This week was another banner week for the national media, and my former home state of Arizona.
Recently, there was a mainstream media story regarding the "accidental" airing of a high speed chase in Arizona which was carried on the Fox's "fair and balanced" news media that eventually resulted in a live broadcast suicide.
Just what has our media become?
Or better yet, just where is the quest for sensationalized journalism and ad revenues and profits going to end?
Shepard Smith, the Fox tool, has apparently apologized profusely for thie media faux pas. Several times, in fact.
The tape was "supposed" to afford a 10 second delay while the Fox national media was broadcasting this chase on an Arizona interstate.
Although, after the bucks which were made over the OJ chase, seems to me Fox is merely cashing in on continuing the sensationalized journalism for corporate profits.
Shepard's apologies sounded hollow, to say the least.
I'm even beginning to wonder if this event truly was a "true" story, or merely one in which actors were used in order to create news, at this point, and thus ratings.
Who's to know?
Caplitalizing on crime is also a modus operandi at this point with our national media.
With all the competition for those ad dollars, with pay cable you get the news you pay for, America.
So tune in, within a very short time, there will be another "accidental" or innuendo based widespread media story.
I guarantee it.
And if, as I suspect, this man did commit suicide after this high speed chase, in which there were no police at the scene when the suicide occurred, merely a Fox News helicopter, just what would drive a man to do such a thing?
He had several misdemeanor offenses, from all reports.
But misdemeanors are now held as capital crimes in many states, also for state budget and economic purposes. Plea bargained or given mere bench trials in order for most states to raise capital, as it were.
Even non-moving traffic offenses, or any crime for which the punishment is a fine.
With the amounts of those fines also escalating to the point which has created "payment plans" (at additional cost) for many citizens who don't have much of a paycheck (or any paycheck at this point) left at the end ofthe month.
Which may have been why they committed the "crime" in the first place - as minor offenses increase during this recession/depression.
Crimes such as shoplifting, or non-moving license, registration or insurance violations.
People are having to move from state to state, many times, in order to seek or obtain work and may not have the amounts statutory set for some of those costs in the case of those non-moving registration, licensing and other offenses.
This is how most local governments run.
Through provision by the state general funds (and federal) governments provision which has decreased the local governments share of the pie progressively due to all the extra-Constitutional budgetary items the state and federal government continue funding.
While local governments then are additionally charging the citizens and taxpayers higher and higher fees and fines for petty offenses for using the court or in the statutory levying those fines, which are now set by state law without any citizen input or oversight.
Sometimes, citizens are placed in the position of either payihg the fine (by mail, preferably) or sitting through plea bargaining sessions with the city or county prosecutors before even seeing a judge - yet if you request to see a judge, the amount levied then for "court costs" is equal to or greater than even the expensive fine.
Now most of the punishments are extra-Constitutional "cruel and unusual punishment" under it for low to middle class Americans, without having any real recourse than simply arranging for a payment plan and paying the "fine" other then petitioning the very entity that will profit off these fees and fines.
Taking more work time, or time to find work to go through the process. So lost work time and pay also is part of any traffic ticket, which ups the actual cost tremendously if you must lose a day's pay or more to argue a traffic citation.
If you do and lose, you have lost a day's wages, the fine and court costs on top of that. For most petty offenses, figure the amount it would take to fee a family of four for two to three weeks.
But that scenario is exactly what "the State" and local governments capitalize on, right?
Or the sums provided for the head counts in the privatized or public jails, while feeding the citizen detainees moldy bologna sandwiches.
With detainees now incarcerated until that time comes to enter their pleas. Or you pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in bail money which amounts have also increased progressively to stimulate the economies of the bail bondsmen.
No wonder our jails are so very full (with many held without entering their pleas, at this point)
Or a man takes his life in the Arizona desert...
Ponder that.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
New Orleans Rocks
I had the distinct pleasure recently of attending a concert in New Orleans sponsored by AARP, of all organizations, given the following of the ladies involved.
It was a concert by Melissa Etheridge, Gladys Knight and Stevie Nicks, in conjunction with the National AARP Convention.
It would appear an attempt to change the image of AARP and give it a much "younger" vibe, as the focus of the convention was for those 50 and over.
Melissa Etheridge barely made the cut, at 51, but rocked the house with her soulful guiter riffs and songs. She looks better than she has in years, and made reference to her past battle with breast cancer.
You wouldn't know it to look at her, really.
Next up was Gladys Knight, and the season on Dancing with the Stars appears to have given her more energy and could hardly believe she is over 65.
She has the moves, and her brother (one of the Pips) contribution really made the show.
Next up, one of my rock idols for many different reasons, Stevie Nicks.
All three of these particular ladies were actually born within a week of each other the end of May. Geminis, all.
Which perhaps makes this review a little biased.
My own birthday is May 30, and connect with their music on almost a spiritual level. The pain, and the angst, and the soul, that is.
Stevie was for many years a resident of my former home state, Arizona, whose father owned a concert venue there for many years, Compton Terrace.
She was absolutely incredible and sounds better than ever with the maturity her age and experience have given her.
Some of the "older" AARP members left during her set, which was a shame but then Stevie is a taste best left to the under 70 crowd, at least. She rocks and makes no bones about it.
She performed a particularly poignant song about New Orleans from her current album, which was well received and appreciated.
She also performed a song "Soldiers Angel" which was written after a visit some years ago to Walter Reed Hospital and speaking with wounded servicemen. She has become heavily involved in this cause, from what it appeared.
It was a more "national" crowd at this show, although the people of New Orleans and the surrounding area right now are pretty hard pressed to offer much in the form of donations - it was a very touching story and song.
As a matter of fact, I had gotten the tickets as a gift from a daughter who knew how strung out her mother was after Isaac and its aftermath, and caring part-time for elderly parents for months on end before that.
And although I had lived in Phoenix for over 45 years and graduated not but a few years behind Stevie, had never seen her live so when I mentioned the concert, sent me the tickets by return email.
But it was Ms. Nicks rock anthems and incredible voice that stole the show.
Rhiannon
Landslide
Stand Back
Edge of Seventeen
All poems set to music, actually, from an incredibly gifted poet.
I guess as a footnote, in order to truly help all those soldiers, and soldiers wives, mothers and families - I hope someday she will lend her incredible voice and support into stopping some of these senseless wars - as she should also know as one from the Vietnam era herself.
Since it does appear that neither party is willing to end one at this point, without shortly beginning another...
How many men have been lost through five decades of war?
Rock on, Stevie....
AARP isn't ready for us...
Not yet, anyway...
It was a concert by Melissa Etheridge, Gladys Knight and Stevie Nicks, in conjunction with the National AARP Convention.
It would appear an attempt to change the image of AARP and give it a much "younger" vibe, as the focus of the convention was for those 50 and over.
Melissa Etheridge barely made the cut, at 51, but rocked the house with her soulful guiter riffs and songs. She looks better than she has in years, and made reference to her past battle with breast cancer.
You wouldn't know it to look at her, really.
Next up was Gladys Knight, and the season on Dancing with the Stars appears to have given her more energy and could hardly believe she is over 65.
She has the moves, and her brother (one of the Pips) contribution really made the show.
Next up, one of my rock idols for many different reasons, Stevie Nicks.
All three of these particular ladies were actually born within a week of each other the end of May. Geminis, all.
Which perhaps makes this review a little biased.
My own birthday is May 30, and connect with their music on almost a spiritual level. The pain, and the angst, and the soul, that is.
Stevie was for many years a resident of my former home state, Arizona, whose father owned a concert venue there for many years, Compton Terrace.
She was absolutely incredible and sounds better than ever with the maturity her age and experience have given her.
Some of the "older" AARP members left during her set, which was a shame but then Stevie is a taste best left to the under 70 crowd, at least. She rocks and makes no bones about it.
She performed a particularly poignant song about New Orleans from her current album, which was well received and appreciated.
She also performed a song "Soldiers Angel" which was written after a visit some years ago to Walter Reed Hospital and speaking with wounded servicemen. She has become heavily involved in this cause, from what it appeared.
It was a more "national" crowd at this show, although the people of New Orleans and the surrounding area right now are pretty hard pressed to offer much in the form of donations - it was a very touching story and song.
As a matter of fact, I had gotten the tickets as a gift from a daughter who knew how strung out her mother was after Isaac and its aftermath, and caring part-time for elderly parents for months on end before that.
And although I had lived in Phoenix for over 45 years and graduated not but a few years behind Stevie, had never seen her live so when I mentioned the concert, sent me the tickets by return email.
But it was Ms. Nicks rock anthems and incredible voice that stole the show.
Rhiannon
Landslide
Stand Back
Edge of Seventeen
All poems set to music, actually, from an incredibly gifted poet.
I guess as a footnote, in order to truly help all those soldiers, and soldiers wives, mothers and families - I hope someday she will lend her incredible voice and support into stopping some of these senseless wars - as she should also know as one from the Vietnam era herself.
Since it does appear that neither party is willing to end one at this point, without shortly beginning another...
How many men have been lost through five decades of war?
Rock on, Stevie....
AARP isn't ready for us...
Not yet, anyway...
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Hurricane Isaac: Katrina, Part II
After being in a heightened state of anxiety for most of the past ten days due to the 24/7 reporting on the approach and devastation surrounding Hurricane Isaac, I feel compelled to give my first person narrative as one who experienced Isaac first hand.
My 90 year old father and 84 year old mother have been 35 year residents of the State of Louisiana, living in the New Orleans metro area, approximately 25 miles from Slidell, Louisiana.
After losing a home in Arizona five years ago and political and quality of life issues there at the present time, after 45 years I have taken up residence with my elderly parents for both financial, and personal reasons as their part-time caretaker.
Which, at almost my retirement age with absolutely nothing left in savings to speak of, is no small task. I was mostly entertained over the weekend watching the reporting from the mainstream news media, especially the weather channel and Fox News.
One Fox report from Slidell, an area hard hit by the flooding which occurred, had a young, blond reporter wearing L.L. Bean hip waders, a powder blue (tight) t-shirt, manicure and spray tan standing in the middle of Old Town Slidell while the waters rushed by.
I hope she got her shots, but I guess her commander in chief was unaware that there are water moccasins in those waters, and those L.L. Bean hip waders weren't going to give her much protection in any event.
But such is the reporting on this major "natural" disaster.
The drama all began a week ago today, when the path of the hurricane was taking it's northwestern turn toward New Orleans.
Each and every hour the reporting confirmed the path, and those in the area started preparing for the worst. We were going to leave, as my parents had done for both Katrina, and Gustav before only this time my father was on thrice weekly dialysis, as he has congestive heart disease and has been in and out of the hospital at least a dozen times in the past year.
He has stabilized for the time being (this month), but we knew due to the severity of his condition, we couldn't go far so decided to "hunker down" for the duration, as one of my sisters who still lives in Arizona so aptly put it.
My other sister and brother-in-law, also long term Louisiana residents, decided to also do likewise since they, at least, did own a generator which my brother-in-law purchased during Katrina when he patrolled the neighborhoods with his neighbors during the month long power outages at that time.
He was born and raised in Pennsylvania, but became one of those dreaded gun-toting Southerners within a few short years of moving here.
My parents truly do not get out much anymore as both suffer from heart disease...my mother merely to the store and back, or to my father's dialysis appointments. Short trips, mostly, to places she is familiar. Due to also his debilitating arthritis, my father stopped driving years ago.
I went to three stores looking for "D" batteries since the entire community was out. None at Wal-Mart or Walgreens. I got the last two at the local Radio Shack.
Why is it that all flashlights require "D" batteries, anyway?
There were lines and lines at the gas pumps. And, surprise, surprise...only Supreme was available at $4.25 a gallon.
There were recurring messages here to report any and all "gouging" to a local enforcement agency. I just wonder how many reported those out of control gas prices...up over $1.25 a gallon from where it was a month ago around here.
Then the grocery stores.
When the power goes out, there is no electricity for those ovens and stoves, or crock pots. So I bought tuna, canned chicken, snack crackers, energy bars, water, bread and peanut butter.
My father is on a special diet due to his dialysis, so other than the peanut butter which was a no-no, I thought we were set for the long haul.
I decided to go to the local bookstore to get a book, just in case.
Walked in about 7:00 Monday night and all the shelves were covered with blue tarps and plastic wrap. The store was closing and wouldn't reopen until after the storm had passed.
We decided that as soon as the electricity went out here, we would all go to my sisters where there would be a room air conditioner.
Six of us in one room for the duration, since my niece had decided to stay at LSU and attend the Hurricane parties there. Of course, the real brunt of the storm had yet to come.
Tuesday passed, and we waited...as did everyone...there were no cars on the road, all who were leaving had left on Monday or Tuesday morning and there was an eery quiet that night as we waited for it to make landfall.
I was up until after midnight listening to the progression.
It hit around 12:30 and it was windy for an hour, and then silence again.
Isaac had gone back over the Gulf again, waiting... I slept on the floor that night since my parents house is surrounded by trees...pines, oaks, and number of other varieties. Huge trees that had also experienced both Katrina and Gustav during their ownership, and for which they merely got a new roof for Katrina.
But then they were not living where there was the most damage that time.
My father was a wood technologist, and bought this house in the late 1970's due to its brick construction, and an old 100 year oak on the property which he liked.
The builder had built the house for his son, who had died in an auto accident when they were looking for house to live in.
I, asthmatic that I am, had stayed in Arizona when they moved, but had visited since my children were babies almost annually until a divorce.
Living in Arizona, I had experienced our annual monsoons (now haboobs?) and flash flooding. The desert isn't used to quite so much rain, and there is nowhere for it to go in the parched ground which is the Arizona desert.
But this was unbelieveable.
Almost 24 straight hours of gusting winds, and pelting, horizontal rain. I had also been here during Gustav in 2008 (my mother had two heart attacks that year). The winds were much stronger then, but it only lasted about six or seven hours.
We were fortunate. We never lost power, although the neighborhood looked like a tornado had gone through it.
The rebuilding has started, although Slidell and the surrounding communities are still under water. And the heat now is unbearable, even to a former desert dweller who isn't used to the off the charts humidity which is also a result of the storm.
Traffic was backed up for miles on Friday, with all those who left returning to survey the damage to their property.
The Lakefront took a huge hit, and the rivers are swollen and overflowing, with a number of dams in danger of breaking.
Life goes on.
But the question I would have liked to ask those reporters, and photographers with all their equipment and spray tans, and the manufactured dramas in many instances...
Why is it that science can now create life in a test tube, created the nuclear bomb, put a man on the moon, and can seed clouds for agricultural purposes in order to make rain - but at this point we don't have the technology to redirect or stop a hurricane?
Or due to all the coincidence with this hurricane which occurred...not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything...but with the timing of this during the Republican convention (as with Gustav), seven years to the day after Katrina, and with all those out of work and with the oil companies continuing to use any excuse imaginable in order to continue to bleed the public dry at the gas pumps.
Maybe, just maybe, perhaps we have the technology to create these hurricanes for "economic" and political reasons?
Where is that female reporter in those hip waders, anyway?
I watched part of that convention...at least the end...and I have only one observation with all the hoopla and celebrating that went on.
As with the many here that suffered through Katrina, and seeing the literally hundreds of dollars per month my parents pay for their medications in order to survive, and what I have experienced personally in the years since Katrina...
No, we are not better off than we were four years ago...or even ten years ago...
This tragedy was definitely not a Katrina, Part II...the government did not fail the citizens of New Orleans THIS time.
But as an aside, in order to assist my parents and myself as an Arizona homeless refugee...
I'm working a temp position that pays me what I was making in 1982, with no benefits, the only position that I had been able to find, and which is not at all in my field of expertise (corporate law, and then subsequently leisure travel & tourism, which just about died with 9-11, and Katrina here).
And what's broken politically, can not be repaired as easily as the Louisianans will rebuild after Isaac...
Not by a long shot...
My 90 year old father and 84 year old mother have been 35 year residents of the State of Louisiana, living in the New Orleans metro area, approximately 25 miles from Slidell, Louisiana.
After losing a home in Arizona five years ago and political and quality of life issues there at the present time, after 45 years I have taken up residence with my elderly parents for both financial, and personal reasons as their part-time caretaker.
Which, at almost my retirement age with absolutely nothing left in savings to speak of, is no small task. I was mostly entertained over the weekend watching the reporting from the mainstream news media, especially the weather channel and Fox News.
One Fox report from Slidell, an area hard hit by the flooding which occurred, had a young, blond reporter wearing L.L. Bean hip waders, a powder blue (tight) t-shirt, manicure and spray tan standing in the middle of Old Town Slidell while the waters rushed by.
