The Unknown Rambler

It Just Doesn't Matter

2012-02-11T20:31:00.001-08:00

While the GOP blew up their own bridges,
thanks to the likes of Palin and the current crop of wing nuts,
the Democrats haven't done much better,
burning their bridges with the American people.

Dubya may have started the fire,
but Nero Obama fiddled while the world burns.

"Change we need," indeed!

Indecorous Decorum (not a Latin lesson)

2012-01-25T22:04:00.000-08:00

Most of you know that I'm not thrilled with our sitting President;
I wasn't thrilled with Dubya, either
(I'm an equal opportunity cynic).

But, I'll admit I'm somewhat chagrined
at the disrespect being shown the office, if not the man,
in much of the media.

One Headline News anchor (I won't mention names)
has repeatedly referred to him as "Mister Obama."
That is either pure ignorance
(doubtful, though, maybe he/she is just reading from the teleprompter
without thinking about what he/she is saying, which is possible;
n.b., I read newspapers over the radio
and, admittedly, ignore content and meaning,
just to get through it),
or is blatantly disrespectful of the office.
It's one thing for a news anchor to report the news;
it's quite another for them to potentially affect it in such a manner.

And, recently, I heard a Congressman in session on C-SPAN,
refer to the Secretary of State as just, "Hilary Clinton",
and in a somewhat subtle, but nonetheless, derisive manner.
Yes, he was a Republican (I won't mention names),
but he should know better.
She was a lawyer, a First Lady, a Senator,
and now Secretary of State.
He's a politician, and that's all he'll ever be.
He was disrespectful of both the office and the woman.

We the people, are free to disagree with our elected officials,
and we are equally free to refer to them however we wish
(and, more often than not, we do! I know *I* have!). ;)

I have seen American flags flying on private, public, and gov't property
in all kinds of weather*, and treated no better than a pillow cover.
But, this seemingly increasing level of disrepect to our elected officials
across the media and among administration officials, must be stopped.

Remember, honorable politicos and reporters,
display proper decorum,
or you might be the next one so "dissed".

-----
* (granted, certain exceptions/exemptions are made,
but those who have respect for the flag take care of it)

One Percent . . . Who Cares?

2012-01-25T21:29:00.000-08:00

By the numbers:

Okay. So, 1% of Americans are millionaires (ref: Wall Street Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/06/22/u-s-has-record-number-of-millionaires/). You know what? Statistically speaking, that isn't even significant!

Think about it. Which would you find more to grouse about? A statistically insignificant 1% of the nation being millionaires, or a statistically significant borderline 5% being millionaires? I'm willing to bet you now realize that 1% is nothing (okay . . . maybe not NOTHING!). Their combined net worth is $11.6 trillion. That's nearly four times what ObamaCare is going to cost the nation over the course of a decade. Think about that (yes, I know I'm asking you to do a lot of it!): 3.1 million people are millionaires whose COMBINED incomes would pay for health care for 30 years. And all that sounds indecently excessive, right? But, keeping in mind that the middle class will be paying for that, wouldn't you rather keep the estimated (and guaranteed to grow) $5,000+/yr/uninsured for when you really needed it, instead of spending it for either nothing or someone else's care? Oh, and, not to put too fine a point on it, but 10% of their combined wealth would pay for the ten years of wars Dubya started, and Obama seems incapable of stopping, vis-a-vis, the Libyan military aid (nice that nobody called it a war, eh?). So, let's blame the rich for not paying for our health plan - - which even the GAO says is unworkable - - and for wars that nobody wants or needs.

What about the poverty numbers? http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/: "In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty . . . the highest poverty rate since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000." So, basically, Dubya and crew screwed all of America, while Obama has sought to screw the middle class. But, look at the chart at the bottom of that page. 22% of Americans were living in poverty until the 1960s, and it was declining, rapidly, until the tech bust of the 1980s that it started going up, again, but, overall, it has remained relatively constant over the years!

So, are we better off than we were?
Certainly not under Dubya or Obama.

Should we "occupy Wall Street" over the 1%?
No. It's pointless.

Should we do something about corrupt laws
that protect banks and business (TARP comes to mind),
and makes it more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy?
Absolutely!

Will anything be done about it?
Not as long as the media is focused on a few thousand people wearing silly masks whose ultimate goal is . . . what is it again?

One woman stopped Bank of America from charging absurd fees on their debit cards by starting an online petition at Change.org. One person made a huge difference to the entire population! None of the Occupiers caused anyone in power to even blink an eye. But, then, again, 70% of the nation (and the GAO) screamed at Congress NOT to pass the Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law, but the people were ignored; and, if the Supreme Court rules as it should by law (i.e., 16th Amendment: "Congress has the right to pass taxes"), nothing will be done about it.

Still upset about the 1%?

To Suffer Slings and Arrows

2012-01-23T09:53:00.000-08:00

There is this bizarre notion that corporations owe something to the people. Any good business has to make decisions as to when to hire, fire, layoff, expand, etc, in order to survive. Would you rather that a barely surviving company - - private or public or gov't - - try to keep going with a burgeoning work force and, eventually, go bankrupt, or layoff a portion of the work force, so that the remainder still have jobs and the company still gives some revenue to the community?

I was a contractor and laid-off when my contract was done. A few weeks later, I found out that the company (a huge industry leader who I will not name) cut back salaries of all full-time staff, not once, but TWICE, presumably due to the economics of the times. The news did not make headlines, and it was not an across-the-board cut: they only cut the salaries of middle employees in certain low revenue sectors. But, again, nobody batted an eye. A few weeks later, that company bought a fringe company for nearly a trillion dollars; to be fair, the takeover had been in the works for years. But, if the publicly-traded company was doing so poorly that they had to cut salaries, why were they allowed to go ahead with the merger? Clearly, the only reason for the salary cut was to make something look better on paper to the SEC or to the company being bought out. IMnsHO*, companies that layoff employees and/or cut salaries should be prohibited from buying other companies for at least one year prior and after the layoff (or, if they already made the purchase, then one year after that). In other words, keep the employees off the unemployment lines rather than spend millions on a new toy. A few months later, salaries were restored to their previous levels, but there was no retroactive salary or bonus, etc. The only things left were demoralized employees who knew they had no option but to take the kick in the cajones and smile about it.

Regardless, that was the decision of the company.
At least they didn't layoff anybody (to my knowledge).
Did the company make the right decision
for itself and its employees?
I'm willing to bet that the employees would say,
"Better a cut than being on the unemployment line."

A few years ago, Kentucky had a choice between good ol' boy, politics-as-usual, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, and Democratic newbie, Bruce Lunsford, a businessman. McConnell's ads' (which he approved!) sole attack was that Lunsford - - a Kentucky resident, graduate, family man, etc - - had homes and businesses outside Kentucky, and that some of his dealings weren't 100% on the up-and-up. Never mind that McConnell had a number of skeletons, too. But, guess who won the election? No, seriously . . . guess! Are Kentuckians any better with an entrenched, politics-as-usual, old fogey of a lawyer than they would have been with a successful businessman? Guess! No, seriously . . . guess!

So, who would you rather have running the nation?
A lawyer or a businessman?
Think all you want before answering,
but it isn't a trick question,
because, as we all know,
the country has done so well
with the status quo legal eagles.

-----
* In My not so Humble Opinion

Yellow Brickbats

2012-01-21T20:44:00.000-08:00

See if you can match the name to the character in the image, below:

- Newt Gingrich
- Mitt Romney
- Ron Paul
- Disenfrancised American voter praying they'll wake up,
just by clicking their shoes together,
and find that the last decade has been nothing but a bad dream.
- Toto (not the band).

Childish-sounding Acronyms = Big Boy Trouble

2012-01-18T16:38:00.000-08:00

First, what is SOPA? The "Stop Online Piracy Act" was intended to stop copyright and "intellectual property" violators.

Second, what is PIPA? The "Protect Intellectual Property Act" is, basically, the same thing, although it claims to go after websites that infringe on trademarks and property, such as movies, goods and services, which may be phony.

The concept of both is that the bill gives extraordinary powers to the Federal gov't to prevent or outright shutdown sites (mostly foreign) that it believes are violators. It isn't clear how they would go about that: Take away their domain, which the website owner paid for, or send them a cease-and-desist warning/order? Unfortunately, as with the argument, "What is art?", sometimes, copyright ownership can be in doubt. China and other totalitarian nations currently block/censor the internet, so, bizarrely, the US feels it needs to jump on board.

Third, there are two trains of thought concerning access to the internet, at least in the USA (the following are WAY oversimplified; if you want the GORE-y (!) details, go here: http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/internet-51/history-internet/brief-history-internet):

(1) The internet was created via a USA gov't agency (paid for (naturally) by taxpayer dollars) by college professors and private companies. Thus, it could be argued that we paid for it, therefore we should be given free access to it, and our Constitutional right of Free Speech, etc, should not be abridged.

(2) Although it was paid for by taxpayer dollars, the US gov't is responsible for having created it, and, to a degree, has the responsibility to ensure that it is safe for all (e.g., the National Security Agency monitors phone and internet communications, mostly for terrorists, including those who seek to cripple the internet; never mind that it is pretty much useless, for reasons that would take too long to explain).

I'm just wondering how is it that a Congress and Senate that are incapable of balancing the budget, deem themselves worthy of policing something they barely understand, much less use, for the most part (you think they're the ones who write the stuff you see on their websites? do you think they even know what "HTML" stands for?)

Besides, there is a far more pressing problem involving censorship of the web - - which you may have seen, and mistook for your anti-virus/malware program - - being performed by a private company/website, without any gov't intervention. In other words, some well-meaning, but overreacting citizen(s) and companies, have made themselves judge, jury, and executioner of the web. I've been victimized by them. For more info, refer to my blog: http://theunknownrambler.blogspot.com/2011/10/google-boondoggle.html

Looney Clooney

2011-12-16T19:00:00.000-08:00

|

(George Clooney - - Obama friend - - purportedly made the above statement)

Dear Mr. Clooney:

"Saved the auto industry?"

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2011-12-16/auto-bailout-taxpayer-cost/52007784/1

However, Mr. Clooney, I do agree
that while nobody could have waved a magic wand
over the near-treasonous, wanton, irresponsible act
of waging wars against nations
that have done no direct harm to the USA
(terrorists - - whether sponsored by nations or not - -
are not nations unto themselves,
and no formal declaration of war was ever given),
Obama is, arguably, the worst President since Dubya
(or the best, depending on your point-of-view)
in not only doing nothing to solve the situation,
but, seemingly, doing everything in his power to worsen it,
vis-a-vis, the Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law,
the attacks on Libya while ignoring
the rest of the Arab Spring nations,
all in the name of oil . . .
do I really need to go on?

For the record, Mr. Clooney, I have been a registered
(and not too happy) Democrat for nearly 40 years,
and, in the 2008 election, voted "Not Palin",
knowing full well that an ignorant, black, Democrat
would be every bit as good
as an ignorant, white, Republican.
That you can defend a man who cannot make up his mind
whose side he is on, and who has, arguably,
been the most divisive President, ever,
indicates that you are a straight-party voter,
and, as such, your opinion is pretty much moot.

The wonderful thing about democracy
is that voters are allowed to be disillusioned and pragmatic
about their elected officials.
And, if we are disappointed in them,
we are allowed to say so
(and, more power to the people who do).
Or, Mr. Clooney, would you prefer fascism?

Mr. Clooney, if that statement is the best argument you can make
for giving Obama the nation's blessing for a repeat performance
(assuming the statement was really made by you,
as opposed to being a made-up, viral, statement by who-knows-who),
then is it specious, ignorant, and divisive sophistry;
but, then again, such has been the last decade of US politics,
so, welcome to the club of know- and do-nothings.

"Change we need," indeed!

[UPDATE] Obama announced - - oh-so-coincidentally-timed-I'm-sure - - that he wants to actually do something to reduce spending by combining four allegedly similar trade-based Federal agencies. He didn't even blink an eye when he said that 1,000-2,000 jobs would be lost in the "trade", although it will be through "attrition", rather than through pink slips (when was the last time you heard of 1,000 people jumping ship, voluntarily, in a few years' time?), at a cost saving of $200 billion which would sound great if it weren't spread over a decade's time (i.e., comes down to $20 billion a year, which is less than what has been spent on the wars in a week), and then compounds that by asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling AGAIN (when was the last time you were heavily in hock and asked for more credit without somebody suggesting that you cut-up your credit cards?). My regular readers don't need to know this, but, for the record, I am a lifelong Democrat who has never voted along straight party lines, always voted for whom I genuinely believed was the best qualified person, and during the previous Presidential election, voted "Not Palin". I repeat: "Change we need," indeed.

Episode III

2011-12-15T13:50:00.000-08:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-war-formally-shut-down-in-iraq/2011/12/15/gIQAA5WQwO_video.html

You don't really think this is the end of it, do you?

Don't forget: All those returning troops (est )
will add to the unemployment lines
(veterans preferences notwithstanding).
And if true peace ever broke out (yeah, I giggled, too),
the Pentagon, CIA, Homeland InSecurity, TSA, etc,
would all be out of a job,
and add even more to the unemployment lines.

Once al-Qaeda gets entrenched in the now-deposed,
chaotic mess, that the ersatz hope of democracy
has brought to the Arab world
(either by Bush Sr's Dubya's pseudo-crusades,
or by Obama approving billions of dollars to bomb Libya,
which was doing fine without us,
or by the miraculously near-synchronous
"Arab Spring" uprisings
(can you say, "CIA involvement"
and "We never learn from past mistakes, do we?")),
we'll be back in force,
as shown in the film, "More Wars",
coming soon to a war theater far, far, away from you.

The Mind Reels (not a soap opera . . . well . . . maybe it is!)

2011-12-01T19:46:00.000-08:00

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approves-662-billion-defense-bill-012555722.html

(1) The Senate votes 93-7 in favor of this massive spending appropriation, yet did nothing to help the Congressional Deficit Committee. This may very well be solid proof that extraterrestrials live among us! (BTW, is it a coincidence that the 7 seemingly intelligent Senators who voted against it equals the 7 seemingly idiotic Congressmen who voted for the Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law? Is this what they call the "Balance of Power"?)

(2) This bill would also give the military the authority to hold suspected terrorists, no matter where they were captured, indefinitely, without due process, just like the ones in the now-reviled Guantanamo (Gitmo) base. "Democracy for none" seems to be the Senate's creed (since they took an oath to uphold the Constitution, doesn't this anti-Constitutional section of the bill scream a violation of that oath?).

(3) Treasury officials warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a proposed amendment to the bill to sanction Iran, due to its nuclear threat, could increase oil prices. In other words, if we cut off Iran financially and, presumably, via an embargo, they will raise the price of crude oil (or the market will do so, since Iran is currently the #5 oil producing nation; ref: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html), so let's not sanction them. Meanwhile, we fiddled while most of the Arab world burned (except, of course, for then-#9 (currently #18) ranked oil producer Libya, which, given the lowering of refined gas prices, may have been a good thing to consumers, but will cost us in the long run thanks to adding to the crippling debt to run the NATO air strikes, and the dubious outcome of any Democratic reforms, there ("Bomb 'em and Leave 'em" seems to be the new USA creed)), reducing crude oil exports, but prices have plummetted in the past two years, despite that. It seems that the Treasury would rather see Iran launch nukes and make "dirty" bombs (has there ever been a "clean" bomb? the "Neutron" bomb used radiation) than have oil prices rise.

All this leaves two questions:

1) What lunatics are in charge of our nation?

2) What lunatics put them there?

"Change we need," indeed!

When was Facebook hired by the Fed?

2011-11-30T08:53:00.000-08:00

First, Google makes itself judge, jury, and executioner over web pages (http://theunknownrambler.blogspot.com/2011/10/google-boondoggle.html), and now, apparently, Facebook thinks it's a gov't agency, demanding to see (and, apparently, getting) passports!

http://www.cfoworld.com/technology/25368/salman-rushdie-forces-facebook-climbdown-over-his-name

You'd think that with the "Occupy" movement (which, for the record, I don't agree with), corporate America would realize that they should back off the backs of the American people. Instead, it seems to be getting worse.

Who is standing up for citizens' rights?

Try Paint Instead of Panel

2011-11-20T23:27:00.000-08:00

http://news.yahoo.com/debt-panel-poised-admit-failure-210257032.html

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Dear Useless Congressmen, Senators, and President:
(give me some credit for not beating around the Bush or Obama)

I have an idea.

Since you seem incapable of or lack the cajones
to do what is necessary to get this country back on its feet
- - starting with impeaching a President
who seems hellbent on keeping us in debt
(if you're reading this, Mr. President, just ignore this part) - -
why not give the voters a
Golden Chance to Work for Democracy,
by having us send you bozos
lists of everything we think should either
be eliminated from the budget, or otherwise done,
such that, at the very least, it won't worsen?

You would then take the top one hundred ideas by topic
(e.g., social security, military, health care, Congressional and Senatorial pay, etc),
determine the best respective procedures to obtain the cost savings from each,
and implement them, no matter what the potential outcome.

That way, the Fed is completely exonerated of all blame
that may arise from implementing those ideas if things go wrong

- - and, correspondingly, take the credit when things go well - -
and nobody can say that the citizens didn't have a say
in the gov't that's supposed to be of, by, and for yadda yadda yadda.

And I'll sweeten the deal
by saying that you would be free
to eliminate every suggestion
to remove the lot of you from office.

Now, who can argue with that?

Google Boondoggle

2011-10-31T21:41:00.000-07:00

After you read the following,
please sign my online petition about it at:

http://tinyurl.com/stopwebblocks

__________________________________

Firefox has a setting under Tools -> Options -> Security -> Block reported attack sites,

which, if selected, will display a rather alarming warning message on some websites (omnidoc.org is mine):

and here is Google.com's version of that message, referring to my "Birds In My BackYard (BIMBY)" web page:

Why does this happen and what, exactly, does it mean?

Mozilla.org (more familiarly known as the creators of the Firefox (nee Netscape) web browser) and Google.com (a well-known, publicly-traded, non-government company; a major internet search engine and owner of many websites, including this one (i.e., blogger.com, aka, blogspot.com)), et al., led by a company called StopBadware.org, have decided that, in the interest of internet safety, they have made themselves judge, jury, and executioner, of internet websites, such that:

Any website they deem to be viral,

or contain malware or spyware,

or have any other negative, untoward, or miscreant aspect
- - whether or not such actually exists on the offending website - -

shall be deemed "bad" by StopBadware.org, et al.,

          and have the above image (or similar) displayed,
          instead of being given immediate access
          to the given, desired website.

In this case, "omnidoc.org" is my website, and the above is the actual warning that appears when you surf to that page, assuming you have the "right" browser (so far, Firefox and Google Chrome) and the appropriate browser settings (usually preset when you install the browser software onto your computer), per or similar to the sentence above the image. This may also display if you go to Google.com, search for a particular term within an allegedly "bad" webpage, and click on the given link.

Or, it may be more accurate to say that, presumably, StopBadware.org tells its subscribers/users (i.e., Google, Firefox, et al.) to "flag" the page as being "bad", so that browsers may use that information to display a warning, similar to the above (to the best of my knowledge, Microsoft (via its Internet Explorer web browser, et al.) does not avail itself of this "service"). Per the previous paragraph, utilizing Google.com's web search engine, regardless of the browser you use, may result in a similar, textual warning next to the results, and you'll have no choice but to click on that link, rather than being allowed to proceed to the actual, desired, web page.

This is roughly akin to dialing a phone number, and then, instead of being connected to that person, hearing a message from the phone company saying that they believe the party you are calling is a potential criminal (can you say, "libel"?), and that you need to press "1" to continue. Or, being told that if you don't follow "our religion" . . . well, let's not go there, shall we?

You'll notice, in the above picture (the red one from Firefox), that there is a very tiny line/link in the lower right-hand corner, indicating that you can proceed. But, notice its size in comparison to the much larger, and easier to notice, "Get me out of here" and "Why was this page blocked" buttons, which would frighten just about anybody into not reading the tiny "ignore" link, much less the rest of the notice (which did you notice more easily in the preceding sentence: The bold phrases or the tiny one?). Most people would tend to react by pressing the "Get me out of here" button, instead of reading the entire notice; when I first saw that notice, *I* did exactly that, and it was for MY site!!! Why did I do that for my own site? I thought it had been hijacked! (of course, it wasn't! Or . . . was it?)

If you click the tiny "Ignore this warning" link, you will not only be taken to the proper page, but you will be shown a button under the toolbar asking you to state whether the site is valid or viral. If you do so, another window or tab appears, giving you all sorts of information, most of which the average surfer could care less about, not to mention that it is a kind of "pop-up", which most people loathe and ignore as being superfluous (another irony?). That "pop-up" is for StopBadware.org, which, as of November 28, 2011, claims to have cited over 950,000 "bad" websites, presumably found via "reports" from individuals (never mind that it's possible for a hacker or miscreant to falsely identify perfectly good/valid sites as being bad) and its own software (scanning the internet for such is often done with something called a "bot", which, again, ironically, is usually considered a "bad" thing, because it is invasive, if not pervasive, and, per this blog, erroneous, although - - in a third irony - - it can be helpful for people to find sites via search engines). In other words, for all intents and purposes, this is an advertisement for itself and a list of companies shown on that page (currently: Google, Mozilla (aka, Netscape, Firefox, et al.), Paypal, et al.), telling the world how wonderful it is that it is doing this on behalf of all the nice people out there . . . like it or not. Presumably, if enough people click that link, then Google, et al., will stop flagging it as being "bad" (I have no idea how many such clicks it would take for that to happen. One? Two? Five? A hundred?).

To be fair, Google and StopBadware.org do give webmasters a "sporting" chance to "redeem" themselves,by "simply" poring over a huge list of guidelines, in order to determine what is wrong with their site:

https://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769#1

But, if you look at that list, you'll find a rather extensive list of things that the average computer user or webmaster might barely understand, much less even be aware of, much less understand how to "fix"! Here is a sampling from that Google page (there are LOTS more!):

Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links.
Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number.
Make sure that your title elements and ALT attributes are descriptive and accurate.
Check for broken links and correct HTML.
Make reasonable efforts to ensure that advertisements do not affect search engine rankings.
Test your site to make sure that it appears correctly in different browsers.
Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings.

Most average internet users who create webpages are barely computer literate, much less internet savvy. They typically use web hosts that give them templates to use without needing to know HTML, the language of the internet. Using the "Check for broken links . . . " line, they might understand how to create links, but what happens if an external link (i.e., a link to a different website) disappears, as often happens? That is a "broken" link. Why should the poor web owner be responsible for an external site's changes or demise? And what is a "reasonable number" of links? Also, many web hosts, especially ones that are "free" to website/page owners, automatically insert advertisements into the website, whether the owner wants them or not. Again, why should the owner be held responsible for that? "Tricks intended to improve search engine rankings" include, among other things, using something called "META keywords", otherwise known as "tags", which are words meant to identify the site, to make it easier for search engines, like (ironically) Google, to identify your site when someone enters keywords into the search box. Is there a magic number of such tags? What about the tags, themselves? Are there words that aren't allowed? And, how ironic is it that a web search engine - - whose primary job is to show links to people - - tells people not to have "too many" links on their website, not to mention that they include a few advertisement links, along with links to sites that have paid for the privilege to be at the top of their search results.

Google also gives webmasters a chance to "absolve" themselves by signing-up for and posting a tiny file created by Google for the webmaster's specific website, which tells Google (and StopBadware?) that the site has been "checked". But, what if the person's website is a "sub-domain", as is the case with many free web hosts, and he/she has no control over or is not allowed to download such on their site, other than pre-formatted pages or blog pages, etc? And what if the person who put that file on their site, is actually a ne'er-do-well, who then puts viruses, et al., on it? Would Google and StopBadware accept responsibility and liability for anyone's computer being infected or crashing because of that? Somehow, I doubt it. Worse, even if you do all this, there is no guarantee that Google, et al., will stop displaying the above message/warning. Google also has a video on their "redeem thyself" pages, telling webmasters to be "nice" when requesting redemption, because, after all, there are people on the receiving end of that request:

"We wield the power, so you better be pleasant!"

