just don't expect help. Men only help men.

Fund Education Not Vouchers

2011-02-18T09:38:00.000-08:00

I support public education. I spent my much of my junior high school years and all my high school years in the public education system after my father retired from the military and I couldn't attend schools on military installations or for Americans in foreign countries. I am against any provision to support private schools with public money. It's a bad investment and robs students of funds for public school systems.

People and members of Congress argue that the public school system is broken and private and charter schools are the best choices for parents wanting a "better" education for their children. And they argue public funding of those schools is fair and appropriate. No, it's not, and it's proven.

All the studies have proven charter schools aren't any better than public schools. Over the range of both schools, they're both the same for test results, student achievement, and any other criteria you use to evaluate them save one, in total charter schools are more expensive, and only compete with public funds or vouchers to families.

The proponents argue, and somewhat rightly, that it's because the student-teacher ratio is lower, the facilities better, really just newer, and more technologically advanced. And that's ok only because they are newer and had the initial capital investment, but it's ok not when they not only need but demand public funds to operate.

If parents want to send their children to private or charter schools, I'm ok with it, that's their choice. But it's not their choice to take away money from public schools to do that. That money is our money, for all school children and teenagers, not just their children. Make those schools better and all students will get a better education at public expense, not selective to the families.

It is, in my view, unconscionable that Congress even consider public funded charter schools or provide vouchers for parents who simply dislike public schools. Those parents should pony up their own money if that's their concern. It's not Congress' place to facilitate discriminating against the rest of the children and the public school systems who could use and need the money.

It's time we faced the music and built the best public education system in the world. We haven't as local communties and school districts struggle with funding, school districts struggle with adequate, let alone better, teacher and student programs, supplies and services, and we struggle to define a more diverse method and more appropriate standards for students.

Students aren't one size fits all. Many school districts know that and provide for that, but the majority don't and can't, all due to inadequate funding and support from state and federal programs. And we need to ensure the education materials are the best with the truth than rewriting science or redescribing history.

I know this from my own experience, and I know, while it's over 40 years old, many of the school systems haven't improved or kept pace with the times. Our political leaders keep talking a story and selling the rhetoric about reforming or improving our education system, and then don't do much if to find fault and offer non-public solutions with public money.

The future of our nation's children is not political fodder to avoid the real investment in them or to favor those who can afford private or charter schools. It's about all children, and it's about investing the necessary money in them, and that's in the public education system.

Squashing Free Speech

2011-02-16T06:34:00.001-08:00

It seems our government, while promoting free speech around the world including praising the efforts of the Egyptians to use Twitter and other on-line social networking tools, is squashing it here. It involves the Wikileaks case. I won't hide the fact that Wikileaks is no more guilty of publishing all those documents than the Washington Post and New York Times were when they published the Pentagon Papers.

The act of publishing government documents, secret or not, is not a crime, so long as that's all you do and you were not involved in the actual theft of the documents. And we know Wikileaks wasn't involved. We don't know that Bradley Manning, currently in custody for the crime, but note not charged yet, may have been. It seems the FBI can't connect the dots and probably won't connect the dots between Manning and Wikileaks.

That's because once outside the US, the dots the FBI wants to connect runs into the jurisdiction of other nations and the rights of those citizens. But that hasn't stopped the FBI as they handed Twitter a silent search warrant for the personal information of several people, only two of whom are US citizens. The others are citizens and residents of other countries, and not the US.

And today it was reported the judge ruled in favor of Twitter to unseal the search warrants which identifies the names and informaiton the FBI is seeking, and which shows how extensive and intrusive the FBI will go in an investigatin which will never see a court room, at least prosecuting anyone associated with Wikileaks, including Julian Assange.

While I will support the FBI when it comes to investigations into legimate criminal and terrorism activities, I won't support the FBI doing what they've been using the Patriot Act for needlessly, targetting and investigating activities of people not involved in crimes or terrorism. It's been noted by the government none of the documents Wikileaks has published were classified, only private or confidential for government use, but not officially classified.

And that's the issue, our government stretching the definition of criminal and terrorism activities to be whatever it wants for political purposes. Everyone on the right wants Wikileaks' head on a platter, just like they wanted the Washington Post and NY Times. But they're not guilty or the guilty ones.

And we saw the political pressure when a number of financial institutions used by Wikileaks froze their accounts, without an apparent warrant or a need, simply because it made them look good, or so we see but don't that know a few phone calls between the government and those financial institutions may have helped?

And then the FBI decided to investigate the activists who initiated the Denial of Service (DOS) attacks on those financial institutions. Talk about protecting corporations. All of the attackes came from overseas sources, outside US jurisdiction. It didn't matter Wikileaks or anyone with Wikileaks hasn't been charged with a crime, hasn't violated any international or national financial laws, or done anything else illegal.

It's the power the institutions have outside the law, in the terms of your agreement with them for the use of the card and with the account. The same applies to Wikileaks as applies to you and me with our accounts. It seems too coincidental that all their accounts were blocked within a day, and without warrants, or any that anyone has admitted to issuing or receiving.

What people have lost sight of is that it's the government who's guilty for the content of those documents. You don't shoot the messenger when you don't like the message. But that's what the right is doing. Secretary of State Clinton and other senior government officials, including the President, have said all the documents Wikileaks published, although embarrassing, were not classified.

But then the President has to be responsible for authorizing the investigation. He's trying to do both, appear supportive of the First Amendment rights for the publication while pandering to the right to appear tough on terrorism and national secrets. Except it's so transparent to anyone who has anything of a brain to understand both can't be supported in this case.

At least Nixon was obvious in his view. President Obama is trying to do both and he succeeding at doing both obviously badly. And those on the left easily see he's being two-faced and dishonest. But that's Obama's style now on almost every issue, except he hasn't noticed we already see it and see through it.

We know also know he won't stop the investigation and stand up for the First Amendment. He won't stand up to push the Department of Justiice and Department of Defense to handle Bradley Manning as any criminal, where he's currently in isolation in a military prison, kept locked in his cell without communications for 23 hours a day.

It's a clear violation of his rights, especially since he hasn't been charged with any crime yet, because the Army wants to hold him until they can and will gather enough evidence to convict him with then with a speedy trial sentence him to life in prison. Gee, better than his current situation. He deserves his day in court and fair treatment under the law. That's what this country is about.

In the end, or so far at least, it's clear where there may be a case against Bradley Manning, there is no case against foreign citizens who use Twitter, or other now international social networking tools, and there is no case against Wikileaks. It's a waste of government money. But I don't see the right opposing that in the name of political rhetoric of government waste.

To them anything terrorism, however wrong, is sufficient to warrant any amout of government money. And the FBI gets to spend it for political purposes. Gee, like that's new or news with them? And we can't keep promoting free speech, especially with Twitter, and privacy elsewhere but not here. But then hypocrisy has never stopped the government either.

Balancing the Budget

2011-02-15T06:10:00.000-08:00

As we know almost every politician, especially the President who has to submit his budget to Congress and the House Republicans who have to propose their own budget, have argued for measures which, in their terms, would put us on the road to balancing the federal budget, eliminating the annual debt and not adding to the longterm deficit.

But we know none of those plans will do that, and in fact, all fall way short of it, leaving over $1 Trillion in the red. None of them have real plans, they're all cosmetic to either appear to be working hard or to appeal to their political base. The President has chosen to put the cuts on the backs of the middle class working people. He is avoiding going after the wealthy and corporations, saying the latter will get their taxes when Congress overhauls the tax code.

As the old adage goes, yeah right. Does he really expect Congress, especially the Republicans who control the House, to rewrite the tax code to tax the corporations and then even consider the idea of increasing taxes on the wealthy. They've proposed reducing or eliminating those taxes, so it's clear what is going on, balance the budget on the back of hard working Americans.

In short, screw the average person. But there are ways to do more to balance the debt and work in the deficit. Simply raise taxes on the wealthy. Go back to the 2000 pre-Bush tax cuts levels for them. I would even accept higher taxes to help. I paid then, I can and will pay now, but only if everyone pays. It's time the wealthy stepped up to the plate.

We know all the Republican talk the wealthy need the tax cuts to create jobs is bullshit. They haven't created any jobs with their extra money since the tax cuts went into effect. It's a sham to the people and a shame on the Republicans. They lied then and they're lying now.

Second, cut the DOD and HSA budets by 5-7% every year for the next 5 years. Make them do more with less like the rest of us and the rest of government has been asked and have been doing for years. We spend more on the DOD than the rest of the world combined. It's out of control and time to rein it in.

The same applies to HSA. Same words since it's creation. We're spending money into the toliet for these and we're no safer now than since the deparment was created. They also need to do more with less. Both DOD and HSA can do better with less money and it's time they contributed to the solution than be the problem.

Third, go after the corporations to pay their taxes. Some of the biggest corporation paid little or no taxes. Fix that and get those $ billion into the treasury. In addition, add taxes when they move or create jobs overseas. Make them create factories and jobs here, and then offer them tax cuts to do that, but more taxes if they don't and build or contract for factories or add jobs elsewhere.

Fourth, cut subsidies and credits to industry, especially energy. And while you're at it, collect all the overdue and due royalities. None of the industries need subsidies in the form of payments or tax cuts to create more profit. Make them do more with less. And then cut agricultural subsidies to all the corporate farms and agricultural production companies, like the poultry, meat and dairy industries and large farms.

Fifth, cut all aid to Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other nations where the money, in the form of economic aid, military aid, contracts to train police and army forces, etc., isn't helping people and only going to an existing corrupt government. We know this in both those countries. And we know there is far more money going to other countries to buy our allience when the money is simply making the powerful and wealthy there richers. It's time to stop this madness.

And now you can see where the numbers are, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're far closer to balancing the budget than anyone else's suggestion. It's time the President showed he looked at the numbers for those options than focusing on cuts for real people who can't afford the cut or lose the service.

He needs to shows he's President of all of us, applying cuts to everyone sector of our society fairly. We're not the enemy who deserves to be singled out. It's time the wealthy, the corporations, the DOD and HSA all stepped up and paid into the debt. They can afford it, we can't. Not anymore.

Listen to David Stockman

2011-02-13T09:18:00.001-08:00

I couldn't have said it better than what he said on NPR today.

Summary and audio.

As the deficit commission said, everything should be not only on the table but cut. Everything, including the Department of Defense, and not just cosmetically with future programs and systems, but now and significant. Start with providing aid to Iraq and Afghanistan and all the forces we're helping develop for their future. They won't do it on their own if we keep paying the bills and doing the work.

We also need to cut weapons systems, not just reduce to cancel, until such time the ecomony and the budget will support these programs and systems. We need to ensure we have an economy more than we have our future defense. We can always catch up the programs and systems, we can't catch up the economy.

And this include the Homeland Security Administration and the intelligence work. Again, equal significant cuts. Start with airport security and passenger screening. It's unnecessary and hasn't proven to work, that is except enrich the corporations the former head of HSA sold to us (he's now a consultant for those very companies).

This includes the current HSA Secretary. She has to face the music and offer up real cuts for years to come. Do more with less as they saying goes and as the other government agencies have been doing and are expected to continue well into the future, especially the next 5 years of level funding. The DOD and HSA need to reduce they funding by 10% and stay there with the rest of the agencies.

And then we can look at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Social Security is quite good and only needs tweaking provided we don't do one thing which would help it tremendously. The tweaking involves raising the ceiling for the tax and other small measures, all of which would extend it for another 3+ decades.

The biggest gain can come from adding all the illegal immigrants working under the table. Adding another 4-5 million workers would expand the base for decades to come. But that would require solving the illegal immigrant and worker problem, and maybe that's the solution, solving one solves another.

Medicare and Medicaid are problems I don't have answers, but clearly they need adjustments to ensure everyone is covered but the funds don't bankrupt the government. But these lead to the one answer everyone takes off the table almost immediately, the proverbial white elephant in the conversation.

The truth is we have to raise taxes for everyone. For the rich, considerably. For corporations, simply keep them honest where all pay equitably, something that hasn't been done for decades. We need to encourage them to spend they $1.9 Trillion is cash to add jobs here, to build factories, to create new markets overseast for US made goods, and so on.

They need to step up to the plate. We need to discourage them from moving jobs and assets overseas, which can be done by taking away their US status if they do and then charge them to sell goods and services here. If the foreign companies can build factories and create jobs here, so can the American companies. It's good for them, for America and good for Americans.

And we need to find a way to generate income to the government to face the reality of all the work they want from our government. We can't keep demanding more and cutting taxes to do that. We can't keep creating smaller government when there's more for government to do. It's a reality we have to face and create the income from taxes that balances the burden proportionately and fairly.

We need to pay for the government we want. It's that simple. One which doesn't create annual debt and slowly pay down the deficit. All of government has to be on the table and cut across the board. We need to redefine what our government is for the people and not corporations and special interests.

To cut through the political rhetoric and dogma, to where our children will have that better life. And not look back and blame us as we're blaming our past. That's the reality we're facing, the future we want for our children or the future we leave our children.

Let Patriot Act Die

2011-02-10T06:23:00.000-08:00

Don't renew the Patriot Act. It wasn't necessary before and it's not necessary now. The FBI had all the legal tools they needed to investigate any suspected criminal or terrorist. And now they have unfettered legal freedom without a judge's review and approval, at least for the first few days, after which they get the warrant (like 98+% are approved). And since that's true, they could have easily gotten one before with equal success.

They also have the National Security Letter (NSL) now which is a warrantless, nondisclosure power to gather unlimited information from unlimited sources without reason or cause. This power has been used far more for reason unrelated to terrorism or terrorists. And it has the gag provision which bars the receipient from dislcosing anything about the letter, even the existence of it except by order of a judge.

What's frightening about the Act, much against the proponents, is that it gives the FBI complete freedom to conduct "background" investigations against anyone for no reason other than an agent has "good cause to suspect" the person "may" be engaged in suspicious, if not criminal, behavior. This means they're investigating people not directly related to any crime or terrorist planning, just anyone in the neighborhood, or so they believe.

But the studies have shown, while the number of these investigations aren't large, there is both misuse and abuse. The misuse is that while the Patriot Act was aimed at terrorist or terrorism investigation, over 90% of the National Security Letter and warrants have been used for traditional criminal investigations. The FBI is using this freedom to go after criminals and not terrorists.

The abuse is that it was found the FBI used them with investigation or about people which didn't justify the use, let alone a warrant. This is above the number rejected. They simply targetted innocent people for no reason other than an agent's interest with the investigation or the interest to collect a broader array of information beyond the scope of the investigation.

This means you and me. We can be targets by association, occasional meeting, or whatever we do in our life that cause us to interact with someone under investigation. This means the investigation, while focusing on people around any criminal or terrorist with no direct link other than association, they can also investigate us if we fall on their radar for nothing other than living.

This means they can also simply collect everything about your life, no matter how important to related it is to their investigation. This is the way they "tie" you to other suspicious behaviors or acts, by related unrelated matters by inference. For example, if you attended a peace or protest march of some type, it can be used to infer you're a radical and someone who may engage in suspicious acts. It's the 1960's all over again but worse with more unfettered powers.

Don't believe this? Go check out the two political conventions in 2008. The FBI and other counter terrorist agencies, task forces, etal, investigated the leader of the planned protests and marches against the Republicans, in advance. Note, in advance. They already had their reasons to arrest these people before they even did anything. They only needed the act itself, the right to protest, to arrest them.

Over 99% of the charges against the protesters were later dismissed. Their goal was to minimize the publicity of the protests and marches during the convention, and it succeeded, all thanks to the Patriot Act to accumulate enough "evidence" to create suspicion of criminal or terrorist intent to disrupt the convention. That's it. They "proactively" investigated these people for their right to speak and to protest.

And consider that the FBI can now arrest someone on suspicion of terrorism without any actual evidence other than hearsay or or incenuation by others without a warrant for as long as they want. Yes, there is a legal avenue as a material witness warrant, but now if they can relate you to terrorism or terrorists, they don't need a warrant.

It's like the old movie line about the sheriff waiting to do something illlegal and when asked about it he replies, "Badges, we don't need no stinking badges." That's what the Patriot Act gives the FBI, invisible, nondisclosure power to investigate anyone for no real reasons, or more so, arrest someone on suspicion and nothing else.

The Tea Party and Libertarian Party are right on this issue, "Patriot Act, we, the people, don't need no Patriot Act."

Oops in the news

2011-02-09T08:01:00.001-08:00

Reading the on-line papers this morning, some interesting stuff about the US idea of bringing democracy to other countries, especially those we invade and occupy, and either are leaving, eventually, or will leave eventually. These are kinda' oops stories about what we had thought we were bringing and what is really happening.

From Baghdad, Iraq:

"Vendors around the Kadhimiya mosque in northern Baghdad sell all manner of women’s clothing, from drape-like black abayas to racy evening wear. But on a recent afternoon, Hameed Ibrahim ushered his family toward a different kind of fashion display. On a raised stage between two shops, four mannequins in Western dress, their blond hair peeking out under colored scarves, stood amid crepe-paper flames. To one side was a banner featuring lust-crazed male ghouls; behind the mannequins, images of eternal suffering. And at the foot of the stage was a scripture from the mosque. “Whoever fills his eyes with the forbidden, on judgment day God will fill them with fire.”"

Parts of Baghdad are imposing Islamic law for dress codes and public behavior, not unlike Iran and parts of Afghanistan.

From Kabul, Afghanistan:

"President Hamid Karzai said Tuesday that he wanted to bring a Taliban official being held at the Guantánamo Bay prison back to Afghanistan to join in reconciliation talks. His remarks seconded a request by the government’s High Peace Council calling for the release of the Taliban figure, Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa, who has been held at the prison on the United States military base in Cuba since 2002. Mr. Khairkhwa, from Kandahar, reportedly had been the Taliban interior minister and also the governor of Herat Province during the Taliban government. “If he wants to talk, we welcome him,” Mr. Karzai said in response to a question at a news conference. “We would talk to him, we would arrange his release.”

We arrest, detain or imprison people Karzai wants in his government. Gee, and he's not corrupt or whatever else we were trying to prevent.

From Lahore, Pakistan:

"The case of Raymond A. Davis, a former United States Special Forces soldier who is being held in connection with the deaths of two Pakistanis, has stirred a diplomatic furor, sending the precarious relationship between the United States and Pakistan to a new low, both sides say. Mr. Davis, 36, was driving in dense traffic in this city on Jan. 27 when, he later told the police, two Pakistani men on a motorcycle tried to rob him. He shot and killed both and was arrested immediately afterward by police officers who say he was carrying a Glock handgun, a flashlight that attached to a headband and a pocket telescope.'

We're always outraged at countries arresting US diplomatic people but we're outraged at the offenses committed by the diplomatic people of other countries in the US. And we're loved for our ideals and equal rights.

What can you say except, "Oops."

Do You Really Want This?

2011-02-09T06:15:00.000-08:00

I consistently hear the talk from the conservatives and more so the Tea Party (TP) telling us that they want, and we should want, government out of our lives. Do we really want our government out of our lives? Or are they just picking things government does that they don't like, but others may want or need, and then argue for government for everything? They imply we don't need government.

But do they really want that? I don't. Do we want government to completely get out of our lives and leave everyone to their own devises, remembering money is a government function? Do they want government not protecting us against foreign nations, fighting global terrorism and helping nations who do the same? We know some government work shouldn't in the radar to eliminate from our lives.

Do we want government out of protecting us with national standards for many things in our life, like roads, highways, public safety, law enforcement, education, food protection (ok, they could do better there), environmental protection (ditto), national parks and public lands, agricultural assistance and research, and so on down the list.

It's only the few things the Tea Party hates that they want government out of their lives, trying to convince us it's also good for our lives. They want to insert their life into ours even if we don't want them in our lives. And they demand government out of "our" lives on our behalf? I don't recall saying I'm on their side or agree with them.

The truth is they like to pick small things and make them seem larger or more important than they really our. And they like to make you think it's government heavy handedness into the rest of our lives, except maybe we do like and want government in our lives. I like almost everything governement does and want them to do more to keep other people, businesses and corporation from doing illegal activities.

The truth is they simply are whiners. Nothing else. Just verbal noise to stand in the spotlight for attention, our attention to make their point, except their point doesn't fit common sense and isn't in our agenda. They will always find something to complain about government in our lives. It's who they are, whiners. We all know people like that and we know not to listen and just ignore them.

Unfortunately that only makes them whine louder and longer and on even more innocuous things the government does. They don't complain about the many earmarks which direct money to their areas. And in fact in some things in our lives they want government not only to get into our lives, but make the decisions for us.

Like women's reproductive healthcare. Why do they want to be sitting in the doctor's office between a woman and her physician talking about their body and their reproductive system including pregnancy. How instrusive is that? Isn't that the most intrusive intervention you can get?

They want government out of our healthcare and more so our medical decisions, never mind the health insurance company is in our life and making medical decisions for us, but they want government in every woman's life. Talk about contradictions, the most intimate contradiction. They want government using their, meaning Tea Party, rules to decide the life of a teenage girl over her body and sex life. Isn't that her and her parents' responsibility?

They don't want government interferring with our right to own any number and types of guns. And we got the mass shooting in Tucson. But they want government in the life of a woman to get pregnant or prevent pregnancy and more so to end a pregnancy. They're willing to risk all of us over guns while they're willing to restrict and control the rights of woman to make the most intimate decision in their life.

They want government to define every aspect and definition of rape, incest and other actions which causes the girl or woman to become pregnant. They want government to decide what information a girl and woman gets to make the most knowledge decision about her body. They want government to intercede and decide for a pregnant girl and woman.

That doesn't seem to be intrusive to the Tea Party. But everything else is. That's not just hypocritical, just obscenely hypocritical. But that escapes their idea of government intrusion. That escapes their discussion when they talk about government intrusion. They want you to overlook that, but I can't and won't.

So before you begin to listen to the Tea Party about government intrustion in our lives, take time to think about what all government does for all of us and for you in particular, and then ask yourself if that's what you want. Do you really want to try and live without government oversight on the many activities which keeps corporations from lying to us and stealing or keeping our mone with reasons?

Do we want to try to live without Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public funding of eduction, law enforcment, infrastructure (roads, highways, bridges, public transit), environmental and marine protection, national parks, wilderness area, national forests, the Coast Guard, and so on down the list?

Then ask them for specifics and think about if what they say is government intrusion and if that actually is helpful and useful to many if not all of us. Then ask them what government they would take out of their life, and do they really want governement out of everything. Then ask yourself if they're just whining about nothing.

Nice Job

2011-02-08T05:30:00.001-08:00

Want a cushy job, paid by the taxpayers, where you only show up, say, a few days a week and 2-3 weeks per month with a one week vacation every month? Right, who wouldn't want a job like that? Well, you can. Just get elected as a Republican to the House of Representatives. Yes, the very ones you elected, I didn't, to control the House.

It seems Speaker Boehner has decided it's tough being a representative so he's scheduling a week per month vacation, called "Constitutent work week" where you're supposed to go home to your district and listen to the people. Yeah, right. And exactly how many of the Republicans will do it that frequently and not just take a break with lobbyists?

And in the weeks they actually are "in session" the schedule reads like a kid who loves to skip school, only calling for sessions 2 days a week, 3 at most. And remember the promise to debate every bill before them? Well, apparently only about 25% of them will be scheduled for debate, the rest are just show up and vote, and leave.

And this with the salary, benefits (remember they get federally subsidized health insurance), and travel on the taxpayers, you and me. Add the money they get from lobbyists and campaign contributors, which makes up several times more of their salary, you get the picture of their job this session. They certainly don't plan to break a legislative sweat for us.

And remember all the talk about centering their work on jobs? Have you heard a bill yet to do that? And from them too? Any bets it's not on the agenda, except of course related to or with tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Gee, we with President Obama and the Democrats, gave them what they wanted, but I'm betting they want more while we drown with cuts to what helps us.

All I can say now, is to keep track of the Republican, especially the Tea Party, representative you voted for, I didn't, and remind them what they promised. But more so, think about what they did for you and why you voted for them, and then ask yourself if you got what they said and you wanted. Sadly, the reality of those answers won't be good for you.

So, if you want a job with great pay, good benefits, lots of vacation time, and an easy work schedule, just be a Republican in Congress in the 112th Session. Our tax dollars hard a work, just not for us.

Selling Out

2011-02-07T17:01:00.000-08:00

The President went to the US Chamber of Commerce, the very organization which spent over $30 million in the 2010 election to elect Republicans to the House and Senate. The President went there to cater to them, to offer up tax cuts, deregulation, and other benefits which will cost the ordinary citizen more in the case of our taxes, our benefits, our environment, and so on down the list.

The President sold the American people and America out for what? American-based businesses are holding $1.9 Trillion in cash assests from the bailouts, stimulus and tax cuts. American banks are sitting on $1 Trillion in cash assest from the bailout. And in all that the corporations aren't hiring, aren't creating job here, aren't providing help for Americans and so on down the list.