I hope she got her shots, but I guess her commander in chief was unaware that there are water moccasins in those waters, and those L.L. Bean hip waders weren't going to give her much protection in any event.
But such is the reporting on this major "natural" disaster.
The drama all began a week ago today, when the path of the hurricane was taking it's northwestern turn toward New Orleans.
Each and every hour the reporting confirmed the path, and those in the area started preparing for the worst. We were going to leave, as my parents had done for both Katrina, and Gustav before only this time my father was on thrice weekly dialysis, as he has congestive heart disease and has been in and out of the hospital at least a dozen times in the past year.
He has stabilized for the time being (this month), but we knew due to the severity of his condition, we couldn't go far so decided to "hunker down" for the duration, as one of my sisters who still lives in Arizona so aptly put it.
My other sister and brother-in-law, also long term Louisiana residents, decided to also do likewise since they, at least, did own a generator which my brother-in-law purchased during Katrina when he patrolled the neighborhoods with his neighbors during the month long power outages at that time.
He was born and raised in Pennsylvania, but became one of those dreaded gun-toting Southerners within a few short years of moving here.
My parents truly do not get out much anymore as both suffer from heart disease...my mother merely to the store and back, or to my father's dialysis appointments. Short trips, mostly, to places she is familiar. Due to also his debilitating arthritis, my father stopped driving years ago.
I went to three stores looking for "D" batteries since the entire community was out. None at Wal-Mart or Walgreens. I got the last two at the local Radio Shack.
Why is it that all flashlights require "D" batteries, anyway?
There were lines and lines at the gas pumps. And, surprise, surprise...only Supreme was available at $4.25 a gallon.
There were recurring messages here to report any and all "gouging" to a local enforcement agency. I just wonder how many reported those out of control gas prices...up over $1.25 a gallon from where it was a month ago around here.
Then the grocery stores.
When the power goes out, there is no electricity for those ovens and stoves, or crock pots. So I bought tuna, canned chicken, snack crackers, energy bars, water, bread and peanut butter.
My father is on a special diet due to his dialysis, so other than the peanut butter which was a no-no, I thought we were set for the long haul.
I decided to go to the local bookstore to get a book, just in case.
Walked in about 7:00 Monday night and all the shelves were covered with blue tarps and plastic wrap. The store was closing and wouldn't reopen until after the storm had passed.
We decided that as soon as the electricity went out here, we would all go to my sisters where there would be a room air conditioner.
Six of us in one room for the duration, since my niece had decided to stay at LSU and attend the Hurricane parties there. Of course, the real brunt of the storm had yet to come.
Tuesday passed, and we waited...as did everyone...there were no cars on the road, all who were leaving had left on Monday or Tuesday morning and there was an eery quiet that night as we waited for it to make landfall.
I was up until after midnight listening to the progression.
It hit around 12:30 and it was windy for an hour, and then silence again.
Isaac had gone back over the Gulf again, waiting... I slept on the floor that night since my parents house is surrounded by trees...pines, oaks, and number of other varieties. Huge trees that had also experienced both Katrina and Gustav during their ownership, and for which they merely got a new roof for Katrina.
But then they were not living where there was the most damage that time.
My father was a wood technologist, and bought this house in the late 1970's due to its brick construction, and an old 100 year oak on the property which he liked.
The builder had built the house for his son, who had died in an auto accident when they were looking for house to live in.
I, asthmatic that I am, had stayed in Arizona when they moved, but had visited since my children were babies almost annually until a divorce.
Living in Arizona, I had experienced our annual monsoons (now haboobs?) and flash flooding. The desert isn't used to quite so much rain, and there is nowhere for it to go in the parched ground which is the Arizona desert.
But this was unbelieveable.
Almost 24 straight hours of gusting winds, and pelting, horizontal rain. I had also been here during Gustav in 2008 (my mother had two heart attacks that year). The winds were much stronger then, but it only lasted about six or seven hours.
We were fortunate. We never lost power, although the neighborhood looked like a tornado had gone through it.
The rebuilding has started, although Slidell and the surrounding communities are still under water. And the heat now is unbearable, even to a former desert dweller who isn't used to the off the charts humidity which is also a result of the storm.
Traffic was backed up for miles on Friday, with all those who left returning to survey the damage to their property.
The Lakefront took a huge hit, and the rivers are swollen and overflowing, with a number of dams in danger of breaking.
Life goes on.
But the question I would have liked to ask those reporters, and photographers with all their equipment and spray tans, and the manufactured dramas in many instances...
Why is it that science can now create life in a test tube, created the nuclear bomb, put a man on the moon, and can seed clouds for agricultural purposes in order to make rain - but at this point we don't have the technology to redirect or stop a hurricane?
Or due to all the coincidence with this hurricane which occurred...not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything...but with the timing of this during the Republican convention (as with Gustav), seven years to the day after Katrina, and with all those out of work and with the oil companies continuing to use any excuse imaginable in order to continue to bleed the public dry at the gas pumps.
Maybe, just maybe, perhaps we have the technology to create these hurricanes for "economic" and political reasons?
Where is that female reporter in those hip waders, anyway?
I watched part of that convention...at least the end...and I have only one observation with all the hoopla and celebrating that went on.
As with the many here that suffered through Katrina, and seeing the literally hundreds of dollars per month my parents pay for their medications in order to survive, and what I have experienced personally in the years since Katrina...
No, we are not better off than we were four years ago...or even ten years ago...
This tragedy was definitely not a Katrina, Part II...the government did not fail the citizens of New Orleans THIS time.
But as an aside, in order to assist my parents and myself as an Arizona homeless refugee...
I'm working a temp position that pays me what I was making in 1982, with no benefits, the only position that I had been able to find, and which is not at all in my field of expertise (corporate law, and then subsequently leisure travel & tourism, which just about died with 9-11, and Katrina here).
And what's broken politically, can not be repaired as easily as the Louisianans will rebuild after Isaac...
Not by a long shot...
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Roberts Rules of Constitutional Obliteration
It has taken me over a week to process the latest desecration of the United States Constitution promulgated by no other than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts.
The Roberts Court I predict will go down as the most liberal Court in U.S. history.
And that's saying something.
Much has been made in the media of the decision reached by Justice Roberts on the most contentious provision contained within the 1,300 page "(Un)Affordable Care Act."
His holding in that respect defies any and all Rules of Law and the common law in this country, and wipes out any illusion that the Bill of Rights was written in order to protect individual Americans from federal (OR STATE) overstep.
Upholding this provision was not only overstep, it was crushing the American people under federal jack boots.
Now the "talking heads" on the cable news networks, who make their profits over sensationalized news and cases such as this one they can milk for weeks and years to come, are arguing whether this mandate is a "tax" as Justice Roberts defined it (is this man insane, or what?) or a penalty.
From Websters:
Definition of PENALTY
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
-------------------------------------------------
It is, no question, a penalty and not a "tax," or within Congress or the Supreme Court's taxing authority under our Constitution or those founders intent.
But more importantly, just what was the purpose of Justice Roberts defining it in such a manner, since there did have to be an ulterior motive here with such an outrageous ruling.
Well, the Supreme Court has, for literally decades, refused to hear cases involving taxation due to a decision either it made independently, or after passage of another of those back door bills, that it will not hear any cases involving taxation.
Since, of course, the federal income tax itself and its passage was by no means a popular move by that Congress so very long ago...
As long as the Supreme Court defines it as such, it never, ever again has to re-examine its own ruling on this provision.
By its own edict...
In other words, Roberts both ruled it a tax, and then protected this Court (and any future Court also) from ever having to hear any more cases with respect to that provision in ObamaCare ever again.
I still haven't figured out how the Supreme Court has the power anywhere in the Constitution to refuse to hear any case brought by an American citizen, but it does so rather regularly.
This, in an of itself, is a demonstration of the high regard the Court holds for itself as the Court of last resort.
And it is still unclear to me just who the appealing parties were in this case, since it was announced that it was brought by several of the states (who also stand to gain revenue from this ruling, revenue which they can now use elsewhere in their states for more and more unconstitutional functions when they cut many of their also state funded programs).
From what I read in briefly having a chance to read the Supreme Court opinion in full before it was yanked from the web, it was brought by a "corporate" entity I had never heard of (and additional appellees).
This was not just a wacko ruling, it was a wacko ruling that had a further political purpose as its objective.
Which makes the Roberts Court one of the most liberal and political courts ever in this country.
I wonder just how much stock Justice Roberts has in the insurance and health care sector?
Since it is clear that most of those in Washington who hold all those insurance, hospital and pharma stocks will be making a killing on this ruling - and Mr. Romney is also no exception.
They all should be ashamed...as this provision actually was the most contentious, and yet most important provision within that 1,300 page bill.
Make no mistake about it....
It set a "precedent" like no other ruling before it...that the federal government's power is absolute with respect to using any means necessary to pass any old legislation it wishes...
And the first order of business in this country for any new Congress should be re-examining the law school curriculum in this country, particularly those Ivy League schools on the East Coast...
Since the amount they are charging for tuition for such a legal education as obviously Mr. Roberts must have received seems like highway robbery...or money down the drain.
I hope Mr. Roberts paid for that education, and not his parents...
And if the penalty was upheld as a tax, then it would stand to reason that the mandate to provide health insurance for individual Americans and that cost is also a tax, and all dollars paid by Americans for their own health care should then be fully deductible on their federal and state income taxes.
You can't have it both ways...
The Roberts Court I predict will go down as the most liberal Court in U.S. history.
And that's saying something.
Much has been made in the media of the decision reached by Justice Roberts on the most contentious provision contained within the 1,300 page "(Un)Affordable Care Act."
His holding in that respect defies any and all Rules of Law and the common law in this country, and wipes out any illusion that the Bill of Rights was written in order to protect individual Americans from federal (OR STATE) overstep.
Upholding this provision was not only overstep, it was crushing the American people under federal jack boots.
Now the "talking heads" on the cable news networks, who make their profits over sensationalized news and cases such as this one they can milk for weeks and years to come, are arguing whether this mandate is a "tax" as Justice Roberts defined it (is this man insane, or what?) or a penalty.
From Websters:
Definition of PENALTY
1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense
2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
-------------------------------------------------
It is, no question, a penalty and not a "tax," or within Congress or the Supreme Court's taxing authority under our Constitution or those founders intent.
But more importantly, just what was the purpose of Justice Roberts defining it in such a manner, since there did have to be an ulterior motive here with such an outrageous ruling.
Well, the Supreme Court has, for literally decades, refused to hear cases involving taxation due to a decision either it made independently, or after passage of another of those back door bills, that it will not hear any cases involving taxation.
Since, of course, the federal income tax itself and its passage was by no means a popular move by that Congress so very long ago...
As long as the Supreme Court defines it as such, it never, ever again has to re-examine its own ruling on this provision.
By its own edict...
In other words, Roberts both ruled it a tax, and then protected this Court (and any future Court also) from ever having to hear any more cases with respect to that provision in ObamaCare ever again.
I still haven't figured out how the Supreme Court has the power anywhere in the Constitution to refuse to hear any case brought by an American citizen, but it does so rather regularly.
This, in an of itself, is a demonstration of the high regard the Court holds for itself as the Court of last resort.
And it is still unclear to me just who the appealing parties were in this case, since it was announced that it was brought by several of the states (who also stand to gain revenue from this ruling, revenue which they can now use elsewhere in their states for more and more unconstitutional functions when they cut many of their also state funded programs).
From what I read in briefly having a chance to read the Supreme Court opinion in full before it was yanked from the web, it was brought by a "corporate" entity I had never heard of (and additional appellees).
This was not just a wacko ruling, it was a wacko ruling that had a further political purpose as its objective.
Which makes the Roberts Court one of the most liberal and political courts ever in this country.
I wonder just how much stock Justice Roberts has in the insurance and health care sector?
Since it is clear that most of those in Washington who hold all those insurance, hospital and pharma stocks will be making a killing on this ruling - and Mr. Romney is also no exception.
They all should be ashamed...as this provision actually was the most contentious, and yet most important provision within that 1,300 page bill.
Make no mistake about it....
It set a "precedent" like no other ruling before it...that the federal government's power is absolute with respect to using any means necessary to pass any old legislation it wishes...
And the first order of business in this country for any new Congress should be re-examining the law school curriculum in this country, particularly those Ivy League schools on the East Coast...
Since the amount they are charging for tuition for such a legal education as obviously Mr. Roberts must have received seems like highway robbery...or money down the drain.
I hope Mr. Roberts paid for that education, and not his parents...
And if the penalty was upheld as a tax, then it would stand to reason that the mandate to provide health insurance for individual Americans and that cost is also a tax, and all dollars paid by Americans for their own health care should then be fully deductible on their federal and state income taxes.
You can't have it both ways...
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Arizonans Losers Again
This is a banner week for the U.S. Supreme Court.
First up, the recent political decision on the Arizona immigration case and the provisions of SB 1070, Arizona's tough "anti-illegal immigrant" bill which challenged the federal government's authority with respect to the ramifications to my former home state over its failure to secure our southern borders.
With the number of foreigners escalating particularly after the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's to the point where it is estimated there are literally millions of foreign Mexican and South Americans making it a "national" concern.
Except for those in the upper 48 apparently, including D.C.
Even after passage of the Secure Fence Act back in 2006, and the much ballyhooed passage of the bill which provided for a centralized database for employers to check the immigration status of potential employees.
The flow hasn't stopped significantly, but unless something isn't done soon, those numbers will eventually simply increase...a bad or good economy makes no real difference, although a bad economy makes the hiring of illegals and the drug trafficking and auto thefts in most border states skyrocket.
Problem is the government, state and federal,through their own governmental contractors, are probably the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor.
And, so very many are making a killing keeping those southern borders unsecured for the cheap foreign labor our open borders provide - not to mention how much the courts and lawyers make throughout the country on all those criminal and "civil rights" cases which are heard in our local and federal courts.
Illegal immigration, while being a jobs killer, is definitely an economic stimulus for the politicians, lawyers, and large and small businesses that profit off their labors.
As a former long term Arizonan, what was interesting to me is just how ludicrous this entire Supreme Court case actually was to begin with.
I mean, even the one provision the Court upheld was politically motivated.
The provision that enabled local law enforcement officials to require proof of citizenship be provided in the event any individual is stopped and suspected of being in the country illegally.
Since there is a U.S. District Court case pending until the Supremes decision was rendered which is directly challenging that provision on "civil rights" grounds, that was hardly a "win" for Arizona - although Arizona's Governor sure seemed to publicly whitewash and call the Supremes' decision a win for Arizona due to their upholding that provision (at least until one of their fellow brethren on the bench in the U.S. District Court strikes that one down).
It was really a win for Mexicans throughout the land, and the government of Mexico, truth be told.
The Supremes' upheld the rights of foreigners over those of Americans.
SB 1070 in and of itself was a rather political move by the Arizona legislature to begin with.
During President Bush's final days in office, he used one of those Executive Orders to grant "free pass" visa waivers with only 48 hour security checks to foreigners from over 35 different countries.
Visas for Mexican visitors haven't been required for literally decades.
So upon those "stops" just how would any officer prove in a court of law that an undocumented Mexican was in the country illegally, if there are no visa requirements anymore?
What seems more than clear was that this case was politically motivated, and was the biggest winner for the lawyers who also get their legal fees paid gratis for any deemed "civil rights" action they might bring.
And if the U.S. District Court doesn't overturn the "show me your papers" provisions of that law, I just wonder how many Arizona lawyers will be licking their chops over all the potential cases they will now have for decades to come?
What a travesty...and the passion plays go on...and on...while the Americans and Arizona citizens aren't even an after thought.
I mean, people are commerce, are they not?
Foreign or domestic.
And isn't it clear that crime certainly does pay?
As far as the Constitutional questions...
I have read and reread the U.S. Constitution numerous times, and the only power I actually see granted to the federal government in this respect is that they are to provide a "process for naturalization," and to provide the federal courts for any crime committed by a foreigner in this country before they finalize the naturalization process.
So just where is it written that it is the federal government's sole job to dictate immigration policies, or their enforcement?
Since, after all, it is the state's that petition the federal government for all those green cards each and every year by Resolution?
This just keeps getting worse and worse...just whose rights was that Constitution written in order to protect?
Americans...or foreigners?
Since, of course, being Mexican or South American, or Latino is not a race at all.
Simply a nationality
First up, the recent political decision on the Arizona immigration case and the provisions of SB 1070, Arizona's tough "anti-illegal immigrant" bill which challenged the federal government's authority with respect to the ramifications to my former home state over its failure to secure our southern borders.
