Recently I purchased a Nexus 7 tablet, a truly wonderful device. At home I have TW cable internets and according to Virgin they have 4G INSIDE. So I thought I would purchase a WiFi hotspot from them, that way I can be mobile with my internets and my tablet can be used anywhere. Sounded good on paper. Well, I made the purchase online and received the device. True enough, it worked well except no 4G INSIDE. I pondered the situation and after some thought, since it did not do what it was advertised to do, I decided to take advantage of their 30 day money back guarantee. This is where the nightmare begins.
I called Virgin and a voice, best termed as 'not of this country' greeted me. I explained the situation and wanted to get an RMA to return the device. This after jumping through all of the 'hoops' to get a real person. After 4 tries, as we kept getting cut off, I was finally able to explain to the 4th person what it was I wanted to do. Now, I don't know about you...but the only reason why you should EVER be put on hold is if you don't know what you are doing. If this is the standard, none at Virgin does. I was told I would receive my RMA in an email. Hours later, no email. I called back again. This time, I decided to talk to someone in 'Tech Support'. This person appeared to know what he was doing. He explained the reason why I did not get an email was because the request was rejected because they did not include the original order number. He asked me for it. I said, 'don't you have it?'. To expedite matters, as I already had it handy, I gave it to him. An hour later I had my RMA and the next day, I shipped off the device to the address provided. I was told that my credit card would be credited with 24-72 hours. The device was delivered on Friday and on Tuesday next, no credit. So I called again. Asked to speak to a supervisor, I was told, they had not received it. So as requested I divulged the tracking number. Sure enough, it was delivered. Duh. Well, I was then told that I would be receiving my refund within 24-72 hours. The next Tuesday, no refund. I call again. This time I am transferred to a 'Specialist' after I was told that I should not be calling back because it takes 4-10 business days to issue a check. Yes, I went a little ballistic.
The specialist calmed me down a bit and issued a trouble ticket and asked for my number, he would call me back with in 24-72 hours to see if I got my refund. Well, he called on Thursday and I told him that I had not yet received it. He said I should call my bank in Alabama and make sure. I told him I was already online with the bank and it was not there. After he gave up arguing with me, he said he would upgrade the trouble ticket and call me back the next day. He called me back, no refund yet. He resent the ticket. Saturday he calls me and tells me I am not going to get a refund!!! At first he said that the serial number I sent back was not the one they sent me. You can imagine what I said next. I read off the invoice the serial number they sent. Then he said I could not get a refund because the device was in use. I said to him, how can it be in use if I sent it back and you have it in Indiana! You admit you have it. I told him, the problem is not with me, but them. Something very wrong with Virgin. What can't these people think I asked myself. I looked up my Virgin account and he was right, data has been used AFTER I sent it back. I told him that the only ways there could be data used is 1) Someone knows my password and took it home from the warehouse or 2) Someone in Indiana backdoored the device and reset it back to default and they have it turned on. In any case, I do not have it, you do. Then I suggested, if the criteria for denying my refund is that it's in use, then the solution is simple, disable the account! He said, 'Oh, that would work'.
Today is the Monday after that Saturday conversation and still no refund. I am waiting for his call, maybe tomorrow. Whatever the case, this rant is going to be posted as a warning to all.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
I don't like Romney..but
The revelations of the past few days has shed more light on Mr. Romney. I will admit that I don't like the guy for a variety of reasons.
Tonight's 'interviews' only tend to prove beyond any doubt that this man has his secrets, he will justify everything and is in denial over his past statements regarding Bain. There is no doubt now that he and his campaign staff have decided to play the deflection game because if he exposed the truth, the damage would be worse than not admitting to what he actually did. As long as there is no definitive proof, a smoking gun other than what we already know, he can deny anything and everything and accuse others of speculating.
The question we all must ask ourselves is simply this. Given the secrecy of his past and his unwillingness to produce his tax returns, this should give us pause. Can we trust this man with the fate of 330 million people? Are his other qualifications and other possible intangibles overpowering enough to over ride common sense? I think not. He may claim to know how to fix the economy based upon his business experience, but his whole experience is making a profit. Not job creation, but creating wealth. This is not the President's job, to create wealth. This is all he knows. Government is not a business. Government cannot be run like a business. Imagine 535 members of a board of directors and him trying to accomplish what HE wants. This is not the way the real world works.
The biggest concern we have is simple. Given his propensity for going with the flow means he will succumb to the pressures of the Tea Baggers, just like Mr. Boehner. This is his pattern. To this day, he will flip flop on any subject. Look what happened with the penalty/tax issue of just last week. His whole Presidency will be just like this. He will go with the flow for political expediency.
Is this really the man we want in the White House?