In short, you, Mr. President, sold us out for corporations and businesses. You offer hope and promises. You asked for patriotism. You asked for jobs. All the while you gave away the store, meaning America and Americans. If your goal is to move to the center-right for the 2012 election, your re-election, you trust we will still support you and will be there when you ask to help with your campaign.

You may think you'll embarrass them in the light of public view and scrutiny. Ok, except they don't and won't care. They can't be embarrassed because they don't pay attention to that. Their concern is their business and bottom line. Their interest is their profit and share holder value. Their interest is the next quarterly and annual report. Nothing else.

They haven't cared or felt embarrassed in the past, so why do you think you can embarrass them? Do you really think you can outsmart them? Or is your plan to really embrace them, not embarrass them, in hopes of winning votes? And you think it will work? Has it worked before? No? And you still have hope? Nothing else? A gamble?

You gambled with us and our money. You gambled with our country. You gave them what they wanted to hear. You gave them promises for more. And you got nothing in return. No jobs. No paying more taxes when many big corporation pay no taxes. No more helping stem pollution, global warming, greenhouse gases, etc. No more employee safety and protections. No more repaying past pension plan payments.

Nothing. Except of course applause for giving in to them and handing them the government on their side. They already own the Republicans and many Democrats in Congress. Now they will own you and worst of all, while you're giving them what they want, they'll be using the money to elect a Republican president.

Yes, Mr. President, they will use the money, as they did in 2010 election, to elect more Republicans and elect a Republican President. You'll be paying them to unseat you. Like handing someone who wants to kill you a loaded gun, one you bought and loaded. Yes, that's what will happen.

We see it. It's that obvious. You're right to get them to see your perspective but you're naive if you think you can win them over. You won't. And they won't change. And you can bet we won't change either. I hope you're not assuming we'll be there in 2012 because you think we'll understand. We won't because we do understand. We do see.

And you can be assured we won't just accept your words this time, as we did in 2008.

News and Notes

2011-02-07T08:40:00.001-08:00

Reading the weekend and Monday newspapers I found some interesting perspectives which is clearly and obviously twisted by the some in the media - which isn't to say it's all the right wing, religious or conservative media outlets and network, although they're the bulk of it, to their own political agenda and perspective. Ok, just another rant. So be it. I'm entitled and it's my blog, and I'll rant if I want to.

Ok, first, Tunisia and Egypt. It's not about democracy and freedom. It's about jobs and food. The protests in these countries, and others like Jordan, Syria, etc., are couched in politics, but only because the people want the leadership to help the people. These countries have been ruled by near if not absolute authoritarian rule where the elite are wealthy beyond reality. And the mass of the people aren't.

Most of the people in these countries spend the bulk of their income on food, and that's only if they have a job. Tunisia, for example, put considerable countries resources in education, but the majority of those with degrees, even advanced degrees, don't have jobs. All the education and no jobs for it.

Most of these people simply want the opportunity to do what everyone wants everywhere, work, raise their family, and provide for the future of their children. That's not hard to understand. So what can't we see that and why do we keep focusing on the politics of the protests? Yeah, it's the obvious, but let's get past the obvious and work on the real solutions.

In Egypt, replacing Mubarak won't create jobs. It will, maybe, help win freedoms for the people by curtailing the police and intelligence services against the people. But that still won't create jobs, control the price of food and help the people toward a better life. That's the goal, so let's keep our eye there.

Ok, second, teachers and all the recent Republican effort, mostly governors and state legislatures, to dissolve the right of teachers to have tenure and form unions. The number of bad teachers is very small, really negligible. We can't continue to blame teachers for the failure of students when it's the system, the students, and the family who has to share the blame.

The vast majority of teachers are excellent or better teachers. Often the education system short-changes them with support, supplies, facilities (to lower classroom sizes), and excessive workloads (too many classes or extra classroom work). That's not their fault, but the system, the public (and voters), and the school boards.

All the teachers have to deal with the diversity of students, each of whom learn differently, from a diversity of economic and family backgrounds. The teachers can't be blamed for students who won't or can't perform when presented with all the material and information to learn. That has to really fall on the students and their family.

The same applies to test results. We evaluate teachers based on standardized tests when maybe it's not their fault, but the tests, the students and the families. How can a student learn when the environment outside the classroom doesn't help and more often hinders if not hurts them to want let alone have opportunties to learn?

We can't hold teachers accountable and responsible for the whole of the education system and then decide tenure and unions are the problem. If you remove tenure from teachers, schools will continually hire the cheapest teachers available and then refuse to promote them, raise their salary, or fire them to hire new cheap teachers.

If you remove teachers' unions, you will remove their voice. Without unions they have no voice to remind us of their importance and their value, and to hold us accountable and responsible for our part of the education system. They deserve the right to represent teachers against all the forces determined to undermine them.

It's right and fair for them and for us, and it's fair and right for the education of our children. We owe them that.

Being Obvious

2011-02-05T06:34:00.000-08:00

Why is it that Senators and Representatives love to show how stupid they are about the facts, even in the face of the facts? This baffles me everytime I hear the exchange between a member of a Congressional committee and a witness before the committee. And they're consistently constant at proving their stupidity.

Ok, a bit much. Well, maybe not. I was listened to the House committee overseeing federal employees, specifically TSA, which is comprised of both federal employees and contract employees. The Representative proposed a bill to prevent TSA employees from going on strike, and he was specific to include federal employees.

What he knows is that all federal employees are prohibited from going on strike. The only federal employees in a union who could strike were the FAA folks, but their union was dissoved and their jobs replaced with non-union federal employees when they went on strike and almost all lost their job, and the Postal Service folks, specifically carriers and other non-management staff. But they are also limited with any strike.

Government employees are allowed to form and join a union, and those unions can lobby Congress for the employees, but those union have no negotiation authority and have no power to tell an employee what to do. They are simply cosmetic and political, nothing else. I never joined one because it didn't do anything beyond taking my money.

What this Representative is proposing a law to cover is already law. It's redundant. They want to make a political point for publicity and votes. The President can, and I understand has or will, issue an executive order prevent the TSA federal employees from collective bargaining including going on strike, except that too is redundant. It's already an order from the previous president.

The second is Senators asking the CIA at a committee hearing what they knew of the uprising in Egypt and when did they know it. The second in charge of the CIA said they had hints and ideas but like almost all uprisings they didn't know when and how extensive.

They probably knew Mubarak was at the end of his regime, and probably has some cracks for oppotunity to overthrow his government. All the dominos have been lining up to fall with him at the end. He will lose and he will have to leave office. The question is when.

But my point is that why do we really care to find blame someone didn't know this would happen to inform the President. That happens in the world. The CIA can't keep track of every country and every leader and government. They don't have the resources, no thank to Congress for moving a lot of intelligence work to the Defense Intelligence Administation relating to war and inspring insurgencies - something Reagan started.

And no thanks to the Presidents who have keep changing the CIA's work and focus for their political agenda and not for the overall watching of the world. Everything now is focused on counter-terrorism and terrorists and not rebellions and more so uprisings.

Congress and the President told the CIA what to focus on and now when something else happened, to their amazement, they want a scapegoat, a head on a platter, but forgetting the obvious one, their own. They are their own enemy and scapegoat, but will we see them admit that?

Reagan Wasn't a Hero

2011-02-05T06:20:00.000-08:00

I'm sorry to disappoint folks but Reagan wasn't a governor he sold during his presidential compaign and he wasn't the president some history folks want to gloss over to praise his image. That's all he had and was, an image. He never cut spending of or the size of state government during his eight years.

Quite the opposite, he expanded the size of state governement, including the university and college system. He didn't cut spending the size and extent of government. He made it larger and more extensive. That was his legacy. And as president he wasn't that much different.

The tax cuts caused problems with the deficit and debt. He hated government and did what GW Bush did, bring in cronies to run the governement for business. In short, he did everything he could to destroy the federal government. All he was during his years was an image. He was charismatic and an accomplished speaker.

But as has been noted, his attention span was short, almost like GW Bush's. He knew the facts but he also bent and twisted them, or simply ignored them, to get his message to the public and the voters. He was simply an actor playing president. He left all the ideas and details to his staff. He played the role.

He took advantage of situation. He didn't cause the Berlin Wall to fall and communism to be to fade into history. The people of those countries did that. He only appeared to threaten the then Soviets because he could, knowing there wasn't any backlash or fallout from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe collapsed on its own by the people, not Reagan.

And as we know now, he was experiencing the signs of the onset of Alzheimer during his presidency. That means his staff did more not only to keep the agenda going but also to cover up the truth and reality that we elected a president who was incompentent and becoming lost in himself.

So don't give him any more credit that he deserves. And to me, he sucked. You have your view and I have mine.

Beating a Dead Horse

2011-02-02T05:34:00.001-08:00

What don't the Republicans understand that trying to repeal the healthcare reform act is akin to beating a dead horse expecting it to come to life. The American people have spoken, they want the law and they want it improved. The President has spoken and the Democrats have spoken. And as much as the Republicans and Tea Party want to challenge the law in court they won't prevail in the end, even the Supreme Court.

Right now the challenges are 2 out of 4 courts (Virginia and Florida) have overturned the mandate part of the law. All the legal scholars and experts have said hese two won't stand appeal, but we know the law will be decided by the Supreme Court. And there, it's a toss-up but not for legal reasons but for poltiical reasons. This is one of the most politically activist court in generations.

And as much as that excites the opposition to the law, it doesn't challenge one reality. Do we really want to repeal the law and go back to what we had which has caused the healthcare system to be broken and only benefitting the insurance and drug companies. Do we really want to hand power over our health insurance and healthcare to the companies where 30 million people were uninsured and we paid for their healthcare and another 30 million were underinsured and were routinely denied coverage or had their coverage cancelled?

We're going in the right direction, and although the law could stand to and should be improved. We need a public option. We need oversight on the costs of healthcare which was not covered. We need to provide more healthcare for women reproduction. We need to provide ways for lower income people to afford better healthcare. And so on down the wish list.

In the end, though, it's really about the point we're going in the right direction and turning around and leaping back to the beginning isn't wise or smart. And so any effort to do likewise is simply beating a dead horse. Nothing is gained except to show the nature of the one doing the beating.

Run the ad

2011-02-01T06:12:00.000-08:00

To the networks, especially those who air NFL football games. Your decision not to run the 1 minute ad by the National Football League Players Association is a sham and a shame to the viewers. You freely air ads for games and for the NFL, so why not the NFLPA? What are you afraid of a simple slogan, "Let them play"?

I'm not going to argue some players make a lot of money and all of them make good money, easily far more than the Average American worker or retiree. And many of them give back to the community with donations and time. I also know some team owners sponsor community programs along with the NFL and players to promote programs for youth.

All of that is to be commended. But in fairness to the players, they deserve as much of a voice on the air as the team owners, the NFL management and the networks. That's fair and reasonable. The network absorbs the cost of their ads and we know how far richer the team owners are in spite of the numbers they cite to the contrary, it's creative accounting. You know it and we know it.

But that's not the point here. Just run the damn ad and let the players have their voice equal to you, the team owners and the NFL. That's fair and they deserve the right to speak.

It's Time

2011-02-01T05:57:00.000-08:00

It's time for the Senate to vote on all the judicial and administrative appointees awaiting review and approval by the Senate. Our federal court system is overwhelmed and the government agencies overworked, all the while the Republicans in the Senate sit on their hands refusing to allow votes for these people to come to the floor. It's time to stop this political nonsense.

There are currently 526 appointees waiting approval by the Senate. There are 50 judges waiting approval and another 100 yet to be nominated (vacancies). That's partisan politics at it's best, and while it's been a traditional method to stall the votes by the minority party, it's the Republicans who are by far and away the master of it and especially since Obama took office.

I'm totally disappointed with the new Senate rules. Majority leader, only because that's his official title, has failed the American people to streamline the process to get bills to the floor over Republican holds and fillibusters. He did change the rules on appointees and nominations but that wasn't enough for the Republicans to find a way to sit on their hands and let this vacancies accumulate.

This is an outrage to the American people. It's not what the political process is about. If the Republicans don't like the nominee, then discuss it on the floor in open session. Let us know than decide it in secret and put them on hold while you collect a salary for doing nothing.

It's time to do the business of Congress for the people, or by the people we will make our voice and vote heard in the next election. We will know who and what. And you can bet we won't sit on our hands and let you continue to be the roadblock in the Senate. It will be our time and we won't waste it.

34 deaths from guns

2011-02-01T05:00:00.000-08:00

It was reported Monday night on a MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell show that 34 deaths occur every day from guns. Are there any other reasons why we shouldn't seriously think about reasonable gun laws if not just to save most if not all of those 34 people who die every day from guns. Not from just guns, but people with guns.

And not just illegal gun-owners or criminals, but many are law-abiding gun owners, or according to the NRA who instantly dismisses them, were law abiding gun owners. In their mind no law-abiding gun owner uses their gun against another person, except for defensive reasons, like domestic violence, assault, or worse murder.

Yes, as much as the NRA doesn't want to admit or you to know, some of the 34 people die every day at the hands of law-abiding gun owners. It's not the gun that kills, that's just the means, it's the person with the gun, inseparable from each other. No gun, no death. No person, no death. It's takes both and it often involves law-abiding gun owners.

34 people died today from guns. And tomorrow. And each and every day from now on. Until we get some reasonable gun laws to reduce that number significantly. 34 people will leave loved ones and families. How many will leave children to wonder why and what if? How many more need die before we learn and act?

Leave Government alone

2011-01-31T07:03:00.000-08:00

This is more a note to President Obama and the folks he appointed to reorganize the federal government agencies. And my message is very simple, don't. I would urge you to tinker and make it more effective and efficient but any significant reorganization will only hamper their operation and work for years, and in the end, more likely not to prove to be better than before along with introducting new problems.

All you have to do is look the the reorganization to create the Homeland Security Administration. It hasn't make government more effective or efficient and only add more government management layers and bureacurcy, costing taxpayers money during the tranistion and for the current operation. It didn't make the agencies work better together. It didn't make them seemless for the flow of information. And while it did improve communications, that could have been done easier before the reorganization.

And all you have to do is look at the Mineral Managment Service, charged with overseeing the oil industry, including drlling, oil withdrawl, and production along with the collection of royalities. As we seen the consolidation only made the MMS employees friends with the industry, creating the BP disaster in the Gulf. And we know the MMS has long overlooked the collection of royalities for the public.

And you want to do more of this? Please don't. You can tinker all you want, but don't offer any major reorganization plan to Congress. It will be contentuous and take years, and for what, nothing. There is room to improve government agencies, but many of them work very well and the apparent contradiction and overlaps helps make better decisions and provided better management of our resources.

So, there's not much I can add to this beyond, just leave it alone. We don't want or need a reorganization if it's anything like the HSA and MMS. Just tinker to improve it to make it more efficient and effective. Don't waste taxpayers' money now and afterward.

Broken Government

2011-01-28T05:32:00.000-08:00

When the members of Congress, most often the Republican members, bitch about the government, referring to the vast array of departments and agency comprising the adminisrative branch of our government, they like you to forget one thing. They are responsible for the organization, missions, goals and more importantly the funding of the government. These aren't at the discretion of the President but only at the discretion of Congress.

When President Obama made the joke about salmon, one agency in charge of salmon in salt water (actually at sea since esturaries are the jurisdiction of another agency) and another in fresh water, meaning in rivers. And a third is responsible for the processing of salmon into fresh fish and prepared foods. To everyone this sounds a mess, but it's not and very logical and reasonable, which the President failed to explain.

To diverge a bit. All ocean fish are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce, specifically the Marine Fisheries Service, along with the Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adinistration. In short, everything ocean is commerce. All fresh water fish are the responbility of various bureaus in the Department of the Interior which is also responsible the lands, parks and wildlife refuges, historic monuments, and so on. The only exception is the US Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture because trees are a harvestable resource.

Now it sounds logical and reasonable. Nothing to make note about. It was to consolidate the various geographic entities of this country into respective departments. It still is effective and efficient, and not worth the joke. But that's not my point here, which is that Congress is responsible for this organization, and the whole organization of the government.

So, when they're lambasting the duplicity and redundancy of government, they created it and they can change it. They're only lambasting themselves. But that's not what they want you to know, only what they say for political points and your vote. It's simply political rhetoric and more so, bullshit.

It is the President who asks for and presents proposals for the organization of the federal government, as we saw when President Bush requested the now infamous Homeland Security Administration, consolidating various law enforcement departments, bureaus and agencies into one, and we all know how that's turned out (eg. TSA). But it was Congress who had to pass the bill for this new agency and consolidating the agencies into it, and then establish the annual appropriations.

So, that's my point, to Congress, if you don't like it, change it. You are the one in charge of it. Don't blame anyone else. Simply look in the mirror. You're your own enemy. How does that feel and look now?

Senate Democrats failed

2011-01-27T13:06:00.000-08:00

The Democrats in the Senate this week, after recessing the first day of the Senate for the 112th Congress on January 5th to change the rules in the Senate and negotiate a compromise with the Republicans, failed. The were too coward to roll the dice when the Republicans called their bluff that any rules change would be continued against them if they lost the majority of the Senate in 2012.

So facing that possibility, they didn't even roll the dice but choose to collect their meager winnings with what the Republicans would give them. The minority again ruled the day and the minority again will rule the 112th Congress. Not the majority Democrats. The Democrats failed the people, the nation and their party. They were simply political cowards and in front of everybody.

So, Senate Democrats, give me a reason I should vote for you in 2012? Just one. Beyond the lame duck session which you did well except for the tax cuts, I'd like one reason any of you have the courage to stand up for the American people against the Republicans. And you're mad President Obama went around you to negotiate directly with the Republicans?

Why not, you're a waste of time, especially for him. You can't get anything done, or didn't for all but one month of the 111th Congress. You negotiated some of the best parts of the healthcare reform law away for votes to override a filibuster. You gave away Americans for their political agenda. And we're supposed to be happy about that?

During the whole of the 111th Congress you acted like you were the minority despite having 58 votes, a clear majority and 2 independents to get over filibusters. But you let hundreds of bills passed with bipartian support in the House die. For what? Because you wouldn't change the rules to get the bills into law, and now there isn't those laws.

So, what excactly doesn't the Democrats understand that Americans don't really care about the archane rules of the Senate and the inane loyalty and dedication to those rules? They want results. They didn't see them for almost two years and now they won't see results again for another nearly two years.

Do the Democrats really think the Republicans won't change the rules if they were in the majority? They haven't because the Democrats are also too afraid to use the filibuster and hold rules or face Republican wrath. The Democrats have failed to see the American people see them as political cowards. All the explanation doesn't change the results.

As Paul Simon sang, "Why deny the obvious...", which is what the Democrats did again.

Creating your own failures

2011-01-26T10:25:00.000-08:00

We've all seen this and some of us have experienced it, we self-destruct at worst or create the path for self-destruction at best. And when it comes to the federal government, it's about ourselves and about our enemies, or rather our friends who then use our self-destruction, which they helped happen, as reasons to fix if not eliminate us.

Confusing? Not really. It the idea of appointing corporate or industry people into senior appointments in the federal government and then they arrange for their agency, department, commission, of whatever to fail. This causes folks to blame the government for the failure and then argue for the government to get out of the work. Self-destruction at the hands of those who want it most and will gain from it the most.

We saw this with the BP drilling rig and oil spill disaster. The Bush-Cheney administration put in corporate and industry people into the top levels of the management of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) responsible for overseeing oil drilling and operations. The MMS was full of oil industry people hired by the Bush administration.

[Note.--The top 3-4 levels of any government agency are political appointees, approved by the Senate. The rest are normal government employees. This is why you have to discern when you speak of "govenment" you distinguish between the political from the permanent employees.]

We saw the degree of this in royality payment program where political appointed people put friends in the lower positions who then worked with the corporations to avoid payments, avoid oversight, and everything else losing the taxpayers billions in revenue while the employees accepted perks from the corporations.

The commission charged with the review of the disaster blamed the MMS and their lax oversight and inspections. So, it's easy to say government failed. Except it didn't fail, people in the MMS where were friends of the industry or former employees with the industry failed. It's was the creation of their own self-destruction to blame government.

And now the commission for the financial disaster of 2008 has found the same thing. While they argue the financial market got greedy and lax in the greed, they focus on the failures of the government to oversee the financial markets, which was full of corporate and industry insiders.

The same people who oversaw the financial market was either from the financial market or had in an interest in the market. The good point is that they blamed the overlapping government agencies, banks, commissions, etal for infighting and failing to see the obvious abuses. The system was designed to be ineffective and inefficient, the self-creation of a problem which lead to their self-destruction.

I won't argue I know much about it except what I read in the papers. I just find it interesting that in the end these investigation always find fault and the failure to be at the hands of the government, when the people in the government weren't really government employees but former corporate and industry employees in government. They created the situation which created the opportunity for failure.

And it worked. And then politicians can blame the government for the failure, all the while the employees have left to go back to their corporate or industry jobs to reap the profits from their own work in governement. While this has been the long standing problem with the Defense Department, it's worse in the financial market.

And it hasn't changed under President Obama. All of his senior advisors and cabinet member overseeing financial matters are from the financial corporate and industry world. It's easy to pretend they're the best to do the job because of their experience, but you're relying on them to work for the government and us than their former and future employer, the corporations.

It's why nothing really changes beyond cosmetic ones. It's the corporate-governement complex running the show and we're just the tag alongs anymore. And it's political party independent. All thanks to deregulation (gee, thanks Reagan) and shuffling employees between industry and government.

Any wonder why the financial market is seeing record profits and the banks sitting on over $1 Trillion is cash reserves, most of that from the government stimulus money? And what do you expect will be done from the commissions findings? And do you expect the politicians won't argue it's the government that's to blame for the financial bust?

In the end it will be a lot of noise about government. And the conservatives will have their voice to argue for deregulation while the liberals can't defend govenment without appearing to blame themselves for the problem. The foxes were in charge all along and the chickens never stood a chance until they were dinner, and the farmer argues to buy more chickens, forgetting to ask to help control the foxes.

And the Truth Is

2011-01-25T06:52:00.000-08:00

The Republicans and the Tea Party have released plans for the federal government budget. And many in both of those parties, considering them separate parts of the larger GOP, have made numerous statements about what they would like to do or should be done with the federal buget. But, as can be asked, what is the truth?

Well, if you crunch the numbers as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and numerous economists have done, you discover they can't and their plan won't, balance the budget. It won't reduce the budget deficit or the longterm national debt. And in fact they do quite the opposite, worsen the deficit and add tens of trillions to the debt.

Their plan is a sham to hide their true agenda which is very simple if you read behind politics. They want to gut the non-discretionary spending except for the Department of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security Administration (HSA), exempting Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from cuts and increases, to nothing. For now they're saying 2006 spending for the next 10 years. That by 2020 would be a 40% reduction of the budget to those agencies.

They simply want to do away with all of the other government agencies, keeping the DOD and HSA along with the VA. That's their real goal and the real truth. All the other agencies would be dismantled and the costs reduced or transferred to the states. In addition they want to abolish Medicaid, and transfer all of it to the states under block grants. They want to convert Medicare to private insurance with voucher for financial assistance.

And most of all they want to privatize Social Security (SS). Their plan is to convert the savings of the young to market funds which will slowly drain the trust fund as the population ages and dies. In short bleed it to obliviion and death, where sometime in the second half of this century it disappears and everyone is paying for their own retirement plans through market funds.

As you can see that's a boon to Wall Street who will manage the funds for everyone, at a cost and profit to them of course, meaning you won't get your full share, just what's left after their costs, profits and bonuses. The current SS system has about a 5% overhead for the administration of the funds (no profit or bonuses) and all the accounts. Do you think Wall Street would or could do that?

In the end, both plans aren't budget balancing or debt reducing. Quite the opposite. And they want to cut all the basic services our government provides Americans leaving all of us on our own with whatever we can afford and the market will offer. And leave the rest to state and local governments. Like they can or will?

All of that for a DOD and HSA budget that always going up to "protect" America which is really to protect the rich, corporations and themselves who are paid by the rich and corporations The average worth of a member of Congress is in the low 7 figures (millions). Does that equate to the rest of us?

They further divide us by eliminating corporate taxes, only of which small to medium businesses pay anyway, all the big corporation pay no taxes, and reducing the upper income taxes to the minimum, and really zero but they're not saying that, only they'll provide all the tax deductions to get there. Their goal and plan is to make all of the rest of us pay the taxes for their government.

And their govenment is about the military, intelligence and surveillence, the last two against us, innocent citizens. They truly want a government which treats us as the enemy, just a tad above foreigners, all of whom they suspect of being terrorists. The corporate-military complex paid by us. And they live and work independently of us, above all the problems and issues they give us.

This sounds far-fetched, but in reality it's not far from the truth, and only if we let them. And we're on the road there. Look at the level of poverty in this country. The level of underfunded education programs. The level of 50 million American without health insurance. The level of tens of millions more with less than adequate health insurance. The level of pollution in many areas. The level of crime in many cities.