Isn't that the same line we hear from bullies, gangsters, bad cops, et al.?

And, BTW, Google does not respond to individual requests for information or, in my cases, requests to stop what they are doing, without having to go through their notion of web validation
(i.e., "Request a malware review": http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=168328).

At this point, even someone totally unfamiliar with the web would probably be thinking:

Who are Google, StopBadware, et al.,
to tell the world what's right or wrong?

I, for one, am all for protecting users from nefarious websites.

But, isn't that what anti-virus / malware / spyware companies spend millions of dollars doing?

Telling the world that a site is suspect (legitimate or not)
is tantamount to libel, if not being vandalistic

(not to mention taking potential retail dollars out of the pockets of anti-virus, et al., manufacturers).

I do not know whether Mozilla and Google, et al., pay anything to StopBadware.org
for the use of that company's information,
but isn't it in StopBadware's best interest, if not very existence,
to keep finding "bad" websites,
screaming to the world with an unholier-than-thou attitude:
"Look how many evil (in our opinion) websites are out there!"

The US Government, alone, spends millions, if not billions, of dollars for agencies, including the FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, etc, searching for genuinely bad websites, in hopes of rooting out viruses, malware, and even terrorists. Yet, somehow, StopBadware.org has found nearly a million of such without any such funding! What's wrong with this picture? Neither Google nor StopBadware, et al., are related to Homeland Security or any other government agency. Even if they were, why are they interfering with our Freedom of Speech? Okay . . . maybe that was a little extreme! For the most part, they don't tell surfers how to turn off the relevant browser settings, or tell webmasters specifically what's wrong with their site (my requests for such from Google for my own sites have resulted in form/template letters with vague terms, and even lists of sites I have nothing to do with!). If users want to surf the web using Google.com, that's their choice, and Google has every right to do what it wants to protect itself and its users. As such, it can do what it wants with its own browser (i.e., Google Chrome), or even give more subtle alerts when a user clicks a link found via their search engine (perhaps a "potentially viral" symbol next to the given link). But, for Google and StopBadware to tell the world that there are alleged, naughty, sites out there, is improper, intrusive, immoral, and, possibly, illegal, given that its actions may be construed as an invasion of privacy, blocking free access to the web, potentially libelous, and even hindering fair trade for retail and similar sites. Google and StopBadware, et al., have stuck their tentacles into the public domain, where they have no right, purview, or even permission, from the powers-that-be, such as ICANN (the international authority which controls website domains, addresses, etc), local, national, and world governments, et al.

You might be thinking to yourself, "Stop complaining, and just de-select the Firefox option, so that you don't see the warning!" That's all well and good for the person that does such, and doesn't care that others are having their choices dictated to, assuming they even know about that option, or that webmasters who do so are, unknowingly, not seeing the "whole" picture (or, at least, as Google and StopBadware would have them see it). And, if StopBadware is collecting a fee for their efforts from Google, et al., then, as I said, above, it is in their best interest that the browsers, et al., eventually eliminate that currently, user-selectable, option.

While I am grateful that Google has deigned not to charge webmasters to redeem themselves, especially in this world of over-commercialization and privacy intrusion, I wonder if that day is not far in coming. Regardless, Google and StopBadware, et al., need to stop this well-intended, but misguided, attempt at keeping the internet "safe". How ironic is it that Google, et al., kowtows to nations like China, which doesn't want their citizens to view certain democratic/free-thinking websites, but, in the Land of the Brave and the Home of the Free (and, I presume, most everywhere else democracy is enjoyed), Google and StopBadware deign to censor willy-nilly?

Wake up, Google, StopBadware, et al.!

This is America!!!

You'd think they'd have learned from the current wave

of anti-corrupt gov't and business (i.e., "Occupy Wall Street") movements,
not to mention their own protests against the USA's government's
anti-piracy campaigns - - SOPA and PIPA - - by claiming that the gov't
has no right to interfere with legitimate websites and businesses!
(do they even know what "chutzpah" means?)

I don't know whether a class action suit has been initiated on behalf of webmasters and web owners,

but, IMnsHO*, one should be (n.b., I have sent two requests - - one in April 2011 and the other in October 2011 - - to Google, via the above link, asking them to clear my website, omnidoc.org, but have received no response). I am considering filing an injunction followed by a class action suit.

If you agree with the above,
that these companies have no business mucking with the internet,
then please sign my online petition at:

http://tinyurl.com/stopwebblocks

Thank you!

P.S. In the continuing and growing list of ironies, another maligned site is BuildingDemocracyPress.com, a website I created for another individual,

and which, I assure you, has no malevolent content!

P.P.S. The above Google.com warning appeared after I had changed web hosts (for reasons having nothing to do with this issue) and there were no web pages to display for DAYS! Nice to know they and StopBadware keep up-to-date! (according to their pages, they will re-scan every 90 days or so; isn't that nice of them? even if you fix all the aforementioned "problems", you are on "probation" for at least 90 days!!!)

P.P.P.S. I have received two more letters from Google concerning multiple websites I own or of which I am the webmaster, explaining that those sites contain potential malware, and that I need to rectify the situation and request a review. I gave them a response in that review request, which stated that I shall seek a legal remedy (i.e., injunction and suit), if they do not stop their spams and interference with my and others' rights. I'm sure that will go by the wayside, as well (I would have posted their spam and my response, but, I think you've read enough!). ;)

P.P.P.P.S. In the ultimate irony, this blog site was bought by Google a while ago!

------

* In My not so Humble Opinion

Who am I? A brief bio and explanation.

     I am a U.S. citizen by birth and residence;
     a computer programmer by education and vocation since 1974.
   I have worked at companies requiring credit checks, background checks,
     fingerprinting, and even Federal government security clearances.

I have been a part-time webmaster for myself and others for over ten of those years.

Go to omnidoc.org (if one of the above warnings appear,
make sure to press the tiny "Ignore..." link, or similar, per the above),

where you'll find a list of my personal websites,

     as well as the ones for others that I designed and/or maintain.
     Briefly run through them, and see which, if any,
     you believe to be "bad" for the world at large
     (per the above missive, that is irrelevant, but, I'll leave it up to you to decide that).

I am not, now, nor have I ever been a computer/internet "hacker",

nor have I otherwise ever engaged in what anyone would consider

to be negative, mischievous, or criminal, in any way, shape, or form,

nor do any of my websites have any content that anyone would deem "bad"

(they may not agree with some content, but that is Freedom of Speech and Expression).

This is the longest blog I have written to date.

     It affects me and everyone else (that is not hyperbole) who uses the internet,
     which was originally designed by and for the U.S. Government,
     but became a tool for the entire planet,
     and was meant to be unfettered and free (other than to pay for the commercial service to access it, of course).

I tried to make the above informative as well as interesting, attractive, and even humorous.

     Hopefully, your attention span was long enough
     to have read the above in its entirety,
     if only to see my frustration, and, potentially, that of millions of other internet users
     - - not just the webmasters, who, if they don't use Firefox, et al.,
     may not even be aware of this issue! - -
     and that you are savvy enough to understand its repercussions for all internet users,
     if not the democratic process.

Man up!

2011-10-20T11:23:00.000-07:00

Why are hooligans and criminals referred to as "men" by the media?

The words "man" and "men" denote not only one's sex,
but also a certain age, if not deportment,
which, in my mind, should always be synonymous with "gentleman."
Acting in any other way, makes one less than civil,
and, certainly, as no gentleman.

IMnsHO*, anyone accused of a crime should be listed by their gender: male or female.

If you want to be a "man", then don't act like a child, ne'er-do-well, or criminal.

-----
* In My not so Humble Opinion

2011-10-16T15:17:00.000-07:00

Driver Dan Wheldon died in a 15-car crash at the
IZOD IndyCar World Championships from Las Vegas Motor Speedway.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Wheldon+injured+serious+crash+Vegas+Indy/5558782/story.html

(n.b., the article, above, was released shortly after the accident,
and before his death was confirmed)

For years, I have wondered, what is the point of modern racing?

In the early years, it was used to test engines, cars, and parts,
that would, eventually, go into civilian/consumer vehicles.

But, now, most such can be done on computers,
and driven on test tracks (assuming they need to be driven at all),
without the need for racing.

Racing has bred illegal driving contests,
both backroad and main thoroughfares,
and threatened civilian drivers and pedestrians.

Indy, in particular, is extremely dangerous,
with vehicles that offer virtually no protection from any accident.

Is it even a test of man and machine, anymore,
or just another outlet for sponsors to advertise?

Q: What is a human life worth to Indy drivers?
A: Five "tribute laps".

Time is Money

2011-10-14T02:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/10/13/1920090/ky-finance-secretary-used-state.html

OMG!!!
She spent absolutely nothing of the taxpayers' dimes,
totally by reasonable accident!!!
QUICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's string her up by her ear buds!!!!!!!

Meanwhile, Congress is poised to eliminate Planned Parenthood (HR358),
*if* P.P. doesn't behave in a Godly manner,
because, Lord knows that the annual cost
of P.P. is about $320 million per YEAR (GASP!!!!),
while the Afghanistan War (what are we fighting for?)
costs $300 million per * * * D - A - Y * * *!!!
(and that doesn't count the cost of lives killed over there!
kinda indicates who Congress thinks is important, doesn't it?)
Aren't you glad Congress is ready to slay
yet another budget demon to balance the budget?

I usually have something pithy to say at this point,
but, I think the above speaks for itself.
Or, do you need a remedial math lesson?
(oops! can't do that!
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting
is on the chopping block, again,
so, no Sesame Street for y'all!
and so much for pith!)

Sex, Lies, and Videotape

2011-10-12T09:47:00.000-07:00

Political economist, Robert Reich,
calling everyone a boob in his "The 7 Biggest Economic Lies" video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS7Z0

=======

The biggest lie is making patently, over-simplified, glossed-over, politically-charged, rhetorical statements, while totally ignoring basic economic theory (I'm not saying the GOP - - to whom the video is targeted - - has it right, either; I'm just saying that one side's rhetoric is no better than anyone else's).

For example, while it is certainly true that the economy cannot grow without spending (i.e., if everyone saved 100% of their money, nobody would buy anything and there would be no jobs; ludicrous example, isn't it? especially in an era where people spend more on cups of coffee than milk or gas; and look at how Starbucks has grown over the past decade during this recession cum depression), it is also true that the Federal gov't cannot stimulate the economy by spending willy-nilly and creating pseudo-jobs, such as those via the Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law, which the Fed's own GAO says is woefully underfunded by over 250% (i.e., add another $1.5 trillion to the stated $900+ billion the nation will have to pay. On a side note, exactly where does the Fed believe the necessary physicians, nurses, pharmacists, hospitals, clinics, etc, will come from to handle the additional 30,000,000 new, no-fee, patients? But, I won't go there (too late?)), and certainly not without taking money out of the peoples' pockets (did you notice how cleverly I made the argument that if you save all your money, you can't spend it, and it will cost the economy, while, by associative logic, if that money is taken away from you, you still can't spend it, and the economy will still not grow, especially when 100% of that money is used to benefit only 10% of the nation? (i.e., most likely, not you!) Notice, too, that I didn't mention that you won't gain any benefit from having Uncle Sam take the estimated $5,000 per year cost per middle class person, while it may, very well, put some lower-middle class people on Welfare . . . and how much will THAT cost?).

Rhetoric is a wonderful thing.
It's a shame no good ever comes of it (including mine!).

And, before anyone screams and yells and whines that I must be one of "them", I am and have been a registered (and very disappointed) Democrat. Fortunately, the GOP is just as bad, and with no reasonable Independents coming forward, it's safe to say that nobody is going to benefit from the next President, no matter who it is. "Change we need", indeed!

P.S. Sorry . . . no "sex" (had to get your attention!).

P.P.S. I love that Reich has covered all his bases:
When he retires from rhetorical political statements
about dubious economic theory,
he can always get a job as a political cartoonist.
How many of us regular folk have that option? ;)

Family Matters

2011-10-06T14:33:00.000-07:00

Reading between the lines
(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/105741/),
everyone's favorite doll with a loose screw and missing nuts, Sarah Palin,
claims that God told her that family comes first,
and that she didn't have a prayer in hell of winning.

Not sure which she thought was the more likely.

Going for the Old Sympathy Ploy!

2011-10-03T15:35:00.000-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama--america--not-better-off--today-than-four-years-ago.html

Here's my take on it:

Oskar, Oskar, Adolf

2011-09-12T10:42:00.000-07:00

There is a video making the rounds of a conservative (surprise!) member of the Swiss (equal surprise!) Parliament:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCW2hxux3Ro

Christianity has been around for just over 2000 years. Given all the wars and strife (e.g., Spanish Inquisition) fomented by various zealots, missionaries, crusades (including the latest one, started by Don Quixote-Dubya), etc, since then - - all, ironically, in the name of someone who wanted only peace - - perhaps it is time to given another religion a chance (n.b., I'm not saying Islam is that religion). But, just imagine a world without religion; I wonder if you can.

Despite its documented loathing of other religions, Islam, itself, is not the problem. Most "Islamic" terrorists are poor, uneducated, innocents, who have been brainwashed, or otherwise coerced and threatened, subtly or not, into joining forces with extremists, who, for the most part, are interested less in religious dogma than keeping the lucrative drug trade alive and well.

I recognize an extremist when I see and hear one, and the ranting of the one in the video is no different from any other of whom history has made its decision. Whether it's terrorists screaming for the annihilation of "infidels" in the name of their god (notice that I did not indicate which religion) or a fire-and-brimstone politician - - who, BTW, according to Wikipedia, is a conservative (what a shock!) member of the "Christian Democratic People's Party", and whose personal creed is "Belonging to the (Union Démocratique du Centre) is seeking Truth", which implies that anyone who doesn't belong to that group is a liar . . . pass the brown shirts, please - - the message is the same: Destruction of anyone who opposes "us".

The intelligentsia are the first to be driven out or executed by extremists in power, because they are the biggest threat to that power. Not the guns or other weapons that any opposition may have. The pen is mightier than the sword. Unfortunately, it works both ways, and, seemingly, the louder the speakers, the more adherents they get, as the blatant fascist in this video is already proving.

"Those who cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it."
- - Santayana

McEnbrat wants the criminals to run the game

2011-09-11T14:59:00.000-07:00

I am beyond sick and tired of John McEnroe's rantings.
During the 2011 US Open women's championship,
he argued that ironically-named Serena Williams'
outburst while Samantha Stosur (who won the match)
tried to hit the ball, should not have been penalized a point.
Not before, not after . . . DURING.

He constantly argues that the rules should be eliminated
in favor of childish, bullying behavior,
and to throw out the Code of Conduct and the officials,
and let chaos rule!

        Taking too long between points?
        Ignore it!

        Foot fault at a crucial point in a game?
        Ignore it!

        Yelling while your opponent is trying to hit the ball?
        Ignore it!

        Listening to McEnroe's misinformed mouthings?
        Ignore it!

Congratulations to Samantha Stosur!

And, given Serena's boorish, erratic behavior,
she needs to be tested for steroids or some other drug.

2011-09-02T17:02:00.000-07:00

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." - - http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

No, it isn't about Obama attempting to create new jobs with massive and costly infrastructure by instituting a poorly conceived Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law, while spending even more on pointless and dangerous wars and other gross missteps by the current administration (i.e., the backing of rebel forces for the sole sake of protecting oil in Libya, while doing nothing about Syria, except wagging fingers at it, totally ignoring the fact that all the other rebelling mideast/African nations did so with little or no American taxpayer funds (unless the situation was fomented by the CIA or similar . . . but that would be delusionally paranoid of me, since the CIA isn't allowed to do that . . . or are they?). Never mind that Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, will soon become property of the Taliban/al-Qaeda, or that Libya will go to great pains to attack neighboring Algeria, because the latter has harbored pro-Khaddafi (I don't care how his name is spelled) individuals).

It's from the Declaration of Independence.
"He" was King George III.

It seems that the more things change,
the more they stay the same.

And yet, "Change we need," indeed!

What's in an official document? That which we call a skunk . . .

2011-07-19T19:33:00.000-07:00

http://money.msn.com/how-to-budget/article.aspx?post=49e16d5e-1680-4ec8-82e1-4196418867c5&GT1=33006

Let me get this straight:

According to the above article,
in order for citizens to avoid the lines,
having to remove shoes,
and personal searches/pat downs* at airports,
all we have to do is pay some dough
and give tons of personal information.

Cool.
I just hope they give it a name other than "passport"!

Money talks.
People walk . . . without shoes.

-----
* (notice that the article indicated that Homeland Insecurity still has wiggle room to do everything to you that you're paying to avoid, which is certainly reasonable, if you should appear drunk or wearing a Bin Laden mask or intend to re-elect Obama . . . ) ;)

Casey did not strike out

2011-07-05T19:42:00.000-07:00

The murder of Caylee Anthony will go unsolved. Her negligent, lying mother will not be punished beyond the 3 years she has already served.

Here's my take on it:

Even the forensic medical staff couldn't figure out a cause of death. Maybe Caylee was playing with the duct tape, wandered off, tripped, fell, was knocked unconscious, and asphyxiated. How she got into the bag found by the utility worker is beyond me. Given the worker's rather peculiar persistence to the cops on the off-the-beaten-path object, maybe he could shed some light on that?

Who knows?

It is evident that the prosecution was guessing throughout the trial,
and, right or not, the jury saw through it.

Not everyone is a good parent, much less a model citizen,
but even the worst parent is not, necessarily, a murderer.

And, yet, how much worse are children
facing daily neglect or worse?

And, even more chilling, how many of us will care about this
a mere week, much less days from now,
much less remember Caylee's name?

Don't believe me?

Do you realize that, as of today, Japan is still reeling from the earthquake and tsunami?
No magic wand was waved to make things all better.

What about the Haitians
still living in squalor from the 2010 earthquake?
No magic wand, there, either.

Those who are still suffering
in the wake of the Gulf oil incident,
much less those who died
on the Deepwater Horizon platform?

How many Katrina victims were (are) there?

What about the name of the Cuban boy
who made international headlines
when the infamous photo of an FBI rifle
was aimed at him and his father
when they were discovered hiding in their home's closet?

And these are just the more media-worthy ones.

Or did these people just slip your mind?

Forgetting doesn't make us evil.
It is simply human nature.
My point is: the decision has been made.
It appears to be the right one, regardless of our emotions.
We don't have to bring Mother Casey
or the family into the fold,
but nor should we find an excuse to spit on them.

There but for the grace . . .

2011-06-16T11:20:00.000-07:00

I've watched a few Japanese and Bollywood movies, anime, and other shows, in the past few years, and am wondering why they intersperse English with their native language.

Sure, I might use a touching "au revoir" instead of "goodbye" every now and then. Or throw a sarcastic "Domo arigato, Mr Roboto" at a "helpful" automated customer service/help desk voice system. Sorry, but I can't think of a single Indian word or phrase, other than "curry" or Mahabharata (never mind!). ;)

But, I don't switch languages without warning and for no apparent reason, especially when it doesn't add anything to the conversation.

How do people do that? And, more importantly, why??? And why doesn't it vex the native listener to switch languages in a split second?

I'm just saying.

Thus endeth the ramble. ;)

The Devil you know!

2011-06-07T19:29:00.000-07:00

I've seen some online polls asking anyone who can read (but has no clue as to how politics works) as to whether or not Obama "deserves" to be re-elected.

Nobody could possibly have restored the nation's or world economy after Dubya destroyed it (has anyone other than me realized that the terrorists got more from Dubya's (and, more importantly, Congress') misdeeds than the toll of 9/11? Why isn't Dubya sitting in a war crimes tribunal?), but Obama has seemingly done everything in his power to add more nails in the coffin, vis-a-vis the Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law, and giving us a new war playground in Libya (sure! let's withdraw from Afghanistan! We'll always have Libya to fall back on (and, isn't it amazing that he got us involved after 40 years of Khaddafi's rule? why now?)), and giving nearly a trillion dollars to fund more wars, while FEMA has to beg for $1 billion, not to mention kowtowing to the Arabs, while telling Israel - - the only true Democracy and friend the USA has in the Middle East - - to go to hell?

I could go on, but, hopefully, everyone who thinks Obama is the black cat's meow, now has their doubts (at least Dubya came by his ignorance honestly! However, I blame the voters more than I do either Dubya or Obama; to this day, I can't believe that blacks voted for the then-virtually unknown Senator from Chicago, just because of his skin color; ooh . . . I hope that wasn't racist of me!).

On the other hand, if Sarah Palin becomes the Republican puppet - - er, candidate - - then, for God's sake, by all means, vote for Obama!!!

Time to tear-up the American Depressed card

2011-05-16T18:01:00.000-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110516/ap_on_re_us/us_debt_limit

=====

Gee, I guess we can't afford to play war, anymore,
so, we'll just have to bring the boys home. =sigh=

NOW can we repeal the underfunded, ill-advised*, Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law?

-----
* By "ill-advised", I am not referring to asking Americans to pony up
approx $5,000 per person per year during 20%+ unemployment
(that figure includes people no longer collecting unemployment . . .
reality is scarier than Dept of Labor and media distortions, huh?).
No.
I am referring to the fact that the Health DEform Law
was created by Congress after being advised,
not by doctors, not lawyers, not nurses, not citizens, not pharmacists, etc,
but by the people who stand to gain the most from such a law:
The health insurance companies.
Unconstitutional? Maybe.
Immoral and unconscionable? Definitely.

Birth of a Notion

2011-04-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

(click here to see Obama's birth certificate)

First, why did it take so long to produce the certificate?

Second, I'm far more disturbed that the mom was 18 at the time of birth. That means, most likely, she was 17 at the time of conception. Granted, she's from Kansas, but, even in that State, some things are just plain wrong. And, now TV glorifies unwedded, teeny-bopper moms. I'm just saying.

Third, not that I care one way or the other, but, a piece of paper doesn't make the man, and the man certainly hasn't made the nation. Nationality hasn't stopped the California Uber"Goober"nator - - one of many actors acting out political roles . . . or is it vice-versa? - - nor anyone else with the brain power of a gerbil ($1 trillion health care plan will SAVE $450 billion?!?! How about if we DON'T institute it, and save the other $550 billion, as well? Did all these people get their education from the same diploma factory?!?!).

Fourth, what does it say about the people who vote for an unknown Senator to be their leader, THEN demand to know where he was born?

-----
This bit of rhetoric has been brought to you
by the Tap Water Party, whose slogan is:
"Don't muddy the waters with coffee or tea."

Fitting tribute for the last veteran of WWI

2011-03-08T22:49:00.000-08:00

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/05/frank-buckles-buckles-daughter-susannah-buckles-flanagan-not-tak/

Considering the number of needless deaths and suffering caused in the recent wars (with more on the way, unfortunately), one would think that Congress would step up to the plate to honor the last surviving member of any war, as a fitting remembrance of that most of us barely have any connection to (I envision schools giving a special lesson that day). Likewise, the planet should give homage to the last surviving Holocaust and Pol Pot regime survivors, in hopes of keeping such memories alive that they never be repeated. Instead, we deify Hitler, Pol Pot, Kaddafi (I couldn't care less how his name is spelled), and even undeserving media stars such as Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, "Snookie", and Charlie Sheen (that I even mention these people puts my stomach in knots).

Unfortunately, as far as wars and the euphemistic "conflicts" are concerned, world leaders and their administrations seem to be divided into the following groups: those who are totally ignorant of the past or do not apply those lessons to the present day; those who believe themselves above the citizenry, are power hungry, or are simply insane; and those who take the easy way out, as war seems to be.

Considering the honors accorded to any soldier to be interred at a military or national cemetary, I cannot believe that there is any great additional cost to give this man a special tribute, beyond the lying in state at the Arlington amphitheater.

Lord knows that Congress needs something to boost its badly tarnished image in the eyes of the voters, if not the world; but, lord also knows how truly clueless they* are.

