Today I am going to share a letter with you that will not likely
see the light of day any where near the president, though it's
addressed to him,from a Marine that I know well. He is less of a
writer than I am but he asked me if I would clean this up a bit and
then post it on my blog. I will gladly do so. This Marine has spent
many years of his life serving his country in both war and peace, not
that we have had much peace lately, and has seen more of combat and
war than he would really want to see , if given the choice, but has
done his duty in an honorable and commendable manner.
His letter addresses the the idea that at a stroke of a pen, Mr.
Obama , has made it easier for doctors to submit information on
anyone who is even asking about mental health issues to the national
criminal back ground check for the intended purpose of possibly
denying them the right to own and keep fire arms.
Dear Mr. President,
I recently found out that your administration, at the stroke of a
pen, is trying to make it easier for doctors to violate their privacy
oaths, not to mention the privacy act of 1974, in order to be able to
submit names and information on any individual who even inquires
about getting some mental health help to the “National Criminal
Back Ground Check” data base for the purpose of keeping guns out of
the hands of “potentially dangerous” individuals.
I must commend you for showing your hand so boldly and for somehow
keeping this information out of most of the press. Very well played
Mr. President.
But here is where this all falls apart. By doing this you have
made absolutely sure that I, and many other combat veterans, will
never set foot any where near a mental health facility. Where would
be the incentive to do so? Many of us are gun owners. Why would I
want to risk losing my rights? I have spent most of my life as a
member of the armed forces and have been in more combat situations
then I care to remember, I have defended the Constitution that you
have sworn to uphold and have helped keep the proverbial wolf away
from the door. What exactly is my crime? Nightmares? Getting uptight
in a crowd? Being startled by loud noises? Of course , Mr. President,
you would not understand, because you have never served.
I don't suppose though that I should truly be surprised. Your
administration has done nothing for veterans and you have allowed for
DHS, amongst others ,to label all of us combat veterans as “potential
terrorists” while allowing real terrorists, The Muslim Brotherhood,
access to you in the White House.
When you ran for office ,the first time, many of us war veterans
were really hoping that you could actually bring about some hope and
change. You said you were going to end the wars and while Iraq
certainly has come to an end , for now anyhow, you have kept things
going in Afghanistan, even going so far as trying to keep us there
longer and have opened up new fronts in other countries bringing us
closer to an even larger scale war and ,as a result, have created
even more combat veterans ,of whom, you despise.
My humble advice to you is simple Mr. President. First end all the
wars and conflicts we are involved with, then stop with this nonsense
of putting honorable men and women at risk for mental health issues,
who might otherwise go for help, if it wasn't for your idea to make
their personal information available in a criminal back ground check.
We are Veterans not criminals.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Mr. Governor; Lets Try Tolerance
I am not a fan of cities. This is no secret. Give me woods and
wide open spaces and I become a rather happy camper, but close
quarters and tall buildings? No, I think not.
One of the cities I have avoided like the plague is New York. Growing up in the 60's and 70's all the movies portrayed New York as this gritty savage place ,full of violence and gang shootings ,and homeless wino's on every street corner. Not a very pretty picture.
Today, based on what I have been told, by folks who live there ,or at least nearby, and by friends who go there frequently that it's not so true anymore. In fact I have heard enough from them to convince me that not only would I like to go see it but that the people there are actually quite friendly to strangers and are most helpful.
But now, at least according to the Governor, I wouldn't be welcome in any NY city. It would appear that I may be to conservative for the governor and by extension the state it's self.
I'm not republican but I am pro guns. I am one of those guys who cling to my God and my guns. While I believe that every American should stand up for their gun rights I also recognize the fact that there are those who don't share that view and that is also their right. I believe in God , though I wouldn't be welcome in most houses of worship because of my very different views, but I understand and recognize that not everyone does and again that’s their right. This Mr. Governor is called “tolerance.”
I am pro life, though I make some exceptions ,as in the case of rape or incest, or if the mother is in danger, but again this is my view, my position. I might try to counsel a woman to have the child and give it up for adoption but I would not force the issue. I have many friends who are pro choice and I respect their right to be so. We may disagree, Mr. Governor, but my friends and I understand “tolerance.”
I guess what throws it way off though is that I am all for gay rights or should I say equal rights. If a gay or lesbian couple are consenting adults and they wish to be married then fine so be it, but I also respect the rights of those who oppose my views. Aside from it being a matter of free speech, it's called “tolerance” Mr. Governor.
My guess is that the NY governor could learn “tolerance” from my liberal friends in Vermont.
Vermont is a very liberal democrat leaning state. Conservatives are something close to an endangered species, yet though I was a self described conservative, when I lived there, 99% of my friends were, and still are, liberal,yet we can talk about everything from religion to politics, have friendly disagreements and still have a burger and a beer together. 20 years into these friendships and we are all still friends. In fact I just back from the long weekend with them. If anything their political points of view have helped shape my own view and over the course of 20 years I have become more open minded about many things both religious and political This is what tolerance can be like Mr. Governor.
But I guess that's the crux of the problem. He finds that anyone who doesn't share his view offensive,and he doesn't want them in NY state. That's fine I simply won't spend what little money I might have there, not that that should worry him much, but what about all the conservative groups and people who have businesses in NYC, and other parts of the state, that are religious in nature or at least conservative? Not to put to fine a point on it Mr.Governor, but if they decide to leave, your state will loose substantial revenue. Is that what you really want? All over a disagreement of political opinion? That's not “tolerance” that economic suicide.