Think about it. We're the greatest nation on earth and we have the highest proportion of the biggest problems of all the industrial nations, some problems approaching underdeveloped and third-world levels. Every nation is passing us for their standard of living.

And what are we doing to get and do better? And where is our government leading, helping and supporting our efforts to get and do better? That takes money, our money, for us, and everyone and every business must pay their share for all of us to prosper. That's what America is about. It's not what they want. And that's the truth.

Separating Gun and Shooter

2011-01-23T06:21:00.000-08:00

The NRA has made the foundation of their political strategy and tactics over guns that there is a separation of any guy and the shooter. They wrote about the Tuscon shooter, "The tragedy in Tucson was not about firearms, ammunition or magazine capacity," said Ted Novin, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry group. "It was about the actions of a madman. Period."

This is how they have dismissed all the mass shooting in the last two or more decades. It's all about the shooter, normal, law-abiding gun owner one moment and crazed madman the next. And all that separates those moments are the action of a gun owner using his weapon. That moment has no separation.

The gun owner knew the power of the gun and meant to do the most harm killing people he could. Our recent history is replete with mass shooting using semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines or with multiple magazines to reload quickly. The guns ranged from handguns to assault rifle, weapons designed for one purpose, kill people.

And the NRA cites the reason for high capacity magazines as, ""Law-abiding private citizens choose them for many reasons, including the same reason police officers do: to improve their odds in defensive situations.", except all of the mass shooting are not defensive sitiuations but offensive situations to kill the most number of people.

The NRA's argument in today's reality doesn't hold water. And Congress needs to step up and pass laws for the safety and security of all the American people and not protect the rights of the few million gun owners in this country. With 270 million guns for 308 million people, it's time to say enough.

No one will argue that a mass shooter is a normal person, but what the NRA in their argument misses is that the separation of the gun and the shooter doesn't work. Without a gun the "madman" doesn't have the weapon to kill people and inflict injuries. It's the gun that he used which does it. The gun and shooter are inspeparable.

And that what the NRA doesn't want you to see let alone known to realize we do have a problem in this country over guns. You can't separate the gun owner from their guns and you can't separate any shooter from the acts with a gun. And Congress needs to realize that the NRA's argument isn't right or true.

No gun kills people without someone loading it and using it. And no person kills people as they can without their gun. It's that simple. Both are necessary and both are present and used. The shooter uses the gun. Without it they're just a mad or angry person, easily defended against with any other type of weapon.

And all those people in the Tucson shooting would still be alive and well and there would have been no memorials for the fallen at the hands of a man with a gun. Without both, nothing happens. You can't dismiss either or separate them for the sake of argument. They're inseparable as obvious in the results.

And no amount of words from the NRA will separate them from their actions protecting gun owners to become shooters at mass shootings. The NRA is apart of their actions to allow this to happen. They can't separate themselves from their own gun owners, and they can't dismiss their actions from the results of mass shootings.

The gun and shooter aren't separable, and neither is the NRA and the shooter at a mass shooting. The gun ties them all together. And the NRA is standing in the middle of it, deaths, blood and all. Their actions allowed it to happen, over and over again. How many of this will it take to face the NRA with the reality of their actions all these years?

There are no excuses or reasons anymore to have laws protecting all Americans from gun onwers with weapons designed to kill people. We can have guns to protect our home, property and lives. We need laws protecting the rest of us when they take those guns into the public and use them against us. That's our right.

And that's where good gun laws and regulations are necessary, to protect all Americans from every gun owner, all of whom have the potential to act on their anger or hatred. We have the right to be safe and secure in public, from gun owners who have different ideas. And that can't be taken from us by the NRA.

So it's time Congress and the President did what is fair, right and good for the country, for America and especially all Americans. Now is the time.

Dear Democrats

2011-01-22T07:38:00.001-08:00

I want to add my view of what I think you should focus on in the 112th Congress, and even if you don't have the majority in the House, I expect you to still push for it and make noise about, and more than ever, take the Republicans to task. You've already done that with the bill to repeal the healthcare reform law, but the Senate shouldn't be diplomatic about not bringing it up but make it clear it will never see the light of day.

That's not my point here. Here's some things to focus on.

First, focus on creating jobs here. Rebuild the nation's manufacturing centers in the midwest, the clothing centers in the southeast, technology centers everywhere, and so on. It's time to bebuild America and create jobs for Americans. If corporations don't want to do that, push them, embarrass them, even threaten them.

They don't want to create jobs here, so you have to encourage them, even provide incentives, but at no cost should you sacrifice workers' wages, benefits, rights and protections. And even support the right of unions and employees to have them. They are the power of this nation. They've made this nation. They deserve our respect, admiration and support.

Second, focus on protecting federal employees. You needlessly froze their salaries, and my annuity, for 2 years. We're losing money now as the cost of health insurance and living keeps increasing, but we can't keep pace without small increases in our salary and annuity.

So above all else, don't hurt them anymore. Don't ask for or agree to a longer freeze. Don't ask for or agree to cuts in staffing levels. Over the many decades since Ronald Reagan we've been asked and forced to do more with less. We've long been past the level we can't do more anymore. You can't keep pushing for more, there's no more more there to get.

Three, improve healthcare insurance. Get more coverage for women's healthcare and reproductive care. It's just the right thing to do.

Makes states create the risk pools. Some state governors have said they won't or delay it. Don't let them.

Create oversight for healthcare costs and insurance premiums. They are the primary reasons the cost keeps going up and the law doesn't address that. Some state regulate the latter but none regulate the former, at least outside of Medicare and Medicaid payments to providers. Do better.

Create the public option. There are two excellent models to frame a new plan on, Medicare and the Federal Employees Health Benefit plan, both government-private health insurance. This can easily be done for the public option and give the insurance companies competition to be fair to customers.

Fourth, push China into fair trade agreement for tariffs, markets, products, etc.

Fifth, rebuild America's infrastructure. You're doing this, now do more.

Sixth, cut the budgets of the Defense Department and Homeland Security Adminstration. Make the cut significant to help balance the budget deficit. No cosmetic cuts, real ones. Make them do what the rest of government is doing, more with less. We've done it, they can too.

Seventh, increase the budget for Veterans Affairs. It's the right thing to do for our veterans (yes, I served during the Vietnam-era).

Eighth, get us out of Afghanistan. It's a waste to stay longer, a waste of lives, resources, money and whatever else you can add. There's no reason to stay any longer. It won't get better and it's not winnable. Time to bring everyone and everything home.

That's it for now. I'll add or revise suggestions as I think of them from the news, from your words and actions, and from my anger with you up until the lame duck sesson.

Everything is on the Table

2011-01-20T05:44:00.001-08:00

Don't you love those words? Everything is on the table for budget cuts. Except of course, entitlements, military spending, homeland security and tax cuts. Well, ok entitlements can be on the table because they don't really effect rich people enough for them to sneeze at the loss of income. And that include Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

It doesn't matter that Social Security is self-supporting and is very solvent to 2035 and would be to 2075 if Congress would stop stealing from the trust fund. And we know Congress is always looking at ways to cut benefits to the elderly and payments to doctors, clinics and hospitals for Medicare. And Medicaid, well, just push the costs to the states who can't afford it except to cut benefits and people.

Well, if Congress is really serious, which we know they're not, only cosmetically for political gains, they would put the budgets of the Department of Defense for all expenditures including the two wars, the weapons systems and other capital expenditures, and operations, and the Homeland Security Administration on the table. But we know they won't.

And we know the 2010 Bush, now Obama, tax cuts won't be allowed to expire in 2012. Obama was too chicken to take the Republicans on about this and negotiated a "compromise" which was essentially give them everything they wanted. The Republicans could care less about the middle class tax cuts. They only wanted them for the rich, and they can blame the President and the Democrats for increase the budget deficit over those but not their tax cuts.

That's because they want our government to really be just two things, the military and homeland security. They really want our government to be oppressive here and abroad. To suspect every citizen of being a dosmetic terrorist and every else of being an extremist or terrorist, especially if you're of Arab decent or ethnicity or a follower of Islam. Only rich, white, christian citizens are "good" people.

Ok, an exageration, but not by much if you listen to their words. But that's not the point here. It's that if we want to have a realistic balanced budget to cut the annual deficit and national debt, it must include significant cuts in the military and homeland security. They must also do more with less than their current, and always have been, practice of doing more with more money.

We don't need total miltiary superiority over all the nations of the world. We don't need to be the world's police force for bad or terrorist nations. The Washington Post in a series of article have shown the intelligence community is 2 to 3 times too big for it's optimum efficiency and effectiveness. It's needs to shrink by half, at least, and keep spending down below half of current levels.

There's more waste and fraud in those two agencies than the rest of the government combined, and that's where there is the most to save now and longterm. We need to address Medicare and Medicaid, but we can use the savings from those two programs to offset these two. We do need to address the longterm cost of healthcare. It's twice the per person average of European countries and it's no better than theirs.

This is in part because we allow the healthcare and health insurance industries to control costs for profit. It's time we decided to regulate them and bring costs, with some profit, in line with the costs of everything else and the living expenses of the people. We need to have a truly affordable healthcare system in this country, from the premiums to the cost of care for everyone.

But that's a different subject. My point here is that everything should be on the table for real, not just for appearances to remove later or not cut, or worse increase. And that includes the military and homeland security. We need what we can afford and not rob from the rest of the programs we need which provide more benefits to the people and for this nation.

When we say we want everything on the table, we mean it and we expect Congress to act accordingly. No bullshit and real cuts.

Do You Really

2011-01-16T05:42:00.000-08:00

Let me ask you, do you really dislike the new healthcare reform law that you're willing to go back to what was before this law was enacted? Do you really want the Republicans to hand your rights to determine and protect your healthcare and health insurance back to the insurance companies?

That's what will happen if you let them argue to pass the repeal of the healthcare law. And as much as you think it's just a symbolic vote as the Senate won't even consider the bill and the President will certainly veto it, and as much as it could be overridden in the House it wouldn't be overridden in the Senate.

As much as you don't like this law, and there are parts I find missing or inadequate, I'll take it over what existing before. I would like to see Congress work to improve and add to this law to help all Americans with their health insurance. This isn't socialized medicine. This isn't free universal healthcare. This isn't a government run health program. It won't take away your health insurance.

It's none of that as the Republicans try to portray the law. It isn't a "job-killing" law, it has added jobs and will continue to add jobs as more people get health insurance and better healthcare. It doesn't add to the deficit as repealing it would ($230 Billion according to the CBO). It's a good law which can and should only get better.

The Republicans only want you to believe it's bad so they can return health insurance to the companies. They want companies to deny health insurance to the 30 million who didn't have any, and used emergency rooms and public health clinics at taxpayers expense. They want to deny better insurance to the 20 million underinsured.

They want to return power to the companies to cancel policies without cause, change coverage monthly, deny claims when covered, and so on to keep the money, your money, for themselves. Their profits, which has decreased because of this law. The health insurance companies are still making money, partly because they're adding new customers because of this law. It's good business for them.

In the end, it's that simple. The Republicans don't have a replacement plan except business as was and business as usual. To take away all this law does for you now and for the rest of your life. So, let me ask you, is repealing it what you really want?

How Many

2011-01-12T18:53:00.000-08:00

How many memorials after mass shootings do we as a nation and people have to have before we not just learn but change from our learning? How many innocent people have to die at the hands of anger and hate-filled people with guns? So easily found and purchased, and then used with such intentional reckless abandon.

We can talk all we want about answers and more so about solutions, but it still gets to the complexity of our society, nation and people. As the President said, it's time to talk and work together to see these events happen less often. It's time to show we're a better nation. It's time to really put all Americans in our vision and view.

Or else, without change, how soon will we be doing this again? And will we do the same things and give the same words? And look back to find we didn't learn and we didn't change. Is this the future we want for our children, and future generations?

How many?

The Old Adage

2011-01-11T06:58:00.000-08:00

Remember the old adage? You know the one that goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."? Well, consider what wouldn't have happened had all those people who saw in the Tuscon shooter a very troubled young man intervened to help him, direct him to help or informed professionals to act to help him. Had he had some that help, it's likely all that happened in Tucson Saturday would not have happened.

We keep cutting funds and services for the mentally ill, from those who are just mildy troubled or depressed to those who are seriously mentally ill. We saw this with the Virginia Tech shooting, the worst in recent history. And nothing was done to help that young man. We saw this with the Tucson shooter and nothing was done. And now 6 people are dead, another 14 injured, some critically, including Congressional Representative Giffords.

All the rants to save mental health money will now cost us in both lives and resources, and end up putting one young man in prision for life, if not the death penalty. And at what price? Was it worth all the savings for not helping him when we had the chance? All the hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent when a few thousand would have probably prevented this act. Maybe not another act but at least this one.

We're at a crossroads with our nation and society, especially with the proliferation of guns - now at 270 million guns for 308 million people, meaning on average one gun for 90% of the population of this country. We need to serious address and resolve two issues. First, fund mental healthcare for all needed people. Second, deal the the sheer number of guns and the easy purchasing, carrying and use of them in public.

These are the two keys issues with the Tucson shooting. A troubled, angry young man and Arizona's very relaxed gun laws (almost the worst in the country). The shooter, while acting alone, lived and reacted to the world around him. Our world too. He saw it differently than we have and he acted differently than we would. It's that simple. And it's simple we could have prevented this, but we didn't.

We keep dismissing these horrific acts as isolated or incidental and then we keep reacting in horror when they happen. Dozens of mass shooting in the last two decades. Dozens of non-gun violent acts against the government or others. And yet we keep ignoring the obviousness of them and the consistency with which they happen.

We can't keep doing this if we are to become a better nation. We need to address the two issues, mental health services and guns. And when we do, we'll realize the old adage, an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure. And we'll save a lot of lives and grieving friends and families.

Wikileaks isn't the problem

2011-01-10T05:44:00.000-08:00

As much as government officials want to say and as much as it may appear obvious, Wikileaks isn't the problem when they posted the hundreds of thousands of document on their Website. Few if any of those documents were classified beyond "for internal use only", and most weren't even that. The problem is the content of those documents.

As much as some want to prosecute Wikileaks and the associated people, the real criminal act we done by the private who stole them but more so by the people who wrote them. It's fair to say they were simply communications which included information they would have said in a face-to-face conversation. So, if those conversations were leaked, would there be the same outrage?

The point here is that the government needs to secure information better where people like the private can't steal it. We really know this is impossible all the time, so why did all those people say the things they did they wouldn't say in public or more so in face-to-face conversations?

If the reputation of the State Department was damage, it was self-inflicted because of the personal judgement of some of them was detrimental to our interests. Putting it in writing only proved the point of their failure to use good judgement in communications. They should be reprimanded, not protected under the guise of prosecuting Wikileaks.

As for the military documents, as noted, many were innoucuous communications of ordinary life and times. That's something the public should know about our military and the on-going war in Afghanistan and places elsewhere. The truth is a powerful thing and something the military shouldn't be hiding from us taxpayers who are footing the bills there.

In the end, the investigation and probably prosecution of Wikileaks is groundless for achieving more than a political point of being tough of people who expose the truth. Daniel Ellsberg and the newspapers and book publishers who published the Pentagon Papers, which were classified, weren't prosecuted.

It's the old adage people are forgetting here. You don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message. Wikileaks exposed the truth without naming or exposing names. They didn't to anything those people did then over the Pentagon Papers. Only now some people and politician want to make it a war crime when it's not. It wasn't then and it's not now.

The war on terrorism isn't on-going. We achieved our goals in Afghanistan and are hanging around for reasons which were agreed in the beginning and make little sense nown. Our State Department appears to have a nonchalant and cavalier attitude toward people in other nations. To that it can be said, "Wise up."

Whatever damage was done can be fixed. Things will be different but then maybe it's time it was different. And, just maybe, thanks to Wikileaks doing what should have been done all along?

We're not the enemy

2011-01-09T04:52:00.000-08:00

To whom it may concern, which means any politician and more so those in Congress and especially the President. Federal government active and retired employees are not your enemy. We are not the enemy, of the people, of the economy or the failues of everyone else to use as a political scapegoat. We were not involved in the buildup to the recession or the cause of it.

And we should not be seen as the enemy to take your frustration and poltical anger out on. We're just like every ordinary citizen working in the private sector. We work hard. We're paid decently but still about 20% less than the private sector. We have an average benefits package (retirement annuity and health insurance - in the middle of the top 100 corporations). And we have nearly the same job security (it takes just 3-6 months to terminate an employee).

But we keep getting described as the enemy of or for nearly everything, and especially more pay, annuity, insurance, etc. than we really have. The federal employees trust fund is quite independently solvent, the retirees don't add to anything and all retirees are paid out of this fund and not from other sources. Yet while my health insurance premiums went up just under 20% in the last two years, my annuity has only gone up less than 2%.

That's because our annuity is contolled by Congress and our health insurance by the companies and the Office of Management and Budget (more the former than the latter). In short we took an equal hit as everyone else. And now President Obama has chosen to freeze the salaries of active employees and the annuity of retired employees because it's what Republicans would do, and he becoming one, acted accordingly.

And while Obama promised to make federal employment "cool" again during his early days in office, he has now decided to treat us as the enemy. So, outside of a few in Congress, we have no friends. The Republicans have done a great job to present us as the enemy of the free market, enemy of prosperity and enemy of democracy, and chose to crave out of pay and benefits, crave out our protections, and more so, crave out our numbers.

And the President has obliged them because it's good politics leading up to the 2012 election campaign. We have become his enemy too. And so Mr. President, exactly how do you expect govenment to run without us and how do you expect we'll feel supported by a president who not only thinks we're the enemy, but publically says we're the enemy.

Gee, that gives employees and retirees who worked their careers in federal service, a warm and fuzzy feeling. And you expect to believe you're our president when you'll offer a modest pay raise for 2012 to get our vote while it was frozen for two years in the face of increasing living expenses? You expect we'll forget your words and actions we're the enemy?

We'll let you know in the voting booth, just like every citizen. It's our right and our voice, and who we consider our enemy.

It's Reality That Matters

2011-01-08T07:22:00.001-08:00

I was listening to the news stories about the latest economic and job numbers and then all the criticism about how it wasn't enough and everyone "expected" more jobs and better growth. Like the world follows what these people expect? It was a real WTF moment because I doubt the 103,000 people who are now working, and weren't just two months ago, really care about expectations except their own.

I hear this idea all the time about Wall Street, the Stock Market, corporate quarterly and annual financial reports, and production and services. It's all bullshit, because what matter is what happens, not what people expected to happen. And more so because everyone expects positive number, growth for the sake of growth, more revenue, higher profits and more investor share value and dividends.

Why? I'm not against expectations. We all have them in our life and work, it's the measure of what we want to do. But it's unrealistic for "experts" to decide what a company, a corporation, the government, and the larger economy should do when it's what it actually does that's important. We all know the jobs numbers weren't great but hey, ask those 103,000 people with jobs, they'll say it is better and maybe even great that they can now look at their expectations better.

We have to face the fact expectations don't change reality. We change reality. It's what we do with what we have where we're at that matters. Nothing else. Everyone else can say they want to see this or that goal met, but that's not what matter, nor is it based on realty, only their overly positive view of things.

And when the goals weren't met, decide those other folks responsible for the actual work failed. They didn't fail. They tried hard, worked hard and met the goals reality gave them. You can't do more when the reality isn't there. And that's the expectations everything needs to be evaluated on and not the wishful thinking and hopes of others.

Give it Time

2011-01-07T12:09:00.000-08:00

Folks, as much as you may hate the Healthcare Reform Act, and there is much I don't like about it and find lacking, let's agree to do one thing, give it time. It was only passed less than a year ago and while some provisions kicked in last fall and more will do so this year, it is a progressive implementation that's key here and we should allow it to run its course.

I won't argue I would like to see improvements, like more healthcare for women, including reproductive health information and service, and yes including abortion, like end-of-line counseling for those facing terminal illnesses or diseases, like improved oversight on cost increases in premiums, healthcare in hospitals and clinics, and like really more oversight and control on the health insurance companies.

I don't want it repealed by any means. The key that Republicans fail to tell those who advocate its repeal, is what will they replace it with? They don't offer anything other than the past which caused the crisis and problems in the first place. Do you really want to go back to where your insurance or coverage can be rejected, denied or cancelled without cause or reason just because you need it?

Is that what you want? The past? Think about it. As much as you don't like about this reform, it's far better than the past. It needs more and more improvements, and I expect the President and Democrats to do that, even making it clear they're on your side and the Republicans aren't on yours but side of the insurance companies. That's the Republicans' real plan, go back to the private market which screwed you every way but right.

If you don't believe or buy the Republicans aren't for you, look at all the organizations giving them money and all the organization running the ads, Websites and other ventures into the "private market healthcare plan", and you'll see all of it is funded and run by the healthcare industry and health insurance companies. There's no consumer-backed organization supporting repealing the Act.

So, let's put a moratium on any healthcare legistlation for the next two years. Let's give it time when we can assess what needs to be changed, added or removed in 2013 for those provisions in place and not any provision yet to be implemented. That's it, just work on that, and I'll work on voicing my view for more healthcare reform.

In the end, let's tell the Republicans, "Hell No, we don't want any healthcare repeal or reform in this congressional session."

Job Killing Republicans

2011-01-07T05:48:00.000-08:00

I'm going to give the Republicans their own words, not just because I'm angry at their blind stupidity to use "job-killing" to describe anything Democratic or Presidential, even in spite of the truth, and not because almost all of the ideas the Democrats have proposed in the recent past were at one time if not originally Republican ideas and sold as "job-creating", but because it's simply a useless term for short-term political gain.

The Republicans decided shortly after Obama was inaugurated to say no to anything Democratic and especially anything proposed by him even if they not only like the idea but have in the past proposed and pushed the idea. It's known they are the part of "No" on everything, including their own. But now they're into catch-phrases of the day and this is one which has no basis in truth or reality and just shows how far they will go to be stupid.

It doesn't bother them that 4.4 million jobs were lost under President Bush's 8 years in office and we were bleeding jobs when Obama came into office. Anything Republican then was good for the economy, every other countries' economy except ours if you exclude Wall Street who got super rich on the poor and middle class Americans with bad mortage marketing, high interest rates on everything, and providing less than decent wages and benefits.

Now everything is "job-killing" for no reason than just adding it to the idea. But what I haven't heard from the Republicans is what do they have that will create good American jobs, like here in America. It was noted that business created 1. 4 million jobs in 2009, overseas, not in this country. While they talk about jobs, those jobs aren't for us, but cheap foreign labor where they don't pay benefits.

And now they're targetting government employees with pay freezes, benefit cuts and even layoff and terminations. The more with less idea that never works. It's all designed for political reasons to get more money to the wealthy and more so the corporations. They can't create jobs here, they never have in the last two decades. They don't want to see that jobs creates wealth which helps the economy through spending.

So, to the Republicans I want to ask you now that you have the House, to offer job-creating bills that will create good jobs here for the whole range of Americans, not just those you think are worthy, but everyone. That's American and America. Or are you too chicken to help us?

Or maybe I should start using "Republican-killing" to describe what are the alternatives? Gee, Sharon Angle called it "Second Amendment remedies" when describing what alternatives people should use with the Democrats when they didn't like the results.

Or maybe I should use "America-killing" to describe your ideas because that's what you're doing, bleeding America and Americans for the wealthy and corporations. Maybe if you got outside your rich whites-only world you'd see you're in a very small minority where no one likes men who whine and cry, especially in public.

Or mabybe I should use "job-killing" to all the Republican ideas. Hey, I like that. Thanks for the slogan. From now on anything the Republicans propose will be met with "job-killing" before I say anything else. No thinking required, just it's "job-killing" this or that, whatever it is, just "job-killing" because it will be true when applied to you.

Open Letter to Mr. Boehner

2011-01-05T05:05:00.000-08:00

Mr. Boehner,

Before you go down the political rhetoric and work road you espouse, remember we didn't vote for the Republicans but voted against the President and the Democrats. Get that through your thick skull and do the job Americans want and not what you think we want, which is just more of the same Republican partisan work and failures we saw under President Bush.

Let's remember, the Republicans caused the financial collapse and the exporting of American jobs to make corporations richer. We don't want or need that again, so understand if you go down the road we will remind you in 2012 as we reminded the Democrats in 2010. We need and want jobs. We need and want good and affordable healthcare, not the repeal of the law but more of the same but with the public option, cost controls, and such thing to make it better and affordable.

We want better government, not less because it's already known and proven, you can't do more with less and government can't be treated like or in the pocket of the corporations. It's our government, not yours. We want taxes on the wealthy and we want corporations to actually pay taxes, something many don't do anymore. We want the poor and elderly to get financial help to more than survive but prosper.

