Stepping back.....

How many now?

2007-10-11T14:44:00.000-04:00

Does anyone know what the current
death toll is from Iraq and why
has it been dropped as a "HOT"
button for the media?

I WANT TO BE THE STAR!

2007-09-06T12:52:00.000-04:00

Doom and Gloom, Economic Voodoo Reporting

2007-07-18T13:10:00.000-04:00

The following article appeared in the Yahoo News
Financial Section today (July 18, 2007) and caught
my interest.

This article is dry reading for most, will not
appeal to many, but I find it so typical of the
current 'attitude' about the reporting of stocks,
the stock market, and profits in general that I
did read it, and I'm glad I did.

Anyway, I would like to make it clear that I do not
fault the reporter for the following information. He
is reporting the typical economic news in the now
accepted manner and attitude of what is currently
considered important. It is not so much Voodoo
Economics as it is Voodoo Reporting.

The article is not complete, I have excluded some,
not all, 'opinion' paragraphs by investors and have
inserted [ ] comments.
__________________________________

YAHOO News

Financial malaise continues at Yahoo

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE,
AP Business Writer
Wed Jul 18, 2:57 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO -

The company's shareholders [at YAHOO] have paid a steep price for
the company's bumbling. Since the end of 2005, Yahoo's stock price
has plunged more than 30 percent to wipe out about $20 billion
in shareholder wealth.
_________________________________

[Poor, poor YAHOO shareholders.

I own stock in one company--a gold mine in Africa. I purchased
about 5 or 6 shares some twenty-five years ago just to experience
the process. Over a period of the next six or seven years, I received
dividend checks about every other year and none of them were over
five dollars, and then nothing has been received up to the present
time.

The point is, like other investors, I BOUGHT the SHARES as a long
term investment. It was a one time purhcase of about $60. I have
not HAD to continually pay into either the shares or the stock
broker through whom they were purchased. So, no matter what the
stock did on the market, whether it rose in value or fell in value,
it did NOT affect my initial $60. That money was gone. Period.
It was money that, should I never get it back, I would still
survive.

Now, on that $60 investment (could also be called a savings
account), it 'earned' about $2.50 a year interest/dividend. This
was over and above the initial $60. Again though, it did not affect
that initial $60.

Had it so happened that the interest/dividend that the stock paid
back, say, had been $100 per year, then over twenty years, it
would have earned $2000. Another way to look at this is to say
that once that $2000 was paid to me, deducting the original
$60, I would have profited $1940.00 from a temporary $60 pay out.
If I should sell the stock for $60, then I have profited the full
$2000 and was only temporarily out $60.
Now, assuming that I hold on to the stock for another 20 years,
and over the next 10 years the stock pays nothing, I still have
the $1940 in my pocket. I don't lose anything!
If the company doesn't turn a profit in the next 10 years and
pay out a dividend, I still have the $1940. I do not have to put
money into the company. My choice is solely in buying more of or
selling off some of the stocks, not investing in its operating
capital. I don't have to lose anything.
Even if the company goes bankrupt, I still have the $1940 and
the initial $60 is still money that I can and will live without.
I will have made a profit on a bankrupt company!

Yet, as the article reads, the shareholders are LOSING money!

No they aren't. They MADE 20 million on their investment. They
still have that. YAHOO doesn't take it back if things suddenly
start getting tight. The investors have LOST nothing. What is
happening is that COMPARED to what they have made, they are
now not making anything or are making less than what they WERE
making. That isn't losing. That is writing off what you have
spent and pocketing the profits already made from that now
written off investment.

This is Voodoo Reporting and manipulation of attitude.

This is comparing 'what was' to 'what if' and accepting the
difference as some sort of concrete stark reality.]
__________________________________

But the patience of Yahoo shareholders may be wearing thin
after listening to Semel's broken promises of an imminent
turnaround.

The residual skepticism may give Yang little time to produce
higher profits before exasperated shareholders rebel and
pressure Yahoo into considering a sale to possible suitors
like Microsoft Corp., said RBC Capital Markets analyst Jordan
Rohan.

"This is growing old," Rohan said. "I would like to see more
immediate changes. Things are looking pretty bleak right now."
_____________________________

[The Macdonald syndrome--Invest at this window, pick up your
profits at the next window.]
_____________________________

Yahoo is pinning its hopes on a new advertising formula — known
as Panama — that rolled out this year, as well as partnerships
with online auctioneer eBay Inc., Comcast Corp. and more than
270 newspapers around the country.

But management offered little hope for better times this year.
After subtracting commissions paid to its advertising partners,
Yahoo expects its revenue for the full year to range between
$4.89 billion and $5.19 billion. In April, the full-year
forecast anticipated revenue from $4.95 billion to $5.45 billion.

In the three months ending in June, Yahoo earned $160.6 million,
or 11 cents per share, down from net income of $164.3 million,
or 11 cents per share, at the same time last year. [?]

Revenue for the period totaled $1.7 billion, an 8 percent
improvement from last year. But the overall online advertising
industry has been growing at a far faster clip, with Yahoo's
biggest rival, online search leader Google Inc., leading the
way.
_____________________________

[Chasing the competition instead of leading one's own parade.
And note, "Revenue for the period totaled $1.7 billion, an 8
percent improvement from last year." This is somehow tainted
as being a BAD thing according to the context.!!?? It isn't
that YAHOO isn't making money, the problem is, they aren't
making money FAST ENOUGH! And that's it! That's the gist of
the shareholders unrest!]
______________________________

Google's revenue soared by 63 percent during the first quarter
and analysts believe the Mountain View-based company will report
an increase in the same range when it announces its
second-quarter results Thursday.

The Internet ad market is on track to grow by 29 percent this
year, estimates industry research firm eMarketer Inc.

Excluding ad commissions, Yahoo said its revenue stood at $1.24
billion, an 11 percent increase from last year.
____________________________

[Uh, and this is somehow considered as not good!?!?!?]
____________________________

The earnings and revenue both matched the estimates among
analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.
_____________________________

[Yep, Voodoo Reporting: A good reality is bad potential and
what's bad comparatively speaking is even a worse reality!

A good reality (an 11 percent increase)
is bad potential (everyone else grew at 29 percent) and
what's bad comparatively speaking (to what they did in past
quarters)
is even a worse reality (it's growth isn't fast enough)!]

--
If it is - illegal - for one man to kill another man,
How is it - legal - for 12 men/women to kill one man?

Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson?

2007-05-25T13:49:00.000-04:00

There's an old saying that 'if you give a man
enough rope, he will hang himself.'

But then, that's the name of the game of running
for President. You have to say something even
if it's the wrong thing. You can always correct
it later on in the day.

An AP story by David Bauder today has Mitt Romney
criticizing an ABC story about the CIA doing its
job of manipulating intelligence. For the CIA to
just sit on its hands during the war would probably
also draw criticism from Romney.
Still, its because ABC has made public what can
be read in hundreds of books about the nature of
the CIA that he takes issue with. H-m-m-m-m-m.

The CIA is trying to affect Iran through propaganda
broadcasts, newspaper articles that may be misleading
and possibly playing around with their bank transactions
and their currency. OK. And during wartime, we expect
the job of the Central Iintelligence Agency to be .....
what, exactly?

You see, the problem is, Mitt Romney is another war
candidate that doesn't grasp exactly how war can
also endangers lives. It doesn't connect in his world.
War is an abstract term that 'happens there,' not
here, not in this household, not at this funeral
home, not at this gravesite, not to this family,
this brother, this son, this daughter. It's an
event that can he can focus on whenever there is
nothing else to do in his busy schedule of running,
running, running for office.

For Mitt Romney, it is the media who has the
responsibility to police itself, not America.

For Mitt Romney, public reports of CIA doings in
foreign countries jeopardizes national security,
invading a foreign country and promoting a civil
war doesn't.

For Mitt Romney, public reports of CIA doings in
foreign countrys endangers lives, war doesn't.

Is this really Mitt Romney or that other guy who
can't decide which theater it is he wants to star in?

GAS PRICES! What kind of Capitalism is this?

2007-05-25T10:10:00.000-04:00

YAHOO News, May 25, 2007

Traffic up on gasoline price Web sites

By ROBERT WELLER, Associated Press Writer Fri May 25, 1:19 AM ET

DENVER - The higher gasoline prices go, the more money business
Web entrepreneur Jason Toews makes.

He started an Internet site, GasBuddy.com, in 2000 to track daily
gasoline prices using volunteers to e-mail what they find. "Hardly
anybody ever used it," Toews, of Brooklyn Park, Minn., recalled.

By 2004, 1 million people were visiting the site daily, although
the numbers dropped when prices went down.

But at the pace hits were being recorded Thursday, the site was
likely to break its record of 4 million visitors, Toews said. As
gasoline prices have risen, so have the hits on his site and another,
GasPriceWatch.com.

"We have had to buy more servers and it looks like we will need
more," he said.

GasBuddy.com offers information from 180 locations in the U.S. and
Canada, including every major city. The site said the average price
nationally in the U.S. was $3.22 for unleaded Thursday afternoon,
compared with $2.86 a year ago.

Brad Proctor, founder of GasPriceWatch.com in Centerville, Ohio,
said his site has added prices for ethanol, biodiesel, truck diesel
and ultra-low-sulfur diesel. Hits on his site have doubled. As many
eight people log in every second during peak periods, he said.

[-And here's the really IMPORTANT revelation: ]

Dan Gilligan, president of the Arlington, Va.-based Petroleum
Marketers Association of America, said the system is a good idea
but warned consumers to remember that if they drive more than 10
miles to save a nickel, they are losing money. He also said there's
no guarantee the price will be the same when they arrive.

"Many retailers are getting price increases twice a day. You may
have a price increase within six hours," he said.

(emphasis mine)
[-did you get that? "TWICE A DAY!" -]

Other businesses are also tying technology to drivers' increasing
efforts to find a deal.

Toews' company, GasBuddy Organization Inc., claims to monitor
900,000 stations with several hundred thousand registered
volunteers. GasPriceWatch.com says it tracks 170,000 stations.

People can send a message to gas(at)gasbuddy.com with a ZIP code
in the text area, and the site will reply with the cheapest nearby
stations.

The Web site also has a national map for those planning trips.
_____________________

Commentary:

How many trips to the supermarket do you make in a weeks
time? How many Department Stores do you visit each week?

When you're looking over the tomatoes or the cans of
soups in the grocery store, does some clerk run up and
change the price on the can, or the posted price? And
do they do this perhaps TWICE while you are shopping?

Of course they don't.

And why don't they?

Because apparently unlike the oil industry, the owners
of farms, manufacturing plants and other service industrys
know what their costs are and know how much they need to
sell of a particular product in order to make a profit.
They pay humans to project these figures and make sure
that expenses are covered no matter what happens.

The price of tomatoes do not rise twice daily just because
some government official is out in the field and notices
that one plant has a dead leaf or another sees storm
clouds on the horizon.

That coat you are looking at doesn't rise in price, as
you try it own, because that incoming shipment from
Nebraska is stalled out on Interstate 55 or it is
reported that the next shipment of coats sank in the
Gulf of Mexico due to a hurricane or the cotton field
in Guadalahela had an increase of employee layoffs due
to a virus going around the town.

Yet, these are the types of reasons being given to justify
price rises as often as TWICE DAILY at the pumps, only
substituting electronic and technological words instead
of saying it in words that reveal its whimsical causes!
One is just as valid a reason as any other. A refinery
goes down for a couple of hours, the price at the pump
goes up. A Futures bidder in New York suddenly thinks
that the swarm of locusts in Pixapan Chile may, just may,
affect that amount of oil that will be produced and
exported next year and so he bids accordingly, driving
the price of an imported barrel of oil into the
stratoshpere, and the price at the pump goes up.
But wait, there's more.

The refineries in Texas accept more and more oil from
the Arab emirates and less and less of American oil.
With less and less American crude oil being processed
there is less and less gasoline at the pumps (because its
being exported). But of course this is hidden in charts
and tables that jump around and back and forth from
thousands of BARRELS per MONTH being imported
and exported to millions of GALLONS per DAY of
refined gasoline getting to market. That's the same
as a reading a book that compares apples to pancakes
or listening to that joke that ends; 'I guess you had
to be there.'

This is not Capitalism.

And how does it work? Ask your Congressmen. It is all
compliments of your government. It is your government
that gives special concessions to the oil industry.
They are not driven by markets (regular Capitalism)
but by congressional special privileges and concessions.

Let President Bush turn all of those vacant military
compounds, posts and reserves that have been shut down
over the past 15-20 years into oil refineries. Let the
Arabs, the REALLY rich people in the world, build their
own refineries. Let the Arabs and the Oil Industry lay
in the bed they have so craftily built. Let the Queens
of Industry know that there is competition out there and
they had better get their ship in shape .... or ship
out.
Make them answer .... to you.

WHERE IS THE MUSLIM OUTCRY?

2007-05-22T09:35:00.000-04:00

Day after day, factions of Muslims are killing people.
It doesn't seem to really matter if the people they
kill are other Muslims, if they don't like you then
you might as well paint a target on your forehead.

So, being Muslims, even though they are called by
various names such as militants or extremists
or whatever, exactly what is in the teachings of such
a religion that it is ok with non-members of the
various factions to kill other members of the very group
from which they broke off?

And what is in the teachings of the peaceful Muslims
that says that whatever someone else does in their name
is ok as long as it isn't them they want to kill or they
aren't working their neighborhood?

Are the Muslims actually jealous, deep down inside,
of the Jews because what they are doing is sort of
what the Jews did in Germany when the Nazi's began
dragging people from their homes and throwing them
in jails. The ones who didn't get arrested just sort
of shook their heads and figured that the arrested
man or family must have really done something bad.
Right.

So-called 'Peace loving' Muslims all around the world
are just turning their eyes and attention away from
the fact that Muslims are killing Muslims. But I guess
they too are ok with killing because none of them are
crying out for anything to change, for it to stop, are
they?

The Muslims may outnumber Christians in this world, but
it seems that both Christians and non-Christians are
more concerned with the Muslims killing each other than
are the Muslims! Go figure.

I'm well aware that there are other issues involved
but that doesn't absolve Muslims from tolerating Muslims
killing each other as though life is of no value.

Peace

A "big mistake" compounded

2007-05-15T15:51:00.000-04:00

YAHOO News.
Iraq vote key for Clinton, Obama
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
Tue May 15, 4:43 AM ET

"In November, 2005, Clinton [Hillary] said an immediate U.S.
withdrawal from Iraq would be a "big mistake," and added, "I think
that would cause more problems for us in America."

In January, 2006, she said she was not advocating a "date certain"
for a troop withdrawal, and as recently as March, spoke against a
hard deadline."

__________________________

So, what is wrong with this approach?
Most likely the Senator is referring to both terrorism being exported
to the United States and to some interruption in the flow of oil due
to the say-so of the Arab Emirates or whoever.

Obviously, we do not want terrorism becoming a way of life in this
country. And just as obviously we don't want our way of life
interrupted by a lack of gas to put in our much needed street humvees.

So, is there anything wrong in this approach?
Yes, there definitely is.

What is wrong is that even with the seemingly 'even handedness' of
such a stance, it still buys into and makes acceptable the idea that
it is all right for people to kill each other, that a life should be
given to the 'greater' good, that one country has the 'right' to
invade another country (regardless of the benevolent terms used to
justify such action), and that there is some inherent 'rightness' in
one form of governing as opposed to any and all others.

The United States of America was an experiment, a trial, an escape.
It was not "founded" on the principles that it later came to adopt.
It wasn't until it was determined that this particular plot of land
was able to sustain an influx of people from all over the globe that
those people realized that they enjoyed the advantage of being like
minded enough to establish their autonomy as a nation. And even then,
like peoples everywhere today, they mostly just wanted to have their
little plot of land to grow sufficient food for themselves and their
family and to be left alone.

Still, like the country they vacated, they brought with them the idea
that those with an overabundance of material goods were subject to
having those goods taken away by force. And so today we maintain and
re-inforce that same idea. 'What's mine is mine and what's yours is
debatable.' As long as we maintain beliefs that 'we are right' and
that someone else is wrong just because we don't like the way they
do something or because they believe differently than we, then we
will always side on the thinking that it (whatever) "would be a "big
mistake" if we allow it to continue. We will forever be locked into
that thought process that concludes that maybe, just maybe, two wrongs
will someday total up to one right.

Iraq, 'Let's wait and see,' ok? OK?

2007-05-10T16:30:00.000-04:00

YAHOO News, May 10, 2007
Bush seeks compromise on Iraq benchmarks
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

The President, in this article, is quoted as saying
about the "pending compromise"-

"Why don't we wait and see what happens," the president
said. "Let's give this plan a chance to work. Let's stop
playing politics."

AAAaaarrrgggghhhh!

