This is a fun blast from the past -
An article that describes Republican congressional efforts to pass law that would make (then) President Bush's warrentless evesdropping of US citizens (which the White House was already allowing the NSA to do) Legal. Now here we are 7 years later and it's the Republicans who suddenly hate that sort of Presidential power and some of the Dems who support it.
Round and round and round we go.
It's funny, given how this country tends to go for Presidential political parties in two term increments, you'd think the Republicans might do some forward thinking and actually support giving all kinds of spying powers to the president ... knowing that statistics are on their party's side for being the next guys who would get to use that power and that it is easier to get the power now while they aren't in charge.
Oh well. Here's a flash back to share with all who think that NSA's "warrentless wiretapping" was invented by the current administration.
GOP Senators Near Deal on Eavesdropping
By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer
3-8-06
After weeks of negotiations and closed door meetings, moderate Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee will propose legislation giving President Bush's controversial surveillance program the force of law.
Support was building Tuesday among Republicans and the White House for the proposal to craft eavesdropping legislation and conduct additional oversight more than four years after Bush secretly initiated the program. The move also blunted Democratic calls for an investigation of the U.S.-based monitoring operations in the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said the legislation proposed by several moderate Republicans was "certainly a good foundation to start with" — a sentiment shared by the Senate's Republican leadership and the White House, he said.
Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, said he would soon introduce the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 with three other moderates who have helped shaped the debate on intelligence issues: Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Roberts said he believed that Bush would sign surveillance legislation after "Congress worked its will." But he said there may still be changes ahead on the proposal now under consideration. "I don't see every 't' crossed and 'i' dotted," Roberts said.
It's also unclear if the House will consider a similar measure. House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., has not yet taken up legislation.
Meanwhile, Democrats on the Intelligence Committee expressed outrage after a meeting Tuesday that senators voted — along party lines — to reject an investigation of the surveillance proposed by West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's top Democrat.
"The committee — to put it bluntly — basically is in the control of the White House," a visibly angry Rockefeller said.
Roberts balked at Rockefeller's suggestion. Roberts told reporters that he asked the committee to reject confrontation and accommodate an agreement with the White House to create a subcommittee of seven senators with broad oversight of the National Security Agency's terrorist monitoring.
"We should fight the enemy. We should not fight each other," Roberts said.
The 15-member panel agreed, over strong Democratic objections that the limited size of the group means Congress will be writing laws in the dark. "Our committee has to be fully informed if we are to guide the legislative debate on this program that is fast approaching," Rockefeller said.
The growing call for legislation has added pressure on the Bush administration to go along, and the White House indicated a broad approval for DeWine's bill.
"We think it is a generally sound measure," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We have said we are committed to working with Congress on legislation that would further codify into law the president's authority to detect and prevent potential attacks."
Yet even as legislation is drafted, lawmakers are pressing for more details about the surveillance.
Rockefeller said he spent all of Friday at the NSA, seeking answers to more than 400 questions. He said it would take several visits to have a full understanding of the program, which allowed the administration to eavesdrop on international calls and e-mails of U.S. residents when terrorism is suspected.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., also threatened to write legislation to limit funding for the program if he can't get more information about it. "If we cannot find some political solution to the disagreement with the executive branch, our ultimate power is the power of the purse," Specter said.
Rivaling the DeWine approach, Specter is writing a separate bill that would allow the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court the authority to give the program a broad constitutional blessing every 45 days. Specter's support remains unclear.
DeWine's bill would — for a time — exempt the president's surveillance program from a 1978 law aimed at governing electronic intelligence collection inside the United States.
The proposal, now being circulated on Capitol Hill, would allow the government to monitor suspected terrorists for up to 45 days without first seeking approval from the federal intelligence court. The government would then have three options: stop the surveillance, seek a warrant from the court, or come to Congress to explain why a warrant isn't possible.
DeWine said his approach would create a subcommittee to consider those requests and conduct in-depth oversight of the monitoring on a case-by-case basis.
Like the president's program, his bill covers only communications where one party is overseas and one is inside the United States.
The White House has said that Bush acted lawfully when he ordered the warrantless surveillance because he had the inherent authority as president and under a September 2001 resolution to use force in the war on terror. Although initially reluctant to work with Congress on a bill, the White House has come around in recent weeks as lawmakers threatened investigations.