We want you to actually negotiate and cooperate with the Democrats and the President, not hold us hotage. We don't want political rhetoric to explain your actions, we want honesty and truth. We know the difference and we know political bullshit when we hear it, especially from you. We don't want two-faced lies, promising one thing while working behind the scenes to undo what you said or work against it.

We don't want to see bills passed which you and we know won't pass the Senate. We're not stupid or ignorant of politics. We know that you'll pass bills to show you're doing the Repubicans' work but is clearly a dead one outside the House. Pass bills which we work and help Americans in bipartisanship with the Democrats and the President.

We don't want superficial transparency. We want real transparency, but really want to good results for the American people, all of us from the poorest to the decling middle class. The rich are fine, as you already know with your wealth. We know you don't care about us except for our vote. We're tired of that and expect results for us.

I could go on with a litany of ideas and suggestions, but I know you're not listening and won't listen, except of course to the lobbyists and big donors who pay you to vote their way. But make no mistake, you were elected by the people, by Americans, and failure to work for them will, with the rest of the Republicans, face reality in 2012.

As we voted against the Democrats in 2012, we can vote you out of office as we did in 2006 and 2008. And so remember if you don't create jobs, help average Americans and make this country better, we'll be there in the voting booth. And for God's sake, man up and stop the damn crying.

Denying Reality

2011-01-01T04:10:00.000-08:00

I was listening to and reading the news stories about the Republicans taking control of the House this next Congressional session. I've read their "Contract for America" and all the ideas and rules they plan. Oh, what ambitions they have for their time in power. Like New Year's resolution, it will be short-lived and politics as usual will resume as the normal order of business.

All the rules about ownership of actions by representatives, which I assume is aimed at the Democrats and not their own party, will become invisible as transparency will be selectively enforced. They don't want transparency, except of course if they already have back rooms ways to avoid it, which, like the White House and the administrations, previous and current, have had for decades.

But that's not my point here. It's their arrogance. Totally blind arrogance where they overtly and mistakenly equate arrogance with patriotism. And more so, their brand of patriotism, meaning corporate-backed and corporation-friendly laws to get what they want more than power, money. It's all about money to them.

They equate patriotism with money. Capitalism and those who practice it, corporations, except those corporations are now global enterprises and could care less about America, but only what they also want, which is the same as the Republicans, money, and even more money, even money paid by taxpayers directed to them in tax cuts and exemptions, contracts, grants, etc. Just money.

And in the pursuit of money, equating the work as Patriotic, the Republicans cite all sorts of ideas and ideals, religions as politics, and greed as virtue, and everything else, meaning the ordinary people not only don't count but aren't really in their world of patriots, except of course those who serve their wars.

They've learned what General Patton said about our enemy, "You don't die for your country, you make the other son-of-a-bitch die for his.", except ordinary folks are the enemy and they're more than happy to send young men and women into a trumped up war for global geopolitics and really oil as democracy and patriotism.

And that's part of their denial. Out of arrogance they only see their America, that top 5% of the wealthy who want tax breaks to get richer and buy more extravagence. And the corporations who worry about attaining more money. To that end, the corporations don't care where the jobs are created, especially if those jobs are here and more so union, which will cost them more in pay and benefits.

It's the bottom line for the wealthy, the value of their portfolio and their assests, and for the corporation, profit and shareholder value. Everything else is irrelevant or unimportant. And that's the reality the Republicans believe and promote as ordinary and patriotic. It is, however, part of our heritage from colonial times. The rich wanted to get richer and companies wanted more revenue.

But even then those folks understood about the rest of what made America great, people and especially the ordinary folks who worked for their living and often their survival. Today the Republicans are blind to the rest of us. You hear it in their words, see it in their lifestyle, and discover it in the laws they propose and those they pass. Some money to us, just enough to make us think we're important, but more money, and most of it, to corporations and the wealthy.

That's their reality. Everything else isn't in their world, not in their view, their thoughts or their actions. We simply don't count except to pay taxes.

The Tax Cuts

2010-12-17T04:00:00.000-08:00

After reading the details of the recent tax cut bill negotiated by the President with the Republiicans, not including any House or Senate Democrat, passed by the Senate yesterday and awaiting a vote today in the House, I've come to the conclusion on the balance sheet of the bill.

For the weatlthy and corporatioins, millions. For the common citizen, you know you and me, a few dollars. For the future generations who will get the bill, priceless, not because its value can be calcuated, but the opposite, it's can't and will be billions upon billions compounded on itself with this year's budget deficit into the long term national debt, now approaching $15 Tillion and risng fast.

And no thanks to you Mr. President. When Democrats have historically shown to be the more fiscally conservate and financially smarter of the parties, you have become a Republican, spend more, give big tax cuts and put it on the government's credit card.

In short the President, while writing us checks for a few dollars, fucked us royally for decades to come when our children and grandchildren get the bill.

That's not what and who I voted for in 2008. He's not the President of the 2008 campaign. He's forgotten every promise for his own self-preservation and now for his own re-election in 2012. But little does he see outside Washington DC that the people are pissed.

Yes, he saw it with the Tea Party and he saw it recently, for the second time, whining at and about the progressives in the Democratic party. He did it after the passiage of the Healthcare Reform Act when he jettisoned the public option at the first hesitation by the Republicans. Despite all his words and promises, he never really believed in the public option.

Now he's done with the tax cuts, negotiating in secret with Republicans like they're the one you want to support. You gave them everything they wanted in exchange for the critical needs of families who are unemployed, are barely surviving financially, and need more help than the wealthy or corporations.

The President said the were concessions now for concessions the Republicans will give him later. Are you really that stupid? Do you really think they'll concede anything in the future, or will stand there as the party of no and demand more for the wealthy and corporations agian, like they did now and you gave them?

Now we've all come to see who and what you really are, a Republican. You're war hawk. You're fanatical over protecting the Defense Department against real and necessary budget and weapons systems cuts. And you'll end up giving the wealthy and corporations more tax cuts than ole' GW Bush himself, and do it quicker.

With the President's negotiation directly with the Republican leadership, not including Democrats let alone us, the public, you have lost my support and vote for 2012. I will not do either for you, period. I won't vote for a Republican, but I don't have to vote for you. I can and will give you my vote of no confidence.

Mr. President, you have the power of your office. I only have the power of the voting booth, and I can and will exercise that in 2012. So, after getting fucked by you, and would love to say, as the adage goes, go fuck yourself, I won't but I will walk away from you and everything you say anymore. You're a fraud worse than Bush himself.

He was transparent in his words and actions. That I'll give him. But you lied in 2008 and have decieved us since. We're wiser now to see who and what you really are. You shouldn't fear the Republicans now to 2012, but fear your own party and your own base. You may still have many who will forgive you for the few dollars in tax cuts, but enough will not stand for or with you then.

That is my promise to you, and I'm not running for my job so I don't have to lie.

Getting the Facts

2010-12-11T04:30:00.000-08:00

Getting the facts, straight that is. Reading the story about the Portland man who tried to denoate a truck bomb near a downtown mall at a public event. The man, a Muslim, had expressed anger at America and wanted to killed Americans. This hate speech is not new, it's been with this country it's entire existence. But what's different under the Obama administration is the focus of the FBI on one group of people, Muslims.

This is not new to the FBI. They've historically focused on the most prominent group expressing hate and violence. In the 1960's it was the KKK and the blacks. In the 1980 and 1990's it was the gangs from Central and South America. Of late it's been Mexican cartels. But they've never been more agressive about seizing on the hate and recruiting individual(s) to commit "act of terrorism" than Muslims.

The case in Portland proves a point. If the young man was white, maybe even a christian, would the FBI have engaged in the acts to entrap him into the crime? After all, the FBI used an undercover agent (disguised as a radical Muslim) to communicate with him, then help him, then provide the resources, and then just waited knowing the bomb was a dud and they would catch a "terrorist" in the act.

It makes me wonder where they failed with the Times Square bomber, who was so inept that the bomb failed to denotate and he left the keys to the SUV with the registration in the glove box. If the bomb had detonated, where would the FBI be in identifying and catching him? Probably nowhere at worst and trying to get extradition of him from Yemen at best. He would have succeeded without the FBI's help.

And where were they then?

The FBI, with NSA's help intercepting communications in/out of this country and how they identified him, was able to build a terrorist. They've done this over and over with all the case of under Bush and now Obama. But all of those people were radical Muslims. And where, prey tell, is the FBI with other racial, ethnic or religious groups? We don't hear about those sting or entrapment cases.

Why is that?

Maybe because it's not news of terrorism or about terrorists? And maybe because the FBI only considers everyone who's not a Muslim just another extremist and not a terrorist? But aren't their goals and plans the same? And aren't they often better prepared, have the resources and have the plans? They don't need the FBI to build them into extremists and more so terrorists.

They already are and are just trying to stay under the radar, except they can't and aren't. The FBI already knows all about these groups, like the white racist militias during the 2008 election. They faded from the media because the FBI and Justice Dept. didn't make a big public spectacle of them. Why is that?

Because they don't relate to mainstream America's hate for Muslims over 9/11. Yet we're not mad at Saudi Arabia. After all most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens and the rest from Yemen and other countries, but not Iraq or Afghanistan. But they were radical Muslims.

And so the FBI can use that fear of and hate for them as a media tool to show they're protecting America and Americans. They didn't do the same for the Oklahoma City bomber. Why? Because he was a white devout Catholic? And the FBI wouldn't and didn't want to antagonize Catholics to call them radicals and terrorists? Like the IRA maybe?

You can go through history and find every racial, ethnic and religious groups have had terrorists among them for periods of time. You can even call some actions of governments terrorism when they use overwhelming force against innocent civilians needlessly. Look at what Israel did in southern Lebanon after the kidnapping of two border guards by Hezbolah. Two border guards and Israel used new US-provided cluster bombs on innocent rural populations.

But that's wandering from the point here. We need to stop focusing our anger and hate in response to radical Muslims. And we need to get the FBI to conduct investigations against these people similar to other racial, ethnic or religious groups. Our FBI can't discriminate this way.

They could have simply kept this man under surveillence and then arrested him when he was about to commit a crime. They would have learned more about who else may be involved than just going after him. As it stands, they sent the message how they operate, who they target, and how much anger and hate they have against Muslims.

And now we've learned again they've infiltrated innocent Muslim groups suspecting them of inciting the anger and hate. Like radical Christian leader don't incite anger and hate about President Obama and our government? It's the same words and same intent. But we know the Muslim don't as most Christian leaders don't incite anger or hate.

So why assume all Muslims guilty and then go searching for proof? And if you can't find it, create it.

I have no misperceptions that extremist groups are engaged in acts of terrorism against Americans. But they didn't necessarily start this as many are angry at our government's international and global economic policies and practices. We invaded Iraq for no reason (only lies). We made the creation of Al Qaeda in Iraq possible (they weren't there before).

We help Israel in the suppression and oppression of people in the Gaza and the West Bank. We are allies with Saudi Arabia in most of the most repression governments in the middle East. Our history in the Middle East goes back to post-WW II with the British. We have occupied many of the countries in the Middle East, often supporting dictators (the Shah of Iran and even Saddham Hussein). for decades.

Our actions has caused them to have anger and hate towards us. So we're not necessarily entirely innocent victim here.

In other words they found reasons in our actions when those actions effected their lands and people. That isn't reason, however, for the FBI's actions. There are better and less public ways they could have used than make a public spectacle of a non-event (since they knew the bomb was fake) simply because he was a Muslim.

We need the FBI to be racially, ethnicly and religious neutral about threats to America and Americans and not presuppose one group guilty so far as create extremists and more so terrorist simply for media attention.

Let the Tax Cuts Expire

2010-12-10T04:45:00.000-08:00

Here's a novel idea. Why not let all the tax cuts expire. Every single one of them. And then reduce the tax deductions in the corporate, business and personal income tax for everyone too. Maybe it's time we bit the bullet and paid our way into the future instead of the continual hope, and political promises, that we can and will grow our way out of the budget deficit and national debt.

As we've seen with Clinton we can keep taxes higher and grow the economy. And we've seen under Bush the exact opposite. We not we can't balance the budget with tax cuts, not with paying for the interest on the debt, two wars, entitlements, military operations and capitol investment, and discretionary spending. We can't balance the budget on the 15% of the discretionary spending.

We have to look at the two wars, our international military commitments, the Department of Defense (DOD) operations budget, the DOD weapons systems and equipment replacement programs and our DOD contracts. The DOD clearly has to reduce it's total budget by 15-20% as a goal over 3-5 years. And then do it again then. It's that's simple. We can't keep spending more on the DOD than all the other countries in the world combined.

And we have to look at increasing revenue to the Social Security Trust Fund Congress keeps raiding for money. We need to restore the Trust Fund and then get new money into it. Several ways come to mind initially. First, raise the income ceiling for all contributors by simply removing the ceiling. All income faces this tax.

Second, make all working undocmented workers and illegal immigrants citizens under an amensty program with optional contributions for past employment and credit. This will get rid of employers hiring them under false pretenses for cheap labor. It's makes them part of being Americans and American workers. And we get their income tax too.

Third, limit social security payments to rich people who have retirement anuities and post-retirement income above a threshold of say $75-100K. After all they don't need the extra income despite paying into it. It's their fair share to others during their working years. It's time the rich paid into it for everyone.

All of these, as some economists have noted, would make the Trust Fund solvent for quite a few decades and longer. And we don't have to reduce entitlements except maybe looking at the small percentage of fraud. Money not paid to one false claimant is money to one earned claimant.

I say this because as a federal retiree I can't get both without compensating my federal annuity. Even if I qualify for it (still short about a year-plus of credit) my annuity will be reduced the corresponding amount of the Social Security payment, meaning I can't get any more money over a ceiling despite paying into both systems. And if I can't, those wealthy shouldn't either.

We have to look at the discretionary spending but more with an eye for programs better down at the state or local level. I'm for the federal government doing the big and national work and support those programs benefitting the nation as a whole. There isn't much waste in the non-military discretionary programs, but there are some better served by corporations, businesses, states and local efforts.

It's clearly we have over-commited our federal government to too many programs, but I think if we tackle the former solutions (DOD, SSN, taxes, etc.) we can keep if not add to the discretionary programs to help everyone in the areas of healthcare (like adding a public option), education, environmental protection, agriculture, consumer protection, and so on down the list of work which clearly needs more money.

We have to look at healthcare costs. The Healthcare Reform Act didn't do this. It didn't and won't address costs which it handed to the for profit corporations in the healthcare and health insurance industry. They're still in control except for those states which have oversight commissions. We need to deal with and resolve costs to save Medicare, save families, and save taxpayers.

We have to look not at providing healthcare but look at where the extra money is going or wasted and then also look finding ways to control overall costs and all increases. If corporations can impose "managed care", we can impose "managed costs" to keep both sides on the same plane and minimize the problems and excessive costs.

We have to look at our international commitments both military aid and bases and aid programs. Sadly, maybe we need to tell the world, for a while anyway, we simply can't afford to help everyone. We've seen this in Afghanistan as billions are wasted to corruption and profiteering.

We have to look at getting corporations back to the US to put their taxes into our government. We should find ways to encourage them to return and discourage overseas headquarter to evade US taxes. If they want the US consumer, then they will pay the taxes appropriately. And if they don't move back, then restrict their access in the US as a "foreign" company. And then make them pay accordingly.

And as a demonstration to the American people, Congress need to rein in its own spending in several ways. Freeze the salaries and benefits for the same length of time they freeze the salaries of federal workers. Freeze their total funds for their office similarly to their salary freeze. And then freeze the White House funds too. Show solidarity with the rest of us.

In short as has been noted, we can't balance the budget with tax expiring tax cuts alone, with spending cuts alone, or with growing the economy alone. We need all and more. With a national debt of $50,000 per person and growing we can't afford not to seriously get us on the road to financial solvency with not only at least a balanced budget but also paying down the national debt.

It's our only hope and future. We've maxed out the government credit card. We can't just get a new one, but it's time we decided as a nation and a people to do this in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren. We're so far in debt we can't see the sky anymore, and it's time we stood on solid, level financial ground, and we need to start with the real sacrifices, not political ones or surficial ones.

So, not only let all the tax cuts expire, let's look at adding new taxes, cutting DOD spending and other measures any household would do to get solvent. We're the family and we've mortaging future generations farther than we can see anymore, and we know they won't be able to pay. Let's restore hope they can with our sacrifices now.

Lessre of Evils

2010-12-09T04:45:00.000-08:00

The progressive and liberal Democrats have learned a few lessons this week with President Obama's negotiation with the Republicans over extending the Bush-era (2001 and 2003) tax cuts. They learned not to trust President Obama anymore. They kinda' knew this from the healthcare negotiations when he jettisoned the much needed and wanted public option and then he whined about the progressives and liberals for "not reading the detials" of the whole bill.

They learned the President will give away almost every good bargaining chip the Democrats have to get what he and not the Democrats think is a good deal. The deals turn out to be a very poison pill, giving key and important issues to the Republicans and getting lesser issues for the Republicans. They learned Obama would rather capitulate than fight. Apparently the President doesn't understand his one big chip, being President.

They learned he doesn't know how to be president and how to act to get effective and meaningful laws for America and the American people beyond what the Republicans will agree to. In short, Obama is intelligent but not smart. He is bright but not wise. And he lets others have more power and make decisions for him. Not a good president in my book.

And he is not loyal to his word. All the promises he made in the 2008 campaign are, as the song goes, "Dust in the Wind" and lost to political history on how to win a base and then forget them in office.

The Democrats also learned that with the President from now on, he is and will be the lesser of evils. He's not on the side of Democrats anymore. He's said as much as he's the President for America and Americans. Except he has conveniently forgotten where he came from and who got him elected. The progressive and liberal Democrats and independents. We've not only been swept out the door, but the President has yelled at us twice now in public from his podium.

They, and we, have learned he not going to stand up for us anymore beyond what the Republicans will agree to, which is nothing.

The President will learn the lesson, however, which he overlooked when he agreed to this bill with the Republicans. It will add $700 Billion to the budget deficit and national debt. On his watch. And the Republicans will surely hit him hard on this in 2012, despite being party to the the bill. They will argue the tax cuts didn't increase both but it was all the other costs.

The President doesn't seem to see, let alone understand, the Republicans don't see tax cuts and loss of income to the government and adding to any deficit and debt. They're intentionally bilnd and deaf to words tying tax cuts to debt. They see it as money earned by the people and stolen by the government.

It's why they called the tax bonuses to the rich as tax cuts for everyone. They see all of the tax cuts as one and not separate issues between all of us, remember we all earn under $250K, and the rich. The Republicans are all-inclusive when it comes to people, rich and poor alike. But that's not their goal, but the richest 2-3% of Americans earning more than $250K.

The Democrats learned the President also seems to see things this way. He would rather add $140 Billion to the national debt over the next 2 years than fight for protecting Americans from this debt. And he'll see the Republicans will bring this back in the 2012 campaign by calling him for raising the debt that same debt.

And he'll stand there and have to take it as that's exactly what he did, and then explain it to us, ordinary Americans who recite his own words. We have also learned, again, what the Democrats learned this week. President Obama lied. All politicians lie, but he was to bring "Hope and Change" to Washington. We learned those were empty words.

And so we saw another lesson in typical presidential politics, not what we were promised. We saw the emperor has no clothes made by the ordinary people, but by the rich. He's the very person he fought against in the campaign, and he now wears the clothes proudly and denounces the ordinary folks like us.

Maybe he should look at his campaign speeches again. We remember his words but apparently he's deliberately chosen them.

We're not the enemy

2010-12-07T18:04:00.000-08:00

Mr. President, we, the Democrats - your base remember, aren't the political enemy. The Republicans are your political enemy. You negotiate with us, the progressive liberal base, and you argue with the Republicans. You don't do the reverse. You hate us for having ideals but not the Republicans for having their ideals. You didn't fight for and with us, but fought against us.

You sold us down the river for political compromise with the Republicans. Then you expressed your anger at us as you did before for nothing. The public option would have been good for everyone making health insurance competitive with the government's plan. Tax bonuses for the wealthy is wrong for America. More tax deductions and breaks for the wealthly and corporations aren't good for America and Americans.

And all these you said we're wrong because we won't compromise on our principles. Yet you will compromise your principles for the Republicans who hold their principles. We're not the enemy here and you keep treating us as is if were and are. And you expect us to support you in 2012? You're kidding, right?

The Republicans know that you will cave at the slightest sign of their obstinence over bills. They know that because you have caved every time while jettisoning the promises you gave us in 2008. And now you jettisoned us because we disagree with you and want to hold you accountable. What?

You have moved so far right, you're no longer a real Democrat. You're not even a centrists. You're a center-right President slowly becoming Republican with moments of Democrat-leaning ideas. You give us words while giving the Republicans results. And you expect us to be happy with you?

And it's easy to see, at least we see it, tax breaks and tax cuts won't solve the budget deficit and national debt. And it's easy to see you'll be hammered by the Republicans, Tea Party, the conservative PAC's, etal over both, increasing the same way they did in 2010 against the Democrats in the House and Senate. It's obvious to eveyone except you and your staff.

So why do you continue to say the Republicans will negotiate in good faith in the next Congress? Are you really that naive? I don't think so, but why do you keep proving you are? And why do you keep yelling at us and being nice to Republicans? Do you really think we won't equally be angry at you as you are with us?

We're not your enemy, and if you don't stop treating us as if we are, then we will make it clear to you what we can do in 2012. I hope you're ready for opposition. Or do you think we'll "read the details", as you say, and forgive you? If so, then you really are naive. And you'll be pushed from both sides, the Republicans you seem to love but hate you and us you seem to hate and will return the favor.

And all your words won't undo your past and your words spoken, especially at and about us. We have memories and will remind you. Loudly.

Dear Mr. Obama

2010-12-07T04:30:00.000-08:00

I would call you Mr. President as you were elected, and I even voted for you, but then begrungingly since you were the lesser of evils despite some hope I had you might be a good president. We had hope, but as you have shown and done, you vanished that hope and you unmercilously beat your base into oblivion and to the far reaches of the political galaxy, leaving all the good Democrats in Congress holding an empty bag of promises.

So, my point here is that agreeing to extending the Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, you bet the ranch, our ranch - you know the taxpayers' future, on your political re-election hopes in 2012. We're pissed to say the least and pissed not to support you in 2012 the most. Right now you were just at the former but this time you moved to the latter. It's clear now your promises then and even your words now are empty.

We noted then President Bush was the emperor with no clothes. That took him more than 4 years for it to become obvious. You, however, managed to achieve the same goal, and empty, naked President, in less than two. Congratulations for being so inept at being the president we expected, wanted and voted for. You lied and now we know. Kinda' drafty isn't it?

You bet our future but you didn't accomplish much beyond the much needed help for the unemployed. That you could have done independently of the tax cuts. You had a 58 vote majority in the Senate and it's now 53 for the 112th Congress. You had a majority in the House which you lost for the Democrats. The voters were pissed at you and took it out on them, and they and our party suffered defeat.

Because of you. And now you're struggling to stay alive and viable for 2012. At our expense and our future. Don't worry Mr. President, we'll remember all of this in 2012 too. And we will remind you. We don't have to vote for the Republicans, we just don't have to vote for you. We can say no just as well as the Republicans have and do. And we can stand there with our hand folded across our chest waiting for you to confront the reality, your reality.

If we were outside on the street, and I know you've heard this enough, you fucked us royal. You give us pennies while giving the rich and corporations dollars, millions of dollars. You promised to end two wars and we're still there, albeit badly in one and worse in the other. But you plan to "stay the course" as Bush said and did and Johnson said and did in Vietnam. You haven't learned anything and you're learning the history lesson about again.

At our expense too. These wars and our military and Defense Department is too expensive. But you don't want to be the president who faces the truth and reality, or more so the political backlash, if you try. But you should and you can, but then you don't have the balls for it because when it comes to political fights, you're a coward to even stand up for what you believe is right for Americans and America's future.

And now you'll be trying to put the best face on a bad deal. That's if you can convince the real Democrats in the Senate and then the whole lot of them in the House to go along with your deal, the one you stabbed them in the back with before they even tried to win one for the people. You sold them out too, just like you sold us out. And right now, I don't think they think much of you as President and a president.

I certainly don't. I know it's politics. We saw that with Clinton. You fucked the federal workers who are underpaid, overworked and not appreciated or liked by politicians, especially Republicans, until of course as Bush did, use them to redo the government against the people. But then you showed you don't like them either. And you expect them to help you now and expect them to vote for you in 2012?

I have to say Mr. President, you've managed to find a way to piss off everyone in your base who supported you, in one way or the other and many on everything. And in less than two years too. You're intelligent and bright, but you're not very smart. And your staff is worse because we don't know how they managed to get you to look so bad. You've shouldn't have hired ex-Clinton-era advisors.

What were you thinking? You prided yourself on self-confidence and then you opted to old political cronies to lead you into this? What didn't you understand? They weren't the solution, they weren't who and what you needed. We saw that to some degree and now we see it completely. And you haven't and don't?