Tonight's 'interviews' only tend to prove beyond any doubt that this man has his secrets, he will justify everything and is in denial over his past statements regarding Bain. There is no doubt now that he and his campaign staff have decided to play the deflection game because if he exposed the truth, the damage would be worse than not admitting to what he actually did. As long as there is no definitive proof, a smoking gun other than what we already know, he can deny anything and everything and accuse others of speculating.
The question we all must ask ourselves is simply this. Given the secrecy of his past and his unwillingness to produce his tax returns, this should give us pause. Can we trust this man with the fate of 330 million people? Are his other qualifications and other possible intangibles overpowering enough to over ride common sense? I think not. He may claim to know how to fix the economy based upon his business experience, but his whole experience is making a profit. Not job creation, but creating wealth. This is not the President's job, to create wealth. This is all he knows. Government is not a business. Government cannot be run like a business. Imagine 535 members of a board of directors and him trying to accomplish what HE wants. This is not the way the real world works.
The biggest concern we have is simple. Given his propensity for going with the flow means he will succumb to the pressures of the Tea Baggers, just like Mr. Boehner. This is his pattern. To this day, he will flip flop on any subject. Look what happened with the penalty/tax issue of just last week. His whole Presidency will be just like this. He will go with the flow for political expediency.
Is this really the man we want in the White House?
Monday, June 11, 2012
President Romney's first week in office....
The votes are in, the tally set, Mitt Romney is our President, inaugurated a week or so ago. Have to give him credit, he sure hit the ground running. With the House and Senate all locked up in GOP hands, it has been easy to make the changes the right wing has been wanting and fighting for years.
As a recap, what has happened in the last week.
The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things.
A 20% increase in the defense budget.
The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration.
Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level.
The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states.
Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources.
As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed.
Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections.
To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated.
The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue.
There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.
The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President.
And this is just the beginning.......
As a recap, what has happened in the last week.
The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things.
A 20% increase in the defense budget.
The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration.
Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level.
The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states.
Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources.
As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed.
Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections.
To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated.
The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue.
There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.
The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President.
And this is just the beginning.......
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Mitt Romney...Can he turn things around?
The Romney campaign has made a lot of noise, how he is a job creator and has the business experience to turn our economy around. Frankly, I am not convinced he can do this. My reasons are fairly simple. Mr. Romney's focus has always been to make a profit, regardless of the costs or the risks. Risks. This is the key. In Romney's business world he and his com-padre's would buy a corporation and sell off the individual assets and take the write-offs for the ones left over to offset the profits they made off the sale of assets. To some this is called 'Vulture Capitalism'. This is a fairly easy thing to do if you have the money behind you. The system is rigged to take advantage of this sort of operation. This is the basis for Mr. Romney's argument that he is a businessman, a job creator as the primary function of Bain Capital. This could be further from the truth. Bain's focus was to make money, increase wealth without creating one single job. Now, I am not complaining as to what Bain was doing. But to suggest that Romney is somehow qualified to turn the economy around based upon his vast business experience is misrepresenting reality.
Think of the US government as a giant corporation and you were Bain Capital, what would you do to make a buck? First you would identify those parts of the corporation which are the money makers and money losers. Can you imagine trying to sell off parts of the government to reduce overhead and costs, to bankrupt the losers and sell off the money makers? This is the experience Mr. Romney has. How this equates to government escapes me unless he plans on privatizing the parts government he can and selling them off.
The bottom line is this. Romney's plan would be to cut all money losing programs, essential or otherwise. If it's losing money, get rid of it. Then he can cut taxes across the board to match what has been cut loose. One thing is certain, people like Romney have no conscience when it comes to real people. Imagine sitting in a meeting at Bain Capital when a decision is made to shift a financial responsibility from one company to another then bankrupt that company, causing those employees to lose their jobs? Do you really think anyone stood up and said, 'what about the people?'. There is an old saying, Business is business, nothing personal.
The question we have to ask is this. Should we risk our future on a person who is risk averse, or do we maintain the status quo? The economy is clearly on the rebound as it is. If it wasn't, then maybe we should look for change.
Think of the US government as a giant corporation and you were Bain Capital, what would you do to make a buck? First you would identify those parts of the corporation which are the money makers and money losers. Can you imagine trying to sell off parts of the government to reduce overhead and costs, to bankrupt the losers and sell off the money makers? This is the experience Mr. Romney has. How this equates to government escapes me unless he plans on privatizing the parts government he can and selling them off.
The bottom line is this. Romney's plan would be to cut all money losing programs, essential or otherwise. If it's losing money, get rid of it. Then he can cut taxes across the board to match what has been cut loose. One thing is certain, people like Romney have no conscience when it comes to real people. Imagine sitting in a meeting at Bain Capital when a decision is made to shift a financial responsibility from one company to another then bankrupt that company, causing those employees to lose their jobs? Do you really think anyone stood up and said, 'what about the people?'. There is an old saying, Business is business, nothing personal.