I am a believer that most good hearted people are, especially in today’s world, accepting of others points of views and positions. Really it comes down to a few disgruntled individuals and groups who seem to make the most noise and make all the rest of us look bad, so in this case I don't think that he really reflects the views of all liberals, but just as a reminder to all of us consider;Tolerance is the accepting of someones views( not that you agree with them) even when they differ from yours.
My friends and I in Vermont have learned that, how about it Mr. Governor, want to give real tolerance a try?
One of the cities I have avoided like the plague is New York. Growing up in the 60's and 70's all the movies portrayed New York as this gritty savage place ,full of violence and gang shootings ,and homeless wino's on every street corner. Not a very pretty picture.
Today, based on what I have been told, by folks who live there ,or at least nearby, and by friends who go there frequently that it's not so true anymore. In fact I have heard enough from them to convince me that not only would I like to go see it but that the people there are actually quite friendly to strangers and are most helpful.
But now, at least according to the Governor, I wouldn't be welcome in any NY city. It would appear that I may be to conservative for the governor and by extension the state it's self.
I'm not republican but I am pro guns. I am one of those guys who cling to my God and my guns. While I believe that every American should stand up for their gun rights I also recognize the fact that there are those who don't share that view and that is also their right. I believe in God , though I wouldn't be welcome in most houses of worship because of my very different views, but I understand and recognize that not everyone does and again that’s their right. This Mr. Governor is called “tolerance.”
I am pro life, though I make some exceptions ,as in the case of rape or incest, or if the mother is in danger, but again this is my view, my position. I might try to counsel a woman to have the child and give it up for adoption but I would not force the issue. I have many friends who are pro choice and I respect their right to be so. We may disagree, Mr. Governor, but my friends and I understand “tolerance.”
I guess what throws it way off though is that I am all for gay rights or should I say equal rights. If a gay or lesbian couple are consenting adults and they wish to be married then fine so be it, but I also respect the rights of those who oppose my views. Aside from it being a matter of free speech, it's called “tolerance” Mr. Governor.
My guess is that the NY governor could learn “tolerance” from my liberal friends in Vermont.
Vermont is a very liberal democrat leaning state. Conservatives are something close to an endangered species, yet though I was a self described conservative, when I lived there, 99% of my friends were, and still are, liberal,yet we can talk about everything from religion to politics, have friendly disagreements and still have a burger and a beer together. 20 years into these friendships and we are all still friends. In fact I just back from the long weekend with them. If anything their political points of view have helped shape my own view and over the course of 20 years I have become more open minded about many things both religious and political This is what tolerance can be like Mr. Governor.
But I guess that's the crux of the problem. He finds that anyone who doesn't share his view offensive,and he doesn't want them in NY state. That's fine I simply won't spend what little money I might have there, not that that should worry him much, but what about all the conservative groups and people who have businesses in NYC, and other parts of the state, that are religious in nature or at least conservative? Not to put to fine a point on it Mr.Governor, but if they decide to leave, your state will loose substantial revenue. Is that what you really want? All over a disagreement of political opinion? That's not “tolerance” that economic suicide.
I am a believer that most good hearted people are, especially in today’s world, accepting of others points of views and positions. Really it comes down to a few disgruntled individuals and groups who seem to make the most noise and make all the rest of us look bad, so in this case I don't think that he really reflects the views of all liberals, but just as a reminder to all of us consider;Tolerance is the accepting of someones views( not that you agree with them) even when they differ from yours.
My friends and I in Vermont have learned that, how about it Mr. Governor, want to give real tolerance a try?
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Fair Market Value?
There are certain terms and catch phrases in the English language
that can seriously drive me mad. Take for instance the word
“whatever” if used properly the word “whatever” can be a good
word such as in a sentence like “whatever happened to old Bob” or
something silly like that, but when used by a sarcastic teenager as
in the singular “whatever” with a disdain full look at their
parents or siblings I suddenly want to break some or all of the
child abuse laws. Some words can have that effect.
The latest set of words that have me wanting to slam my head into a wall are “fair market value.” Three times I have heard those words used when it has involved me and my family over the last couple of years and I am just a bit on the frustrated side.
Now I understand the term. It simply is in reference to the value of, in this case homes, compared to others in your area and their relative value. I understand the words. But I don't like them and I am never going to understand how a piece of property can sell for one price one day and then the next it cost three or four times as much or, in the opposite extreme, much less.
Four years ago I first heard the term used in reference to the house that we had owned; the price that you are asking for your house is above the “ fair market value.” A few years earlier our house had been worth what we paid for it but now not only was it not worth what we paid it wasn't even close to what we owed. Many of you who have read my blog posts in the past know how that all turned out, but for you who don't ,lets just say it wasn't good ,and a large, federally bailed out bank, made out like a bandit.
The last two times I have had this term directed at me has been in the last year or so. In both instances it has been used as an excuse to raise the rent, the most recent being about 3 weeks ago.
Who exactly is it that determines this? Why is it that a small 3 bedroom duplex can be rented out for almost 20 times more than what my grandparents mortgage was for their house? How can it be that the same type of housing out west or in the south would cost less than half of what I am paying now?This is insane and it puts me and my family in a tough spot. Can we pay for it once it goes up? Technically yes, but the problem is is that costs keeps going up but my paycheck isn't keeping up.
Considering the high price of living here in New England and the ungodly high property taxes making a mortgage almost impossible, we may be forced out of this area of the country, where all our friends and family are, simply because we have the misfortune of having a limited income.
So my conclusion is that “fair market value” is not terribly fair and the value is simply subject to those who want to dig more money out of our wallets and “fair market value” is only fair if you can pay for it. Just my Simple Minded opinion.