Anyway, I'll close by saying I don't like being fucked by a president. Bush was enough, more than enough. And we expected and wanted change, but instead we got you and the continuation of the Bush era with some good measures but mostly half measures. You could have done better and should have done better with the majority in Congress and the majority and support of the people.

But you didn't and know you'll see the cost and face the price between now and 2012. Not from Congress, but from us, the people you fucked. We vote, something you forget but I'm certain will remind us in 2012. Except not for you next time. We learned and got burned. We won't make the mistake again. At least not until you can prove you're worth our vote.

More of the Same War

2010-12-05T17:17:00.000-08:00

I read about President Obama's sudden trip to Afghanistan and the speech he made to the troops that, "He's staying the course." Where and when have we heard those or similar words about a war? Like GW Bush about the war in Iraq? But we'll eventually phase out of there leaving the world's largest embassy in Baghdad.

We've been in Aghanistan since the winter of 2001 and we'll be there until after Obama's first term and more likely his second term. We're in an endless, no-win war there with one of the world's most corrupt government, all at our expense. They're getting rich with our money and the drug cartel's money. We're paying contrators paying the Taliban. Gee, pay your enemy to fight us.

No, I'm referring to President Johnson. Remember him about Vietnam in the mid 1960's and the buildup to half a million troops, before we had Mr. Cheney counting only "combat" troops and contracting war, logistics and other stuff to contractors for profit and fraud. We have somewhere around 300,000 personnel in Afghanistan of all types, government and civilian, with no end to these except promises about withdrawls if conditions on the ground are there.

Like that's going to happen. No, I'm referring to Johnson and his hell-bent strategy in 1965 to "stay the course" against communism, and the escalation to the peak in 1968 (they year I faced the draft). Obama is simply rehashing his words then only this time it's Al Qaeda, all of about 300 in Afghanistan and mostly Pakistan, and maybe a few thousand Taliban.

Obama is simply changing the tune and tone, but the song is the same, endless war with no victory realistically possible. So what happens when the public who already is tired of this war and want the troops home? Vietnam didn't have a 9/11, but the rhetoric using it to continue a war draining this country is unrealistic and unacceptable to the American public and voters.

Obama had better get wise or, and I hope, face a Democratic contender from the left who will argue for ending this war. All the experts say Al Qaeda won't re-establish in Afghanistan. The Taliban who will regain control with the current President who can't defeat them without us and will negotiate integration, and why he's not pushing for independence of us or NATO.

We're his meal ticket, just like the "elected" leaders in South Vietnam in the late 1960's. A propped government which won't last very long without us. Then the VC and NVA eventually overran the country and Saigon to hasten our exit. The VC had the NVA and China. The Taliban has some support from Pakistan but not military support. Just a safe haven and intelligence information.

In the end though, I wonder how long Obama can keep up the right wing hawkish rhetoric before his base decides he was and is a fraud. Moving right of center wasn't what we expected and voted for with him. While he's moving to capture the center-right, he's leaving his left base who can and will seek someone who will challenge him.

So who's going to be the Robert Kennedy (1968) or the George McGovern (1972) of 2012, someone to capture the hearts and minds, and votes, of the left who want the change they expected? I hope someone does if only to wake the President up we're angry at him and his policies.

What Don't You Understand

2010-12-05T04:30:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. President and the Democrats in the Sentate,

What don't you understand the American people, you know the vast majority who are middle, working-class or retired Americans and the almost all the lower income Americans, do not want tax bonuses for the rich. Period. It's that simple. And while all of you think inside the Beltway, it's time you thought of all of us outside the Beltway for a change and stand up for fairness.

Try as you want to bundle temporaray tax bonsues to the rich with the much needed unemployment benefits and other tax relief for the middle and working class along with real small business, it's time to not use us as political fodder for your own aganda in our name. Make the Republicans fess up to their lies, as they did yesterday (Saturday 12/4/10) to vote against the tax cut for every American, even the rich, up to $250K.

We've had 10 years of Bush tax cuts with only a recession and falling, or more so failing, middle class while the rich are getting richer faster than us and more so common sense, fairness and any measure of reasonbableness. Don't give them 2-3 more years of tax bonsuses because you know the Republicans will demand it again in 2012 during the election campaign.

Don't give them that opportunity. They don't deserve it. They didn't earn it. And certainly don't need more of it. Don't add to the deficit and debt with our children and grandchildren'sfinancial future. It's time all of you, and especially you Mr. President, to do what the Republicans have done now for two years, just say, "No! Hell, no!"

Because if you do and call it a victory, you can bet we'll remember in 2012, you know when you are up for re-election as President and many Senators are up for a new six-year term. We'll remember and we'll remind you of your arrogance toward us, your promise to be fiscally responsible, and your promise to bring down the deficit and debt

Yeah, we'll be there, but more importantly we'll be in the voting booth. You know we don't have to vote for the Republican opponent, we only need not to cast a vote for you. We can also say no too. And we know all your 2008 promises Mr. President didn't happen. In truth, you abandoned them just after breakfast the day after you were inaugurated. We remember that and we will remind you again.

You lied then and you're lying now. That's politics but we're tired of politics. The Republicans in this year's campaign have made it so toxic we don't even want to hear it anymore, and we don't want to hear it from you. We're not Beltway residents and we don't want it outside the Beltway. So stand up and do the right thing for all Americans now and in the future.

What I Expect

2010-12-04T05:50:00.000-08:00

Ok, for the 112th Congress, and the President, here's what I expect of ya'll from now to 2012, or face my anger in the voting booth then, like I can change anything. But I can and do vote. So what do I expect?

First, no tax bonuses for the rich, whether it's salaries over $250K or if necessary $1M, but I prefer the former. I don't want to pay for tax bonuses for the rich any more. After ten years and more years ahead, they've done nothing for the middle class and more so the poor. They've taken our money and run to the bank to get richer.

Second, I expect the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) to be passed and soldiers be soldiers, not hiding in the closet or discharged for suspicions from third parites. Almost all the discharges aren't from asking or telling but from other people outing someone them and the military accept that as evidence. The military broke the rules, not the soldiers.

Third, get us out of Afghanistan, the soon and quicker the better. It's an endless war draining taxpayers' wallets for nothing to make us more secure or safe. Find an exit and take it.

Fourth, fix the Healthcare Reform Act, adding the public option for everyone. You have two great models, Medicare and FEHB, to define a new program to compete openly with private health insurance companies.

Fifth, go after the Defense Department budget with an axe. I served my country during the Vietnam era but it's clear we're overcommited around the world and with our weapons systems. We have to stop chasing technology as the be end solution to fighting wars. We have to stop the endless costs and buying new systems which is draining our budget and deficit for little real security and safety.

Sixth, to the Senate, change the fucking rules to actually get some real work done for us. There are hundreds of bills passed by the House awaiting Senate work. Trash the cloture rule. Reduce the rule to overcome a filibuster. Stop being the roadblock to helping Americans from Republican bullshit and politics.

Seventh, to the President. Remember your promises. What don't you understand what we voted for? Abandon us at your peril.

That's it for now. I'll add as I read and get anger at you, the House under Republican rule and the Senate for being slow.

God Help Us

2010-12-02T07:05:00.000-08:00

Ok, religious of me to say that, and it's not meant to mean what you think. It's not about God help our country or God help the people, who really need the help, or more so it's not God help the Republicans in the upcoming 112th Session of Congress. It's God help us from the Republicans in the new Congress.

Yes, them and pray they don't misuse or worse abuse God and religion for their own political agenda, which is for the rich and corporations, for the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of God and science, and for the values we all hold common religion and politics aside. It's for us, God give of patience for their childishness of thought and words in the name of their agenda.

It's for those in the middle and lower income who face extraordinary and totally misplaced criticism for not being rich. It's for our government, not theirs, to do what is right and best for the country and people in the name of the people. It's for our freedoms, like freedom of all religions and the people of non-Christian religons who have come under attack from them.

It's for God trying to make some sense of them and let them know in no uncertain terms to follow what God teaches about others. But then God has problems too with closed minds and hearts. Even God will need help there and we can continue to raise our voices against the hate speech disguised as political rhetoric. We can fight against their intentions meant to do us harm. And we can work for a different Congress in 2012 to show them our anger against their transgressions.

In short, God help us to persevere through the next two years of the Republicans and see the good beyond their hate. And then kick their fucking asses out of Congress.

What We Know

2010-12-02T05:30:00.000-08:00

Here's what we know about the budget deficit, here called the "deficit", and the national debt, here called the "debt", despite all the rhetoric to the contrary.

First, you can't reduce the deficit, and subsequently the national debt, with spending cuts, namely the budget of the non-discretionary and non-military agencies. The remaining federal budget after these is a less than 15% of the whole federal budget. You could totally eliminate it and still not touch both the deficit and debt.

Second, you can't reduce the deficit without significant changes in the non-discretionary programs, namely Social Security (SS), Medicare, and Medicaid to states. And you have to make significant cuts in the Defense Department budget for both operations, including both current wars and our international locations, and equipment programs, meaning all the new and replacement equipment of all the branches of the military.

The problem here is that the government has those obligations to the people of this country and to our international commitment in two wars and overseas bases. And the military has to replace current aging and damaged equipment from those two wars and normal use. The question, however, is if we really need new weapons programs, because we're clearly spending orders of magnitude (10x) more than our enemies and more than the rest of the world combined.

Third, you can't reduce the deficit with tax cuts or even tax increases. The debt this year is about $4,700 per person and the debt with this year's deficit is about $50,000 per person in this country. That's PER PERSON and 3 to 4 times for every family in this country. That's the reality of the depth of the problem we're facing. Cutting taxes, like extending the Bush and Obama tax cuts, clearly isn't the answer as it only adds to the problem.

This was a little simple math, and I'm astounded the politicians, from the President to Congress, haven't raised this point to show where we have put ourselves being deaf and blind to the reality of deficit spending over decades. And make no mistake here. it is the Republicans who have increased both several times more than the Democrats. The Democrats aren't the worst bad guys here, but Reagan and GW Bush's 8-year administrations that increased the debt the most.

We've been overspending on the government's credit to the point we can't dig our way out of the deficit and debt with going on a really big austerity program for a long time, generations in fact. Unfortunately the Debt Commission tried to address this issue and failed, putting the bulk on of burdent on middle class and income families, on the young and their future, and on the elderly on fixed incomes none of whom can afford it.

There is no question we have to resolve the deficit and work on the debt. The interest alone is almost as much as the whole non-discretionary spending excluding the Defense Department. This is the reality of the situation we're facing as a people and country, all of us. The question is what are the short-term and longterm solutions which is fair and just.

And that the Debt Commission did provide all-encompassing solution, but some of those are outside the scope of their direction and purview. They wandered and lost sight of the problem and then the solution. Cutting taxes aren't the answer. Cutting benefits doesn't help much and only hurts people. The questions we have to ask ourselves is how much we owe our government in these tough economic times.

Personally I don't have an answer. I too have used the Bush and Obama tax cuts to live. Like most Americans I have little choice in the matter but to pay the costs of living today in this country. Taking away over $100 per month if the tax cuts expired would hurt, not that I won't live, but that I won't improve my life and pay off my own debt.

What I do know is that near the end of my life, I can simply ignore it and push for keeping my tax cuts and leave the mess to the future generations, and say, "Thanks for all the fish." (Douglas Adams). But I can't and I won't. I would accept my tax increase if everyone else accepted theirs fairly and proporationately.

We are in a financial boat for the survival of our (stress our) government and our country. It's time everyone bite the bullet and commit to their fair share as we can relieve some of the burden of our youth and future generations. It's time we did and it's time the President, especially him, and Congress do likewise,including their own salary and staff costs.

We're all in the same boat no matter who says otherwise. We need corporations to return their tax headquarters to the US and pay their fair share, which would amount to a significant help. It's not something the people can do while corporations skip their obligations and escape with the profits hidden beyond our tax laws. They identify as American companies, it's time they paid like American companies.

That's what I think. It's time to be fair and just for all, people and corporations, and even consider non-profit organizations and established religions anteing up for all the years of tax-free living here at our expense. We know they're not poor and it's time they stopped hiding behind tax exclusions.

But in the end, I don't expect anything real to be done. The Republicans are out for themselves, the corporations and the rich, and the Democrats are too afraid to raise the reality and truth to their constituents. But they also know we can't keep punting this issue to the next Congress and the next and the next. It won't go away and only gets worse. They know that, so it's time they are honest too.

It's time the President above all of us, stand up and speak common sense and wisdom to face the issue and face the solutions. It's why he's the President. And I haven't heard that from him, plain, honest words describing the real mess and the real solutions, politics aside.

And until I do hear that I'll raise my own small voice expecting him to do likewise. And if he doesn't, consider someone else to be President who will.

Dear Mr. Reid

2010-12-01T12:06:00.000-08:00

Dear Senator Reid,

As the leader of the Senate and having watched hundreds of bills passed the the house stall and languish in the Senate due to Republican intransigence and obstructionism because you don't want to rankle feathers and want to negotiate and compromise, often dropping long-standing Democratic values and issues, I have only a few words of advice over the latest news the 42 senators will stop all legislation until they get what they want on the Bush tax cuts, and it is very simple.

Get some damn balls!

It's time you, as many in and around the Democratic party have been saying for the last two years now, hold the Republicans accountable and make it very public. Make them vote to deny tax cuts to every American. Make them vote against extending unemployment benefits. Make them vote against the START treaty. Make them vote against DADT. Make them vote against the Dream Act. Make them vote on every single bill not waiting a vote in the Senate from the House and every presidential appointment waiting Senate approval.

Cram the agenda with a long list of work, and then change the fucking rules to eliminate cloture voting for bills which should go to the floor for an up and down vote. Show you and the Democrats really represent the American people and want to get things done. Don't whimper in front of the media about cooperation, negotiation and compromise. The Republicans don't and won't compromise. They've proven that over and over again and again.

If they want to filibuster, fine, let them, but demand they stand there in the Senate and talk until they give up. Don't allow any Senator to hold a bill because they don't like it. Make it public and make that Senator declare their reasons public and in front of the media. If they don't, then you go before the media to tell everyone who and why. Make them visible, very visible.

You've cowtowed to them at every turn hurting working Americans, middle and low income Americans, Americans needing affordable healthcare, Americans needing jobs, mortage relief, and fair taxes. We're tired of you and the Democrats pandering and whining. We told you that in our votes (I didn't since I voted Democratic). So what don't you understand to get angry, get passionate and get LOUD!

In short, get a backbone and some balls. Or else face losing the Senate in 2012. It's that simple. We want noise and results. And if the Republicans won't, then force them to be and go public. Get up, stand up and be the Senate leader we, the American people, need and want. It's time you learned and did that for us and not yourself and your image.

Dear Mr. President

2010-12-01T08:10:00.000-08:00

Dear President Obama,

I've been reading and listening to your comments in interviews and your statements. It's clear to me that what you said in 2008 wasn't what you truly and sincerely felt and thought, and more so believed. Those weren't necessarily lies, or at least in political jargon, but campaign rhetoric. To the many Americans who did believe your words, did vote for you and did believe you'd fulfill on your promises, those were in fact lies.

And now you're showing your willingness to sacrifice good, middle class Americans for your political victories. They, however, will be empty victories for all of us despite what you say afterward because we'll know you lied before not really believing your own words but selling a message. You're showing you're not a true Democrat in the traditional sense we expect one to be, to fight for public interest and public welfare issues, like the public healthcare option, and now like government employees and retirees.

It's been reported in studies since the Jimmy Carter administration federal government employees are unpaid by 20-22% compared with comparable private sector people of the top 100 corporations, near the middle with comparable state employees and near the top 500 corporations. It's only the retirement and health insurance benefits where government employees gain back some of those losses. That's not the hype but honest studies commissioned by Presidents, even George Bush.

All of them wanted to prove a point, that federal government employees are overpaid and overcompensated with benefits, but the studies proved the opposite, we were and are underpaid and undercompensated. Our benefit is our assured decent annuity and good health insurance, the same program enjoyed by those in Congress and their staffs, something they like to forget or not admit when they argued against the public option. Just lies to cover their poltical asses.

All the other studies, if you look at them closely, mismatch the comparison to inflate the values of federal government employees above the private sector people, using small or medium business who traditionally pay less in salary and benefits, with different job catagories, or combining groups of jobs into the same catagories. Those studies were all done to prove what they wanted, and wrongly.

My gross salary when I retired was $75,000, $50,000 net minus the various taxes and deductions and my contribution to my retirement fund, both government and personal, and my health insurance. My annuity was $50,000 gross and $36,000 net. That's not extreme as many Republicans and others have argued. It's middle class. And each year while the cost of living increases, by anuity does't keep pace. I, like many retirees, am slowly falling into a hole and could easily fall over a cliff in the face of a large unexpected expense.

And now you've decided federal government employees and retirees are political fodder for you and your future reelection. It's obvious and you can't hide it with words as deficit reduction. The cost of living of federal employees and retirees will increase 8-10% per year for each of the two years you're freezing their salary and our annuity. Our health insurance went up 12% last year and will go up 7% next year.

Is $5 Billion a year worth it? In a $1.4 Trillion deficit and a $14 Trillion national debt? Is our cents critical to our economic survival worth the political capitol to look good on cutting the size and cost of the federal government? Will those in Congress do the same for their salaries and for the salaries of their staffers? Will you freeze your salary too?

And still you haven't stood behind federal government employees for their hard work and service, but sacrificed them to the Republicans' agenda. Will you next freeze hiring while demanding more work of them? Will you freeze promotions and rewards for outstanding work? Do you expect to balance everything our their, and our (retirees), backs and wallet?

It's clear your word isn't worth the time it takes for your to express it. And we should trust you now and in the future? I've said you've lost my support for you, and now you've lost my confidence of ever gaining it back. I may not vote for your opponent but I certainly won't vote for you. I'll express my no on you and you alone, who has failed the American people and America I believe in.

When Polls are Wrong

2010-11-23T04:30:00.000-08:00

I've heard and read about the public approval of the full body scanners, somewhere between 66% and 85% of the public don't have a problem with the TSA's use of them. That sounds good as the TSA and HSA have reiterated over and over, "See, they may not like them but they think they're right and good." Except the poll is wrong because the question was, "Do you favor full body scanners to fight terrorism?"

See, they biased the question with the presumption that no body scanners invite terrorists through the check points where we know that's not true or going to happen. Remember all in-flight terrorists started their flight in Europe not in the US and therefore didn't go through our passenger screening process. And while TSA has caught suspicious terrorists, meaning now prosecuted and more so convicted, with the screening process, none were caught with the full body scanners, but the carry-on inspection devices.

When the question was changed to be neutral, it's a good bet people will not like the full body scanners, such as asking, "Would you be willing to go through a full body scan if we suspected you of carrying something illegal?" Or some such question, making it personal to the individual about TSA view of them as a threat than some generic terrorist.

The point is that the full body scanners and enhanced pat-downs aren't necessary and clearly intrusive into the privacy of individuals. There are better ways to minmally screen citizens without resorting to fear to sell technology as the answer when it's not and a waste of taxpayers' money.

Remember it was Secretary Chertoff who started the process to get the full body scanners and shortly after leaving office, but before the final decisions were made, he started working for a lobbyist representing the company making and now selling the full body scanners. It's was a fix from the start by Mr. Chertoff, and he more than likely made up the fear into evidence of a threat and the solution.

We've been duped as the polls are duping us even more. They're wrong and they lie about the truth and reality.

Dear Mr. President

2010-11-22T16:30:00.000-08:00

Well, I've listened to all your latest comments and responses to the new TSA rules and other things about our life you say you understand and are working hard to fix. Well, with all due respect of your office, we don't want your sympathy or empathy and we don't need or want your understanding. We want your results to resolve these issues and problems.

We want you to experience what we have had and will have for a long time, something you don't understand. You don't get humiliated at airport screenings with long lines, inspections, belongings checks, patdowns and now full body scan or "enhanced" pat downs. They're useless and meaningless and not really intended to deter terrorists or detect some types of dangerous or hazardous chemicals or explosives.

But you say you understand. And that's all you do, talk. We're tired of talk and we're tired of more and more fear of us, the citizens, as terrorists. We're not the guilty ones. We're not the threat. We're not terrorists. So why do you treat us as them? You don't understand that?

You could take all the full body scanners away, stop all the patdowns, stop with the shoes, stop with the restrictions for carry-on items, and nothing would change. Nothing. Except of course we would have part of our lives back and would travel easier, and ever safer. Any bets to tests this? Or are you afraid of us, the citizens?

What we want is our freedom, our civil rights and liberties, and our privacy from government intrusion and interference where and when it's not necessary, useful or helpful. That is what we know and understand and want you to understand and act on and for our behalf to give us.

Can you understand that? And more so, can and will you do something about it? That we understand.

If All Else Fails

2010-10-12T05:41:00.000-07:00

If all else fails, blame the Taliban. The US and NATO's handy excuse when thing go wrong. The Army is reporting that the British hostage killed in an attempt by US special forces to rescue her was killed not by a Taliban bomb near her but by a US gernade thrown into the room where she was being held. Oops doesn't begin to describe thngs.

And over 100 trucks, about 40 loaded with fuel, were destroyed waiting on the Pakistan side of the Khyber Pass while Pakisan negoitated with the US and NATO over their incurions of attack helicopters into the Pakistan Tribal areas, one attack killing two Pakistani soldiers. Exactly who are we fighting there? And why?

The sad reality is that there is no answer to Afghanistan and no easy exit leaving a stable country, ever. But we should stop calling everyone killed by US or NATO forces insurgents, many are innocent Afghan or Pakistani civilians, and then blaming the Taliban or Al Qaeda because it sounds good.

When will the military learn the American public learn about the BS in the military's PR from the Vietnam war, but they haven't changed their tone and tune, it's still "Just Blame the Enemy" song, over and over again? And when will the media keep playing it because it sells war, fear and hate to the American people?

Quick Update

2010-08-15T18:16:00.000-07:00

Obviously I haven't posted here in awhile, like 4 months! Ok, tardiness is an nice excuse but not a good reason. The short answer is that while I'm still angry with the events, people and situations in the world, I'm not angry enough to rant or vent about it, especially here. I'm run short of the energy to translate thought into page. And the reason for the lack of sufficient anger is, as you might expect, health issues, life and work. Or the other way around in no particular order.

You see I've had a number of health issues which are critical or serious to cause hospitalization or some such medical intervention, but just a bunch of irritating and frustrating issues which have left me tired most of the time, physically and mentally. Irritating in that it's taken away my ability to travel unless planned day(s) in advance and frustating because it's defying the physicians and specialist who are going through the tests for the obvious.

You see they have to run down the list of obvious causes and go through the various tests to discover if it's the problem and cause, or not. And so far, it's a lot of nots, and one close one which didn't pass the tests, except it's something with the same symptoms. And it's likely there isn't a treatment to help and especially a cure. That's because it's probably something known but only by a few specialists or one who is trying to find it.

So,that's the story about why I haven't posted and probably won't for awhile more. The news still makes me mad as do stupid people, especially elected ones, even the President at times. What a SOB these days. But the Republicans are far worse, to the point they're not even hiding the fact they're lying about everything. They don't care anymore. The party of no to the people.

Anyway, that's all I have to say for now. I'll keep you posted if things change.

Politicians being stupid

2010-04-14T06:53:00.000-07:00

I originally planned to call this post "Men being stupid", but I realized women are politicians too and likely voted from some of the bills mentioned in my rant against decent common sense. Common sense from this chair anyway. And the news stories?

Well, the state of Nebraska, which I thought was better than the Dakotas for their treatment of women, have one-upped them with a new bill doing two things. One it requires women planning an abortion be "screened" for mental health and other problems before be allowed to get an abortion. It's clearly meant to slow down the process and get pro-life counselors to talk to women seeking abortions as a screen for a mental health exam.

It's clearly inappropriate and only shows the narrow morality and mentality the Nebraska legisltature and Governor have for women's rights. It's just another sign they don't trust women, but it's hypocritical as we all know if men were faced with the same situation, they wouldn't hesitate to scream foul as an afront to their rights. Men, and some women, being stupid.

On top of that, the law bans abortions after 20 weeks, which is just near the end of the second trimester, not for health reasons often used, but because it says "fetus feel pain" and an abortion would inflict pain on the fetus. Except it's still tied to the mother and the procedure accomodates this issue. It's cow pasture material and apparently they dragged some of it into the Nebraska legistlature chamber as this bill and now law.

They're trying to take away the mother's right to choose and the protections with that choice. That's not good law, it's simply politicians being stupid.

Ok, next item. The news story saying Democrats may not pass the 2011 appropriations bills this fall until after the November elections. Not because of pottential problems with Republicans to pass the bills, but because they're afraid. Afraid of Republicans in the elections focusing on the deficit problem with the appropriations. This isn't just politicians being stupid but spineless or gutless, take you pick.