Will someone yank those rose tinted glasses off of his
face? Sure, Mr. President. We (here at home) have nothing
at stake, do we? Let THEM die. Keep it OVER THERE!

That is obviously why Mr. Bush is not seeing blood,
limbs, bodies, heads, and lives strewn over the streets
of Iraq. His glasses are painting an entirely different
picture for him than for the rest of us.

"WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS?"

We KNOW what is going to happen!

While the Big Boys talk, drink, smirk, posture and negotiate,
grunts die.
That's DIE, as in DEAD. Your neighbors, your friends, your
pals, your loved ones. DEAD. No more. Buried. No laughter,
no smiles, no hugs, no telephone calls. Thats whats going
to happen. And there are no Rules of War that says its going
to be someone else's son or daughter that is going to die.
It isn't written .... anywhere!

And when they finally do come home, if they are not in a
body bag, the Military-YOUR GOVERNMENT- yes, YOUR
GOVERNMENT-isn't going to help them ease back into society.
They're not as valuable as their counterparts, the Firemen
or Policemen, once they're spent. Their life is OVER! No unions
for them. No compensation if deemed a personality disorder!
They may even wind up OWING money to the Government!

But the Big Boys are OK,
and that's what counts.
Isn't it?

Fred Thompson.........again?

2007-05-04T10:07:00.000-04:00

Fred Thompson, the visually venerable statesman who dabbles in
politics but isn't sure if this is exactly what he wants to do,
is b-a-a-a-c-k.

Having once tasted the power of politics, Mr. Thompson has now
decided once again that this may be his time in the sun on the
'real' stage of the bigger world. Perhaps Mr. Thompson now
believes he has something different to offer...this time around
...rather than just trying it on for size and then accepting a
better offer from a different theater.

And therein lies the "who" of the "what" that Mr. Thompson is
seeking.

As before, when Mr. Thompson's Senatorial campaign promised
much to his constituents and got him elected, Mr. Thompson
probably believes that no one remembers those promises on which,
once in office, he backtracked and did his particular brand
of 'flip-flopping.' Some do.

As Mr. Thompson can't seem to make up his mind about whether
politics is his best suit or whether acting is the better road
to fame and may be his best suit, it is considered by this person,
who voted for him once, that Mr. Thompson will also run the
country pretty much the same way,
"Well, we might should do this.
"On the other hand, maybe we should do this.
"Let's try this and if it doesn't work we can
always do it the other way."

Ahhh, the luxury of observing from a distance.

The Veto Statement - on an island

2007-05-02T10:49:00.000-04:00

Following is the Statement President Bush gave upon announcing
his veto of the bill presented to him by Congress on troop funding.

It is not so much my intention to deride the President as it is
to point out the inaccuracies of thinking that the President has
subscribed to and expects the American public to accept. I have
yet to see anyone or any article that has shown such a statement
for what it actually is, an error in judgement, en toto.

President Bush's veto statement

By The Associated Press Wed May 2, 3:12 AM ET

Text of
President Bush's statement Tuesday on his veto
of a bill to pull U.S. troops out of
Iraq, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions:

Good evening.

Twelve weeks ago I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave young men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed the bill.

[ Mr. Bush has substituted his 'opinion of the politicians' who passed the bill for 'the purpose of the bill', not unlike Mr. Bush in substituting his 'intent' to settle not only a Civil War in another country but to demand a 'meeting of the minds' of various ideologies of those specific countries, (something he seems to have problems with in his country), with his "war on terrorism!" ]

Tonight, I will explain the reasons for this veto and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

[ '...working with Congress..' is not the same as dictating terms to Congress. ]

We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.

Here's why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable.

First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq.

[ An interesting characterization. Presuming that the war continues and we "win" this undefined conflict, will not the President, through his Generals, begin dictating that American troops begin to withdraw? And as soon as possible? Possibly even by a specific date? Or maybe not. ]

That withdrawal could start as early as July 1, and it would have to start no later than Oct. 1, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.

[ This is probably one of the biggest fallacies that the President offers in his statement. And, it sounds so-o-o familiar.
The President has said time and time again that he will veto any measure with a
time line in it. Then, he projects that same stubborn view onto the Congress, that
they will require a withdrawal 'regardless of the situation on the ground.' As he
believes, so does he see.

-First, it assumes that nothing will be done, there will be no military action by the troops still in Iraq, between now and the time set for initiating withdrawal. It assumes that they begin immediately to start packing up their equipment and getting it ready to send back to American military bases scattered across the globe; and what conflicts do occur, will do so as a defensive measure in protecting those doing the packing. Well, the President IS the Commander In Chief and they will do what he tells
them, won't they?
-Secondly, it assumes, and probably correctly, that the 'enemy' has grown in number and in strategies since the arrival of American might, and that it will overwhelm what military structure does exist in Iraq upon the exit of American troops. (How did they get so strong?)
-Thirdly, it assumes, without evidence, that the Congress and the American people are unbendable in their perceptions of the conflict. In other words, that 'regardless of the situation on the ground' the Congress, like the President, dictates that the troops will continue their withdrawal as soon as possible, even if the Iraqi people overwhelmingly requested our troops to remain for a specific time and a specific reason. ]

I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments.

[ First, the "commitment" was yours, Mr. President.
Not mine. It would seem that the President's idea of 'commitment' is "indefinite," that we seem to "owe" some people in some areas of this country .... something. Of course, this totally ignores similar plights and pleas from other countries. ]

Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be
irresponsible.

[ Who's failure, Mr. President? After four years, a determination of success or failure should already be evident. Just how many years
are required in your ever-changing, ever-broadening war of liberation? ]

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means America's commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.

[ The bill does nothing of the sort. "impossible conditions" are not being thrust upon the commanders--tomorrow--after being decided--today. It isn't as if there has not been ample notice of intent with ample time to plan. It took the President, his cabinet and 'family' members how long to initiate the first action in Afghanistan after 9/11? And did they respond to only 9/11 or were other contingencies taken into account, long before they were needed?
This statement assumes that the military doesn't "plan" anything and merely reacts to
orders from above-the orders being whatever pops out of someones mouth further up the chain of command, even if that source is only two chain-links higher up.
If this is an accurate accounting of how our military is now operating, is it any wonder that we have only accomplished deposing one dictator in four years? ]

This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.

[ According to the Presidents assumptions of how the military operates, who it receives its commands from and what it does in response to those commands, it is operating in chaos and confusion irrespective of whether or not the bill is passed. The military is taking its directions from a politician 6,000 miles away even now, he is known as 'the Commander In Chief' and his orders are to 'keep on keeping on' and 'stay the course,' and other catch phrases that sound commanding.]

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits, and not as a part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

[ Ahh, the nature of the beast bites again! ]

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach and that there are not enough votes to override the veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They've sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

[ Mr. President, may I be the first to let you in on a secret, the Congress is finally recognizing 'the will of the people' and are attempting to implement that will. They are giving you the money, which if it were up to me would be cut off completely right now, this instant, and the troops would begin packing today to come home. Please do not make the political mistake of separating 'the Democrats' from the people they represent. As it is, you have a chance to finally make a difference, but it is up to you, not the Congress. ]

Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander, Gen. David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital so they can make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.

[ And here, Mr. President, you have presented the impossibility of your mission. It is all predicated on 'the war on terror,' a condition that has existed since the dawn of man and will exist to his extinction, unless man changes his attitude about his fellow man and what he has that you do not. It is a war of ideas and those ideas cannot be changed with the simple pointing of a gun.]

In January, Gen. Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested.

Not all these reinforcements have arrived in Baghdad. And as Gen. Petraeus has said, it will be the end of the summer before we can assess the impact of this operation.

Congress ought to give Gen. Petraeus's plan a chance to work. In the month since our military has been implementing this plan, we've begun to see some important results.

For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al-Qaida car bomb network. They've captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers.

They've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.

[ Mr. President, this is all well and good. My only question is why were these objectives not accomplished with the troops that were already there? Why were these 'achieved objectives' done only with the addition of more bodies? Did it take the exact quantity of newly arrived troops to carry out and achieve those tasks? How many thousands of new troops does it take to break up a squad? How many thousands of new troops does it take to squelch a 'car bomb network?' How many thousands of new troops does it take to 'capture a Shia militia leader?' If anything, what this tells us is that the troops that are there are even now being mis-applied and directed even as they were being mis-directed prior to the surge.]

Last week, Gen. Petraeus was in Washington to brief me, and he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding.

He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.

Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al-Qaida, the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting.

The objective of these al-Qaida attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad and breaking support for the war here at home.

In Washington last week, Gen. Petraeus explained it this way: Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al-Qaida's global campaign.

[ Mr. President, why are our troops capturing Shia militia leaders or going after car bomb networks or death squads if al-Qaida is the target? What progress is being made with al-Qaida as the objective? Where are the encouraging reports and successes on al-Qaida objectives? ]

Al-Qaida's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It's true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do.

Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, and wants to attack us here at home again.

We saw the death and destruction al-Qaida inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al-Qaida to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.

We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war-spending bill quickly.

[ They did, Mr. President, you vetoed it. ]

I've invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops.

[ Mr. President, the days of blank checks are over. The American public has spoken. ]

I'm confident that with good will on both sides we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need, as soon as possible.

The need to act is urgent. Without a war-funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program so the troops in combat have what they need.

Without a war-funding bill, the armed forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment.

[ Or maybe stop buying $2000 toilet seats? ]

Without a war-funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better.

[ Yes, they can. And they have given you five years to do better, why haven't you? ]

Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet, whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.

[ And they are also worthy of living to a ripe old age, without conflicts brought about by two old kids who want to beat up each other and show the world their muscles. ]

Thank you for listening.

May God bless our troops.

[ You cannot lie in the search for truth, and
you cannot kill in the search for peace.
May your soul fulfill its destiny. ]

If Wishes Were Horses......

2007-04-27T09:14:00.000-04:00

April 27, 2007 - BAGHDAD (AFP)
- An aide to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Friday accused
the Democratic US lawmakers who voted for a timed withdrawal of
US troops of playing politics with the future of Iraq.

"I wish they would stand side by side with the Iraqi people
rather than taking positions that could be catastrophic for the
Iraqis, because of their differences with the Republicans,"
said Hassan al-Sinaid.

Is this not rich?
And what do the American people "wish for?"
Perhaps that the Iraqi people would stop killing each other
and get down to some serious talking.... with each other, so
that our sons and daughters can come home? Are the wishes of
the American people somehow secondary to the wishes of Iraqi
politicians?

Did they really expect that the American Army was going to come
in and solve all their problems for them? That they would have
to do nothing but be the recipients of America's benevolence?
Is that what they were promised?

Will the REAL John McCain sign in, please.

2007-04-18T11:29:00.000-04:00

Just government is derived from the consent of the governed.
(Apr 2004)

"I disagree with what the majority of the American people want."
...John McCain. (April 8, 2007)

___________________________

By Terry M. Neal
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 24, 1999; Page A4

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) appeared to soften his position on making
abortion illegal in separate interviews in recent days, drawing
criticism from social conservatives and some of his opponents for
the Republican presidential nomination.
____________________________

infoplease
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0780064.html

John McCain,

62, senator from Arizona, launched a campaign for the Republican
presidential nomination. Though he presented himself as an outsider,
McCain has served 17 years in the Senate. He is, however, somewhat
of a maverick in his party. He cosponsored a campaign-finance reform
bill that most fellow Republican congressmen were loathe to even
discuss, and he steered clear of the Iowa straw poll, which
essentially put votes up for sale.
____________________________

Congresspedia
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_McCain

McCain has publicly criticized his party on earmarking. On June 27,
2006, McCain posted his views on Porkbusters. In reference to his
political party, he stated the following: “So why has my party, the
party of small government, lately adopted the practices of our
opponents who believe the bigger the government the better? I'm
afraid it's because at times we value our incumbency more than our
principle.”

Statements and action on Iraq war
Statements by John McCain:

March 23, 2003: “I believe that this conflict is still going to be
relatively short.”
December 4, 2005: "We will probably see significant progress in
the next six months to a year."
December 8, 2005: "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have
a fair amount of progress [in Iraq] if we stay the course.”
November 12, 2006: "we’re either going to lose this thing or win this
thing within the next several months."
November 13, 2006: "The fate of the Iraqi venture will be decided
in the next six months or so."

"McCain touts himself as a conservative on many fiscal issues, but
moderate on social issues causing some conservatives to ridicule him
as a Republican In Name Only. His appeal during the 2000 presidential
campaign was based on style and personal image rather than any label
of liberal, conservative, moderate or libertarian."

"McCain is often called a "maverick senator" because of his
willingness to break with the party line. He was one of only four
Republicans in the entire U.S. Congress to vote against the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act. He was the only Republican senator
to vote against the Telecommunications Act of 1995, which he called
"the biggest rip-off since the Teapot Dome Scandal." He was also the
only Republican senator to vote against the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, which phased out many of the
farming subsidy programs put into place during the Great Depression.
His concerns over global warming and other environmental issues have
also put him at odds with the Bush administration and other
Republicans. In addition, he voted against the Federal Marriage
Amendment, reaffirming his position as a social moderate."
______________________________

On The Issues
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm#War_+_Peace

-Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)
-Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
-Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards.
(Mar 1996)
-Reduce federal government size & scope, including military. (Sep 1998)
-Pro-death penalty; more prisons; increased penalties. (Jul 1998)
-Cuba: No diplomatic and trade relations. (Jul 1998)
-Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
-Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)
-Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)
-Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
-Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
-Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
-Raise military pay to avoid military draft. (Aug 1999)
-Restrict methadone treatment programs. (Feb 1999)
-Voted YES on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)
-Use force, with US control, only for vital interests. (Apr 1999)
-Teach virtues in all schools. (Dec 1999)
-Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
-Unfiltered Internet robs our children of their innocence. (Dec 1999)
-Label violent media products like we label cigarettes. (Jun 1999)
-Voted YES on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors.
(May 1999)
-Korea: ease starvation, but avoid war during death throes. (Apr 1999)
-Overthrow “rogue” governments to keep Americans safe. (Feb 2000)
-Africa: Money for AIDS would be lost to corruption. (Jan 2000)
-Replace battle of bucks with battle of ideas. (Feb 2000)
-Close corporate loopholes; veto pork-barrel spending. (Jan 2000)
-Take away soft money & “hurt the unions bad”. (Jan 2000)
-Supports term limits on Congress. (Jul 1998)
-No term limits; they throw away the good with the bad. (Jan 2000)
-Higher taxes on cigarettes. (Jan 2000)
-Accepts gays in military under current policy. (Jan 2000)
-Keep “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy - it works. (Jan 2000)
-Don’t promise tax cuts from future surpluses we may not have. (Jan 2000)
-More death penalty; stricter sentencing. (Jan 2000)
-Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
-Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
-Just government is derived from the consent of the governed.
(Apr 2004)
-Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
-Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for
hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
-Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead
of 5%). (Jun 2005)
-Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
-Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
-Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
-Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)

___________________________

ENOUGH! ENOUGH!

John McCain interview, 60 Minutes:
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/56/john_mccain

Question (Scott Pelley):
'If the current plan fails,... do we leave that region?'

(John McCain)
Answer: "I don't see how we can."

Scott Pelley:
'The majority of the American people have... want.. out...
of this war.'

John McCain:
"I disagree with what the majority of the American people want."
....John McCain. (April 8, 2007)

The Bourgeois Veteran, John McCain

2007-04-11T12:40:00.000-04:00

McCain assails Democrats on Iraq
04/11/07

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

(Republican presidential contender John McCain) "Calling the war
'necessary and just,' McCain said those like him who support
Bush's troop increase chose the "hard road" but "right road."

"Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American
defeat, have chosen another road," he said, referring to the standoff
between Democrats in control of Congress and Bush over war funding.
"It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much
more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them
an advantage in the next election."
____________________________

This whole thing is the very epitome of someone creating a situation
and then standing back from that situation and thinking it has
nothing to do with them, that it is forces from outside that is
the cause.

President Cheney, uh..., Bush, convinced Congress and most of the
American People that it was necessary to go to war for whatever
reason. Now the war isn't bringing in the schoolyard and back
alley pay-offs that Bush/Cheney envisioned.

I am not really pleased with either Democrats or Republicans, but
we now have John McCain, a Viet Nam veteran, calling the war "necessary
and just" without attempting to give even one valid reason that
it is either necessary or just. You will just have to trust him
on that.

Then, in one very short sentence-
"Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American
defeat,...."-
McCain turns the US invasion of Iraq into the magic shell game of
switching your focus to thinking American soldiers are 'facing a
defeat!'
If we are to believe the political McCain as opposed to the veteran
McCain, we didn't invade Iraq, we were just over there on a holiday
and the Iraqis attacked us!
Yes! THEY attacked us and it is WE who are on the defensive!
WE are facing defeat!

