White man speaks with forked tongue...

BBC NEWS World Edition, 27 November 2005

US condemns Azeri rally policing

Hundreds of people are said to have been injured
in the crackdown
The US has censured the use of force to disperse
crowds in Azerbaijan's capital Baku on Saturday who
were protesting about recent parliamentary elections.

A statement by the US embassy in Baku said it
deplored the "unjustified and unprovoked use of force".

Many people were reported to have been injured by
police using truncheons, tear gas and water cannon.
[emphasis mine]
_____________________________________________

Guardian Unlimited
Protesters Arrested Near Bush's Ranch
Wednesday November 23, 2005 5:01 PM
AP Photo TXMS102
By ANGELA K. BROWN
Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - A dozen war protesters were
arrested Wednesday for setting up camp near President
Bush's ranch in defiance of new local bans on
roadside camping and parking. [emphasis mine]
.......................................

About four hours after the group pitched six tents
and huddled in sleeping bags and blankets, McLennan
County sheriff's deputies arrested them for criminal
trespassing.

In August, hundreds of demonstrators camped off the
road during a 26-day protest led by Sheehan, whose
24-year-old soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq last
year. But a month later, county commissioners banned
camping in any county ditch and parking within 7 miles
of the ranch, citing safety and traffic congestion
issues.
______________________________________________

And the difference is........?

What if.... we evacuated to Saturn?

I've been reading on the internet all the
reasons people are giving for keeping the
war in Iraq going. Some are, though sad,
quite humourous. But then, irony seems to
punctuate the current administration.

One of the more frequently stated reasons
begins with either "What would you do if
a band of terrorists barged into your house
and.........?," or "What if...........?"

I have to carry these 'opening arguments'
out to all of their logical conclusions.
Considering that someone is so afraid for
their lives that they conjoin Homeland
Security with desired democracy in Iraq
with mangled ideas of the need to force
democracy onto others and wanting any
fighting to be on foreign land, yet are
able to formulate such wild scenarios as
the two examples, must live in houses
loaded for bare.

Can't you just see yourself driving down
some neighborhood street and you suddenly
drive past a house with a high chainlink
fence all around? Topping that fence is
that curled razor wire? You can almost be
certain that the front yard is filled with
land mines. The windows have big sheets
of metal with rifle slots cut out over the
windows, making the whole effect one of a
secured bunker! You might even see a tank
or two in the front yard.

This is how I always visualize the homes
of those who start their reasons for
continuing the war with '....but,
what if ...?'

The movie "War Of The Worlds" is also a
'what if....?' scenario, but I don't see
a convoy of moving vans on their way to
Saturn. Do you?
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt
your packing!

The Political Sidestep

I ceased voting in the general elections
for several, several years.
The last Presidential election brought me
out of retirement. My candidate didn't win
but that's ok, no one else did either.
(I don't vote party, I vote the person).

Why did I go into voting retirement? It
was thanks to one man, Fred Thompson,
former actor, then congressman, now
current actor, from Tennessee.

Overall, I liked what he seemed to stand
for. I thought he might bring about
change in the way we do politics.
Fooled again.

The hook for me was his agreeing to the
idea of term limits. I even went out on
a limb and told several friends about him
and his ideas. I was really hopeful and
waited, all wide-eyed with anticipation,
just like being back in college.

About two weeks after he was elected and
installed in office, I was reading our
local paper, just leisurely perusing the
various sections. About 5 or 6 pages from
the front page, a small article caught my
eye because it had Thompson's name in the
header. I read the article.

Thompson was backing up and doing an about-
face from his comments before the election.
'About term limits, well, uh, now, maybe
we were a little hasty in saying that.'
_______________________________________

You know, around election time, you will be
bombarded with all kinds of statements about
how it is 'your duty' to vote, how a candidate
might not get elected because of 'one vote,'
how 'valuable' your hard-won right to vote is,
on and on, ad infinitum.

My question? If it is my "duty" to vote, what
is the "duty" of those seeking my vote? What
is the "duty" of those who won with my vote?
What is their duty? Why are they exempt from
any 'duty' to anyone?

My 'duty' now? One is, I don't watch any show
in which Mr. Thompson appears. Period.
My other duties?
To voice my opinion, for what it's worth, to
anyone who will listen.
For the future, I'm definitely going to have
to see something better than the last several
elections before I waste my valuable time
driving to a precinct.

Blog Surfing to the next Dead End.

After posting a thought to my blog through Google,
I usually 'back' my way to where I started.
Sometimes I get to that page that shows the
scrolling titles and a 'blog of note.'
I click on an interesting title, the new page
appears, I read what I want, and then click on
the "NEXT BLOG" button in the upper right
corner. I may do this several times.