-----
(*) I'm referring to both Congress and the voters.

Just in Time!

2011-03-07T11:03:00.000-08:00

Had enough of the decade-plus old "Mideast Wars"?
Well, a sequel is coming to a Libyan nation near you!

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/03/obama-says-nato-considering-military-options-in-libya/1#uslPageReturn

=======

YAY!

Let's start yet another meaningless, senseless, war in a country
whose politics we've ignored for over 40 years,
and of which is none of our business, now,
rather than letting the people play it out for themselves.

Heck, let's not do a thing about the only growing employer in the USA - - gangs - -
or the completely lawless Somali pirates threatening ocean travellers and commercial traffic!

Surley, a new war will keep the amazing world economy going and growing stronger and stronger,
as well as making our Chinese owners and overlords happy!

And, yes, I'm quite aware that reducing war will only increase unemployment;
heaven knows, we don't want THAT on your collective conscience!

Change we need, indeed!

Star Bores

2011-03-02T23:54:00.000-08:00

Okay . . . okay . . . I *think* I got it now!!!

The Evil Empire Republicans commit the world
to an unwinnable, and hardly starry, "war"
(never declared as such by Congress,
but, since I'm not anti-semantic,
let's not quibble over mere words)
which destroys the world economy.

Then, for the "Return of the Democrats"
the Demo leaders turn to the Dark Side by destroying what's left
of lower middle class America
for a probably unConstitutional
Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law,
which is woefully underfunded according to the GAO,
but which turns China into the world's
leading manufacturing and consumer nation,
not to mention nouveau environmental destroyer.

Then, in the "Revenge of the Republicans",
they return to power and cut $4 billion from the budget,
of which nearly 100% is for totally unimportant public necessities,
like public TV and Radio, police, fire fighters
(source: http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259),
just so the Empire can remain
in power for another two weeks.

Didn't we see this movie already?
The only trouble is . . .
we can't tell the good guys from the bad, anymore.

To Alter a Change

2011-03-01T14:46:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine and I were having a discussion about the current state of affairs in the USA.
He glibly said that if the Representatives can't uphold our constitution,
then we should throw the bums out (his words; not that I don't agree with him!).

"Uphold our Constitution"?

Our Constitution is over 200 years old.

It was written when the average American lifespan was 50 years,
guns were necessary against Indians and wildlife,
and there were only 13 colonies with an estimated 2.5 million people.

Do you truly and honestly believe that "We the People" (310 million weak)
are being fairly represented by a mere 545 people, to wit:

     - House (435 members)
     - Senate (100 members)
     - Presidency (1)
     - Supreme Court (9)

There are more people than that in a typical college!
(decreasing numbers in them, true, but, currently . . . )

If you answered, "Yes", then please consider these, admittedly, rhetorical questions:

- Have you played pothole slalom, today?

- Did you avoid eye contact with another driver for fear that they might shoot you or otherwise instigate road rage? If you don't drive, then how about when you're walking and come across a few teenagers who look as if they just walked out of a gangsta rap video?

- Do you walk the streets at night? Or should I ask, do you walk the streets at night without a weapon at hand? Do you stare at the lone car as it drives by you with heavily tinted windows blaring sounds from within (stereo) and without (tricked-out exhaust), all of which are deemed illegal in most major cities, but you never see or hear of anyone getting a ticket? (I'm told by my NYC friends that the honk-and-get-a-ticket law is a joke)

- Do you believe that anybody who wants to cut the drop-in-the-bucket programs being attacked (e.g., Corporation for Public Broadcasting; Food for indigent senior citizens; et al.), is truly representing "The People", while the President signs a trillion dollar Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law that even the administration's own General Accounting Office (GAO) states is woefully underfunded to the tune of TWO TRILLION dollars by the time it is well underway before 2020 (i.e., a total of $3 trillion; let's ignore the fact that two State judges have deemed the law un-Constitutional (ironic, huh?)), not to mention the ongoing deficit spending and wars that have solved absolutely nothing? (if you think getting rid of Saddam Hussein solved a darned thing, while destroying the world's economy, then, please, tell me how!)

In the past three administrations,
where is the Constitutionally required
promotion of the general welfare
or securing of the blessings of liberty?
Where are the checks and balances?
Where is the outcry of the people?
Where are the intelligent voters hiding? (or is that an oxymoron?)

"Change we need", indeed!
Unfortunately, change is happening only in the Middle East,
and nobody knows whether it's a "good" thing,
or even if things will change for them,
because of the changes.

But I digress . . .
yeah, let's throw the bums out! ;)

Eliminate public broadcasting (HR 68) now before someone wises up

2011-02-15T14:15:00.000-08:00

(the following is in response to Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) blog concerning the proposed axing of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which subsidizes, among other things, the Public Broadcast System (PBS); http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/137429-npr-a-good-place-to-start-cutting-federal-spending-rep-doug-lamborn)

==========

With education quickly becoming as passe as SLR cameras and analog television, lord knows we need to quash the only service that teaches toddlers and youngsters everything from language skills, socializing, and math (tell me you haven't seen Sesame Street even once!), and even adults, with access to arts and wildlife, that most will never see in museums, theatres, and outdoors, simply because they can't afford it ($10 admission to a special art exhibit? $3,000 for a roundtrip fare to Africa or New Zealand? $150 for a decent theater seat in NYC?).

"This year, American taxpayers will subsidize the CPB to the tune of over $430 million." With a population of nearly 309 million people, that comes to $1.39 per person. Even assuming only half those people are employed or can otherwise afford it, that would come to $2.78 per person. That's less than a cup of premium coffee or a gallon of gas. I think I can afford that. And, if you still think that's too much for us poor Americans, compare that with public television in Great Britain, where citizens pay $50-$200 per year as a "TV tax".

"Government-funded broadcasting is now unnecessary in a world of 500-channel cable TV, satellite radio, and cell phone Internet access." Yes, Mr. Congressman. I whole-heartedly agree that the U.S. is overwhelmed with high-quality, wholesome, family-oriented, programming, such as the wildly popular and educational "American Idol", "Jersey Shore", and "South Park", to name but a few.

"The Congressional Research Service, the fact-finding arm of Congress, has been looking into [CPB subsidies]. They have concluded that NPR’s various revenue streams are so convoluted, they look like a spaghetti plate of funding.” Lord knows that Congress is capable of monitoring its own house, much less of someone else's. I am also thrilled that our elite, educated, chosen representatives, have so eruditely stated the alleged problem, by comparing it to food (hungry, Congressman? by all means, drive on down to your local fast food eatery; just make sure you don't hit any of the dozens of potholes along the way - - talk about footlongs!).

Cable and satellite television costs start at $30 per MONTH, of which not a penny goes to public television. Again, under $3 per YEAR to subsidize CPB sounds like a bargain, to me.

And, if this bill passes, you may, very well, eliminate the only quality programs over the air/cable/satellite, not to mention create a new sector of unemployment (how much is unemployment and welfare these days?).

The only thing that astonishes me more than your myopia and bizarre sense of economics, is the fact that most of the 20 co-sponsors of this bill are Democrats, who passed a trillion dollar Health Deform - - er, REform - - Bill that, according to the GAO, is woefully underfunded by nearly $2,000,000,000,000 (that's two trillion dollars; I wrote it out as one would on a check, though that one will bounce), which means Americans will be paying nearly triple costs in the near future.

No, Mr. Congressman. CPB is not yet on CPR. But, you, sir, and your co-sponsoring cronies, and anyone else who votes for this and similar bills (HR235 and HR408 and S162), stated with extreme prejudice, are certainly unsustainable (hey! we can get 20% of the CPB funding just by eliminating both Houses' salaries!). Good luck in your next election bid.

Chaos from order - - Can I have that to go, please?

2011-02-12T02:03:00.000-08:00

From the taking of the Bastille by peasants
(freeing one lone prisoner who meant nothing to anybody!)
to the Boston Tea Party
- - both acts done by drunks, I might add - -
sedition by mob rule has never been a good thing.

If recent history has taught the world anything,
the unseating of a despot (i.e., Saddam Hussein)
- - no matter how cruel - -
usually turns an ordered society into utter chaos
(speaking of despots, have you seen where Iranian President
Ahmadinejad says that the events in Egypt and Tunisia
were inspired by anti-western sentiment?
Never mind that Iran did everything to squelch
news of the Egyptian uprisings to the Iranian public).

Of course, Egypt didn't suffer the tilting of windmills
by Captain Crusader Dubya or any other war,
but that doesn't make the sudden upheaval any less a concern.
Don't be surprised if the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood,
or other fundamentalist faction,
takes over Egypt within a year or so.

And does it bother anybody that all the events
taking place in the Mideast and Africa
are happening at virtually the same time?
Wild coincidence or is there a puppet master?
I'm just praying it isn't the CIA sticking our tax dollars
into the a$$ of another "freedom fighter" cum Bin Laden.

On the other hand, even relatively orderly changes of control,
such as that in Sudan (splitting the country in two:
one rich, one poor), aren't necessarily for the better.

This ranting bit of political rhetoric brought to you by
Uncommon Sense, available at fine stores,
but good luck finding which ones carry it.

The Peter Principle for Congress

2011-02-01T13:36:00.000-08:00

This may surprise people who know me, but it really bugs me that the Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law was held as being "unconstitutional" by the Florida Supreme Court (http://www.news-press.com/article/20110201/HEALTH/102010395/Health-care-law-deemed-illegal-?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE), which does not make it illegal or invalid, until the US Supreme Court examines it (exactly what are they waiting for???).

First, it means that Congress is made up of ignorant, legal eagles, whose wings have now, hopefully, been clipped, and are more contrite and willing to listen to the people of whom they are supposed to represent. It is said that those who cannot teach, teach gym. Does this ruling mean that those who cannot be proper lawmakers shouldn't practice law? (or, at the very least, of the seven whose less-than-2% pitiful majority vote got the bill sent to the White House, not to mention the alleged legal mind that signed it into law; next time, Mr. President, make sure that at least 5% agree to it, at least, then, it would be deemed statistically significant, and continue to "pocket veto" it until such time as that occurs).

Second, it says nothing of the sheer insanity of creating a trillion dollar pit (which, even the GAO has said is woefully underfunded) during a recession - - when the Fed is already up to its neck in foreign borrowing - - which was written with the guidance of the insurance industry - - not the understaffed and underfunded hospitals, doctors and nurses, and pharmacies or even The People - - the one group that stands to gain the most from the boondoggle that would have created tons of new bureaus for health management, which, of course, would have led to untold millions of waste and fraud.

Third, since two States have already proclaimed that Congress acted in an illegal, if not treasonable (well, what do YOU call giving foreign nations - - especially a hostile, human rights violator in China - - fiscal power over the USA for a health law that cannot possibly work?) manner, this means Congress is incompetent (whoops, already said that, didn't I?). This is all well and good, if the US Supreme Court agrees with the States. But, what if the US Supreme Court decides that the State Supreme Court justices acted improperly or erroneously? That will mean that our State justices are incompetent! Who to fire? THAT is the question!

Fourth, although the Administration is continuing with the implementation of the Law, which, I'll admit, is warranted, since the US Supreme Court has not voiced its opinion (and probably won't until the next President is sworn in), do The People now have enough proof of incompetence on the part of Congress and the Administration, including the President, to initiate impeachment hearings? Of course, if all of Congress is to blame, then it is highly unlikely that they would allow such, but, I can dream, can't I?

Social (Security) Pariah

2011-01-26T21:10:00.000-08:00

Social security deemed insolvent by 2037:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_us/social_security

How to fix it?
Simple: Stop it.

Social Security was initiated in 1935 by FDR following the Great Depression, with the notion that Americans were incapable of determining the fate of their own finances, not to mention that the banks couldn't be trusted,
but, surely, the US Federal Gov't could (after all, Uncle Sam knows best, right?).

However, with the passage of time, the growing financial savvy of middle-class Americans, and the advent of better protections (FDIC, SEC, et al.), and, in the negative, increasing prices, especially fuel and heating costs, Social Security slowly became both inefficient and expensive (asking young Peter to pay for old Paul, and relying on the Fed to maintain, administer, and dole out sums piecemeal).

What to do? What to do?

First: Make it optional. If someone doesn't want to give their hard-earned money to the Fed, then that's their privilege. However, they'd have to sign a form which would be given to the Social Security Administration saying that they understand the risks, and won't get anything if they don't put into the system, but they can opt in (and, likewise, out) at any time (it might be best to make this to a yearly opt-in/out process, much like most business' 401k retirement plans). Financial wizards are always saying that the stock market is better than banks, over time, so most people should be able to do better on their own, at least, theoretically. But, if they want to spend it instead of investing it, then that's their business (no pun intended).

Second: Give anyone currently collecting social security checks the option to get up to 50% of their remaining funds, once per year, but the full amount would have to be deposited, electronically, into an insured bank or credit union account clearly owned by that individual (or jointly with their living or deceased spouse, as the case may be) that has been opened for at least one year (this is an anti-theft/scam device). If the individual puts the money into an IRA or similar account, then there would be no tax consequence, but, again, it would reduce the burden on the Social Security system. Better still, the percentage could be fixed to the age of the recipient, such that a 60 year old could get a maximum of 60%, while a 90 year old could get a max of 90%.
Anyone over 100 years of age would get only 100%.

This way, they not only get enough to pay bills and, in some cases, feed themselves, but they also get to pump the money into the economy, buying wants/needs for themselves and their (grand)children, or investing in banks or the market, thus alleviating the gov't (and Peter) of that burden. Any percentage removed from the Social Security system, makes it that much less of a burden to the Social Security system.

Third: Reduce the percentage taken from employees checks by 5% per year. Assuming some people don't take the first suggestion, above, this slow reduction not only would put more money in the pocket of the employee, but also would give more money to the Fed in terms of yearly Federal income tax, and, again, reduces the burden on the Social Security system. So, in 25 years or so, everyone would stop paying Social Security.

Fourth: Anyone not currently drawing social security would have the option to withdraw the entire sum into the aforementioned insured account AND not pay any future Social Security taxes, with the knowledge that they would not get one cent further, ever, and, of course, that the individual is responsible for his/her own fiscal future. Again, if the individual puts the money into an IRA or similar account, then there would be no tax consequence, but, again, it would reduce the burden on the Social Security system.

My guess is that the vast percentage of Americans would want their money now. If too many people demand the money at one time (which would be an issue only in the first year or so), it could be distributed in age order (i.e., the oldest would get it first). Worse case scenario, the individual would be forced to create an IRA
in an insured accounts that would receive a gov't IOU, which sounds horrible, at first, perhaps not all that different from Social Security, but it is no different from a bond or anything else the Federal Gov't has been doing for the past decade or so, vis-a-vis, borrowing money from foreign sources.

Is this an ideal solution or an oversimplified one? Perhaps both. But, then again, it's a helluvalot better than the current system. The key is getting the politicians to admit that Social Security is no longer necessary (if you think the poor need it, how much do you think they're putting into it?).

Titanic mistakes

2011-01-18T20:48:00.000-08:00

Recently, Illinois (Irishman O'bama's home state . . . well, he has to be Irish, because nobody claims to have voted for the black candidate with the least business, economic, world, and political experience of all the other potential candidates of either party!) signed into law sweeping tax increases. Arizona is asking for a waiver of Medicaid funding, because it will not be able to afford the changes mandated by the Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

If ObamaCare isn't repealed by the House and Senate, then, it'll almost certainly (and hopefully) be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, facing at least 20 civil suits filed by various States and private parties; unless, of course, the SC decides that the Federal judge who deemed it illegal is incompetent, which, on the face of it, seems more likely than the SC declaring Congress incompetent (not that anyone would argue the point).

The problem is that the Health Deform - - er, REform (oops, I did it again!) - - Law tried to do too much at once, with no infrastructure or money to back it (even the GAO says that within a decade, it will cost over $3 trillion dollars to build that infrastructure; far more than the $1 trillion round number with which the People have been hoodwinked); worse, that we have to borrow funds from a potentially belligerent nation and human rights violator in China.

Dubya destroyed the world economy.
Obama is helping put in the final nail in the coffin.
Health care should not make America sicker than it already is.
(for the record, I'm a registered Democrat who votes independently, for the best person, rarely along straight-party lines; in the 2008 Presidential election, I voted "Not Palin". I dread the next election, but pray there will be a "None of the Above" option; oh . . . sorry, separation of Church and State and all that jazz).

Stand on line, marking time

2011-01-17T13:08:00.000-08:00

‎"Dear sir: Thank you for contacting [us]. I regret to inform you that we no longer offer fuel points as an incentive for shopping with reusable bags. This took effect 1 January 2011. We also do not offer replacements for reusable bags. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. I appreciate your time and hope you have a lovely day!"

That e-mail was in response to my online customer service request. They not only rejected two reasonable requests - - made well before Jan 1, BTW (nice that they finally got around to it when it was convenient for them) - - but then tell me to "have a lovely day"! Wasn't that oh-so-nice-of-them? I actually would have preferred "Shove it!"

In another instance, I was inwardly furious, outwardly, barely self-contained (I'm a part-time actor), with a department store because none of their staff could figure out how to use a gift card with their credit card. FIFTEEN minutes (that I counted) after I had reached the cashier with the ONE item. A supervisor FINALLY made an appearance, and, after everything was going my way, she asked in robotic monotone, "And did you find everything okay? (slight pause) And was the store layout to your liking? (slight pause) And is there anything else we can do for you today?" among other inane questions, all without giving me a chance to respond (not that I wanted to). I had ONE item!!! "No, I didn't find everything, and I can't wait to waste even MORE time listening to you overly-patronize me?" Okay, I didn't really say that, but I did tell her in no uncertain terms that I didn't want to hear any more questions. Wisely, she shut up (the cashier had decided LONG ago that silence was golden).

Why haven't customer service upper echelons learned, by now, that there's a HUGE difference between being genuinely pleasant and applying acid to an open wound? And, is there even ONE staff person who knows when the corporate line isn't the right way to go?

I am not a tough customer: Bring me my meal in a reasonable amount of time; have enough cashiers to process everyone in an expeditious manner; do NOT call me by my first name when reading my credit/shopper/debit/whatever card (this also goes for bank tellers who barely recognize me; are you aware that they aren't doing so to be friendy, but to bring you "down" to their level, so you won't yell at your new "friend"? It's true! That's what psychiatrists actually tell corporate execs on how to handle people! Not with a respectful "Miss/Mr/Mrs Doe", but with a buddy-buddy "Jane/John". Yeah . . . just makes me wanna call them up for a drink).

There is nothing to see, here . . . move on . . . move on

2011-01-04T20:25:00.000-08:00

When I complain to a store manager or maitre d' or other authority figure (and, please, believe me, when I say that I enjoy that act, tremendously!), the response I usually get is, "Well, nobody else has complained about it!"

Does that make my complaint any less valid?

Could it be that if only 30% of the US electorate bothers to vote, that maybe 70% have simply given up hope of ever having things done right, while the 30% are hopelessly (or helplessly) optimistic that by voting, things will be magically corrected, all by themselves? Isn't one voice in the crowd enough to stir action? (ref: "Horton Hears a Who" by Dr Seuss; a mere kiddie book? I don't think so! Or how about the lone Chinese "malcontent" who blocked multi-ton armored vehicles by himself with only his shopping bags for protection? Or Rosa Parks acting on her own, trying to unseat an unjust law? Were their "complaints" any less valid because they were one voice among the masses who scream for justice?)

Only a fool would believe that everything is perfect.
And, most of the time, those fools do not even bother wearing rose-colored glasses.
All they need are blinders or earplugs to avoid reality ("see no evil; hear no evil").
Congress has been deaf and blind since the year 2000.
The American people shouldn't be.

NEXT!

2011-01-04T20:12:00.000-08:00

I've worked in a companies having customer service departments.

95% of questions asked by phone or in person are common, but the reps are required to go through the book (literally!) to make sure everything is handled properly.

That same logic costs Office Depot customers extra time on line, having to wade through ridiculous questions, such as "Did you find everything okay? Did you remember to buy paper or ink? Do you want to join our rewards club?"

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY #%@^ MONEY, DAMMIT!!!

If all those questions take just one minute to be asked and answered (and many people, who are not expecting to be asked such, often say, "What?" as if they didn't hear it, so, of course, the question has to be repeated; I actually heard one guy get to the cashier, who, before she could utter a word, the guy said, "Yes, thank you; no, no, no, no; not today, thank you, no, and no." I laughed til I cried! The cashier didn't know what to say, and, wisely, kept her mouth shut), and, assuming the cashier sees just 30 people a day, then that means the customers, cashier, and company wasted 30 minutes of precious time!!! Then, multiply that by 360 days a year (assuming 5 days off for various holidays). Unbelieveable!

I'm amazed that companies just don't "get" it;

but, then, neither does Congress! ;)

I feel better, already!

2010-12-13T11:14:00.000-08:00

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6113964/obama_health_care_reform_individual.html?cat=5

Thank goodness more rational minds have figured out that forcing 50% of the population to take care of 10% of the population, while mandating that EVERYbody get health insurance, whether they need it or not (except, of course, for the President, Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, who get it free for life), then borrowing billions of dollars from an unfriendly, undemocratic, civil rights violating nation (i.e., China, in case you were living in a cave), while doing nothing about Social Security, the deficit (except adding to it), crumbling infrastructure, skirmishes in Iraq and Afghanistan (can't call 'em "wars", since Congress hasn't declared it as such, on top of which, it's turning out just as well as the war on drugs!), growing unemployment (est 20% unemployment, including those jobless who are no longer collecting unemployment benefits), etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Intelligence rules the day, literally and figuratively. With more challenges to come, if even one other State's Federal Court deems it unconstitutional, we'll find out whether the Supreme Court is equally as intelligent, or attempt to save the administration's face by deeming the State judges jerks! (what a conundrum! call Federal judges "idiots" or save the nation from reckless borrowing from a hostile nation, not to mention willy-nilly spending while cutting taxes at the same time? ("Honey? My checking account is overdrawn! Can I have more money, please?"))

BTW, since this ruling against the Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law (created with input only for the people who stand the most to gain by it: the health insurance industry; no doctors, medical care personnel, citizens, businessmen, economists, or accountants - - even the GSA, who has calculated that the Health Reform Law is woefully underfunded by a mere $2 *TRILLION* dollars - - need chip in), does it mean that the entire administration, including two of the three branches of the Federal Gov't, has violated the Constitution, and will that mean that all of Congress, the Senate, and the President, should be tried for treason against the nation? One can only hope!

Change we need, indeed!

The Name Game with a Spot of Tea

2010-11-28T03:13:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin's anagram is "La Piranhas" or "Hi, Anal Rasp!"!

And the word "Pariah" may also be found within!

Think about it!

Search me

2010-11-20T13:40:00.000-08:00

TSA pats down us patsies;
Congress fiddles with socialized health care,
while the world economy gets sicker and sicker;
and when we need business leaders and economists,
America chooses unknown politicians with pretty faces
who are good orators,
according to what our favorite superstars say
(yes, I'm referring to
the junior Senator from Illinois, Obama).

Given all that and more,
perhaps folks can revolt against TSA in a very simple way:
Demand that EVERYone get a pat down or body search
in hopes that SOMEbody finally realizes
how foolish a random check is.

This was an unpaid, political denouncement,
and I approved this message.

Flagging Respect

2010-11-16T22:28:00.000-08:00

A friend posted a jingoistic blog about respecting the flag.
This was my response:

I was something of a teenage rebel, back in the day:
I stopped saluting the flag during school morning ceremonies,
solely because I didn't like the notion that we had to do so.
Likewise, I stopped reciting the pledge.
However, I did (and do) stand,
out of respect to those who died for it.
Only one teacher pulled me aside, privately, about it,
asking for my reasons, but relented when I stated the above

(most of my friends who did the same, simply couldn't be bothered;

I never knew whether the teachers did anything about them).