The question we have to ask is this. Should we risk our future on a person who is risk averse, or do we maintain the status quo? The economy is clearly on the rebound as it is. If it wasn't, then maybe we should look for change.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Gay Marriage..my thoughts
Much has been made lately about who has come out in support or against gay marriage. I too have some thoughts on this issue, of course.
Firstly, a little background. I am almost 60 years old. I was raised at a time when the gay issue was not an issue at all. For all I knew at the time, a gay person was about as rare as an albino. It was suggested that a gay person was somehow defective, some still believe this today. As I grew up, living in Yankee states and California my exposure to gays increased as more people came out of the closet. I was stuck with a moral dilemma. I took the stand that while it was not for me, I would not be 'against' the gay lifestyle unless it affected me personally, in other words if I got 'hit' on. My toughest struggle was when my young son came to visit me in California and the couple who lived next door to me were gay. He, coming from the bible belt in Florida. I faced a tough problem. How do I explain to a child the situation when he told me that two men were holding hands and kissing each other? How do I explain it to his mother in Florida what my response would be and not catch flak for it? Needless to say, I punted and told him that they were gay and in love, other than that I don't know anything. In the same apartment complex, there was a mixed race couple who were living together, he never questioned that. Not so many years ago, mixed marriages were frowned upon or outright illegal in some states. Certain minorities could not move in next door to you. Times change.
It is understood that everything is legal, unless there is a law against it. When we see states which have state laws specifically forbidding such things as gay marriage, one has to question why. The answer, whether we want to admit it is simply a moral issue. Where does morality come into play? Organized religion. The next question of course is obvious, if a state creates a law against gay marriage based upon religious morality, then there is a problem between separation of church and state. I admit, over the years I had not considered the difference between the two, secular and religious. When I excluded the religious argument against gay marriage, the clouds parted and the sun shone bright. If you exclude religious morality, which is not consistent across the religious spectrum, then what is the secular justification for denying gay marriage? There is none. If gay marriage were allowed, what would the ramifications be? From a secular point of view, there is none. Equal rights for all, not special rights.
If a state were to allow for gay marriage, this does not compel a church to perform that ceremony. Marriage is still a state issue, not church issue. No person or church has any right to decide for someone else what their live's should be, nor should they be able influence an outcome that frankly is none of their business. What right does a heterosexual have to decide for someone else?
The Catholic church is clear on this issue. The church see's homosexuality akin to mental illness and should be treated as such. The church is against gay marriage because in the eyes of the church, the whole reason for marriage is for procreation, which of course is not possible with gay marriage. While the church is tolerant (according to the Catechism) towards gays, the church is adamantly against the lifestyle. One could argue that procreation outside of marriage is against their god's will as well.
When New York was considering a law allowing for gay marriage, the swing vote came down to a Republican Senator, who voted for it. When asked why he voted for gay marriage, his answer was simple. "I cannot find a legal reason why not." When you think about it, that is the best answer one can give. If you consider that we are a secular nation and not one run by religion, then that answer fits just fine.
Time does change things.
So to all, on the issue of gay marriage, what secular reason can you find to defend the ban against it.
Firstly, a little background. I am almost 60 years old. I was raised at a time when the gay issue was not an issue at all. For all I knew at the time, a gay person was about as rare as an albino. It was suggested that a gay person was somehow defective, some still believe this today. As I grew up, living in Yankee states and California my exposure to gays increased as more people came out of the closet. I was stuck with a moral dilemma. I took the stand that while it was not for me, I would not be 'against' the gay lifestyle unless it affected me personally, in other words if I got 'hit' on. My toughest struggle was when my young son came to visit me in California and the couple who lived next door to me were gay. He, coming from the bible belt in Florida. I faced a tough problem. How do I explain to a child the situation when he told me that two men were holding hands and kissing each other? How do I explain it to his mother in Florida what my response would be and not catch flak for it? Needless to say, I punted and told him that they were gay and in love, other than that I don't know anything. In the same apartment complex, there was a mixed race couple who were living together, he never questioned that. Not so many years ago, mixed marriages were frowned upon or outright illegal in some states. Certain minorities could not move in next door to you. Times change.
It is understood that everything is legal, unless there is a law against it. When we see states which have state laws specifically forbidding such things as gay marriage, one has to question why. The answer, whether we want to admit it is simply a moral issue. Where does morality come into play? Organized religion. The next question of course is obvious, if a state creates a law against gay marriage based upon religious morality, then there is a problem between separation of church and state. I admit, over the years I had not considered the difference between the two, secular and religious. When I excluded the religious argument against gay marriage, the clouds parted and the sun shone bright. If you exclude religious morality, which is not consistent across the religious spectrum, then what is the secular justification for denying gay marriage? There is none. If gay marriage were allowed, what would the ramifications be? From a secular point of view, there is none. Equal rights for all, not special rights.