Then, as you may have experienced, I get to that
blog that is, essentially, a 'dead end.' The
"NEXT BLOG" button is gone. At that point, I
sometimes back up to the last blog and hit the
"NEXT BLOG" button again. This is tiring.

What I don't understand is why are these Dead End
blogs included in a blog search that implies a
continuous search with the button in the upper
right corner?

I understand the connection, but if that blog site
is going to be included in a 'chainlike' feature,
shouldn't it have a "NEXT BLOG" button?
It breaks the chain. Generally, that is where
I pull out of reading blogs and go back to my
bookmarks or general searches of websites, etc.,
but no more blogs that day.

Is this a good way to promote blogs?

ONE SURVEY WILL GET YOU TWO! PART II

PART II
Continuing Dr. Frists' Survey

11. Do you favor allowing individuals to
voluntarily invest part of their
Social Security payroll tax into personal
investments accounts?

Hmmmmm. Can't they do that once they start
receiving their monthly checks? It seems to
me that this question is being asked to let
people who really won't need Social Security
in the future to have their money now so that
they can invest it. This question isn't for
the man who has worked all of his life just
to stay even. This question is for the rich
man to better his odds at getting richer.
To 'invest' part of their payroll tax, is this
going to call for a new division within the
Social Security department, probably hundreds
of thousands of more government employees just
to handle the funneling of money to...?
Who is going to oversee the accuracy/honesty
of funneling this money? Will it be direct
from their SS account into investments?
Will it be given to the individual to
"invest" however he wants, even investing
it into his own pocket? Who keeps up with
the earned money from the investments?
Will it be taxable?
Are the people who are going to invest this
money really that desparate for more money
to invest?
And what happens to the people that invest
a chunk of their Social Security retirement
money... and lose it due to a bad investment?
Will a new department or additional money
be needed to supply them a livable retirement
wage?
Nah, don't think I favor that.

12. Do you favor legalizing the importation
of prescription drugs from Canada and other
countries?

Only if they are identified with their counter
drug in this country. But, basically, yes.
The Drug Companies tell us that re-coupment of
their research dollars is essential to their
survival. Then why don't they stop spending
billions of dollars on television commercials,
keep that money for their new research and
let the doctors dispense their drugs?
Could it be that many doctors think that their
drugs are more harmful than helpful to be the
reason the Drug Companys have gone direct to
the public?

13. Should teachers be paid bonuses based on
student performance?

Hmmmm. Let's see. A high school English teacher
may also teach Spanish.
A Science teacher may also be the basketball
coach. A Spanish teacher may also teach French
and Literature. Some teachers may only teach
electives and no required courses, i.e., some
students may not take any classes taught by some
teachers. So some teachers may not receive
any bonus while their fellow teachers do. Or,
some teachers may receive a bonus even though
they never taught some of the students in a class
of exceptional performance of some subjects.
Whee! Isn't the question just a little too simple?

14. Do you believe in teacher testing to
ensure we have quality educators?

Students take tests to monitor their progress.
Employees are often tested in some sort of
annual evaluation program to ensure their
continued employment. Why not teachers?

15. Do you favor increasing federal spending on research into
renewable energy resources, such as wind and solar energy and
hydrogen fuel cells?

I believe I answered this in the first
survey. Since the people who funded the research,
namely us, do not benefit directly from the
government that WE paid to do the research,
then, no. The government should not be in the
business of research for its governed. Let
the free market decided what is to be researched
and what is to be developed from that research.

16. Do you support President Bush's second term
agenda?

Why? Are you trying to decide whether to distance
yourself from him or not?

17. Have Republicans been forceful enough in
fighting back against obstructionist Democrats
and their misleading attacks?

Hahahahehehehe. Woah! If I answer "yes," then
I am agreeing that many Democrats are obstructionist
and their attacks are misleading.
This is what I would be agreeing to even if I
happened to agree with just one of 'those' Democrats
or just happened to agree with one of the "attacks."
This would be tantamount to saying that Republicans
are always right and Deomcrats are always wrong.
To whom am I to bow down to, Bush, the Republicans?
If I answer "no" then obviously I am suggesting
that Republicans need to be more forceful in
quashing any objections to their agenda.
This is a Republican win/Republican win question.

18. Do you agree that the Republican Party's
investment at the local grassroots level is
critical to passing President Bush's agenda and
fighting for American's future?

Another win/win question.
END OF SURVEY.

Again, Would Senator Frist allow such questions
if he needed to operate on a patient based answers
to such questions? Would he prescribe medication
based on answers to such questions?
Well, maybe he would. He diagnosed Schiavo from
a short video tape and opposed those doctors who
were with her over a long period of time.