The latest set of words that have me wanting to slam my head into a wall are “fair market value.” Three times I have heard those words used when it has involved me and my family over the last couple of years and I am just a bit on the frustrated side.
Now I understand the term. It simply is in reference to the value of, in this case homes, compared to others in your area and their relative value. I understand the words. But I don't like them and I am never going to understand how a piece of property can sell for one price one day and then the next it cost three or four times as much or, in the opposite extreme, much less.
Four years ago I first heard the term used in reference to the house that we had owned; the price that you are asking for your house is above the “ fair market value.” A few years earlier our house had been worth what we paid for it but now not only was it not worth what we paid it wasn't even close to what we owed. Many of you who have read my blog posts in the past know how that all turned out, but for you who don't ,lets just say it wasn't good ,and a large, federally bailed out bank, made out like a bandit.
The last two times I have had this term directed at me has been in the last year or so. In both instances it has been used as an excuse to raise the rent, the most recent being about 3 weeks ago.
Who exactly is it that determines this? Why is it that a small 3 bedroom duplex can be rented out for almost 20 times more than what my grandparents mortgage was for their house? How can it be that the same type of housing out west or in the south would cost less than half of what I am paying now?This is insane and it puts me and my family in a tough spot. Can we pay for it once it goes up? Technically yes, but the problem is is that costs keeps going up but my paycheck isn't keeping up.
Considering the high price of living here in New England and the ungodly high property taxes making a mortgage almost impossible, we may be forced out of this area of the country, where all our friends and family are, simply because we have the misfortune of having a limited income.
So my conclusion is that “fair market value” is not terribly fair and the value is simply subject to those who want to dig more money out of our wallets and “fair market value” is only fair if you can pay for it. Just my Simple Minded opinion.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Nuns, NSA and Guns
The Nuns, NSA and Guns
It would seem that an order of Nuns has filed a petition to not provide birth control in any form stating that to do so would be a violation of their conscience and religious beliefs. Supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a stay late Tuesday preventing the government from enforcing the so-called contraceptive mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Apparently she agreed with them and gave the Obama administration until Friday to appeal her ruling , which they did, arguing that they, the Nuns, could get out of it by certifying that they don't want to provide contraceptive coverage. In that case, it would be up to a third-party administrator to decide whether to provide it. The Nuns lawyer responded with a 17 page appeal suggesting that by having them sign the paper it essentially means that they are advocating that someone else “sins” on their behalf.
But it's not just about the Nuns. The administration has called for all catholic groups to be forced into providing contraception (and in effect any religious group or organization) even though it goes against their religious beliefs.
Some of you reading this may think well that's just to bad for them but the law is the law. It may be,that it now a part of the law,but it's not morally right to force people into either violating their conscience or being seriously fined. I will also remind you that if they can force you to violate your religious beliefs, in violation of the first amendment, whats going to stop them from forcing everyone to violate their consciences? Would you be OK if the government passed a law saying that you had to cheat on your spouse, even though most in our society would disagree and all holy writings say no? What gives the federal government the right to force you or your religious group to violate your conscience? Seems to me the constitution says they don't.
In NSA related news, the Obama administration has asked for the FISA court to allow for the continuation of the NSA programs of mass collecting all of our digital data.
“The Obama administration moved on two fronts Friday to preserve the National Security Agency's controversial spy programs, appealing a major ruling against the agency while winning permission from a secretive court to continue collecting Americans' phone records.” (AP)
To start with we shouldn't have secret courts, this isn't the Soviet Union or North Korea, but the fact that the Obama administration would request that such a program continue (I know that Bush started all this but he resides in Texas now not DC and is of no importance to this discussion) tells me just how little regard that they have for the constitution and the rule of law, not that this is their only violation but it is one of the more blatant examples. This request follows the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon in which he called the NSA program "almost-Orwellian technology" and challenged its constitutionality. In the judges words:
"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,Surely such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware 'the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast.”
I don't think I could have said it any better.
On a side note Senator Rand Paul ® of Kentucky will be filing a class action law suit against the Obama administration and the NSA for their violations of the 4th amendment via the NSA programs. He reportedly has hundreds of thousands of people joining him in this action, Ill keep you posted as I hear more about it.
I guess this wouldn't be complete if we didn't add another back door effort to regulate gun ownership. The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system,both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.
If I believed that this was really about keeping guns out of the hands of truly insane people I would be all for it but the wording is a bit vague. First “those seeking mental health treatment.” Why would they want information just based on someone who is seeking help? Why would you put that in a “ Criminal background check?” Does the fact that I have sought out mental health treatment for PTSD, and I am likely to again in the future, make me some sort of criminal? I can understand that perhaps those that have been institutionalized might need extra scrutiny but by doing this you are going to make a whole lot of war vets very leery about seeking mental health for PTSD if there is even the slightest chance that they could loose their guns or the ability to buy them.
The second part “out of potentially dangerous hands” is also a bit vague. It wasn't that long ago when the politically correct thought was that “every man is a potential rapist” so using that argument would suggest that all of us gun owners have potentially dangerous hands, If having a Penis makes me a potential rapist, then having a gun surely must make me a potential killer. I'm no more dangerous then anyone else who legally owns and carry a firearm but who exactly determines that, which leads to my third point.