This is the annual problem with Congress, they rarely pass appropriations before the deadline of September 30th, to fund the federal government October 1st. It's both parties at fault, regardless of which is in power. They always pass continuing resolutions funding government at the previous year spending until they can pass the appropriations measures, that is except one, war funding.

But for some reason, they never seem to fail to pass the appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghaniston. Well, except once but then they fixed it with a quick fix bill before the final bill. That's because these funds are unique and separate funding measures and the wars are pay as you go or no war. And we all know Congress likes funding wars, it's sells votes.

But not to pass the appropriations bills because you're afraid the Republicans will hammer you in the election ads isn't not good politics. It's not good government. It's simply being stupid out of fear of an imaginary enemy, something that hasn't happened. The incumbents are going to get hammered in ads anyways, this just adds ammuntion to their ads.

So the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot, er mouth, or more so their own political future, or so they fear. They're not thinking, just having no balls to actually represent the voters who put them there. Just politicians being stupid.

Thought in passing

2010-03-13T05:10:00.000-08:00

Just some thoughts from the news this week, or more so later in the week.

First, executive salaries. The Washington Post reported the Boys and Girls Club of America lost $13 million in 2008 (no 2009 report filed yet). This while getting over $100 million in federal money and the CEO earning $1 million in salary, expenses, travel and retirement savings. And this while the club closed 24 offices and clubs and fired 10% of the staff.

Where is it acceptable to see CEO skimming the cream while the carton is leaking from the bottom? Where is it allowed that CEO can drive a company into the ground, or bankruptcy, or government takeover, and still make money? Aren't CEO supposed to earn how the company goes?

Yeah, we know it wasn't on Wall Street, they only lied, fudged the numbers and skimmed billions for false profits. But ordinary companies or organizations who are supposed to do good, like this one? How can a CEO say they're good when the results aren't there?

And we wonder what's wrong with CEO's? Or maybe that's the obvious they don't see? It's not about what's wrong but what's right about CEO's.

The recent Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate campaign financing. One person jumped ahead of the curve. Why buy a sitting or prospective Representative or Senator in Congress, when you can simply be a corporate one? Murray Hill, who owns his (self-named) company is running for Congress. He isn't holding back he's a corporate candidate.

While in innovative to say the least, it's scary it's the future. A lot of sitting representatives and senators better take notice that the next competitor in your next election won't be another person seeking office to represent the people, or more so represent corporate interests, but simply a corporate candidate.

This isn't new. Several CEO's and other corporate individuals have run for office, Senator Linda Cantwell for one (former software executive). Most do well for awhile but run into Washington politics and change. And it is a requirement that all elected people separate themselves legally and financially from their corporate ownership or holdings, usually put into a blind trust.

But now we will see blatant corporate candidates, following former Vice President Cheney's practice not to do that, despite the law. He, if you remember, when elected and told to follow the law to separate this financial interests, including salary, responded with a less than diplomatic, "Go fuck yourself."

Yes, he collected his annual dividend and interest from his Haliburton holdings and former job (CEO) while being VP. He also refused to recuse himself in the decisions to issue billions of dollars worth of contracts to Haliburton its subsidaries for the war in Iraq. Yes, he personally profited by the war.

He was the best war profitter in history. He was instrumental in starting it for that very reason. Not patriotism but greed. Pure and simple greed. Get our money, sacrifice American soldiers, and in 8 years smile all the way to the bank. And now we'll see more political savy candidates do this very thing.

All thanks to Cheney and the Supreme Court.

And lastly, lying Republicans. Yes, like they don't know how to do anything else. The senior Republican in the Senate yesterday again announced plans to defeat the healthcare reform bill, citing the lack of public support. Except every poll has shown the public wants healthcare reform and wants the public option.

It's that simple. We don't want the status quo which is causing 45 million people to be significantly underinsured or uninsured and causing another similar number to be less than fully insured, denied coverage for critical medical needs, or denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions.

But the truth has never stopped the Republicans on the healthcare debate. And some Democrats too, like Mr. Stupak and Nelson. They also lied whenever they spoke about it. It's not that they picked and choose what from the information or the polls, they simply lied or made things up. None of what they said was true.

But it's the Republicans in mass who are the biggest liars on this issue. Every time they stepped in front of the microphones or cameras. They're the answer to the often asked question, "How can you tell when someone it lying?" Their lips are moving.

And so goes the news in America. Not good but our ordinary lives continue.

Government is not Broken

2010-02-27T08:01:00.000-08:00

"Congress is broken." Many people's favorite words. But oh so wrong when you don't say what, why, when, who, etc. So to that I respond with the following.

Please distinguish what you mean. Government is the many agencies under the Executive Branch which provide you and America the products and services which enrichen your life. They are following the mandates and work specificed by Congress and with the funding also specificied by Congress in Appropriation bills.

So when you talk about how "government is broken", please specify what part of government you're talking about. Politicians and pundits love to bash "the government" when it's really Congress or the President they're bashing. There are nearly 4 million government employees, not counting the military forces (only DOD civilian employees) and millions more contract employees working under contracts or directly for the agencies.

They're not broken. They're just doing their job. I spent nearly 28 years (additional 4 in the USAF) and I can tell you, we weren't broken and they're not broken. I know the government employees are dedicated and hardworking. So they don't deserve your criticism, or worse, you anger, when you won't be specific as to what you're talking about a broken government.

And I won't argue with you about Congress. It's long been broken and is the worst example of good government, only an example of a corrupt government. But we elected them. On promises for our votes, which they knew were lies and know won't be done because they're bought and paid for by corporations and tutored by their lobbyists.

And it's not about wasteful spending. Those agencies, excluding the DOD and military spending, are only about 5% of the annual government budget. The rest are interest on the debt, entitlement programs, military spending (personnel and operations) and equipment (ships, planes, weapons, vehicles, etc.) purchases and the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Five percent. That's all what the agencies have for the year, allocated and defined by Congress. The agencies don't get to use the money outside the programs specificed by Congress. They don't have that luxury. So, arguing they're misspending money isn't true, they're spending what Congress mandated in the agencies' requests or with earmarks.

And to those pundits and politicians who want to dissovle the IRS, It would help the argument if you offer an alternative that works, and not simply argue against the IRS. We need to have taxes to make goverment work for the people, and that requires enforcing tax laws, which by the way aren't written by the IRS, but again, Congress. They write the laws, the IRS only write the administrative code and enforces the laws.

They're not the problem with the tax system, so venting against them is erroneous and wrong. And yes, I've met and known many in the IRS, and they're just like any other dedicated and hardworking government employee, doing their best within the rules set by Congress. Congress did this, not the IRS.

And if you abolish the IRS what will you propose in its place to ensure tax are being collected? You will need a government agency, so what don't you understand? If you're angry at the income tax system, it's not the IRS, again, it's Congress. Blame them, not the IRS for enforcing the laws Congress writes and passes.

If you don't like the tax laws, and some in Congress don't, you should know better than anyone, the problem is you. Yes, you're your own problem and your own enemy. Not a pretty picture huh? So, when I hear it from elected representatives, I only need to tell them to look in the mirror for the problem and the solution.

So, don't bitch about government unless you tell us what you're angry at and why, with factual information, and not political rhetoric or simply bullshit. I didn't spend a career to hear that crap from anyone.

It is time

2010-02-27T06:34:00.001-08:00

It's time the Democrats jettison the Republicans in the healthcare debate and pass the legislation the people ask them to pass. It's not their healthcare reform, it's the American people's healthcare reform and it's America's healthcare reform. It's that simple. And the Republicans have been and are being not only a roadblock, but simple deadend.

As a political analysist noted, the Republicans kept moving the compromise to the right, on the public option, on abortion, and on almost any issue in the healthcare legislation, to the right where the whole bill was to the right of center without a real public option or guarranteed coverage for every American. It's time this stopped.

The Democrats should politically say, diplomatically as possible, "Fuck the Republicans!"

Reconcilation has been used 22 times on healthcare legislation, 16 of those times by Republicans no less. They're now bitching about what they've used in the past and telling the Democrats they don't care about their view or vote. They pushed through what they wanted. They told the Democrats, "Go fuck yourself!"

The Republicans have used or threatened to use filibuster more times, several times more in fact, during this current Congressional session than any of the past sessions in the last 50 years, and it's the Republicans who have also used it far more times than the Democrats. The Republicans are the party of "No!"

No to the Democrats. No to Americans. And no to America. They simply don't care about the American people, or at least anyone not making a few hundred thousand dollar annual salary. They only care for corporations and the rich. The rest aren't worth anything beyond lying to get their vote, something they done very well.

They've sold themselves to us as the party to protect individual rights. Except it's not the rights of the poor and middle class they're protecting. It's the rich to be rich and become richer, leaving us standing in the line of losing, losing jobs, our family's healthcare, our homes, our savings and retirements, and our lives. But the rich are fine, thanks to the Republicans.

It's time the Democrats decided to stand up and do what they wanted in the first place. Fuck any compromise, it's not possible and whatever you could get from the Republicans will only allow them to stall the process and sell their political rhetoric, which is all lies. You know it and we know it.

So get on with the show and help the American people. Get some political balls and a backbone and get the work done. For the American people. Whatever it takes, we want it done.

A Totally Inept Congress

2010-02-24T07:14:00.000-08:00

Yes, we know they're not doing much beyond talking, blaming the other side for all the problems things aren't getting done in Congress, but two recent pieces of news really highlights the point that while it's been mostly the Republicans, it's really the Democrats who lack in conviction to do anything beyond pointing verbal fingers.

And this is true because? Well, on the Rachel Maddow, she listed the 290 bills in the Senate which have passed the House, many with strong Republican support, waiting for a vote. But because the Republicans are threatening to filibuster any, and really all, of the 290 bills, remember they're the party of no, the Democrats won't challenge them to filibuster, even those bills their own party in the House want passed.

The Democrats, under Harry Reid, are afraid. Pure and unadulterated fear. No backbone, no balls, no anything. They would rather show they're to blame than show who's really to blame. The answer is simple. Make the Republicans filibuster. Show the American people how ridiculus they really are and ask the American people, "Is this what you want?"

The Democrats are blowing the perfect 2010 campaign slogan, proving the incumbant Republicans are the party of "No!" and to elect the Democrat to get the work and business of this country's government done. It's what the American people want and deserve for all the money we're paying. And the Democrats are too afraid so they sit on their hands.

The Republicans have never stopped at showing the Democrats as fools when they controlled Congress. They always made the point who's to blame, not them but the Democrats. The Republicans have verbally bludgeoned the Democrats into submission under the Bush administration. And the Democrats never stood up, not even for themselves but to whimper.

And for that, they and Harry Reid deserves to lose in 2010. The Republicans only want to stop President Obama and the Democrats from doing anything, even things the Republicans want and would support, and have in the past proposed. They have proven and are showing we'll tolerate their bullshit rhetoric and their stall tactics. They're betting on it this fall. And they know the Democrats are too scared to challenge them, especially Harry Reid.

I hope the Democrats change, and maybe give Harry Reid some balls and a backbone. 290 bills are waiting his ok to go to the floor for a vote. And if the Republicans filibuster, so be it. We'll see it and understand, but until you do that Mr. Reid, we won't and we'll blame you and the Democrats for doing nothing.

On another note, the Republican healthcare plan. When you read it, or what's available, it's simple. It's more of the same and more promises to lower premiums, cover more people and reduce medical costs. All because the insurance companies will volunteer to do that. That's their plan and message. Trust the insurance companies.

Like we have been doing? Like we have 8-10% of American uninsured and another 8-10% underinsured? That's 30-40 million Americans. Like the cause of most personal or family bankruptcies for the last 10 years has been for medical bills? Like the Republicans had from 1994-2006 to fix it and they did nothing?

That's NOTHING. Except help the companies get richers, Americans get poorer, and all but the wealthy get worse health insurance at higher premiums. That's what they did. That's what got us here and all I hear and read from the Republicans is more of the same, help the companies get richer, we get poorer and get less insurance for higher premiums.

And that's healthcaare reform? Giving the insurance companies incentives, like tax cuts and exemptions, to promise to do better? They're some of the richest, most profitable companies in this country, and you think they'll really do what you ask them to promise?

Notice they're not promising anything. The Republicans are offering them incentives to promise.

In the end, it won't change anything beyond a few improvements, few for the American people, especially those 15-20% who can't afford insurance or can't afford decent insurance. The Republican plan won't guarrantee access to mandatory coverage (pre-existing conditions), won't guarrantee prohibitions for companies from cancelling coverage (excessive costs), and won't guarrantee minimium premium increases (anything, any amount).

That's their plan. And it's take it or leave it. They're selling it as the right of people to choice. What choice? What improved choices? What lower premiums? What? They won't spell it out. They won't guarrantee their plan will actually work. They won't promise solving the problem. They're only offering smoke and rhetoric.

Their answer is simple. Appear to do something but really do nothing. Just more of the same. And it's why they're threatening to filibuster any Democratic plan. And we get screwed. Tails they win, heads we lose. Tossing the coin doesn't matter. The Republicans control things and the Democrats won't challenge them.

So to Harry Reid, get some balls and a backbone or face the reality. The reality the American people really hate Democrats, and it will be your fault. Change the rules. It's doable and we want action and results. Nothing less anymore. We elected you, so do your damn job for us. For a change.

Ok, enough with Tiger Woods

2010-02-19T09:52:00.000-08:00

I'm am thoroughly fed up with all the news and mostly the hype around the news about Tiger Woods. There is no question the guy has issues of monogamy and about his choice of women, but it's his and not anyone else's issue or problem. So let's let him be and get back to his life and career.

Remember if we want to shine a light and even condemn him for his infedities, then let's not forget other famous people with equally the same issue, or problem if you're against him on this (I'm not). Say President Kennedy? Or more so any number of politicians, celebrities and other athletes. Let's get real here ok?

Real is meaning it's an issue between him and his wife and family. It's their life, and marriage, and no one else has the right to judge or say anything critical. Lest ye expect the spotlight to shine on you and your private life. Care for that? No? well, then shut up about Tiger Woods.

And please to all the news shows, especially ESPN, it's not news until it's news. They spent countless hours talking, and all speculation, with numerous news and sports analysists and pundits, talking about what Tiger Woods might say and what effect or impact it will have on his life and career.

To that I turned off ESPN and say, "Who cares?" All those hours isn't news, but pure speculation and mostly bullshit disguised and opinion. It's not worth listening to. Let's wait until he actually speaks and then talk about what he said, not around it or about what it means, but simply what he actually says.

In other words, focus on the news and nothing more. Or if not, you've lost one viewer, at least until you stop talking about the news and actually report it. Gee, that would be refreshing for a change.

Floating into Oblivion

2010-02-15T16:18:00.000-08:00

After rereading the last post, "Uncertain Future", I have to say, that's still the view from here. I still read the newspapers, both on-line and print, still listen to my local NPR station and occasionally watch a few TV news shows, like the Rachel Maddow show, the PBS News Hour, etc., but a lot of my energy, and really anger, is fading away.

You see anger rules my interest to post opinions on the news. I still add a few columns on my photography column (in list of blogs on the right of this Web page - see the JMO prefix for "Just My Opinion"). But the my current health problems and the drugs I'm taking are dampening a lot of my spirit to write about the news. It takes a lot of energy just to exist right now, let alone doing anything and especially being angry at the world.

I'm still mentally angry, but it's becoming more and more disappointment why people just don't understand what it's about. Like Congress and especially the Republicans for being assholes with the most filibusters during President Obama's short administration than since the 1950's. It's assinine for them to think we think they're doing the right thing.

But that's another issue, the divisiveness in the country today. Everyone, from the far left to especially the far conservative and religious right. Humanness, understanding, deceny, negotiation, compromise, and so on down the list of being human has disappeared from the political discussion and landscape. Everyone is yelling and no one is listening.

Adding another angry voice isn't helping and only making me feel worse. And I'm tired of that. I'm working to find a way to get and feel better, and get back to doing what I love. And being angry only takes away from the focus and work. It still won't stop me from voicing my view and opinion, only less often.

And so, I still don't know where this blog will go. I have six other blogs, a Website, my photography, my Mt. Rainier NP photography and history projects, and my life to work on. Here is just a distraction I need to wander away from and only come back occasionally, probably monthly.

Until then, I'm still here, but you can visit less often and more with my other blogs (see my profile). Take care and practice being human being. Please.

Uncertain Future

2010-01-11T07:12:00.000-08:00

I've found the vacation busy and kinda' nice from this blog (but not my other ones, just check my profile), because I didn't have to rant or vent about the news of the day. I did subscribe to the New York Times' daily reader service which delivers the daily paper to your computer. It's different than the other papers because this one is the complete daily with all the stores and images along with additional news updates, photos and videos. You can also go back 7 days if you miss an issue.

It requires both Adobe Air and their software application, but it's quick to install and use. And it's only $0.50 per day. That's a bargain considering the print edition is $2 for daily and $6 for the Sunday edition. I still buy some print editions to take places and I love the Sunday edition to spread out with breakfast. I wish the other papers had a similar product, because I see this as a future choice for readers.

The others require you to use their subscription Website for the electronic version. That's reasonable for now if you want to navigate through their Web pages. What some readers want, however, isn't going but getting and reading. They want their personal copy delivered in a simple, readable format, not unlike the print edition or better and easier.

The NY Times does this while all the others have very cluttered and distracting Web pages, even for subscribers. They do this to get your information under the guise of the "on-line" experience, except that subscription services, whether it's RSS or e-mail signups which delivers the links or stores, is only one way the future for now, but they don't give you the overall snapshot a daily paper does.

But I digress from the purpose of this post. It's namely that I don't see posting here except every now and then for awhile. I'm long behind on the Mt. Rainier photo guide and history projects and long behind on a number of other tasks, on the Website, with my photography and in my life. There simply isn't enough time anymore for all it, and much of the work is collected in corner and gathering dust.

I will, however pop in now and then just to add a post or two about some interesting stories in the news. In short, I won't disappear, just appearing somewhere else.

On vacation

2009-12-23T06:09:00.000-08:00

As you can see I haven't posted here since November 16th of this year (2009). Well, I still read the newspapers and articles, listen to NPR radio shows and watch documentaries. I just didn't find enough anger to write here. I went in other directions, which you can see here about the healthcare reform, or lack of it, legislation going through Congress.

We will get some reform, whatever they want to call it to put a positive spin on it for our votes. But I'm not convinced it's good reform because I know my premiums won't go down and my coverage won't improve. So what's reform there? Anyway, that's not the point here, but simply I choose to take a break from being angry at the news of the world and the people reporting it to enjoy winter.

It's that simple, give the mind a rest to find some semblence of peace within the larger world of chaos. So in my little corner, the anger will be minimized. Not the obscure perspective of the news, nor the out of the box or off-hand idea about the news, just the words on the screen. It's time to do as I wish for everyone. Have a good holiday season.

News of the Day

2009-11-16T05:08:00.000-08:00

Monday newspapers are the slimest of papers of the week except for Saturday's paper, which often doesn't even line a bird cage. And the publishers have the audacity to charge $.75 to 2.00 for a copy. Those are the days I read the on-line version, and as long as they offer it for free, I'll oblige them.

I expect sometime in the future we'll have to pay for the daily on-line version. The ads don't generate the revenue to pay for the Web people and rights to redistribute the news of other papers and organizations (or I've read). So subscription services are the route they're going, like the Wall Street Journal does now and the New York Times has their reader service.

Anyway, for now it's free. And what is interesting?

For one, the health insurance, healthcare industry and drug companies are raising prices ahead of the healthcare reform legislation in Congress. Since the wrote much of the bill and many of the amendments for the members of Congress, they already know what's in it. So we get screwed now and we'll be screwed next year too.

Why doesn't this seem unusual? They've bought and they own Congress. They write the bills and amendments, supply the data, even provide the specialists to supprt their view. They write the speeches of the members of Congress (yes, noted in the NY Times Sunday they write portions of speeches which are used my many members of Congress - so much for original thought by our elected officials).

They know they can get away with this because no one will challenge them and we have little if any choice to find another healtcare provider and insurance company. In some states, a few providers insure most and some cases approaching all of the people of the state. It's borders on if not actually a monoply. But Congress isn't addressing that. They arguing the edges over immigrants and abortion.

They'd rather push aside the real issues and problems, and then propose and support real reform, and push the lesser, but poltiically hot issue of immigrants and abortion. These are important isssues, as we've seen the amendments to virtually eliminate health insurance for abortion under any plan. And the truth is, we still have to treat people, regardless of their status, so you can pay through premiums or pay through taxes and rates.

They, Congress, know they can't take on the industry and companies without risking losing their financial support and face the opposition the industry and companies would support in any election. They'd rather save their butt and job than the people of this country. How misplaced is that? They take an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend this nation, and all it seems they do is protect and promote corporations and industries.

Anyway, I don't know about you, but thinking through the healthcare issues, my brain is tired. And yes, I still read more news of the day, but these two prompted words of dismay and disgust. I'm ready to just bail on the healthcare reform and propose Congress just drop it. They won't solve the problem, and likely add to it, and they won't reduce costs or premiums, as we've already seen.

So, maybe it's time to set it aside for year or so and come back with a better plan, one which works than one which is political. But that's not going to happen as the Democrats want the bill for votes next year and the Republicans want it for votes next year too. One will pass it for votes and the other oppose it for votes.

That's Congress for you. Fuck the public and the people. Just get the votes to stay in power or get power back. And don't lose your lobby money from corporations and industries.

What do...

2009-11-14T14:22:00.000-08:00

What do large format photographers looking through their cameras have in common with the politicians in Congress?

The both see the world upside down and backwards.

[Hint.--If you don't get the joke, when large format photographers view the images through the ground glass at the back of the camera, the image is upside down and backwards. It's the same for all cameras, as SLR, film and digital, cameras capture the image the same way but correct it to the viewfinder (prism) or LCD (software).]

So more? Or not.

So, what does the healthcare and health insurance reform bill in Congress and icing on a cake on half-baked cake have in common?

They both look good but the underneath nothing changes and both are still bad and expensive, one for your waist and the other for your wallet.

[Note.--All the healthcare reform bill will do is change the window dressing and still not address, let alone solve, the underlying problems and issues in our nation's healthcare and health insurance system. That requires a paradigm shift and a major restructure and reorganization, neither of which Congress has the balls to sell the American publc because it threatens the money all of them get from the health insurance lobby.]

What do facts and opinon from the mouths of pundits and talking heads have in common?

Nothing. They're mutually exclusive and never right.

[Note.--More often than not pundits mistake opinion for fact or assume incorrect or inaccurate facts to espouse an opinion. And yes, this is my opinion too.]

Freedom of Religion

2009-10-27T17:02:00.000-07:00

I was reading the newsstory in the New York Time about the high school in Georgia which introduced Chrisitan messages in the football games after 9/11. Recently the school district had to abandon that practice when threatened with a lawsuit about the separation of church and state, in this case, school sponsored activities which included football games.

Well, for one those kids misunderstood 9/11. It wasn't about religion. It was about the global economic power of some countries exemplified by the World Trade Center. Remember people from about 100 nations died, not just Americans. While espousing your religion for 9/11 is ok, it's incorrect and inaccurate to phrase the attack in terms of religion.

But that's a different issue. I want to talk about this example of where Christians view their faith and religion as the only religion in this country and to them the freedom of religion as embodied in the Constitution isn't about true freedom of religion but the Christian interpretation and values they think it represents.

And they couldn't be further from the truth. This country wasn't founded on Christian values but the freedom of religion to practice their faith not allowed in Europe. The Christian idea came later, but even then the founders of this country knew, even those they were Christians, that freedom of religion was fundamental. Any religion or faith.

The story made me wonder if someone held of a sign at the football game that read, "Freedom of Religion, Be a Taoist" would they let me stay and display the sign? Or Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, or whatever? Would they say that's my right and freedom of religion?

After all God is God, each reilgion defines it differently but it's still God. And if we question the existence of a God or more so, deny the existence of God, is that not our freedom too? Isn't that in the Constituion?

When these people focus on their Christianity, I think they have misplaced their sense of America and American values about all of us. It's not about just being Christian, but the freedom to choose and express our religion, whatever that is. That's what this country is about.

And Christians, of all faiths, should honor that, the right to choose and the acceptance of that choice. Or do they say non-Christians are real and don't believe in God? That's not what God and especially Jesus preached. That's not what's in the Bible, ot hate everyone you disagree with? That's not being Christian, but quite the opposite.

They need to relearn history, civics and Christian values, correct this time.

Excuse me Mr. Cheney

2009-10-23T05:10:00.000-07:00

I was reading of the speeches Dick Cheney, you know the former Vice President who sunk this nation into wars in two countries, one misunderstanding the facts, truth and reality behind 9/11 and one for his interest to promote the company (Haliburton) which he was CEO and refused to put his wealth in a trust during is terms in office essentially collecting his salary and the dividends from the company.