With the number of foreigners escalating particularly after the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's to the point where it is estimated there are literally millions of foreign Mexican and South Americans making it a "national" concern.
Except for those in the upper 48 apparently, including D.C.
Even after passage of the Secure Fence Act back in 2006, and the much ballyhooed passage of the bill which provided for a centralized database for employers to check the immigration status of potential employees.
The flow hasn't stopped significantly, but unless something isn't done soon, those numbers will eventually simply increase...a bad or good economy makes no real difference, although a bad economy makes the hiring of illegals and the drug trafficking and auto thefts in most border states skyrocket.
Problem is the government, state and federal,through their own governmental contractors, are probably the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor.
And, so very many are making a killing keeping those southern borders unsecured for the cheap foreign labor our open borders provide - not to mention how much the courts and lawyers make throughout the country on all those criminal and "civil rights" cases which are heard in our local and federal courts.
Illegal immigration, while being a jobs killer, is definitely an economic stimulus for the politicians, lawyers, and large and small businesses that profit off their labors.
As a former long term Arizonan, what was interesting to me is just how ludicrous this entire Supreme Court case actually was to begin with.
I mean, even the one provision the Court upheld was politically motivated.
The provision that enabled local law enforcement officials to require proof of citizenship be provided in the event any individual is stopped and suspected of being in the country illegally.
Since there is a U.S. District Court case pending until the Supremes decision was rendered which is directly challenging that provision on "civil rights" grounds, that was hardly a "win" for Arizona - although Arizona's Governor sure seemed to publicly whitewash and call the Supremes' decision a win for Arizona due to their upholding that provision (at least until one of their fellow brethren on the bench in the U.S. District Court strikes that one down).
It was really a win for Mexicans throughout the land, and the government of Mexico, truth be told.
The Supremes' upheld the rights of foreigners over those of Americans.
SB 1070 in and of itself was a rather political move by the Arizona legislature to begin with.
During President Bush's final days in office, he used one of those Executive Orders to grant "free pass" visa waivers with only 48 hour security checks to foreigners from over 35 different countries.
Visas for Mexican visitors haven't been required for literally decades.
So upon those "stops" just how would any officer prove in a court of law that an undocumented Mexican was in the country illegally, if there are no visa requirements anymore?
What seems more than clear was that this case was politically motivated, and was the biggest winner for the lawyers who also get their legal fees paid gratis for any deemed "civil rights" action they might bring.
And if the U.S. District Court doesn't overturn the "show me your papers" provisions of that law, I just wonder how many Arizona lawyers will be licking their chops over all the potential cases they will now have for decades to come?
What a travesty...and the passion plays go on...and on...while the Americans and Arizona citizens aren't even an after thought.
I mean, people are commerce, are they not?
Foreign or domestic.
And isn't it clear that crime certainly does pay?
As far as the Constitutional questions...
I have read and reread the U.S. Constitution numerous times, and the only power I actually see granted to the federal government in this respect is that they are to provide a "process for naturalization," and to provide the federal courts for any crime committed by a foreigner in this country before they finalize the naturalization process.
So just where is it written that it is the federal government's sole job to dictate immigration policies, or their enforcement?
Since, after all, it is the state's that petition the federal government for all those green cards each and every year by Resolution?
This just keeps getting worse and worse...just whose rights was that Constitution written in order to protect?
Americans...or foreigners?
Since, of course, being Mexican or South American, or Latino is not a race at all.
Simply a nationality
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Mr. Obama's Dream Isn't Dreamy to Mainstream Americans
In the last few days it has been apparent that this is an election year, and the political landscape is getting more and more slippery by the minute.
The latest news on the election front is the announcement by Mr. Obama that his stance on illegal immigrant enforcement activites will take a more compassionate view. He is a dreamer, and the Dream Act is once again being milked for those crucial foreign votes.
The sins of the fathers are not to be used against the children of foreigners who entered this country illegally, without going through the immigration process as set forth by Congress. Mr. Obama has mandated through another Executive Order that Congress has no authority in this matter, only the president does.
Where in the Constitution that power is accorded the president has escaped me, although I have read it through several times (it is a rather short document, after all, unlike the immigration provisions, or any other Act of Congress this past century, at least.
It is important, after all, to garner those foreign votes.
The will and positions of Americans on this contentious issue, especially in this current economy, does not bear consideration.
As one who formerly grew up and lived in a border state, and has been repeatedly victimized by the policies of Washington on this issue and my state of residence on several occasions within the past twenty years, makes such a position rather hard to swallow.
As it appears is also the case with many other Americans, whether border state residents, victims or not.
I was even victimized once again in a non-border Western state, by the current economic conditions irrespective of the border issue.
After having left my home state of Arizona in early 2007 after the National Guard had been called out in order to secure Arizona's borders, and also a victim of the mortgage mess and crisis in the Western states particularly, I eventually ended up in another Western state after having to move from a Southern state where I had extended family after one of the major hurricanes for health reasons.
It took me approximately seven or eight months to be able to regain my health, during which time I was living in weekly rental rooms, which was all that I could afford due to the ramifications of my exit from Arizona and expenses thereafter in subsequent moves, medical expenses, and costs of gasoline and related expenses.
When I was well enough, I attempted to seek work in a busting economy in my former field of experience and expertise - leisure travel and tourism (an industry which pretty much was wiped out after 9-11, and all those TSA regulations and requirements which have turned many Americans against traveling very far for their recreation, if they could afford it).
During this time I ran through my savings (the equity I had gotten out of my home due to a forced move, a home I had lived in for over 12 years which was originally on a 15 year note, for which I had in those 12 years paid for twice with the interest) and three months "emergency" stash.
Eventually, I found it necessary to apply for food stamps in order to get food. A position that in my wildest dreams I never hoped to find myself.
I walked into the state offices (this is a federal program, but administered by the states) to pick up my application.
On the television in the office there was a video of the Disney movie, Jungle Book.
And the song, "The Bare Necessities" was playing on a loop over and over again.
I guess this is an example of the federal (or state) government's sense of humor.
Or maybe it was for the children of those food stamp recipients in order to discourage their children from asking for an I-phone for their next Christmas gift. You know, the ones which are advertised on the television around Christmas time to hook those kids into begging for the latest technology.
The office was crowded, although the applications were lying on a table so I didn't have to wait in line.
I looked it over.
The first page astounded me.
While as an American I was to provide documentation of my income, residency status (although a federal program), social security number, expenses and the like, it was stressed in bold letters that no proof of citizenship was required nor social security number for foreigners.
My benefits were cut off after one month due to the fact that my paperwork wasn't in order, and I was accused by one of the government officials when I went to the office again of not returning their call when they called to obtain further information. Rather loudly, I might add.
All representatives at the offices were minority race employees, and I would have to say that as a white, older American woman my application was reviewed far more closely than that of any of the minority members seeking assistance, although my case worker was a minority member and was very cordial and later apologized privately for the mix up.
But in the end it really didn't matter.
Within a month or two of receiving my card, I ran out of cream for my coffee one morning so decided to walk to the corner store since it was snowing out that morning.
I got on my boots, gloves and coat (and for a former desert dweller this was a lengthy process) and headed out to the store.
My weekly rental was on a rather busy street, so although not living in one of the "nicer" areas in this metro community, a community where walking and biking are promoted as a benefit of living there, it was just a short walk and wasn't really all that cold outside.
I hadn't gone more than a few blocks when I noticed one of those portable taco stands parked in a vacant lot, with three young men standing outside the little mobile home/restaurant.
I started walking past the cart when one of the young men stepped in front of me and asked if I had a few dollars to spare so that he could get something to eat.
I said, no I really didn't since I myself found I needed food stamps and only had about six dollars in cash with me anyway.
With that, he grabbed my purse. I grabbed back. The strap broke, and he was off across the vacant field.
At that moment in my life, if it hadn't been snowing, and I hadn't been over fifty, I would have taken off across that field to get my purse since it had all my identification, including my needed social security card in it, my children's pictures, and my food stamp card.
I don't think the Dream Act is what America needs.
How many more tens of thousands of those kids will also be looking for work when they graduate from those state colleges, and also cannot find adequate employment in addition to the literally millions of generational Americans now in that position?
Dream on, Mr. Obama.
The latest news on the election front is the announcement by Mr. Obama that his stance on illegal immigrant enforcement activites will take a more compassionate view. He is a dreamer, and the Dream Act is once again being milked for those crucial foreign votes.
The sins of the fathers are not to be used against the children of foreigners who entered this country illegally, without going through the immigration process as set forth by Congress. Mr. Obama has mandated through another Executive Order that Congress has no authority in this matter, only the president does.
Where in the Constitution that power is accorded the president has escaped me, although I have read it through several times (it is a rather short document, after all, unlike the immigration provisions, or any other Act of Congress this past century, at least.
It is important, after all, to garner those foreign votes.
The will and positions of Americans on this contentious issue, especially in this current economy, does not bear consideration.
As one who formerly grew up and lived in a border state, and has been repeatedly victimized by the policies of Washington on this issue and my state of residence on several occasions within the past twenty years, makes such a position rather hard to swallow.
As it appears is also the case with many other Americans, whether border state residents, victims or not.
I was even victimized once again in a non-border Western state, by the current economic conditions irrespective of the border issue.
After having left my home state of Arizona in early 2007 after the National Guard had been called out in order to secure Arizona's borders, and also a victim of the mortgage mess and crisis in the Western states particularly, I eventually ended up in another Western state after having to move from a Southern state where I had extended family after one of the major hurricanes for health reasons.
It took me approximately seven or eight months to be able to regain my health, during which time I was living in weekly rental rooms, which was all that I could afford due to the ramifications of my exit from Arizona and expenses thereafter in subsequent moves, medical expenses, and costs of gasoline and related expenses.
When I was well enough, I attempted to seek work in a busting economy in my former field of experience and expertise - leisure travel and tourism (an industry which pretty much was wiped out after 9-11, and all those TSA regulations and requirements which have turned many Americans against traveling very far for their recreation, if they could afford it).
During this time I ran through my savings (the equity I had gotten out of my home due to a forced move, a home I had lived in for over 12 years which was originally on a 15 year note, for which I had in those 12 years paid for twice with the interest) and three months "emergency" stash.
Eventually, I found it necessary to apply for food stamps in order to get food. A position that in my wildest dreams I never hoped to find myself.
I walked into the state offices (this is a federal program, but administered by the states) to pick up my application.
On the television in the office there was a video of the Disney movie, Jungle Book.
And the song, "The Bare Necessities" was playing on a loop over and over again.
I guess this is an example of the federal (or state) government's sense of humor.
Or maybe it was for the children of those food stamp recipients in order to discourage their children from asking for an I-phone for their next Christmas gift. You know, the ones which are advertised on the television around Christmas time to hook those kids into begging for the latest technology.
The office was crowded, although the applications were lying on a table so I didn't have to wait in line.
I looked it over.
The first page astounded me.
While as an American I was to provide documentation of my income, residency status (although a federal program), social security number, expenses and the like, it was stressed in bold letters that no proof of citizenship was required nor social security number for foreigners.
My benefits were cut off after one month due to the fact that my paperwork wasn't in order, and I was accused by one of the government officials when I went to the office again of not returning their call when they called to obtain further information. Rather loudly, I might add.
All representatives at the offices were minority race employees, and I would have to say that as a white, older American woman my application was reviewed far more closely than that of any of the minority members seeking assistance, although my case worker was a minority member and was very cordial and later apologized privately for the mix up.
But in the end it really didn't matter.
Within a month or two of receiving my card, I ran out of cream for my coffee one morning so decided to walk to the corner store since it was snowing out that morning.
I got on my boots, gloves and coat (and for a former desert dweller this was a lengthy process) and headed out to the store.
My weekly rental was on a rather busy street, so although not living in one of the "nicer" areas in this metro community, a community where walking and biking are promoted as a benefit of living there, it was just a short walk and wasn't really all that cold outside.
I hadn't gone more than a few blocks when I noticed one of those portable taco stands parked in a vacant lot, with three young men standing outside the little mobile home/restaurant.
I started walking past the cart when one of the young men stepped in front of me and asked if I had a few dollars to spare so that he could get something to eat.
I said, no I really didn't since I myself found I needed food stamps and only had about six dollars in cash with me anyway.
With that, he grabbed my purse. I grabbed back. The strap broke, and he was off across the vacant field.
At that moment in my life, if it hadn't been snowing, and I hadn't been over fifty, I would have taken off across that field to get my purse since it had all my identification, including my needed social security card in it, my children's pictures, and my food stamp card.
I don't think the Dream Act is what America needs.
How many more tens of thousands of those kids will also be looking for work when they graduate from those state colleges, and also cannot find adequate employment in addition to the literally millions of generational Americans now in that position?
Dream on, Mr. Obama.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Memorial Day Memories
The Memorial Day holiday is probably more significant to me than it is to many Americans for one simple reason.
Historically, May 30th was designated as Memorial Day; however, the day in May has fluctuated during the last several decades due to a change in legislation in order accomodate U.S. businesses and their employees to afford a three day weekend.
Memorial Day remained May 30th for many years after I was born, since May 30th just happens to be my birthday.
I was born on the day which was designated to honor all those killed in the wars preceding my birth...which at that time were those who lost their lives in the American Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, World War I and World War II.
In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
My birth and their deaths have been my legacy ever since.
While President Obama laid wreaths and rolled out the patriotic speeches, and Romney used the day to campaign on increases in federal governmental spending on defense, mention was made that this is also the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Viet Nam war.
Also a war in which I was an eyewitness to the events surrounding its beginning, progression and ending.
What I heard did not at all address this war for what it was.
The start of the wars for global dominance and offensive engagements rather than Constitutional defensive ones.
The service personnel from that war need recognition more so probably than any other group of servicemen and women.
After all, most of them were required to serve, or run off to Canada if they did not wish to be drafted.
Many came back having been the subjects of experiments in chemical warfare (Agent Orange), and with PTSD due to having to fight a war against an ill defined enemy, for an ill defined purpose, and against women and children who were used also as combatants.
Sort of like this ongoing conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else the front in this Middle Eastern "War on Terror" moves.
It appeared to me that many of those governmental officials waving the flag interviewed on cable television were using terrorism tactics themselves.
Romney stating that "this country is no more safet today than it was ten years ago" and in need of bulking up its military defensive spending in order to guarantee Americans future safety and security from the Middle Eastern threat.
When over 4,000 men and women so far have died in this current war, in addition to those lost in 9-11...would appear the threat is greater over there than it would be if we were fighting this war on our own home soil, if needed.
I mean, what is the logic of losing another 4,000 lives after losing almost 3,000 and doubling down on the loss of life.
If what Mr. Romney states is true, just how many more lives will be needed?
Our own U.S. borders are still, for the most part, unsecure and more and more foreigners are being afforded entry in this country than ever before, under that U.S. free pass visa waiver program which was instituted during the last days of the Bush Administration.
From over 40 different countries.
We are now training foreign troops on U.S. soil for the first time in American history - just how secure is that making this country's defense?
If we are not any more secure today than we were ten years ago, just what was the point of Reagan's Star Wars program, and all the literally tens of billions of dollars that have been spent to buy the latest satellite technology, and all those gadgets and guns?
Just how many more American lives, and livelihoods, will it take?
The attached video on the Viet Nam conflict is as true today, as it was then....and it is the sons and daughters of Americans that continue to pay the price...
THIS was Viet Nam....and this Middle Eastern war will be this generation's Viet Nam...
And how many that paid tribute today, will not be here for the next Memorial Day?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnnLrmboOYE&feature=related
Historically, May 30th was designated as Memorial Day; however, the day in May has fluctuated during the last several decades due to a change in legislation in order accomodate U.S. businesses and their employees to afford a three day weekend.
Memorial Day remained May 30th for many years after I was born, since May 30th just happens to be my birthday.
I was born on the day which was designated to honor all those killed in the wars preceding my birth...which at that time were those who lost their lives in the American Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, World War I and World War II.
In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
My birth and their deaths have been my legacy ever since.
While President Obama laid wreaths and rolled out the patriotic speeches, and Romney used the day to campaign on increases in federal governmental spending on defense, mention was made that this is also the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Viet Nam war.
Also a war in which I was an eyewitness to the events surrounding its beginning, progression and ending.
What I heard did not at all address this war for what it was.
The start of the wars for global dominance and offensive engagements rather than Constitutional defensive ones.
The service personnel from that war need recognition more so probably than any other group of servicemen and women.