This would be in violation of the HIPPA law, giving your doctor the right to report you with no warning to you and , from what I can tell, you will have very little recourse once your mental health issues have been sent. So I go in to see my doctor because I am depressed or having more nightmares then normal, due to PTSD related issues, and he is anti gun, all he has to do is submit my information to this data base and it could stop my ability to own or posses a firearm. No crimes committed, no laws broken, yet my name would be entered into a criminal background data base all for seeking help.
One last note, totally unrelated to the above.
Thank you to my fellow Iraq vets for securing hell. Apparently our blood and tears were not payment enough and the minions of hell crawled back out of their caves and have returned. Never forget.
It would seem that an order of Nuns has filed a petition to not provide birth control in any form stating that to do so would be a violation of their conscience and religious beliefs. Supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a stay late Tuesday preventing the government from enforcing the so-called contraceptive mandate against the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. Apparently she agreed with them and gave the Obama administration until Friday to appeal her ruling , which they did, arguing that they, the Nuns, could get out of it by certifying that they don't want to provide contraceptive coverage. In that case, it would be up to a third-party administrator to decide whether to provide it. The Nuns lawyer responded with a 17 page appeal suggesting that by having them sign the paper it essentially means that they are advocating that someone else “sins” on their behalf.
But it's not just about the Nuns. The administration has called for all catholic groups to be forced into providing contraception (and in effect any religious group or organization) even though it goes against their religious beliefs.
Some of you reading this may think well that's just to bad for them but the law is the law. It may be,that it now a part of the law,but it's not morally right to force people into either violating their conscience or being seriously fined. I will also remind you that if they can force you to violate your religious beliefs, in violation of the first amendment, whats going to stop them from forcing everyone to violate their consciences? Would you be OK if the government passed a law saying that you had to cheat on your spouse, even though most in our society would disagree and all holy writings say no? What gives the federal government the right to force you or your religious group to violate your conscience? Seems to me the constitution says they don't.
In NSA related news, the Obama administration has asked for the FISA court to allow for the continuation of the NSA programs of mass collecting all of our digital data.
“The Obama administration moved on two fronts Friday to preserve the National Security Agency's controversial spy programs, appealing a major ruling against the agency while winning permission from a secretive court to continue collecting Americans' phone records.” (AP)
To start with we shouldn't have secret courts, this isn't the Soviet Union or North Korea, but the fact that the Obama administration would request that such a program continue (I know that Bush started all this but he resides in Texas now not DC and is of no importance to this discussion) tells me just how little regard that they have for the constitution and the rule of law, not that this is their only violation but it is one of the more blatant examples. This request follows the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon in which he called the NSA program "almost-Orwellian technology" and challenged its constitutionality. In the judges words:
"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,Surely such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware 'the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast.”
I don't think I could have said it any better.
On a side note Senator Rand Paul ® of Kentucky will be filing a class action law suit against the Obama administration and the NSA for their violations of the 4th amendment via the NSA programs. He reportedly has hundreds of thousands of people joining him in this action, Ill keep you posted as I hear more about it.
I guess this wouldn't be complete if we didn't add another back door effort to regulate gun ownership. The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system,both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit "the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands," without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.
If I believed that this was really about keeping guns out of the hands of truly insane people I would be all for it but the wording is a bit vague. First “those seeking mental health treatment.” Why would they want information just based on someone who is seeking help? Why would you put that in a “ Criminal background check?” Does the fact that I have sought out mental health treatment for PTSD, and I am likely to again in the future, make me some sort of criminal? I can understand that perhaps those that have been institutionalized might need extra scrutiny but by doing this you are going to make a whole lot of war vets very leery about seeking mental health for PTSD if there is even the slightest chance that they could loose their guns or the ability to buy them.
The second part “out of potentially dangerous hands” is also a bit vague. It wasn't that long ago when the politically correct thought was that “every man is a potential rapist” so using that argument would suggest that all of us gun owners have potentially dangerous hands, If having a Penis makes me a potential rapist, then having a gun surely must make me a potential killer. I'm no more dangerous then anyone else who legally owns and carry a firearm but who exactly determines that, which leads to my third point.
This would be in violation of the HIPPA law, giving your doctor the right to report you with no warning to you and , from what I can tell, you will have very little recourse once your mental health issues have been sent. So I go in to see my doctor because I am depressed or having more nightmares then normal, due to PTSD related issues, and he is anti gun, all he has to do is submit my information to this data base and it could stop my ability to own or posses a firearm. No crimes committed, no laws broken, yet my name would be entered into a criminal background data base all for seeking help.
One last note, totally unrelated to the above.
Thank you to my fellow Iraq vets for securing hell. Apparently our blood and tears were not payment enough and the minions of hell crawled back out of their caves and have returned. Never forget.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
GQ, Phil Robertson and his "Shocking" response.
Before I get started I'd like to thank a few folks/organizations
for pulling me out of my silence. I have been avoiding politics and
anything PC for a while now and have literally let my blog sort of
die out.
Well after the news came out of the “ Duck Commander” Phil Robertson, being “suspended indefinitely” for answering a question that we all know, at least anyone who watches the show would reasonably assume, would be his answer. But before I wade into that mess let me thank the appropriate sources.
Thanks to my wife who first pointed it out to me yesterday. This is my only sincere thanks
Thank you to all the national media for making it go viral. Thank you to AE for making it such a big deal, because with out you most of us wouldn't even know who he is, but a special thanks to GQ magazine for asking such a daring and thought provoking question from a well known conservative Christian of whom, I am sure, you believed would give you anything but blunt and to the point answer.