Did Tennessee send Frist to Washington based
on his beliefs, his promises if elected? Or did
Tennessee send him to Washington to send out
surveys and get a consensus of opinions from
residents of the state and then do whatever he
wanted to do in the first place? But at least
now he knows whether he is losing or gaining
supporters.

Couldn't Tennessee have hired a survey company
a lot cheaper?

Are we in trouble?

ONE SURVEY WILL GET YOU TWO!

Hahahaha.

I've just received another survey from
"Senator Bill Frist, M.D., Senate
Majority Leader"

That's the way the envelope shows who the
letter is from, "Senator Bill Frist, M.D."
Interesting return address don't you think?
He puts his "M.D." after his name. Which
makes me wonder, was he elected to be a
Senator or a Doctor? Don't know. He could
have just as easily indicated his return
address as "Doctor Bill First, Senator."
I guess it all depends on which hat he's
wearing today, hun?

On to the survey.

These questions! WHO is coming up with these
questions? Would Senator Frist allow such
questions if he needed a 'medical' survey?
Would he operate on a patient based on
such questions? Would he prescribe medication
based on such questions? Is he really a
doctor?

THE QUESTIONS:

1. Should the United States hold accountable
those nations and groups that support or
shelter terrorists?

Well, of course! ALL of us should be held
accountable, for whatever we do, every single
one of us. The question in my mind is not
"whether" but "how", accountable how?
THE SURVEY SAYS: no answer.

2. Should the United States do everything in
its power to stop proliferation of Weapons of
Mass Destruction, Ballistic Missiles, and
related materials?

Does that mean WMD, B.Missiles and related
materials owned by the United States? Or just
everyone except the United States?
"..everything in its power..."
GOD, NO! I don't want to see our ballistic
missles heading to any country that 'someone
in government thinks might' be developing such
weapons! I think we're right in the middle of
"been there and done that," aren't we?

3. Should there be an increase in federal
funding for border security and port
security?

Why? We beef up security, "they" beef up ways
around it. We beef up security again, "they"
beef up ways around that. Is there not some
way off this merry-go-round? Seems congresses'
solution to pretty much everything is to
throw money at it. Term Limits just might
bring in fresh ideas, current thinking, maybe?

4. Should we make the tax cuts that have helped
fuel our economic recovery permanent?

Hahahahaha. Seems like every 'economic recovery'
we've had in the past was going to be the
'permanent' one. Yet, just like in question #3,
we've found ways around every permanent recovery.
Oh, pardon me. That may not be what the question
is asking. Perhaps the question is really asking
if we should make the 'tax cuts permanent' that
have helped fuel our economic recovery, maybe?
Who wrote these questions?

5. Do you believe making the tax code fairer and
simpler will help sustain economic growth?

Excuse me? If we make the tax cuts permanent,
won't that sustain our 'permanent' economic growth
and then we can still keep 'unfair and complex'
tax codes? Can't we have our cake and eat it
too? No?

6. Do you favor permanent elimination of the
death tax?

Hahahaha. OK, qualify 'death tax.' Is this the same
as 'estate taxes' or 'inheritance taxes' or are we
just taxing someone because they die? A little help
is needed here.
THE SURVEY SAYS: no answer.

7. Should we establish a constitutional amendment
for a balanced budget?

You know, what this is really saying is that
our country is run on the premise that an
"unbalanced budget" is ok. No, let's make that
more accurate...our country is run on the
premise that an "unbalanced checkbook" is ok.
What happens in the real world when an individual
makes an error in his checkbook? What if you
forget to record a couple of checks you have
written? Large checks?
Since Nixon, our government can just print more
money to cover any loses it encounters. Our
governmnet has a blank check book. True, we
still have a sembalance of an accounting system,
barely.
Oh well, what does a bookkeeper know?

8. Do you support the creation of free enterprise
zones in the Gulf region to encourage growth in
the wake of Katrina?

Qualify "free enterprise zones." Define it. Would
they be for Enron's sister companys?

9. Do you favor medical liability reform to
help reduce health costs and improve patients'
access to affordable health care?

Ahha! A medical question for Doctor Frist.
This question makes 'affordable health care' dependent
on reducing the accountablility of doctors making
the correct diagnosis and follow-through treatment.
Refer back to question No. 1-'should we make those
nations and groups that support or shelter
terrorists "accountable".' Now re-read question
No. 9.
Doctor Frist seems to be saying that, simply by
implication of inclusion, we do need to hold those
nations accountable while at the same time we
should not hold doctors accountable for practicing
bad medicine! Duhhhh!