After all, most of them were required to serve, or run off to Canada if they did not wish to be drafted.
Many came back having been the subjects of experiments in chemical warfare (Agent Orange), and with PTSD due to having to fight a war against an ill defined enemy, for an ill defined purpose, and against women and children who were used also as combatants.
Sort of like this ongoing conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever else the front in this Middle Eastern "War on Terror" moves.
It appeared to me that many of those governmental officials waving the flag interviewed on cable television were using terrorism tactics themselves.
Romney stating that "this country is no more safet today than it was ten years ago" and in need of bulking up its military defensive spending in order to guarantee Americans future safety and security from the Middle Eastern threat.
When over 4,000 men and women so far have died in this current war, in addition to those lost in 9-11...would appear the threat is greater over there than it would be if we were fighting this war on our own home soil, if needed.
I mean, what is the logic of losing another 4,000 lives after losing almost 3,000 and doubling down on the loss of life.
If what Mr. Romney states is true, just how many more lives will be needed?
Our own U.S. borders are still, for the most part, unsecure and more and more foreigners are being afforded entry in this country than ever before, under that U.S. free pass visa waiver program which was instituted during the last days of the Bush Administration.
From over 40 different countries.
We are now training foreign troops on U.S. soil for the first time in American history - just how secure is that making this country's defense?
If we are not any more secure today than we were ten years ago, just what was the point of Reagan's Star Wars program, and all the literally tens of billions of dollars that have been spent to buy the latest satellite technology, and all those gadgets and guns?
Just how many more American lives, and livelihoods, will it take?
The attached video on the Viet Nam conflict is as true today, as it was then....and it is the sons and daughters of Americans that continue to pay the price...
THIS was Viet Nam....and this Middle Eastern war will be this generation's Viet Nam...
And how many that paid tribute today, will not be here for the next Memorial Day?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnnLrmboOYE&feature=related
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Trayvon Martin Media Blitz Goes On...and On...
This week's mainstream media news has been dominated by two sagas that have gone on...and on...
The arrest and continuing investigation in the death of Trayvon Martin, and the goings on in Colombia that has led to the resignations of several of Mr. Obama's Secret Service detail.
No surprise this is an election year. With these two cases also politically reported, for the most part, on all national cable and news stations.
The media spins and politicalization of the Trayvon Martin case is being used to propagandize and challenge American's Second Amendment rights, and also a law passed in the Florida legislature upholding the common law and a citizens right to bear arms and protect his life and property.
This case continues to be one of the fact that there were no clear eyewitnesses to what occurred, and only telephone conversations with both a girlfriend, and the 911 operators prior to the death of Mr. Martin. It is also being used to facilitate the "hate crimes" legislation recently passed by the federal government - a law which makes basic human emotions when committing a crime also a crime in and of itself.
Not merely motivation at this point, but a crime for any American to have any ill feelings or act upon those feelings in any manner whatsoever a federal crime.
No matter what the origins or "mitigating circumstances" for that emotion might "justifiably" be.
I mean hate is wrong in and of itself. Humans definitely MUST NOT hate anything or anyone. Although God was a little partial in his wisdom as far as his tolerance levels. He definitely did have a bottom line.
It is a criminal matter to hate based upon gender, race or sexual preference. Of course, legislating emotions is now also within the purview of "the State."
Not simply any crimes which may be committed upon those emotions as evidence of motivation.
The handling of this case also bears a great deal of scrutiny and questioning.
The Fifth Amendment provides:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Where is the Grand Jury indictment here?
Well, the prosecutor decided to petition the court in order to have a "bench indictment" issued in this case, bypassing the Grand Jury (or people) of the State of Florida.
Of course, this will also drag out the case for months, or possibly years...since all those motions and bail hearings and other legal maneuvers can now be ruled upon and sanctioned merely by a judge. When a Grand Jury would be charged with determining whether or not there was enough evidence to even bring Mr. Zimmerman to trial, thus saving the taxpayers the costs of a trial if it was determined by the Grand Jury that there wasn't.
I understand and can empathize with Mr. Martin's parents...truly...to loose a child in such a way in any circumstances must be devastating for them.
But we have a Constitutional process here that, for all intents and purposes, is being ignored which is also feeding the media frenzy, not to negate the efforts of Mr. Sharpton also to get his face time before the cameras, rather than simply calling for the "will of the people" in the proscribed manner to be carried out here.
And I continue to wonder...just why is it that so many of these highly publicized and high profile crimes or incidents seem to happen in Florida?
As far as the second story, what happened in Colombia obviously isn't going to remain in Colombia.
Nor should it.
I just wonder why Mr. Obama was in Colombia to begin with...since we do have a Secretary of State and ambassadors to handle all those global conferences that seem to increase by the year.
Tune in next week.
I'm sure it will be more of the same.
No surprise this is an election year. With these two cases also politically reported, for the most part, on all national cable and news stations.
The media spins and politicalization of the Trayvon Martin case is being used to propagandize and challenge American's Second Amendment rights, and also a law passed in the Florida legislature upholding the common law and a citizens right to bear arms and protect his life and property.
This case continues to be one of the fact that there were no clear eyewitnesses to what occurred, and only telephone conversations with both a girlfriend, and the 911 operators prior to the death of Mr. Martin. It is also being used to facilitate the "hate crimes" legislation recently passed by the federal government - a law which makes basic human emotions when committing a crime also a crime in and of itself.
Not merely motivation at this point, but a crime for any American to have any ill feelings or act upon those feelings in any manner whatsoever a federal crime.
No matter what the origins or "mitigating circumstances" for that emotion might "justifiably" be.
I mean hate is wrong in and of itself. Humans definitely MUST NOT hate anything or anyone. Although God was a little partial in his wisdom as far as his tolerance levels. He definitely did have a bottom line.
It is a criminal matter to hate based upon gender, race or sexual preference. Of course, legislating emotions is now also within the purview of "the State."
Not simply any crimes which may be committed upon those emotions as evidence of motivation.
The handling of this case also bears a great deal of scrutiny and questioning.
The Fifth Amendment provides:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Where is the Grand Jury indictment here?
Well, the prosecutor decided to petition the court in order to have a "bench indictment" issued in this case, bypassing the Grand Jury (or people) of the State of Florida.
Of course, this will also drag out the case for months, or possibly years...since all those motions and bail hearings and other legal maneuvers can now be ruled upon and sanctioned merely by a judge. When a Grand Jury would be charged with determining whether or not there was enough evidence to even bring Mr. Zimmerman to trial, thus saving the taxpayers the costs of a trial if it was determined by the Grand Jury that there wasn't.
I understand and can empathize with Mr. Martin's parents...truly...to loose a child in such a way in any circumstances must be devastating for them.
But we have a Constitutional process here that, for all intents and purposes, is being ignored which is also feeding the media frenzy, not to negate the efforts of Mr. Sharpton also to get his face time before the cameras, rather than simply calling for the "will of the people" in the proscribed manner to be carried out here.
And I continue to wonder...just why is it that so many of these highly publicized and high profile crimes or incidents seem to happen in Florida?
As far as the second story, what happened in Colombia obviously isn't going to remain in Colombia.
Nor should it.
I just wonder why Mr. Obama was in Colombia to begin with...since we do have a Secretary of State and ambassadors to handle all those global conferences that seem to increase by the year.
Tune in next week.
I'm sure it will be more of the same.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
HookerGate: Secret Service Scandal Over Colombia Connections
It was reported in the mainstream media this weekend that Barack Obama's visit to Cartagena, Colombia for the "Summit of the Americas" has been marred by reports of several Secret Service agents apparent dalliances with local prostitutes, one of which reported to local authorities she had been denied payment for services rendered.
This story is deserving of its own media headline: HookerGate
Maybe this is why the President really was never intended to be involved in global dealings on foreign soil in the first place - rather using his ambassadors to represent the American people and its government at such conventions.
So that the President then remained in Washington while Congress was in session in order to serve the American people and fulfill his Constitutional function.
This summit is in its sixth year, which means it was started when President Bush was in office.
And appears it seems to be another attempt by the globalists to redefine "America" as "the Americas."
Since the entire summit was to be devoted to discussing joint concerns over national security, the economy, and trade.
Although it was reported that part of the summit was devoted to putting pressure on our government in order to "legalize" the drug trafficking (another "free trade agreement", maybe?) Not "decriminalize" adult use, but "legalize" it apparently so that there can be free and open commerce (and taxes) levied on all that heroin, cocaine, meth and other pharmaceuticals that are the largest export of many of those South American countries.
Wonder how that ties into the good old USA and its national security?
But getting back to "HookerGate," during this report and after the GSA scandal of the Las Vegas expenses which also was reported this past week, I wonder what the tab to the taxpayers will be on this one (including those "entertainment" expenses).
These weren't even American prostitutes, so that money went to stimulate the South American economy basically.
Quite recently while I was residing in a Western state recovering from the after effects of one of the hurricanes in the South a few years back, a state which has a heavy military presence, including an academy dedicated to training America's military - I had the unique experience of viewing up close just how our tax dollars are being spent for our national security.
I was forced to live in basically weekly rental rooms during that time due to not knowing how long I would be there (work was scarce, and I was ill a good portion of the time), and having fled from Arizona after the National Guard was called out in 2006 in order to "secure" the Mexican border.
My home for over 45 years.
A political refugee.
I had had several thefts within my last six years living there, and the political climate was not at all healthy and becoming worse by the year.
During this time and in two such rental situations, I met quite a few of the ladies who frequented when many of those soldiers returned home for either redeployment, or reassignment.
Some young, some older.
Most of them very nice, and very willing to share their stories of just why they needed the work. Some were supplementing their lowered wages in this economy which they received from their "day jobs."
Of course, my tax dollars were going toward their living expenses, but at least these were American hookers and my tax dollars were being used to stimulate the local economy.
Not so with HookerGate.
While the Republicans continue to worry what people on unemployment, welfare or food stamps spend the taxpayer dollars on, maybe their energies could be better spent elsewhere cleaning house or putting in some measures to ensure that those dollars are spent a little more wisely.
Ending this rather pointless war might me a start...and truly initiating national security, rather than regional security...because we have gotten in bed with so many other nations in the past and eventually been bitten in the rear.
But it seems turnng a blind eye to the invasion in this country and resettlement of foreigners without those foreigners even having an inkling of just how our country differs from theirs is being rather deliberately undermined.
Maybe those that wish to limit those expenditures so that taxpayer dollars are not spent on alcohol or sugar laden foods might see there may be higher priorities here...much higher...
I wonder, how much in medical expenses also might be needed after HookerGate since it doesn't appear these were "escorts" or "call girls."
The news simply labeled them "South American prostitutes."
Perhaps the number of these summits also needs to be addressed, and just who should be attending so that we are not also being taxed for several government employees and individuals who appear to be charged with performing the same functions?
THIS is where our money goes? To stimulate South America's economy?
This story is deserving of its own media headline: HookerGate
Maybe this is why the President really was never intended to be involved in global dealings on foreign soil in the first place - rather using his ambassadors to represent the American people and its government at such conventions.
So that the President then remained in Washington while Congress was in session in order to serve the American people and fulfill his Constitutional function.
This summit is in its sixth year, which means it was started when President Bush was in office.
And appears it seems to be another attempt by the globalists to redefine "America" as "the Americas."
Since the entire summit was to be devoted to discussing joint concerns over national security, the economy, and trade.
Although it was reported that part of the summit was devoted to putting pressure on our government in order to "legalize" the drug trafficking (another "free trade agreement", maybe?) Not "decriminalize" adult use, but "legalize" it apparently so that there can be free and open commerce (and taxes) levied on all that heroin, cocaine, meth and other pharmaceuticals that are the largest export of many of those South American countries.
Wonder how that ties into the good old USA and its national security?
But getting back to "HookerGate," during this report and after the GSA scandal of the Las Vegas expenses which also was reported this past week, I wonder what the tab to the taxpayers will be on this one (including those "entertainment" expenses).
These weren't even American prostitutes, so that money went to stimulate the South American economy basically.
Quite recently while I was residing in a Western state recovering from the after effects of one of the hurricanes in the South a few years back, a state which has a heavy military presence, including an academy dedicated to training America's military - I had the unique experience of viewing up close just how our tax dollars are being spent for our national security.
I was forced to live in basically weekly rental rooms during that time due to not knowing how long I would be there (work was scarce, and I was ill a good portion of the time), and having fled from Arizona after the National Guard was called out in 2006 in order to "secure" the Mexican border.
My home for over 45 years.
A political refugee.
I had had several thefts within my last six years living there, and the political climate was not at all healthy and becoming worse by the year.
During this time and in two such rental situations, I met quite a few of the ladies who frequented when many of those soldiers returned home for either redeployment, or reassignment.
Some young, some older.
Most of them very nice, and very willing to share their stories of just why they needed the work. Some were supplementing their lowered wages in this economy which they received from their "day jobs."
Of course, my tax dollars were going toward their living expenses, but at least these were American hookers and my tax dollars were being used to stimulate the local economy.
Not so with HookerGate.
While the Republicans continue to worry what people on unemployment, welfare or food stamps spend the taxpayer dollars on, maybe their energies could be better spent elsewhere cleaning house or putting in some measures to ensure that those dollars are spent a little more wisely.
Ending this rather pointless war might me a start...and truly initiating national security, rather than regional security...because we have gotten in bed with so many other nations in the past and eventually been bitten in the rear.
But it seems turnng a blind eye to the invasion in this country and resettlement of foreigners without those foreigners even having an inkling of just how our country differs from theirs is being rather deliberately undermined.
Maybe those that wish to limit those expenditures so that taxpayer dollars are not spent on alcohol or sugar laden foods might see there may be higher priorities here...much higher...
I wonder, how much in medical expenses also might be needed after HookerGate since it doesn't appear these were "escorts" or "call girls."
The news simply labeled them "South American prostitutes."
Perhaps the number of these summits also needs to be addressed, and just who should be attending so that we are not also being taxed for several government employees and individuals who appear to be charged with performing the same functions?
THIS is where our money goes? To stimulate South America's economy?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Congressman Rush: Get Real
(Edited and Expanded)
I watched with interest briefly the political demonstration one of the Congressmen from the State of Illinois, Rep. Bobby Rush, enacted before a session of Congress today supporting the media frenzy which has accompanied the Trayvon Martin case.
Mr. Rush's point seemed to be that hoodies and sunglasses did not a criminal make.
I hope he remembers that analogy the next time there is some news story in the media about a rapist that was released or found not guilty due to the fact that a woman was wearing a short skirt at the time the crime was committed.
In other words, she was "asking" for it.
It amazes me the lengths and bredth this hate crimes legislation has engendered in such a very short time since passing this questionable legislation.
Attempts to legislate human emotions and engrained or learned behavior patterns will not go away with such legislation.
Nor the motivations for some of these crimes as clear cut as the liberal media bias would have you believe.
The facts are, there ARE more property crimes committed statistically by young, black youths. There is a reason why, and maybe addressing the causes progressively might be where energies need to be directed. Why is that?
Lack of opportunity? The EEOC and non-discrimination laws have been on the books for literally decades.
There is an increase now in black on black crimes even, so just what gives?
And although I still believe the fundamental question remains as to just what actual "threat" Mr. Zimmerman believed was present is the crux of the matter (had there been a rash of crimes in this neighborhood previously?), this "cause" has taken on a life of its own without even so much as a true investigation having been undertaken.
A tape was released today showing a rather calm Mr. Zimmerman after just having shot Mr. Martin.
But if he believed it was justifiable homicide, would he not have been rather calm?
No blood was present, but then the angles were a little off on that one.
Just what would Al Sharpton and Mr. Rush have to do if the race situation was actually left to die its natural death, and crimes were investigated as to the actual crime, with motivation of clear prejudicial bias a "contributing" factor calling for a higher or longer penalty, rather than what has progressively occurred since this legislation was passed.
And surprisingly at a time when in most areas of the country, blacks have been given preferential treatment in the tax credits and such given for hiring minority workers since that Civil Rights Act was passed? And there are more POSITIVE role models for black youth than ever before?
Strange this media blitz also is coming at a time when that health care legislation was being argued, isn't it?
Or maybe it is just coincidence, once again.
Geraldo took a beating due to his comments on the hoodie commentary.
I hope he again in the future takes such a stand on the next woman who is put on trial during a rape investigation or criminal trial.
The Fox boycott by women will then be across the board, but I do think the male audience is their primary demographic anyway what with all those "legal analysts" and such and the legs on display during some of those "chat" political programs.