Now that the preliminaries are over; why is everyone in such an uproar over what he said? What did he say that would really shock anyone? Was it his use of the words, vagina and anus? Was it because he said that he can't understand the appeal? Perhaps it was because he used the dreaded “sin” word? Or was it because he followed suit with a translation of what the book of Romans says? What part of it was so shocking?
First he is a conservative, fundamentalist, Christian. According to what he believes the Bible calls homosexuality a sin in both the OT and the NT. I am not going to write it all out for you because most of you who have even the slightest bit of knowledge of the bible already know this. So if this has been what he has been taught, since he was saved in the 60's, what did you really think his answer would be?
My guess is that someone at GQ wanted to either get some free publicity or they are angered that such a family friendly show, that unabashedly uses the name of Jesus in their prayers, is so popular with literally millions. Not sure it can be said about their magazine.
Second I am hard pressed to believe that it was the words anus or vagina. I heard some say that he was crude in using those words, why? Is that not what they are called? When I speak to my teenagers about sex I use the appropriate terminology so why shouldn’t he? Seems to me that this is less crude then the words some people use to describe body parts.
Thirdly, It can't be because he doesn't understand the appeal. Why should he? He is a straight male. I am a straight male, and though I have family members that are gay and I love them all, I don't understand the appeal. I see men as nothing more that other hairy hominids and I generally don't find them attractive. In the same vein I would also suggest to you that I don't expect a gay man to see what appeal a woman has to me. It is no more in his nature, to be attracted to women, then it is in mine to get warm fuzzies for other men.
As far as him calling it a sin and then listing off some things that the book of Romans says, go look at my first point.
Next I would like to address the idea of “hate speech.”
Let me give you a very point blank explanation of “hate speech.” I started working on a construction crew, back a few years ago when my kids were little, and ,as my custom was, I went by my middle name rather than my than my first. I soon found out that all the guys on this crew were members of the KKK., in Florida, and had come north looking for work. Long story short, when they found out what my real name was I was verbally assaulted. The kindest words used was “sand nigger” because of my Cuban heritage, and I was threatened with bodily harm. Worse yet they destroyed my work and then told the boss ( he was not one of them) that I did sloppy work and was incompetent,as a result I was fired. That is hate.
If they had just left it as comments or expressing their opinion of me, then that would be free speech, but they took it further they didn't just express their hatred they took action and that's the difference.
Last I had heard Mr. Robertson has not threatened anyone he simply gave his OPINION based on his religious views AFTER HE WAS ASKED. Again what did you think he would say?
The last point is the suggestion that he was implying that blacks were more happy under the Jim Crow laws. This is not what he said. He said that he grew up on a farm,as did everyone he knew, and he worked side by side with blacks. He said that the folks he knew seemed to be happy and that they were God fearing loving people. He never said that prejudice never happened or that those laws were good, what he said was that he had never SEEN any of it.
Growing up in Maine I didn't see any of it either. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, It just means I didn't see it. Does that make me a bigot?
The bottom line is this. Phil Robertson said what he believed when he was asked. He has that right. AE has the right to fire or suspend him if he doesn't meet with whatever standards they have set up. GQ has the right to ask such profound questions, but lets stop with all the hysterics over a conservative Christian speaking what he believes to be true when we all know that this would be his answer in the first place.
Well after the news came out of the “ Duck Commander” Phil Robertson, being “suspended indefinitely” for answering a question that we all know, at least anyone who watches the show would reasonably assume, would be his answer. But before I wade into that mess let me thank the appropriate sources.
Thanks to my wife who first pointed it out to me yesterday. This is my only sincere thanks
Thank you to all the national media for making it go viral. Thank you to AE for making it such a big deal, because with out you most of us wouldn't even know who he is, but a special thanks to GQ magazine for asking such a daring and thought provoking question from a well known conservative Christian of whom, I am sure, you believed would give you anything but blunt and to the point answer.
Now that the preliminaries are over; why is everyone in such an uproar over what he said? What did he say that would really shock anyone? Was it his use of the words, vagina and anus? Was it because he said that he can't understand the appeal? Perhaps it was because he used the dreaded “sin” word? Or was it because he followed suit with a translation of what the book of Romans says? What part of it was so shocking?
First he is a conservative, fundamentalist, Christian. According to what he believes the Bible calls homosexuality a sin in both the OT and the NT. I am not going to write it all out for you because most of you who have even the slightest bit of knowledge of the bible already know this. So if this has been what he has been taught, since he was saved in the 60's, what did you really think his answer would be?
My guess is that someone at GQ wanted to either get some free publicity or they are angered that such a family friendly show, that unabashedly uses the name of Jesus in their prayers, is so popular with literally millions. Not sure it can be said about their magazine.
Second I am hard pressed to believe that it was the words anus or vagina. I heard some say that he was crude in using those words, why? Is that not what they are called? When I speak to my teenagers about sex I use the appropriate terminology so why shouldn’t he? Seems to me that this is less crude then the words some people use to describe body parts.
Thirdly, It can't be because he doesn't understand the appeal. Why should he? He is a straight male. I am a straight male, and though I have family members that are gay and I love them all, I don't understand the appeal. I see men as nothing more that other hairy hominids and I generally don't find them attractive. In the same vein I would also suggest to you that I don't expect a gay man to see what appeal a woman has to me. It is no more in his nature, to be attracted to women, then it is in mine to get warm fuzzies for other men.
As far as him calling it a sin and then listing off some things that the book of Romans says, go look at my first point.
Next I would like to address the idea of “hate speech.”