If a state were to allow for gay marriage, this does not compel a church to perform that ceremony. Marriage is still a state issue, not church issue. No person or church has any right to decide for someone else what their live's should be, nor should they be able influence an outcome that frankly is none of their business. What right does a heterosexual have to decide for someone else?
The Catholic church is clear on this issue. The church see's homosexuality akin to mental illness and should be treated as such. The church is against gay marriage because in the eyes of the church, the whole reason for marriage is for procreation, which of course is not possible with gay marriage. While the church is tolerant (according to the Catechism) towards gays, the church is adamantly against the lifestyle. One could argue that procreation outside of marriage is against their god's will as well.
When New York was considering a law allowing for gay marriage, the swing vote came down to a Republican Senator, who voted for it. When asked why he voted for gay marriage, his answer was simple. "I cannot find a legal reason why not." When you think about it, that is the best answer one can give. If you consider that we are a secular nation and not one run by religion, then that answer fits just fine.
Time does change things.
So to all, on the issue of gay marriage, what secular reason can you find to defend the ban against it.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Is the Occupy movement doomed?
The Occupy movement is the latest rant to come to not only America, but it seems the world. We have seen this all before, we have just forgotten or fail to recognize it for what it is. The Occupy movement is nothing more than a Neo-Marxist operation. The only difference between then and now is that they have no central leader. Not having a voice in the guise of a charismatic leader is what will doom them. Oh, I know, there are those who say it's not Marxist or Communist or Socialist at all. Maybe this is a hint...
Of course, there are no similarities at all. Marx called the working class, the Proletariat. In the Soviet Union, they had the Party Congress, where the Proletariat voted on issues, the Occupy has the General Assembly, where the Proletariat 'votes' on issues.
Lets look at some parts of the Soviet Constitution....
The declaration of rights of the labouring and exploited people (approved by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918), together with the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, approved by the fifth congress, constitutes a single fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.
Bearing in mind as its fundamental problem the abolition of the exploitation of men by men, the entire abolition of the division of the people into classes, the suppression of exploiters, the establishment of a socialist society, and the victory of socialism in all lands, the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies further resolves: For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that s Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.
The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies believes that now, during the progress of the decisive battle between the proletariat and its exploiters, the exploiters should not hold a position in any branch of the Soviet Government. The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representitives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies.
Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.
The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.
The fundamental problem of the constitution of the Russian Socialist federated Soviet Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian soviet authority, for the purpose of abolishing the exploitation of men by men and introduction of socialism, in which their will be neither a division into classes nor a state of autocracy.
It is clear that the Soviets took the throw the baby out with the bath water approach to change. One thing is clear from both the Marxist and Occupy movement is the concept of 'exploitation of man by man'. This is the basis for Marxism and the Occupy movement, the system we have today is so flawed that only drastic change will do.
The same thing happened in Cuba, the lack of a middle class, the gulf between rich and poor so wide.
We should be wary of the Occupy movement, we should also be on the look out for an emerging leader who will bring all the different assemblies together to form a Central Committee. Only then will their power be consolidated and we should have plenty to worry about.
Of course, there are no similarities at all. Marx called the working class, the Proletariat. In the Soviet Union, they had the Party Congress, where the Proletariat voted on issues, the Occupy has the General Assembly, where the Proletariat 'votes' on issues.
Lets look at some parts of the Soviet Constitution....
The declaration of rights of the labouring and exploited people (approved by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918), together with the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, approved by the fifth congress, constitutes a single fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.
Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.
Bearing in mind as its fundamental problem the abolition of the exploitation of men by men, the entire abolition of the division of the people into classes, the suppression of exploiters, the establishment of a socialist society, and the victory of socialism in all lands, the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies further resolves: For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that s Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.
The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies believes that now, during the progress of the decisive battle between the proletariat and its exploiters, the exploiters should not hold a position in any branch of the Soviet Government. The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representitives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies.
Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.
The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.
The fundamental problem of the constitution of the Russian Socialist federated Soviet Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian soviet authority, for the purpose of abolishing the exploitation of men by men and introduction of socialism, in which their will be neither a division into classes nor a state of autocracy.
It is clear that the Soviets took the throw the baby out with the bath water approach to change. One thing is clear from both the Marxist and Occupy movement is the concept of 'exploitation of man by man'. This is the basis for Marxism and the Occupy movement, the system we have today is so flawed that only drastic change will do.
The same thing happened in Cuba, the lack of a middle class, the gulf between rich and poor so wide.
We should be wary of the Occupy movement, we should also be on the look out for an emerging leader who will bring all the different assemblies together to form a Central Committee. Only then will their power be consolidated and we should have plenty to worry about.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Rants Primus, the TGOP and the attack on on women.