Roberts and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., both indicated their support for the concept drafted by the moderate senators. But in a sign of how carefully lawmakers must handle the debate, Frist sought to make clear the president's actions are legal now, noting that he believes Bush already "has the constitutional authority to conduct this program."
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Monday, July 1, 2013
Brewing Tips!!
Some quick tips.
The first is to brew on your back porch or in the garage or someplace that you can hose down afterwards. You cannot believe how quickly your wort can boil over and given that most of it is a sugar based liquid, it creates a nasty sticky mess. A camp stove can be good for this. My brewing buddy and I use the propane burner off of an old gas grill. As an added benefit ... it is more fun to sit around a boiling pot sipping at an ale and occasionally stirring than it is to stand in front of a stove.
Next tip is actually several tips but they are based around water volumes.
When your wort is all in the fermentation bucket you should have about 5 gallons of liquid ... but you don't start out with 5 gallons. For one thing, your brew pot will only hold so much. The other factor is that it takes (roughly speaking) FOREVER to bring that much water to a boil!
So ... maybe 2 gallons of liquid to start with. Once it has been brought to a boil and you add your Malt Extract (NOTE: FOR SOME REASON BOIL OVER MOST OFTEN OCCURS WHEN YOU ADD STUFF TO YOUR BOILING WORT! ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ADD THE HOPS! THE WORT BEGINS TO BUBBLE UP RATHER FURIOUSLY! For that reason I recommend removing the wort from the heat as you add stuff, then putting it back on the fire once you have finished.)
The Malt is a very thick syrup so after you poor it in, add a little bit of hot water (from the tap) to the malt container and slosh it around to try and get ALL of the malty goodness out of the can/jug and into your wort! This will also add a little more volume to your wort so you need to keep that in mind when you start with your initial volume of wort.
Next water tip. Most recipe call for you to poor your finished wort into the fermentation bucket and then add sterile water to bring the volume up to 5 gallons. Then you have to wait for the temperature of your wort to come down to like 90 degrees before you can add your yeast. You will KILL your yeast if it goes into too hot a wort. So you wait. and wait and wait and wait.
NOT ME!
Some time before Brew day, we fill sanitized Tupperware containers with previously boiled water and make sterile blocks of ice! So when the wort is finished its boil, the first thing we put in the fermentation bucket is a several blocks of ice (about a gallon or so ... your mileage may very). Then you poor your boiling hot wort over that and stir. The ice melts in about 5 minutes and you got cooled wort, ready for the addition of yeast! You will still probably need to add a little water so if you got it too cold you can add a bit of warm water. I know some directions say NO ICE but we have done this for years and our beer taste GREAT if I do say so myself!
Another thing ... your finished wort will have a lot of sedimentary material in it (the hops). If you leave this in your fermentation bucket, when fermentation starts to get really going and foams up, this stuff can clog up your airlock. The result is that it can blow out the air lock. This might allow bacteria into your beer (which would ruin it) and also make a localized mess in what ever closet your bucket was sitting in. The way we have avoided this was to strain our wort as we poured it over the ice. My buddy has this very fine, mesh bag (nylon I think) that we pour the wort through. Works like a charm but it takes one guy to poor while the other makes sure the bag doesn't get pulled into the bucket.
It is not only more fun to brew with a buddy ... it's also quite helpful!
Finally - just a bit on sanitation/sterilization/cleanliness. Most everyone places a REAL high premium on this. We've all seen what happens if you brew a mug of tea and then forget and let it sit out for a few days. Well this is like brewing tea ... but your going to let it sit out for a month! So yes, try to keep everything clean and contaminant free. HOWEVER ... keep in mind that in Inn keepers who couldn't read and rarely bathed, brewed up large batches of this stuff in open buckets in the cellars of their taverns. Sawdust and who knows what else fell through the cracks of the floors down into the stuff and yet ... they still ended up with beer!
If 14th century plague victims could brew beer, you probably don't have to worry too much about trying to maintain sterile, laboratory conditions!
The first is to brew on your back porch or in the garage or someplace that you can hose down afterwards. You cannot believe how quickly your wort can boil over and given that most of it is a sugar based liquid, it creates a nasty sticky mess. A camp stove can be good for this. My brewing buddy and I use the propane burner off of an old gas grill. As an added benefit ... it is more fun to sit around a boiling pot sipping at an ale and occasionally stirring than it is to stand in front of a stove.