These days, I have noticed the seemingly increasing
disregard and disrespect for the flag,
especially by well-meaning people,
who do not know or understand flag etiquette
(http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html),
who fly it 24 hours a day
(it's supposed to be flown from sunrise to sunset;
the only exceptions are military and gov't installations,
our embassies, the UN, etc (and even they do so),
special holidays and events, memorials, etc),
and don't bring it down during inclement weather,
or misguided drivers who attach it to the outside
of motor vehicles and bikes to be battered by the wind,
or those who continue to fly it
even when it is damaged and faded
(my local post office is a good example:
4 years ago, I offered to replace it for free;
they politely turned me down;
they're flying that very same, shredded,
and element-bleached flag, today!),
etc, etc, etc.

I am one of those people who does NOT believe
we need a constitutional amendment to protect the flag,
as I do believe in Freedom of Speech
(to a point - - a story for another day),
but if someone can't respect a simple symbol,
then it is no wonder that that same disrespect
has infested the minds of the people to the extreme,
such that many of whom would commit a violent act on you,
for accidentally bumping into them or even just looking at them.

Sad times.

[UPDATE: The post office mentioned above finally replaced the well-worn flag.]

Tea, please . . . don't ask how many lumps!

2010-11-04T00:06:00.000-07:00

I was very surprised, yet not surprised, that Kentuckians voted for Ron Paul this past election.

Democratic opponent Jack Conway ran an unbelievably terrible, negative, campaign that was virtually all lies, and he hardly ever spoke about his own accomplishments, even during the debates. Although Ron Paul defended himself, he at least took a slightly higher road during the debates, if not in his political ads.

Combine that with the Democratic (if not Americans', as a whole) dissent over Federal spending, bailouts, and the Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law, and it is clear that the people (at least, Kentuckians!) have finally made an intelligent political decision - - hope that wasn't a contradictory phrase! - - compared with the last the three Presidential elections.

I do not believe that our government should be run with both houses and a President in the same majority or minority party. There should be a balance, so I am happy with the current results (i.e., Democratic President and Senate majority with a Republican House majority, though any mix would suffice) (n.b., I also believe our current system of government is antiquated: 435 House members + 100 Senators attempting to lead 300+ million people is patently absurd).

Unfortunately, with that win and the "new" Republican Congressional majority, President Obama has to play a very dangerous political game, teetering between leading the nation (which, IMHO, he has failed to do, despite anything that Bill Clinton - - who I respect for his accomplishments for the nation - - and others have to say) and realizing that he is now a lame, if not sitting, duck, as shown in the following two paragraphs from USA Today:

President Obama entered the new political world today
by saying he is humbled by the "shellacking" his party took
in Tuesday's elections, and that he wants to work
with victorious Republicans on the nation's problems.

At the same time, Obama stuck to his guns on such
contentious items as health care, environmental, energy,
and tax policies. And he stressed that "no one party will
be able to dictate where we go from here."

In his inauguration speech he vilified them ("Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some"), then implied better cooperation between the parties ("we (???) come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises"), though, to date, he hasn't done anything of the kind, most notably during the divisive, bipartisan, health bill wrangling, and NOW he wants to work with the Republican House majority???

Change we need, indeed!

It just doesn't matter

2010-10-29T16:04:00.000-07:00

The American people gave Dubya had 8 years to screw up the world (actually, he did so in less than one month, but let's not quibble over facts). Granted, anyone coming after him needed to be part janitor to clean up the mess he made, or, at the very least, be a businessman and/or economist, rather than a politician, but, after 2 years of virtually no progress, and billions of dollars spent on companies that, by all rights, should have gone out of business for not remaining competitive and/or ripping-off people (i.e., TARP, et al.), not to mention the underfunded trillion dollars to create a mismanaged Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law, not to mention (again?) that Obama has taken more vacation days at taxpayer expense (golfing while the world burns?), it is clear that neither Obama nor the majority Democratic Congress have any clue as to what they are doing, though everybody agrees that they are doing it to the people.

The big question is, after a decade of gross mismanagement,
do the American people know what to do, now?
(given the last three elections, it's a rhetorical question)

One thing is certain for America, which should lay to rest any question of minorities being inferior to whites: An inexperienced, black, Democratic President is every bit as good as his inexperienced, white, Republican, predecessor. That Obama can string together coherent sentences makes him a good orator, but not a better politician; it simply makes him sound better to the, apparently, blind, deaf, and dumb, electorate.

Change we need, indeed!

Seeing Red . . . box

2010-10-17T21:44:00.000-07:00

The Redbox DVD rental service charged me a $1 late fee, even though I returned a DVD by 9pm of the day I took possession of the DVD from the kiosk.

Here's the story:

I made an online reservation on Oct 15.
The "receipt" e-mail said I had until 9pm on Oct 16 to pick-up the DVD.
So, I picked it up at about 2pm on Oct 16.
So far, so good, right?
WRONG!!!!!!

According to the Redbox phone customer representative, because the reservation was made on the 15th, I had only until 9pm of the *16th* to take it from the kiosk AND return it, NOT the "next" day, which would have been the 17th at 9pm, as I (or any reasonable person) might presume. Here's the exact wording from the e-mail: "You successfully reserved your rental. Your disc will be waiting for you until 9:00 PM on 10/16/2010 at the redbox you selected . . ." Based on that wording (and there was nothing else indicating otherwise in the e-mail), when do YOU think the $1 per night fee should begin: On the 15th, when I made the reservation, or the 16th when I physically took the DVD from the kiosk, which was well before the 9pm "deadline"? And, when must it be returned to avoid any additional/late charges: The 16th, when I got it from the kiosk, or the 17th by 9pm of the night after I took it?

To be fair, their online "Terms of Use" does make this clear (naturally, in THEIR favor), but, to be equally fair, the e-mail makes it seem otherwise.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "You got upset over a lousy $1.00 when the Federal government is going to cost us $1,000,000,000,000.00 in health care?!?!?" (okay, that was blatant political rhetoric, so just ignore everything after the mention of "$1.00") ;)

Here's the problem: If I, as an allegedly, reasonable, sane, rational, intelligent, individual, "misinterpreted" their e-mail (I had read their "Terms of Use", per the above, but, somehow, missed that salient point), then how many others have? Suddenly, a $1/night rental becomes a $2/night rental for a whole lot of people (or should I say, "suckers"?). Redbox stands to profit from this service no matter what, so why make seemingly contradictory, if not outright deceptive, statements, vis-a-vis their "Terms of Use" versus the e-mail? Polls and research have been done showing that hardly anyone reads "Terms of Use/Service" statements (i.e., you've probably ignored many a "End-User License Agreement", aka, "EULA", appearing in many purchased or free software or in any contract, just as I have; they are usually too long, and filled with legal mumbo jumbo, which does not do anything to protect the signer/consumer/customer (contracts are supposed to be "fair"; when was the last time you saw a "fair" contract?). As such, you might think companies would simplify these "documents" (whether virtual or physical), so that the customer would clearly see what's-what, but, those same polls and research show that companies make no effort to do so . . . suspicious, eh?).

For the record, I was more than just a little upset over this (or, did you guess that, already?), but I got a lot angrier as the customer rep was more than a little rude, continually interrupting me in mid-sentence, and even chastising me for misinterpreting the e-mail. At one point, he put me on hold, presumably to discuss it with his supervisor, and, when he returned, he took the $1 "late fee" off. But, I was still upset (more so from his rudeness), and told him that I would never make another online reservation, as I consider the e-mail wording deceptive (icing on the cake: the online invoice shows the "late" charge having taken place on Oct 18, even though it was still Oct 17; if I was late as of the 17th, why wasn't the late fee so dated? Clearly, it's because they want to make you think that you held it for longer than you did, especially as most people wouldn't notice until they got their charge or debit statement days, if not weeks, after the fact, which, by then, the original details would have been long forgotten (i.e., "Hmmm . . . maybe I did return it TWO days late! Golly, I wonder why they didn't charge me two days' late fee?")).

Until this incident, I was convinced that Redbox was the best thing since car cruise controls! Now, I'm not even sure I ever want to go near their kiosks. I wonder how many others have been fooled by the e-mail, and just shrugged at the $1 "late" fee? Can you say, "civil lawsuit"? (I'm sorely tempted!!!)

Thus endeth the rant, and, possibly, any future business between me and Redbox.

Thanks for clearing that up, Congress!

2010-10-12T12:16:00.000-07:00

I am *SO* glad that Congress saw fit to require political advertising to tell us not only that the candidate (or sponsor) "approved" the ad, but mandates that the sponsorship be clearly indicated, so that the American people know from whence it came, and, thus, could make an informed decision about the source of the ad, and, thus, of the candidate.

Here's just a small sample of the sponsors of ads seen in October 2010 newspapers, magazines, and the internet:

     American Crossroads
   Americans for Prosperity
     Citizens for a Working America
     Commonsense Ten
     MoveOn.org
     Patriot Majority

Thanks, Congress, for obfuscating the obvious,
and making clear-cut laws, so that,
now, I know EXACTLY who to vote for!
It has been so long since I've seen a candidate of either major party
have the guts to clearly label themselves as Democrat or Republican,
that I am convinced that both parties have left town
(or, at least, one can only hope!).
I mean, lord (can I say that in a gov't forum?) knows
how easy it used to be to tell a Democrat from a Republican
just by those nouns, or even their initials.
I so appreciate Congress' thoughtfulness
in stimulating the average American voter
into a muddled, fog-like, state.
I mean, why vote at all? (or was that the whole point?)

Getting screwed . . . not in the "nice" way

2010-10-06T07:47:00.000-07:00

I was laid-off from my contract C programmer job just over a year and a half ago (when I started the job in 2006, there was only one foreign (Indian) programmer; when I was let go the second time (both times due to company finances) in 2009, nearly 15 of the 20 programmers were foreign; one confided that he was amazed that Americans "couldn't get by" on what they were paying him (substantially less than my pay), most of which gets sent to his parents in India; he has no intention of becoming a U.S. citizen . . . I'm just saying).

The very few e-mails and calls I get from agencies and other "head-hunters" who find my resume on job search websites, don't bother reading the resume, because they ask inane and irrelevant questions (it's one thing to want to find the "perfect" match, but when the two-sentence job description has nothing to do with the computer-found-a-matching-keyword on one's resume, then it's a waste of everybody's time and effort; BTW, nearly 95% of the agencies and head-hunters who contact me have Indian accents; over 50% are sole owners of their one-(wo)man companies (great; not only can't I compete with cheaper overseas labor, I can't even get an American agent! How do these people find contacts within all these companies? Or are they "winging it" in hopes of getting a finder's fee/royalty/kick-back from the companies?)).

Once every six months or so, the "perfect" job comes along, and the agent (only one direct company contact, so far) spends a half-hour asking me fairly decent questions, only to find out that the job was filled (sometimes from within; why do companies advertise jobs if they are only going to bump their own people to the given position? why raise the hopes of the unemployed, only to dash them into pieces? unless, of course, they are mandated to do so by the Fed (as is the case with some gov't and military contracts) . . . or, they just plain get off from jerking people around!). ;) Worse, the companies now "offer" pay that is lower than what I was paid over 20 years ago (I've been a computer programmer since 1980) and/or won't pay for relocation (I live in State with few high tech jobs) and/or whose benefits (whether as a contractor or full-time) are designed to suck money out of the paycheck with little or no return on equity, either financially or physically).

Here's something else of note: In my first work years as a full-time employee, I had a private office (sometimes "open", sometimes enclosed); over the years, I was then put in shrinking cubicles; three contract jobs I had before the most recent one put me in a corner of someone else's open "office" (read: large cubicle) to the point that I couldn't even stretch my arms if I had to yawn! Remember the days when your work experience earned you a real office? If companies don't want to treat you any better than a pet chained to a dog house, why not just let us telecommute? I would willingly work for the half-price pay, if that were an option! (can you imagine the real benefits to workers who didn't have to waste time getting themselves "pretty" for work or wasting gas fighting traffic; ironically, the only two telecommute jobs I had paid me the most (!), and I got both jobs done weeks before the deadline (n.b., I have never been late with a milestone, but, clearly, telecommuting's additional benefit of having fewer distractions (I'm single; no kids) benefitted everyone!).

One more thing: the huge-name, publicly-traded, company I recently worked for cut the salaries of the full-time workers twice over a period of six months since they let me go (one woman said her salary was cut by 20%; she was barely making do with the original salary). One month after the second round of cuts, the company bought another company for billions of dollars. IMHO, the Fed, SEC, et al., should mandate that any publicly-traded company (at least ones based in the USA) be prohibited from laying-off employees or cutting their salaries within one year, past and future, of the intended purchase of another company (i.e., if they can afford to spend millions/billions on production materials or company acquisitions, then they can afford to keep staff and at their current (or higher!) pay levels).

I have LOTS more to say, but, this cure for insomnia has gone on long enough! ;)

The Health Law - - It's Enough to Make You Sick

2010-09-18T19:24:00.000-07:00

The Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law is already estimated to be undervalued by 1.5 trillion dollars, which means the estimated $5,000 per year for every middle/higher income individual will increase to at least $10,000. The good news is that the 10% of those for whom the law was targeted - - i.e., lower income group - - will be joined by about 25% of the rest of the population who are barely above the poverty level and don't have health insurance, but, once they plummet to that "goal", they'll get free or low-cost insurance, which means the middle/higher income groups will have to pay more to cover them, which means that 25% of the rest of the population . . . Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Clearly, since this Health Law cannot work, it is a thinly veiled tax to pump badly needed, non-Chinese, money into the US Treasury. Furthermore, any Senator, Congressman, or President, that voted for the Bill/Law, while the nation (not to mention the world) is suffering from multi-trillion dollar (when will the media start using the term "quadrillion"?) deficits with no end in sight, is clearly out-of-touch with reality and the people, if they are not outright psychotic, and deserves the boot this November.

BTW, the IRS has stated that it currently has no legal jurisdiction to penalize anyone who doesn't pay the health tax (which, in case you weren't aware of it, has to be noted on your future Fed (and, possibly, State) returns and/or face a 2.5% penalty (not sure what that will be based on)), so the next few years should be very interesting, should the Health Law not be repealed; my guess is that there will be numerous injunctions against it, and it will take only one finding-in-favor of the multiple lawsuits that are against it, many of which have been filed against the Fed by the States!!!

US Open Super Champions

2010-09-14T19:57:00.000-07:00

Congratulations, Rafael Nadal, on your first US Open win, and completing a personal Grand Slam (i.e., winning the Australian, French, Wimbledon, and US Grand Slam events at least once during his career; a feat matched by only 6 other players (see the link, below)).

Also, congratulations to men's doubles runners-up, Rohan Bopanna (IND) / Aisam-Ul-Haq Qureshi (PAK) and women's doubles runners-up, Liezel Huber (USA) / Nadia Petrova (RUS), all of whom proved that great things can be accomplished working together in peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_%28tennis%29#Men.27s_singles_3

US Open commentators are idiots

2010-09-10T23:26:00.000-07:00

The tennis commentators have never been very good, IMHO. Rare exceptions have been the likes of Intl. Tennis Hall of Fame inductee, Bud Collins, whose knowledge of the game and color commentaries were as lively as his bizarre sense of fashion (I'm guessing that he's color blind!), and Dick Enberg, who could make a tiddly-winks match sound exciting!

There were two instances during the 2010 US Open, which prove that John McEnroe, et al., are jerks who should be replaced.

1) When Andy Roddick had a lengthy temper tantrum against the baseline umpire for calling a foot fault, simply because she misidentified which foot of Roddick's had touched the line (which it did), the commentators (McEnroe, et al.) basically said that umpire should be fired. Utter and complete nonsense (FWIW, I used to be a USTA "Rover" (i.e., referee for amateur matches), so I'm acutely attuned to such moronic and ignorant statements). And this is the second time that McEnroe was wrong on such: During the 2009 US Open, when Serena became a street thug for rightly being called on a foot fault, he, basically, said that rules should be suspended at critical points of the match. To use his own words: "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!" The rules state that, when asked, linesmen are required to indicate how the person foot faulted, for whatever good that does; so, in the future, when asked, linesman should simply say, "The one closest to the line." (granted, that may not always be the case). The only thing that surprised me about that match was the umpire's inability to call a code violation against Roddick for abuse of an official, which was mentioned by the commentators during the incident: They said that officials are basically told to let things slide. That's wonderful! Let things slide! Why do you think American society has deteriorated so much? The new rules are: anything goes! When you don't stomp on bugs, the cockroaches breed. When the police (real world and sports officials) are told to "let things slide", then the criminals run the prisons (which, basically, they do, if the various cop/jail TV programs are any indication). I was also concerned about the chair's response to Roddick's question, "Have you ever seen me foot fault before?" There was an implied familiarity (confirmed by the commentators), which, IMHO, should have made the chair ask to be recused from the match long before it began.

2) During one singles match (I forgot who was playing), the serve hit the net, and nearly hit the opponent (who had to duck to avoid it), before it touched the ground. Two male commentators, John McEnroe and either his brother, Patrick, or someone else, said that if it had struck the player, then the server would have won the point. Pam Shriver (also, an ex-jock) thought it would be a "let". The boys, of course, scoffed that Pam was wrong. Well, she wasn't, according to the 2010 USTA Friend at Court manual:

(Rule) 22. THE LET DURING A SERVE

The service is a let if:
a. The ball served touches the net, strap or band, and is otherwise good; or, after touching the net, strap or band, touches the receiver or the receiver’s partner or anything they wear or carry before hitting the ground . . .

So, abused Pam was correct, even if she wasn't 100% positive about it, while the boyz wuz rong. During the rest of the match, nobody thought to ask anyone else to find an answer (court supervisors and other referees are available during matches!), even though it is easy to find on the internet on the USTA (http://assets.usta.com/assets/1/USTA_Import/images/sitecore_ustasections/USTA/Document%20Assets/2010_Friend_at_Court.pdf) and ITF (upon which the USTA manual is based) (http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_46376_original.PDF) websites (within either of those PDF documents, enter "service let" without the quotes into the PDF search box). Isn't it amazing how McEnroe, who abused officials, doesn't know such a simple rule?

I would also like to add that it is ridiculous, if not unfair, to accost the players just before they enter the court, asking them for their opinion about the upcoming match. What are they going to say? "I'm going to beat his/her pants off?" No! They're going to be diplomatic! If it were me, I'd say, "Hey! You had a chance to ask that question last night or earlier today! Now get the @#$(* out of my way!" True, many star athletes and coaches and managers are asked such inane questions just before and even during matches (which, I'm sure, we'll see on the tennis courts, sooner or later: "You really sucked during that first set. What was going through your mind?"), but you don't see anyone doing that for other individual sports, like bowling or boxing. Let the players keep their focus on the game, and not have to answer idiotic questions until after the match is over. BTW, since the first serve hit the net and landed outside the service box, it is considered "out", so the server has the second serve; had it occurred on the second serve, the server would have lost the point.

There were various other rants by the commentators - - most notably by McEnroe (aka, The Mouth that Bored) - - on the womens' game, the incessant remarks about the heat and wind, and other nonsense, but, I don't have the strength to type all of them!

I don't know who thought it would be a good idea to keep know-nothing (or worse, think-they-know-something) jocks on the air. You don't have to play the game to be a good commentator (e.g., Al Michaels, Bud Collins, Dick Enberg, Howard Cosell, Bob Costas (who, BTW, went to my high school), et al., are excellent examples of quality sports commentators), but most jocks shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a microphone. Borrowing the Yoda-like, 2008, Obama election campaign slogan, I'd like to say: Change we need.

It's the Age we Live in

2010-09-02T19:47:00.000-07:00

The first thing to do is to change the Constitutional minimum ages at which people can become Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents.

Think for a minute.

In the 18th century, the lifespan for the average American (in all 13 colonies . . . I me...ntioned that, parenthetically, just in case someone wasn't on the same page!) was in their 50s. So, a 30-something year old was already "middle-aged", and probably had known something of the world, by then. Now, zoom to the 21st century (that's now, folks: THREE HUNDRED YEARS LATER). The average lifespan in the US is 77 (plus or minus a couple of years, depending on whom you ask), so "middle-age" is in the 50s (we're not talking mathematical average here, people!).

I don't know too many people who know what the US population is, much less the names of all the "nouveau" European, Asian, and nee-Russian countries and states. But, by that standard, a 30-year old knows practically nothing of the world (do you know how many post-high school kids and adults I know who think "forty" is spelled "fourty"; or that EVERYthing they see on TV is "real"? (Where's Orson Welles when you need him?)). I'm not saying that someone, oh, say, Dubya's age (54 y.o. when he first took office), is more worldly or knowledgeable, either, but, I think you see where I'm going with this.

Let's give political-wannabes a chance to live in the "real" world for a while, whether as garbagemen, actors, doctors, businessmen, computer programmers, rocket scientists, chemists, economists, or lawyers, before they are allowed to hit the road as politicians. Once a 20- or 30-something year old becomes entrenched in the current political machinations, they are trapped in it. The only way out, is a "buyout" from a company that thinks it can get a commercial boost from having a "famous" politician on their corporate roster (I'm willing to bet that most people would buy stock from a company where Lady Gaga was CEO instead of Dan Quayle!).

Again, not everyone in their 50s is necessarily worldly, much less brilliant, but, given the same overall qualifications, you bet I'm going for the older, presumably, wiser person! Of course, given the "choice" between either Bushie or a "fresher" Obama (age 46 when he won the White House; keep in mind, he had been in politics since 1996, at age 35; remember what I said about "real" world experiences?) . . . did I just use the word, "choice"? Okay . . . Hobson's choice! . . . never mind! And, yes, I'd have the same electoral problem deciding between McCain and Obama: too old vs too young.

This Constitutional, age-changing, notion has the added benefit of keeping politicians - - good as well as bad - - in office for fewer terms (the word "lifer" has a bad connotation, even for good guys, wouldn't you agree?), thus guaranteeing that newer/fresher/(more rational?) viewpoints should always come to the fore. Granted, the current average age of US Senators and Congressmen is between 55 and 60, but many have been in office for decades, so my argument is still valid.

But, I'm not holding my breath.

Given the current and last administration, the only thing that all America, if not the World, can agree on, is that an inexperienced, black, Democrat is just as bad as an inexperienced, white, Republican.
So, bring on the Obama - Palin (age 46 now) Presidential debate! (what's that smell?!?! hmmm . . . maybe I *should* hold my breath!)

Thus endeth the practical, but, you-know-it's-never-going-to-happen, rant!

Solving Social Security

2010-09-02T14:42:00.000-07:00

Social Security (SS) is supposed to become insolvent in 2037,
but, given that the US Gov't has yet to be right about ANYthing,
especially in the current and previous administrations
(Bush & Obama: B-O . . .insert your own joke, here),
I would drop that estimate to somewhere around 2015-2020.

So, how do we solve the SS crisis?
First, a bit of back of background:
America had just survive the Great Depression - - of the 1930s, not the 2000s - -
and virtually nobody had saved any money,
and what little money they had saved,
had disappeared in bad stock transactions and bank closures.
The idea of SS was to make people responsible for saving for their futures,
whether they liked it or not
("Big Brother" in your pocket? Nah! It's just "Uncle Sam!").
The beauty of this is that it relied on current workers
to pay for current retirees SS income.
There would always be workers, right?

Now, let's zoom ahead to the current day.

Admittedly, people are pretty much still in the dark as regards the stock market,
but we have become a nation of savers,
thanks to "tighter" (laugh if you must) banking laws
starting from the various bank crises in the 1930s, 1980s, and even now,
as well as the advent of IRAs and various other retirement and standard savings plans.
The problem with SS is that it does not take advantage of market trends
or any interest-bearing notes at all, thus leaving the accounts stagnating,
unable to compensate for inflation, etc, without robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Worse, thanks to various and multiple gov't miscalculations throughout the years,
many people were overpaid or overtaxed
(you'd think it would balance out, but, hey, this is the US Federal Government,
whose motto is: "We donn balance nuttin', baby!").