Hello! Is there anyone home in his brain?
Shame on this arrogant, bourgeois veteran!

I'm the Decider! But who is really pulling the strings?

2007-01-26T11:27:00.000-05:00

Bush: `I'm the decision-maker' on Iraq
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
Yahoo News, 01/26/07
WASHINGTON -

President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday "I'm the decision-maker" about sending more troops to the war. He challenged skeptical
lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his plan.

"I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed," Bush said in an Oval Office
meeting with senior military advisers.

Bush said .... that he chose a strategy that he and his advisers thought would help turn
the tide in Iraq."
_______________________________________________

Something is very wrong here. Why does a President of The United
States think that he has to keep telling the American public that
HE is the Decider, that HE chose..., that HE is the decision-maker?
Why is that necessary?
'Me thinks he doth protest too much.'

Its almost like he isn't sure but if he says it enough times, he
will convince himself that he IS the decision maker.

Well, I'm not convinced.

I'm not convinced that his military advisers have helped him to
make decisions, I think someone else is pulling the strings here
and is leading Bush into decisions (by suggestion and by eliminating
other possibilities) and then convincing Bush that he, Bush, has
made the decisions all by himself and is, in fact, right because
he is the President.

I don't think Bush has the actual acumen to know what to do, in
military or in political situations. I think Bush is susceptible
to the power of suggestion more than any consumer who sits enthralled
in front of a television set watching the newest commercials.
"WOW! Look at that! Look at what it can do! I need one of those!"
(I have actually witnessed such a person do this. With a frickin'
kitchen mop! Aaaarrrggghhhh!)

Even Bush's wife isn't always sure why Bush does some things,
obviously she's not running the country and just as obviously,
Bush isn't either.

More of our BASIC VALUES!

2006-11-14T11:33:00.000-05:00

Sowing in barren fields

2006-09-29T11:19:00.000-04:00

There is something wrong in America and most
Americans haven't a clue as to what the problem
is. Not a clue.

On the one hand they are being told to "Be afraid!
Be afraid! Terrorists are out to get you!" and
on the other hand they are being told "We are
winning! We are winning! Stay the Course!"

The average American citizen isn't sure exactly
what they should be afraid of if we are winning.

Doesn't "winning" mean we don't have to be afraid?

We have a President whose ideals for America and
its citizens, the world and its citizens--if he would
just lay those ideals out so American citizens
can decided if they agree with them--are probably
no better or no worse than any president we have
ever had. The big difference with this particular
president is that he is willing to do whatever is
necessary to reach those ideals. And, he has the
blind trust of a competitive Congress who are no
longer leaders in ideas but who bend to the will
of the President.

Essentially, to place an ideal on a pedestal for
all to see and then assuming that whatever it takes
to reach those ideals is ok is the same as saying
that the end justifies the means. The 'means' can
be whatever someone suggests, or an off-the-cuff
remark, or a planned, well-thought-out and
responsible program for reaching an equitable
solution based on reason and heart.

Currently we have a President whose ideals are vague
at best and whose "means" are mostly derived from
someone else's suggestion. This is evident in that
his means includes 'killing to save lives,' 'lying
to continue killing' and 'lying to make the lies
legitimate.' I don't believe this president wants
people to die, but his means have become so
important that people have to die for his
ideals to be reached.

You cannot kill in the search for peace.
You cannot lie in the search for truth.

To do so, swaps out the means and the end [the methods
and the ideal]. You are left with the opposite of what
you started with--the end is justified by the means.

A phrase more popular with the American
public is "What you sow, so shall you reap."

So Mr. President, do you know what you are sowing?

PARK, PHONE, ISP & MY FEES

2006-06-09T17:20:00.000-04:00

Now that the government has opened the
door with charging additional fees to take
commemorative pictures of weddings, etc.
at public monuments, it may be time for
each individual to begin assessing the
value of each of their services.

For example, how much should you charge to
make a pot of coffee at the office? How
much should you charge to answer the phone
at someone else's desk? How much should
you charge to take someone else's fax to
their desk? How much should a wife/mother
charge to fix breakfast? How much should
a father/husband charge to wash the 'family'
car? How much should you charge to hold a
door open for someone else? How much should
you charge to let someone else in front of
you in a line? How much should you charge
to tell someone that they have a call
waiting on line 3? How much should you
charge to move your vehicle so that the
parking lot can be painted or the roof
re-tarred? How much should you charge image
hosts to allow their names to show up in
the bar at the bottom of the screen when
you perform a mouse-over? How much should
you charge to provide 'reading services' to
newspapers, or 'watching service' to television
stations, or 'shopping services' to grocery
chains or department stores to shop their
store chain instead of another?

According to an Associated Press release, the
parks were charged with recouping some of
their operating costs for allowing commercial
filming and commercial photographers to
film or take pictures of American scenics and
monuments!
According to the release, Washington D.C. and
Arizona park commissions have decided that
the solution is to charge for the scenics.

One problem is that in Washington, the parks
do not seem to distinguish between a family
having a professional photographer take a
commemorative wedding photo in front of the
Washington monument and a professional
photographer setting up a shoot for clothes
models, manufacturers, etc.
True, the family could have a family member
take the picture. However, as long as the
photographer does not bring in any extra
equipment, just his camera, and just arranges
the family group to the best possible advantage,
how is that different from what a family member
would do?

Obviously a family taking pictures to keep as
a momento of their vacation is quite different
than a movie company setting up a take for
a scene in a movie. I can understand charging
them for the use of the land and scene, even
though it is public land. Public land was not
created for public use as a profit making
venture unless there is a fee attached, i.e.,
restaurants, souvenirs, and the like.

@@@@@@@@@@@@, to hell with it.
So go chase the dollar, it will make your
life complete.
It is what has been missing all these years.
It will save you from boredom, from yourself.

That's the instructions from Washington.

What you sow, so shall you reap

2006-05-30T15:39:00.000-04:00

So easy to send someone else into war.
Equally easy are drive-by shootings.

Is there a link?

People in high places consider other human
life as a means to an end.
Pleople in low places consider other human
life as a means to an end.
And the end justifies the means.

Who leads, who follows?

Those of us in the middle consider human
life as a value, without which everything
else is of no consequence.
The means justifies the end.

What you sow is what you will reap.
What you believe is what you will experience.

Peace

A Win-Win Oil Glut Solution?

2006-05-23T11:53:00.000-04:00

One can only say this in so many ways before
one gives up.
Recent article:

"Political tensions must ease for oil to fall: Opec

The anxiety in the market is so great that Iran’s OPEC
governor Hossein Kazempour Ardebili said the cartel was
unlikely to cut production when it meets June 1, despite
an apparent oil glut.

'In opening the largely closed-door workshop (a joint
OPEC-International Energy Agency workshop on demand)
in the Norwegian capital of Oslo, Mr Barkindo said
“there is absolutely no supply shortage.” '

“Remove the impediment of geopolitical concerns, tensions,
and the resulting speculation and the oil price will find
its rightful place in the market,” said Mr Barkindo.

Mr Ardebili also said there appeared to be an excess
supply of 1.2m barrels of oil per day for the April
through June period."

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1539530.cms

So, why do we still have high prices at the pump?

Because the existing refineries are processing more
foreign oil than U.S. oil, and people in the futures
market are controlling the per-barrell price based
on, or so they say, fear of whatever the wind blows
up today. Actually, they are just riding a recently
discovered "high". This is evidenced by the variety
of reasons given for maintaining and pushing the
per barrel price higher and higher.

President Bush is suggesting that new oil refineries
be built on abandonded military complexes. That would
certainly provide an economic boost to some areas that
felt the pinch when the bases were closed.

What I am not finding in these suggestions or
considerations by the President or Congress is the
proprietary end of these possible new refineries.

Since the oil companies decided in the 70's to forego
the building of new refineries and turned over the
majority of their processing capacity to foreign oil,
it just doesn't seem fair or right to anyone
concerned to give them access to any military
'base-ed' refinery. Their profits in the last couple
of years hasn't given them the impetus to see a need
for new refineries as any adventurous entrepreneur
would, so let them continue with what they have. They
certainly don't need any new incentives, concessions,
or encouragement from Congress. Let them run their
business as they have seen and continue to see, fit.

I would suggest, as the President is prone to do,
the use of the military for this construction. It
could very well be an educational process for both
the military and the country.

To even consider that the existing oil companies
be a necessary part of new refineries would be
a major mistake. It would keep the process within
the hands of the few who have helped us into the
current situation and little would be changed
except the existing oil companies experiencing
more benefits of non-invested sweat equity or
money.

As with many other countries, a refinery OWNED
by the people of the United States would be an
impetus for the people to become more involved
in their use of their resources. I would daresay
that every owner or user of an automobile in
the United States would gladly and willingly
give $1.00, or more, out-of-pocket, for a piece
of and for the building of such a refinery.

New, military base refineries could take up the
slack in what the current U.S. Oil Cartel of
Companies are not producing from current supplies
of U.S. oil.
New, military base refineries could also funnel off
a very small percentage of its production FROM DAY
ONE into a 'reserve bank' for future problem periods.
Sales of processed oil would go toward paying off
the construction of a refinery and then the national
debt.

The military as builders and partners, but
non-owners, of the day-to-day operations could also
give an added bonus in Research and Development of
more efficient fuels, both for military use and for
consumer use.

As my suggestion is a win-win proposition, though
not without some problems to be ironed out, it
is doubtful that any of it will be adopted by
anyone. However, I will point out that to build
a refinery by the military would involve less
logistics and expense than a war.

REGISTERING to read an internet newspaper?!

2006-05-17T09:58:00.000-04:00

To Whom It May Concern:

Accessing your website via the internet, I was
somewhat surprised to read that in order to continue
to a page beyond the front page, I had to BECOME A
REGISTERED USER with your website.

Believing that turn-around is fair play, and
following the lead of many newspaper registration
forms, in order for your newspaper to be read by me,
your paper will be required to BECOME A REGISTERED
NEWS PROVIDER. Therefore, here, based on combined
forms from various internet newspapers, is the
registration process:
_________________________________________

BECOME A REGISTERED NEWS PROVIDER

PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO TELL ME ABOUT YOURSELF!

By completing this simple one-time
registration (but if you are repeatedly
asked to register with me, CLICK HERE so
that I can help you), you'll gain instant
access to my mental demographics and
interactive reading habits (as they do change
daily).

Concerned about privacy? I understand.
However, while not ignoring but simultaneously
ignoring the definition of "privacy,"
some of the following questions are
very personal. Please be assured that I
respect your privacy and will safeguard
your personal information by keeping it on
my computer. Please understand that your
personal information will occasionally be
open to hackers or members of my family
as well as friends of members of my
family who are not authorized to gather
information.

Wondering why I've asked you to register?
Your registering will help me improve my
reading skills and better understand what
you have written. For more information
about registration, CLICK OVER THERE.

*'d fields indicate a Required Field.

1. Please set up your account information.
(OK, so I've changed 'registration' to
'account.' Not to worry. At this point, no
money is required. [Pay no attention to
the man behind the curtain.])

PRIVACY NOTICE
I never intentionally share your personal
information with third parties without your
explicit permission.
You won't receive communication from anyone
other than myself or my Website as a result
of registering with me, but those
communications may be on any subject
I deem worthy. Read my PRIVACY POLICY.

*Name ______________________________________

*E-mail Address ____________________________

*Confirm E-mail Address_____________________

*Please confirm the confirmation____________

*Create A Password__________________________

*Confirm Password___________________________

Confirm the confirmation of your password___

*Gender SELECT__ Confirm SELECTION___
Send picture

*Birth Year SELECT __ Prove it! __
Send Birth Certificate, with Social Security
and Drivers License Numbers.

*Mailing Address____________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

*City______________________ *State _________

*County ____________________________________
UNITED STATES

*Zip Code __________________________________

Telephone __________________________________
(You can either fill in the telephone number
or we can look it up, your choice.)

Does your Email allow for HTML? ___________
(Not that I am going to flood your email with
anything, right?)

2. PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Select your favorite hobbies or
interests on which you base articles to
appear in your newspaper. Make as many
selections as you like. Note: The primary
reason I ask this question is to better
organize my reading habits.

Automotive __
Automotive Competitions __
Accurate Attributions __
Boating __
Boating competitions __
Books/Literature __
News People Creating News __
Computers/Technology __
ISP Competitions __
Cooking __
Cook-offs __
Corrections __
Decorating __
Entertainment/Movies __
Fris-tianity__
Gardening __
Gay Bashing __
Black Bashing __
Bubba Bashing __
Golf __
Golf Competitions __
Health and Fitness __
Home Electronics __
Home Improvement __
Internet/Computer Games __
Investigative Reporting __
Indepth Interviews and Reporting __
Inflamatory Reporting __
Interpretations to fit your agenda __
Literal reporting __
Reporting Competitions __
Music __
Money __
Making Money __
Making Lots of Money __
Manipulating the News __
Non-biased Interpretation of Events __
Outdoor Activities __
Politically Biased Reporting __
Political Rhetoric __
Prejudicial Subjects __
Prison Executions ___
Drive-by Executions ___
Home Executions ___
See-Me Events __
Shallow Investigative Reporting __
Shopping __
Slightly Altered Interpretations __
Sports __
Sports Facts __
Sports Statistics __
Sports Chum __
Stock Market/Finance __
Stock Market Gambling __
Summary Reporting __
Travel __
Vanity Events __
War and its entertainment value __
Who wore what __
Who married who __
Who divorced who __

To registered newspapers, I will offer, from
time-to-time, valuable advice and brilliant
observations of my city-county-state-country-
world operations, or lack thereof, and of
businesses within my community. This
registration will assist me in the focus of
such commentary.

Typically, how do you distribute your
newspaper? Do you give-away copies of your
daily publication? Do you confer free
subscriptions on randomly picked
residents?
Are these free subscriptions and
distrubutions considered as part of your
circulation figures?
Are your advertising prices based on
these combined circulation figures?

Do you require Newpapers through Vending
Machine buyers to Become Registered Users?
Readers at the Public Library?
Buyers at convenience stores, grocery
stores or other Retail Outlets?

What was your profit for the year
2003? ________________
2004? ________________
2005? ________________

This registration will only be required
of newspapers that want me to apply my
reading skills to their efforts,
regardless of their distribution methods
or profit motives.
Newspapers that are available only
through vending machines or free
subscriptions will also be required to
become Registered Newspapers.

Until such time as this registration
form has been received and approved by
me, all links to your newspaper site
have been removed from my computer.

I look forward to becoming an avid
reader, commentator, complainer and
well-wisher for your Newspaper.
Accepted registrants will be notified
via email, eventually.

Throw more money! Throw more money!

2006-05-08T17:16:00.000-04:00

YAHOO! News
By Andy Sullivan, REUTERS
Tue May 2, 6:45 PM ET $100 gas rebate "insulting,"
Boehner says

"Senate Republicans proposed the $100 rebate last week
in a package that also included incentives to build
refineries and open up the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for drilling."

Prompts An Open letter to the United States Senate

To Whom It May, or May Not, Concern:

Republican Ladies-Gentlemen. Seeing the above quoted
paragraph in the news article seems to provide one
explanation of how our country 'just happens' to be
where it is rather than where it needs to be.

The Republican Senators' proposals (above) demonstrates
a definite lack of knowledge of figures that are in the
public domain and readily available and shows beyond a
shadow of a doubt that the opening of the Artic National
Wildlife Refuge is a case of overkill. It also
demonstrates our Congresses' penchant for throwing money,
in some form or another, at all problems, with as little
thought involved as possible.

The proposal of incentives for building more refineries
is, at best, stomach wrenching. They are willing to do
this for the mega-giant corporations (God only knows,
they need it! Right?).
[You do see how this works, don't you? They take away
a tax break here and a tax break there and then give
it back via "incentives" (aka, tax breaks) in another
area.]
Yet, for many struggling Mom & Pop businesses, a bank,
their only option, would rather put them through thirty
degrees of mirrors and geek speak or see them eat dirt
rather than let go of any of their monetary reserves.

Perhaps Mom & Pop should take a little trip to Washington.

If the profit being made on the oil that they process
is not enough for the oil companies to see the value
in spending their own money to build additional refineries,
it isn't the people's responsibility to help them out.
They are certainly not helping us out.
Besides, at this point in time, according to the EIA
website, the refineries cannot process all of the oil
that arrives at their doors each day anyway, even
just the USA oil. That being the case, what is the point
of pumping more oil out of the Artic National Wildlife
Refuge just to dump it at the doors of the refineries
and let it sit there while foreign oil gets processed?

The Invisible Ball-and-Chain!