10. Do you believe class action lawsuits drive up
the cost of consumer products?

No.
Why are class action suits formed?
It is the fact that someone in business allowed
shoddy goods to reach the market, they got caught
and now they have to pay for having let those
shoddy goods reach the market. That, among other
things, is what drives up the cost of consumer
products!
Consider the alternative.
If class action lawsuits were outlawed, the shoddy
goods would remain on the market and the company
that kept shoving them out the door would
reap bigger profits... until consumers caught on
and stopped buying them altogether. Then the
company files bankruptcy, a time-honored tradition,
for companys. The officers of the company get
rich, legally divest themselves of responsibility
of the shoddy goods AND the company,
and are free to start all over again, with a new
company, in another state.

See Part II for the remainder of the questions.

YOU'VE BEEN BLOGGED!!

It permeates everything now, doesn't it?
Really lonely people who have nothing better
to do than clog and block the things that
others create.

I'm fairly new to blogs but by allowing anyone
to post a response to whatever I write, I am
also allowing others to post their spam,
the excrement of mankind. Do these people really
think that they are going to get rich by pushing
advertising that clogs blogs?
If they got an ordinary job, one they would enjoy
doing, they wouldn't have to depend on spamertizers
to pay them a paltry stipend for their next beer
or little white rock.

The following is supposedly a 'comment' on one of
my recent posts:
_______________________________________

"Behjat said...
Splogs clog blogosphere
Spammers are spewing their wares across the blogosphere, that part of the Internet where millions ... The readership of blogs has exploded in the last 18 months," and with it the popularity of splogs, said Jason Goldman, product manager for Blogger, which is owned by Google Inc.
Find out how to buy and sell anything, like things related to how to repair a road bicycle on interest free credit and pay back whenever you want! Exchange FREE ads on any topic, like how to repair a road bicycle!"
_______________________________________

Ha, ha. This is a 'comment?'
Sorry, but this is a very bad case of the "see me's."
You people really need to get a life... of your own,
and stop being leeches on other people.

If you are pushing your blog into or onto someone else's blog,
it must be because people aren't visiting your blog, or at least
as frequently as you think they should, or not responding with
comments like you think they should, or ................

Actually, they are. If you aren't getting the comments you
would like, it may be time to reconsider what you are posting,
what your purpose is, is a blog the way to go with what you
are trying to accomplish? MACY'S didn't get as big as it is
with indiscriminate jabs in prospective customers faces. EXXON
didn't become the giant it is by forcing themselves on people.
Again, it may be time to re-think your goals. But then, maybe
you don't have goals, maybe you are being blinded by the prospect
of gold rather than goals. If gold/money is your goal, then
you are hopelessly tied to it, it is your master, you are
not your own master.
Sad.

A Post Office Scam????

Well, I tried one more time. Took another package
to the Post Office today armed with a printed out
copy of the criteria for "NON-MACHINABLE PARCEL
POST" as published on the United States Post Office
web site.
Again, I was hit with the charge. Box measured 13
and 3/4" X 14" X 14" and weighed 2.75 pounds. The
box did not meet any of the criteria for applying
the extra charge.
Again, I was not given the choice of NOT
having the fee applied and maybe going with
Priority Mail. What I was given was the FACT that
the fee HAD to be applied unless I used Priority
Mail, in which case the total would be lower (but
still more than Parcel Post). Either the fee
would be applied if I insisted on Parcel Post, or,
I could send it Priority Mail, or, the box would not
be sent via USPS. Period. The fact that
the fee should not be applied does not even enter
into the clerks brain or conversation. [Call for
a supervisor and you will hear a quite different
story. You will be told that he/she was trying to
tell you that you had a choice! They just didn't
say it right. Unless, of course, the Line Supervisor
is joining the 'plus sale' team.]
I picked up the box, told the clerk that "It's ok. I
will ship it UPS" and said "Thank you." The clerk
responded promptly with "NEXT!" (This clerk has done
this before.)
I will not bore you with the telephone conversations
that ensued from this incident (and why would a Line
Supervisor need my name and address instead of the
'from' ZIP code, the 'to' ZIP code, the weight and
the size of the package to solve a problem by
telephone? Is the word going out and am I going to
be a target now? Time will tell.).
For an organization such as the United States Post
Office, the conversations do not bode well for the
public. Perhaps the name "UNITED STATE POSTAL
SERVICE" should be changed and the flag removed
from their service advertising. Maybe?

Letters... I will drop off in a box somewhere or take
them over into one of the neighboring states, if that
becomes necessary.
Stamps.... I will order over the internet or by phone.
Boxes..... I will ship UPS, DHL or FedEx.

I've had it with the Post Office. It's really a
shame because I have felt toward the Post Office
as toward a friend these past 47 years. But then,
friends come and friends go. I have a new friend
now.

So public, BEWARE! The Post Office is joining
Macdonalds, Burger King, convenience stores and
any place of business where "plus selling" is
not only in effect but enforced.