That Mr. Cheney, who with Mr. Bush, had 7 years to win the war in Afghanistan and didn't. He, as he criticizes President Obama for, "dithered" away time thinking about decisions, procrasting problems, and diverting resources, some of which were solely designated by Congress for Afghanistan, to Iraq. He fucked and sucked the war for 7 years, leaving a mess we can't fix.

That Mr. Cheney, who after leaving office is spreading unfounded and unnecesary fear about our effort there and now the effort in Iraq, which he hasn't noted that it's President Obama who is working to leave the country with a minimum force and bring the troops home, something he promised but didn't do.

That Mr.Cheney, who as VP, kept promising victory and never produced anything more than more deaths, injured and destruction. And a whole lot of money and profit for war companies. You see, he only wanted Haliburtion to get access to the oil fields and the natural gas pipleline which was supposed to be built through Iraq. He wasn't for America, for Americans, for the troops. He was only out for himself.

That Mr. Cheney, who is bitching now to anyone who will listen, for a fee of course. But no one wants to listen to him. We know the truth and the lies behing the White House decisions and marketing of the Iraq war, and he was the driving force. We know his attitude about the law, which he believed he was above and not accountable under it or to the American people. He was simply arrogant and wanted to create a presidential dictatorship.

That Mr. Cheney, who should find the nearest rock big enough to hide is sorry ass and hide. You had 7 years to find Osama bin Laden and you couldn't. You had 7 years to win the war in Afghanistan and you didn't. And now you don't have the right to second guess the President who is really trying to win the war in Afghanistan.

That Mr. Cheney. Excuse me Mr. Cheney, your taxi is waiting. Goodbye and don't call us, we'll call you, but then we don't know the number.

Congressional absurdity

2009-10-22T11:52:00.000-07:00

I was reading Congress wants to pass the funding to provide the 57 million receipents of Social Security a one-time $250 check after announcing there will be no cost of living increase in the benefit entitlement for 2010, which is similar to federal government retirees not getting any increase too. All the while health insurance will go up 9-15% fro the same retirees. Talk about being screwed on both ends of the deal.

Anyway, almost all the Republicans and many conservative Democrats are balking at the one-time payout to the elderly, veterans and disabled, because it "would unduly increase the defiict by $13 Billion." Wow, like that's a lot of money too. But compared to the various government Stimulus plans for well over $2 Trillion ($1,000 Billion), and two wars now at $1 Trillion, and the Bush tax cuts (losing about $1 Trillion in revenue), and so on down the line.

That $13 Billion is chump change. And do they really want to piss off 57 million voters more than they are already pissed off losing money next year with not cost of living increase while the cost of everything goes up? Are they really that stupid? Well, apparently so, but I'll be damned if they find a way to explain it away during next year's re-election campaign.

And you can bet when it does come up for a vote in each house, there will be score keepers for the elderly noting who votes no. After all, those in Congress are already rich, so they're not worried about their income or retirment, only the idea of the taxpayers' money, except it's our money and we'd like to see it back in our pocket.

So, dear Congressional representatives, you have a choice. Be smart or be stupid, and if you can't figure out which is which, maybe you deserve to lose next year. So, if you're stupid and don't know the diference or stupid enough to vote no, then maybe you should try to live on the income of those who elected you for awhile, like the rest of your life. And then see how you would vote.

Thought police

2009-10-22T05:55:00.000-07:00

I was reading the latest news on the work of hte FBI against terrorists and the latest arrest of individuals in a "terrorist" cell, see news story. I don't know of the facts of this case, but it strikes me like all the rest of the one the FBI has done, meaning in the end, it was all thought and worse the defedants were convicted of were criminal charges, except the blanket one, "providing material support to terrorists", which is so vague anyone could be convicted for accidently talking with a suspected terrorists.

I won't argue there is some truth in the indictment, but why is it that only Arab men are charged by the FBI with terrorism and their case made public? Where are the terrorism arrests and cases against non-Arab men? Why does the FBI use the word of Arab informants against those same terrorists, even members of their own group?

What terrorists can't tell the truth but informants can't lie?

Why does this make the FBI seem more and more like the thought police? Hollywood can make movies on terrorism, even hiring ex-FBI agents as consultants and disclose a lot of information about the infrastructure for real terrorists to use. Writers can published even move explicit books on terrorism and terrorists in this country. They can write the most elaborate plan and show how to make it work.

But a 16-year old high school student who was a legal immigrant, and by the way from Pakistan, was asked to write a story about a woman suicide bomber by her high school teacher. After the story was submitted another teacher found it and reported her to the FBI. She was deported, even though the evidence was on her side and it was just fiction. It was the fact her family was from Pakistan, obviously a known terrorist home, even for high school students here.

But a bunch, er. terrorist cell. of bumbling Arab men, almost always encouraged, trained, funded, arm, lead, etc. by undercover FBI agents, and suddenly their arrested for planning to attack America. Is the FBI saying our security system and the their "targets" are so lax that these guys could actually carry out their plan?

And what happened to just thinking out loud? If a gang of white guys took over a mall, as they alleged this Arabs of planing, would the FBI have called them terrorists and treated them the same as Arab men? Why don't I think they wouldn't, and they would just be called criminals?

If a fiction writer were to write the story of the FBI's terrorist sting operations, we would consider it absurd in the least, and comical in the worst. I'm all for the FBI, but I'm also all for keeping them honest, and more and more it seems they're focusing on arresting racial or ethnic groups for simply thinking and talking, much the same as we do or could, but the FBI considers them terrorists, but not us.

I would rather see the FBI work on catching real terrorists than creating them or inventing cases against them. In this country we're supposed to do something before it's a crime, but for Arab men, it's all about the thought of it. Conspiracy does have legal value in many cases, as we've all seen in the news. But with terrorism and Arab men, the FBI seems to have lost their common sense and their touch with reality.

But then again, I'm just thinking out loud again, and probably more wrong than right, but in this country, thinking and talking isn't a crime, unless of course something criminal actually happen using the information from those words, except of course if it's obviously just thoughts and talk, something the FBI seems to lose sight of these days.

The public option

2009-10-20T05:24:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post reported today that the majority of Americans, you know the voters and taxpayers, want a public option overseen by the government, and a very clear majority want a simplified one for the underinsured and uninsured run the the states. And we're the one who elected the representatives in Congress and pay for the appropriation bills they pass and the President signs.

So, Congress what don't you understand? Your 500+ amendment bill to date should either scraped and rewritten or should be drastically revised. We have spoken. We want you to do what we want and not what the corporations who give you a lot of money want. It's not about them, it's about us, the American people.

We also want to you ensure no insurance can deny or reduce coverage for anyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, to cancel anyone insurance because their healthcare is costly, extensive or long. In short, the companies can only provide the insurance and premiums and let the people decide. It should be a market where there is choice, not empty promises and increasing costs and prices.

And once the person is enrolled with a health insurance company they should have rights to ensure their coverage won't be cancelled, won't be denied, the premiums won't be increased different than others (essentially driving them out of the company), and the company won't change coverage more than once a year. And they want a independent process to address denials of coverage, premiums increase above the cost of living or within reasonable expectation, and complaints with undue lengthy claim processing.

That's not unreasonable and would be allow the insurance companies to profit.

There ways to simplify the healthcare reform bill. You don't need a lot of pages. You don't need 500+ amendments. You simply provide the language with define what people can expect for their insurance and from insurance companies, and the basic framework health insurance companies have to work under to offer insurance in this country. Many states are already doing this with insurance (oversight) committees and commissioner(s).

It's not unreasonable to expect the federal government to set a minimum national standard and provide rights and protections for the insured and incentives for the companies to follow the rules and be reasonably profitable. All you have to do is simplify the bill to the minimum and restrict anything beyond it without authorization from Congress.

That's not rocket science. And it's not politics. It's about the American people and American families. Nothing less will do.

Nothing really changes

2009-10-18T04:27:00.000-07:00

Reading the Sunday newspapers, it's why nothing really changes and all we get from Washington DC is more of the same. The same politics, the same rhetoric, the same partisanism, and now the same non-public transparency, or really the same closed door, private meetings between the President, and his staff, and members of Congress. The last thing they want the American public to know is the truth of what they're doing.

We've seen this from President Obama on terrorism, just more of the same Bush policies rewritten to sound less offensive to the public and the world, but really the continuation of the past of American arrogance and indifference to the world's view of us. And forget the Geneva Convention. Yes, he has promised to close the CIA secret prisons, and close Gitmo, and treat those "captured"in war, meaning captured or kidnapped elswhere and not the actual battlefield let alone the war zone, under the rule of law.

But then he had to appease the right wing conservatives and still call and treat them as terrorists. Yet, only about 10-15% are actually terrorists and most of those are incidental players, and only about 2-3% are real serious terrorists. And now we can fnd homes for them anywhere else. They're branded and they lives gone, and what do we have to show for it. Nothing, but then we already knew that, it was all show.

And now we're seeing the President shelve his public transparency idea and negotiate a healthcare reform bill behind closed doors. In an effort to get a bill, they'll produce a bad bill before they decide to call it quits. And then praise themselves for saving healthcare and health insurance. Ok, some of it will be good, but I'll bet starting in 2-3 years the problems and failures of any bill will become apparent.

And in 3-5 years will have to revisit the issue and nothing will have changed and some things, premiums for example and the number of under insured and uninsured for another, will have gotten worse. And the cost of healthcare will still rise as it always has. There are good models to use, the state of Hawaii for example and Europe for another. But that's socialism to the Republicans and many Democrats.

It's better, cheaper and provide more healthcare to more people without losing the benefits for all. It works. But the President won't begin to talk about real solutions for healthcare, insurance and costs because it would offend almost every Republican and some Democrats. It's not about the American people, what's best for them, and about the Nation, what's good for it, but about politics and money, money for corporations.

And we know now the healthcare industry and health insurance companies are already prepared for healthcare and health insurance reform, after all they know everything in it already. It's why they own Congress, to ensure they're not only not hurt but they continue to profit and now profit more with our money, our taxes paid in subsidies, offsets, etc. and our premiums. We've seen they've already raised premiums ahead of any law.

And in the end the American public we'll get screwed, because I'll bet they'll still find a way to deny healthcare and health insurance for many people around the law requiring them to accept everyone and cover everything. They're smarter and quicker than Congress and obvious way smarter than the President. They don't have to play politics and they're not answerable if Congress doesn't want.

It will be dumped on the states, where many are proactive and vigilant with the health insurance carriers. While Congress and the Presiden tout their success, will have to live with their failures.

And we we've seen it with President Obama's push to renew the Patriot Act, preferably as it was which was worse than the first one. He's learned you don't give up power once you have it, no matter how you got it, illegally or through Congress. It's power over the American people, total intrusion into our lives and even our privacy. He wants to keep that except he can't prove it's worked in the past, is necessary and will work in the future.

He's learned you sing the song of terrorism and fear. You make the American public afraid. George Bush, er. Cheney, learned this, something we've never done. We've always stood tall and defied any enemy. And now we're afraid of small groups of terrorists. Becuase they succeeded once.

It didn't matter we helped cause this with a free and degegulated airline industry, a lax FBI which had all the information, and even a lax White House who also had all the information and warnings. It was citizens which brought down the fourth plane, not law enforcement, the military or the system. Ordinary people.

And now he's reniging on helping retirees. He said no increase in Social Security next year. And at best only a 2% and mabye a 0% increase in federal employees annuity. All the while health insurance for the former will increase before the new year for those the Medicare supplemental insurance and will increase 9-12% for federal retirees. And the normal cost of living increases over the year (2010) and we lose somewhere between 15-20% in real money.

They say it's because of the deficit. Bullshit. It's because Congress and the President has added $3-4 Trillion to the national debt for everything else, and mostly corporations and companies in various stimulus packages. And yet the won't extend unemployment benefits for the same reason. The deficit.

Add the Bush tax cuts and the American people are on the hook for $5-6 Trillion in the last few years on top of the previous national debt. But help those same people. Not in their plans, except maybe in a year to help their re-election. Well I got news for them. They screwed themselves there.

We'll remember this year and what they did. We'll remember nothing really changed despite all their words and promises. We'll remember they left us along side the road over our homes, our health insurance, our jobs, our expenses. and everything else in our lives. All the while corporations got richer and CEO and managers richer still.

We'll remember that. And we'll vote what we remember.

Healthcare Reform

2009-10-16T05:27:00.000-07:00

I listened to and read some news stories and the typical pundits yesterday about the current state of the healthcare reform legislation. And granted there are several bills in the Senate and House, each which have to be combined and reconciled for a floor vote. And then the two different versions will be negotiated in the conference commitee. All this before President Obama gets to peek under the covers of the bill.

I have no doubt the White House knows the bills and all the amendments. But here is where I part company with the President and Congress now. There has been so much noise about this work, it's time to do one of two things. First, trim them down to the minimalist measures which focuses on the greatest needs of the healthcare problem. Or second, just let it go. Dump it all in the history trash can and walk away for a few years.

This is a case where hindsight may prove the better choice here. And yes, the problem will worsen, but it doesn't mean Congress can't address some of those with selected legislation. I say this because the bill will be so bloated and convulted no one will really knows what it means and what the impact will be, and we know it will take another 2-3 years to implement all the measures in the bill.

So, it's time to just quit. Right now. Congress has managed to piss off everyone, now including myself who, blindly, thought my health insurance was immune from change beyond what it normally does. But I learned it's now open to massive changes which will make it more expensive and give insurance companies complete control over it and even deny or cancel it. I want it kept within the oversight of the program's government agency.

If anything in the bill touches it, I will lose. And I don't want that. And I know most Americans are already afraid the same will happen to their health insurance, which we're already seeing as companies raise rates and change coverage in anticipation of new rules and mandates. They're smarter and quicker than Congress.

So, it's time to just quit. Right now. And not inflict more and worse damage on the American people who already have health insurance. As for the underinsured and uninsured, maybe Congress can find new ways and new programs to help, but not at the risk of any existing programs or plans. Focus on that, and they'll be fine.

It's time to focus on more important matters. And to President Obama, you have another three-plus years to get healthcare reform, relax you have time and you won't risk the 2010 elections for the Democrats and your 2012 re-election campaign so early in your term of office.

So, to Congress, just quit. Box it all up and put it in some warehouse as a memory of something tried and lessons learned. That's because no bill is better than a bad bill. You've been down that road too often, and this one will certainly piss of everyone. This way you can try again with the advantage of hindsight.

Dear Democrats

2009-10-15T05:01:00.000-07:00

Alas, with the work on healthcare and health insurance reform you have shown your true colors. And we're finding you're really not much different from the Republicans in that in the end you really don't care about the American people, us ordinary folks living normal lives trying to survive and just maybe, ever so slowly, prosper. We had hints with the various stimulus packages aimed at, and reeally for, the financial industry, the mortage industry, and a host of companies. All as you said, to help the economy and save or create jobs.

Except it hasn't and it won't do much for real people for awhile, but it will make the industries very rich and profitable. Yes, you're a Republican in Democratic clothes. Some of the financial companies are making real profits because we, the taxpayer through your efforts, bought their toxic assests and debts. We now will lose that money instead of them. All thanks to you.

And you helped the mortage industry stay afloat and now profit but you haven't really helped the home owner outside of a few laws you think would protect their home, but really ensure the loan industry isn't burdened with a glut of foreclosed homes from failed mortages and bankrupcies. You didn't give the home buyer enough rights to stand on their own but you gave the mortage industry the power to continue, and even profit, financially.

And now we expect something different over healthcare reform? So how many companies in the healthcare and health insurance industry have contributed to your campaigns and continue to provide information and financial support through lobbyists?

And how much have the given you to ensure you won't screw them and even make the profitable?

How many times have you met and talked with their lobbyists?

How many times have to asked them or presented draft amendments to them to review for inclusion under your name?

How many times have you accepted their information as fact to support your view, which is really their view and not asked nonpartician organizations for the same treatment?

Huh? Or is this off-limits to the public to know how much you're in their pocket despite the fact we elected you?

Cruel or harsh? Probably? Truthful? Some and maybe even much. But the fact remains, in the end, it's the individual and family who will have to pay the price and premium, and there is no study to date which has addressed healthcare and health insurance reform that even suggests our costs will at best stay level and our coverage will improve.

All you talk about is money. But not our money, the budget we live on every month.

And now I know where you stand on government employees, especially retirees. You are freezing our annual cola while our insturance premiums will go up 9-12% in January 2010. Is that what you call support? Is that what you say will help us?

And now I know you're planning to undo the Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB) plan and program. It is the best model for other plans but you decided we should be the sacrificial lamb for the public option. That's sucks and you know. It screws us while making political gain for you.

Why? Because your staff, which is currently covered under FEHB as federal employess, wants to have the same health insurance when they leave, but will lose this coverage since they won't be federal employees. So to help a few thousand staffers you're going to screw 8+ million active and retired permanent federal employees and our health insurance.

So, what does it all mean? Well, to me, I guarantee you that if anything in the healthcare reform act touches the FEHB I will quit being a Democrat, something I've been for about 40 years. I won't go Republican on you, but you can bet I will work against everything you do, every Senator and Representative who voted for the Act, and make a lot of noise about your lack of support of and for Americans.

You can bet on that, because You screw with my health insurance and I will let you and everyone who will listen what you did. I have to live with my health insurance and plan, and pay the premiums for the rest of my life, barring you undo it so much they deny or remove me for some reason or another or price themselves out of my range.

You don't have the worry. You can afford any plan and program you want. You get the best healthcare for being in Congress. And we have to live with what we can afford and choose. And if you make it worse, I hope you lose your next election, because you can bet I'll speak out against you. I won't support your opponent, but you won't have me to pander to for money, support and my vote.

And yes, I'm just one person, one voice and one vote, little to fear from or about me. But I can try. And I will tell the world what you really are and are for. And that's not for America or American, just your wallet. So that's the deal, fuck with the FEHB and I'll raise my voice against you.

Republican good ideas

2009-10-05T07:13:00.000-07:00

Kinda' an oxymoron in many ways. Don't worry, the Democrats are about the same with many of their ideas, except at least sometimes they have their heart in the right place. And there are some good Republicans, but you'll have to give me a minute to think of some. Kidding again. My point here?

The Republicans have long lauded the free marketplace as the answer to everything. The great idea of capitalism. Except it's not free and it's certainly isn't unimeded capitalism. But to the Republicans in Congress offering healthcare reform packages without any public or similar option citing the advantages of the healthcare industry and corporations to solve the problem, I have a response.

The very same free market is what got us here now. It's what created the healthcare mess and what has given American the most expense healthcare system in the world for less than good performance. When you maximize profit in the name of workers, patients, care, costs, etc, then you get what you expect, what we have now.

So you think a better market will induce the corporations to be noble and humane? Well, we're not stupid. They won't change and in fact, they've bought almost every member of the Senate to ensure they'll not only survive, but profit more, even with more government money helping. You know that and don't want to admit it.

And so now you ask us to trust you with a market-based healthcare reform package you "guarrantee" will work, except you can't guarrantee every American and every American family will have good affordable health insurance. Can you do that? Do you really expect the health insurance companies to do that?

Or have you quietly snuck in provisions pushing them to what they use now, public assistance and hospitals mandated to provide healthcare for uninsured? That's your idea of the market at work, jettison the underinsured and uninsured to us, the taxpayer, which you can then criticize for not working let alone being profitable?

The public has heard nothing but fear mongering from you about the public option being a socialist government takeover the healthcare system. You knew then and know now that's false and you're wrong. And you failed to note Canada and every major country in Europe has public healthcare which works as well if not better than ours. You knew then and know now that's true.

And yet you kept the fear mongering up, scaring Americans, especially the elderly on Medicare, they'll lose their coverage to a government bureaucrat, like they already have with Medicare. And you have proposed cuts to Medicare at the same time. Talk about speaking out of both side your mouth. You lied on both sides.

So, do you really have good ideas or just what the healthcare industry and corporations tell you are good ideas? Do you really want to know what it's like for many Americans, now about 20+% of them who are under insured or worse uninsured and forced to use emergency rooms and public assistance programs?

Maybe you should live like they do and face the same issues and problems? After all you have an excellent affordable government-assisted paid health insurance. Or do you forget to mention that in your message? You get what you criticize and don't want Americans to have.

And we're expected to believe anything you say?

On-line Newspapers

2009-10-01T14:39:00.000-07:00

What's with them? Ok, I read a few of them, namely because either I'm too lazy to buy or subscribe to the paper every day or because they're not available locally. I know I've ranted or vented before about them, but the local, Tacoma and Seattle, ones (3, Tacoma News Tribune, Seattle PI and Seattle Times), really suck. I don't mean kinda' suck, but really suck, pure visual overkill.

It's like they're addicted to filling every space and more on a Web page with something, some news story, images, ads, etc., and they're long, The Seattle Times is 5+ page (1024 length x 900 width) scrolls of stuff, and the other two are 3+ page scrolls of stuff. Give the reader a break. It's like they want you to take up residence on the home page for hours or something, reading and following all the links.

But the problem is that 80-90% of the news is repackaged news from other sources. None of the three have reporters beyond the Puget Sound excepting some in New York or DC, but mostly travelling there. The Seattle PI simply shut down all news operations except local and state news when they went to an non-paper on-line format after closing down.

So what are they good for? Well, local news, government, events, arts, sports, etc., the stuff you expect. After that, they're a waste of time and space when you can get the news from the source or from better news Websites. And the sad reality is that none do what I expect, offer a daily version with just the news duplicated in the print edition. All major newspapers do it except USA Today, and that's another rant.

So it's impossible to sort out what really news, like today, or just something kept on-line. It's why it's called a daily newspaper, like they can't duplicate that with the links to the stories. The New York Times and Washington Post do it for free (probably subscription in the future like the Wall Street Journal). Those on-line papers are clear and easy to navigate and read both today's news and sections.

But the local ones just want to bludgeon your eyes and mind to death. No wonder Google has a good customer base for the daily alert e-mails for specific searches. I use it for "Mount Rainier National Park" and get through all the hype, crap and junk of the on-line newspapers. Try searching that on their Websites every day. Whew!!

Anyway, I'm done, and more or less done with them, unless it's a specific topic or issue. Otherwise, I'll buy the daily paper, maybe. Ok, Sundays for sure, but then that issue is geting sparse for the price. And some of the other days are only worth it for the pullout section.

And if they bitch about losing customers, so be it (although the Seattle Times is now profitable when it picked up half the former PI readers by picking up some of their sections and comics and moving to the center right instead of middle to far right editorially). It's not hard noticing the print editions are half their size a year or so ago and costing half gain more.

I'm waiting for the day they all go to non-paper on-line only versions with subscription. It's the model that seems to work for those who use it (eg. Wall Street Journal). It's about the repeat customer, you want them coming back and you want new customers. That takes reinvention and innovation, obviously lacking with the local on-line newspapers.

You have to create some degree of uniqueness which the customer wants. It's why the Christian Science Monitor and Wall Street Journal have additional services for a subscription. And you have to create ease of navigation, both reading and searching the Website. What good is a newspaper you can't find the news?

So, while I may read the print edition of the Seattle Times once or twice a week, they, and the new on-line only Seattle PI, can park their Websites as far as I'm concerned. I'll get my news from the other newspapers and use Google's news search engine.

Dear Senators

2009-09-30T04:56:00.000-07:00

To the Democratic Senators who aren't for the public option with the healthcare reform work. What don't you understand? I don't get it. You get low cost health insurance under a federally managed program, just I as do and the 8 or so million of active and retired federal employees. That federally managed program covers every member of Congress and all their staff.

And yet you don't complain about the coverage or the rates. So, you don't want Americans, now estimtated at 10-15 million who are uninsured and that many again who are under insured, and those are conservative figures, to have a similar option as you? What don't you understand about being hypocritical?

So far, you're doing a great job undermining American's confidence in you to represent them. Apparently you really don't want healthcare reform, only the appearance of it to get re-elected. You don't care about the millions of Amerian families who have gone bankrupt from huge medical bills. You don't care about providing even the minimum healthcare for families with income near or below the poverty line.

So what do you want besides votes? Or is it the lobby money you get from the heathlcare industry and health insurance companies? You feel you owe them more than you owe Americans? Who pays your salary? Who are you supposed to represent? Like the American people?

I'm one with a decent affordable health insurance plan, but I also know any severe accident, illness or disease will also bankrupt me very quickly. For the most part I'm relatively safe now, but I want health insurance for everyone, especially familes and more so children. It's about what's best for America and the American people.

But apparently you don't see that, only the industries who write you checks. You have the power to change the course of healthcare in this country for a long time, for the better, for everyone, and best of all for America. And all I see is you tinkering with the edges, trusthing the same private market which got us here to the mess we're in. And you still don't see that.

Well, either you're intentionally blind or ignorant, or both. The 20% of Americans who need affordable insurance won't get it under any plan you've proposed without a public option to make health insurance affordable and healthcare adequate. Otherwise, we'll continue the problem in the future and in 8-12 years revisit it, citing the failures of your work now.