2006-05-07T11:07:00.000-04:00

Recently, I was shopping in a small store of various
merchandise in equally various departments. Checking
out what might be available on the book shelves, I
heard someone come up behind me and stop. Thinking
that perhaps I needed to make room for the person,
I turned to see at what area they were looking and
could I accomodate them by a step to the left or
right.

However, upon turning, I realized that the lady was
not as close as I thought. She was standing about
five feet from me, in the middle of the area, facing
in my general direction. I noticed that she was
dialing a number on her cell phone. Then I heard her
side of the conversation. It went something like this:

"Hey."
"Where are you?"
"I'm over here in the book section."
"No, it's where the miscellaneous items are."
"Yeah."
"Well, just turn to your right."
"No. Look to your right. I see you."
"Yeah, here I am."

At that moment a man came walking up to her, also
on a cell phone. It was then I realized that the
two of them were talking to each other. In this
small store!

I smiled as I realized that a rope tied to his leg
would have been a lot cheaper than two cell phones
and would have probably caused a lot more heads to
turn to see what in the world was going on. Or, to
put it another way, the 'see-me' factor would have
risen ten-fold.

I wonder if they do this when entertaining in their
home. He, keeping the guests entertained out on the
patio. She, in the kitchen getting another bottle of
wine.
Her cell phone rings.

"Hello."
"More dip? Ok."
"Yeah."
"I'll bring it right out."

Or, how about this:

She-working in the flower bed. He-taking a nap in
front of the tv's afternoon football game. His cell
phone rings.

"Hello."
"Yeah, I'm awake, why?"
"Well, how much do you need?"
"Where in the garage?"
"The blue bag with the yellow label?"
"Ok. I'll bring it right out."

Or, maybe this:

He-at the dining table. His cell phone rings.

"Hello."
"Oh, it's you."
"Sweetheart, you're just at the other end of the table."
"Yeah, it's fun."
"The peas?"
"I'll slide them over to you. Catch."

Or:

She, reading in bed. He, curled up on
the other side of the bed. Her cell phone
rings.

"Yeah."
"But honey, I've only got one more chapter."
"Yeah, I'll get one tomorrow."
"Ok, ok! I'll turn it off!"

My Big Fat Compost Heap

2006-05-05T14:10:00.000-04:00

An odd scene drove past me the other day on
my way to work.

I was sitting at a side street, waiting to enter
a major thoroughfare when this car drove by
me.
Well, the back passenger door on the drivers
side was all overly-swaddled in duct tape.
Obviously the window had been knocked out by
a thief, or the owner because all the
doors were locked and the keys were still
in the ignition.
The window is what caught my attention. The
duct tape has a nice sheen when hit by sunlight.
The driver was very unconcerned as she drove
by, talking on her cell phone.
My immediate thought was of priorities. We do
have to keep those in order, don't we?

How did we get here? How did we arrived at
this point in time when the only thing that
makes sense is me? Don't you agree? Aren't
you the only person that makes sense to you?

Why hasn't someone done a time-line book on
stupidity? I would also like to see one on
contradictions. I think the history of those
two concepts would be very interesting.

Like the duct taped automobile, we can always
do exactly what we've done in the past, we
can stick a band-aid on the problem. We never
seem to have solutions anymore, just band-aids,
coverups, temporary feel-better-for-now's.
We're much too busy to try to arrive at a
solution. Let someone else worry about that.
Other people get paid a hell of a lot more
than I do to solve these problems.
The fact that they often make matters
worse is immaterial. At least they are trying.
You know, sort of like a doctor who tells you,
"Take this medicine, and if that doesn't work,
we'll try something else."

DO WHAT?

Or the weatherman on television when he says,
"Today there will be a 40% chance of rain."
Can't you just see the side glances going all
around the room if the weatherman had said
"Today, there will be a 60% chance of no rain."
You would probably be wondering why he even
bothered to say that. If he reported the weather
that way, he really wouldn't have much of
anything to talk about during his allotted time
on the air, in your living room, in your face,
would he?
So, in reality, the smallest chance of anything
will be your weather today.
Try stepping out the back door, do you feel a
cool breeze or a cold wind (and why not a cool
wind or a cold breeze)? Chances are, you will
need a jacket. Glance up at the sky. Is it
cloudy? Take the umbrella, just in case.

What has all of this to do with where we are
today?
Simple. Linguistic whitewash. We are continually
distancing ourselves from everything by merely
changing our language. By changing the language,
we change our views. By changing our views, we
change our beliefs about things. The fact that
this is backwards and contradictory is immaterial.

For example: the war in Iraq.
We have young men, and some not so young, over
there putting their lives at risk. Some are
giving up their lives and their futures. They
are pumped and primed to engage in battle. They
are willing to kill another human being if given
an order to do so. And it's ok.
If they do manage to come home in one piece, they
return to a country and an environment which says
it is illegal to kill someone (hint, hint)! But
we expect these young people to kill someone (for
us) in a foreign country and then to 'just put
that behind them' and get on with their lives
upon their return.
How do you forget that you have killed another
human being?
How do you forget this when every day you pick
up a newspaper and read about someone being
arrested for either killing someone, or a gang
kills someone in a rival gang, or a husband has
his wife 'knocked off' by hiring someone to do
what he can't, or a boy goes on a shooting
rampage in a school? When caught, they have been
arrested because killing is illegal. Period.
But then, we can turn around and have 'that
killer' killed by the state, and that's legal!
Logical conclusion: it is ok to kill... for some,
but not for others, it just depends on who does
the killing and why. Killing can be both illegal
and legal. And we turn to ....(who?) to determine
who can kill and when?

And, as if that weren't enough with which to
contend, we then get into the obvious fact that
human life isn't worth a dime. This is proven
by the fact of so many gang killings, road rage
killings, people 'going postal', so to speak, and
of course, people who WANT to kill themselves and
as many as possible with them when they become
embroiled in some fanatics ego-dream and lust for
power. Life in this reality just isn't what its
cracked up to be, is it? After all, we have very
prominent philosophers and people in high places
telling us that our bodies are comparable to
machines, occasionally needing some mechanical
repair. A machine. Machines don't have quality
of life, do they? Ever see a machine produce a
baby machine, care for it, nurture it? Of course
not. So, where did this idea of us being
comparable to machines come from? The media.

Some stupid reporter picked up on an analysis
given as an example by a doctor or researcher
to explain a point and the reporter ran a
touchdown by conveniently dropping part of the
report. This 'machine' aspect became his point-
of-focus, not the entire report. Another
reporter picked up on his article and scored
still another touchdown with an assertion
bordering on "fact" in still another article.
Soon, everyone is spouting the same garbage
as if it were common knowledge!
People, it isn't.
The media is also who bring you wars, murder
and any other tabloid reporting of the
things that are possible for one human to do
to another, the meaner the better. People see
this on television, tell their friends who tune
in to see someone die (watching grandpa die
wasn't very exciting, was it?), television
ratings go up, obviously this is what the
public wants, film more gore, more people
watch, ratings go up, more gore on the news,
more people watch...... And this ends....
where? When a bigger event occurs that can
create more misery and misfortune, like a
volcano, a psunami, a hurricane or an
earthquake. The media, in one more gaffe of
misjudgement, mistakes the publics search
for knowledge and information with its ability
to present horror, blood, murder and
misfortune.

But a lot of pictures or footage and a little
bit of text is so much easier, and profitable.

Mixed signals. What! Me Worry?

2006-05-04T10:49:00.000-04:00

First this:

YAHOO! News, May 1, 2006, Associated Press release

"Bush Says Health Care Costs Unacceptable

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday health care costs
are rising at an unacceptably fast pace and he called on
Congress to enact White House proposals to tame medical
expenses."

and then this:

YAHOO! News, Mon May 1, Associated Press release

Administration Has No Magic Gas Price Fix

WASHINGTON - President Bush's new chief of staff said
Sunday that the White House plan to address high
gasoline prices will have only a modest impact and the
ultimate goal must to be reducing dependence on
foreign oil."

Can anyone make any sense of this? It sounds like we
should either reduce our dependence on health care
costs or Congress will start lowering the price of
a gallon of gas at the pump, is that right? Is that
what this means?

Our NEW Foreign Policy

2006-05-04T10:07:00.000-04:00

On YAHOO! News
Cheney Lectures Russia About Reform

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
May 04, 2006

"No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas
become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by
supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize
transportation," he said. (Quoting Cheney)

Hint, Hint. HINT, HINT. HINT!, HINT!

"...either by supply manipulation..."

The way your gas at the pump keeps getting more and
more expensive, maybe?

You've been reading about this here, if you have managed
to find this blog, but I doubt you will find any follow-
up on it in any major media.

This criticism may have been directed at Putin but it
is also directed at the United States, as do other
remarks in this article; many of which strains logic
and understanding to the maximum. For instance:

"from religion and the news media to advocacy groups
and political parties, the government has unfairly and
improperly restricted the rights of the people."

"Other actions "have been counterproductive and could
begin to affect relations with other countries," Cheney
said, mentioning energy and border issues."

"And no one can justify actions that undermine the
territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with
democratic movements."

Mr. Cheney, these remarks should be turned back
onto the Bush administration, of which you are a part,
and test their merits before pointing fingers at
foreign entities.

Our new foreign policy--Don't do as we do, do as we say.

Why The Declaration of Independence?

2006-04-27T11:12:00.000-04:00

When I was in school, seemingly the only reason for the
Declaration of Independence was to proclaim our
independence from the King for the fact that the King
forced us to house his troops. House and feed.
That was so many years ago that the above is my main
memory of studying the Declaration of Independence. The
rest of that document was never covered.

Now, something has driven me to inquire of the oft quoted
phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the
people," a thread that runs through much of our history.
A little research on the web has found this phrase absent
from those documents in which I thought it resided.
Instead, the phrase comes from the Emmancipation
Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. Prior to finding
the phrase in the Emmancipation Proclamation, the
Declaration of Independence had already been read and its
contents suddenly became a little more relevant.

The Declaration of Independence, surprising to me, gives
a detailed account of the abuses of the King against his
subjects, specifically, 'his subjects' that had come to
the new world for a better life. Also surprising, as I
read the list, was how many of the abuses had a ring of
immediacy, were current with the present administration
that we had hired to run our country.
Following is a list of 18 grievances the colonists had
against the King and as it appears in the Declaration.
They thought these grievances sufficient to dissolve
their association with their Mother-country and become
an independent body. You be the judge of whether you see
anything familiar.

-He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome
and necessary for the public good.
-He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate
and pressing importance, unless suspended in their
operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when
so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to
them.
-He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation
of large districts of people, unless those people would
relinquish the right of Representation in the
Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable
to tyrants only.
-He has called together legislative bodies at places
unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository
of their public Records, for the sole purpose of
fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
-He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for
opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights
of the people.
-He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions,
to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative
powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the
People at large for their exercise; the State remaining
in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion
from without, and convulsions within.
-He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these
States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for
Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others
to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
-He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by
refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary
powers.
-He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the
tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of
their salaries.
-He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent
hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and
eat out their substance.
-He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies
without the Consent of our legislatures.
-He has affected to render the Military independent of
and superior to the Civil power.
-He has combined with others to subject us to a
jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and
unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their
Acts of pretended Legislation:
..For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
..For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment
for any Murders which they should commit on the
Inhabitants of these States:
..For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
..For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
..For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of
Trial by Jury:
..For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for
pretended offences
..For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a
neighbouring Province, establishing therein
an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries
so as to render it at once an example and fit
instrument for introducing the same absolute rule
into these Colonies:
..For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most
valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms
of our Governments:
..For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring
themselves invested with power to legislate for us
in all cases whatsoever.
-He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out
of his Protection and waging war against us.
-He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our
towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
-He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation
and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of
Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a
civilized nation.
-He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on
the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to
become the executioners of their friends and Brethren,
or to fall themselves by their Hands.
-He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and
has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our
frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known
rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of
all ages, sexes and conditions.

I would call your attention to items number 2, 3, 4, 8,
9, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 13 in particular. Perhaps given
sufficient time, the entire 18 articles may come to pass,
again.

FOR SALE! House of Representatives...Senate

2006-04-26T11:13:00.000-04:00

YAHOO! News, April 26, 2006 (abbreviated)

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Mon Apr 24, 3:24 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Lobbying legislation is heading to a House
vote this week without provisions requiring lobbyists
to keep track of their contacts with lawmakers and
report fundraising activities. Democrats and activist
groups say the bill is now too weak to change the money
culture in Washington.

Paul Miller, president of the American League of
Lobbyists, welcomed the change, saying the proposed
rule on reporting contacts was unworkable.

But Wertheimer said the House GOP-backed bill would free
lobbyists from reporting on the fundraising they do on
behalf of lawmakers or on the lavish parties they host
for members at presidential conventions and elsewhere.

The bill is H.R. 4975.

Voters, what do you say? Are you concerned only about your
piece of the pie or is there enough pie to feed everyone?

Gas...Because every little bit helps!

2006-04-26T10:59:00.000-04:00

"The president also announced that the government would
not take 10 million barrels of oil out of the market for
the U.S. emergency reserve as had been planned."

10,000,000 barrels. WOW! That's equivalent to 196,000,000
gallons of gasoline. We only consume approximately
59,797,760 gallons of gas per day. That's a little more
than 3 days worth of citizens buying gas.

BOLD move, Gee Dubya! Go get'em, boy.

You can tell, he's fed up with this and he's not gonna
take it anymore!

Judas. Holy Cow, Batman!

2006-04-25T14:00:00.000-04:00

What is this deal about Judas?
Some are damming him, some are enthralled with him,
some have no idea who this Judas person was or did.
The only thing I can't figure out is who instigated
and why was this Biblical plot conceived as a means
of identification? And for what real purpose?

According to the Biblical record, Jesus did not hide
in the shadows or work his "magic" by night like a
vampire. According to the Biblical record, he spoke
to multitudes, in daylight, in public places. Some
Roman soldiers even attended his 'seminars.' His
identity was never a point of contention with anyone.
He was recognized on sight by many Biblical characters.

So why was Judas needed to walk up to Jesus and kiss
him as a means of identification? At night? In a
garden? [By the butler, in the library.]

This is really a "B-" movie plot. A plot within a plot
within a plot that doesn't explain anything and leads
down a deadend alley.

There exists another series of scrolls that seems to
be experiencing the same fate as other 'finds' that
help explain who we are and what we've experienced as
a race, but are disregarded by upperclass 'gods'
because the information the other scrolls contain
don't fit in with either their own or established
ideas.

These scrolls tell of Jesus making the statement, from
a distance, that the man being nailed to the cross was
in fact not Jesus at all, but a pretend Messiah. Perhaps
it was this pretender-to-the-title that Judas did in
fact kiss in order to save the real Jesus from
unnecessary public scorn and degredation. Someone had
to be fingered, tapped, pointed out. The mob didn't
really care what he looked like, they just wanted blood,
a spectacle, a show, to be entertained and releived of
the high blood pressure they had worked up for
themselves. After all, the Coliseum, too far to just
bop in for a matinee, wasn't the only place that
could provide good entertainment.
Judas was the man for the job.
That, as a plot, certainly makes more sense than the
most recent "finalized" version.

I think the Jews knew exactly who Jesus was, a teacher
of things they, and obviously the rest of mankind,
may have let slide a little. I think that the 'kiss
and tell' plot was conceived as a co-authored plan
between the Jewish leaders and the diciples as a way
to actually keep 'the teacher' from being put to death.
I think the so-called Christian leaders of later years
changed a word here and and a word there in order to
portray the Jews as a lesser people while at the same
time hedging their bets because Jesus was born a Jew!

___________________________________________

It never ceases to amaze me how we as a people of
such diverse backgrounds can close our minds to ideas
that we ...well, just don't like. I wonder if we
refuse to accept new ideas because to do so would
disrupt our entire belief system and we are too afraid
of not having anything to instantly fill the void. We
don't have time to think this through, again, because
Susie has to get to ballet class and Reggie has to
be picked up after baseball practice and the Simpsons
will be on TV in one hour.

I guess it really doesn't matter because the majority
of our beliefs were put into our heads by our parents,
preachers/priests/ministers, school teachers and
professors. Very few of them are actually our own
and we don't understand what they have to do with
our paychecks anyway.

Let us teach you our basic values

2006-04-25T11:11:00.000-04:00

Gasoline shortage, or a House of Cards?

2006-04-25T09:27:00.000-04:00

Well, you know what they say...curiosity killed the cat,
and I love cats. One cat in particular taught me a lot
about life, and death.

Anyway, it was my curiosity that has lead to a big hole
in the oilzone layer. Someone doesn't know basic
mathematics. You know, one-plus-one-equals-two? (It
still does that, doesn't it? Possibly not. Some days it
seems to equal 6, other days it seems to equal someone
in China sneezing or someone in Nigeria or Venezuela
taking a taxi instead of the bicycle to work.
Whatever is convenient and keeps the pot stirred.)