So, why do we still need SS at all?
Can't modern Americans be relied upon to judge for themselves
concerning their current and future needs?
Probably not.
But, here's my take on it: That's THEIR problem! NOT the gov't's.

Now, let's re-ask the question: How do we solve the SS crisis?

Throw more money into it?
Raise taxes?
Make current workers pay more for current and future SS recipients?

None of the above.

The solution is actually quite simple.
It dawned on me when I received a useless, computerized, data sheet,
telling me how much money I have in my SS "account".
I said to myself, "Hey! These numbers haven't changed!
I could have grossed at least 1% in bank interest since I was last employed
(laid-off in Feb 2009; haven't been able to find a decent, steady job, since)!"
Let people move all their SS funds into interest-bearing accounts,
such as IRAs, KEOGHs, 529s, whatever,
and cancel the FICA (SS) tax altogether!

The benefits:
     1) It would take the money out of the SS system.
     2) It would release the gov't from its roll as "allowance giver".
     3) It would give people the opportunity to build their SS nest egg.
     4) It would still be "locked" until retirement age (or earlier in case of hardships).
     5) Cancelling the FICA tax would put more money into people's wallets now,
           which might spur spending, which, in the current economy, is vital.

The drawbacks:
     1) Some people might end up paying more taxes,
        if they are able (by age or other circumstance)
        and do take out a chunk or all of the SS money.
     2) There will be scammers (heck, there are lots of 'em now,
          seeking to get your health care dollars before the Health Care Deform - - er, REform - - Law
          takes effect; no laws can prevent scammers, so this isn't a valid "drawback":
          "A fool and his money are soon separated."
          No laws stop fools.

The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

Arguments? Anyone? Hello???? Didn't think so!

The cost of being right

2010-08-11T08:58:00.000-07:00

Here are three simple measures to solving the USA's economic woes:

(1) Rescind the Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law, and save $1 trillion right off the bat, not to mention all the wastes of time, resources, effort, and energy that will be (and are being) created by current and future lawsuits, paperwork, watchdog agencies, and bureaucracies, not to mention the loopholes that will be created, of which scammers will take advantage (i.e., how many "Obama wants you to buy this health insurance!" ads have you seen on the net and print media? BTW, what's with the Obama being given so much attention, by image and/or name, by mostly phony commercial enterprises? Is anyone falling for such nonsense?).

(2) Stop the wars (three words that seem to be harder to say than "I love you"). They were started by Republican morons, and, apparently, being continued by Democratic ones, even though the Pentagon has repeatedly stated that they are unwinnable (even if they find Bin Laden (remember him?), a new and better CIA-created monster will take his place), and is now estimated at a total expense of over $1 quadrillion (!) dollars (ref: http://costofwar.com/). I can barely fathom a trillion anything, much less a quadrillion! How is this in any way, shape, or form, of/by/for the American people? How much real good could all of this money have done for the USA (a tenth of one percent of which could have funded the poorly designed Health Deform (oops! there I go, again!) Law! One percent could have fixed all of America's potholed roads, both local and highway), much less the world (throw bread at the poor and innocent, instead of missiles, and see what happens)?

(3) Place heavy embargoes on any product made overseas of which at least 50% of the raw or processed materials originated in the USA and/or 20% or more of the USA-based employees are non-citizen foreign nationals. If China wants to add poisonous melamine to gummy bears created with USA-supplied corn syrup, while treating their employees like lab rats and dumping toxic wastes into the environment, while buying gas/diesel vehicles their average citizen doesn't need, and having learned nothing from the rest of the industrialized world of pollution over the last 50 years, that's fine; but the (alleged) USA manufacturer/wholesaler will have to pay through an orifice to kill us and their overseas counterparts.

I never said the explanations would be simple! ;)

Turning the tables

2010-07-24T17:20:00.000-07:00

WANTED: Employer with genuine need for someone with genuine talent.

The employer will not post jobs outside the company that do not exist,
or are intended for possible future jobs that may not happen,
or will be given to someone from within the company.

The employer will ask intelligent questions
during the phone or in-person interview.
The questions must have a direct correlation to the job at hand,
and not be asked for the sake of asking,
or because some psychiatrist, gov't, or agency
say it's a good "trick" question.

This employer must match the following requirements:

1) Be capable of budgeting company funds properly,
and not waste them on extravagant and flashy presentations
to be viewed by employees who couldn't care less about them.
2) Must not send personnel to customer sites
when a simple phone call will suffice.
3) Must hire American citizens over cheaper (and, by their
very nature, temporary) foreign labor.
4) Must pay a living wage, above and beyond the poverty level.

This employer must be willing to help new hires
find their way around (vis-a-vis, a mentor
or supervisor who doesn't spend his/her time
going through dozens of meaningless corporate e-mails),
and not leave them sitting at their workstations
without a real assignment.

This employer will also promise not to cut salaries,
just so that the upper echelons can enjoy a week in the Caribbean,
or buy ownership in other companies.
They also promise not to charge more for health care
than the person (and/or his/her family) can possibly use in a year.

This employer will not subject employees to "annual reviews",
which are just beauty contests to see who should get the higher salary.
The company shall not give individual employees special meritorious
awards, leaving other employees wondering
why their hard work went unnoticed,
and then subjecting those other employees
to gladhanding people they may not even know.
In other words, either the company knows
the worth of their employees, or they don't.

And, finally, third-party agencies will not ask for social security numbers
or references until after the prospective employee
has completed a first interview (phone or live) with the prospective client.
It is rude, potentially a violation of privacy and social security laws,
and we all know that the sole reason for asking for references,
is so that you can call them to ask if there are any jobs for which you can send workers,
while the poor applicant gets nothing for that,
even though you might get at least $5 per worked hour,
should one of your people get hired.

CLEAR!!!

2010-07-21T23:33:00.000-07:00

The Declaration, Constitution, and other ancient documents, were written when the total population of the Colonies was less than that of Little Rhody, today. Times have changed, yet people don't understand that those documents were meant to be living, breathing, and growing, with the people (by and for, as well) as needed. Do you know why the required ages for Reps, Sens, and President's are well under 40? Because not many people in the 18th century lived past 50! Our current, democratically elected, demagogues, are incredibly out of touch with the people, and, based on the results of the last three elections, most of the people don't deserve the right to vote ("change we need", indeed!).

We don't need tea or coffee; people are already overcharged from Starbucks and other caffeinated drinks. Let's get a group together that gets plain talk from plain people (or common sense from common people, if you prefer), and perform CPR on the documents of old, to get the nation back to caring about the majority of the people, instead of making inane health and banking reform laws that protect a scant few and, worse, create new loopholes for scam artists, not to mention adding to a multi-trillion dollar deficit, unnecessary wars, rampant unemployment (with those no longer collecting unemployment, the figures are well above the 10% rate spuriously fed to us by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics). Let's call it the "Tap Water Party" (heckuva lot healthier, in the long run).

Obama signs sweeping finance reform law

2010-07-21T10:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072100512.html?hpid=topnews

Great! Just what we need!

I mean, it's not as if we had such laws in place to prevent the banking/mortgage crisis, or the likes of Enron or Madoff from ripping people off, before, right? This is all new and great and all that, I'm sure!

I just love the idea that taxpayers will be paying more for new-and-improved gov't watchdogs to tell us when we're screwed, long after the fact has been made public, patterned after the close-the-barn-door-after-the-horse-has-escaped mentality.

Doesn't anyone understand that the tighter the net around the bad guys, the sharper they'll make their knives to slice through it?

Sweeping reform? I'll get the broom!

(my eyes roll skyward as the mind reels)

Wave the flag, patriotically, then choke us with the PATRIOT Act

2010-07-19T11:54:00.000-07:00

A few true incidents, all in the name of Homeland INsecurity, the unPATRIOT Act, and various banking laws that are designed to keep people out and embezzlers in:

(1) Despite living in my current home for over 3 years, and more than able to prove my identity per the PATRIOT Act (a clever acronym, much in the same vein as WWII propaganda; http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html), I was denied an application to open a bank deposit account at a local, brick-and-mortar, Federally chartered bank, which had offered a very high interest, long-term CD, because THEIR rules (which supersede Federal laws, and, as such, might constitute a violation of my rights as a citizen, but, never mind about trampling those; we must make our banks safe from terrorists, such as me, making pennyante deposits!) stipulate that I *must* have a LAND-BASED PHONE LINE, which I had given up just a month earlier (I'm currently unemployed and hardly use the thing; my cell phone makes it superfluous). They would have settled for a copy of an old bill, or any utility bill, which I couldn't easily supply, because I have online billing and payment through another bank, which, ironically, had no problem accepting me with very little identification! Besides, I pointed out to the VP of the one-and-only branch, that, thanks to modern home computer printers ability to replicate money and art, what would stop me from printing a bogus bill? For that matter, if I gave a land-based phone number, and she called it, how would she know that I simply didn't arrange with a friend (or fellow terrorist) to use his phone for such devious purposes, and/or temporarily have the bill changed to my name, well in advance of my plot to make a deposit? She didn't have an answer for me, and, virtually, ordered me out of the bank. This isn't the first time something like this has happened to me (one was well before 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act). Fortunately, other banks are more than happy to take my money, and, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, both of the overly-protective banks are now out of business (one was taken over by another; the other - - the one described, above - - was permanently closed (one reason, the newspapers said, was that bank had too few depositors! surprise, surprise!)).

(2) At a local bank I've been doing business with for the last 3 years, but, of which, the tellers wouldn't know me from Adam, I asked to change two $20 bills to quarters. I showed my local driver's license and gave her my account number (since I wasn't withdrawing from my account, this shouldn't have been necessary, but, these days, I've been asked for ID to make *deposits* to my own accounts, so, hey, I'll begrudge them that). She barely looked at the twenties, glanced at my ID and acct #, then took out the quarter rolls, and, before handing them to me, asked, "What do you intend on doing with them, sir?" I was stunned. "I beg your pardon?", I asked, politely, but with a somewhat seething-under-the-skin edge. She repeated the question. I was like a deer caught in the headlights, but was now near exploding, if not about to be run over! Politely (more or less), I said, "That is none of your business!" She turned purple, and, not knowing what else to do, handed me the rolls. I then went to the manager, explained who I was (showed my license and acct #), and then asked why the teller had asked me that. She said - - and, I swear, I'm not making this up - - a new bank rule states that any funds under $100, especially in coins, must be reported to their corporate offices. I asked why, clearly showing my incredulity. She shrugged, and said, "There are too many rules and regulations coming in nearly every day concerning accounts and cash; they're supposed to be designed to protect the banks and depositors, but, often, they only make things more tedious or alienate customers." She added - - earnestly, I thought - - "I apologize for the inconvenience." I then asked, "Will you do something to prevent it from happening, again?" (notice I made it a universal question, not a personal one) She looked down, shook her head non-commitally, and shrugged. At that point, I got up, thanked her for her time, and walked out. I was not asked that absurd question at a similar, subsequent coin exchange, just a few weeks later. That reminds me: some banks have coin-to-bill exchange machines, which are free to customers, but non-customers must pay some absurd fee (I've seen as little as 5% and as high as 15%. The bank mentioned in this paragraph charges 12%). I might understand a supermarket kiosk charging fees for that, or a money exchange bank or service doing so; but, a bank??? Isn't that usurious? Why should anyone have to pay to exchange their coins to currency? Isn't there any of a number of Federal laws prohibiting just that?!?! The mind reels.

(3) A long-time friend's father passed away a few months ago. While cleaning up the father's possessions, clothes, etc, they discovered a huge number of bills, well-wrapped and counted, which the father had hidden away over the years (understandable, given that he was a teen during the Great Depression). The family wasn't sure what to do with it, but their lawyer convinced them to deposit it, if only to prevent it from being stolen or lost in a fire or flood (they don't smoke, and they're well above sea level, so, the likelihood of a natural disaster was very low). They agreed, but were reluctant to take the stash (about 3 feet high and wide of $5 to $100 bills, some of which went back to the 1940s, and might be worth more than the denomination, but, they didn't care about that) out of the house, unprotected, so my friend gathered about five of his most trusted and physically fit friends (for the record, we're all Caucasian, look as dangerous as computer nerds, and range in age from about 30 to 60), I among them, to drive to the family's local bank (i.e., where they had home and car mortgage and deposit accounts) to deposit it. For extra security, we arranged to go when there would be very few people (as it turns out, that was a very wise - - or foolish - - decision; we're still arguing about it!). When we got there, holding plastic shopping bags containing the bills, trying to look "innocent", I'm sure we would have attracted attention, perhaps to the point where we looked like bank robbers! The window teller looked up at us, smiled, then resumed his business. No one else was in the bank. My friend made a beeline to the manager's office (none of us knew the manager), while the rest of us sat or stood together, keeping an eye on the doors, perhaps suspiciously, but, certainly with all due caution, given the circumstances. About five minutes later, two police officers entered the bank, and ordered us, gruffly, to lie flat on the floor with our hands on our heads. All of us started to obey, except for one of my friends - - an ex-Police Explorer who still had that badge in his wallet, but knew better than to reach for it - - politely asked to see their "station ID" (he later said that he thought they were robbers in disguise!). One of the cops then YELLED at him to get down on the floor, and his partner followed suit (as the saying goes, when one dog barks, the other has to growl (it's a saying I just made up; feel free to use it, anytime!)). My friend was about to refuse, but, I saw their cop car through the window, nodded to my friend about it, and started to pull him down with me. He obeyed, albeit very begrudgingly (I think I heard one of his teeth crack from his over-clenched jaw!). After speaking with the manager and my friend for about five minutes, the cops allowed us to sit on the sofas. It turns out that the bank manager thought we were terrorists trying to launder money, and he had pressed a hidden button (or so we presumed) to call the constabulary cavalry; never mind that my friend had explained the situation and had even brought the death certificate to prove it; and never mind that US laws require proof before accusing someone of a crime. My friend thought the situation was hysterically funny. We "rugrats" - - as we now refer to ourselves - - were far more callous about it, except for the Explorer guy who was still visibly furious, staring down the cops (he wouldn't relax despite our whispered pleas to "chill"). The cops left, without so much as a salute, goodbye, apology, anything. The manager took a deep breath, apologized, and said, "No harm done, right?" (I had the notion that, if we went to another bank, we would encounter something similar (really, that was the furthest thought from our minds! Robbery, yes; laundering money? never!). I then noticed that the teller had been staring at us during the ten minute ordeal, clearly in shock!) I'm sure I wasn't alone in wanting to punch the bank manager in his "safe deposit box" (you know . . . where he keeps the "family jewels"), but, fortunately, he did the "right thing": After ensuring that the money was deposited in three new, interest bearing, accounts (two checking and one money market, all under different combinations of names for blanket FDIC protection - - whatever that's worth, these days!), all of which he did, personally (the teller still hadn't moved since the incident began!), he then handed my friend a debit card, saying it had $500 on it, not from any of my friend's accounts (I had my friend double-check his balances, afterward, just to be certain! We later surmised that the manager took it from his own account or from a "slush-fund" account, typically used for charities and the like). My friend graciously accepted it; we went back to his home, and we all went out for a very expensive and delicious steak dinner! My Explorer friend had made sure to memorize the cops' names, badge numbers, and vehicle license number, and, just a couple of weeks, later, he had received a written and signed apology from the mayor, that precinct's watch commander, and the two cops (he gave all of us a copy)!

Have I learned anything from all the above?
Of course, I have!
And it's a lesson we can all live with:
Terrorists and citizens are treated equally well,
and, we have nothing to fear but government and everything else!

Don't get me started!
(oops! too late!) ;)

Kentucky State Employee Furlough Doesn't Go Furlong

2010-07-11T11:00:00.000-07:00

(pardon the horse-racing based pun)

Kentucky to furlough State employees to save $24 million of a $17 billion budget
(http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100709/NEWS01/7090344/1008/news01).
Our wonderful politicians are so narrow-minded.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those alleged/purported "savings" come to .14%.
In order to be "statistically significant", it would have to be at least 5%.

Perspective?
I weigh 175 pounds.
If I lost .14% of that,
it would be a mere 1/4 of a pound or 4 ounces or about 875 calories
(assuming 3500 cals to burn off 1 pound of fat).
That's roughly equivalent to a McD's "Big Breakfast".
We're not even talking a dinner, here, folks.
That's BREAKFAST!
That isn't even a drop in the bucket (or my stomach).
It's more like a molecule in the atom of a drop in the ocean.

They'd save more $ just by turning off street lights
after 3am during the summer and 5am during the winter,
and changing stop lights to blinking red or yellow,
depending on traffic patterns, after 10pm every night

The worst part of the furlough is that it's spread out over months, with half of the days falling on days that they weren't going to work, anyway (i.e., holidays), rather than having everyone take off for a week. That makes absolutely no sense, but, then again, it's the times we live in:

(1) A teenaged girl waylays another in a Seattle subway, but the "bad" guys are the "security" folks who had been trained not to interfere with such (I know the attacker and her friends were caught, but I don't know what happened after that).

(2) The USA has a $13 trillion deficit, but our wonderful lawmakers saw fit to pass a $1 trillion Health Deform - - er, REform - - Law that not only helps just 10% of the nation at the expense of 50% of the rest (socialism at its best!), but, in the same vein as the Kentucky furlough, will somehow save just over $150 million. The mind reels at the incompetent math teachers both Houses must have had.

(3) An accident triggers a massive oil spill in the gulf, just weeks after President Obama approved measures to allow resumption of offshore drilling (that little bit of unpopular info never made it to the media, now, did it?), and then he has the gall to blame BP, who leased the facility from the company that designed and build the entire structure, though, granted, according to US law, whoever "owns" the rig must be blamed for it (this was designed to prevent the need for hearings and the like; ironic, huh?). I wonder if that accountability holds true for the Commander-in-Chief? Ever since and including Dubya, the buck stops everywhere, but there. Worse, Congress ignores (or is ignorant of) that law, and spends taxpayer time and money seeking out who's to blame by holding it's-too-late-baby-now hearings that accomplish nothing (witch hunts a la McCarthy?).

(4) The nation screams for justice after Pres Bill Clinton messes around with a staffer in the Oval Orifice - - er, Office (tee-hee!). But, hardly anyone called for impeachment after Congress allowed an incompetent to declare war on a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had none of the alleged WMDs that was claimed, nor have they called for such for Obama, despite multiple campaign promises to get us out of the Middle East, even though he said, in front of millions of people, on record, right in front of Dubya and wife during his inauguration speech, that he would correct "the mistakes of the past", even though he has done nothing but compound them. There's an old political adage: "Better they screw with a mistress, before they screw the nation!" The worst thing about that? The nation never had it so good, economically! (Politically-speaking, I'd say the honors go to Nixon, who, no matter what anybody thought of him, personally, he held a very big stick, like Teddy Roosevelt).

(5) The nation gasps in horror that a state (Arizona) has taken steps to do what the Federal gov't wants to do, but has failed: Keep aliens (mostly drug runners) from entering the country illegally. So, what does the Pres do? Instigate a lawsuit to prevent Arizona from defending its borders from invaders. Never mind that a President, who is supposed to represent ALL the people, should not be the one to intervene in that or any State's democratically approved law, which is not in violation of the Constitution (only the Supreme Court may intervene in such, and only where the States prevent free access between its own States; i.e., prohibiting legal citizens of one State from travelling to another).

It isn't enough to have Tea and Coffee parties, both of which claim to be the holy grail of politics; one of which has pretty much nominated a woman for President who is, basically, Dan Quayle Lite, while both are great at blasting hot air toward each other, and blowing steam in the faces of the people who swallow everything they say in spite of the haze.

We need to correct the entire system,
even if it means instituting new procedures,
and even to the extent of - - dare I say it? - - replacing the ancient Constitution:
A system designed for a population of approx 2.5 million in 1776
has proven incapable of handling the nearly 400 million people, today;
not to mention that the system of checks and balances
is using a jury-rigged scale (pun intended),
and has been bouncing fiscal and responsibility checks for the past 12 years.

As such, we need businessmen and economists in both Houses,
to replace the current lot of self-aggrandizing gladhands.
At the very least, we need to give prospective politicos
basic tests that any college student would be required to pass,
including basic math, world history, world geography,
business/economics practices, etc.
I'm willing to bet that nearly all would fail
(heck, I'm willing to admit that *I* probably would fail!).

BTW, the Constitution calls for Representatives to be at least 25 years of age, Senators at least 30 years of age, and Presidents 35. Do you know why those ages are so young? BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE "OLD" AT 50, AND WERE DEEMED OVER THE HILL AT 25!!!! Now, with longer life spans, and, a clearly, declining educational system, we need people who are at least twice those ages, just to give them decent life experiences (did you know that, when taken on a tour of a new supermarket, Pres Bush Sr was amazed at UPC seals and the laser bar code scanners that scanned them, even though they had been pretty much standard devices by then?).

My fingers are sore from pounding sense into the keyboard
(if my fingers could speak, they would be hoarse, by now!).
I'll end by saying that I wax philosophic over a broken system,
but have no chamois with which to polish it.

New Game Show: Begging for Dollars!

2010-07-04T11:25:00.000-07:00

A recent social networking message from me, made in response to someone else's photo of a seemingly, down-and-out, young man on the city streets, got everyone in a tizzy. Unfortunately, it was for the wrong reasons. After attacking me for being negative and uncaring, I wrote the following, which I thought should be put into this blog, if only because it took me so long to compose it.

===========

Wow! Everyone took umbrage at my "fair and balanced view", which was intended to bring a Diogenes-like light to the self-righteous who confuse liberty and freedom with true, abject, poverty.

If you want to feel sorry for someone, that's all good and fine. But, don't compare it with any holiday, which does a disservice to those for whom such celebrations are meant. "Negative???" None of you who responded to my message correctly comprehended it, or you would have realized that I was the only one making a point for positive change ("Oh, that rotten, guy! How dare he ask us to curb our $5 cups of coffee habit to help others?" [n.b., I had mentioned that at $5 per day for 5 days a week for 50 weeks a year (everyone's entitled to a vacation!) amounted to over $1,000 per year to feed their caffeine habits])

Let's try a different tach (or attack, if you wish) at this photo, where those with a more practiced, if not practical, eye may have noticed the following [ref: photo at the bottom of this blog]:

1) multiple, name-brand, fast-food franchise cups
2) the oh-so-conveniently, empty, bottled water
3) the kibble placed on the ground
4) burnt pack of matches on the lower right
5) brand new sneakers purposely scuffed at the tips
6) near new looking dog leash for the oh-so-cute, clean, and well-behaved dog
7) baggy sweater and obviously purposely dirty pants
8) the young man has very clean hair, yet his fingernails are suspiciously dirty, while the rest of his hands are, equally suspicously, clean

So, where did he get the money to buy multiple fast-food goodies and dog food (much less that he can even afford to keep a dog), all of which were carefully strewn about to make it appear that he had been sitting there for lord-knows-how-long starving for attention and preying on your sympathies? (I know what you're thinking: "Why, that's all the poor lad could afford!" My response: Re-read the above list)

I was a Police Explorer (volunteer, civilian position) in Massachusetts and a Court Magistrate in Virginia. In both cases, I was able to see the very few highs and, unfortunately, many lows of society over the years, in the field, in the courts (both side of the benches, though mostly as a spectator), and from behind the desk. The truly indigent do not display themselves, like this guy. The vast majority of people who publicly beg or put themselves on open display, such as in this photo, rake in upwards of $200 a day, tax-free, to feed their cell phone bills and partying (legal and otherwise). Where's the money, you ask? In his pockets, or spent on the stuff you see in the pic; it's good capitalism to re-invest to keep up appearances, ya know (most police will arrest pandhandlers if the money is in plain sight; in the pockets doesn't prove anything, unless the cop sees the "transaction" take place). For the record, every "vagrant" I saw in the courts, was usually a teen or young adult (all male, but I've been told there were women out there, though most such are prostitutes trying to earn money during their - - how should I put this? - - "down time"), and had a perfectly good home and bed to go to every night (as evidenced by the angry or weary parents bailing out their kid for the nth time), and wasted his time, and his parents' and your money, illegally panhandling, sometimes even to the point of purposely slowing or even stopping pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic (BTW, if someone brought me this guy with this photo while I was a Magistrate, I would have also nailed the guy for littering).