Let me give you a very point blank explanation of “hate speech.” I started working on a construction crew, back a few years ago when my kids were little, and ,as my custom was, I went by my middle name rather than my than my first. I soon found out that all the guys on this crew were members of the KKK., in Florida, and had come north looking for work. Long story short, when they found out what my real name was I was verbally assaulted. The kindest words used was “sand nigger” because of my Cuban heritage, and I was threatened with bodily harm. Worse yet they destroyed my work and then told the boss ( he was not one of them) that I did sloppy work and was incompetent,as a result I was fired. That is hate.
If they had just left it as comments or expressing their opinion of me, then that would be free speech, but they took it further they didn't just express their hatred they took action and that's the difference.
Last I had heard Mr. Robertson has not threatened anyone he simply gave his OPINION based on his religious views AFTER HE WAS ASKED. Again what did you think he would say?
The last point is the suggestion that he was implying that blacks were more happy under the Jim Crow laws. This is not what he said. He said that he grew up on a farm,as did everyone he knew, and he worked side by side with blacks. He said that the folks he knew seemed to be happy and that they were God fearing loving people. He never said that prejudice never happened or that those laws were good, what he said was that he had never SEEN any of it.
Growing up in Maine I didn't see any of it either. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, It just means I didn't see it. Does that make me a bigot?
The bottom line is this. Phil Robertson said what he believed when he was asked. He has that right. AE has the right to fire or suspend him if he doesn't meet with whatever standards they have set up. GQ has the right to ask such profound questions, but lets stop with all the hysterics over a conservative Christian speaking what he believes to be true when we all know that this would be his answer in the first place.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
The Simple Truth is That He lied.
Do you remember these phrases? “I am not a crook” or “ I
did not have sexual relations with that woman” how about “ read
my lips no new taxes.” Do you remember these words? For those of
you who are not old enough to remember the first one is attributed to
President Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal that forced him
into resigning from office rather than face impeachment. The second
was President Bill Clinton trying hard to deflect reports of him
having oral sex with an intern in the oval office which wound up with
him committing perjury and getting articles of impeachment drawn up
against him. The only thing that saved him was a lack of democrat
votes. The last is from President George Bush the elder who famously
said that during one of his campaign speeches. He won the election
but reneged on his promise and was defeated soundly in his next
election.
Fast forward to today. We once again have a sitting president who has lied to the American people. His words, repeated over and over again, concerning the ACA “ if you like your plan you can keep your plan. Period” These words are what sold a large part of the American population to elect him as president and reelect him four years later. Now the truth has finally hit home. He lied.
I have watched and listened as his various spokespersons have been out there trying to spin it that he didn't actually lie ,that he either misspoke or we just didn't understand what it was that he was saying. Really? Funny thing I watched a whole bunch of his speeches and it seemed pretty clear to me. I didn't hear about any caveats or qualifiers. I only heard him say (I and 330 million other Americans) “if you like your plan you can keep it.” Not sure what part of that sentence, repeated over and over, that I didn't understand.
Of course the newest spin is to blame it on the insurance companies.
I actually heard the following on the radio.
The president said you could keep your plan as long as it doesn't change and the president didn't tell them that they had to change their policies....
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
So what exactly was the point of the ACA if not to force insurance companies to change their plans to include more coverage, thus ensuing higher costs and causing people to lose the coverage they were told that they could keep? Someone else commented that these were bare bones policies so they had to go. That's not the point. The president said if you like your plan you can keep it. So why aren't they able to keep them?
Another person said that there is no way that the administration could have known that this was going to happen. Hmmm...I am not a brain surgeon and even I knew that this was going to happen. Simple economics would tell you this. If you buy a Yugo you are going to pay a Yugo price. If you buy a BMW you are going to have to pay the BMW price not the Yugo price, and if your forced to by the BMW your still going to have to pay the BMW price. This is not complicated.
Now with people coming out and sharing their individual horror stories on the major news networks and papers, the administration has chosen to try and attack and marginalize these people, accusing them of lying or of not giving out of all the facts. Yet the facts were simple. They had coverage they liked and they were getting the kind of care they needed but because of the new ACA regulations they had to be changed and the people lost the coverage that they had or are being forced into higher costing plans, what part of this is misleading or lacking of truth?
There is also word out there that the Obama administration knew that this was going to happen and even predicted that somewhere close to 65 percent would loose their coverage and yet they continued to preach that no one was going to loose it. The estimated number that I have heard is somewhere between 50 to 129 million people, which is essentially the entire individual market, are going to loose their coverage.
The bottom line is that now that the ACA has rolled out the American people are waking up to the truth. They can't keep their policies and it's going to cost them dearly. Many are trying to figure out how they are going to pay for the extra costs and they are angry. Many things that have happened, prior to this, they mostly ignored because it didn't effect them directly. This time it does and they are voicing their displeasure.
When I was growing up there was always a price for lying and it was always considered a better thing to confess your mistakes and make things right. This is what I have taught to my own children and I hope they will do the same with theirs. So here is my simple minded solution for you Mr. President. Admit that you were wrong, stop this madness and fix it. It's as simple as that. If not, you can expect that your party will be thoroughly trashed, as every republican in the nation will loudly remind everyone just who is to blame. You and the democratic party.
Fast forward to today. We once again have a sitting president who has lied to the American people. His words, repeated over and over again, concerning the ACA “ if you like your plan you can keep your plan. Period” These words are what sold a large part of the American population to elect him as president and reelect him four years later. Now the truth has finally hit home. He lied.