Searching through various government websites, several
agricultural websites and a few petroleum websites,
I have learned that the average cost of one barrel of
crude oil in 2004 was $36.00.

Ok, moving right along...

I also learned that in almost every report by any
agency, there is significant jumping around between
barrels and gallons, also between thousand of barrels
and millions of barrels and between days, weeks and
months.
"Significant," meaning, as in sentence number 1 talks
about barrels, but sentence number 2 refers to gallons.
Sentence number 3 refers to crude oil and sentence
number 4 refers to Oxengynated oil. That is all very
interesting in understanding that the reporter knows
his vocabulary. It is very frustrating in trying to
follow the flow of information as concerns only
one aspect of this convoluted mess. But then, perhaps,
ones' action follows ones' intent. On occasion, you
might even encounter one sentence refering to two
different measurements but equating them as if they
were the same. For a simple example you might see,
"We are continually coming up short because even
though we receive 14.5 million barrels a day, the
consumption in this country is 59.7 million gallons
each day!" What this dismisses is the fact that 59.7
million gallons is extracted from only 3.1 million
barrels of crude oil, not 14.5 million BARRELS. Big
difference.
Regarless, upon reading about the above cost of one
barrel of crude in 2004, my mind immediately jumped to,
not so much the 'costs' involved in oil, but to the
question "how many gallons of gas can you get out of
just one barrel of crude oil?' It seemed to me that
it would be easier to 'follow' one barrel and its'
contents than it would to try to follow millions of
barrels of 41 varieties of processed oil dispersed
across a 78,000 mile network of pipelines and highways
with spigots at every 35-mile marker (just following
the lead of other reports.).

Therefore, this 'report' will concentrate on figures
provided mainly by the government on barrels of crude
oil converted to gallons per barrel and will be based
on a monthly time frame. It is really simple. Convert
all figures to the same time frame, concentrate on
only one measurement, and concentrate on only one type
of product.

Most websites concerning petroleum are coated in many
layers of price structures, taxes, imports, exports,
production, interruptions, costs, etc. Other websites
appear to be heading directly for the answer you seek
and then veers off into various methods of processing
crude oil, their by-products, and wind up with more
coatings of smoke and a few more mirrors.

From one pictorial chart of a barrel of crude oil, you
can figure out that from one barrel of crude oil can be
extracted more petroleum products than exists in that
one barrel! As stated by the site, a barrel of crude
oil contains 42 gallons. From that 42 gallon barrel,
44.6 gallons of various petroleum products can be
processed, distilled, oxengynated, tossed, blended and
pureed! I guess that is just another example of the
the sum of the parts being greater than the whole, and
if 42 gallons represents 100%, it really doesn't mean
anything. In this case, you can say that 42 equals 100%
or you can say 44.6 equals 100%, it just depends on
what you don't want known. I don't know, math has a
way of proving whatever you want it to. [Has anyone
thought about buying stock in those companies that
manufacture barrels?]

Anyway, as you wend your way through these figures,
just tuck into the back of your mind the fact that we
are not accounting for 2.6% of the products that can
be extracted from one 42 barrel of crude oil. So, from
a 42 gallon barrel of crude oil can be processed 19.6
gallons of gasoline, 10 gallons of diesel fuel and
heating oil, 4 gallons of jet fuel, 1.7 gallons of
heavy fuel oil, 1.7 gallons of LPG and 7.6 gallons of
'other' products. Add 'em up, they come to 44.6 gallons,
no matter what anything costs anyone.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/gas04/gasoline.htm

Of course, that was in 2004 and we generally think
that most companies are constantly trying to figure
out how to get more product for less effort, or cost.
Hopefully, the leaps and bounds in technology has kept
up with all of that gasoline zipping through the
pipelines. Possibly not.

But back to basics. The important point here is that
from one 42 gallon barrel of crude oil you can get 19.6
gallons of gasoline. Again, for every barrel of crude
oil that is taken off of a freighter, rail car OR truck
and processed, you get almost 20 gallons of gasoline,
at or ready for the pump at your local convenience store.
That's not too difficult to understand, is it?

Now, more current figures, 2006, state that U.S.
refineries are bringing in to process 14,508,000 (mil)
barrels of crude oil per day, or 441,285,000 (mil) barrels
per month. [14508 times 365 days in a year divided by
12 months times 1000.] This figure is based on averaging
the available weekly figures for the period of 03/03/06
to 04/07/06. Approximately 441,285,000 (mil) barrels
of crude are received at the refineries each month to
be processed.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.htm

So, if 441,285,000 (mil) barrels are being received each
month to be processed and each of those barrels of crude
oil produces 19.6 gallons of gasoline, then 8,649,186,000
(bil) gallons of gasoline is being received each month
by the refineries. Thats 441,285,000 (mil) mulitplied by
the 19.6 gallons that each of those 441,285,000 barrels
contains. I realize that this is "old" math so it may
not be correct by today's standards.

And, the same website that provides the figures of the
amounts received (441,285,000 mil. barrels per month)
also say that only 8,173,000 (mil) barrels are being
produced, daily. That is equal to 248,595,416 (mil)
barrels per month. So, 441,285,000 (mil) barrels, from
which can be extracted 8,649,186,000 (bil) gallons of
gasoline, is being received but the refineries capacity
is only 8,173,000 (mil) barrels daily.
Keeping this on a monthly basis, 8,173,000 barrels (mil)
daily is equal to 2,983,145,000 (bil) a year.
2,983,145,000 (bil) barrels per year is equal to
248,595,416 (mil) barrels per month. From 248,595,416 (mil)
barrels per month is extracted (X 19.6)
4,872,470,153 (bil) gallons per month.

Recap: 441,285,000 (mil) barrels are received per month,
248,595,416 (mil) barrels are processed per month.
That's a backlog of 192,689,584 (mil) barrels per month
that doesn't get processed. Right? So, more than one
half of the barrels being unloaded are being processed.
441,285,000 (mil) barrels of crude received, 248,595,416
(mil) barrels processed.
Does this mean that the oil isn't being processed
because the refineries are spending all of their time
constructing storage buildings or docks for incoming
freighters for the 192,689,584 (mil) barrels per month
that keeps accumulating? Who knows.

According to another websites' figures, a government
website, the citizens of the United States uses or
consumes approximately 10 million barrels of gasoline
per day. But that was in 2004, I guess.
Today's consumption (2006) is more like 59,797,760
(mil) gallons per day, or 1,818,848,533 (bil) gallons
per month going into automobiles, lawn mowers or
power saws, etc., as processed oil. At least, that is
what the figures at the Energy Information Administration
website say that consumers purchased or the oil
companies sold. And they ought to know. The figure of
1,818,848,533 (bil) gallons per month is according to
'sales' of Finished Motor Gasoline.

Well, there you have it. Refineries produce 4,875,470,153
(bil) gallons of gasoline per month and we use
1,818,848,533 (bil) gallons of gasoline per month.
This creates an excess of 3,056,621,620 (bil) gallons
per month of gasoline being produced but not going into
automobiles, lawnmowers, power saws, etc.
Where is the shortage? More importantly and to the point,
where are the 3,056,621,620 (bil) gallons per month going?

Stay tuned for PART II

The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas

2006-04-07T17:03:00.000-04:00

YAHOO News Headline, 04/07/06

"White House Sidesteps Questions on Leak"

It all sort of falls into place, doesn't it.
One of my previous blogs talked about one of
my favorite songs from the musical movie
"Best Little Whorehouse in Texas." The song
was sung by Durning (as Govenor of Texas)
and, was titled, and if not it should have
been, "Whoooo, I Love To Do The Sidestep."

It certainly plays well to the movie title,
doesn't it?

My Town and GOD

2006-03-23T11:22:00.000-05:00

Ah, my town.

What an amusing place it has become.
It has now produced two local politicians who have seen
a ploy work for Gee Dubya and have decided to follow in
his footsteps (no pun intended).

The Mayor of My Town, for all the good things he has
done, mainly paving the street on which I live, has
decided that if George can do it, so can he. I don't
think that George went as far as our Mayor in his
attributions, but he has come very close.

Our Mayor has told us that he was actually 'sent by God'
to become the Mayor of My Town. Isn't that wonderful?
God has sent his/her/its own personal emissary to lead
Our Town out of the political darkness and into the light.

I guess that, considering the little reaction from the
local media concerning this personal crusade by our
Mayor, a person seeking to be our representative on the
state level has decided to join the Mayor, thereby
starting a troupe of crusaders. She too, has been sent
by God. WOW! Are we lucky or what? We now have two
personal emissaries from God! At this rate, I suspect
that by the end of the year My Town will be the hub
of direct tele-communications from God. I'm not exactly
sure how God plans to type out all of those emails to
his troops, but, being God, I'm sure he/she/it has such
a little detail fully covered.

Now, what bothers me is, are we really so vain and
arrogant as to think that God, whether he/she/it is
the Christian God or is Zeus or Buddah or Shome
daMoney or any of our other man-created personal gods,
is now into politics? And not on a universe or global
basis, mind you; not on a national or state level
either, but on a city basis!

Does this really make us feel better about ourselves,
more worthy of our posessions?

Does God also now direct traffic at school crossings
or desiginate who will drive home from the bar and
who won't? Does God decide which college our children
will attend or whether we wear the red shirt or the
blue one? Does God direct our sniffles, sneezes
and muscle aches?

Well good. That means that if we are directed by God,
then we can also blame God when a drive-by kills an
innocent bystander. Or we get fat eating only at
Macdonalds. Or when our plans for the new
multi-million dollar tourist attractions do not
bring in the revenues we anticipated and budgeted on.
I think we can also blame God for starting smoking
or for non-smokers getting cancer. (Isn't this grand?)
I'll bet that we can even blame him/her/it for leading
our country to killing our soon to be historical-current
enemy--Islamic terrorists, ignoring of course, the invading,
killing, bombing Christian terrorists.

Holy Cow, Batman! This is FUN!

WE are not responsible!

IT'S NOW OK TO BLAME GOD

FOR EVERYTHING!

Good. So this must mean that if we don't like God's
directives, we can impeach him/her/it and create a
new God.

Right?

Man, the meter of all slings and arrows...

2006-03-15T12:30:00.000-05:00

It has suddenly ocurred to me that the old adage
"Man is the measure of all things" is slowly being
replaced by a concept that is more visible, more
personal to the average man, and easier to understand
via comparisons with ones neighbors and friends.

In many cases, 'Man' being the measure has been
eroded and altered sufficiently to encompass the
concept that allows it to be read as 'Today's man
is the measure of all things.' This is easily seen
by its use when many ancient beliefs and customs
are written about and are measured by academia.

Frequently in archeology, you will encounter reports
of 'finds' that are reported with a hint of
tongue-in-cheek, as if to say 'They were just a
little ignorant (and beneath us).'
Even more odd is the way archeologists will refer to
the 'myths and gods' of these primitive societies, yet
our schools continue to promote the myth that Columbus
discovered America and the accompanying implication that
the United States "is" America. He didn't. It isn't.
Yet, we maintain the myths.

As stated at the beginning, the new adage might better
read as 'Money is the measure of all things' because
the 'gods' that we worship today are concurrent with that
new adage.

The fact that money is an inanimate object and only has
the value that we give it is immaterial. Money is
currently being mistakenly infused with 'life, love,
power and the pursuit of happiness.' Yet, any
individual on the face of the planet can burn it,
cut it, or deface it to any degree that that particular
individual desires. It won't fight back, it won't scream
in pain and it won't complain or take you to court.
Money is a medium of exchange, but not the only
medium that exists and certainly not the only measure
of ones self worth.

CRASH

2006-03-06T13:45:00.000-05:00

I didn't see this movie until its release to the video
stores in the early part of the year, and it only had
one copy of the movie for rent. I did recommend it to
anyone willing to listen.

Ironically, as the year progressed, a few more copies
of the movie showed up on the shelves of the video
store. Later on, a few more and then a few more.

Watching the movie, I was amazed at the direction and
editing that was paramount throughout the entire movie.
Probably the most excellent, put-together, movie I have
seen since Dr. Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia.

And then I began to read the 'quick studies' of this
movie in most major publications and I wasn't sure I
had watched the same movie as the reviewers. I was
disappointed to note that the majority of reviewers
slanted their statements toward racial and/or
cultural tension in Los Angeles on a hot, sultry day!
Huh? I guess I was so enthralled with the complexity
of interactions that I just missed the racial tension
part. What I saw was people just being people.

For me, what sets this film apart from all others is
how over and over we are shown in a plain, simple,
and an unmistakable way how the effect of just one
action or one word ripples out into this universe
that we inhabit. Everything we say, everything we do,
everything we even think, has an affect in this
world, we just never take the time to examine it.
One simple action on the part of one person a
thousand miles from me, affects me. One simple word
from me can, and does, affect that same person who
is a thousand miles distant from me.

This movie is the meaning of the adage "No man is
an island unto himself." What a person does, and
sometimes doesn't do, affects all of us. We, in
turn, affect everyone else.

One other thing that I liked about the movie was the
fact that finally, finally, slurs and derisive
comments that we have all heard, usually whispered
or in confidence, from someone has now been stated
publicly. Hopefully, by drawing attention to the
fact that racial or uncomplimentary comments are
made constantly by many people-types will also
draw to the conscious level of those same people
what it is they are doing when they voice these
slurs and how their comments may affect people
whom they don't know or have never met and will
never meet in their lifetimes.

"NO MAN IS AN ISLAND"

Sen. Byrd's Argument FOR Term Limits!

2006-02-28T10:21:00.000-05:00

On YAHOO! NEWS Today Tue Feb 28, 2006
Associated Press

"Byrd Regrets Vote for USA Patriot Act"
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Tue Feb 28, 3:30 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Sen. Robert Byrd, the dean of the Senate and
its resident constitutional expert, counts only a few
regrets in his 48-year Senate career: filibustering the
1964 Civil Rights Act, voting to expand the Vietnam War,
deregulating airlines.

Add to the list a new one from this century: supporting
the anti-terror USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks.

"The original Patriot Act is a case study in the perils
of speed, herd instinct and lack of vigilance when it
comes to legislating in times of crisis," the West
Virginia Democrat said Monday on the eve of the Senate's
final votes on its renewal. "The Congress was stampeded,
and the values of freedom, justice and equality received
a trampling in the headlong rush."

* * * * *

This is probably the best argument I have encountered
for Term Limits.

A 48 year Senate career does not make anyone's judgment
infallible when it comes to politics. And even in his
excuse for voting for the Patriot Act, Sen. Byrd trys to
evade responsibility; "The Congress was stampeded..."!
But folks, it wasn't 'stampeded' without its permission.
The arguments you use every day with your peers apply
here. There are many other arguments that parents
use everyday that could apply as well, yet we suspend
judgement when it comes to 'politicians' in 'leaders'
clothing.

True, we may not want the accounting whizkids of Enron
and Arthur Anderson to be voted into office, but at least
we could correct OUR mistake sooner should
we find that we have indeed voted such errors into office.

Term Limits is not the end of civilization as we know it.

It could be the beginning of civilizations as we would
like for it to be.

Bush's own personal government!

2006-02-23T22:52:00.000-05:00

Listening again today to a local radio talk show, I heard
the two most important words ever uttered by George W. Bush.
I believe it was a slip of the tongue, because he did
correct his slip later on in his monologue.

During the show, a sound bite was played wherein Bush was
explaining, sorta, why the 'sale' of the Ports was ok and
risk free.

On the show, a liberal talk show, the confused sentences by
Bush and the horror of the very thought of selling any of our
ports to the UAE took center stage. The reasons for the horror
was explained and they were still explaining when I had to
turn off my car radio.

After the sound bite was played, it was mentioned that the
publicity over the Port Sale ironically had taken over the
country's imagination, and media, and had driven the controversy
of South Dakota challenging the current abortion rulings by
the Supreme Court onto page 4 or 8 or 13.
Likewise, the controversy about the volatile Port Sale overshadowed
the two most revealing words in the Bush sound bite about the sale.

If you have access to that sound bite, listen to it very carefully
and you will actually hear George Bush tell America that his
government had already explored the security issue and they
determined it was ok.

HIS government!

The acutal words were "my government."
Not 'our' government, not 'your' government, but HIS government.
And it was stated, all things considered, as if his government
was his personal possession and it had nothing to do with Congress
or the people of the United States! This was a deal between
Bush and the UAE. And it was risk free because Bush had had
his goverment look it over and the sale would not have proceeded
had their been any security risks.

Those two words tell you how Bush perceives his position in
this country and in this world. "..my government.."
Listen to the tone, the inflections of the whole sentence and
you will understand the driving force behind every decision,
every deal, every tantrum, every blurb that George Bush utters.