Long ago, I was in an NY subway, and came across an ancient-looking woman - - she could have passed for Mother Teresa's twin, habit and all - - sitting on the floor, cross-legged, holding an infant that, clearly, wasn't hers (I'm not saying it wasn't a family member). Every time someone passed by, she put on this pained and plaintive expression, and prodded the one year old to cry to further her point. As soon as she thought nobody was looking, she relaxed her face and rocked the kid back to sleep. I didn't stick around long enough to see more. By wild coincidence, I bumped into a cop at the top of the subway exit, and mentioned her abusing the kid (hey, if she can get some bucks from fools-and-their-soon-to-be-parted-hard-earned-money, that's fine by me; but, child abuse?). Before I could finish, he said with a wry and knowing smile, "Grandma Moses at it again?" He headed down the stairs. I didn't wait to see the result.

Still outraged and aghast at me?
GOOD!!!
The truth should shock, if not hurt!

Newly outraged at the reality of the photo?
BETTER!!!
Now, take off those rose-colored, sympathy-filled, glasses, and see the world for what it really is: There are those in the open who will take advantage of you ("A sucker is born every minute"), while the ones who need your help are, usually, out of sight and mind. Again, put down your $5 cups of coffee, and put your money where your mouths and bleeding hearts are: In genuine charities, not into the pockets of wastrels, like the depicted brat.

Still don't get it?
BAD AND SAD!
At the very least,
that might explain the last three Presidential elections.
"Change we need", indeed!

P.S. Metaphorically speaking, the problem with the so-called Tea and Coffee parties is that everyone is too jittery from excess caffeine to make rational choices, glomming to celebrities or cause celebre, rather than relying on intelligent discourse and genuine needs. I suggest that a new party be created: "Tap Water". It might be a little hard to swallow, and might be a little salty and too gritty for everyone's taste, but, with a little work, it can be cleaned-up and will be good for all.

Federally mandated digital airwaves screws the people (surprise!)

2010-06-27T21:15:00.000-07:00

Now that most of the nation has gone all digital with its television airwaves, poor people, who are barely able to afford TV's, much less cable or a satellite dish or broadband access, will be unable to keep informed of all their favorite shows, much less of important news events, such as problems with local transit, severe weather, etc, etc, etc. Of course, the gov't was more than willing to foot the bill for the $40 digital-to-analog signal box for those with older TV's, which was made available to a limited number of people (that was the beginning of many a "bailout" plan).

However, even middle to upperclass will have a problem that our wonderfully, foresighted, perfectly-well-intended-I'm-sure, politicians never saw: No way to access the channels in the forced-digital cable and satellite boxes, except via the boxes' remote controls or via a digital recorder equipped with the appropriate tuning system, most notably, "QAM".

Why is this a problem? It means that anyone who has at least one non-digital VCR and/or DVD recorder, and, of course, television, can no longer use their products to change or set the channel, because those non-QAM (or similar) devices will all need to be locked on channel 3 (or 4, depending on where you live). Since the vast majority of cable boxes do not have a way to change the channel at a specified date and time - - as your VCR/DVR once did - - you are limited to one channel recording, unless you happen to be there (and awake) when programs on different channels need to be recorded.

For example, in the "old" days, all you needed was for your TV and/or VCR to accept the analog signal captured via a rabbit ears (my first VCR in 1985 accepted either a 75-ohm coax cable or 300-ohm flat antenna wire). Since both the VCR and TV had tuners, and since the VCR had multiple program recording capabilities, it was easy to watch one channel, while recording up to the maximum number of programs the VCR could handle, on any other channel (or even the current one you were watching) at any time, without your being in the room.

When cable came along, the signal was easily converted to match your antenna, unless you were unfortunate enough to have a cable company that scrambled the signal, in which case, you needed their box, for which, of course, you paid a modest rental fee for the privilege, unless the cost was built into that of the cable service. Still, most people had no trouble with it. If the box wouldn't allow the VCR to tune to any channel (i.e., it was forced to accept whatever channel the box was set to, so the VCR had to be permanently set to channel 3 or 4), an innovative company called Gemstar had created a device called VCRPlus that could be programmed to change the box at any date or time, not unlike that of your VCR. You still had to set your VCR's timer for the appropriate programs, but you needed only to set it to channel 3, while the VCRPlus device needed to programmed for the corresponding date and time, along with, of course, the desired channel. People who bought satellite services discovered that those boxes had the same problems. Again, though, VCRPlus came to the rescue, for the most part. Eventually, some VCR's even came with VCRPlus capabilities built-in (though, quite frankly, that feature, in one VCR I owned, never worked properly), such that customers needed only to enter the multi-digit code found in the TV Guide or newspaper television program guide, rather than have to enter the date, time, channel 3, length of program, etc, etc, etc.

Unfortunately, VCRPlus has gone the way of the dinosaur. And, since Congress saw fit not to be aware of the needs of the people, once the all-digital airwaves mandate had begun, cable companies - - some of whom had given customers the option of dropping the boxes if they only wanted "basic" cable (i.e., local stations, shopping networks, non-pay sports stations, etc), which not only saved customers the rental costs, but, once again, allowed them to use their VCR tuners as they were intended: any channel, any date, any time - - were forced to require customers to use boxes, which, once again, crippled customers' VCR's and DVD's. But, fear not: All you needed was a very expensive hard disk digital recording system, such as Tivo, or a brand new VCR or DVD recorder with the "QAM" industry standard tuner. Of course, the manufacturers weren't prepared for the onrush of customers, so, currently, there's a severe shortage of such devices for consumers.

Then, of course, the VCRs/DVD/DVR's and even TV's, started eliminating rabbit ear connections (since most people had to have a coax cable for either the cable or satellite connections, anyway), and even the coax cable is a thing of the past, thanks to HDMI and S-video connectors. My old 27", $200, non-HD TV, which, wonderfully, accepts rabbit ears, coax, or RCA jacks, is now out-dated. You wouldn't believe the devices and contrived, spaghetti wiring I had to come up with to avoid having to buy more expensive TV's (i.e., there's nothing wrong with my TV or 3 VCRs; they are just burdened with 3 cable boxes (one for each VCR), now requiring me to have 3 remote controls, where I used to need only one for the TV and one for the VCRs: one for the TV, one for each of the VCRs (same make and model, so one remote operates all three, which means I have to "shield" the infrared receiving area for each VCR's (usually in the front panel of the VCR) with a piece of cardboard, so that I don't, accidentally, change the setting of one while changing that of the other), and one for all the cable boxes (why didn't VCR/DVD and the cable mfr's not consider that consumers would buy multiple units in one room, as I have, and either have a unique remote control signal (how hard could it possibly be to do that?) or, at the very least, allow the customer to set some kind of code to tell the remote and VCR which unit went with which remote).

All Congress had to do was to tell the cable companies to make their signals compatible with devices made within the past 5 years, so that the tuners could be used with a single remote, and/or to install a VCRPlus or similar system into the box, so that it could be programmed (n.b., my current QAM-based cable box does not even show what channel it is currently on; it also has no way of being turned off without unplugging it, and produces an incredible amount of heat for such a small unit (my cable company says it is "okay")). Now, I'm sure that Congressional representatives have butlers and maids to handle the arduous day-to-day activities of changing the channels and/or programming the VCR/DVD/DVR, whatever, but, most of us don't have that kind of luxury, and poor people probably no longer have TV's, so that's not an issue.

The worst part of the all-digital mandate? It solved nothing* and created new problems. Undoubtedly, consumers, like me, have begun noticing "drop-outs" or "freezes" in their digital signals. Why? Because when a digital signal is momentarily dropped or blocked, for whatever reason (e.g., power failure or other glitch at the origination point, or at the cable/satellite company, or in the customer's receiver) for even just a split second, the entire digital signal is lost, and cannot be restored until the next "complete" signal is received, which takes a very noticeable amount of time - - anywhere from 3-5 seconds. If a similar thing happened to an analog signal, you got momentary snow or static, but you could still see the show as it was occurring at the transmission point. Undoubtedly, digital signal transmission and reception will improve over the years, but at greater expense to the consumer. About the only thing this moronic mandate did was screw the consumer, by forcing us to buy more complex and more expensive goods and services, of which the previous versions were perfectly adequate to their tasks. It's one thing for planned obsolescence, but unplanned ones that take money out of the consumers pockets and makes it virtually impossible to manage the new technology is reprehensible. But, then, that's why we love our current democratic system: As the Dealth Deform - - er, REform - - Law has proven: Ignore the majority of consumers and taxpayers, in favor of the minority of non-buyers, non-taxpayers, and those who cannot possibly make good use of the new system (if you think that poor people are going to just waltz into doctors' offices and get first rate health care, then you're as much a Pollyanna as our elected officials).

----------

* Here is the gov'ts list of alleged improvements for the nation: http://www.dtv.gov/consumercorner.html. None of these have or will take place to any benefit to the consumer. Worse, all the police, fire, emergency, etc, benefits, could have been done without forcing consumers to foot the bill (i.e., the minority of people, groups, companies, etc, benefitting from these changes could have done so without making the majority suffer through it; e.g., make the police buy an all-digital system with different frequencies that wouldn't affect standard radios, TV's, etc). Yes, it's all well and good to look toward the future, but it should have been done in carefully planned steps, not leaps of faith. While Justice may be blind (and, apparently, deaf and dumb, as well), our lawmakers should not be.

Senate passes massive Wall Street regulation bill

2010-05-20T19:48:00.000-07:00

Is that anything like passing a gallstone?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul

Have you ever noticed that the more laws the government passes, the easier it is for the very ne'er-do-wells they are designed to stop?

"It would impose new restraints on the largest, most interconnected banks..." So, basically, non-interconnected banks can still do what they wish, simply because, presumably, they're small? I smell divesting and break-ups in the wind! Just as good as an off-shore bank, and just as easy to trace!

"... and demand proof that borrowers could pay for the simplest of mortgages." And, wasn't it the job of lenders to ensure that prospective property owners are able to afford their mortgages in the first place? Smells like a way to make it harder on first-time buyers.

"Republicans, meanwhile, abandoned a highly lobbied measure that would have excluded auto dealers from rules devised by a new consumer financial protection bureau." Thank goodness the Republicans were trying to protect a business whose 10-20% profits at the expense of consumers who, if they're lucky, get a 30-day warranty for a lemon, which, as everyone knows, smells nice, but is impossible to eat, much less swallow.

"Democrats argued it was a potent response to the financial abuses, regulatory weaknesses and consumer misjudgments that plunged the nation deep into recession." Oh, so it had nothing to do with the fact that neither House has done virtually anything constructive for the majority of the US people in the last decade (the Health Bill, though sweeping, is aimed at helping just 10% of U.S. citizens at the expense of 50% of them), much less that Congress and various Federal institutions are supposed to watch for such abuses in the first place, much less that it comes on the heels of a primary election which seemed to indicate that the American people are ready to dump the entire Rep/Dem system? Smells fishy to me!

Now, I'm not saying that SOMEthing had to be done, but, in conclusion, this bill definitely stinks.

Unsocial networks

2010-05-15T22:03:00.000-07:00

I've recently joined a few, well-known, social networks and multi-player gaming web sites, and have been utterly amazed at the uncivil behavior of a few, and, more to the point, the apparent lack of "cyberpolice" to give these ne'er-do-wells a proper thrashing (seriously . . . if someone came into my home and acted that way, I'd either throw them out or call the cops).

One poker-playing website has a number of users - - albeit a small number (appropriate to their small minds, I suppose) - - have avatars/icons showing themselves aiming a cell phone camera at a mirror (usually in a school lavatory) while showing one or two middle fingers. I shake my head in stunned disbelief at these images. What is the message they are sending? "I have so little respect for myself, that I give myself the finger?" or, possibly, "Be afraid of me because I am giving you the finger?" The other odd thing is that most of these people are young girls, probably high schoolers.

A few people on these sites use raunchy user ID's or even racial epithets or symbols, such as a Nazi swastika. Some show themselves (or someone else) nearly naked (one person showed an erect genitalia). Others feel it necessary to insult people without provocation.

Many websites have a reporting mechanism, but, all too often, the ne'er-do-wells are either not caught, or are caught, but return with similar profane displays (one guy on a TV network had an animated avatar showing three male characters ogling a female character's near naked, ample bosom; the males' eyes were bulging and the boys were jumping up and down, excited, like any adolescent male would in his dreams. When I reported it as being overly sexual (I have very young nieces who I don't want exposed to such on a site that caters to children), the guy simply changed it to a static image showing one male character staring at the chest of a clothed, but large breasted, woman. When I reported that, nothing was done. It's one thing to allow users to report others, but some sites wait until they receive multiple complaints, or they don't tell the person who made the report what the outcome was (one site goes as far to say so in its "thank you" page; what's the point of not telling good "citizens" that a "troll" was chastised or ousted?).

Some question-and-answer websites allow people to ask questions or give answers anonymously, thus opening up entire avenues of childish behavior, including asking inane questions (re: zits, miracle cures, menses, emergency with a pregnancy, bizarre medical issues (including such as this: "Help, I've been stabbed by a mugger. What should I do?"), or asking how they look with a link to another site showing someone - - who probably isn't even that person, to the other person's possible embarrassment - - ad nauseum). Also, inane and absurd answers are rampant. Most such people are only trying to see how far they can go before getting "caught", and, if that happens, they simply return under another e-mail address and user ID (unfortunately, most sites won't track users' computers via their "IP address", because many such are in public facilities, such as schools and libraries, so they cannot be blocked, and rightfully so (i.e., don't eliminate all access from a public terminal just because of one jerk)). Once a particular question has been asked, it should never be allowed to be asked again. Unfortunately, there are circumstances where answers may need to be updated or revisited (e.g., "who won the most money in a particular sports event?"), so some mechanism should be enabled to allow that, but only by "trusted" users (i.e., those who have been on the system for a while, and have few, if any, legitimate complaints or reports against them; I've been on sites where people have been reported and chastised for trying to deal with someone (usually a "newbie", who stays only for a few minutes, then never accesses the site, again) for using foul language, and was reported for that! It's a strange world we live in when the good are punished for the deeds of the wicked.

Granted, perhaps, that some well-meaning users might be somewhat overzealous in reporting others, but, if our current society has proven anything, it's that we need more citizens to report the evils that others do, not fewer. When cities made it easier for people to earn money collecting cans, glass, and other refuse, the result was a cleaner city (I recall one local newspaper showing before and after pictures of its various city streets, all cleaned-up by people, with one homeless person saying he was able to afford a small, low-rent apartment with the money he earned). If cities and websites rewarded the good (in an anonymous manner, of course) for reporting the bad, there wouldn't be any bad people left on the site.

I've been on one site where user ID's are shown when they give a permanently displayed "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" for someone's response in a chat room. This boggles the mind. It is one thing to do so, anonymously, but allowing the respondent to see who gave him/her a thumbs down, is tantamount to allowing one gang to find out the identity of someone in another gang, and then "take care of them". In one instance where I gave a newbie a "thumbs down" for a tirade that had virtually nothing to do with the subject at hand, he took revenge by going through my profile and giving every single one of my posts (numbering in the hundreds!) a "thumbs down". When I complained to the powers-that-be, I was basically told, "that's life". I left that site.

And don't get me started on blog comments and "guestbooks" with spurious spam, and inane and profane comments!

The above is only the tip of the iceberg. When society allows "normal" people to get away with deplorable behavior by ignoring it, it sends the message that bad behavior is okay, which leads to an escalation from the virtual world to the real world, usually to disastrous effect (i.e., cyberbullying becomes real-world bullying which leads to more violent, criminal behavior). I know it must be difficult for webmasters and owners to police their sites, but, it seems to me that they are ultimately responsible for their users' behaviors, to the point that a single lawsuit could wipe them out (n.b., the "free speech" argument is invalid, because "membership" (free or otherwise, usually with a user ID and password) is required for most of these sites, thus the site is "private", not public, even if it is "found" via a "public" search engine result), so keeping their site clean is in their best interest.

Agencies and HR: Get it WRITE!!!

2010-05-07T15:44:00.000-07:00

For years, agencies and corporate human resources departments have practically demanded that job applicants target resumes to specific jobs, a detail previously left to that thing called a "cover letter", which, thanks to the internet (i.e., job search websites and online job applications), is largely a thing of the past. Never mind that a simple, chronological resume indicates the entire scope of one's background, and not just the few details that, allegedly, correspond to the desired job (which, BTW, could lead some to accidentally misstate or outright lie about, just to get noticed).

Yet, those same agencies and HR folks don't bother to target their audiences when advertising their open positions, leaving 99% of the jobs I've seen on the web and in newspapers to be false leads: "Cook". "Programmer". "Nurse". Guys, can you make it a LOT more specific? How about "Early morning cafe cook", or "C Unix SQL Programmer", or "LPN for Senior Home". Which listings do you think will get the desired/targeted responses, rather than wishful thinkers, hoping to snag a job? When I asked a recruiter who cold-called me about a job that had nothing to do with my background, I asked her about it. She said, "People are lazy". Oh! So, I'm supposed to put my career in the hands of lazy people???

The "Golden Rule" applies to recruiters as well: Don't expect us to target resumes, if your generic jobs make us desperate enough to try anything to get in, especially during these difficult economic times.

ProFlowers rips-off Tennis Channel viewers!

2010-05-05T11:28:00.000-07:00

PSST!!!
Do you watch Tennis Channel?
Want a bargain?
Want to spend $10 more for it than the regular price?

http://TennisNut.webng.com/ripoff.htm

The difference between what's printed and what the register says

2010-05-01T18:10:00.000-07:00

I'm really getting ticked-off at my local supermarket posting a great price for an item, but having it come up as something else at the register, and, worse, my not knowing it until I get home (I normally look at the receipt at the store, but, was tired after the tennis, and didn't notice until I had put everything away). I'm not going back, today, just to get a $1.50 or return one of the two items I bought (i.e., for the purported sale price, it was a great bargain; not so much with the normal price).

We live well into the digital age. Why aren't prices displayed on small LED or LCD screens that would automatically be set to match whatever's in the registers? That would reduce mistakes, such as a clerk entering the wrong numbers or not changing the prices to match that week's sales ads (BTW, did you know that the prices are set by a CD sent by the chain's corporate or district office? And that, if there's a mistake, for the most part, it is not correctable, even if it's caught? And did you know that some States have laws to protect the consumer, which order the store to correct the bogus prices? As a test, in one State I lived in that I know has that law in place, I saw a misprinted price, bought it anyway, got the wrong price, got the right price at the customer service price (to my knowledge, nobody gives free items for incorrect prices, anymore), asked about the automatic correction, was assured that it would go into the computer immediately, bought the same item the next day for the bogus price.)

I'll go to the store, tomorrow, bringing my camera, so that I don't have to wait for them to walk all the way to the back of the store where the item is to see what the tag says, which, hopefully, won't have changed to match a Sunday ad (which, actually, should be cheaper, so, if nothing else, I'd return the item to get the lower price).

Grrrrrr.....

Just saw Avatar

2010-04-27T20:15:00.000-07:00

After filling-in for a sick volunteer by reading USA Today at Central Kentucky Radio Eye (http://RadioEye.org), I went to the local "cheap-o" theater to see "Avatar". Other than the badly, over-painted, white wall on which the film was projected, and the roar of lawn mowers running outside, I honestly don't know what all the hype is about. It was a decent enough movie, if you ignore the cheesy acting (especially by Sigourney Weaver and the Mel Gibson imitator, Sam Worthington) and B-movie script, which stole bits and pieces from so many movies and TV shows that I lost count, not to mention its incredibly predictable plot (c'mon . . . be honest . . . did anyone NOT see it coming that the human and native would mate? or that the human would be the first in a generation to ride the big flying beast?). I know I'm far too critical, but there was nothing "new" about "Avatar". "Star Wars" it ain't (and, yes, I know SW stole bits and pieces, too, but, it did it in far more spectacular style for the time)! Still, for $1.50 for the flick, plus $2 for a soda and popcorn (total . . . not each!), and with only six other people in the audience (one, a nearly blind youngster who was enthralled by the film), I didn't "hate" it, but wouldn't care to sit through the nearly three hour film, again.

Then, I played tennis, despite my numerous aches and pains.

Then, I went home.

Don't Judge a FaceBook by its Members

2010-04-26T06:09:00.000-07:00

I've been on Facebook for a few months. Of all the "social networking" sites I've been on, it is, by far, the best. I've found lots of friends from high school and college, and met decent, intelligent, funny friends-of-friends.

Classmates.com charges just to see what messages you get from others (in other words, you have to pay for what Facebook gives you for free . . . at least, for now!). Twitter is dull and vapid, with people showing how clever they are by writing their inane thoughts in under 140 characters, usually starting with "OMG" and ending with "LOL" (BTW, anybody who "Laughs Out Loud" to themselves, is a poor comedian); the only "hits" I get on MySpace are from ultra-gorgeous, and, naturally, lonely, babes, who are less than half my age - - you know, the kind that wouldn't have anything to do with me in real life! Oddly, most of these babes are black and Hispanic; I've dated them, so I don't have a problem with that (the girls might, though!), but it seems odd that so many would want to date an older, white, man! Of course, they are all probably teenaged boys getting their jollies and trying to scam/spam/phish men.

However, that doesn't make Facebook perfect.

1) A surprising number of FB users have their main profile picture pointed at a mirror, giving themselves (and the viewer) the middle finger. I'm wondering why thse people (usually, they're teenaged, fat (not "phat"), black, females) have such disdain for the viewer, much less having no respect for themselves, that the first and "best" thing they have to offer is to make that person recoil in shock. The first thing I do is "block" that person. Amazingly, these people usually have a high number of FB friends, though, these days, unmonitored teenagers will accept just about anybody into their circle. I also don't understand folks who hold weapons (mostly whites), scowl at the camera (mostly black males), have multiple people in the pic so you can't even tell which is them, or have a photo that doesn't even show them (e.g., cartoons, tattoos, famous people, etc).

2) While playing multi-member games on FB, members can "chat" with each other. It stuns me how most teenaged boys and young men (mostly white and Hispanic) hit on young, svelte-appearing, women (all races!). They're not even subtle about it. Worse, a lot of the younger females are asked where they live, and other stalker-or-tantamount-to-committing-rape questions. I would report these boys, but the reporting mechanism in both FB and the games are designed not to allow you to do that very thing.

3) Also while playing the aforementioned games, on rare occasion, some junior high school boy will cyberbully a kid younger than him (as bullies are wont to do). Fortunately, most people don't react to it (most bullies just want attention), but one girl "LOL'd" at the attacker, at which point, he left the game, and one 12-ish year old boy left rather than face the assaulter (good for him! I happened to meet him in the same game a few days, later; when I told him how smart he was, he didn't even remember the event, which makes me think that more than one kid was using the pictured person's acct; also, he played very badly, which makes me think he was there just to make trouble, himself, but, that's relatively harmless). Again, there's little one can do about this, except block the offending bully.

4) Also while playing the aforementioned games, I may make an innocuous joke about another player's photo. For example, one (alleged) woman's FB profile pic was of her (?) cat. I said something like, "No cats allowed! I'm allergic!", to which "she" replied, "Are you a pussy?" Wow. Funny. Blocked. Another member's pic (black, 20 or so) showed him kissing someone who looked like his mother. I thought there was some humor to be had, so I said, "Hey (his name): this is Facebook, not Kissy Facebook!". Two other players thought it was hysterical. Not the guy, though. He hurled a number of epithets at me, and said, in essence, "Nobody better come between me and my wife!!!" Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! The other two players bailed, as did I, after I blocked the jerk. Another guy (probably white (read on)) had his (presumed) son in Superman pajamas as his FB pic. I joked, "Hey, (his name)! You better not be using your X-ray vision to see our cards!" He replied with epithets demanding to know what the &#$^* I meant by that. I guardedly "LOL'd" (some people simply don't understand me; I can deal with that), explained the Superman PJ's (how do people not associate a joke clearly aimed at their own FB pic???), at which point he hurled even more epithets. I blocked him, then left the game. BTW, unfortunately, blocking FB users does not mean that you won't see them in future FB-accessible games; brilliant!