I have watched and listened as his various spokespersons have been out there trying to spin it that he didn't actually lie ,that he either misspoke or we just didn't understand what it was that he was saying. Really? Funny thing I watched a whole bunch of his speeches and it seemed pretty clear to me. I didn't hear about any caveats or qualifiers. I only heard him say (I and 330 million other Americans) “if you like your plan you can keep it.” Not sure what part of that sentence, repeated over and over, that I didn't understand.
Of course the newest spin is to blame it on the insurance companies.
I actually heard the following on the radio.
The president said you could keep your plan as long as it doesn't change and the president didn't tell them that they had to change their policies....
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
So what exactly was the point of the ACA if not to force insurance companies to change their plans to include more coverage, thus ensuing higher costs and causing people to lose the coverage they were told that they could keep? Someone else commented that these were bare bones policies so they had to go. That's not the point. The president said if you like your plan you can keep it. So why aren't they able to keep them?
Another person said that there is no way that the administration could have known that this was going to happen. Hmmm...I am not a brain surgeon and even I knew that this was going to happen. Simple economics would tell you this. If you buy a Yugo you are going to pay a Yugo price. If you buy a BMW you are going to have to pay the BMW price not the Yugo price, and if your forced to by the BMW your still going to have to pay the BMW price. This is not complicated.
Now with people coming out and sharing their individual horror stories on the major news networks and papers, the administration has chosen to try and attack and marginalize these people, accusing them of lying or of not giving out of all the facts. Yet the facts were simple. They had coverage they liked and they were getting the kind of care they needed but because of the new ACA regulations they had to be changed and the people lost the coverage that they had or are being forced into higher costing plans, what part of this is misleading or lacking of truth?
There is also word out there that the Obama administration knew that this was going to happen and even predicted that somewhere close to 65 percent would loose their coverage and yet they continued to preach that no one was going to loose it. The estimated number that I have heard is somewhere between 50 to 129 million people, which is essentially the entire individual market, are going to loose their coverage.
The bottom line is that now that the ACA has rolled out the American people are waking up to the truth. They can't keep their policies and it's going to cost them dearly. Many are trying to figure out how they are going to pay for the extra costs and they are angry. Many things that have happened, prior to this, they mostly ignored because it didn't effect them directly. This time it does and they are voicing their displeasure.
When I was growing up there was always a price for lying and it was always considered a better thing to confess your mistakes and make things right. This is what I have taught to my own children and I hope they will do the same with theirs. So here is my simple minded solution for you Mr. President. Admit that you were wrong, stop this madness and fix it. It's as simple as that. If not, you can expect that your party will be thoroughly trashed, as every republican in the nation will loudly remind everyone just who is to blame. You and the democratic party.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Redundancy and Waste
While the news has been filled with Obama care troubles and the
NSA spying on our friends, one subject has seemingly disappeared from
the stage, The budget and debt ceiling. A couple of weeks ago you
didn't hear much else, yet now it seems to have vanished.
Just in case anyone has forgotten we get to go to the edge of the cliff again in the middle of January and already both sides are suggesting that they aren't going to get much done before then. Lest you have forgotten here is the simplified crux of the problem.
Democrats are unwilling to cut any programs and want to raise taxes. Republicans are refusing to raise any more taxes with out the cuts and the tea party wants Obama care defunded before they will budge on anything. This of course leads to nothing being accomplished.
There are some things that could be done though that might actually work, if we could find any real leadership that is. The first would be ending all the pork projects that get attached to bills, which have nothing to do with running the government and only politically help the person who attached the bill. A fine example was Mitch McConnell being able to get some extra funding for a bridge project in his home state as a way to get him to go along with Harry Reid temporary budget plan and push the battle again down the road.
The second would be getting rid of all the wasteful government run redundancy. I saw a small part of in a visit to a VA hospital in Boston for a simple consult...
When my wife and I arrived we had no idea of where to go but once we did we made a bee line for the desk that was clearly marked “clinic check in.” After waiting for the others that were ahead of me the lady took my card and swiped it through her swiper, for a lack of another term, and then informed me that I had to go to a different desk on the other side of that same area to check in. So off we headed to the other desk. Upon our arrival at that desk there was a gentleman standing there who was looking just a bit on the ticked off side while a woman sat at another desk on a computer. After about 5 minutes of standing there the lady at the computer turned around and informed us that there was no one there to check us in, the woman who does that had just stepped out and she had no idea when said woman would be back and she wasn't able to check us in so we should go to the other desk,the first one that we had been to,and have her check us in. By this time there was about 8 of us standing there waiting to get checked in and all of us told her that they had just sent us here from the desk she was trying to send us back to. She muttered something about “well you should sit down and wait because I don't know how long it's going to be.” Now gentle readers I am not a brain surgeon and I admit that I don't understand all the intricacies of running a government agency, but where I normally go we check ourselves in via a kiosk. If I can do it, with nothing more then a high school education, surely a government employee sitting right there should be able to. Also understand there were multiple “check in desks”all within 50 feet of each other. Not a single one could check us in. The lady sitting there was clearly capable of cruising through Facebook and her personal emails, her screen was facing us so we could see what she was doing, but she was not competent enough to swipe a card and putting a check mark next to our names on the paper.
After about another15 minutes the lady who did know how to swipe a card and check us in finally arrived. The other lady,as it turned out, was a nurse who's sole purpose was to take our vital signs. She also turned out to be the next person I had to see. Once I got to her she told me to stand there and wait ,quite rudely I might add, while she finished what she was doing on the computer. And what was she doing that was of such vital government mandated importance? She was writing an email on her Yahoo account. So I stood there for another 10 minutes while she hunted and pecked her way across the keyboard. To say that I was angry would be a massive understatement.