Shades of Imelda Marcos and her view of 'the little people!'

How did Hussein beat bin Laden into Court?

2006-02-09T11:51:00.000-05:00

Several years back, I told the people in a Yahoo Group
that it is possible that electing G.W.Bush as President
may be the best thing this country has done. I based that
on the presumption that he, Bush, will probably be the
best example, by word and deed, of showing this country
just how easily this country can be lead down a path of
near-total corruption and destruction, much like Nazi
Germany, much like Enron. It is possible that he, better
than anyone else, will bring into focus this country's
pursuit of the dollar and "me-ism" [as if money were
the end-all and not the means to an end, and the 'me'
was in a race to accumulate more of it than all of the
other "me's" in the world] before it realizes that this
experiment is not going in a direction we as a nation
particularly relish.

Ironically, I see a government being run pretty much as
the corporation Enron, according to Eichenwald's book
Conspiracy of Fools, i.e., a government bent on creating
its own rules without giving any thought, understanding
or concern as to why the old rules were put in place.

"WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney shrugged off
congressional criticism of the Bush administration's
domestic eavesdropping program Tuesday...

He also expressed little interest in working with
Congress to settle legal disputes."

Shades of Enron!

So, in listening to a morning radio talk show, I was
struck with a question posed as to why Bush didn't get
the FISA rules changed to make wiretapping, etc.,
legal when he was presented with the opportunity .
I think, actually, the answer was given in that same
broadcast. It is such that should a case ever be
brought up about prosecuting someone based on evidence
gathered via an illegal action on the part of law
enforcement, that evidence would not be allowed in a
courtroom.

VOILA!

There is your answer. The logical conclusion is
that the survelliance and wiretapping is not being
done solely for the purpose of gathering information
strictly on terrorists and terrorists related
activities, and such ulterior purposes could easily
come to light in a court of law.

"In an address last October, Bush said the United
States and its allies had foiled at least 10 serious
plots by the al-Qaida terror network in the last
four years, including plans for Sept. 11-like attacks
on both U.S. coasts."

Note the use of the word "foiled." The article from
which this quote was taken, even though lengthy,
only mentions one case of someone being arrested
and being held for prosecution. And the other nine?
Good luck on finding that information.

So, it is not now and never has been the intention
of the Bush government to actually prosecute and jail
terrorists!
It is not now and never has been the intention of the
Bush administration to find and prosecute ben Laden!

Witness:

Remarks by the President After Two Planes Crash Into
World Trade Center - Emma Booker Elementary School -
Sarasota, Florida 9:30 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is a
difficult moment for America.
Today we've had a national tragedy. Two airplanes
have crashed into the World Trade Center in an
apparent terrorist attack on our country. I have
spoken to... and have ordered that the full resources
of the federal government go to help the victims
and their families, and to conduct a full-scale
investigation to hunt down and to find those folks
who committed this act. Terrorism against our nation
will not stand." -White House (9/11/01)

Presidential Response, Barksdale Air Force Base near
Shreveport, Louisiana, September 11, 2001 12:36 P.M. EDT
"Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless
coward and freedom will be defended. I want to reassure
the American people that the full resources of the federal
government are working to assist local authorities to save
lives and to help the victims of these attacks. Make no
mistake: The United States will hunt down and punish those
responsible for these cowardly acts."

Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation
8:30 P.M. EDT
"The search is underway for those who are behind these evil
acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence
and law enforcement communities to find those responsible
and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction
between the terrorists who committed these acts and those
who harbor them."
["...and those who harbor them." hint, hint.
Was this our first indication that it had already
been decided that we were going to war with Iraq, a
country later described as 'harboring terrorists.']

Yet:
-- President George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not
our priority."

This administration that makes extensive use of 'it may'
and 'it might' and 'what if.' So, should an actual occurance
of those mights and mays ever come into being and be
tried in the field of reality, the House of Maybe would
be seen for exactly what it is, a created scenario
simply for the furtherance of those who prey on confusion,
created by themselves. The plan has been there all along...
make a new reality based on what you want it to be!

The war on Iraq and the war on terrorism were created
by the Bush administration. They created it based on a
lie and now they must support the original lie with
another lie, and with another, and another, etc.
We all know how this works. We did it as children,
until we learned that it doesn't work. But this is what
the Bush administration is doing in order to support it.
In turn, it makes THEM essential to the running of this
country according to their new policies using their new
rules (see Conspiracy of Fools).

Yet not one initiative with anything near the weight of
the dollars and number of people that have been provided
for the war in Iraq or terrorism has been made to
bring other oppressive and bloodletting governments to
their knees in Africa or anywhere else in the world.
Why?

Nor has the amount of effort to stop the spread and use
of cocaine and other drugs from entering this country
been expended as has been spent on the effort to bring
a rather odd definition of democracy to just one country
in the middle east.
Why?

Nor has any amount of money nearing the halfway mark for
the war in Iraq been spent to solve the emmigration
problem that is, in fact, at our borders.
Why?

Nor has an equal amount of effort been expended to find
Osama ben Laden, the confessed instigator of 9/11, and
bring him to justice as has been spent in bringing
Hussein, a 'may be,' a 'could be,' a 'might be,'
'possible' threat, to a court of law.
Why?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not
our priority."
-- President George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

And if terror against the U.S. in order to bring about
change was the goal of ben Laden, why has he been
underground and quiet for so long? Was he really just
a one-time shooting star? Has his role been played out
to its end and he is now behind the scenes helping
with the props?

And if justice, by Bush's definition, is a goal, why has
he been so lax in pursuing Public Enemy No. 1, the one
person who could create another 9/11-type event at any
time?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and
really don't care. It's not that important. It's not
our priority."
-- President George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

Why is President Bush, instead of relentlessly pursuing
ben Laden with the blinding zeal of someone intent on
extracting justice, only adding to the deaths of 9/11
with an additional 2000+ soldiers killed in Iraq, and
more being added daily?

Shouldn't he be saying "Enough is enough. Either win
this thing or come home!"?

How did Hussein beat bin Laden into court?

Keeping the Pot Stirred

2006-02-09T11:26:00.000-05:00

And to keep the pot stirred, not only does Bush make
an unnecessary comment on the erupting reaction in
the Middle East to an intended religiopolitical cartoon,
Ms Rice also jumps in with both feet to fuel the fire.

And this had to do with the United States....how?

Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.

Is Double-speak the NEW Order!

2006-02-09T10:19:00.000-05:00

Vice President Dick Cheney said, as regards the violence
erupting from the militant Muslims over the recently
published cartoon of Prophet Muhammad, "..violence is not
justified in terms of what's happened there."

Does this mean that he believes violence is justified for
some events happening elsewhere?

Would you buy a used car from this man?

...and the budget for Peace includes 15 billio...

2006-02-03T16:24:00.000-05:00

Yahoo News, Feb 03, 2006:

Re the new military budget:

"Echoing characterizations by Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, the plan calls China the greatest future threat,
saying that country has "the greatest potential to
compete militarily with the United States."

Future threat!
At what age does Donald stop seeing monsters under his
bed and in his closet? At what point do the children
in charge of our country talk about peace? When? Is
peace not in the budget or the agenda?

Will China be our next war, after Iran? Are we lining
them up, or what?
Let's just say it now, to every country, "FUCK YOU!," and
let the next 15 administrations deal with the
consequences! Let's just continue to BULLY our way
through the next 3 years.

Isn't increasing the budget for the military the same as
admitting that we can't handle what's on our plate now
with what we've got? And who doled out the portions that
are on that plate?

and:
"The figures did not include about $50 billion that Bush
administration officials said Thursday they would request
as a down payment for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
in 2007. The administration said war costs for 2006 would
total $120 billion."

Wait a minute! Was I just hearing things when Bush said,
way back there, that the oil in Iraq would pay for the
war? And whatever happened to the slight disagreement
over who would get how much of Iraq's oil at the
onset of this war? Did Russia get what they wanted?
Did France? Did Spain? Did the US?

'Just say NO' to Mr. Bush

2006-02-03T07:07:00.000-05:00

Mr. Bush's budget reminds me of a crack addict. Keep asking
for MORE, MORE, MORE! Got to have that fix! Everything else
is of no consequence.

Promise, promise promise. But this is not money that will be
paid back. But where is it coming from? This is money that
is coming out of citizens pockets, every single day and is
going into the pockets of military manufacturers, weapons,
rockets, munitions. Money you will never see again. This
war budget is what you are working for, in your jobs, in
your offices, at your desk, on the ladder, in the ditch.
It's not an investment in Americas future, the sciences,
health, peace, a prosperous world for all of us, etc.
This is your money at work for killing someone you don't
even know and won't even make an effort to know. You let
bush tell you what you need to know and no more. Is that
how you learn about your neighbors, your friends?

But it's your money. YOUR MONEY! Is this really the way
you want your money spent? To Kill?

And where is the money for a decent breakfast for a
homeless person? The poor and elderly? But we're
christians, aren't we? Aren't we? Really? How can you tell?
And the christians keep silent, just like they did in the
20's, 30's and 40's. I guess christians love war too.
Kill, kill, kill for Jesus. My way or no way. I'm right
even when I'm wrong because I'm the King. I am Jerusalem!
I am the President!

This is for Mr. Bush's aggrandizement and bush's friends.
Leader of the FREE world? FREE? FREE? Only to mr. bush.

Where are the voices of dissent? Where are the citizens who
are paying for this? Do you really approve of war. And we
let the media convince us that Goldwater was a war-monger!
Whooo! whooo!
He was a wuss compared to bush. Has bush donned his
blue turban yet? Just how far into hell will Americans
let him lead us before we wake up and realize it's too late?

When is enough, enough? Just say NO to Bush!

LIVE by the GUN, DIE by the GUN

2006-01-24T17:24:00.000-05:00

Intelligence be dammed!

enuff said

Shoot to KILL!

2006-01-20T16:17:00.000-05:00

How many policemen does it take to kill a high school student?

Obviously, as many as wants to join in.

But of more concern to me is where did this notion that any
and all armed suspects are automatically targets for
police pistol-practice and it became Standard Operating
Procedure?
Where did we get the idea that a sharpshooter MUST aim
for vital organs? It sort of makes a lie of the title of
"sharpshooter," doesn't it?

Shouldn't a police officer be instilled with the idea that in
order to disarm a suspect with a weapon, or dummy weapon,
a well placed bullet to the knee or elbow would be sufficient
to cause an armed person to change their focus, their stance
or possibly drop the weapon altogether?

Is "Drop it NOW or DIE!" the only options?

GOVERNMENT OF THE LOBBYIST, FOR THE LOBBYIST, AND ...

2006-01-19T14:56:00.000-05:00

Recently the state of Tennessee
concluded a sting operation
in an attempt to try and catch
various state congressmen
accepting value bestowed for
value given, i.e., money in
exchange for their entering
legislation favorable to the
parties of the 'value given.'

As explained by Wikipedia:
"Operation Tennessee Waltz
was a sting operation set up
by federal and state law
enforcement agents, including
the FBI and TBI, that led
to the arrest of seven
Tennessee state lawmakers who
were suspected of corruption
in the past, on the
morning of May 26, 2005 on
bribery charges." [note the
word "suspected"]

FBI and TBI agents, posing as
'representatives of E-Cycle,'
a bogus company purporting to
be dealers in defunct electronic
equipment, requested of these
lawmakers certain favors, mainly
a bill allowing the company to
do business in Tennessee.
Even though laws allowing such
a business interaction did get
entered into the legislative
process, none ever became actual
law. In exchange for entering
these 'requested favorable laws,'
the lawmakers were paid sums of
money ranging from $5000 to $55,000.

[One interesting side note about
Wikipedias accounting of the
sting operation is its' reference
to a newspaper article appearing
in the Chattanooga Times-Free
Press on May 26. Wikipedia notes
that the article "...mentions
E-Cycle in passing, as if it was
a real company."
Exactly why Wikipedia should make
special note of this is curious,
especially when, further down in
their own accounting of the operation,
they state, more than once: "...had a
conversation with a representative
of E-Cycle..," and "...discussed with
a representative of E-Cycle...," and
"...a representative of E-Cycle met
with...," all of these references are
to so-called "representatives" of a
company that did not exist... and
this is known to Wikipedia!!!???
Yet they reference 'the representatives'
as if they were really 'genuine
representatives.' but of a bogus company,
or, to use their own words, "...as if
it was a real company." (with real
representatives!) Duhhh!]

As pointed out by a noted local radio
talk show host, the Federal or state
law enforcement agents apparently gave up
on catching the participants 'in the act'
of breaking the law during the course of
their daily activities. Instead, they saw
themselves as 'being forced' to set up a
dummy corporation with a phony website
(as proof of their existence) and
entice/lobby certain congressmen to
fulfill their expectations of suspicions
of previous wrong-doings so that an
arrest could be facilitated and their
paychecks earned.

The entire operation was based on
a lie. The dummy corporation impersonated
a legimate business. Is that legal?
The 'officers' of the dummy corporation
did commit a crime in attempting to bribe
congresspeople (that is illegal) as did
the congressmen in accepting the bribe.
Yet, only the congressmen were charged
with any crimes!

How is this justice? How does it come
about in this country that in order to
catch a thief it becomes necessary to
steal something? In other words, is it
justice that in order to catch someone
breaking the law, it is ok to break other
laws for the sole purpose of creating
a criminal situation for which the
intended 'criminal' may (or may not)
participate and consequently be arrested?

This is so basic to politics in this
country that to point it out is somewhat
embarassing, yet we tend to forget that
it is at the very core of our problems
today.

In the case of the sting operation
called "Tennessee Waltz," the glaring
reason that the only people who were
charged with criminal intent were the
congresspeople and not the perpetrators
of the crime is because the sting
operation was carried out by the
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and
the FBI. And the only absolute
singular reason that no members of the
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation or
the FBI were charged with any crimes
is because... and get this, it is very
important... they were given special
exemption of the law.

And therein lies the very core of what
is wrong with our politics. Whether at
a state level or a national
level, it does not take a lifetime
career to propose and vote for or against
the laws that are necessary for this
country to operate.
What does take or will take one's entire
lifetime hence a career, is the nuances
needed to make sure that someone gets
special treatment or special exemption
or special favors under that law which is
being proposed.

Just in general, these are bad laws.
Any law that cannot be applied to every
citizen and/or corporation in each
and every instance that the law
addresses, is a bad law. It is that
simple. You can slice it, dice it or
toss it, but if you feel you must to
object to that statement, then you are
really asking for special treatment
for yourself or someone or some federal
program you just happen to, well.., like.

Congress, on the federal level, should
not even consider any law that cannot be
applied to every citizen in every
state in every instance equally. They have
been elected to represent the voice of
their state, i.e., every citizen that
lives in that state. They come together
in a room wherein they are lawmakers of
not only the people that they represent,
but the citizens of the entire nation.
They are bound by trust to consider
laws that are equitable and just to all
of those citizens. They also
represent us to the rest of the world.

Once special privileges are
allowed into the halls of congress,
everything, everything, of which
that congress deals is up for grabs.
Special favors then becomes the focus
of concentration and the norm.
Equitable laws are essentially no
longer a value to be sought.
Bickering, swapping, trading and
cutting deals, openly or behind closed
doors, are our new national values.
Debate, worthy consideration and just
solutions are of no concern in a
congress intent on obtaining special
privileges for a few. Yet that is
how we are now being represented.

You see, the question should not
be WHO receives special treatment,
although this is the BIG question
with which our congress wrestles,
the question should be that special
treatment is given to anyone at all.

And this is different from a sting
operation --how?

In a sting operation, congresspeople
are enticed to accept favors, usually
monetary, for bills and laws being
entered into the business of congress
for possible passage, i.e., sufficitent
others seeing no objections to the bills.
But note, the 'others' receive no
monetary gain and are probably not even
aware that they could have been
paid to vote the way they would have
voted anyway!
In a sting operation, because it is
specifically created to cause someone
to break a law, results in only the
receivers of money to be arrested.

In another world, far, far, away,
and on the national level, it is the
grantors of money, gifts, tickets,
trips, etc., that get arrested and
not the receivers of the money!!
Go figure!
In that world, the givers of the
money are arrested and prosecuted.
In that world, the receivers of the
money are essentially immune to
prosecution.

And we wonder why our children are
confused and can't seem to get
along or cope in this world!

A SMALL FINANCIAL WARNING!

2006-01-13T11:08:00.000-05:00

Has anyone else encountered a change in the processing
of their Debit/Credit card?

Up until now, I have always used my Debit/Credit card as
a CREDIT card. Using it that way, I have to sign a slip
of paper for every purchase I make. Since my signature
is a little different from the name on my checking
account and my card, should a question ever come up
as to whether or not I did in fact make such a purchase,
all I had to do was see the signed receipt for the
purchase and would know immediately if it was my
signature, and, specific characteristics of my
signature could be stated even without my seeing
the signature.