Despite the above, these jerks and other ne'er-do-wells are, fortunately, few, but, unfortunately, not far, between (I get at least one of the above for every three game sessions). I've found that it's easiest just to turn off the "chat" mechanism, where such is available (most have such a mechanism), and chat only with those people who have an intelligent bio or, in one case, a fascinating tale of heroism.

It is unfortunate that FB and similar websites don't make it easy to warn and/or oust the offenders. It strikes me that such a lack of policing one's own website is very much like the problem with society: Restrain the cops and the judicial system, and the criminals run the jails and the streets. I don't know what FB and other sites are afraid of by not caring about their membership. Granted, they probably think that more members potentially responding to the sponsors' ads is better than fewer, but, any responsible adult with a kid who views any of the above, will walk away, tell THEIR friends, thus eliminating THAT potential revenue. Unless, of course, FB, et al., thinks that the criminals are the ones they are trying to sell to.

The Egg and I

2010-04-11T10:17:00.000-07:00

I went into my local Walmart store.

A "regular" dozen of large eggs (green carton) had THREE prices associated with it:

(1) A large placard in two different places in the refrigerated section indicated they were 75 cents (actually, the sign only showed the price, not what it was for; the consumer had to presume or take on faith that the price was for the item shown beneath it (or above it?); that's not a "fair" or "easy" thing to do when there are multiple items in the area, of which some shelf stockers get things mixed-up or put different items in that area (i.e., how is the consumer supposed to know what price goes with which item, if it isn't so labeled?)).

(2) Small signs on multiple rows indicated 4 dozen large eggs for $5, which breaks down to $1.25 each (presumably, one couldn't buy one carton for $1.25).

(3) I scanned one of the large dozen eggs on one of the consumer-use price checkers: $1.38 (BTW, I had to walk five aisles to find that scanner).

I asked the cashier manager (?) which price was correct. She said that the cashiers know to mark it down to 75 cents. I then asked, "What if they forget?" She had no answer; I waited a few seconds, but she was clearly nonplussed, so I walked away.

I put the eggs back, because I know I would have got the one cashier who wasn't told about the 75 cent price, and then I would have had to spend a half-hour or so on the customer service line to get a partial or full refund, or even a rebate (i.e., since the price didn't match the sign, as most retailers are wont to do). I also wondered what would have happened if I purchased 4 dozen eggs: would the price have been $3 (.75 x 4) or $5 (4 @ $5)?

I like Walmart. I appreciate their low prices. But, they (and other retailers) shouldn't confuse the customer, or make it difficult on their own cashiers. Prices shouldn't be equivalent to gambling (i.e., roll the die, see what price you get).

All told, it took nearly ten minutes to figure all this out, and then not to even get the item. This was not a pleasant experience.

False jobs

2010-04-07T17:34:00.000-07:00

Why are agencies allowed to contact you saying that they have the "perfect" job, if only you'll give them references, birth dates, social security numbers, etc, etc, etc?

Most claim that their client won't accept prospective new-hires without that info, but most such companies do nothing of the kind. Even the US Gov't won't "vet" someone until AFTER they have been hired (why do you think new hires at defense contractors have to wait until their security clearances are approved?).

Two separate, legit, worldwide, companies' agents called me to say that they had jobs for me, spent about 30 minutes discussing it, and then asked me for references. Since they were so well known (I confirmed that their phone numbers belonged to that company), I "gave in" to their requests. The next day, they said that the references checked out, but the jobs were already filled! WHAT?!?! WHY DIDN'T THEY CHECK BEFORE CONTACTING ME??? Then, I called the references. Wanna know what these "legit" companies asked? Basically, it came down to two questions: Do you know this person, and are you looking to hire anyone? In other words, these "legit" companies were looking for "ins" to my companies, with no benefit to me. I think I'll start charging for such information!

Who says boys are better at math?

2010-03-24T21:10:00.000-07:00

I'm just wondering how President Obama actually believes that adding $1 trillion to the over $12 trillion national debt will result in savings of nearly $150 billion??? And, keep in mind, that the national debt increases every second, and the gov't is notorious for underestimating expenses while overestimating savings/income!

Bets on pay raise?

2010-03-24T20:57:00.000-07:00

Now that both Houses and the President have given their okey-dokey to bankrupting the USA with its ill-conceived health deform - - er, REform - - bill (now law), I just want to be the first one to put my money on all of them saying that they desperately need a raise, probably to pay for the plan when they're ousted by voters in November!

Any takers?

Getting Dizzy on the What-Goes-Around Adage

2010-03-23T13:15:00.000-07:00

Just for my edification:

1) Obama is endorsed for the Presidency in 2008 primarily thanks to TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey and Senator Ted Kennedy, the latter of whom clearly had issues with the Clintons, or he would have (should have) endorsed Hillary Clinton (or, maybe, he just has trouble with women!).

2) The people reject McCain for his hawkish views and for selecting a nobody, Dan Quayle clone, Sarah Palin, as Vice-President.

3) Obama returns the favor to Ted Kennedy (at this point, deceased) by foisting a health care deform - - er, REform - - bill on a cash-strapped nation - - despite multiple polls indicating considerably over 50% of those who are against it - - still reeling from seemingly, never-ending wars that we should not have got into in the first place (the irony being that if Russia had been left alone in its invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, there strong-arm tactics probably would have prevented the Taliban and Al Quaeda from forming, and/or prevented the US from arming Bin Laden (a policy which continues with other despots and fringe lunatics to this very day),
so neither the Iraq or Afghan (and, soon to come to a desert near you, Iran) wars would have ever occurred, and the US would be enjoying excellent standing in the world, both financially and morally, and we probably could actually have afforded a socialistic health care reform for all, instead of just 10% of the population (if you don't realize that this plan - - now law - - is little more than a tax on over half of the country, then I ask you to please remove your rose-colored glasses and/or stop using whatever hallucinogen you're on)).

4) 37 States are filing suit to stop the health care law, which passed by 7 votes, all along party lines, as being unconstitutional. I'm not clear on the precedents or Constitutional Articles they may cite, but, the expense, time, and effort, on both sides will be incredible.

For the 2012 election, I hope either the Republicans or Democrats find SOMEbody with intelligence, and at least 20 years of legislative experience, and with some business or economic sense (qualifications Obama clearly lacks), but, I'm not holding my breath. As long as Sarah Palin isn't the Republican front runner, I'll vote Republican. It's the Republicans election to lose.

What does $1,000,000,000,000 look like?

2010-03-21T21:31:00.001-07:00

http://www.dailycognition.com/index.php/2009/03/25/what-1-trillion-dollars-looks-like-in-dollar-bills.html

According to http://www.childrensmuseum.org/special_exhibits/moneyville/pop5.htm:

- If you had 10 billion $1 notes and spent one every second of every day, it would require 317 years for you to go broke. Of course, Congress can do that in a week!

- A stack of currency one-mile high would contain more than 14 million notes. That's 14 million one dollar bills, which means one trillion $1 bills would be just over 71,428 miles high, which would encircle the Earth over 3,898 times!!!

Another source: http://defeatthedebt.com/understanding-the-national-debt/millions-billions-trillions/.

Economics not Congress' forte

2010-03-21T21:29:00.000-07:00

I'm watching C-SPAN, listening to Pres. Obama saying that passing his health deform - - I mean, REform - - bill (which is SO good on its own, that he added an unrelated college aid plan to sweeten that sour deal), will reduce the deficit in 20 years.

Never mind that economists, businessmen, bankers, etc, believe it will take 50 years, if that (n.b., by then, Social Insecurity will be bankrupt (if over 20 million people are out of work (n.b., the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BS for short) counts only those currently collecting unemployment, not those who are not working and can't get unemployment or exhausted their benefits)), who do you think is going to foot the bill for Soc Sec?)), but, will SOMEbody PLEASE tell me how spending $1,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 trillion dollars, folks) to help 10% of the US population at the expense of nearly 50%, will REDUCE the deficit??? PLEASE???

I have a minor in economics, and it boggles my mind!!!

Oh, and let's not forget the current shortage of doctors, nurses, etc. How, again, does this bill magically make new ones appear out of thin air? And if you think this new system is going to be rife with fraud and corruption . . . you're right! Look at what happened after Katrina and Haiti, alone, JUST by the gov't contractors, never mind the ersatz charities! How many bogus ads have you seen that say something like "Obama says your credit is good" or "Your bailout is here"?

Oh, what's the use? Congress allowed an illegal war to devour America's resources, and now allows Americans to be taxed for something they may not even want or need for the first time in our history. Never mind that 37 (!) States are prepared to file civil suits with the Supreme Court to prevent their citizens from having to comply with the bill (illegal or not, how is the US gov't - - much less the States - - going to foot the attorneys' bills to fight it?). The few States that have some form of health care reform, including Massachusetts, have already stated that it has failed, miserably!

As I've said, before, the Democrats win regardless of the outcome, because, even if the Senate kills the bill, everyone is going to say, "Oh, well, at least the Dems tried!"

THIS is Obama's and the Democrats shining moment???

(FWIW, I vote for the best qualified person, not for political parties, though I tend to vote for Democrats, but that may change)

Federal Gov't Pretzel Logic

2010-03-18T09:08:00.000-07:00

(apologies to Steely Dan)

WASHINGTON (AP) – House Democrats are pushing to the brink of passage a landmark, $940 billion health care overhaul bill that would simultaneously deliver on President Barack Obama's promise to expand coverage while slashing the deficit, a strategy aimed at attracting support from the party's fiscal conservatives.

==========

Only the Federal Gov't could conceive of a plan to spend nearly a trillion dollars and actually believe that they can reduce the deficit.

Do you know the saying about the inmates running the institution?

Meanwhile, 36 States are considering barring any health plan which forces people to buy into it, while one State, Idaho, has already passed a law against it. Of course, Federal law supersedes State law, but what is the Fed going to do when the majority of States file a class action suit against it? Spend another trillion dollars to defend a botched law?

Please, pass the mustard.

New deal? No. New deceit? Yes!

2010-03-12T16:34:00.000-08:00

From Yahoo News :

1) "Under White House pressure to act swiftly, House and Senate Democratic leaders reached for agreement Friday on President Barack Obama's health care bill,..."

     Hello??? The White House does not run either House.
     It's supposed to be the other way around,
     with all three responsible for and responding
     to the American people. LMAO!!!

2) "...sweetened suddenly by fresh billions for student aid and a sense that breakthroughs are at hand."

     Did we forget to mention to the American people
     that this bill is
     such a bad idea during a time of world economic crisis, that we thought
     we'd add something to which nobody could say "no"!
     What's a few more billion dollars for the children?
     THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! How can you possibly
     turn down this abortion (no pun intended)
     of a bill NOW?!?!?

3) "Most people would have to get insurance by law, and poor and middle-income Americans — - including families of four earning up to $88,000 — - would receive subsidies."

     As a single taxpayer, I've never made that much money in my life.
     That's triple the poverty limit (approx $22k),
     which, granted, is horrendously understated,
     thanks to arcane, nearly half-century old,
     accounting measures (where's the Houses' urgency to fix that?!?!).
     The actual poverty limit for a single person
     is probably better set at $35k
     which for a family of four earning nearly $90k,
     is still twice the limit. Instead of foisting health care
     on everybody, how about increasing tax deductions?
     The more intelligent thing to do would be to force all
     employers to pay for benefits to all U.S. citizen employees,
     *IF* they want it!
     Don't hold your breath on *that*!

4) "Those were among the issues still in dispute after days of secretive talks involving the White House and House and Senate leaders."

     Don't you just love an open democracry?

5) "'It won't be long'," ... predicted Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

     You got THAT right!
     I hope you and your fellow Democrats
     have enjoyed your tenure in the House!
     And that statement is from a Democrat!!!

I'm sick of the health plan

2010-03-10T21:12:00.000-08:00

A health deform - - sorry . . . REform - - bill that helps 30 million people at the expense of 150 million is no bargain for anyone. And forcing people to pay into it, unless they have their own insurance, is socialism at best, and a thinly veiled tax at worst. Any member of the House who approves this horribly conceived "plan" will lose my vote when they come up for re-election . . . and this is from someone who votes (or used to vote) along Democratic lines.

People . . . please . . . I know your hearts are in the right place, but a bad plan is worse than no plan. Please tell your Representatives and Senators that. Think of it another way: regardless of the proposed costs, have you EVER known ANY Federal government plan, department, bureau, etc, that came in at or under budget? It IS a trick question; the answer is a resounding "no". We are in debt beyond all reason, with no end in sight; this plan only makes the situation worse, if only to make the country more divisive.

"Change we need", indeed. At the next round of primaries in 2012, unless the world ends by then (with any luck!), please try to nominate someone with a strong business and/or economic background, not a politico, or lawyer, or someone else who doesn't know micro- from macroeconomics, much less doesn't realize that spending in a recession with record numbers of unemployed is "bad". IS THERE AN FDR IN THE HOUSE?

2010-03-05T11:43:00.000-08:00

A recent news article indicates that Rhode Island fired the entire staff at one of their poorest schools, both by income level and educational level (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0225/All-teachers-fired-at-R.I.-school.-Will-that-happen-elsewhere).

Ousting teachers wholesale - - whether those people are effective or not - - sends a "Big Brother is watching you" signal to everyone else. It's bad enough that everyone is paranoid over anyone wearing a turban or affecting a swarthy appearance or having an Middle Eastern accent, now we have to wait for the Sword of Damacles to fall on any teacher not measuring up to Obama's feckless measures on education, just so that communities and States can rake in some grant money on dubiously contrived and subjective test results? Great! Now we can hire inexperienced teachers to take the experienced one's places! I'm sure grades will simply skyrocket, just as soon as they get the school principals and superintendents to stop looking over their shoulders! Brilliant! "Change we need", indeed!

Beating a dead horse (but, don't worry, health care is on the way!)

2010-03-03T15:59:00.000-08:00

Oh, Obama! For heaven's sake, stop beating a dead horse! Neither the people nor Congress nor the Senate want this bill to pass! It's a horrible mistake to make 50% of the nation pay for 10% of those in need. Expand Medicaid . . . expand Medicare . . . ANYTHING but THIS disastrous, hastily, poorly put together, mess! Look, we know Obama owes Ted Kennedy for his election (obviously the Kennedy's have something against the Clintons), but it's time to look at the big picture, which says that a SINGLE day of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would pay for virtually any one major problem in the USA: drugs, education, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, etc. Look at it this way, Obama: You've won! Everyone will look at the failed health deform - - I mean REform - - bill, and say, "Oh, those nasty Republicans! Obama and the Democrats tried their best! I'll vote for them in 2012 (that's when the world is supposed to blow up, right?)." See? So, stop putting health care at the top of the list, when there are so many other, far more important, things that need to be taken care of: Have you played "pothole slalom" today? On a decaying bridge? While avoiding a gang of gung-toting thugs selling drugs? By the school? Which has a 50% failure rate, because teachers are terrified of losing their job if they are too innovative or not innovative enough?

Lawyers as Presidents? Another failed experiment!
Where are the businessmen and economists? Don't THEY want to become President?

Response to a friend on paying the lazy unemployed masses

2010-02-28T12:29:00.001-08:00

I realize that paying folks to be unemployed sounds like a boon for the lazy, but please keep in mind that workers pay into the system, at least, initially, through their employer's taxes, which the employer "takes" by lowering salaries just enough (you didn't think it was coming out of THEIR pocket, did you?). Granted, the benefit extensions come from Federal taxes, but if that weren't the case, many of the jobless would wind up on far more costly welfare lines (not me, fortunately), which, I'm sure, you're also against. Consider that, according to the Christian Science Monitor ( http://tinyurl.com/CSM82million ), the Afghan war costs about $82,000,000 per D-A-Y!!! (consider that nearly $700 million in private donations, or just under 10 days' worth of the Afghan war, has gone to Haiti for earthquake relief, with Chile bound to get some, too). That money could have been used to create a greater police force to stop the flow of drugs into this country (yes, it would be nice to cut the supply at the source, but many innocent farmers' sole income is from illicit plants; you think revenues from strawberries and carrots are going to feed them?), without wreaking havoc on another independent nation - - we should not be the world's police; oh, but, this time, they are being SO careful not to hurt the civilians; ironic that, if Carter and Reagan had "allowed" Russia to take Afghanistan, there would have been no need to arm Bin Laden, and the Taliban would probably never have been created! - - not to mention improving education, job creation, etc, etc, etc. But, we can solve all our problems quite simply: Let's start another lottery and open "gaming" (what a wonderful euphemism!) parlors! Yeah! THAT'LL solve EVERYthing, just as it has done in the past 20 years! Oh, wait . . . it hasn't, has it? Never mind! ;)

Thus endeth the rant!

Burger King needs to be dethroned

2010-02-21T19:21:00.000-08:00

Burger King has had insane commercials for nearly two years. They have shown people attacking others by hand, body, attempted homicide by motor vehicle, etc.

Back then, I said that if they didn't restore some sense of decorum to their ads, I would avoid their restaurants, until one year from the last poorly conceived ad. My last return date - - which had changed a few times with each new disgusting ad - - was April 2010.

BK went nearly 10 months without a vapid, crude, sophomoric, violent, bizarre, ad, and then, tonight, inexplicably, they showed the King storming through a business office, smashing through windows, being chased by mental institution orderlies . . . think about this: BK advertisers and owners actually approved an ad that shows that their own mascot is insane.

Never mind that I have not missed eating there (and they, probably, have not missed me), but, as long as they continue their absurd, unfunny, ads (do they really think that the drunk college frat boys, of whom these ads are clearly aimed at are laughing or enjoying these kinds of ads, or even thinking to themselves, "Golly, I simply MUST go to BK!" These ads can't possibly be aimed at intelligent people . . . or the witless, for that matter, who, in their state of mind, probably take it seriously.

Congratulations, BK! I put you on a one-year parole, but you made it only 10 months, so, since you, obviously, haven't learned your lesson, and shown contempt-of-consumer, I am now doubling your punishment to two years from the last time that I see an ad that has no redeeming features whatsoever, which, currently, means February 22, 2012. During that time, I will continue to enjoy your competitors' products, and won't miss you in the least. Whether or not anyone who reads this or has heard me talking about it feels the same way is up to them, but I know that I have shown the light to a few people, and some have impressionable kids; these people also have lots of alternatives. Most of us even eat at home, instead of at BK! I guess that means BK is pro-family and anti-profit!

[UPDATE] BK has dumped the King, but I'm keeping the Feb "return" date, just in case!

This rant has no title, just words with no tune

2010-02-21T09:21:00.000-08:00

I have been so sickened by the news that I no longer watch or read it, except when I do so for the radio station where I volunteer, and I have never been an idolizer (or should that be "idolator"?) of the mega-rich and superstars. Professional athletes commit unspeakable crimes (not that I think Tiger's were of such a degree) and are let off with a handslap, if not a slap on the back; college athletes act like thugs and gangbangers, and are rewarded for it. Republicans were once the Evil Empire, and now it's the Democrats' turn, with neither recognizing that cooperation and actually listening to the people (who outnumber them millions-to-one, languishing in potholes that are patched one day, then recur and left for weeks on end, while our elected officials attend State dinners and balls taken there by chauffeurs in ritzy limousines avoiding those very same potholes, insisting that war and health care are the top issues of our troubled times) would solve more than all their pointless bickering and grandstanding could ever accomplish. And I care not a whit about the self-absorbed, egomaniacal reporters and paparazzi who try to make the news, rather than simply report it. As half of you have stopped reading this after the second, rambling sentence, and the other half stare in awe at the simple arrogance, if not eloquence, I write, I shall stop, leaving much left unsaid, perhaps for the better. Thus endeth the rant (for now!).

(apologies to Elton John and Bernie Taupin for the title of this blog entry)

Foil the "loyals" that are a royal you-know-what!

2010-02-19T21:50:00.000-08:00

I've noticed that many of today's so-called shopper's discount/loyalty cards are no bargain.

For example, "Big Lots" (a discount department store that is a cross between K-mart and the dollar stores, with only a few really good bargains) just introduced their "Buzz Club" loyalty card. Roughly, here's how it works: You purchase a minimum of $20 worth of most kinds of goods once per shopping trip. After ten such trips, you get a 20% discount. Sounds great, eh? Here are just some of the problems:

1) You can't use it on the day that you get the card at the store. This is contrary to virtually every other loyalty card I've ever seen or used, which allows you to use it the minute you get it. The reason BL doesn't want to do that simple thing? They want to verify your e-mail address. Why? So they can be sure that you'll get e-mails about their upcoming bargains, which sounds innocent enough, and, yes, you can opt out of the e-mails, but they've already invaded your privacy, so who knows to whom they'll sell your e-mail address? (they say they won't, but you know they will!)

2) You cannot use the card multiple times on the same day. Why? They don't want you going back and forth, taking up valuable cashiers' time with one $20 purchase after another, when you could have made one purchase. HELLO??? How about giving one "credit" per $20???

3) Think about this for a minute. Let's say you buy only $20 worth of items per shopping trip. After ten such trips, that comes to $200. Now you can get the 20% discount. 20% of your typical $20 purchase is a *huge* (please note the dripping sarcasm) $4. Golly! What a great savings! (yes, that's more sarcasm) Now, granted, you *could* buy a heck of a lot more than that, but, people tend to keep the same buying patterns, and, except for Xmas, I've never seen long lines or big purchases at BL (my local store has a cherry wood etagere for "just" $1,300! Furniture stores are going out of business, thanks to the decline in home sales, and BL is selling furniture at virtually list prices??? Brilliant!). Besides, who's going to put off buying a big-ticket item, in hopes of getting the 20% discount, when the item could be gone the next day?

4) You must make your ten purchases within a one year period to get the 20% discount. Let's say you bought the minimum required purchases on 2 different days in January. Then, you buy 7 different purchases that December for 9 total. You then buy one more in the following January. Think you got your 10 purchases? WRONG! You now have EIGHT!!! You lost the 2 from the first January, thanks to their skeezy little rules! What the heck does it matter when you make the purchases???

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. So, why did "Big Lots" follow "CVS" with its lousy "loyalty card" conditions? While the CVS loyalty card does give great discounts (check out CVS' weekly flyer; those great bargains are good only for "loyalty" customers; truth in advertising, anyone?), the "cash back" you get from it is equally limited in scope with "Big Lots". My guess is that the bigwigs with small brains at BL, CVS, most of the airlines, et al., figure that they have to protect themselves from shoppers who buy lots of stuff and, thus, will get lots of 20% discounts. Is that REALLY a problem?!?!

I'm tempted to send them the above, but I have a feeling all they'd say is, "Do you want to cancel?" So, I won't, and just let them keep me in the system, hopefully clogging it up! (I know it won't, but, it's fun to imagine my unused card weighing them down, somehow!)

In case you're wondering: Good loyalty cards include most grocery stores having no-nonsense discounts, although I could do without the "buy-a-gazillion-get-one-free" bonus buys! Thank you Walgreen's for not going the CVS loyalty card route! Your bargains are for everyone, not just for people who don't mind adding yet another card to their overstuffed wallets/purses/keychains! Speedway/SuperAmerica - - sort of like 7-11, selling food, drinks, gas, beer (don't drink and drive, now!), and small goods, available in the vicinities of Ohio, KY, etc - - has a card whose points add up so fast just from fuel purchases, that I can hardly keep up with the freebies! I can't begin to tell you the number of discounts I've used for everything from food to gas (yes, you can joke that the food gives me gas! Actually, I've had no problems with any of their stuff, except the car wash; after 3 terrible washes, I gave up on it). And, their credit card makes it easy to rack up even more points!