Rants Primus, the TGOP's #1 whiner today denied that the TGOP is attacking women. I have to wonder what planet he is on. Of course he blames the 'liberal' media for all the hubbaballoo associating women with caterpillars.
As I have promoted for over a year now, it is time that we voters send a clear, concise message to our lawmakers, state and Federal. The facts are the facts, there is a concerted effort by the TGOP to create laws under the premise that women are not capable of making life altering decisions on their own, they must be guided, corralled by law. Women can be President or Secretary of State, Senators, Congressman and business owners and CEO's, but are not qualified to make personal decisions.
It is time, once and for all for ALL women, eligible to vote, finally make a stand against the established misogyny of the TGOP. I would suggest that this coming election cycle be the final nail in that coffin. I would recommend that all women take stock and exercise their constitutional rights and vote every single one of these dipwads out of office, city, state, county, Federal...send them ALL packing. Women account for a slight majority in our population and can make a serious statement. I would hope they would.
If women don't stand up and demand to be treated as equals, their power will be whittled away by the TGOP.
As I have promoted for over a year now, it is time that we voters send a clear, concise message to our lawmakers, state and Federal. The facts are the facts, there is a concerted effort by the TGOP to create laws under the premise that women are not capable of making life altering decisions on their own, they must be guided, corralled by law. Women can be President or Secretary of State, Senators, Congressman and business owners and CEO's, but are not qualified to make personal decisions.
It is time, once and for all for ALL women, eligible to vote, finally make a stand against the established misogyny of the TGOP. I would suggest that this coming election cycle be the final nail in that coffin. I would recommend that all women take stock and exercise their constitutional rights and vote every single one of these dipwads out of office, city, state, county, Federal...send them ALL packing. Women account for a slight majority in our population and can make a serious statement. I would hope they would.
If women don't stand up and demand to be treated as equals, their power will be whittled away by the TGOP.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Trayvon Martin....a breaking point.
Does anyone remember those old western movies where the townspeople storm the town jail and drag some guy out into the street and lynch him because the people wanted 'justice'? This is the image I have of what is going on in this case.
Between 2005 and 2010 there have been 95 examples of the 'stand your ground' defense in Florida. Of these, 65 have been upheld as justifiable shootings. This means that 65 people did not get 'justice', 65 people 'got away with it'. What makes this shooting different? There is NO difference. But, to hear tell it, this particular case is a travesty. Why? There are two issues here, the law and racism. If Mr. Zimmerman acted in accordance to the law, then he will not be charged. If he broke the law, he will be arrested and charged. The big question is, did he or did he not break the law. A grand jury will decide this issue. The Feds have stepped in to determine if he violated Federal law. In both cases, the system is working as it is supposed to. Does this satisfy certain people and an ethnic minority? No. They want what they call justice, even if it means denying Mr. Zimmerman his due process rights, his rights under the US Constitution.
Now I do not profess to know or understand what was going through Mr. Zimmerman's mind at the time. None of us can. We are Monday morning quarterbacking if we think we know all the facts of the case. These groups are not interested in facts, they want blood. Eye for an eye. How is justice served if Mr. Zimmerman is denied an opportunity to defend himself? How is justice served if the jury pool is tainted and intimidated, if he is charged and heads to trial?
If you read and listen to some of these people, what you hear is hatred towards whites, racism in it's worst form. I will not deny that this was a terrible mistake, the shooting. I lived in Los Angeles when the Rodney King verdict came down. We were all listening to the radio for the verdict and when it came down, I and many knew what was going to happen next. A friend of mine, who was from India, asked me what was going to happen next. I told him they will riot. I told him not to get off the freeway until his exit, do NOT take the side streets. Well, we all know what happened. Total breakdown of civil control. Now, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that justice was not served in this case, but still does not justify what happened next.
Lately, we have heard of the rantings of these people who claim that Negroes are being singled out for execution, presumably for crimes they did not commit, even though they were tried, convicted, went through the entire appeals processes and ultimately the Supreme Court, that the death penalty should not apply, rather life in prison is preferable. Well, if the person is innocent, then why settle for life? Yet, within 2 days of that execution, a Caucasian was terminated here in Texas for killing a Negro and they did not stand up for him, demanding life in prison. What does that say about justice being blind? Is there a double standard? It would appear so.
The point here is that all of these rantings are a result of pent up racism in the Negro community. Certainly I am not the only one who see's this. If you are going to blame anyone or anything, blame the law which allows for this sort of thing. If this was such a terrible law, then why not scream for justice for the 1st or 2nd or 65th victim also? No, this won't happen because they were not an unarmed Negro youth. Justice is only required of certain people.
I have become so disappointed in mainstream media and certain personalities that I have had to either defriend or unlike them on Facebook because they are on a racist rampage to demand their kind of justice, regardless of the law or due process. To attempt to deny this man his rights in the interest of a mob mentality out to lynch him is just as wrong as the the shooting in the first place.