Finally I was checked in. I was an hour late for my appointment, but I was finally checked in. Twenty minutes later we were ushered into an examination room. The short version is that apparently the doctor never looked at my records. I spent an hour having another examination ,that I had already had,that was in fact the reason that I was there in the first place. Redundancy and stupidity combined. What was supposed to be a simple consult turned into a 4 hour marathon over something that shouldn't have taken more then a half hour.
Here is my point. If the nurse, or any of the other check in spots, had checked us in, they are all on the same system after all, they could have saved us all time and moved on to other vets who needed help. Better yet they could simplify by having one desk with say three people ,who all know how to swipe a card and check us in, thus saving time and money in wasted salaries.
Second if the doctors would actually take a minute to read the files of the veterans before they talk to them, then they would save a lot of time by not doing the same exams over and over (I had the same test and exam 3 times in the last 3 weeks) and they could move more quickly on to other Veterans.
Remember this was just one small area of this particular VA, if I saw the redundancy and wasted time there, just imagine how much of it goes on all over the VA system not to mention the rest of the government.
Just keep I mind,as we approach yet another cliff, that there is a lot of money that could be saved just by taking care of these two things that I have mentioned ,and I am sure that there is more that could be added to the list, but I suspect it will be those of us who are veterans,seniors or poor, that once again will be the targets because , after all, we are such leeches to society.
Just my Simple Minded Opinion.
Just in case anyone has forgotten we get to go to the edge of the cliff again in the middle of January and already both sides are suggesting that they aren't going to get much done before then. Lest you have forgotten here is the simplified crux of the problem.
Democrats are unwilling to cut any programs and want to raise taxes. Republicans are refusing to raise any more taxes with out the cuts and the tea party wants Obama care defunded before they will budge on anything. This of course leads to nothing being accomplished.
There are some things that could be done though that might actually work, if we could find any real leadership that is. The first would be ending all the pork projects that get attached to bills, which have nothing to do with running the government and only politically help the person who attached the bill. A fine example was Mitch McConnell being able to get some extra funding for a bridge project in his home state as a way to get him to go along with Harry Reid temporary budget plan and push the battle again down the road.
The second would be getting rid of all the wasteful government run redundancy. I saw a small part of in a visit to a VA hospital in Boston for a simple consult...
When my wife and I arrived we had no idea of where to go but once we did we made a bee line for the desk that was clearly marked “clinic check in.” After waiting for the others that were ahead of me the lady took my card and swiped it through her swiper, for a lack of another term, and then informed me that I had to go to a different desk on the other side of that same area to check in. So off we headed to the other desk. Upon our arrival at that desk there was a gentleman standing there who was looking just a bit on the ticked off side while a woman sat at another desk on a computer. After about 5 minutes of standing there the lady at the computer turned around and informed us that there was no one there to check us in, the woman who does that had just stepped out and she had no idea when said woman would be back and she wasn't able to check us in so we should go to the other desk,the first one that we had been to,and have her check us in. By this time there was about 8 of us standing there waiting to get checked in and all of us told her that they had just sent us here from the desk she was trying to send us back to. She muttered something about “well you should sit down and wait because I don't know how long it's going to be.” Now gentle readers I am not a brain surgeon and I admit that I don't understand all the intricacies of running a government agency, but where I normally go we check ourselves in via a kiosk. If I can do it, with nothing more then a high school education, surely a government employee sitting right there should be able to. Also understand there were multiple “check in desks”all within 50 feet of each other. Not a single one could check us in. The lady sitting there was clearly capable of cruising through Facebook and her personal emails, her screen was facing us so we could see what she was doing, but she was not competent enough to swipe a card and putting a check mark next to our names on the paper.
After about another15 minutes the lady who did know how to swipe a card and check us in finally arrived. The other lady,as it turned out, was a nurse who's sole purpose was to take our vital signs. She also turned out to be the next person I had to see. Once I got to her she told me to stand there and wait ,quite rudely I might add, while she finished what she was doing on the computer. And what was she doing that was of such vital government mandated importance? She was writing an email on her Yahoo account. So I stood there for another 10 minutes while she hunted and pecked her way across the keyboard. To say that I was angry would be a massive understatement.
Finally I was checked in. I was an hour late for my appointment, but I was finally checked in. Twenty minutes later we were ushered into an examination room. The short version is that apparently the doctor never looked at my records. I spent an hour having another examination ,that I had already had,that was in fact the reason that I was there in the first place. Redundancy and stupidity combined. What was supposed to be a simple consult turned into a 4 hour marathon over something that shouldn't have taken more then a half hour.
Here is my point. If the nurse, or any of the other check in spots, had checked us in, they are all on the same system after all, they could have saved us all time and moved on to other vets who needed help. Better yet they could simplify by having one desk with say three people ,who all know how to swipe a card and check us in, thus saving time and money in wasted salaries.
Second if the doctors would actually take a minute to read the files of the veterans before they talk to them, then they would save a lot of time by not doing the same exams over and over (I had the same test and exam 3 times in the last 3 weeks) and they could move more quickly on to other Veterans.
Remember this was just one small area of this particular VA, if I saw the redundancy and wasted time there, just imagine how much of it goes on all over the VA system not to mention the rest of the government.
Just keep I mind,as we approach yet another cliff, that there is a lot of money that could be saved just by taking care of these two things that I have mentioned ,and I am sure that there is more that could be added to the list, but I suspect it will be those of us who are veterans,seniors or poor, that once again will be the targets because , after all, we are such leeches to society.
Just my Simple Minded Opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)