Geraldo seems to have changed quite a bit from his hard hitting liberal crazy period.
I wonder...just how much will the civil rights lawyers under that federal statute that affords payment by the taxpayers for their legal fees make when all the dust is cleared on this one, on the civil suits that will be eventually filed?
Unfortunately, the hate crimes legislation doesn't apply to rape, against some of those male "haters" out there and the 17 year old girl who might become the victim due to their upbringing, our overtly sexualized cultural mores in television and movies, or the length of her skirt...
I watched with interest briefly the political demonstration one of the Congressmen from the State of Illinois, Rep. Bobby Rush, enacted before a session of Congress today supporting the media frenzy which has accompanied the Trayvon Martin case.
Mr. Rush's point seemed to be that hoodies and sunglasses did not a criminal make.
I hope he remembers that analogy the next time there is some news story in the media about a rapist that was released or found not guilty due to the fact that a woman was wearing a short skirt at the time the crime was committed.
In other words, she was "asking" for it.
It amazes me the lengths and bredth this hate crimes legislation has engendered in such a very short time since passing this questionable legislation.
Attempts to legislate human emotions and engrained or learned behavior patterns will not go away with such legislation.
Nor the motivations for some of these crimes as clear cut as the liberal media bias would have you believe.
The facts are, there ARE more property crimes committed statistically by young, black youths. There is a reason why, and maybe addressing the causes progressively might be where energies need to be directed. Why is that?
Lack of opportunity? The EEOC and non-discrimination laws have been on the books for literally decades.
There is an increase now in black on black crimes even, so just what gives?
And although I still believe the fundamental question remains as to just what actual "threat" Mr. Zimmerman believed was present is the crux of the matter (had there been a rash of crimes in this neighborhood previously?), this "cause" has taken on a life of its own without even so much as a true investigation having been undertaken.
A tape was released today showing a rather calm Mr. Zimmerman after just having shot Mr. Martin.
But if he believed it was justifiable homicide, would he not have been rather calm?
No blood was present, but then the angles were a little off on that one.
Just what would Al Sharpton and Mr. Rush have to do if the race situation was actually left to die its natural death, and crimes were investigated as to the actual crime, with motivation of clear prejudicial bias a "contributing" factor calling for a higher or longer penalty, rather than what has progressively occurred since this legislation was passed.
And surprisingly at a time when in most areas of the country, blacks have been given preferential treatment in the tax credits and such given for hiring minority workers since that Civil Rights Act was passed? And there are more POSITIVE role models for black youth than ever before?
Strange this media blitz also is coming at a time when that health care legislation was being argued, isn't it?
Or maybe it is just coincidence, once again.
Geraldo took a beating due to his comments on the hoodie commentary.
I hope he again in the future takes such a stand on the next woman who is put on trial during a rape investigation or criminal trial.
The Fox boycott by women will then be across the board, but I do think the male audience is their primary demographic anyway what with all those "legal analysts" and such and the legs on display during some of those "chat" political programs.
Geraldo seems to have changed quite a bit from his hard hitting liberal crazy period.
I wonder...just how much will the civil rights lawyers under that federal statute that affords payment by the taxpayers for their legal fees make when all the dust is cleared on this one, on the civil suits that will be eventually filed?
Unfortunately, the hate crimes legislation doesn't apply to rape, against some of those male "haters" out there and the 17 year old girl who might become the victim due to their upbringing, our overtly sexualized cultural mores in television and movies, or the length of her skirt...
Sunday, March 25, 2012
ObamaCare: The White Elephant Is Still In The Room
There has been much publicized in the mainstream media this weekend about the upcoming Supreme Court review of the controversial (and much contested) bill passed by the Obama Administration during the first year of his four year term in office.
Nothing much has changed.
The white elephant is still in the room...the United States Constitution.
This legislation not only flies in the face of that historic document and beacon of freedom in America.
It desecrates it.
Somehow, I find it rather odd that this legislation was passed at all. It also seems so very strange that it would be a black, "Constitutional" lawyer who would be behind this legislation, and his party "of the people."
Almost seems like it was ordained that way before the election was even held.
What better way to attempt to fool and re-educate the public that this bill will be one which the people will benefit, by a party supposedly known to be more representative of the people, than the Republicans - the party of corporate America.
Just who will benefit from this legislation....hmmm...
The medical community. The insurance and financial sector. The lawyers. The politicians.
The big four.
Who will be the victims?
The American public.
I listened today while some of those "political analysts" spoke of just how difficult this review would be, and how both sides can see it going either way. Using every tool in their arsenal in order to back up the positive merits of this legislation.
Which, way back when, was presented to the public with a carrot and stick.
The carrot? No insurer can refuse to insure those with pre-existing conditions (no mention of any governmental regulation on just how MUCH those insurers then can charge individuals seeking insurance after a death sentence diagnosis, or chronic illness, or on the level of profits and money those insurers will be making hand over fist if Washington can shore up the "search and seizure" portions of the bill which enforcement of that individual mandate will involve).
Many of the Democrats and Republicans keep citing the "commerce clause" as being the fundamental linchpin in whether or not this legislation will eventually be deemed Constitutional.
Using past "judge made case law" as their argument as precedence.
I've got news for those media pundits, lawyers and others who continue to murky those waters.
The Commerce clause as it was written was intended to protect the individual Americans FROM the corporate, and protect state funded industries from "foreign" (outside the U.S.) or domestic (outside the state) undue competitition across state lines.
Meaning, it is the clause that gives Washington the power to "regulate" those insurance companies, huge medical clinics, and health care networks.
Problem is, due to all the monies Washington has poured into the "tech" industry, including medical technology, unfortunately the mindset seems to be that it is now the American people that will need to pay the piper for Washington's past largesse.
Since so many Americans are living longer (although those actuarial tables have changed little the past three decades) or due to the fact that there will be a larger aging public with the baby boomers, than there was with the World War II generation (if we all don't die from starvation, or homelessness first).
The Commerce clause gives Washington the power to "mandate" that Americans (individually) must purchase health insurance OR ELSE?
Hardly.
The insurance sector is also simply another branch of Wall Street and the financial sector. And many of those national insurance companies are not even domiciled in the United States, those "free trade" agreements have become so generous to foreign countries the past thirty years.
I see that individual mandate as one included in order to gradually phase out Medicare over time and turn the entire "life and death" decisions over to insurance companies (foreign or domestic).
Without having to give any of those monies the boomers, especially, have paid into that program over the years since 1964.
Another banner year in legislation.
While then also raising the Social Security age at the same time in order to marginalize as many of the boomers under those programs as possible.
My question, though, is this...
How in the world does Washington believe or expect that Americans, especially those over 40, who are now homeless AND jobless (due to the mortgage mess, and tax credits now given for hiring younger workers to those national corporations) will be able to afford to buy health insurance, no matter what the price.
When their unemployment is running out, and the job market shrinking (except those jobs which would be created by passing this legislation in the public sector (enforcement) and private sector (a few insurance agents, since most of those "cut rate" programs will be "buy online," without involvement of a human, I assure you).
Just how can Washington justify this legislation, given that in many states throughout the nation those older workers contributed to both the building, and budgets of those hospitals through their property taxes, and the tuition for those doctors through also those same property taxes at local universities?
Except, of course, for all those foreign doctors who are being trained in U.S. medical schools from India and South America, for lower wages for those corporate health care networks.
Will Washington be putting all those homeless and jobless Americans who do not or cannot comply with the mandate in the privatized state or federal jails, in order to at least make their revolt beneficial to another corporate campaign donor.
The White Elephant lives on...still.
If this law is upheld by some legal slight of hand by those black robed arbiters of Constitutional understanding (using case law, rather than intent, as their standard) - do Americans who have contributed to Medicare since 1964 get their money back so that they can pay those cut rate premiums? Or the Social Security that won't be collected by all those boomers who are not wealthy enough after this past ten year economic tsunami given to their next of kin as suvivor's benefits?
I hope that is also deliberated this week.
The "taking" of the cash for fraudulent purposes, without refund.
Nothing much has changed.
The white elephant is still in the room...the United States Constitution.
This legislation not only flies in the face of that historic document and beacon of freedom in America.
It desecrates it.
Somehow, I find it rather odd that this legislation was passed at all. It also seems so very strange that it would be a black, "Constitutional" lawyer who would be behind this legislation, and his party "of the people."
Almost seems like it was ordained that way before the election was even held.
What better way to attempt to fool and re-educate the public that this bill will be one which the people will benefit, by a party supposedly known to be more representative of the people, than the Republicans - the party of corporate America.
Just who will benefit from this legislation....hmmm...
The medical community. The insurance and financial sector. The lawyers. The politicians.
The big four.
Who will be the victims?
The American public.
I listened today while some of those "political analysts" spoke of just how difficult this review would be, and how both sides can see it going either way. Using every tool in their arsenal in order to back up the positive merits of this legislation.
Which, way back when, was presented to the public with a carrot and stick.
The carrot? No insurer can refuse to insure those with pre-existing conditions (no mention of any governmental regulation on just how MUCH those insurers then can charge individuals seeking insurance after a death sentence diagnosis, or chronic illness, or on the level of profits and money those insurers will be making hand over fist if Washington can shore up the "search and seizure" portions of the bill which enforcement of that individual mandate will involve).
Many of the Democrats and Republicans keep citing the "commerce clause" as being the fundamental linchpin in whether or not this legislation will eventually be deemed Constitutional.
Using past "judge made case law" as their argument as precedence.
I've got news for those media pundits, lawyers and others who continue to murky those waters.
The Commerce clause as it was written was intended to protect the individual Americans FROM the corporate, and protect state funded industries from "foreign" (outside the U.S.) or domestic (outside the state) undue competitition across state lines.
Meaning, it is the clause that gives Washington the power to "regulate" those insurance companies, huge medical clinics, and health care networks.
Problem is, due to all the monies Washington has poured into the "tech" industry, including medical technology, unfortunately the mindset seems to be that it is now the American people that will need to pay the piper for Washington's past largesse.
Since so many Americans are living longer (although those actuarial tables have changed little the past three decades) or due to the fact that there will be a larger aging public with the baby boomers, than there was with the World War II generation (if we all don't die from starvation, or homelessness first).
The Commerce clause gives Washington the power to "mandate" that Americans (individually) must purchase health insurance OR ELSE?
Hardly.
The insurance sector is also simply another branch of Wall Street and the financial sector. And many of those national insurance companies are not even domiciled in the United States, those "free trade" agreements have become so generous to foreign countries the past thirty years.
I see that individual mandate as one included in order to gradually phase out Medicare over time and turn the entire "life and death" decisions over to insurance companies (foreign or domestic).
Without having to give any of those monies the boomers, especially, have paid into that program over the years since 1964.
Another banner year in legislation.
While then also raising the Social Security age at the same time in order to marginalize as many of the boomers under those programs as possible.
My question, though, is this...
How in the world does Washington believe or expect that Americans, especially those over 40, who are now homeless AND jobless (due to the mortgage mess, and tax credits now given for hiring younger workers to those national corporations) will be able to afford to buy health insurance, no matter what the price.
When their unemployment is running out, and the job market shrinking (except those jobs which would be created by passing this legislation in the public sector (enforcement) and private sector (a few insurance agents, since most of those "cut rate" programs will be "buy online," without involvement of a human, I assure you).
Just how can Washington justify this legislation, given that in many states throughout the nation those older workers contributed to both the building, and budgets of those hospitals through their property taxes, and the tuition for those doctors through also those same property taxes at local universities?
Except, of course, for all those foreign doctors who are being trained in U.S. medical schools from India and South America, for lower wages for those corporate health care networks.
Will Washington be putting all those homeless and jobless Americans who do not or cannot comply with the mandate in the privatized state or federal jails, in order to at least make their revolt beneficial to another corporate campaign donor.
The White Elephant lives on...still.
If this law is upheld by some legal slight of hand by those black robed arbiters of Constitutional understanding (using case law, rather than intent, as their standard) - do Americans who have contributed to Medicare since 1964 get their money back so that they can pay those cut rate premiums? Or the Social Security that won't be collected by all those boomers who are not wealthy enough after this past ten year economic tsunami given to their next of kin as suvivor's benefits?
I hope that is also deliberated this week.
The "taking" of the cash for fraudulent purposes, without refund.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Trayvon Martin: Hate Crime or HOA Paranoia?
I have recently been following the Trayvon Martin case which has been widely publicized in the media the past several days.
In fact, there have been protests as far as New York City in light of the wide publicity this case has engendered.
Ever since the passage of the "hate crimes" legislation, there has been an increase of reports of crimes which are being widely publicized as "racial" in nature.
What has been so odd to me is that prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and subsequent legislation, I could understand the push for federal legislation that also addressed crimes which could reasonably be suspected to be racially motivated.
I mean, there was a great deal of prejudice against the African American community in many pockets of the country which continued post the American Civil War.
But it seems whenever there is a crime which is committed by or against people of different "races," or "sexual" orientation the "hate crime" media mill begins.
In this case, it seems to me that Mr. Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, a black youth, appears to have had control issues from what has been leaked through the media.
He had at one time even considered entering law enforcement as a career, and had been in a few confrontations prior to the events which transpired recently.
But I just wonder if there wasn't something else at work here...
Such as the fact that this crime occurred in an HOA community - one of those gated communities in Florida.
Communities which have had their share of legal wranglings since so many have been built by those huge developers since the 1980's.
I just wonder if all those Board meetings about dues, safety issues, etc., contributed to the events which transpired which led to this young man's death.
The fact that these communities are considered "private" and any "strange" individual within the community almost immediately suspect.
The police have not undertaken any investigation due to a law in Florida cited as the "Stand Your Ground" law which, I am sure, was meant to reinforce and protect a citizens right to defend and protect his own property and person with deadly force, if necessary.
Problem was, Trayvon Martin was "suspect" from the outset in this gated community.
And Mr. Zimmerman most likely felt he had the "right" to defend and protect not simply his own property, but that of the "community," as quite clearly an active member of this community's homeowners association.
In fact, one of the Board members was interviewed on mainstream television testifying how Mr. Zimmerman "had prevented several crimes" in the community previously due to his vigiliance.
Seems to me, those "Stand Your Ground" laws need review in Florida - and quickly.
Clearly spelling out the limits of the law if it is so broadly worded or interpreted to afford these communities to act whether there is any overt act or suspicion.
With limits placed on individual members of the community from taking such action unless it is their property or person endangered, unless acting as a paid agent or private security officer for the community.
Seems to me due to the fact that this man followed this youth through the common area of this community, with this young man being a "suspect" from the moment he entered the "gated" community, race could have been a contributing factor...
But most likely, it was the entire HOA gated community paranoid mentality at work here...with him instead "profiled" as an "outsider."
But playing the race card makes for bigger ratings, and headlines.
And just maybe, a future payout if the local police are blamed once again for the legislative failings of the state (and federal government, since these gated communities are also spreading throughout the country PROGRESSIVELY).
In fact, there have been protests as far as New York City in light of the wide publicity this case has engendered.
Ever since the passage of the "hate crimes" legislation, there has been an increase of reports of crimes which are being widely publicized as "racial" in nature.
What has been so odd to me is that prior to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and subsequent legislation, I could understand the push for federal legislation that also addressed crimes which could reasonably be suspected to be racially motivated.
I mean, there was a great deal of prejudice against the African American community in many pockets of the country which continued post the American Civil War.
But it seems whenever there is a crime which is committed by or against people of different "races," or "sexual" orientation the "hate crime" media mill begins.
In this case, it seems to me that Mr. Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, a black youth, appears to have had control issues from what has been leaked through the media.
He had at one time even considered entering law enforcement as a career, and had been in a few confrontations prior to the events which transpired recently.
But I just wonder if there wasn't something else at work here...
Such as the fact that this crime occurred in an HOA community - one of those gated communities in Florida.
Communities which have had their share of legal wranglings since so many have been built by those huge developers since the 1980's.
I just wonder if all those Board meetings about dues, safety issues, etc., contributed to the events which transpired which led to this young man's death.
The fact that these communities are considered "private" and any "strange" individual within the community almost immediately suspect.
The police have not undertaken any investigation due to a law in Florida cited as the "Stand Your Ground" law which, I am sure, was meant to reinforce and protect a citizens right to defend and protect his own property and person with deadly force, if necessary.
Problem was, Trayvon Martin was "suspect" from the outset in this gated community.
And Mr. Zimmerman most likely felt he had the "right" to defend and protect not simply his own property, but that of the "community," as quite clearly an active member of this community's homeowners association.