We will never know what really happened. To suggest racial bias is yet to be proven. This profiling charge is nonsense. The race of the child did not become an issue until Mr. Zimmerman was asked to describe him. A hoodie? One could argue that issue any number of ways. One must remember the most notorious person to wear a hoodie was a Caucasian, the Unabomber.
I am not saying that Mr. Zimmerman was justified or not, I was not there, none of us were. Under our system of laws, a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. As of this writing, no charges have been filed. I suggest we let the system run it's course. To calm down the racial rhetoric.
In the mean time, I would suggest than those who demand justice, find another route, such as trying to get the law changed. That would be a fitting resolution. So put away your ropes and go home. Let the system work as it is designed to do. As for the family, if they have not already done so, file a wrongful death suit. Get your pound of flesh that way.
Between 2005 and 2010 there have been 95 examples of the 'stand your ground' defense in Florida. Of these, 65 have been upheld as justifiable shootings. This means that 65 people did not get 'justice', 65 people 'got away with it'. What makes this shooting different? There is NO difference. But, to hear tell it, this particular case is a travesty. Why? There are two issues here, the law and racism. If Mr. Zimmerman acted in accordance to the law, then he will not be charged. If he broke the law, he will be arrested and charged. The big question is, did he or did he not break the law. A grand jury will decide this issue. The Feds have stepped in to determine if he violated Federal law. In both cases, the system is working as it is supposed to. Does this satisfy certain people and an ethnic minority? No. They want what they call justice, even if it means denying Mr. Zimmerman his due process rights, his rights under the US Constitution.
Now I do not profess to know or understand what was going through Mr. Zimmerman's mind at the time. None of us can. We are Monday morning quarterbacking if we think we know all the facts of the case. These groups are not interested in facts, they want blood. Eye for an eye. How is justice served if Mr. Zimmerman is denied an opportunity to defend himself? How is justice served if the jury pool is tainted and intimidated, if he is charged and heads to trial?
If you read and listen to some of these people, what you hear is hatred towards whites, racism in it's worst form. I will not deny that this was a terrible mistake, the shooting. I lived in Los Angeles when the Rodney King verdict came down. We were all listening to the radio for the verdict and when it came down, I and many knew what was going to happen next. A friend of mine, who was from India, asked me what was going to happen next. I told him they will riot. I told him not to get off the freeway until his exit, do NOT take the side streets. Well, we all know what happened. Total breakdown of civil control. Now, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that justice was not served in this case, but still does not justify what happened next.
Lately, we have heard of the rantings of these people who claim that Negroes are being singled out for execution, presumably for crimes they did not commit, even though they were tried, convicted, went through the entire appeals processes and ultimately the Supreme Court, that the death penalty should not apply, rather life in prison is preferable. Well, if the person is innocent, then why settle for life? Yet, within 2 days of that execution, a Caucasian was terminated here in Texas for killing a Negro and they did not stand up for him, demanding life in prison. What does that say about justice being blind? Is there a double standard? It would appear so.
The point here is that all of these rantings are a result of pent up racism in the Negro community. Certainly I am not the only one who see's this. If you are going to blame anyone or anything, blame the law which allows for this sort of thing. If this was such a terrible law, then why not scream for justice for the 1st or 2nd or 65th victim also? No, this won't happen because they were not an unarmed Negro youth. Justice is only required of certain people.
I have become so disappointed in mainstream media and certain personalities that I have had to either defriend or unlike them on Facebook because they are on a racist rampage to demand their kind of justice, regardless of the law or due process. To attempt to deny this man his rights in the interest of a mob mentality out to lynch him is just as wrong as the the shooting in the first place.
We will never know what really happened. To suggest racial bias is yet to be proven. This profiling charge is nonsense. The race of the child did not become an issue until Mr. Zimmerman was asked to describe him. A hoodie? One could argue that issue any number of ways. One must remember the most notorious person to wear a hoodie was a Caucasian, the Unabomber.
I am not saying that Mr. Zimmerman was justified or not, I was not there, none of us were. Under our system of laws, a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. As of this writing, no charges have been filed. I suggest we let the system run it's course. To calm down the racial rhetoric.
In the mean time, I would suggest than those who demand justice, find another route, such as trying to get the law changed. That would be a fitting resolution. So put away your ropes and go home. Let the system work as it is designed to do. As for the family, if they have not already done so, file a wrongful death suit. Get your pound of flesh that way.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Keystone and the tar sand issue....
Much has been made of the Keystone XL pipeline lately. I am not going to comment on the ridiculous 'what if' scenarios being bandied about. I am not going to comment about the rampant ignorance on the subject by people who appear to be professional whiners and complainers. These folks will look at a picture or read a talking point and formulate their indignation without checking out any of the facts. What I am about to comment about is the mining itself, to offer a different point of view.