One must remember that the United States Post
Office is NOT a government department. It is a
private organization who answers to no one and
can do whatever it deems appropriate to make a
sale, even if that means fleecing you!
(Not as dubious sounding as scam, is it?)

Pony Express, Part II

OK. So my logic was a little fuzzy on that
last post. But remember, my world of knowldege
about the Post Office had come crashing down
all around me and nothing made sense, so why
should I?

Looking over the post, I realized that what
I was trying to say didn't come out the way
I wanted it to. Perhaps now I can do a little
better. Here's the problem paragraph.

"I'll bet when it was first proposed to
'the powers that be' in the Post Office
that the machine should be purchased, the
reason given was because it would save
$1000's of dollars in salaries, annually.
But now, I get to pay a machine via a
"NON-MACHINABLE PACKAGE" TAX (and it is
essentially a tax, a -value added type of
tax), for a machine to process this box
and make sure it gets to its destination
carrying a PRIORITY MAIL sticker and treated
like any other package! And when a package
doesnt' get to its destination in 2 days?"

What I wanted to get across is that basically
'the machine' is piggy-backing on top of and
in addition to the set postage fees originally
designed for and only included human handlers
of the mail.

This means that the Post Office is charging
the public for humans to process your mail
AND for machines to process it as well.
What isn't stated is that the humans are
now retained essentially to 'feed' the machines.
Now, if the machine will not accept the package,
due to the machines' design or whatever, then
a special fee is charged... because now a human
has to process the package, the very element
in this equation that the machine was supposed
to replace! Talk about double-dipping!

And this is the mind-blowing premis that
undergirds the entire postage system. This
particular situation shows that a complete
reversal of labor/rates has been accomplished
with the addition of just one small fee!

In 1965 the Optical scanner (ZIP Code reader)
was tested. In 1963, the postage rate was 5 cents.
In 1968, after the institution of an Optical
Scanner, the rates were increased to 6 cents.
Three years later they were increased to 8 cents.
Another three years saw an increase to 10 cents.
In September of 1975, the next year, saw another
increase by limiting a letter to 2 ounces and
an additional fee of .09 cents was charged for
each ounce over the initial two ounces.
By December of that same year, both the cost of
a stamp for those same two ounces was increased
to 13 cents and the 'over 2 ounces' fee was raised
to 11 cents.
From 1978 to the present, the postal rates have
increased from 13 cents to 37 cents. Twenty seven
years have seen an increase of 24 cents. Next
year, 2006, will see another increase of 2 cents,
putting the increases to almost 1 cent per year.

True, all of these increases seems like paltry
amounts when compared to increases for other goods
and services. Yet, it the fact that 5 cents of
that 39 cents is based strictly on human processing
of the mail, humans who could get a letter from
upstate Massachussetts to Chicago overnight
without the use of a sorting machines. And therein
lies the problem.
If machines are so wonderful at sorting
and processing mail and more and more machines are
needed to process the 'ever-increasing quantity'
of mail and fewer humans are needed, then
why doesn't the postage rate stabalize at some
point?

Machines don't have children, machines don't
have to deal with the increases in the cost of
living, machines don't have the expense of driving
to work every morning, machines don't buy groceries.

Machines may require a mechanic to oil and repair
them, but basic common sense tells us that one
mechanic can 'process' more than one machine!
Are we reversing the mechanization trend and
increasing the number of humans now needed
simply to serve (oops, make that 'service')
and maintain the machines? Is this a good
management? When do we have enough machines?

Hey, the Good Ol' Days are starting to make us
look like we've finally outsmarted ourselves.

Bring back Pony Express!

I have just returned from the Post Office.
WOW! What an eye-opener that was!

Having been a collector of vintage postcards
for many years, I have become a little
familiar with the progress of the Post Office.
Of cards alone, I really enjoy looking at
them, reading the used ones, looking at the
many different postmarks, etc.

It has amazed me from day one, to see a
postcard with a postmark from an office
located somewhere in Massachessetts and
dated, say July 23, 1909, and also
have the receiving Post Office postmarking
the same card and located in Chicago with
a receiving date of July 24, 1909. One day
later.
It amazes me because, too often this happens;
an office with whom my company deals and is
located about 10 miles further east of us,
can send us a letter and it will show up six
days from the day it was sent!

Today's eye-opener was the reverse of a
musical crescendo. It's like everything you
know about a subject has suddenly crashed
down all around you, has been wiped out
and that knowledge no longer exists!
I had a small box to mail to a town 291
miles due west of my city.
The box weighed 2 pounds, 9.11 ounces.
I wanted to send the box Parcel Post,
normally the cheapest way to send a parcel
because it generally takes longer, i.e.,
it isn't speeded along like a letter.
To send Parcel Post, the cost was $4.11.
No insurance, no special handling.