In fact, one of the Board members was interviewed on mainstream television testifying how Mr. Zimmerman "had prevented several crimes" in the community previously due to his vigiliance.
Seems to me, those "Stand Your Ground" laws need review in Florida - and quickly.
Clearly spelling out the limits of the law if it is so broadly worded or interpreted to afford these communities to act whether there is any overt act or suspicion.
With limits placed on individual members of the community from taking such action unless it is their property or person endangered, unless acting as a paid agent or private security officer for the community.
Seems to me due to the fact that this man followed this youth through the common area of this community, with this young man being a "suspect" from the moment he entered the "gated" community, race could have been a contributing factor...
But most likely, it was the entire HOA gated community paranoid mentality at work here...with him instead "profiled" as an "outsider."
But playing the race card makes for bigger ratings, and headlines.
And just maybe, a future payout if the local police are blamed once again for the legislative failings of the state (and federal government, since these gated communities are also spreading throughout the country PROGRESSIVELY).
Monday, March 19, 2012
Corporate Suicide: Employees Assets or Liabilities?
After an eye-opening experience at the hands of a big box retailer for whom I had been employed for the past two weeks assisting them with a move into larger, more spacious digs at an area strip mall, it occurred to me that there seems to be mass corporate delusion in this country insofar as why we are where we are economically.
We have large, national retail corporations which somehow have gotten the idea that their employees, the faces which serve the public in most instances, are instead of an asset, actually more of a liability...or profit generator...
Or at least one of their expenses which bears scrutiny and continual monitoring...
If you haven't heard of the TALX forms (as in "talks"), you might want to look it up, along with the FTC complaint which was filed against them and a NY Times article dedicated to their agendas when employees are terminated or laid off.
They have been retained by many Fortune 500 companies whose sole purpose is to drag out and/or deny outright employee claims for unemployment compensation.
At most companies, you are requested to fill out and "consent" to a screening by their representatives of your personal history, employment history, and each and every dollar you may be receiving for public assistance both prior to employment, or thereafter if your employment is terminated for any reason whatsoever.
A third party contractor, as it were, so that you are forced to deal with them through the unemployment offices, rather than the company directly.
Which scenario can and appears does lead to the "whose on first" game during those unemployment interviews or hearings.
So far, several states have now made moves to curtail their activities but many have not. But this is a booming industry and business in this bust economy, to be sure.
Below you will find the links.
As one who worked in the labor/employment law field for many, many years and for probably the foremost labor law attorney in the nation (who was responsible for counseling Wal-Mart stores management through his retirement, eventually sitting on the Board of Directors), I certainly can see where this might be appealing to many national chains.
After all, there are quite a few fraudulent unemployment claims; however, for every ten there is the one employee who ends up living on the street while this process works it way through the unemployment review process.
And one in which it clearly takes a lawyer in order to assist such an employee, which of course then reduces his benefit amounts considerably. Or leaves him dependent on relatives for his day to day living, or out on the street until the conclusion of the government "process."
But maybe that is the point.
Each and every government office that denies claims or benefits from unemployment, or social security, Medicare, or whatever does so with the caveat "you can always hire a lawyer."
If you can find one for those minor claims but claims that mean the difference between life and...you know...
I know that during my tenure in the field of labor/employment law, this was not the case...
In fact, my boss treated me with the utmost respect, and listened to my point of view on many matters as an employee...
He, in fact, counseled that the employees were an employers greatest asset, and that in order to develop a loyal and dedicated workforce you did need to make the effort to treat them with both respect, and compensate them adequately for time worked - whether in the form of direct compensation, or "shares" of the profits of the company - for those lower paying positions also.
Reducing the "golden parachutes" as it were for top level management, and instead using those sums to compensate the "boots on the ground" at the store levels.
And All the way to the lowly janitor (or sanitation superintendent).
Profit sharing has gone the way of the dinosaur, although in order to feel any type of "ownership" of your job and the company, that clearly is the route that develops the best workforce.
401(k) plans and pensions don't have a direct impact on performance, or "ownership" status.
Sam Walton understood that, at least during those early years.
Before the banks and politicians got involved.
In fact, most of those early Wal-Mart employees became multi-millionaires as Wal-Mart grew and expanded throughout the country from its roots as a rather small, family run business in Bentonville, Arkansas.
And this entire debate over health insurance also has its spins with employers begging for "relief" from those huge health care costs.
Funny, though, in all my years of employment it really was I, not the employer, that paid those premiums for the most part. If not for my own, definitely for any dependent or spousal coverage I might need.
I got a better rate due to the "group" plans I was under, but still paid nonetheless.
So there was little out of pocket expense to those employers.
It really is the small businessmen that need that relief, those with few employees, and I just wonder why the small business administration or private sector isn't offering low cost health insurance to small business owners as part of their coverages and "mission."
That certainly would be one solution to the amount of uninsured we now have.
Along with bringing back those charity hospitals that were built with donations, (many of which have progressively been "privatized" after being built with donations or taxpayer grant monies and sums) or those community health hospitals built with all those property taxes back in the 60's and 70's.
There were earmarked sums on my property tax bills for those hospital costs, believe me, for over twenty years at the county level.
It seems to me that the corporate mentality is that employees are just another "fixture" or method in which to up corporate profits, with all the company tshirts that are sold (at their cost) or those covered parking fees...or gym memberships...
At least for the low to mid level employees.
I wonder, do they even consider just why it is that employee unions came into being to begin with?
Could it be that those sweatshops of the past which have disappeared for the most part here, are being used by modern day corporate America in China and Mexico instead as a thumb in the nose to the American workers?
Surely, that cannot be the case...
Or could it?
No wonder those ballyhooed reports on the number of unemployment claims are now hitting the papers and getting lower (artificially, of course)...this is, after all, a BOOM industry - outsourcing "managing" unemployment claims defense to third party (corporate) subcontractors.
By the way, all these articles are easily searchable and in the public domain, but I have included the links just to educate yourself while looking for those few, very few, jobs that are around in most states throughout the nation at this time....
The workplace certainly HAS changed....but is this a positive change, I wonder?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/us/04talx.html?pagewanted=2
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/talx.shtm
And here is an article on a Chinese manufacturing plant that highlights some of the points made in this article about just how this outsourcing is killing both the U.S. economy, and undermining the American workforce...at the cost of the many, for the benefit of the few...there IS a middle ground, and Constitutional remedies if Washington would only "rewind."
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/apple-sweatshop-problem-16-hour-days-70-cents-172800495.html
We have large, national retail corporations which somehow have gotten the idea that their employees, the faces which serve the public in most instances, are instead of an asset, actually more of a liability...or profit generator...
Or at least one of their expenses which bears scrutiny and continual monitoring...
If you haven't heard of the TALX forms (as in "talks"), you might want to look it up, along with the FTC complaint which was filed against them and a NY Times article dedicated to their agendas when employees are terminated or laid off.
They have been retained by many Fortune 500 companies whose sole purpose is to drag out and/or deny outright employee claims for unemployment compensation.
At most companies, you are requested to fill out and "consent" to a screening by their representatives of your personal history, employment history, and each and every dollar you may be receiving for public assistance both prior to employment, or thereafter if your employment is terminated for any reason whatsoever.
A third party contractor, as it were, so that you are forced to deal with them through the unemployment offices, rather than the company directly.
Which scenario can and appears does lead to the "whose on first" game during those unemployment interviews or hearings.
So far, several states have now made moves to curtail their activities but many have not. But this is a booming industry and business in this bust economy, to be sure.
Below you will find the links.
As one who worked in the labor/employment law field for many, many years and for probably the foremost labor law attorney in the nation (who was responsible for counseling Wal-Mart stores management through his retirement, eventually sitting on the Board of Directors), I certainly can see where this might be appealing to many national chains.
After all, there are quite a few fraudulent unemployment claims; however, for every ten there is the one employee who ends up living on the street while this process works it way through the unemployment review process.
And one in which it clearly takes a lawyer in order to assist such an employee, which of course then reduces his benefit amounts considerably. Or leaves him dependent on relatives for his day to day living, or out on the street until the conclusion of the government "process."
But maybe that is the point.
Each and every government office that denies claims or benefits from unemployment, or social security, Medicare, or whatever does so with the caveat "you can always hire a lawyer."
If you can find one for those minor claims but claims that mean the difference between life and...you know...
I know that during my tenure in the field of labor/employment law, this was not the case...
In fact, my boss treated me with the utmost respect, and listened to my point of view on many matters as an employee...
He, in fact, counseled that the employees were an employers greatest asset, and that in order to develop a loyal and dedicated workforce you did need to make the effort to treat them with both respect, and compensate them adequately for time worked - whether in the form of direct compensation, or "shares" of the profits of the company - for those lower paying positions also.
Reducing the "golden parachutes" as it were for top level management, and instead using those sums to compensate the "boots on the ground" at the store levels.
And All the way to the lowly janitor (or sanitation superintendent).
Profit sharing has gone the way of the dinosaur, although in order to feel any type of "ownership" of your job and the company, that clearly is the route that develops the best workforce.
401(k) plans and pensions don't have a direct impact on performance, or "ownership" status.
Sam Walton understood that, at least during those early years.
Before the banks and politicians got involved.
In fact, most of those early Wal-Mart employees became multi-millionaires as Wal-Mart grew and expanded throughout the country from its roots as a rather small, family run business in Bentonville, Arkansas.
And this entire debate over health insurance also has its spins with employers begging for "relief" from those huge health care costs.
Funny, though, in all my years of employment it really was I, not the employer, that paid those premiums for the most part. If not for my own, definitely for any dependent or spousal coverage I might need.
I got a better rate due to the "group" plans I was under, but still paid nonetheless.
So there was little out of pocket expense to those employers.
It really is the small businessmen that need that relief, those with few employees, and I just wonder why the small business administration or private sector isn't offering low cost health insurance to small business owners as part of their coverages and "mission."
That certainly would be one solution to the amount of uninsured we now have.
Along with bringing back those charity hospitals that were built with donations, (many of which have progressively been "privatized" after being built with donations or taxpayer grant monies and sums) or those community health hospitals built with all those property taxes back in the 60's and 70's.
There were earmarked sums on my property tax bills for those hospital costs, believe me, for over twenty years at the county level.
It seems to me that the corporate mentality is that employees are just another "fixture" or method in which to up corporate profits, with all the company tshirts that are sold (at their cost) or those covered parking fees...or gym memberships...
At least for the low to mid level employees.
I wonder, do they even consider just why it is that employee unions came into being to begin with?
Could it be that those sweatshops of the past which have disappeared for the most part here, are being used by modern day corporate America in China and Mexico instead as a thumb in the nose to the American workers?
Surely, that cannot be the case...
Or could it?
No wonder those ballyhooed reports on the number of unemployment claims are now hitting the papers and getting lower (artificially, of course)...this is, after all, a BOOM industry - outsourcing "managing" unemployment claims defense to third party (corporate) subcontractors.
By the way, all these articles are easily searchable and in the public domain, but I have included the links just to educate yourself while looking for those few, very few, jobs that are around in most states throughout the nation at this time....
The workplace certainly HAS changed....but is this a positive change, I wonder?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/us/04talx.html?pagewanted=2
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/talx.shtm
And here is an article on a Chinese manufacturing plant that highlights some of the points made in this article about just how this outsourcing is killing both the U.S. economy, and undermining the American workforce...at the cost of the many, for the benefit of the few...there IS a middle ground, and Constitutional remedies if Washington would only "rewind."
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/apple-sweatshop-problem-16-hour-days-70-cents-172800495.html
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Obama, Cameron and The Game
The British are here! The British are here!
Last night Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron attended a basketball game...and then today the games continued.
While many in the mainstream media keep playing up the discord between British and American philosophies for the American public, these two gentlemen are about as alike as two peas in a pod.
Both with alliances to world government and British style dominion.
Although the governmental structure of the two countries are worlds apart, you wouldn't know it or at least most in this country have been progressively "re-educated" to the British mindset.
Continue the wars for dominion. That was the battle cry of Mr. Cameron during his address with Mr. Obama this afternoon, which of course in most respects Mr. Obama seconded.
Even after recent events in Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama protected BP after the Gulf Oil spill, for the most part, acting as lawyer on behalf of those U.S. businesses and lives taken in setting up that fund in order to "recompensate" the victims. Wiping out their ability to have their day in court, as it were.
Our alliances with Britain have progressively cost this country much both economically, and in lives lost in the foreign wars we have been involved in since World War II, and the establishment of the British/American alliance thereafter, the U.N.
The sun never sets on Britain, to this day, whether in fact or fealty.
Israel...a British creation...and U.S. unconditional support has also taken its toll on our national sovereignty and security.
To this day.
Our founders would be appalled.
Our country was founded on defensive wars only.
Britain, on offensive ones from its inception for dominion in the Roman-Anglo-Saxon vein.
Mr. Cameron was here to push for continued support for military involvement in Afghanistan and as a PR move, apparently, after the latest news from the front. Stretching out U.S. and British troop withdrawal into 2014, for goodness sake!
And continued with more terrorism threats with respect to Syria.
Britain has had more wars, bar none, than any country of its size throughout history. Both civil and foreign.
American interest and government is diametrically opposed to fighting wars for dominion.
Would 9-11 have ever even occurred had it not been for our continual presence in the Middle East, and support of the fears of Western Europe?
Would our country be in the economic quagmire it is now in, if not for our continued support for these "allied" causes?
We are providing military training to Canadian troops on American bases, for heaven sake. Training foreign troops on U.S. soil for the first time ever.
I think Washington just may need to take a long, hard look at who the real enemy to the American economy and our domestic security actually is.
While sitting down for those post game cups of tea.
And just why is it that almost immediately after another war horror story is reported, the British come to tea?
Last night Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron attended a basketball game...and then today the games continued.
While many in the mainstream media keep playing up the discord between British and American philosophies for the American public, these two gentlemen are about as alike as two peas in a pod.
Both with alliances to world government and British style dominion.
Although the governmental structure of the two countries are worlds apart, you wouldn't know it or at least most in this country have been progressively "re-educated" to the British mindset.
Continue the wars for dominion. That was the battle cry of Mr. Cameron during his address with Mr. Obama this afternoon, which of course in most respects Mr. Obama seconded.
Even after recent events in Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama protected BP after the Gulf Oil spill, for the most part, acting as lawyer on behalf of those U.S. businesses and lives taken in setting up that fund in order to "recompensate" the victims. Wiping out their ability to have their day in court, as it were.
Our alliances with Britain have progressively cost this country much both economically, and in lives lost in the foreign wars we have been involved in since World War II, and the establishment of the British/American alliance thereafter, the U.N.
The sun never sets on Britain, to this day, whether in fact or fealty.
Israel...a British creation...and U.S. unconditional support has also taken its toll on our national sovereignty and security.
To this day.
Our founders would be appalled.
Our country was founded on defensive wars only.
Britain, on offensive ones from its inception for dominion in the Roman-Anglo-Saxon vein.
Mr. Cameron was here to push for continued support for military involvement in Afghanistan and as a PR move, apparently, after the latest news from the front. Stretching out U.S. and British troop withdrawal into 2014, for goodness sake!
And continued with more terrorism threats with respect to Syria.
Britain has had more wars, bar none, than any country of its size throughout history. Both civil and foreign.
American interest and government is diametrically opposed to fighting wars for dominion.
Would 9-11 have ever even occurred had it not been for our continual presence in the Middle East, and support of the fears of Western Europe?
Would our country be in the economic quagmire it is now in, if not for our continued support for these "allied" causes?
We are providing military training to Canadian troops on American bases, for heaven sake. Training foreign troops on U.S. soil for the first time ever.
I think Washington just may need to take a long, hard look at who the real enemy to the American economy and our domestic security actually is.
While sitting down for those post game cups of tea.
And just why is it that almost immediately after another war horror story is reported, the British come to tea?
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Gas Gouging Election Year Market Manipulation?
It has been so very interesting to listen to the mainstream news media commentaries on the horrendous increases which have occurred in the prices Americans are now forced to pay at the pump in order to get to work, run to the doctors, or take a much needed and overdue vacation.
Many of the pundits have offered up such half baked rationalizations it has been incredible, especially in the last few weeks.
A few short months ago, gasoline was at $2.60 a gallon at most stations off the interstate exits.
Less than thirty years ago, it was still at a little over a $1.00 a gallon, having made a 100% increase from ten years before.
There is no logical explanation at this point to why Americans are paying through the nose to power their automobiles.
Except greed.
Both corporate and governmental...
Even Obama's excuses seemed rather flimsy during his recent speech at the Daimler plant.