Questions have arisen due to the fact that some stores
have a store-front name, but the ownership of the store
was in a different name. Having visited a patient in a
hospital at a time when meals were being served to the
patients, I availed myself of the restaurant and paid
with my Debit/CREDIT card. The name appearing on my
statement later seemed to bear no relationship to the
hospital and the 'unknown' charge alarmed me, until I
figured out the date and time of the charge.

Now, a new situation has ocurred that is alarming to me.
Recently, I used my Debit/CREDIT card at a Macdonald's
for an unschudeled breakfast. The charge was approximately
$4.50. I was handed no receipt to sign. I inquired as to
the signing of the receipt and was told it wasn't
necessary. Hmmmm. Disturbing, to say the least.

Thinking that perhaps this was a new policy instituted
by Macdonald's or my 'credit' card company, I called my
bank to inquire. My bank said to call Macdonald's.
I didn't pursue the matter any further.

Recently, I made another small purchase at a Walgreen's
and again used my 'credit' card. Again, no recipt was
handed to me for signing! I asked why. The response was
that the purchase was under $25. And, as far as the
clerk was concerned that took care of everything.

So, what this means is that if you lose your card or
it gets stolen or you just arent' aware for several days
that it is no longer in your purse or wallet, quite a
bill can be run up around town on small purchases.
For either of these two purchases, no one asked for
supporting identification. They just accepted the
swiping of the card and handed me my purchased
items.

I'm not real happy with this new 'rule' by 'whomever'
and will probably curtail the use of my card from now
on. However, this is probably the desired outcome by
'the powers that be' as they probably found the processing
of signature receipts to be somewhat overwhelming.
Well, excuse me, wasn't that the whole purpose for issuing
such Debit/Credit cards, to make your use of their
services easier on the banks?

Like the Post Office and automation, the Banks and Credit
Card companies institute a service to speed up the use of
their services, make it more automated/digital and
attractive to probable users. Then, years down the road,
they complain about that very service being too costly
and attempt to curtail it, expand it (usually a 'package'
deal with features you don't need or use but that will
cost you more in the long run), charge more for it or
eliminate it altogether!

The people in the board meeting have come up with a
"solution" to a nagging problem and are very pleased
with their implementation of a new idea.
Generally, I wind up finding and changing to a smaller,
hungrier bank with fewer 'packaged services.'

Are you still with the very same Bank with which you
opened your first checking account?

Pat Robertson, Jim Jones, et al

2006-01-10T16:17:00.000-05:00

Why is it that every time I hear about a new
comment by Pat Robertson on world events, I
think of Jim Jones?

I'm not going to explain this association. I'm
just going to wait and see if anyone else
makes the connection.

OIL PRICES....YIPES!

2005-12-09T14:50:00.000-05:00

How in the world did we get the point where
a product that affects just about every human
on the face of the earth is priced --at the
retail level-- according to 'current expectations'
of what the product "might" cost to produce
tomorrow?

What kind of capitalism is this?

Automobiles are priced at the retail level according
to how much it cost to produce the automobile. True,
many factors are figured into that cost, but the cost
remains constant until time to release new models.

Clothes bleach is priced at the retail level
according to how much it cost to produce.

A loaf of bread is priced at the retail level
according to how much it cost to produce that loaf.

Ice cream is priced in the store according to how
much it cost to produce that quart or pint.

Are any little lights blinking on and off over your
head?

Coffee is the product closest to home and with which
we may be most familiar as regards temporary price
increases (in the next shipment) due to the coffee
bean crop being wiped out by storms or because the
burro used by Juan Valdez to bring all that coffee
to the shipping docks got sick or sprained his ankle.

Gasoline is the one product that you can witness
an increase in the price of, i.e., watch the store
clerk changing the billboard sign out on the street)
while you are filling your gas tank and there is not
a tanker unloading gasoline nor is their a tanker in
sight, up or down the street.

Ice cream is a certain price in the store, even if
the delivery truck has a disastrous accident while
delivering and the cream is melting all over Interstate
53. The ice cream that is still in the freezer
at the grocery store doesn't shoot up in price because
there may not be another truck available to refill the
freezer!

This is not complicated, people. It is only complicated
because there are people who want you to think that it
is far too complicated a consumable product of such
scientific wonderment and exact molecular constrictures
that it affects the fireworks display and your focused
attention to their bursting confizzments in transcendental
exuberant cosines and decompositional limitations while
fermenting in vast vatular stovements of precise heat
for you to understand.

Think again.

GETTING RICH!

2005-12-09T14:47:00.000-05:00

Remember folks, everything out there, everything,
is designed to take money out of your pocket and
put it in someone else's. How are you going to
even begin to have money if you keep giving it to
someone else, for things you really don't need?

All that you actually NEED, is food and shelter.
Everything else is whipped cream.

Where are your intelligence sources now?

2005-12-01T15:38:00.000-05:00

Mr. President, you had more intelligence than anyone
could digest in a month's time and got us into this
war. Where is your intelligence now? What are they
doing? Sitting around watching the war? Why are you
letting our guys get picked off one-by-one over there?

If this war is so dammed important for YOU, go over
there and lead your Armies yourself! Ceasar did.

White man speaks with forked tongue...

2005-11-28T10:07:00.000-05:00

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?

2005-11-23T12:04:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-16T13:04:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-11-16T11:59:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-15T11:37:00.000-05:00

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!

2005-11-15T11:17:00.000-05:00

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!!

2005-11-08T09:56:00.000-05:00

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????

2005-11-07T17:39:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-07T17:27:00.000-05:00

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!

2005-11-04T13:24:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-11-04T11:44:00.000-05:00

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!

2005-11-02T10:56:00.000-05:00

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

2005-11-01T10:38:00.000-05:00

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.

Search engines-who pays the most?

2005-10-31T15:13:00.000-05:00

Since starting this blog thing, occasionally I go to
the Google search page and enter the title of a blog
I have posted. The 'search' can be a copy/paste of the
title, but when Google gets through searching, about
80 or 100 sites are listed that have varying degrees
of relatedness BEFORE my blog listing shows up!

What is this?

Why are all of these sites listed first? Some don't
really even relate. If an important person's name
(read that 'in the news,' in 'politics,' in the
entertainment field, in any current event)
is the same as one of the words in the search request,
that link will show before a direct quote request!

I guess they are paying for that position on the
page of links, hmmmm?

How much does it cost to be the number 15 listed link?
The number 35 listed link? Don't even think of going
for Number 1, 2 or 3, way out of my price range!

I know, this is just a blog. However, I have also
noted this same occurance when searching for other
phrases. My request never comes out as the first
listed link. Who needs to search the searches?

the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER'S SURVEY

2005-10-29T19:06:00.000-04:00

The day before yesterday, I received in the mail
a survey mailed out by Senator Frist. Normally, I
don't do surveys. If you really read the questions,
rarely do they ask questions properly, or a least
the way I would like them to be asked.

For instance; Question No. 3-
"Should we ban human cloning for experimental purposes
even if there might be some promise for future
treatments?"
[Answers available to all questions on the survey:
Yes, No, Undecided.]

What a can of worms this question is.
First, if you answer NO-don't ban the experiments, then
your answer can be construed to be for human cloning AND
future treatments.
If you answer YES (for banning), then you are obviously
against future treatments also!

Question No. 4-
"Should Congress continue to pursue a Constitutional
amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man
and a woman?"

I love this one! But, what's the point of asking this
question?
The question clearly states that Congress is 'already
pursuing' an amendment regardless of how I answer the
question! And, it then says that if I answer NO, then
I am against "protecting" future marriages of
heterosexuals. How could anyone be against marriages,
although there is an argument for that scenario? And
what has Congress ever "PROTECTED?" If the government
wants your land for a highway and you don't want to
sell, is Congress going to let you keep your land?
How many litigations do you need to sift through before
you get the idea?

Here's another one: Question NO. 5.-
"Should the United States increase spending to protect
its borders and coastlines?"

So, this tells us that CONGRESS is already spending
money to protect our borders and coastlines.
(note how the question shifts from Congresses' to
The United States' responsibility? That's because the
question involves spending money and
this question distances Congress from the act of spending
money!)
Exactly 'from what' the question doesn't say. Are there
invading armies lined up at our borders?
Except for 9/11, I haven't read of anyone attacking us
from across our borders. And, as for 9/11, whatever we
were already spending didn't seem to be enough, did it?
The kind of attack that ocurred on that day will
never see enough money to prevent it from happening again.
Yet, ironically, they didn't ask us in a survey if we
should spend lots of money for us to attack another
country across our borders (and on the other side of the
world), but then, protecting our borders really isn't as
important as getting re-elected, or the next photo-op,
is it?

Here's a tricky one: Question NO. 41.-
"Do you favor increasing federal spending on research into
renewable energy resources, such as wind and solar energy
and hydrogen fuel cells?"

First of all, I'm not so sure that it is the governments
place to spend our money on any research that the government
will not then give the results, in a tangible way, back to
the people that funded that research, us. When the government
spends money on researching... anything, it is the
entreprenuers that benefit, not the people. If the
entreprenuers are going to benefit, let the entreprenuers
pay for the research. They will pay for the research if
there is sufficient demand for whatever it is they are
considering. That's called 'supply and demand.' Or, if the
government is going to do the research, sell the results
to the entreprenuers... at a profit!

So, the questions I have presented really don't deserve an
answer from me.
But, for question 2, my answer is YES ban human cloning. The
"promise of future treatments" will not be diminished by
stopping cloning. Other treatments will be forthcoming.
The question should not be an 'either/or' question.

Question NO. 4? I am really saddened by this question.
I don't think it is congresses' place to legislate the joining
of anyone in marriage. At first, the "official congressional"
response was to let the states take care of this question.
Now, congress seems intent on coming down on one side or the
other. What brought on this change?
I'm sort of like Gore Vidal when essentially the same question
was put to him. Two people, man/woman or woman/woman or man/man
want to get married. So? What's that to me? I don't care! It
doesn't affect me! It doesn't affect me anymore than when my
mom asked me whether I would object to her remarrying,
15 years after my father had passed away. I told her that if
she thought this man, whom I had not met, could make her happy,
Go For It! She's the one who would have to live with him, not me!
I would tell two women or two men the same thing.
The first racially mixed couple I saw walking down a street
in Nashville Tennessee about 30 years ago didn't bother me as
far as they were a black man and a white woman. I was
concerned about their safety in being so bold as to walk down
the street holding hands, in this part of the country. But, they
appeared to be very happy. Good. I went about my own business.

Try rephrasing that question for better accuracy. Try 'Should
Congress pursue a Constitutional amendment to DEFINE marriage
as the union of only a man and a woman?'
Rephrase Question No. 3 to read 'Should we ban human cloning
for experimental pruposes?'
Rephrase Question No. 5 to read 'Should Congress increase spending
on border patrols?'

And here's an interesting note, in the Instructions is the request
to "...return your completed Survey in the next 7 days to ensure
accurate and controlled sample results for your voting district."

H-m-m-m-m. "Controlled sample results." What is that? Obviously
my answers will be a sample of my opinions, so that leaves
'controlled results.' "Controlled" by whom? "Controlled" how?
If my answers are disagreable, does that mean that my answers will
find their way to the round file? Is that how they will be "controlled?"

I just don't like surveys. The questions are rarely straight-
forward. Generally, they are slanted to get a positive response
to questions already decided but need a head count of those
who agree.

Term Limits is still looking better and better.

The GREATEST Show On Earth!

2005-10-27T13:56:00.000-04:00

The circus?
No.
The United States.

Can you imagine what the rest of the world
must be thinking as they read our headlines
or see us on television.

I'm reminded of a song from the movie "GYPSY"
that goes something like:

"Let me - entertain you,
Let me - make you smile,

Let me do some old tricks,
And then I'll do some new tricks,

I'm very ver-sa-tile."

and then,

"This is my country, Land that I love!!!!"
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
And I do, love this country. It is the best situation
comedy on the planet.

Some senators want guarantees from Ms. Miers.
Actually, that isn't correct. They don't want
a judge, what they want is Ms. Miers on the bench with
strings leading to their office so that they can
tell her when to jump and how high.

And these people "represent" the entire population
of a state? Oh woe is that state.

Term limits is looking better and better.

It is time to TAX THE CHURCHES!

2005-10-27T09:58:00.000-04:00

In my state, Tennessee, religious institutions and
organizations, among others, are given a tax-free
status. That is, by producing a piece of paper
issued by the Tennessee Department of Revenue that
shows a Sales & Use number, purchases made in the
name of and for the use of the church will not be
charged sales tax on those purchases.

I grew up with this fact and have, for most of my
life, agreed with its concept. Ironically, I was taught
that this country was founded by people who wanted
to escape religious persecution. They wanted the
freedom to embrace whatever religion they chose or
choose to embrace no religion at all.
Now, in this century, we are witnessing more than
ever, the lessening of the separation of church and
state. Once again the Church(es) is looking for
more power over its flock. They find it in politics.
Politics is not becoming more spiritual but
Churches are becoming more political.
Most people will not say anything even if they
disagree because they or their parents are members
of those churches.

So I will speak.

It is time to tax the churches. Tax their purchases,
tax their land, tax their buildings, tax their income.
If the church is going to have a say in my political
life, then it is time for them to share the burden of
their existence, with no more free rides.
Being tax exempt throws the burden of filling in their
missing monies onto the very people who can least afford
it, and, it is also an under-the-table form of discrimination.

It is time to tax the churches.

Antonio Banderas and Emma Thompson's movie

2005-10-26T22:51:00.000-04:00

I have just finished watching their movie "Imagining Argentina."
A sad but honest commentary on just how cruel man can be to his
fellow man. A little bit of power goes a long way.

This movie is about the dictatorship of Argentina back during
the 1970's-1980's. I remember the mother's marching in the
square. Either I read about it or saw it on television, but
it was real. It happened.

The chill that this movie gave to me was that the Gestapo was
the model for these who were in power in Argentina. The
hangers-on who were enjoying the favor of those in power just
looked the other way, pretended not to notice or that whatever
was going on didn't have anything to do with them. The world
at large seemed to see nothing either. Again.

______________________________________

I don't know what the experiment is that the 'world civilization'
is trying but it seems pretty harsh. Has the "ME" generation
finally reached an age where they have taken over the leadership
of the worlds governments? Because it certainly appears to be
reflected in the leadership of this country.
_______________________________________

I also wonder, since I don't thoroughly understand the connection,
what the peoples ringing the Gulf of Mexico are so angry about. Is
something going on in that ring that we are not getting from the
media? It takes a lot of 'energy' to create the weather havoc that
we are witnessing in that area. What kind of 'energy of the people'
is being expressed in the weather there?
________________________________________

And are we going to let the people stranded by the earthquake
and weather in Pakistan to just.... freeze to death? Is that their
lot in life, to show the world just how uncaring it is, once again?

We can instantly spend billions of dollars on up-to-the-minute
military weapons and whatever is needed to get those weapons to
the war scene, because someone or some country "may" be a threat
to our way of life, but we bitch and bicker while considering how
to spend money that will improve that way of life.
_________________________________________

For some strange reason, the United States loves to contradict
itself. You would think that its very survival depended on those
contradictions.

A President in the U.S. can only serve two terms in office. Why?

Yet the people who can create more waste, who can pillage the
states and consequently a bigger area, who can enmasse make bigger
and better mistakes are allowed to remain in office for a life time.
These people of power can carry over their 'status-quo' from one
President to the next, to the next, to the next, and we pretend
that it is the President who retains all the power to run the country.

If you ever want change, substantial change in this country, if you
ever want new ideas, fresh ideas, current ideas to be considered in
this country, you are going to have to also place a limit how long
the power holders have to come up with those ideas. A man/woman who
figures they have a comfortable 20 or 30 or 50 year time span in
office to really solve this countrys problems is not going to put
their best ideas on the table tomorrow morning. They spend their
first term learning the ropes. The second term is spent trying to
get on some committee or other. The third term sees an occasional
blurb in a newspaper. The fourth term is the 'acceptance' term
whereby they become "one of boys" and more publicity. The fifth
term begins to show a few signs of 'leadership' in getting a bill
to the floor, finally. The sixth term is the "I'm accepted
(entrenched) now" term and you can begin to see the results of
the 'cronyism' that lines their pockets, their homes, their jaunts,
their parties, their inside information (aka investments, probably
in other states)
With all of that to look forward to, you will not get their best
today or tomorrow, its way too early in the game.
It just ain't gonna happen!

I AM GOD! Well, maybe the next best thing.

2005-10-26T14:04:00.000-04:00

From YAHOO News, 10/25/05 AP release

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize
Israel or normalize relations with it.