So, if that's whay you want, go ahead and screw the American people. Or you can stop being assholes and do what's right.

Notes from the news

2009-09-21T06:05:00.000-07:00

It's Monday, I read the on-line newspapers, usually 3-5 depending on the time. I noticed it's faster to read the on-line daily paper because of the format. There's no pages to turn with the big spread and ads, and yes, I like it. I'm a traditionalist about newspapers, or a curmudgeon to some. I like spreading the paper out with coffee and maybe a snack or meal, and looking at every page and reading the interesting stuff and news, and yes, reading the ads.

The on-line ones aren't necessarily easier to scan because you're reading differently and hoping the headline catches your eye and really does encaptulate the article to go to that Web page. And back and forth you go, the main Web page to the articles or to the section and then the articles. Equally efficient, and different, but not more enjoyable for me. But I'm learning.

Anyway, I diverged so on with the notes from the news, or as I see them.

Afghanistan. General McChrystal wants more troops for Afghanistan. I've posted my basic thoughts on the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And he's right, but he's also repeating what was said in the mid-1960's before the half a million troop buildup in Vietnam. While the numbers aren't the same, the idea is the same. And sadly, it's also the truth and reality.

What he's saying is do we have the stomach and stamina to stay there with significant troops levels - and don't forget logistic, civilian and contract personnel which doubles the numbers (eg. Iraq). - for a long time, at least up to 10 years and maybe longer. And he points out, similar to Vietnam, we, or NATO/US forces, don't control the majority of the country, and what we do control, isn't always stable.

Eight years ago we were assured victory and it seemed evident within a year of it, but then Bush-Cheney and co-horts diverted attention, resources and effort to an imaginary enemy in Iraq - remember it wasn't Saddham Hussein who was the enemy, he was only the poster boy, it was the connections to 9/11 and Al Qeada which didn't exist and the connections to weapons of mass destruction which also didn't exist.

In short Afghanistan got short changed and in the time gap the enemy as they did in previous years with fighthing and occupying force regrouped and gained strength, and a lot of money from the cocaine market. And slowly since we've been waging a status quo war, and the general is saying if we want to win, or achieve some measure of success, we have to commit the resources and especially the troops.

We'll see what happens here and there.

Healthcare reform and its unintended consequences about the taxes on premiums. It seems almost any provision which taxes the "highend" healthcare plans, or to Congress, expensive ones, which aren't always the best or most comprehensive, just expensive, will actually get paid by both the middle class and wealthy.

That's because some of those plans are with companies and with individuals who aren't rich but middle class. And because companies won't charge just those employees for the tax but spread it to everyone in the company. Everyone will share in the employer's tax. The employer won't pay, they're smarter than that. They'll just push it to the employees.

This was part of all of the proposed reform plans. So Congress didn't think beyond the end of their noses, again. Quick and dirty is their motto. We want a quick political answer which sells to the voters. Never mind in time, years down the road, it want come true or really happen, but it's all about the next election.

That's not fair. They're considering the whole problem and issue which is complex to say the least, without any real solutions for everyone today, from the individual to the big health insurance providers. And everyone has a stake it and is lobbying hard, well all are but us the taxpayer who are hoping some organization represents our interests and goals with this.

But in the end, the Senators and Representatives will vote who pays their bills, the industries with the big lobbies. There are some exceptions, as we know from their outspokenness against corporations and industries and the support for the average person, but they're few these days and fewer in this issue.

And as noted, so far there are over 500 amendments to the main bill so it's hard to know what's really in the bill. But in the end, we know that the companies will make out ok, and probably profit from the bill and the average taxpayer and especially the familes, will pay more to everyone. It won't get solved, only patched and kicked down the road a few years or more to the next president.

And to the President, "It won't be affordable." The premuims won't go down. Heathcare costs won't go down. And the healthcare companies and health insurance providers will get richer at our expense. That's the reality Mr. President, because that's what got us here and the change won't effect that very much if at all.

Real healthcare and health insurance reform will come with near-universal coverage and government oversight of healthcare and its associated costs similar to Canda or most of the European countries, and we know that won't happen here. So try hard, promise what you want, but realize we know and see the truth and reality every day in our lives and every month in our premium.

But I'll support your effort to try.

Ok, back to Afghanistan. The real obvious. President Karai didn't win 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff election and we know his opposition got more, but it wasn't just one candidate which makes him the winner by default. There was mass fraud in the election, probably somewhere around 20-25% or more of the votes. And the US is stuck wondering what to do, certify it and a fraudulant President or coax a compromise to get a fraudulant President.

Either way, Mr. Karzai knows he won and he's won our support. He's our lesser of evils except it's more about what the US always does, support dictatorships, or the appearance of it, in some form or manner. We like continunity and consistency, even if it's the worse of the lot.

The latest terrorist(s) arrest. I have little doubt the FBI actually did the right thing this time, instead of creating a terrorist group to arrest them under the guise of fighting terrorism. All the facts seem they were headed in that direction. But let's get one thing clear, a book doesn't make a terrorists.

The FBI says, "He had a bomb making book." Like how many people in the US have these books? Lots I suspect, including the Federal govenment agencies, like the FBI. But private specialists have them, academics and universities have them. some journalists and writers doing research have them. And on and on down the list of those with these books. It's what America is about.

Don't condemn them because of their ethnicity and reading material.

And on the print media, been to a magazine rack recently. I mean a really complete one, like in Borders, Barnes and Noble or any local magazine only store? Rows and rows of them, magazines. There are probably at least half a dozen, and often more, magazines on each speciality. You name it, there are 6-12 magazines on it.

For example? Woodworking, sewing, knitting (separate from sewing), writing, running, guitars (just them), etc. And the big subjects, like the big sports, the news and weeklies, fashion, travel, etc., there are 1-2 dozen of them. Any wonder the magazines are going broke, too much competition for with too little content and too few buying (notice buying) readers.

I say the last because every watch people in the bookstores with magazine sections next to the cafe? People pick up a few, sometimes a pile, get a cup of coffee and read. They'll read them all, then leave. They'll leave the pile on the table for the staff ot put back on the rack.

And these people do this in the face of signs to the cafe, "Purchase magazines before entering cafe" or some such similar words. Even Barnes and Noble tries to separate them to prevent this but they discovered people simply took the coffee to the magazines and sat or stood in the aisle reading and drinking. Then they put stairs in between with signs "No drinks in books and magazine sections." And people took both to the small sitting area near the entrance but inside the store (walk through alarms).

They coudn't stop the problem so they have simply contained it. Borders doesn't even try. Only the specialty magazines shops have and enforce a reading rule. It's their only product and the income. All of them I've been in have policies or watch customers, and will ask loitering ones, just reading upon reading, to buy or leave. And none allow drinks.

What don't people understand to respect the magazine publisher and the workers? All the writers, reasearch staff, editors, etal, and the print companies. What you don't want them to earn a living? You're screwing them while thinking it should be free. It's not free.

What if we demand your work be free? Not because you wanted it to be free and didn't care to earn a living, but because we wanted it free? So stop being assholes. Peruse the magazine if you want, but then buy it or not, but don't read it and leave it. If you want to read it for free, go to your nearest library, you paid for it there.

Ok, enough caffine for one morning. And I have real work to do.

Caster Semanya

2009-09-19T07:39:00.000-07:00

Update.--Today (9/19) the news are reporting that the South African sports officials did sex/gender test on Ms. Semanya before she left for her latest competition despite telling her that no tests were done and she was cleared to go and compete. But the team doctor recommended against her going and competing, opening the door to more scurtiny. In short, they lied and for what ever reason they haven't said yet. The final results of the last round of tests aren't scheduled to be released for a few weeks.

Original Post.--The full results of the tests are still out on Ms. Semanya, what she is anyway. And there are a lot of voices arguing the range of views and opinions and what the IAAF should do. And there is a lot of misinformation, mostly speculation, on what she is, and yes, almost all probably wrong.

I won't try to determine what or who she, the information is far from complete, accurate or correct. I can only say she appears to be some form of gendervariant or intersexed, but more a combination of the two, so she doesn't fit any clear group, which is what bother me. Putting labels on her or putting her in a box isn't good, because the labels don't fit and the boxes are full of equally divergent and diverse people.

What I can only guess from the reports is that she wasn't born female as we know and expect females to be. Without ovaries and a womb, that kinda removes a lot of guessing on one end (normal female). Having undescended testes adds to the picture, removing her from the other end (normal male).

Having had genital surgery (to be female) and having a more boyish body probably removes having AIS (since they're usually born with a vagina and develop female body shapes). She is likely another form of sex development where her testosterone had some but not a complete effect to develop her into a boy and man, and maybe a combination of AIS and other conditions.

From there only tests will establish what sex and gender she was born and is know. But that really isn't the question, which is what should the IAAF do with her and her records. I would suggest she, and others like her, be treated like male to female transsexual and apply the same rules. That remove any male factors from her body on par with post-transistion transwomen athletes.

As has been noted, she has a higher level of testosterone than normal women (the testes will do that) but her body isn't fully receptive to it so she ends up in between and a combination of female and male. And that's where the IAAF may have to decide, what natural or artifical level is acceptable for female athletes, based on the normal range expected from women born female and post-transistion transwomen (who are within the normal range of females).

I'm sorry this doesn't sound fair to her. But she isn't fair to the competition. They have a legitmate complaint and the IAAF needs to address them and the competitors to put her on the same field. Give her the choice of changing sex and gender under the guideslines for transwomen or changing her sex and gender marker to male and men.

Anyway, that's my opinion as I read the news. I'm sorry for the publicity about her, but she has to understand she walked onto the world stage open to that scurtiny and was caught. She didn't intend it, and likely didn't know, but she was there and has to stand up to it. And she has choices too, but like it or not, it's not as she is now.

The IAAF has to change as does she, both to be fair to the other female athletes. She also has the opportunity to be an ambassador for other similar athletes. So, while she may not like the choices and the future, it's still there and she still has one. That's her choice.

Roadside Bombs

2009-09-18T17:03:00.000-07:00

Thursday the Tacoma News Tribune (TNT) front page had two stories on the recent death of soldiers in Afghanistan. I'm not going to discuss the issue of Afghanistan, at least not here, or the soldiers, who deserved the recognition for their duty to our country. The deaths are sad and a sad reminder of the cost of war. I would, however, like to address the story itself, a small semantic argument with the writers.

In the caption to the photo, the TNT wrote, "...when their vehicle was attacked with a pair of improvished explosive devices.", and in the story below this one with the photo, the TNT wrote, "Two Stryker soldiers from Fort Lewis were killed when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle Monday..."

Well, the stories are true except for one fact, Improvished Explosive Devices (IED's) and roadside bombs don't move. They can't attack anything and they don't hit anything. IED's can be detonated by running over them or by being detonated remotely with a trip wire, radio signal or cellphone. In Afghanistan it's almost always by being run over, and roadside bombs are detonated when run over.

This means the vehicles have to run over the devices to detonate. So the bombs didn't attack anything but detonated after being run over and the explosion hit the vehicles. This is a small and pick distinction, especially when it's soldiers who die, but the TNT should get the facts correct. As was often said about similar situations in Iraq, the papers always wrote the soldiers died when their vehicle hit a IED or roadside bomb.

I'm not going to get into the discussion over roadside bombs, IED's, mines whatever. They're a fact of war and as much as you want to complain about the enemy's use of them in Iraq and now Afghanistan, the US is the biggest producer of them and the US historically been the biggest dispenser of them in the world. And while we perfected them, the Taliban are using more old-school simple ones.

And as we discovered the new armored vehicles built especially for Iraq don't work well in Afghanistan and the ones currently in Afghanistan aren't working. It's why those soldiers died. While the Army keeps selling Congress the need for bomb-resistant vehicles and keeps geting more money for research and production, the vehicles aren't getting better to protect soldiers.

And they're costing $1 Million each. Yes, each, and once blown up, they're pretty much only good for parts for existing vehicles. The Army keeps saying they're for the soldiers, but until they stop been killed by roadside bombs and IED's, the enemy isn't the bombs but the Army brass, Congress, and the companies.

I want to see the headline, "Army vehicles works againts IED's", and maybe some day I will, but not with the state of vehicles now and the enemy getting better with the roadside bombs and IED's, importing the technology and techniques from Iraq. For now, they'll be more headlines, more ceremonies and more grieving families.

Dear Senators

2009-09-17T06:07:00.000-07:00

Whatever you're thinking about the latest proposal for healthcare and health insurance reform and the national deficit, don't think for one minute you can snowball many Americans over either. You have never passed a budget or bill in recent times that didin't increase the deficit with the exception of some of former President Clinton's budget.

You told us the Iraq war would pay for itself and now approaching $1 Trillion later, where was that idea? You passed tax cuts for the wealthy which has cost the government over $1 Tillion in lost revenue. You have passed many pork-barrel projects for your district or state costing taxpayers $ Billions. George Bush increased the deficit more in his term than all the previious Presidents and you said it was ok, after all you passed those funding bills.

And now you're crying foul over healthcare for the poor? And now you're selling us healthcare reform which doesn't increase the deficit. Did you buy that bridge in Brooklyn only to hope you could resell it to us? And in ten years when it's proven it did add to the deficit, how can we hold you accountable? That's always your saving grace, the future won't hurt you. But it will severely hurt us when we have to live under your new healthcare proposal.

And you'll be retired with nearly free healthcare compliments of the government. How nice of us, and how cruel and mean of you. You scapegoated us for votes and you took the credit and ran for those very same voters. While the uninsured won't be able to afford the option you will offer outside of the public option which you're quickly jettisoning for political expediency, you will look good to the rest of the voters.

That's what you don't seem to realize and understand. Offering incentives to families who are uninsured or underinsured still won't make it affordable. That's why they don't have or have enough health insurance. They need real affordable good health insurance, and the public option was and is the only way to go.

It's about government helping all Americans, not just those who can afford good health insurance. And the more you dance around the public option trying desperately not to include it, you sending the message the poor in this country isn't your interest or your problem. Well, I defy you to live on their salary and say that.

The public option is the only real solution. Health insurance companies won't touch the uninsured or offer better coverage to the underinsured. You know that. We know that. The companies don't see the profit, unless of course you simply write the checks for it, but I guarrantee you it will cost more than the public option.

The government should be the provider of last resort. That's your job to ensure that happens. That's what Social Security and Medicare are about. That's what many government program to assist the poor are for. That's what we all owe as citizens, to raise their standard of living.

Else nothing changes and we'll continue to pay their coverage through the Emergency Room and hospitals who have to take and treat patients without coverage or money. If you want more of the same, then sure, pass your bill and see what happens. If you're so sure and thinks it right for America and Americans, go ahead.

And in a few years when we're be back discussing the failures of your healthcare reform with the reality that 10% or more of Americans are uninsured and another 10% or more are underinsured because you reform didn't work except for the rich and little for the middle class, what are you going to say again.

Oops won't cut it because there's no band-aid big enough and no cure good enough to undo what's been done.

More of the same

2009-09-16T08:18:00.000-07:00

I've been reading the news about President Obama's plans for fighting terrorism and terrorists, and lo and behold, after all the rhetoric in the campaign against former President Bush's policies, he's pretty much following those policies. He found himself in the middle of reality and faced with using existing tools, tweaked to look more humane, or develop new ones.

And he found the current political and legal toolbox nice, with all of its neat torture tools, Geneva Convention aside or wrapped around them, the invasion of privacy rules, only for suspected terrorists of course, loss of legal rights, again only for terrorists, and security rules, to hide any violations and protect violaters. Yup, it's quite a set of tools.

And so President Obama wants the Patriot Act renewed, and only Congress is hedging the rules in the law to provide more rights and protections for citizens. They're doing this because every audit to date on the Patriot Act has shown the FBI never worked within it, and always violated it. And they've shown that 95% of the search warrants under the Act weren't for suspected terrorists, but ordinary crimes.

The FBI has been using the Patriot Act in place of other existing legal avenues to investigate suspects because it removes the safeguards, like a judge's review and signature, from their work. They short cutted the system for no real reasons except being too lazy to prove their case to a judge and give the suspect, many times just ancillary people or innocent citizens, rights. And they've failed to followup warrants with the evidence in the timeframe to a judge.

Cheating to fight crime is one thing, widespread and wholesale cheating to fight crime but including innocent people, especially citizens, is far and away another thing. And it's why the Patriot Act doesn't need to be renewed or even extended. It's just needs to be stopped and make the FBI do the work they're supposed, under the law with all the rights and protections afforded suspects.

And if Congress wants to renew the Patriot Act, they should really pare it down and put in a lot of rights, protections and especially oversight. It's time the pendulum swung back in favor of citizens. We don't need stories about what happened when the FBI used minimal and often unreliable or noncredible information or evidence, and sometimes just creating it, to arrest and detain citizens to later, often months to years, without any charges and having to rebuild their life and career now destroyed.

Anyway, the discussions are just starting, so I'm early, but I want to express my view as I did when the Patriot Act was first proposed and then renewed. It's not necessary and hasn't proven sufficiently successful for the lost of privacy, rights and protections. We as citizens aren't the enemy and shouldn't be treated like we are. That's what the FBI needs to learn and remember.

I'm amazed

2009-09-07T07:45:00.001-07:00

I've been listening to the healthcare reform and insurance debate, like I haven't blogged enough already last month and this, but I'm always amazed that all the pundits, analysists, politicians, etal who are heading the debate on or from both sides don't have problems with their healthcare. Really.

Not, I'm sure all of those folks have excellent, affordable healthcare. They have their insurance through some larger providers, Congress through the government, which is another contradiction on their part - they argue against the public option for you or I while getting excellent government healthcare cheap - and all the rest through company plans. They's sitting pretty, so they can argue against anything.

That's their advantage. And it's also, like the millions of federal or military retirees, I get good healthcare at affordable prices. But until the military thorugh the Veterans Administration, mine as a federal retiree is through private companies. It's the Federal Emplyees Health Benefit Plan (FEHB). It's one of the best run programs of the federal government, and it's not paid by the government, but only partially for the employees and none for retirees.

Retirees pay full fare for their health insurance. There are over two dozen companies offering over 50 different plans for individuals and families. And surprisingly, there's always more companies bidding to join the program despite about 60% enrolled in some Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. That means 40% of 8+ million customers is a lot, and worth providing affordable health insurance.

And so, yes, I can also be in the class of the others arguing for or against something knowing it doesn't and won't really effect me directly. But it does because I use the same pharmacies, the same doctors, the same hospitals and clinics as everyone else. I face the same issues and often problems with healthcare, and I face the same issues and problems with my health insurance provider.

I'm just one of millions of their customers. Just like you. So I'm there too, only with a small distinction about my insurance. It's what federal employees work for less salaries and less benefits for their career for, a good annuity and affordable health insurance. We sacrificed the benefits of the private sector to serve the public and for the rewards in retirement. That's our choice as yours was for you.

But it's those with the loudest voices in the debate that bother me. They argue principles and issues with no real idea of the average person's life and world. They're not financially strapped living day to day at worst or month to month as many. They're not personally strapped to worry about their home, the bills, their children's health and welfare, and our neighborhoods.

They don't face wondering if their job will disappear tomorrow because of some global corporate decision finally faced implementation at their workplace and office, to see the job shipped overseas for the company bottom line, profit and shareholder value. They can stand their and shout knowing it's not about them but about us.

And that's what they're trying to do, convince us they really are like us. They're not by any stretch of the imagination. If they did, they wouldn't say what they saying in our name and for us. They only know their reality which isn't about reality or the truth, but just their idea of our world and life.

They really are clueless. And all the while we watch them on TV, listen to them on the radio, or read, listen and watch them on the Internet. And we think they're right or not. We think they know us but they don't. They don't have to, they've already convinced you.

That's our failure, to see and recognize the con and scam by these people. it's worst with our Congressional representatives who argue against the public option. They have it and use, and wouldn't change that (and they also control that too). But they don't want it for the rest of people in this country. They can increase the deficit with their health insurance and healthcare at public (ours) expense, but you can't.

And that's the amazement. It's not about what they say, but about how they live. That's what we should be looking at first before we listen to them. Shouldn't we if we really want to know they what they say is real and true? Because in the end, it's not real or true. And shouldn't we all be amazed at their indignity?

More there

2009-09-01T05:00:00.000-07:00

I've added a series of posts about the healthcare reform issue on my main blog. You can read the many rants I have against the protesters, Congress, companies, media, etc. All of them roasted. Or not. It's all just my opinion, nothing more and nothing less, and just like yours, a voice. Our right to our soapbox.

That's all for now from here. There's always more in the future to fill the spaces empty of words.

On-line newspapers

2009-08-03T11:39:00.000-07:00

I wrote about reading on-line newspapers, mostly rants or vents about their Websites, and mostly how clunkly they are to use. Well, I forgot another idea which I find on some but not on others and another idea which is here and likely will be more so as the newspapers and technology evolve. And these are?

First, the presence or lack of a daily version, the "Today's paper" version in an on-line form. As we know news is always on-going, and the television news Websites are always presenting new stories and articles. You have to keep going back to see what's new and news now. The daily papers have taken two different routes.

The almost all established city daily papers present the on-line version of today's print edition where everything is there in an on-line form. This is cool for those of us who read the dailies and like to see what's new from the previous day. Kinda' playing mental catch-up with the world. It separates the day fron the on-going.

But some, like the Christian Science Monitor and USA Today, don't have an on-line daily edition. They simply don't provide one, so you have to wander around and remember what you've read and what you think is new news. While it makes information management and presentation easier, not separating a daily version, it's frustrates readers like me, when you have to keep looking for a date, if there is one, when the article was posted.

And yes, it's frustrating and irritating. I like daily newspapers, whether print or on-line. It makes reading easier to decipher what's overnight and what's really news. This is because many of the news Website mix the stories so you can't tell which is current, which is recent and which is simply keeping around because it fills space or has lingering value in their minds.

And sometimes that's what they want. The longer you linger and wander the Website and pages the more they present ads and other stuff to entice you to help them generate revenue. Like I will. Sorry, I'll scan it for articles I don't find elsewhere or you're better at the others at investigating and reporting. It's why I like the USA Today and CS Monitor, different perspectives and presentations.

But it also leads to the second idea that's the future of the news Websites, subsriptions. The first to do this was the Wall Street Journal when they decided revenue was the way to go through the on-line version, which the offer as:

"Subscribers to WSJ.com get access to articles from daily editions of The Wall Street Journal for the past 90 days, organized by section and page, and may also view images of each section's front page. It's a quick way to find a specific story from the paper, or to scan page by page to make sure you haven't missed anything.
Subscribers may also browse section front pages of The Wall Street Journal Europe and The Wall Street Journal Asia, with complete access to stories from those papers.

Nonsubscribers may view headlines from today's section fronts. Subscribe now to get full access to the full list of headlines and the articles."

The CS Monitor offers changed to a non-print daily last March (announced fall 2008) and now offers this.

"Subscriptions
PRINT SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscribe to the weekly edition of The Christian Science Monitor, the news weekly that confidently confronts today's complex and changing world. Each issue will bring you a major in-depth cover story on pivotal global events or emerging trends … on-the-ground dispatches from Monitor correspondents around the world … and "Why It Matters" briefings that give perspective to today's news and assess the impact for tomorrow. Plus the Monitor will give you great ideas to enrich and enliven your life with regular features including Money, Culture, and more.

Subscribe (US & Canada)
(International)
Give a gift
Manage my account
If you have questions about an existing subscription, or would like information on education rates, please email us at service@CSMonitor.com or call 1-800-456-2220.

ELECTRONIC SUBSCRIPTIONS
Daily News Briefing provides a selection of the most important stories of the day and a special column with our Editors' perspectives on these important events. With leading news articles and a News-in-Brief column, The Christian Science Monitor Daily News Briefing will provide abridged Monitor news electronically five days a week by 5:00 a.m. EST each morning. Its short format is easy to read and print out, and is available for only $5.75 each month."

All the major city dailies now offer a host of free services to reader, from RSS to Facebook and other Websites to get or comment on the news. They want your patronage and loyality, and eventually they'll want your money to pay for it. The money from ads doesn't even pay the rent, let alone the salaries, so they have to invent new presentations to attract you.

That's because with few exceptions, most of the news they present is from other sources, some they pay the source and some they simply glean and reproduce. The free service will eventually go away as the news sources begin to charge readers to read and other news sources to reproduce.

It's the flexibility in the copyright law which allows fair and free use for non-commecial purposes which has covered news and newspapers. But that has and will continue to change as the sources need income to pay for the work, therefore becoming the commercial use of news. This means those simply presenting the news stories will also have to find ways to generate income to pay the sources for the stories.

So what do I see down the road for on-line news Websites? Simple, just like print editions, if you want the news, get out your checkbook, or rather the credit card they can automatically deduct the cost of either a subscription or a per item, time or use fee. It will be part of the cost of living and keeping current. Or you can simply skip it all and be clueless on the news.