How much war related gasoline is being consumed by the government keeping all those Humvees, drones, jets, and ships in foreign ports equipped which Americans are paying for both at the pump, and through their other taxes and this mammoth ever-escalating deficit?
The higher the gas prices go, of course, the higher those state and local gasoline taxes also go.
This added tax is not tax deductible at this point even. In other words, those sales and use taxes are not deducted from the amount of discretionary income most Americans get to, say, pay the mortgage.
This is an election year, and all those election coffers need to be stuffed, after all, by most of those oil companies and their lobbyists, too.
No matter that you no longer have any income to pay for that unregulated utility bill, or that house that is now going into foreclosure.
The monster must be fed.
And fed.
Many of the pundits have offered up such half baked rationalizations it has been incredible, especially in the last few weeks.
A few short months ago, gasoline was at $2.60 a gallon at most stations off the interstate exits.
Less than thirty years ago, it was still at a little over a $1.00 a gallon, having made a 100% increase from ten years before.
There is no logical explanation at this point to why Americans are paying through the nose to power their automobiles.
Except greed.
Both corporate and governmental...
Even Obama's excuses seemed rather flimsy during his recent speech at the Daimler plant.
How much war related gasoline is being consumed by the government keeping all those Humvees, drones, jets, and ships in foreign ports equipped which Americans are paying for both at the pump, and through their other taxes and this mammoth ever-escalating deficit?
The higher the gas prices go, of course, the higher those state and local gasoline taxes also go.
This added tax is not tax deductible at this point even. In other words, those sales and use taxes are not deducted from the amount of discretionary income most Americans get to, say, pay the mortgage.
This is an election year, and all those election coffers need to be stuffed, after all, by most of those oil companies and their lobbyists, too.
No matter that you no longer have any income to pay for that unregulated utility bill, or that house that is now going into foreclosure.
The monster must be fed.
And fed.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Yada, Yada, Yada: Truth vs. Political Fiction
Recently I had a few moments to watch some of the prime time election coverage on two of the major broadcasting stations (Fox and MSNBC), although have attempted to insulate myself as much as possible from the coverage, such as it is.
Unfortunately, I am one of the literally millions out of steady work, or working part time or for far less than my resume would justify in this progressive, unconstitutional America we now live in.
With all the spins as one who has been majorly impacted also progressively, I'd like to add my truth as opposed to the fiction that has been the mainstay of our media low these many years, and never more so than in the past three to four decades.
The Republicans are offering up more of the same this election cycle.
More fascism in the form of corporatism.
All major contenders from that side of the two party aisle hold those beliefs when it boils right down to it in one form or another.
Even Dr. Paul with his positions of a "private" banking system in this country ala the Federal Reserve.
Which was, of course, created by Congress back in 1913 so how it could be "private" rather than publicly governmentally created, I'll never quite understand.
And this is a major position of his, and it would seem all Republicans for the total lack of accountability and control which has been exerted over the Fed's policies.
I'm experiencing a sense of deja vue this election cycle.
Even the candidates appearances look similar to the last cycle. Newt Gingrich and Calista physically could be John McCain and Cindy visually.
Mitt could be Mitt from last election.
Ron Paul could be Ron Paul from last election.
The only deviation from the script is Rick Santorum. Who could not be Mike Huckabee. But Huckabee got another gig on Fox and he isn't in reruns quite yet.
As far as the Democrats - well, let's just say that this is a rerun from last election cycle.
Mr. Obama is criss-crossing the country trying to get re-elected, and seems he is making more and more of those public news conference speeches such as the one he made at the Daimler plant in North Carolina today.
Was an interesting speech, if I do say so myself.
In it were rerun positions insofar as developing "new energy sources" and explaining away the huge spikes in gasoline prices Americans are now facing, on top of their homelessness and joblessness which was bad last election cycle, but has considerably worsened the past four years with more and more finding themselves "outsourced" or "insourced" or just plain not needed anymore.
He referenced that the United States has "2% of the world's oil, and uses 20%."
Prices are based on supply and demand, or so it was represented.
I wonder if this war actually did end, and we truly did stop our involvement in the Middle East which has gone on now for over 3 decades, if that demand would lessen.
I mean, how much oil does your average Humvee or tanker use in a week over there? Or jet fuel for those drones or fighters? Or fuel for all those ships at sea in foreign ports?
I wonder what the figures are for oil consumption for the British - the "owners" of the huge major oil company in which that billion dollar settlement for the Gulf oil spill was recently announced. Which costs of settlement, of course, will be paid by the American people once again at the pump.
Oil which is refined in Britain, and then sold back to the American people at higher prices as a result.
How much of our oil do foreign governments or foreign domiciled companies own, I wonder? How much of that precious 2%?
Also stated during this campaign stop was the huge increase in the number of cars in China now requiring fuel, and more excuses about just why we continue to remain in the Middle East for this "new" reason.
Since so many Americans have lost their jobs due to most of our manufacturing base being absorbed by China and thus raising the economies of their country's population, I guess I don't wonder much why China would need so much oil for all those new cars they are buying.
They've actually got our jobs and money, for the most part so that they can afford those cars.
But this was left out of Mr. Obama's speech.
Slams were taken at the "Republicans" who are now supporting entering another conflict in Syria, which were recently made by Mr. McCain, the senator from my former home state.
We certainly do like using that war card also each and every election.
For ones we are currently involved in, or those which we can manufacture for the future to keep all those members of the military busy for decades to come.
Somehow also tying it into protecting America from those terrorists who apparently don't like us being in their country for well on three decades and counting.
Yada, yada, yada...and so it goes...
I had been away for a few hours each day working at the only job which I could find which hardly suits my resume, but with gas now at almost $4.00 a gallon (my father remembers gas at .28 a gallon, and I when I started driving .33) I had to do what I could just to afford the gas I currently need to keep looking.
I'm helping one of those major retailers move from its old location to a new strip mall location off the interstate. It will remain nameless due to a confidentiality agreement I was requested to sign prior to being offered the job moving boxes and boxes of merchandise and stocking shelves.
My hours were recently cut, however, due to "over-scheduling."
So far I haven't seen a single item which will be sold at this particular retailer that has been American made.
All so far bear the stamp, "made in China."
And who ultimately owns this major retailer?
Bain Capital (aka Mitt Romney).
As I said...yada, yada, yada
Unfortunately, I am one of the literally millions out of steady work, or working part time or for far less than my resume would justify in this progressive, unconstitutional America we now live in.
With all the spins as one who has been majorly impacted also progressively, I'd like to add my truth as opposed to the fiction that has been the mainstay of our media low these many years, and never more so than in the past three to four decades.
The Republicans are offering up more of the same this election cycle.
More fascism in the form of corporatism.
All major contenders from that side of the two party aisle hold those beliefs when it boils right down to it in one form or another.
Even Dr. Paul with his positions of a "private" banking system in this country ala the Federal Reserve.
Which was, of course, created by Congress back in 1913 so how it could be "private" rather than publicly governmentally created, I'll never quite understand.
And this is a major position of his, and it would seem all Republicans for the total lack of accountability and control which has been exerted over the Fed's policies.
I'm experiencing a sense of deja vue this election cycle.
Even the candidates appearances look similar to the last cycle. Newt Gingrich and Calista physically could be John McCain and Cindy visually.
Mitt could be Mitt from last election.
Ron Paul could be Ron Paul from last election.
The only deviation from the script is Rick Santorum. Who could not be Mike Huckabee. But Huckabee got another gig on Fox and he isn't in reruns quite yet.
As far as the Democrats - well, let's just say that this is a rerun from last election cycle.
Mr. Obama is criss-crossing the country trying to get re-elected, and seems he is making more and more of those public news conference speeches such as the one he made at the Daimler plant in North Carolina today.
Was an interesting speech, if I do say so myself.
In it were rerun positions insofar as developing "new energy sources" and explaining away the huge spikes in gasoline prices Americans are now facing, on top of their homelessness and joblessness which was bad last election cycle, but has considerably worsened the past four years with more and more finding themselves "outsourced" or "insourced" or just plain not needed anymore.
He referenced that the United States has "2% of the world's oil, and uses 20%."
Prices are based on supply and demand, or so it was represented.
I wonder if this war actually did end, and we truly did stop our involvement in the Middle East which has gone on now for over 3 decades, if that demand would lessen.
I mean, how much oil does your average Humvee or tanker use in a week over there? Or jet fuel for those drones or fighters? Or fuel for all those ships at sea in foreign ports?
I wonder what the figures are for oil consumption for the British - the "owners" of the huge major oil company in which that billion dollar settlement for the Gulf oil spill was recently announced. Which costs of settlement, of course, will be paid by the American people once again at the pump.
Oil which is refined in Britain, and then sold back to the American people at higher prices as a result.
How much of our oil do foreign governments or foreign domiciled companies own, I wonder? How much of that precious 2%?
Also stated during this campaign stop was the huge increase in the number of cars in China now requiring fuel, and more excuses about just why we continue to remain in the Middle East for this "new" reason.
Since so many Americans have lost their jobs due to most of our manufacturing base being absorbed by China and thus raising the economies of their country's population, I guess I don't wonder much why China would need so much oil for all those new cars they are buying.
They've actually got our jobs and money, for the most part so that they can afford those cars.
But this was left out of Mr. Obama's speech.
Slams were taken at the "Republicans" who are now supporting entering another conflict in Syria, which were recently made by Mr. McCain, the senator from my former home state.
We certainly do like using that war card also each and every election.
For ones we are currently involved in, or those which we can manufacture for the future to keep all those members of the military busy for decades to come.
Somehow also tying it into protecting America from those terrorists who apparently don't like us being in their country for well on three decades and counting.
Yada, yada, yada...and so it goes...
I had been away for a few hours each day working at the only job which I could find which hardly suits my resume, but with gas now at almost $4.00 a gallon (my father remembers gas at .28 a gallon, and I when I started driving .33) I had to do what I could just to afford the gas I currently need to keep looking.
I'm helping one of those major retailers move from its old location to a new strip mall location off the interstate. It will remain nameless due to a confidentiality agreement I was requested to sign prior to being offered the job moving boxes and boxes of merchandise and stocking shelves.
My hours were recently cut, however, due to "over-scheduling."
So far I haven't seen a single item which will be sold at this particular retailer that has been American made.
All so far bear the stamp, "made in China."
And who ultimately owns this major retailer?
Bain Capital (aka Mitt Romney).
As I said...yada, yada, yada
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Foreclosure Propaganda Continues
Last evening while browsing the internet, I came upon an article that was written addressing the foreclosure situation, and listed the top ten states with the highest foreclosure rates for February.
This article was written by a site know as "24/7 Wall Street" which took a few positions that seemed rather self-serving to Wall Street, to say the least.
It represented that "nine of the top 11 states with the highest foreclosures" were judicial foreclosures states, because of the amount of time it takes for the banks to foreclosure with the complexities involved.
Contrary to most of the reports in the mainstream media listing the states with the highest foreclosure rates thus far after this five year federal and state taking of American's properties, which lists Nevada, California, Arizona, Georgia, Utah and Florida as highest (the majority of which are non-judicial foreclosure states), 24/7 Wall Street's list was as follows:
Florida
New Jersey
Illinois
Nevada
New York
Why the discrepancy, and spins on judicial vs. non-judicial foreclosures?
I can only assume 24/7 Wall Street has an agenda, that is certain.
It is no surprise that Nevada is on both lists. The loss of jobs in the gaming industry, particularly, has resulted in many Americans living in that state to lose their homes when they were unable to keep making those payments.
Vegas is hurting, since in a bad economy few people have much money for entertainment or gaming. And the glitz of Vegas is somewhat off putting to many Americans to begin with.
Florida either.
Since many of the retirees have seen their Social Security payments cut or those cost of living increases delayed. And with many also in the tourism industry, another hard hit during this recession, high foreclosures would only stand to reason.
But it is rather doubtful that the new figures have anything to do with judicial foreclosures states having higher rates.
Simply that those states are now catching up due to the still joblessness of many Americans, high cost of housing there, and fact that since there is a longer foreclosure process and time between serving notice and the banks taking of the home, five years later those states would be catching up to the non-judicial foreclosure states, such as Arizona, Nevada, California and Georgia, that for the past five years have led the lists.
At least with a judicial foreclosure, an American homeowner would have the fundamental right to request a jury determination under our Constitution, if he has any investment or equity in that home whatsoever.
And place his case before his fellow Americans.
Not so in those unconstitutional non-judicial foreclosure states.
And guess who will be the largest beneficiary of the recent settlement Mr. Obama announced over the mortgage mess and foreclosure abuse which has transpired the past five years?
The states.
That's right.
It was the states that actually "settled" with those banks - of course, after being fully aware, I'm sure, of the illegal lending practices which were going on in their states for literally decades.
Of course, mortgages backed or underwritten by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in this "settlement."
The feds have indemnified themselves it appears, since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, after all, created by Congress.
What corruption.
And definitely appears the American people aren't buying.
Either this latest settlement, and that piddly $2,000 the states also negotiated for their now homeless citizens.
The market isn't rallying in any fundamental way.
Unless those states plan to sell those homes to all the foreigners and immigrants they continue to request under those state resolutions to take also those "jobs Americans don't want."
You know, all those Canadians buying winter homes in the Sunbelt states at bargain basement prices, or East Indians, Mexicans or South Americans under those free trade agreements and visa waivers...
This article was written by a site know as "24/7 Wall Street" which took a few positions that seemed rather self-serving to Wall Street, to say the least.
It represented that "nine of the top 11 states with the highest foreclosures" were judicial foreclosures states, because of the amount of time it takes for the banks to foreclosure with the complexities involved.
Contrary to most of the reports in the mainstream media listing the states with the highest foreclosure rates thus far after this five year federal and state taking of American's properties, which lists Nevada, California, Arizona, Georgia, Utah and Florida as highest (the majority of which are non-judicial foreclosure states), 24/7 Wall Street's list was as follows:
Florida
New Jersey
Illinois
Nevada
New York
Why the discrepancy, and spins on judicial vs. non-judicial foreclosures?
I can only assume 24/7 Wall Street has an agenda, that is certain.
It is no surprise that Nevada is on both lists. The loss of jobs in the gaming industry, particularly, has resulted in many Americans living in that state to lose their homes when they were unable to keep making those payments.
Vegas is hurting, since in a bad economy few people have much money for entertainment or gaming. And the glitz of Vegas is somewhat off putting to many Americans to begin with.
Florida either.
Since many of the retirees have seen their Social Security payments cut or those cost of living increases delayed. And with many also in the tourism industry, another hard hit during this recession, high foreclosures would only stand to reason.
But it is rather doubtful that the new figures have anything to do with judicial foreclosures states having higher rates.
Simply that those states are now catching up due to the still joblessness of many Americans, high cost of housing there, and fact that since there is a longer foreclosure process and time between serving notice and the banks taking of the home, five years later those states would be catching up to the non-judicial foreclosure states, such as Arizona, Nevada, California and Georgia, that for the past five years have led the lists.
At least with a judicial foreclosure, an American homeowner would have the fundamental right to request a jury determination under our Constitution, if he has any investment or equity in that home whatsoever.
And place his case before his fellow Americans.
Not so in those unconstitutional non-judicial foreclosure states.
And guess who will be the largest beneficiary of the recent settlement Mr. Obama announced over the mortgage mess and foreclosure abuse which has transpired the past five years?
The states.
That's right.
It was the states that actually "settled" with those banks - of course, after being fully aware, I'm sure, of the illegal lending practices which were going on in their states for literally decades.
Of course, mortgages backed or underwritten by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in this "settlement."
The feds have indemnified themselves it appears, since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, after all, created by Congress.
What corruption.
And definitely appears the American people aren't buying.
Either this latest settlement, and that piddly $2,000 the states also negotiated for their now homeless citizens.
The market isn't rallying in any fundamental way.
Unless those states plan to sell those homes to all the foreigners and immigrants they continue to request under those state resolutions to take also those "jobs Americans don't want."
You know, all those Canadians buying winter homes in the Sunbelt states at bargain basement prices, or East Indians, Mexicans or South Americans under those free trade agreements and visa waivers...
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Adding Insult to Injury: Obama Settles With The Bankers
As one who was affected by the mortgage banking crisis (and other unconstitutional property "laws") in my home state of Arizona way back in 2006, I was amazed to hear this afternoon that Barack Obama held a rather large news conference in order to announce that the federal government has come to a "settlement" with many of the major banking concerns (primarily located in the West) whose practices led to the loss of untold thousands of American's homes these last five to six years.