One of my big name credit cards used to offer a 5% cash back on every purchase, but, a few years ago, that was reduced to only certain types of items. However, my landlord recently allowed tenants to use their credit cards to pay the rent, so, as you can imagine, I now get HUGE cash back awards every few months! (and, yes, I pay off my card, immediately, so there's no interest or fees to balance out the cash back; it's pure profit as far as I'm concerned!)

On the other hand, a few, big name, credit card companies have sent me letters saying that due to non-use, they have cancelled the cards! They didn't even give me a chance to use them! They all claimed that its to prevent theft and other improper use! Did I report the card as being stolen or missing? Did I report invalid items on my bills? I was upset with losing one such credit card, because its number ended in "007"! I had it for over 30 (!) years, but hadn't used it in the past year or so. Another big name credit card said that they're going to charge $60 per year to use their cards - - which I haven't even seen, much less used, in years - - unless you purchase at least $2,400 worth of goods and services in a year; for many people, that's not an issue. I cancelled those cards (I was genuinely surprised how easy it was to do; the customer service guy didn't even try to haggle or talk me out of it; I appreciate him not wasting my time, but I'm still surprised!). However, one of those cards stated when I first got it, years ago, that there would NEVER be an annual charge!!! When I pointed that out to the phone rep, he mentioned the $2,400 purchase requirement, which, at least, according to them, WOULD make the card "free" (I asked if there was a record of the "no fee" clause; naturally there wasn't; Now, I actually have the original documents stating such, but, if they don't want my business - - what little of it there is - - then, that's fine by me). Isn't it wonderful that the "contract" you sign with them works only one way: against the consumer?

So, I've gone through my wallet, found but a few scant credit/debit/loyalty cards that I use on a regular basis, plus two credit cards for "emergencies" (I've had cards accidentally wiped by refrigerator magnets, and have had cards put on hold or outright cancelled by well-meaning customer service people (presumably spotted by a computer) who thought my purchases were invalid, without my permission or knowledge; why didn't they call me about it, first?), and have tossed the rest, after cancelling the ones that needed to be cancelled. I was told by one credit card company that it might affect my credit rating, but, since I never carry a balance beyond the "current" month, and have no intention of making a huge purchase in the near future - - if ever - - I don't see it as an issue; besides, one bank I deal with gives its customers free FICO scores: my last one was well above average, so I'm not concerned.

CKRE then home

2010-02-19T16:42:00.000-08:00

I did my volunteer stint at the radio station. Before leaving, I chatted with a guy at the control board I hadn't seen, before. It turns out that he's a DJ/controller at a local radio station. During the conversation, I mentioned that I was a semi-professional actor, and he asked me to do a radio recording of a one-act play for his theater group (I'm not sure who they are, yet). I gave a tenative "yes" (he's not sure if/when his troupe will perform it).

After that, I went home, and did pretty much nothing except work and play on the computer.

Yes, I'm really, really, really, really, really, really, bored!

A woman in San Diego, CA, contacted me earlier in the week about a potential computer programming job in Seattle, WA. She asked for some basic info (nothing personal) by e-mail and promised to call. Guess who never did. That's the second time in the past 30 month. And, yes, I perform due diligence in searching for these people on the web, to make sure they're legit. And, yes, I e-mail and/or call them, but my messages are never returned. =sigh= I started my second extension for unemployment benefits this week (four more to go?); honestly, I'd rather be working, but I can't even buy a job! (not that I would do so, mind you! I'm just saying!)

Tiger is a Pussycat

2010-02-19T16:35:00.000-08:00

What's the big deal about Tiger getting some?

If fans couldn't give a rat's ass about drunken sportsplayers, or those who tote guns or harm animals, then what's the big deal about anyone committing adultery? Does it really surprise anyone anymore? Does it matter to anyone but the involved families? And what's the double-standard with the sponsors? "If you want to be the best in the game, use what so-and-so uses!" But, if he commits adultery or some other wayward act, suddenly your equipment isn't the best? Do you know how much the burned Beatles' albums are worth these days??? (i.e., this happened when John Lennon replied to a reporter's question about their popularity, "We're bigger than Jesus!", which, of course, was taken out of context by every religious zealot)

You can't condone Hugh Hefner, then condemn Tiger Woods for doing the same thing!

Reality check, people!

Acting unpatriotically

2010-02-11T18:27:00.000-08:00

Imagine this scenario: You were born and raised, and have lived in the USA your entire life; you've left the country only a few times, mostly with your parents, and once on the job, to both US territories and foreign nations, but never for more than a couple of weeks. You have worked in many jobs, where there were background, security, and/or credit checks; you may have even been given a US government security clearance, as I have (in my case, on four different occasions). You have a legitimate driver's license, social security number, and an up-to-date passport. You've never been arrested (you even served as a court magistrate!), and have only a handful of parking and speeding tickets, all paid or dismissed. So, basically, you're a "good guy".

You now want to get a bank, non-IRA, CD. Why not? You have some money, and want to get the best rate, which, in this economy, is less than 2% for a one-year CD, while inflation is around 5%, but, you try not to think about that. You already have one or more bank accounts, but this is a new account with a new bank,
one you've never done business with; it offers a great CD rate, and, allegedly, is well-financed (i.e., according to the FDIC website, it is a "safe" bank (please giggle out of earshot)).

Remember when all they asked you for was a pay check and/or driver's license and/or credit card? Those days are long gone, my friend! Whether it's a brick-and-mortar (i.e., establishment with a physical presence) or virtual (i.e., no building) bank, they ask you for some ID, in line with the Patriot Act, and, maybe, they add a few extra precautions of their own. Fair enough, right? So, they first ask you for a photo ID, which you can mail or fax to them. No problem! Here's my driver's license with my current home address on it; a passport would have sufficed, even though it doesn't have your home address on it (I haven't figured that one out, yet).

Next, they ask for a utility bill with your name and home address on it; the utility bill must be within the last 3 months. Sounds simple, right? WRONG!!! What if all your bills are either virtual (i.e., you have them sent to your e-mail address and/or another bank's or financial institution's bill payment center) or are sent to your post office box? That's not good enough for the banks!!! Never mind that the United States Postal Service recognizes it as an legitimate address, as does Uncle Sam, who willingly sends checks, IRS documents, etc, to PO boxes (n.b., despite common misconception, it is a private institution, not an arm of the US government; of course, that doesn't explain how postal carriers are, technically speaking, allowed to violate certain moving laws, such as driving the wrong way on a one-way street, but that's for a different discussion). And, what if you live with somebody, and the bills are in his/her name? Tough luck! What if you don't have a land-based telephone (I gave up mine to save $30/month; I have a cell phone, and hardly used the land line)? Too bad!!! How about my cell phone bill? Does that count as a utility? No way, Jose!

Now, let's just think about this for a minute: If I'm dealing with an internet bank, I can e-mail them scanned copies of valid documents, and they would accept them. Never mind that, these days, people can manipulate images, almost as easily as they breathe. Also, what does a utility bill prove, legitimate or not? What if I were a criminal, who moved into a new apartment, got all the documentation (i.e., lease or mortgage, utility bills, libary card, etc, etc, etc), and then I abandoned my new home??? I now have all the tools I need to get an account at any bank?!?! I'm "safe" for more than 3 months, as I go from bank-to-bank, opening accounts, and then cashing the checks all over town that aren't worth the paper they're written on!

Here's the worst part: One bank to whom I haven't even sent a cent (!), did a credit check on me via the net, automatically (i.e., their website "asked" me a few questions with multiple choice answers of which only I would know the answers, so, clearly, they ran a basic credit check on me; n.b., it startled me that the questions were asked within seconds of my submitting the online application; needless to say, I got all the answers right). Yet, because I don't have a STINKING UTILITY BILL, I still can't get an account with them! Yes, you read that, correctly! THEY ran a credit check on me of which THEIR credit firm (usually one of the "big 3") said I exist (n.b., even the credit report has my current address!!!), but that is not "adequate proof" that I am me!!!

So, despite the fact that I'm a law-abiding, citizen of the USA, I cannot open a new bank account!!!

Thanks, Patriot Act (read: 'W' and his micromanaging, incompetent, cronies; not to mention a Congress full of lawyers who, clearly, no nothing of Constitutional rights; not to mention a Supreme Court that will not wade into the fray until someone sues (a body that does not defend itself, until it is too late, is doomed to die)), for making everyone so paranoid about the less than 21 terrorists per million people worldwide (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ter_ter_act_200_inj_percap-2000-2006-injuries-per-capita (2000-2006); which is WAY less than 1% of the worldwide population, people!) and the less than 4% criminals in the US (roughly 11 million people; source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes (2002)), that the 99% innocent among us are treated as criminals!

Does anyone think when these laws are created, and/or when banks are allowed to supersede Federal laws, regardless of their intent?

But, there actually is a silver lining to this story! Totally by accident, I found another bank which paid nearly a full one percent higher than the aforementioned bank for their CD, and for half the time!

Regardless, since the gov't takes about 20% of the little bank interest I make, perhaps I'm better off without a bank account. Heck, there's always the "Bank of Mattress"!

Palin throwing her ring into the hat? (oops!)

2010-02-07T20:49:00.000-08:00

I don't understand why the American people reject intelligent people like Al Gore, Tom Harkins, Hillary Clinton, and Steve Forbes (2000 Republican Presidential nominee), to name a few, for the likes of Bush (at least the younger one) and Palin. I have tried to convince myself that, perhaps, Bush and Palin are "prettier" than the other candidates, but I find it hard to believe that Americans are that shallow. I guess the 2012 election will prove me out one way or the other (i.e., will the neophyte, inexperienced, Obama - - approving record spending during a record deficit, while helping absolutely nobody on the planet, except, arguably, the Chinese - - win a second term, or will the SOMEbody (i.e., Democrat, Republican, rational Independent) finally put together an intelligent team of experienced, 50-something year old, businessmen or economists, who will stop the fiscal bleeding that even health care reform will never heal?).

One more thing: isn't it amazing how, when the Republicans ran the show, the Democrats screamed that they would never have allowed the war and vowed to bring the boys home and stop the irresponsible spending policies, but, now with the roles reversed they have, well, reversed their stance? Likewise with the Republicans. Maybe it's time to re-design the government so that business and economics, rather than politics, win the day? STOP LAUGHING!!!

2010-02-03T14:02:00.000-08:00

I have just seen and heard Bob Edgar (Pres & CEO, CommonCause.org) attack the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision concerning PAC spending limits, essentially allowing special interest groups unlimited campaign spending/funding, thus, potentially giving corporations a huge advantage over less monied candidates. I understand the SC Justices' dilemma: freedom of speech versus protecting the masses, but am still stunned that the decision was split nearly evenly (i.e., if the constitution and law is so confusing to the Supreme Court, perhaps we need another method to decide cases of major importance . . . but, I digress).

Even though this has always been the case (even with alleged legal limits, there have been many violations and methods to circumvent the law), the decision was based on the First Amendment, which, in case you didn't get the connection, comes down to the following, in the myopic view of the Supreme Court majority: "Money Talks, The People Walk".

Just what a nation in recession with a massive deficit needs: unlimited spending by special interest groups to decide the fate of American Government.

I am in love with Bob Edgar. Keep up the good work!

Help Haiti, then home?

2010-02-03T13:57:00.000-08:00

Has anyone else noticed how much money was sent to the tiny nation of Haiti to help the earthquake relief (n.b., I'm sure some of the "texted" funds will be cancelled because they were sent without parental permission and/or the well-intended would-be philanthropist had second thoughts), but nobody has even considered that the American people gave willingly to total strangers, per the following AP quote?

"Americans donated an estimated $150 million in aid in the first three days after the Haitian earthquake. That's more than was donated (in that same time period) following Hurricane Katrina." Source: http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Best-Ways-To-Donate-Money-To-Earthquake-Relief/07gNLzkWTUWJPMi7bhVj8w.cspx

Why can't we do the same thing within our own nation? Do we have to wait for another Katrina to hit? The amount of money sent to Haiti, far exceeds that of the funds collected for Katrina; since most of the residents of both New Orleans and Haiti are black, it is clearly not a case of racial bias; is it then, a case of American bias???

I'm rolling my eyes skyward.

Win-win for the Democrats!

2010-01-21T17:53:00.000-08:00

The Democratic party has whined about the election of Republican Scott Brown for the Massachusetts Senate seat vacated by the death of long-time Senator Ted Kennedy, Democrat, because this surprising Republican victory no longer gives Democrats the two-thirds majority vote needed to pass any bill, most notably, the current Health Reform Bill (anyone bothering to take the time to read my earlier blogs on the subject already know my stance on the subject, so I won't re-ignite that flame).

However, I suspect that the Democrats are secretly rejoicing in this loss of their borderline majority. After all, they had the peoples' interests at heart, right (or is it left)? Or, of, at least, the 10% that would have been given a free ride with health care at the expense of 70% of both working and non-working people (the remaining 20% being children or the elderly who are either dependents with working parent(s) who currently have health care, or have something like Medicaid or Medicare; even if someone who doesn't have health insurance opts out - - as the bill allows - - they would still have to pay a 2.5% IRS penalty (when did insurance become a taxable item? damned if you do, damned if you don't) . . . but I digress . . .)

So, the Democrats can go to their blinded-by-the-car-lights constituency and say, "Hey! We tried to help y'all, but the nasty Republicans wouldn't let us spend money to help the (few) of you!" While the 5% rich shrug at such, the mortally offended middle class shall cry a wail not heard in ages, "How dare the Republicans put the financial health and welfare of the nation ahead of the health of the few who either don't want or don't need it!!!", while being crushed under the weight of an incomprehensible national debt.

So, the Democrats win, whether or not the bill passes, and I roll my eyes skyward at the clueless American electorate.

One man CAN make a difference!

2010-01-04T07:15:00.000-08:00

"Jan 4, 2010 (AP) - Beginning Monday, air travelers flying into the United States from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Yemen and other 'countries of interest' will be subjected to enhanced screening techniques, such as body scans, pat-downs and a thorough search of carry-on luggage."

Thank goodness!
At least now, we can get everyone off the unemployment lines,
and on the security lines!

And, of course, everyone from 'countries of NON-interest'
will be COMPLETELY innocent of any terrorist activity!

Bless our wonderful administration in this New Year!

Micromanaging

2009-12-25T18:56:00.000-08:00

As if anyone really needs another reason why our wonderful law makers are incapable of delivering legislation that will actually helps people:

"As the Senate turned to the fiscal 2010 Defense spending bill,
the Obama administration on Friday (Sep 25, 2009) objected
to the decision by appropriators to add $2.5 billion
to the measure for 10 C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft
the Pentagon did not request." (various news sources)

Actually, the above isn't as it appears: the Pentagon wanted $10 million (not billion) to phase-out the C-17, which is deemed out-dated. So, tell me whose bright idea it was to give 250 times that amount to keep it going???

Given that, what's $100 billion among friends for Health "... Reform"?

"Health care reform, if it passes, will cost about $1 trillion
over the next 10 years. Negotiators in the Senate and House
are now saying they've winnowed the cost down to 'only' $900 billion or so."
(source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/10/business/moneywatch/main5230656.shtml)

Thank you, legislators in both Houses, for being so concerned about saving the american people $100 billion! Now, how much of the remaining $900 billion are we going to borrow from China, hmmmm? Health at the expense of an already staggering national debt? Kinda makes ya sick enough to want health reform, doesn't it?

Health Care Reform Travesty Set to Pass

2009-12-21T16:35:00.000-08:00

     "...the Senate's health care bill
      will make a "tremendous difference
      for families, for seniors, for businesses
      and for the country as a whole,"
      President Barack Obama said Monday."
         - - AP ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul )

Of course it'll make a tremendous difference!

People (mostly workers) who don't have and/or don't want insurance will be allowed to "opt out", but will face a 2.5% (guaranteed to rise!) IRS penalty if they don't elect one! Can you say, "Hobson's Choice?" However, certain religious groups will be exempt (how DOES one become a Zoroastrian?).

This blatantly, punitive, "health" tax, will not do a blessed thing about the current shortage of doctors, much less the expected 30% increased need for physicians, if the bill passes, except, possibly, allow interns to jump ahead a few months or years to fill-in the gaps. Lovely. What's a little inexperience and malpractice between doctors and patients?

Tell me, how many uninsured motorists or those without life insurance face an IRS penalty?

That the Congress passed the bill by a mere 7 votes, and that the Senate will, most likely, pass it by fewer than that, despite the sizeable Democratic majority in both Houses, indicates that nobody is convinced this bill will do what it needs to, except, of course, to drain the coffers of the Federal Treasury (but, don't worry . . . we can always print more worthless paper money and/or ask our creditor - - China - - for extensions, or, perhaps, even declare bankruptcy/insolvency and magically waive their loans off into the ether), dig a deeper hole in the recession/depression we are currently in, and, of course, increase wait times at physicians offices and hospitals.

Social health and welfare has not worked in any nation that currently has it, and the Fed has yet to show any profitability in any department/bureau/agency, yet it naively, if not bizarrely, believes that with a wave of a pen over another useless piece of paper, the American people will all benefit from this drain on the economy; President Obama referred to the US medical industry as devouring one-sixth of the economy,
by which, I presume, he is referring to gross expenditures; soon, it will become nearly 1/3 of the economy, thanks to the near $1 trillion upfront cost of the plan, which will cost the 304+ million American people approximately $3,300 per person, which sounds cheap, but, keep in mind, only 1/3 of the population is working,
(ref: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html ),
and those that aren't working probably can't afford a forced plan!
(remember the 2.5% punitive tax?)

If someone in either House simply admitted, "We are in over our heads with a stalled economy, a growing national debt, a morass (aptly spelled?) of wars that Pres G.W. Bush put us in, all, of which, Pres Obama and both Houses are clearly ill-equipped to handle, rationally, without ramming through an ill-conceived measure before the American sheep - - er, citizens - - figure it out and ask us to stop it, so this is the only way we can tax Americans without them having a hissy fit," I might have accepted such a tax, if it had been stated as such (okay, I wouldn't have . . . I'm just saying!).

But, to lie to the American people with a panacea that will sicken everyone, is both a travesty of justice and a breach of faith to the American people.

Over half of all Congressmen and Senators were born after WW2, so they did not live through the Great Depression, and have no background with economics or simple business practices, so it is easy to see how they were duped (if not duplicitous) in arranging this gallingly expensive and ludicrous bill (Congress' version was over 1,000 pages long; the Senate version is over 2,000 pages long; no single person understands the long-existing IRS code, which is revised ad nauseum per annum, yet, somehow, everyone - - taxpayer, provider, doctor, hospital, pharmacy, employer - - is going to understand this???).

However, it is easy to see that most of the aformentioned "baby boomers"
are seeking an early retirement, of which they have neatly arranged
to be exempt from this bill. Figures, doesn't it?

P.S. How soon after this bill passes and is signed by the President will either or both Houses ask the American people for a raise before the majority of them retire (either voluntarily or ousted by an angry American public, of whom polls show well over 65% are against this bill!).

Non-profit Prophets Scamming Citizens

2009-12-09T16:31:00.000-08:00

It appears that a compromise has been reached in the Senate regarding the ill-conceived, devastatingly expensive, nearly pointless, so-called health reform mess . . . I mean, bill.

As they bicker over tawdry, pointless points in the you-really-think-it's-going-to-be-just-ONE trillion dollar boondoggle, nobody wants to look like they're stealing the soon-to-be-dashed hopes of the poor or the idyllic dreams of the middle class who do not understand what an expensive travesty their elected officials are getting the people into, as the gov't steals from the rich to pay for the poor.

I beg the American people to answer one, simple question concerning the government's role as hand-holding, ersatz savior of a medical system of which, as President Obama has stated, takes up one-sixth of the economy (and, within five years, is slated to engulf nearly half): Has ANY department, bureau, function, office, division, etc, of and controlled by the Federal Government of the United States of America EVER made a profit? If so, prove it. If not, why does anyone think universal health care run by said Gov't can or will?

The sole purpose of the health plan is to tax the working class and rich in a blatant, if not an abortive (no pun intended), attempt to "fix" the economy by getting money to pay to keep the gov't running. Per my prior missives on health care, health care will not only not improve for anyone, it will actually deteriorate. God bless America and its deaf, blind, mute, and certainly, dumb, citizens.

Change we need

2009-12-02T04:56:00.000-08:00

Obama's December 1 declaration of continuing the war in Afghanistan has the benefit of getting at least 30,000 Americans off the unemployment doles, perhaps, permanently.

America's chosen pretty face seems to enjoy digging bigger and bigger holes into our crumbling infrastructure and economy, not to mention the graves being dug for a war in a country that most Americans couldn't find on a map even if it were highlighted in neon colors.

Since he has pretty much lost the 2012 election by his total failure to help the American people in any way, shape, or form (no surprise, given his equal lack of such in his all-too-brief (or not brief enough) stint as Senator), wouldn't it have been better to rescind the 22nd Amendment and keep "W" around for another term as "better-the-Devil-you-know"? After all, one inexperienced President is just as good as another.

Which inexperienced, but pretty, media darling will America vote in, next? Palin? Jon? Kate? Whichever mistress-of-the-week Tiger has?

Was THIS what was meant by the Yoda-like campaign slogan, "Change we need"?

Random thought

2009-11-29T11:54:00.001-08:00

Heaven help those who cannot see beyond their mirrored (and, often, rose-colored) image, which reflects poorly on the rest of us.

Just the tip of the iceberg on the economy named 'Titanic'

2009-11-20T08:50:00.000-08:00

From USA Today, Nov 20, 2009:

It is unclear, to me, what proportion this tax is (i.e., one time per employee? per paycheck? per week? per month? etc), but, I imagine this increase in unemployment taxes to businesses will cause a lot more unemployment, thanks to short-sighted, if not, absurd laws.

Want to reduce unemployment in the US?

Tax any company that hires more than 10% non-US citizens or who outsources more than 10% of their manufacturing or support to foreign companies.

Yes, those companies would have to pay more for US citizens to have the same jobs, but they might find that quality and morale would increase, which will increase revenue in the long run, not to mention be excellent PR. And, yes, the non-US citizens and staff of external companies laid-off as a result of this will increase global unemployment, but, quite frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

It just makes me sick!

2009-11-18T12:42:00.000-08:00

From USA Today, Nov 18, 2009:

9/11 story

2009-11-15T21:48:00.000-08:00

A friend on Facebook commented that she'll never forget 9/11, although I'm not sure what brought that to her mind in November 2009. I was living in Fairfax, Virginia, at the time, and, as such, know many people who live near or work in the Pentagon. I thought I would share a couple of stories as told to me by friends who were affected by it, one directly and one indirectly:

1) A friend, who works as a consultant for the Pentagon, was asked to come in on that fateful day. He was going to meet with a Naval officer in the 'C' ring of the River entrance (ref: http://www.hqda.army.mil/aoguide/Pentagon_Map.htm), but the officer was called to a superior's office down the hall. Moments later, the plane struck the wedge furthest from him (ref: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/location.html). He felt the ground shake, and thought it was an earthquake. Knowing that the windows and structure were built to withstand such, he was a little worried, but stayed put. A few minutes later, the officer returned and, without giving him a reason, said they had to evacuate, though they weren't permitted to leave the grounds. It wasn't until he saw the smoke rising over the far horizon that he knew something happened, but nobody would tell him anything. He found out about it only when he was permitted to drive home, hours later.

2) Another friend returned home from vacation, shortly after 9/11 occurred. She entered her Virginia apartment condo, which overlooks the Pentagon, less than half a mile away. On her dining room table, she found a typed form letter from her landlord, stating that, due to the events of 9/11 at the Pentagon, all apartments facing that side had been entered and inspected for possible damage; there wasn't any in the entire complex. Following my advice, she kept the note as a vivid reminder of that day.

If you have a similar first or second-person story about 9/11, please feel free to add it, here, keeping it to one, brief paragraph, as I have, above.