There are some who say that if the pipeline leaks, it will destroy the aquifer. This of course is silly talk. The same argument was made about the Alaska pipeline. What these loons fail to understand is that the tar sands are already ruining the environment by it's mere existence.
A gazillion years ago, natures god dumped billions of barrels of oil ONTO the surface of the land in Alberta, Canada, making it probably the largest toxic dump site on the entire planet. The soil is 'contaminated' with oil. The oil sands are very near the surface making the clean up easier than having to re-mediate soil well below the surface. Notice I use the term 'clean up' and 're-mediate'? So how do they get the oil out? The caustic, smelly, thick 'crude' on the ground and dump into a pipeline? Simply put, they dig out the contaminated soil, remove the oil and leave clean 'sand'. I don't know about you, but this sounds more like a toxic dump site clean up operation. Maybe because that is exactly what it is. You should see some of the before and after photos and videos after the land is reclaimed. Where a moon-like landscape once existed is replaced by lakes, ponds, forests...etc.
So I ask, what is the big deal?
There are some who say that if the pipeline leaks, it will destroy the aquifer. This of course is silly talk. The same argument was made about the Alaska pipeline. What these loons fail to understand is that the tar sands are already ruining the environment by it's mere existence.
A gazillion years ago, natures god dumped billions of barrels of oil ONTO the surface of the land in Alberta, Canada, making it probably the largest toxic dump site on the entire planet. The soil is 'contaminated' with oil. The oil sands are very near the surface making the clean up easier than having to re-mediate soil well below the surface. Notice I use the term 'clean up' and 're-mediate'? So how do they get the oil out? The caustic, smelly, thick 'crude' on the ground and dump into a pipeline? Simply put, they dig out the contaminated soil, remove the oil and leave clean 'sand'. I don't know about you, but this sounds more like a toxic dump site clean up operation. Maybe because that is exactly what it is. You should see some of the before and after photos and videos after the land is reclaimed. Where a moon-like landscape once existed is replaced by lakes, ponds, forests...etc.
So I ask, what is the big deal?
Monday, March 5, 2012
Iran..Jewish State and nukes.....
For it seems an interminably long time I have been listening and watching this debate. I have tried to put this subject in context and perspective. All parties seem to have overblown the importance of the issue in my opinion. The press is not much better, especially if you think about it, it's not really ll that important to include the Jewish state into the discussion. Yet, a tiny minority seems to have the political power the rough equivalent of the entire US. The Jewish population on this planet equals .02%. If you took everyone who claims to be Jewish, the rough equivalent would be the entire population of the state of Pennsylvania. I don't see Pennsylvania as being a world power equivalent to the US. I don't see Pennsylvania being a relevant political power in the US. There are more Jews living in the US than in Israel, 2.1% of the US population. I find it offensive that the TGOP can rail against American women who are 50% of the population, but don't dare say a word against the Jewish state. Why is that? I am so sick and tired of politicians in this country pandering to tiny minorities and allow them to influence foreign policy. The Jewish state is not the only one, Cuban's are another tiny minority which excessive political power. I can travel to Vietnam, China and Russia, but not Cuba. Explain this to me..please.
First off, our policy towards Iran should reflect OUR national security issues, not the Jewish state. If Iran, having a nuclear device is against our national interests, then the policy should reflect that. Let us consider who does have nukes. India, China, Russia, Israel, North Korea and of course, Pakistan. Now think about it for a moment, of those nations mentioned, who are the most erratic, irresponsible and unstable. The nation that should concern us directly is of course, Pakistan. If we had a choice between which nation we would feel more comfortable with having nukes, we would probably opt for Iran since they ARE a stable government. North Korea is a threat to Japan and yet we hear nothing like we do with the Jewish state.
What concerns me is that the Jewish state could influence our foreign policy further if they unilaterally attacked Iran. Attacking Iran by the Jewish state is NOT in the national security interests of the US. If the Jewish state were to attack Iran, then they should be left on their own. The Jewish state has a history of initiating conflict against her neighbors. In fact the Jewish state is under UN sanctions for not returning lands they illegally seized during their war of aggression in 1967. The Jewish state is indeed a rogue nation, not unlike Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Am I the only one who sees the double standard?
It was mentioned today, again that Iran is guilty of state sponsored terrorism. Depending on your perspective, one could argue this point either way. However this cannot be said about the Jewish state. The Jewish state created state sponsored terrorism, just look to the tactics of the Irgun and Hagenah and today, Mossad. Mossad is notorious for their tactics worldwide, with assassinations and terrorist activities. How many times have the agents of the Jewish state been arrested in the US for stealing US secrets. Some ally. The Palestinians learned from the Jewish state how to conduct terror campaigns because that is how the Jewish state became a reality in 1948.