Before totaling out, the clerk said that
she HAD to ADD a "NON-MACHINABLE PACKAGE"
amount of $1.65!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This added amount had a special key on
her machine. (This means she has the
option of hitting that key or not hitting
that key! Yes? Otherwise, it would be
automatically inserted, just as the
shipping price is. There is a special key
for adding an amount for insurance, or
confirmation.)
'It's something we have to start adding.'

The upshot of all of this is, to add the
$1.65 to $4.11 makes the total $5.76.
Now, just basic math tells me that this
is more than if I sent the package as
Priority Mail...$4.75. What I'm having
trouble with is, why not just make all
packages have a minimum of $4.75 no matter
where they are going instead of 'forcing'
someone to 'logically' pay the Priority
Mail amount? And no, she wasn't going
to back down. I would pay the $1.65 or
it wouldn't go.

I'll bet when it was first proposed to
'the powers that be' in the Post Office
that the machine should be purchased, the
reason given was because it would save
$1000's of dollars in salaries, annually.
But now, I get to pay a machine via a
"NON-MACHINABLE PACKAGE" TAX (and it is
essentially a tax, a -value added type of
tax), for a machine to process this box
and make sure it gets to its destination
carrying a PRIORITY MAIL sticker and treated
like any other package! And when a package
doesnt' get to its destination in 2 days?
Oh well, it's just another day at the
Post Office.

My packages will be going UPS from this
day forward.

Term Limits doesn't.....limit.

TERM LIMITS, Pros and Cons.

There were 66,000,000 entries resulting from a search
done on Googles Web Search using Term Limits!

Pros:
1. Keep people who are familiar with the ins and outs
of the legislative process, thereby knowing who to
see to get things done quickly.

2. The legislator is given more time for doing the
people’s business. (see No.1)

3. Legislators are more effective the longer they
are in office. (see No.1)

4. Legislators complain about the complexity of the
legislative process. (see No.1)

5. "It limits the choices of people the public has
to vote for."

The more sites I checked, the dumber the arguments
seem to be. So, hopefully, the above will suffice.


Cons:

1.The "ins and outs" too frequently mean deals made
to trade votes. VOTES on legislature that affects
this country should be cast with at least some
factual knowledge of what the bill contains, not as
a horse-trade of favors.

"..to get things done quickly." Should this not be
the NATURAL order of business for the legislature?

2.Legislators with too much time tend to pursue their
own personal political agendas. (see link below)

3.Legislators run for office on the basis of changing
the status quo (but how about the status quo of congress?).
By the time they become entrenched in office, the
'status quo' that existed at the time of their running
no longer exists! If legislators can’t be effective in
4 or 8 years, can we expect them to be effective in 10
or 20?
Our 'status quo' derives primarily from the bills that
congress passes, yet congress fights tooth and toenail
to keep its own status quo sacred. Why?
Florida has implemented term limits on a local basis.
What they say on their website should not be limited
to Florida.

4."The 22nd amendment provides that no person shall stand
for office for the Presidency of the United States more
than twice. It ensures that no matter how much power
a given chief executive may gather to his bosom, there
is a definite limit on how long he may wield it. Every
eight years, there will be a fresh face, a fresh
perspective — a fresh start." NO UNCERTAIN TERMS,
by Paul Jacob
Why would not this same idea work for congress?

5."Legislators complain about the complexity of the
legislative process." - "In the real world, an employee
has to learn a job in a matter of days or weeks, not
years. The president of the United States is limited to
8 years. Yet, we expect the president to hit the ground
running day 1. Being president is a lot tougher job than
being a state legislator." How many of you are in the
same job you had 10 years ago? (see link below)

6."it limits the choices of people the public has to
vote for" -No.5 above. This is a spin that really stretches
credulity. By limiting a congressman's time in office to
either 8 years or even 2 terms, MORE people will attempt
to fill his vacancy, ergo, MORE choices for the people to
choose from, not less! And, it's a leap-frog effect that
gains momentum.

"If you have a really good public servant and you want to
keep him, you can't. You have to get rid of the good
candidate and replace him with someone who's inexperienced."