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will
wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world,"
Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called
"The World without Zionism."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic
nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist
regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the
Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said."

___________________________________________

Isn't this so typical of man, the new god of the universe.
Give people a choice, an "either/or" choice with no way out, except
the way the proclaimer wants! There is no middle ground here, no hope
of reconciliation, no living in peace. You accept his way or no way!
YOU WILL DIE! But even worse, you will die AN INFIDEL!
INFIDEL (in this case): anyone who doesn't do what I say. I AM
THE LIGHT, THE WAY! I and I alone will lead you to ......? fade out

This man reminds me of a character in the movie "Kingdom
of Heaven."
His retort was something like, "I am the king. I am Jerusalem."

Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be attempting to blur the line
between being a mere mortal coping with the world he lives in and
himself being the Islamic world.

Misinformation, Part 2

2005-10-25T11:13:00.000-04:00

The previous 'essay' on misinformation recalls to mind another
scenario of similar duplicity in information.

Whether read in a book, newspaper or magazine or possibly even
heard on radio, I don't remember. I just remember the incredulity
I felt when discovering that many "facts" that are frequently
"quoted" in these same media are not facts at all, but are
conjectures on someone's part that, once stated, begins to take
on a life of their own.

The source of this strange myth-making machinery was revealed so
deftly and so studiously and logically that to defy its conclusion
would be superscillious.

How all of this comes about, once you are shown its progress
step by step, you wonder that you ever accepted it from any
one as fact for anything other than your own insanity. But,
be that as it may, the misinformation marches own and rarely is
taken to task.

One scenario: tests are being run in a laboratory on the breakdown
of the content of the human body. The human body is composed of
solids, liquids and gases. Of the liquids, a percentage is water.
The water in the human body of an "average" sized person is the
equivalent of about six to eight glasses of water at any one time.

One of the researchers carries this little oddity home and, after
dinner, in front of the television, is reminded of it by a
commercial. He begins to think about this little fact that hasn't
appeared in any medical journal to date. His imagination begins to
dwell on the outflow of water and the intake of water in the human
body.
Another "fact" pops into his mind concerning the human dehydration
point. The conclusion reached is that to prevent dehydration, IN
A WORST CASE SCENARIO, a person would needed to have consumed 8
glasses of water that day.

The next day at the lab, he discusses this with a collegue, how long
could a person last in the desert, etc., and they agree on certain
points, the eight glasses of water being one of them.

Six months later, as they are filing their report, they include the
dehydration/8-glasses- of-water find. Another six months pass and a
congressman, who has read the report, mentions the 8 glasses of water
in one of his appeals for additional funds to the Health Department
of his state. Three days later the newspaper states the need for
humans to consume 8 glasses of water a day to prevent deyhdration
with the source of this "new health fact" as being the congressman
who read it in a medical journal. After a year or so have passed, the
'dehydration' part is dropped from any reporting and the fact
that humans need to drink 8 glasses of water a day becomes "common knowledge."

And misinformation marches own.

My own attesting to this myth parade ocurred when I was in high school.
One night I was watching the late news and reporters had zeroed in on a
prominent figure who was in/making the news at that time, for one thing
or another.
They buttoned-holed him on the steps of the statehouse as he was exiting
a hearing/questioning session. I listened to his answers intently.
I heard his responses clearly, I understood them. I was satisfied with
his answers.

The next morning, which was Saturday, as I ate my breakfast cereal, I
grabbed my favorite and honored newspaper and was dumbfounded by the
headlines. The headlines screamed words about the aforementioned
"interview" and said the very opposite of what I had heard!
My curiosity piqued, I avidly read every article about this situation
and was dumbstruck with what I read. The newspaper had twisted everything
that the man had actually said into the very opposite!

My love affair with newspapers was over. I never picked up an issue
of this paper after that and decided that if I don't see or hear
it for myself, I would never believe another newspaper again. To this
day, I rarely read a newspaper.

Now, how did they arrive at an opposite conclusion?

As I began to mull over this question, I began to understand the trail
of mis-information that often occurs more frequently than we realize.

The newspaper sent a reporter to cover the man's appearance before
a state congressional committee-no television reporters allowed.
The reporter jots down his notes on what the man said fairly accurately
and takes them back to the office. This would be good to include
somewhere in the next mornings edition.
At the 'news jam fest' wherein topics are considered for the morning
edition and what would appear on the front page and what would appear
in other sections, the reporters notes are discussed.
In the office, away from the actual event, the reporters notes are
either read or just related to the group.
The main point is that in this discussion, the reading back of notes
will, unless the reporter is extremely astute, drop the inflections
used by the interviewee. With inflections dropped, tone of voice not
heard and just words on a piece of paper as a source, words with no
life in them at all, allowing pauses at points other than at which
they had actually occured, etc., one can, by turning your head
sideways slightly, arrive at the entirely different conclusion than
was actually stated.
In their rush-meeting for the morning edition, the panel of reporters
and editors arrived at the opposite conclusion from what I had actually
heard on television.

The above instance is similar to the situation that occured in the
famous O.J.Simpson trial when a black attorney, questioning a white
policeman, drilled him on how he could possibly know that he was
talking to a black man on a telephone!
In 95% of the cases, I know when I am talking on the telephone to
a black person simply because of the above newspaper scenario. How
words are pronounced, tone of voice, inflections, slang expressions,
accents, etc., is how you tell if you are talking to a black person,
or a Mexican, or a Scandanavian, or an Australian , or my wife, or
my son, my daughter or anyone else on this planet, and anyone who
ignores those attributes just to keep from maybe being termed a
racist has committed a worse crime.

To this day I believe that that particular incident set the tone of
that trial in the jurors' minds and from that moment forward it
established a standard by which all subsequent evidence was judged.
I am not saying that O.J. was guilty because of this. I am saying
that the evidence that was presented after that tense moment,
was considered by the jury with a "can this be considered as
racist" shadow hanging over it. The hint and accusation was not
acutally stated but exposed by implication and it could not be
retracted.

And misinformation marches on.

Next subject please.............

Perpetuating Misinformation

2005-10-25T10:02:00.000-04:00

Mis-information can be big business.
This came to light recently when a company that my company
buys from heavily told us that our rating in Dun & Bradstreet
had dropped precipitiously! WHAT? We don't subscribe to
Dun & Bradstreet!
Later, checking over the report that was obtained by a
friendly third party, the facts of the 'misinformation' came
to light.

But first - many years ago, I was charged with the duty of filling
out a D & B report at the request of the company that employed
me at that time. One thing that stood out in my mind as strange
about the report was the actual lack of factual information
that was being requested by D & B. On that particular
form, I even ignored some of the questions.

When one considers these reports in light of large, multi-million
dollar corporations, I suppose the information can be quite good
at sizing up someone with whom you want or don't want to do
business. When coupled with small companys of 1 to 10 employees,
the lack of specific information can be quite damaging.

For example: at the time I filled out the report, I noticed
that the questions did not allow for actual dollar amounts
to be entered. They only asked for ranges of dollars, as in
$1 to $100 would be the answer to one question. In some cases,
the amount that should have been plugged in was between $1 to
$10, but that was not a choice on the form.
A contested amount of $10 or less, which could be a disputed
discount amount, generally 1 or 2 percent for paying within
10 days of the date of the invoice, or an inaccurately
applied sales tax to a non-taxable sale not being paid, is shown
by D & B as $100 past due! RED FLAG!
For a small company of 3 or 4 employees, this type of reporting
can send your blood pressure to the ceiling, especially when one
of the people you buy from considers it of sufficient importance
to point it out to you!
In the instance of my filling out one of their reports, amounts
between $1 and $45 were ignored and not recorded. Also, I knew
what the disposition of each case was and they were being
resolved, ergo, not reported to D & B.

All of the above "$1 to $100" is honestly reported information,
but it just isn't accurate. If you were reading a D & B report that
said your potential customer had a past due balance with one of
D & B's customer for "$100 or less," will you assume it to be $1.09 or
will you assume it to be $99.99?
From the person not paying sales tax on an item being legitimately
purchased for resale, to the bookkeeper who sees the outstanding
amount of $3.56 in sales tax, to that same bookkeeper filling
out a D & B form provided by the service to which his/her
company subscribes-that a particular customer has a past due
balance over two months old of $1 to $100, to D & B passing that
information on to one of its good customers, also a subscriber
and causing them concern, to that concerned vendor passing along
that information to its buyer, us, because they revere a D & B
report sufficiently to call their customer and voice their concerns.
It is all honestly reported, as it appears on paper.
What isn't being asked and reported on in a D & B form is the
equally important questions:

"Do you also purchase as well as sell to this customer?"
"Do you owe this customer any money?"
"Is that amount from $1000 to $5000?"
"Is that amount past due?"
"How long?"

You see, if you are not a subscriber to D & B, your side of the
story doesn't get told. You don't fill out a report on the company
who lists you as a "Past Due" account.

And misinformation marches on.

Military 2: This is War?

2005-10-21T13:53:00.000-04:00

I think it interesting that of all the things that we can do, we still cannot bring Ben Laden to a judicial court. And the search for him seems to have fizzled out, become less important than other 'scandoulous current events,' forgotten. The original reason sons and daughters are still dying in Iraq has been put on a backburner, so to speak, not only by our President but by the media. And all of the Nazi war criminals are still at large, aren't they? None have ever been brought to trial, have they?

Doesn't this strike you as strange? Is there anyone out there?

Yet we have people- in this coutry- who can accomplish anything, witness the "Mission Impossible" TV series and the latest movies.

I know what you are going to say, "But that's in the movies! They can do anything they want in a movie."
Yes, I agree.

But don't just stop there!

That is also creativity unencumbered by military rules and regulations and movements of masses of personnel and equipment. Creativity that isn't in lock-step with certain historically approved military maneuvers, modern day rules, approved logistics, tons of requisitions and forms.
Saddam Hussein's men had the creative genius to don civilian clothes in order to get close enough to our military personnel to wreak havoc, in a small way (if you consider the death of your son or daughter a minor inconvenience to the greater good).

[Is it just me or does this point out the rather dumb notion to 'dress properly' for war? We are going to kill people, but only 'certain' people, and only people dressed in a certain way. Are we declaring war against terrorist's or against certain costumes?]

Is there not sufficient money in our treasury to hire some of these creative people to accomplish a goal that the military and the CIA are ill-equipped to handle?

What do you think it would cost to hire a good detective writer, or several, to come up with a good undercover plot to find and abduct Ben Laden? It certainly seemed fairly easy to shoot John F. Kennedy, didn't it? and Ronald Regan? and Robert Kennedy? And they were paid..... how much?

I would almost be willing to bet that a couple of mil would hook a few authors to work out the plot and maybe a couple of mil more to hire the team, outfit them and transport them toBen Laden's door. And this would be a savings of ....how much money, how many lives?

Who is setting our priorities?

Of course, it seems only logical that when you already have a standing army and multi-billion dollar organizations and industries built around the possibility of war, that should war become a possibility, you will seek advice from.... guess who? Your Military Advisors! That makes sense. Doesn't it? And what kind of advice do you think you will get? Military solutions, maybe?
What if they weren't there?

War is stupid. It makes arms sellers rich and the grunts dead.

Gays In The Military

2005-10-21T10:55:00.000-04:00

And why not?

We've always had them. We will always have them.
But why is it so necessary for gays in the military to proclaim their gayness?
I don't understand that.

Do gays in a church choir proclaim their gayness?
Do gays in nursing-home care proclaim their gayness?
Do gays in real estate proclaim their gayness?
Do gays in typesetting proclaim their gayness?
Do gays in trucking proclaim their gayness?

Or,
Do bi-sexuals in architecture proclaim their ambisexousness?
Do bi-sexuals in photography proclaim their ambisexousness?
Do bi-sexuals on the assembly line proclaim their ambisexousness?
Do bi-sexuals in the music industry proclaim theirambisexousness?

Do right-handed people proclaim their hand preference when getting married?
Do tall people proclaim their exact height when buying a house?
Do brunettes declare their hair color on the marquee of the playhouse in which they are performing?
Do thin people declare their clothes sizes when buying a ticket to a concert?

No?
And, why not?
I'm glad you asked.

They don't proclaim it because:
A. They won't receive a diploma or certificate for proclaiming it.
B. They have a different order of priorities than those wishing to do so.
but mainly:
C. It really just isn't that important to their being a functioning human being.

If you are entering the military for the simple reason that there are so many males assembled just for you, then, yes, you need to declare your gayness, and, be REJECTED for duty! Personally, I don't want you on the front line 'defending my rights' because you have all ready negated my rights by putting your own rights above mine and everyone else's and that is not what this country and the military is about.

If you are gay and want to enter the military because you have a deep seated need to contribute to the protection of the "American Way of Life," and that includes gay's, then, by all means, join the military. I appreciate your wanting to protect me and my rights as well as my neighbors and I will defend your right to join the military. If you place your duty as a soldier above your sexual preference, then doesn't declaring your sexual preference suddenly get pushed further down the list of priorities? It sort of becomes a moot point.
Of course, you have to decide. Which is more important to you, telling everyone about your gayness and being gay or defending your country and the right to be gay in that country?

And as for those of you who use the old and worn blanket arguments against gays in the military, I can only say, "C'mon, get real!"
You are parrotting arguments that will make you acceptable to your other mindless friends and have refused, once again, the "painful" responsibility of thinking your own way through an issue.

Military 2: This is war?

Have You Ever Wondered Why...

2005-10-19T13:56:00.000-04:00

HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......we accept it as fact that no two snow flakes are alike?Is there any person, living or ortherwise, who has seen every snowflake that has ever fallen or will fall? Isn't it a little presumptious to assume that because 6000 snowflakes aren't identical that number 6001 is not going to look just like number 2379?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......todays "facts" are constantly replacing yesterday's 'facts'? I was taught that a fact was everlasting. Who taught me wrong? Why did they do that to me?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......even though man can't make a perpetual motion machine (or anything else perpetual, for that matter), like the revolving planets that rotate around molten interiors since the beginning of time, man still considers himself the measure of all things?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY....... yardologists recommend that we water our house plants and yards with water purified by a local utility company, which probably has some chemical(s) mixed in, but palm trees and other greenery thrive on water at the oceans edge, utilizing salt water? A calendar hanging on the wall in front of me shows an island with palm trees at the very edge of the ocean and whose roots will be covered by the ocean water (salt water) at high tide, yet they are very healthy!
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......those who have everything think that they are the only ones who are capable of setting the rules for those who seemingly don't have much of anything (except possibly peace of mind)? Of course, they do so from the perspective of their own experience and how they managed to get what they have. Often, they gloss over the criminal or immoral things that they did, but then, right and wrong has nothing to do with anything, does it?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......radio programs that sponsor "A Moment With Dr. I. Knowitall" will give you Dr. Knowitalls view of a medical situation, vitamin, diet or other nonsense situation today, and tomorrow, that same radio station will give the opposing view by a different doctor! Is medicine practiced on "opinions" or knowledge?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY......after they 'hang their shingle,' we say they are 'practising' medicine? Isn't that kind of like saying they are rehearsing? When do they put on the actual play? When do they stop practising and become doctors?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY.......a church condems pagan rituals while praising and singing hosannahs to accompany their own, currently correct, rituals, like passing the offering plate, being baptised or standing to sing some songs while sitting to sing others?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY....... video producers will find the absolute smallest type available in the entire universe to write technical information about the movie contained within the box. Information like-what language it is in, what language are the subtitles in, how long the movie runs, the lead star, who else is in the movie, is it wide-screen or fullscreen? This is all "technical" and unimportant information to the consumer, isn't it?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY....... video stores will put a video on the shelf as a "New Release" movie, but, when you rent it, you realize that this is the same movie you watched on a regular channel on local television about 5 months ago? The explanation is that it "is" a new release... to videos stores. Maybe video store owners should watch a little more tv and fewer videos.
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY......no one has ever caught on film, an insect being knocked out of the air by a rain drop?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY......videos makers will inflate the description of the movie on the box as being wonderfully everything; action, drama, special effects, love, sex, yet the description of the actual story is condensed to one short sentence?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY......producers of porn movies setup the fake stage sets, sometimes even with proper costumes, so that the"actors" can get right to the task at hand and the cameraman can do close ups of the mouth action? Is there a happy medium between porn and legit movies?
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY......a store manager will assign the answering of all incoming telephone calls to one of the two girls on the register, working feverishly to checkout the 10 people in line, while the manager and his/her four or five of assistants stand around, within 15 feet of the telephone, arms folded, surveying the landscape? Is there a law that says a store manager isn't allowed to answer a telephone, taking pressure off the cashier and showing the customer standing in line with money ready, that he was helping them to get through the line quicker?

more to come