Now lets be realistic. We dealt with the Cold War and the Soviet stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The calming factor was MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. In the case of Iran, they have NO capability at all to equal the US in nuclear firepower. If they were to attack any US ally, Jewish state included, they would be instantly vaporized. The Iranians in power, many educated in the West know all too well this would happen. So an attack by nuclear means is almost impossible. The thing is, pragmatic Israelis also know this. So where is the realistic threat? Words? That's it...words. If the Jewish state were to attack every nation that say's they want to destroy them, we would be in WW3 by now. The key word is, 'Say's'. Someone you know tells you in anger, 'I am going to kill you'. Just words, unless they run to their pickup truck and grab their AK47 'hunting rifle'. The difference is the means.
I will end this blog with a quote from a well respected figure in history. One who also understood the US and the American people. The quote defines America and Americans.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the attack he led on Pearl Harbor.
First off, our policy towards Iran should reflect OUR national security issues, not the Jewish state. If Iran, having a nuclear device is against our national interests, then the policy should reflect that. Let us consider who does have nukes. India, China, Russia, Israel, North Korea and of course, Pakistan. Now think about it for a moment, of those nations mentioned, who are the most erratic, irresponsible and unstable. The nation that should concern us directly is of course, Pakistan. If we had a choice between which nation we would feel more comfortable with having nukes, we would probably opt for Iran since they ARE a stable government. North Korea is a threat to Japan and yet we hear nothing like we do with the Jewish state.
What concerns me is that the Jewish state could influence our foreign policy further if they unilaterally attacked Iran. Attacking Iran by the Jewish state is NOT in the national security interests of the US. If the Jewish state were to attack Iran, then they should be left on their own. The Jewish state has a history of initiating conflict against her neighbors. In fact the Jewish state is under UN sanctions for not returning lands they illegally seized during their war of aggression in 1967. The Jewish state is indeed a rogue nation, not unlike Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Am I the only one who sees the double standard?
It was mentioned today, again that Iran is guilty of state sponsored terrorism. Depending on your perspective, one could argue this point either way. However this cannot be said about the Jewish state. The Jewish state created state sponsored terrorism, just look to the tactics of the Irgun and Hagenah and today, Mossad. Mossad is notorious for their tactics worldwide, with assassinations and terrorist activities. How many times have the agents of the Jewish state been arrested in the US for stealing US secrets. Some ally. The Palestinians learned from the Jewish state how to conduct terror campaigns because that is how the Jewish state became a reality in 1948.
Now lets be realistic. We dealt with the Cold War and the Soviet stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The calming factor was MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. In the case of Iran, they have NO capability at all to equal the US in nuclear firepower. If they were to attack any US ally, Jewish state included, they would be instantly vaporized. The Iranians in power, many educated in the West know all too well this would happen. So an attack by nuclear means is almost impossible. The thing is, pragmatic Israelis also know this. So where is the realistic threat? Words? That's it...words. If the Jewish state were to attack every nation that say's they want to destroy them, we would be in WW3 by now. The key word is, 'Say's'. Someone you know tells you in anger, 'I am going to kill you'. Just words, unless they run to their pickup truck and grab their AK47 'hunting rifle'. The difference is the means.
I will end this blog with a quote from a well respected figure in history. One who also understood the US and the American people. The quote defines America and Americans.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the attack he led on Pearl Harbor.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Propaganda and Hate, are you are you as sick of it as much as I am?
For the last year I have been compelled to do battle with those extremists on the right as well as the left. Dr. Goebbels would be more than proud with the multiple propaganda machines in play, Hitler himself coined the phrase, "when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." ".
There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's.
As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.
On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven.
For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe.
Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.
Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact.
Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!
How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?
Now for some political crap.
Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%.
Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill.
Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.
Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists.
Repeal Obamacare.
No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills.
Same sex marriage.
Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?
Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.
False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion.
I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe.
There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's.
As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.
On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven.
For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe.
Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.
Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact.
Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!
How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?
Now for some political crap.
Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%.
Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill.
Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.
Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists.
Repeal Obamacare.
No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills.
Same sex marriage.
Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?
Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.
False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion.
I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
After Iowa
The Iowa caucus finished tonight with 3 leaders. Of the three, only one generally appreciates the responsibility of be President of all of us. The other two are extremist ideologues who have a very narrow moral view and agenda not shared by mainstream America. One must remember, this is a secular nation, with laws created by Congress. It is not the place of a President to wage a religious war upon this nation. It is common knowledge that the term 'family values' is a code phrase for the extremist views of right wing Christians, who wish to foist their values and morality upon the rest of us, to deny us our rights as Americans to choose our own values.
If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.
It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.
What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.
There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?
Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?
So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.
As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.
The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.
I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?
If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.
It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.
What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.
There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?
Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?
So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.
As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.
The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.
I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)