This could be a draw-back, if you accept the mixed metaphors
being used. Note how the writer equates inexperience, by
implication, with being a 'bad candidate.' Might we re-word
this with "You have to get rid of an experienced candidate
and replace him with someone who's inexperinenced."
OK. That's not so bad, is it? You had your 'first day' on
the job, didn't you? Maybe even several different jobs.
Even so, if the public servant is that good, are there not
other public offices to which he/she could aspire?
For instance, from the House to the Senate, from the Senate
to the Presidency, from the Senate to a cabinet office,
from the House to a Govenorship, from the House to a
Judgeship, etc. The problem with the argument that you
will not be able to keep a good public servant relies on
assuming that once that servant's term is over, so is the
possibility of that servant ever contributing
to the betterment and quality of our lives again, ever.
Obviously, not only is that an enormous assumption,
human nature just doesn't seem to bear that out. Sorry,
but that bucket just won't hold water.

"Term limit laws are an acknowledgement by the voters that
they are too dumb to make an informed decision at the
ballot box."
Yipes! I guess when all else fails, begin a mindless attack!
Actually, it is, in fact, just the opposite. Voters are
seeking any venue that will allow them MORE participation
in the political process because the current system isn't
working!
On a local level, term limits for state legislatures have
been voted in for 15 states and more states are being
subjected to the possibility, by the VOTERS, of coming to
grips with a new reality!


Links to 'learn' more!

http://www.termlimits.org/
http://www.termlimits.com/
(against term limits:) http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/limits.htm
[oh, and don't miss the ADULT CLUB ad at the bottom of his webpage,
because money is really what it's all about, isn't it?)

Better yet, just go to your favorite search engine and type in
Term Limits

Another WAR in preparation!

Over the past several years, it has become obvious to me that,
while watching television that is supported by commercials, a
new twist on commercials was taking shape. Products started being
sold by generating fear and doubt, in you, the consumer, if you
do not purchase a particular product. FEAR and DOUBT.
FEAR. DOUBT.
(That's because you, Mr. Public Man, are stupid. You don't know
Jack about anything. YOU have no control over your life. YOU
are a dumb machine that needs to be told what to do and when
to do it by the more knowledgable flipping the proper switch!)

Products are rarely being sold now on the merits of the product
itself. The shift is to you and how horrible your life will be
without this product. You will lose friends, you will not
succeed in your endeavors, you will not be happy, you may even
die because you do not own this product. Often subtly are you
told these things, but usually with a sledge-hammer.

Fear and doubt in oneself leads to aggression. Its' progress is
steady. The seed is planted into one's belief system. One begins
to notice every little event that supports and nourishes the seed.
One begins to see monsters everywhere. (The seed sprouts and grows.)
"I must do THIS because if I don't, THIS 'may' happen, and I don't
want that to happen. Everyone is against me (the individual
consumer). They are trying to box me in. There is no escape. In
order to break out of and away from this attack, I must fight,
all of them, or someone, maybe you."
(Ah-h-h-h. Goal attained. Fear instilled. Subject ready to go
to war.)

Our president is like a shaft of wheat in an open field. The
shaft bends with whatever wind is blowing its way. Only a few
years ago, the President was slashing money left and right from
any program with a hint of 'altruism' attached to it. Any
program aimed at helping people through, over and out of hard
times. To hell with the needy, we must 'balance the budget.'

Today, the wind is blowing in the opposite direction and the
President has decided that the 'threat' of a 'possible' world-
wide epidemic (like AIDS, maybe?) of a strain of bird-flu
'could' become a 'threat' to humans. The President
has therefore "seen the light" and alloted 7.1 billion dollars ($7,000,000,000.00+) to fight that which does not exist!
IT IS NOW TIME TO GO TO WAR... WITH A VIRUS!
We haven't accomplished his goal in Iraq yet, but forget that,
this war is more important.
To hell with the budget, we must help the 'needy' survive the
coming epidemic.

And here are the unsubstantiated 'fear-factors' plucked from
current news reports (plant the seeds and watch them grow!):

"panicked citizens"
"jittery public" that "Bush sought to reassure" [hm-m-m, I wonder if
we could read this as 'jittery reporters in a news conference?']
"concern is growing"
"could trigger,"
"early warning systems"
"international preparations"
"stockpiled"
"A call for Congress to..."
"Clearly this is the No. 1 public health issue on the radar screen," said Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota, who advises the government on infectious disease threats." [Do you think that the fox is really going to tell you how to keep him out of the hen-house?]
"prepare for a flood of panicked patients."
"Bush's strategy"

These are PREPARATIONS FOR WAR!

Ironically, the world wasn't ready for Barry Goldwater because
the media reported that 'the public considered him a war-monger.'
(Was it really the public, do you think?)
And now we have a President that wants to go to war with
anything that moves and at the drop of a ball-point pen.
______________________________________________________

Men who send other men to war are afraid, scared, fearful.
_____________________________________________________

Following the dollar, a contract(s) will be awarded in order to
spend:

"_$1.2 billion to stockpile enough vaccine against the current H5N1 flu strain
to protect 20 million Americans, the estimated number of health workers and
other first responders involved in a pandemic. If a similar bird flu causes a
pandemic, the shots should provide some protection [for health workers] while better-matched versions
are manufactured.