First of all, I'm scratching my head wondering just where in the Constitution it affords a president to act as a lawyer on behalf of the American people in this "class action?" It does seem rather odd to me, and don't remember a time in our history when a President has exercised such "authority."
Prosecuting and putting some of those individuals sitting on those Boards of Directors or CEOs and CFOs in jail for a very long while on charges of fraudulent lending practices, or other clearly criminal charges, yes.
But engineering a settlement outside Congressional authority even?
Just where is that duty of office in our Constitution?
It was bad enough when during the honeymoon phase of Mr. Obama's presidency he appointed the former CEO of Countrywide in charge of negotiating refinances for homeowners who were still in danger of losing their homes back in 2009.
Part of the terms of this deal is the payment of a few billion in fines, which apparently is going to be earmarked to offer to homeowners who were foreclosed on "inappropriately" $2,000 as repayment for the loss of their home.
More money also will be set aside for refinancing.
Of course, if the terms of those loans remain the same as the ones which led to this travesty I just wonder how this is going to help most of those homeowners who are still receiving those foreclosure notices.
If non-judicial foreclosures remain the rule of law in many states throughout the nation, just what power does the average homeowner in default due to the continuing joblessness and piss poor economy have against the banking industry still, and their lawyers?
Let me get this straight.
The Federal Reserve who owns all of these banks (created by Congress) poured billions of dollars into these banks during the bank bailouts in 2008-9, which was to be used to ease up credit (which never really happened, but simply afforded the big box banks to buy out the smaller banks) - and now Obama has orchestrated the return of SOME of those monies in order to pay to fund more refinances, and payment of $2,000 to those for which it is "too late" and lost their homes this past five years.
Don't get me wrong. Mr. Romney's "solution" of letting the foreclosures hit bottom so that investors or corporate limited partnerships can scam some of those hot properties for rentals was far, far worse.
Talk about socialism and shifting the wealth around to the politically fortunate.
But I guess it played well for those in the Beltway in the room when he made this much publicized announcement.
But seems to me the current market conditions and all those still empty homes across America are demonstrating a vote of "no confidence" on Main Street.
First of all, I'm scratching my head wondering just where in the Constitution it affords a president to act as a lawyer on behalf of the American people in this "class action?" It does seem rather odd to me, and don't remember a time in our history when a President has exercised such "authority."
Prosecuting and putting some of those individuals sitting on those Boards of Directors or CEOs and CFOs in jail for a very long while on charges of fraudulent lending practices, or other clearly criminal charges, yes.
But engineering a settlement outside Congressional authority even?
Just where is that duty of office in our Constitution?
It was bad enough when during the honeymoon phase of Mr. Obama's presidency he appointed the former CEO of Countrywide in charge of negotiating refinances for homeowners who were still in danger of losing their homes back in 2009.
Part of the terms of this deal is the payment of a few billion in fines, which apparently is going to be earmarked to offer to homeowners who were foreclosed on "inappropriately" $2,000 as repayment for the loss of their home.
More money also will be set aside for refinancing.
Of course, if the terms of those loans remain the same as the ones which led to this travesty I just wonder how this is going to help most of those homeowners who are still receiving those foreclosure notices.
If non-judicial foreclosures remain the rule of law in many states throughout the nation, just what power does the average homeowner in default due to the continuing joblessness and piss poor economy have against the banking industry still, and their lawyers?
Let me get this straight.
The Federal Reserve who owns all of these banks (created by Congress) poured billions of dollars into these banks during the bank bailouts in 2008-9, which was to be used to ease up credit (which never really happened, but simply afforded the big box banks to buy out the smaller banks) - and now Obama has orchestrated the return of SOME of those monies in order to pay to fund more refinances, and payment of $2,000 to those for which it is "too late" and lost their homes this past five years.
Don't get me wrong. Mr. Romney's "solution" of letting the foreclosures hit bottom so that investors or corporate limited partnerships can scam some of those hot properties for rentals was far, far worse.
Talk about socialism and shifting the wealth around to the politically fortunate.
But I guess it played well for those in the Beltway in the room when he made this much publicized announcement.
But seems to me the current market conditions and all those still empty homes across America are demonstrating a vote of "no confidence" on Main Street.
Monday, February 6, 2012
First Person Perspective: Why Americans Are Unemployed
Due to all the massive spins which continue to be bantered around among Mr. Obama, the challengers, and the mainstream media, as one of those currently unemployed, I thought I would address this situation from a better, more clearer, perspective.
As one formerly in the middle class for a good part of my life, but who is at over 50 no longer from a personal perspective just what has transpired to place me in this position post 9-11 and our current economy.
My former home was for most of my life in Arizona. It is no longer, and has not been since the National Guard was called out to help secure the border in 2006 during the Iraqi War and subsequent surge when, according to media sources, then President Bush was offering border agents extra pay and bonuses if they would go overseas to secure Iraq's borders, rather than our own.
An initial move to the Midwest proved to be futile, since as an asthmatic during the summer months it was rather difficult to breathe during planting season and was a much harder adjustment at over 50 than it had been when I had lived there a short time during a spouse's graduate studies many years ago.
So I headed South, where I have extended family only to be then caught there during one of the major hurricanes in 2008, and living in weekly rental rooms at that point. Whatever the amount of equity I got out of my home upon an enforced sale, was pretty much gone after the medical bills and living expenses while I was then recovering and added expenses of then subsequent moves. This was my second move in less than a year.
It took over a year to even start to feel a bit better, and another move back West (not to Arizona, however) where I could recuperate until my lungs healed. I am deathly allergic to mold and when all those roofs were pulled up to replace, the mold which had grown out of control after the hurricane was then released in the air, and I got the mother of all lung infections.
While West and recuperating, on my good days I attempted to seek help from the Social Security office.
But since I wasn't old enough to claim my benefits, and wasn't injured to the point where they could determine it would be "permanent," nor missing a limb, I was shown the door and advised I could hire a lawyer and challenge their decision in front of a government Administrative Law Judge. That would take about a year, I was told, to go through the "process."
I continued to deplete whatever savings I had left while I continued to heal, and then found a job after nine months of looking sporadically when I could in a call center during a ramp up. A third party provider for a major cell phone carrier.
I was there all of four months before there was a massive layoff of almost all the people who were hired during that ramp up due to a slowed economy.
Especially the older workers (over 35), and any and all where drug testing, or misdemeanor offenses could then be used to whittle down the workforce (even though drug testing and background checks were undertaken upon filling out those lengthy application forms).
In the state where I was working, medical marijuana use with THC in the bloodstream during the testing period was a cause for immediate dismissal. So were juvenile possession and misdemeanor criminal offenses, although in some people's cases occurred decades before, or even misdemeanor traffic offenses. The older, of course, you got the more likely it was that at one point in your life due to the shear number of laws on the books there was something there that could be used.
Especially since in most states at this point, there are no statutory expungements for criminal offenses, even misdemeanors. With progressively also more and more victimless civil offenses now classified as criminal.
This was not a right to work state, but as of yet this center was not unionized.
But as one who formerly worked in that field, I can certainly see that day coming fairly quickly, which may be why most call centers are now "outsourced."
There may be a reason at some of those locations they are jobs Americans don't want, or can't have for just such hiring practices.
Of course, the working conditions there left much to be desired from a labor/management perspective, and from what I understand there have been lawsuits which filed over failure to pay employees for time worked, and also mandatory overtime not paid.
My time came for the boot primarily because I believe I asked far too many questions for their comfort as having worked in the labor relations field for many years. Or maybe because I was one of those "older" workers targeted anyway since my style of customer service was foreign to their management.
During my training I was warned not to become a "target" by the instructors, in failing to follow the dress code or grievance procedures, which procedures were similar to those in the military - using the "chain of command" verbiage to explain them to the new hires. Meeting with anyone in Human Resources was the last step in the chain.
Although it wasn't my real choice of job to begin with, but one taken out of shear desperation and necessity. For a little over minimum wage, after over twenty five years banking, legal and travel industry experience.
I moved again, due to the inability to get work to a state that had a little better unemployment rate.
I signed up with two or three local job centers and completed all their testing.
It is not that I am not computer savvy, having owned and managed my own website based small business for several years, and having also taken continuing education classes through the years.
I had worked with some senior students at DeVry who developed my website in 2004, and also worked with me during the process so that I could subsequently maintain it for a product line of children's footwear I had developed before the economic and political roof caved in Arizona and throughout most of the nation in 2005-06 and as a single mom with teenagers working from home.
In over seven months, only one or two referrals for minimum wage positions in this "lower" unemployment rate state.
That's it.
I also started combing the ads and internet myself.
I went to one company that was looking for sales personnel for a cruise line packager. I had worked for a major vacation packager in Arizona prior to a layoff in '99 when they deemed the rent too high there, and moved to Coral Gables, Florida - another high humidity, hurricane prone state in which at that time I could not live with also an asthmatic daughter who would not have done well there (nor as a divorced mom, could move there without "court" permission, I was told, due to a shared custody arrangement with my ex for our minor children).
There I was informed that it would cost me $500 for their training materials, and then $200 to rent desk space at their offices annually. I was then to receive a 20% commission on my sales, from the 10% commission the company made from the cruise line company, and would be paid after the cruise line company was paid by the customer prior to their departure.
I figured on a $2,500 cruise (standard) at 10% commission for the agency, my 20% of 10% would be $50.00. I would get $50.00 for each cruise I sold. They would get the rest. Hours of calls, and hand holding until that ship finally departed (especially after this latest cruise line sinking) and I would receive $50.00.
Less taxes.
I got one call the other day from an agency I had basically written off.
It was a one day assignment, but the agency needed to know one important question first.
Did I have an IPhone, or smart phone capable of taking photographs, and then emailing them from my phone?
I, of course, at this point unable to really afford even your basic flip phone (although trouble shooted those IPhones for two months), had to tell her no, I did not.
But I did have access to a digital camera that I could download and then email.
That wasn't what the client wanted.
So sorry.
Wake up, Washington...and the state legislatures...there is much, much more to this than meets the eye.
Or those candidates can even begin to comprehend.
Or just maybe, they do know and not to be politically incorrect or anything...
But Obama, Mitt and Newt just may be like those little Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil monkeys (deaf, dumb, blind) I remember from childhood. (Of course, that children's analogy sure isn't used in "politically correct" America anymore)
Or maybe, in this stage managed political arena we now live in where politicians resemble more and more "B" movie actors...
The director(s) in global corporate America, simply don't give a ****...
People are now nothing more than commerce, after all...
As one formerly in the middle class for a good part of my life, but who is at over 50 no longer from a personal perspective just what has transpired to place me in this position post 9-11 and our current economy.
My former home was for most of my life in Arizona. It is no longer, and has not been since the National Guard was called out to help secure the border in 2006 during the Iraqi War and subsequent surge when, according to media sources, then President Bush was offering border agents extra pay and bonuses if they would go overseas to secure Iraq's borders, rather than our own.
An initial move to the Midwest proved to be futile, since as an asthmatic during the summer months it was rather difficult to breathe during planting season and was a much harder adjustment at over 50 than it had been when I had lived there a short time during a spouse's graduate studies many years ago.
So I headed South, where I have extended family only to be then caught there during one of the major hurricanes in 2008, and living in weekly rental rooms at that point. Whatever the amount of equity I got out of my home upon an enforced sale, was pretty much gone after the medical bills and living expenses while I was then recovering and added expenses of then subsequent moves. This was my second move in less than a year.
It took over a year to even start to feel a bit better, and another move back West (not to Arizona, however) where I could recuperate until my lungs healed. I am deathly allergic to mold and when all those roofs were pulled up to replace, the mold which had grown out of control after the hurricane was then released in the air, and I got the mother of all lung infections.
While West and recuperating, on my good days I attempted to seek help from the Social Security office.
But since I wasn't old enough to claim my benefits, and wasn't injured to the point where they could determine it would be "permanent," nor missing a limb, I was shown the door and advised I could hire a lawyer and challenge their decision in front of a government Administrative Law Judge. That would take about a year, I was told, to go through the "process."
I continued to deplete whatever savings I had left while I continued to heal, and then found a job after nine months of looking sporadically when I could in a call center during a ramp up. A third party provider for a major cell phone carrier.
I was there all of four months before there was a massive layoff of almost all the people who were hired during that ramp up due to a slowed economy.
Especially the older workers (over 35), and any and all where drug testing, or misdemeanor offenses could then be used to whittle down the workforce (even though drug testing and background checks were undertaken upon filling out those lengthy application forms).
In the state where I was working, medical marijuana use with THC in the bloodstream during the testing period was a cause for immediate dismissal. So were juvenile possession and misdemeanor criminal offenses, although in some people's cases occurred decades before, or even misdemeanor traffic offenses. The older, of course, you got the more likely it was that at one point in your life due to the shear number of laws on the books there was something there that could be used.
Especially since in most states at this point, there are no statutory expungements for criminal offenses, even misdemeanors. With progressively also more and more victimless civil offenses now classified as criminal.
This was not a right to work state, but as of yet this center was not unionized.
But as one who formerly worked in that field, I can certainly see that day coming fairly quickly, which may be why most call centers are now "outsourced."
There may be a reason at some of those locations they are jobs Americans don't want, or can't have for just such hiring practices.
Of course, the working conditions there left much to be desired from a labor/management perspective, and from what I understand there have been lawsuits which filed over failure to pay employees for time worked, and also mandatory overtime not paid.
My time came for the boot primarily because I believe I asked far too many questions for their comfort as having worked in the labor relations field for many years. Or maybe because I was one of those "older" workers targeted anyway since my style of customer service was foreign to their management.
During my training I was warned not to become a "target" by the instructors, in failing to follow the dress code or grievance procedures, which procedures were similar to those in the military - using the "chain of command" verbiage to explain them to the new hires. Meeting with anyone in Human Resources was the last step in the chain.
Although it wasn't my real choice of job to begin with, but one taken out of shear desperation and necessity. For a little over minimum wage, after over twenty five years banking, legal and travel industry experience.
I moved again, due to the inability to get work to a state that had a little better unemployment rate.
I signed up with two or three local job centers and completed all their testing.
It is not that I am not computer savvy, having owned and managed my own website based small business for several years, and having also taken continuing education classes through the years.
I had worked with some senior students at DeVry who developed my website in 2004, and also worked with me during the process so that I could subsequently maintain it for a product line of children's footwear I had developed before the economic and political roof caved in Arizona and throughout most of the nation in 2005-06 and as a single mom with teenagers working from home.
In over seven months, only one or two referrals for minimum wage positions in this "lower" unemployment rate state.
That's it.
I also started combing the ads and internet myself.
I went to one company that was looking for sales personnel for a cruise line packager. I had worked for a major vacation packager in Arizona prior to a layoff in '99 when they deemed the rent too high there, and moved to Coral Gables, Florida - another high humidity, hurricane prone state in which at that time I could not live with also an asthmatic daughter who would not have done well there (nor as a divorced mom, could move there without "court" permission, I was told, due to a shared custody arrangement with my ex for our minor children).
There I was informed that it would cost me $500 for their training materials, and then $200 to rent desk space at their offices annually. I was then to receive a 20% commission on my sales, from the 10% commission the company made from the cruise line company, and would be paid after the cruise line company was paid by the customer prior to their departure.
I figured on a $2,500 cruise (standard) at 10% commission for the agency, my 20% of 10% would be $50.00. I would get $50.00 for each cruise I sold. They would get the rest. Hours of calls, and hand holding until that ship finally departed (especially after this latest cruise line sinking) and I would receive $50.00.
Less taxes.
I got one call the other day from an agency I had basically written off.
It was a one day assignment, but the agency needed to know one important question first.
Did I have an IPhone, or smart phone capable of taking photographs, and then emailing them from my phone?
I, of course, at this point unable to really afford even your basic flip phone (although trouble shooted those IPhones for two months), had to tell her no, I did not.
But I did have access to a digital camera that I could download and then email.
That wasn't what the client wanted.
So sorry.
Wake up, Washington...and the state legislatures...there is much, much more to this than meets the eye.
Or those candidates can even begin to comprehend.
Or just maybe, they do know and not to be politically incorrect or anything...
But Obama, Mitt and Newt just may be like those little Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil monkeys (deaf, dumb, blind) I remember from childhood. (Of course, that children's analogy sure isn't used in "politically correct" America anymore)
Or maybe, in this stage managed political arena we now live in where politicians resemble more and more "B" movie actors...
The director(s) in global corporate America, simply don't give a ****...
People are now nothing more than commerce, after all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