_$1 billion for the drugs Tamiflu and Relenza, which can treat and, in some cases, prevent flu infection. Enough to treat 44 million people and prevent infection in 6 million others is headed for the federal stockpile. States were told to buy 31 million treatment courses, but Bush is funding only a quarter of their anticipated bill.

_$251 million for international preparations, including improving early warning
systems to spot novel flu strains before they reach the U.S.

_$100 million for state preparations, including determining how to deliver stockpiled
medicines directly to patients.

_$56 million to test poultry and wild birds for H5N1 or other new flu strains entering
the U.S. bird population.

_A call for Congress to provide liability protection for makers of a pandemic vaccine, which unlike shots against the regular winter flu would be experimental, largely untested."

(emphasis' mine)

And that contract will be awarded to which company that has ties to what
low-light-level public figure in the White House? (i.e., check past officers of the company to which the contract(s) are awarded and also current holders of substantial stocks in that/those company(s)-see emphisis' above.)

Where-oh-where is the public now?

MORNING SEDITION-My Favorite Radio Show

Each morning as I drive to work, I listen to
Morning Sedition on the radio with Marc Maron
and Mark Riley. Some mornings I laugh all the
way to work. Some mornings I just listen and
try to absorb. I especially like the authors
they bring in to discuss newly published books.


Regardless of whether I agree with them or not,
they are always entertaining, creative and
questioning. This morning, they had a 'caller-in'
that I think was legitimate (with them, you are
not always sure).

The caller-in, as it turns out, was a vegetarian
and faced with the dilemma of what to do with a
sausage that was included in his sandwich by
mistake. The C-I said he doesn't eat anything
that 'had a mama or eyeballs.'

H-m-m-m-m-m-m.

That got me to thinking (see, I told you it was
a good show). Why would anyone say such a thing?
Then it dawned on me, it's a moral judgement. It
really doesn't have anything to do with taste or
health. It's purely a moral decision on the part
of the C-I. A person can be a vegetarian and that
is ok, for whatever reason. But when we project
our beliefs into/onto another entity, then we are
moralizing; "Well, she shouldn't do that (the
unstated belief is- because I believe it is
wrong, the moral is- it's wrong... according to
my beliefs)."

Man is a warm-blooded animal. Animals everywhere eat
other animals. The difference between Man and animals
'in the wild' (i.e., their homes) is that man is a
'fight' animal, as Monty Roberts pointed out, and all
others are 'flight' animals.
Man will kill for a thrill, animals kill to eat and
feed their offspring, they do not kill for 'sport.'
Is a life, any life, trivialized to the point of
just being a "sport"? Where is the moralizing of
"has a mama or eyeballs" when we send our sons and
daughters to other countrys to kill... people?
Where is the projecting of our beliefs, our morals
when this happens? We temporarily suspend them because
we think we don't know what is best for us and our
country. We think that those higher up have access
to more knowledge than we. (Does that mean they are
closer to God than we are? Not likely.)
In our country we have laws that say it is NOT ok to
kill someone. That is also as close to a God-given
law as we will ever get.
Yet, it somehow becomes ok when we put
on the proper costume, carry a loaded weapon and are
directed to that entity which 'wants to kill us.'
We know this because, well, not because we have had
close contact with that entity or argued with that entity,
but because we are told, with much fanfare, that
it's ok!!??

It also means that our beliefs say its' ok to kill, it
is just not ok to eat what it's ok to kill. Huh?
But they 'had mama's and eyeballs!??'

To consider that the food before you may have 'had a
mama or eyeballs' is a moral judgement based on
ones' projecting ones' beliefs onto another entity;
'Would you want someone else to eat your father?'
Yuk! OK, then I won't eat something else's father or
mother.'

WHAT IS THIS FORM OF REASONING?
Easy enough to answer.
Peer pressure.
Your peers are; your mother, your father, your sister,
brother, relatives, friends, ministers, school teachers,
newspapers, television, books, movies, on and on!
You absorb their beliefs and actions and incorporate
them into your own belief system. It doesn't matter if
they are right or wrong, these are not things to be
questioned. They just are. Right?

But, as Mark and Mark did, they accepted what the
C-I said and went on with their show.
Therefore, it is up to us to examine what we've heard.
It is up to us to TAKE THE TIME to examine what we see
and what we hear and decide if there is reason or truth
in any of it. Does it fit with our other beliefs?
If not, why?
If we don't do this, we will probably, at some point in
our lives, visit a psychiatrist who will help us do
just that, something we can do ourselves.

Morning Sedition on Air America, my wake-up call.