Next tip is actually several tips but they are based around water volumes.
When your wort is all in the fermentation bucket you should have about 5 gallons of liquid ... but you don't start out with 5 gallons. For one thing, your brew pot will only hold so much. The other factor is that it takes (roughly speaking) FOREVER to bring that much water to a boil!
So ... maybe 2 gallons of liquid to start with. Once it has been brought to a boil and you add your Malt Extract (NOTE: FOR SOME REASON BOIL OVER MOST OFTEN OCCURS WHEN YOU ADD STUFF TO YOUR BOILING WORT! ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ADD THE HOPS! THE WORT BEGINS TO BUBBLE UP RATHER FURIOUSLY! For that reason I recommend removing the wort from the heat as you add stuff, then putting it back on the fire once you have finished.)
The Malt is a very thick syrup so after you poor it in, add a little bit of hot water (from the tap) to the malt container and slosh it around to try and get ALL of the malty goodness out of the can/jug and into your wort! This will also add a little more volume to your wort so you need to keep that in mind when you start with your initial volume of wort.
Next water tip. Most recipe call for you to poor your finished wort into the fermentation bucket and then add sterile water to bring the volume up to 5 gallons. Then you have to wait for the temperature of your wort to come down to like 90 degrees before you can add your yeast. You will KILL your yeast if it goes into too hot a wort. So you wait. and wait and wait and wait.
NOT ME!
Some time before Brew day, we fill sanitized Tupperware containers with previously boiled water and make sterile blocks of ice! So when the wort is finished its boil, the first thing we put in the fermentation bucket is a several blocks of ice (about a gallon or so ... your mileage may very). Then you poor your boiling hot wort over that and stir. The ice melts in about 5 minutes and you got cooled wort, ready for the addition of yeast! You will still probably need to add a little water so if you got it too cold you can add a bit of warm water. I know some directions say NO ICE but we have done this for years and our beer taste GREAT if I do say so myself!
Another thing ... your finished wort will have a lot of sedimentary material in it (the hops). If you leave this in your fermentation bucket, when fermentation starts to get really going and foams up, this stuff can clog up your airlock. The result is that it can blow out the air lock. This might allow bacteria into your beer (which would ruin it) and also make a localized mess in what ever closet your bucket was sitting in. The way we have avoided this was to strain our wort as we poured it over the ice. My buddy has this very fine, mesh bag (nylon I think) that we pour the wort through. Works like a charm but it takes one guy to poor while the other makes sure the bag doesn't get pulled into the bucket.
It is not only more fun to brew with a buddy ... it's also quite helpful!
Finally - just a bit on sanitation/sterilization/cleanliness. Most everyone places a REAL high premium on this. We've all seen what happens if you brew a mug of tea and then forget and let it sit out for a few days. Well this is like brewing tea ... but your going to let it sit out for a month! So yes, try to keep everything clean and contaminant free. HOWEVER ... keep in mind that in Inn keepers who couldn't read and rarely bathed, brewed up large batches of this stuff in open buckets in the cellars of their taverns. Sawdust and who knows what else fell through the cracks of the floors down into the stuff and yet ... they still ended up with beer!
If 14th century plague victims could brew beer, you probably don't have to worry too much about trying to maintain sterile, laboratory conditions!
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
... but WHY?
As I was exercising this morning my mind was wondering on the topic of natural disasters and the question of "Why, if there was a God, would he allow these things to happen. "
I should start by saying I would never presume to know what God is thinking or had in mind at any given moment. It's my opinion that anyone who tells you they can, are probably trying to sell you something.
What I can share is my observations on the ground after another disaster, Hurricane Katrina.
I made several trips to the Mississippi Gulf Coast after that storm. The first, just days after. The scope of that sort of thing can bring on shock to even someone who didn't live there. The loss of property and life that I witnessed didn't cause me to question my faith but it absolutely left me thinking "Why? What could God have possibly been thinking here?"
After a few days though, I began to see a bigger picture taking place.
One day I found myself standing in a food line. I and a 100 others would get a lunch that day because of some people that had driven from Texas and set up a "chuck wagon" in a church parking lot. These people were volunteers. This trip actually cost them money and they would be sleeping on a sleeping bag on someone's floor that night.
I got to talking with those around me in line. I was standing between a doctor and a convenience store clerk with his family. Their homes had all been destroyed. At that moment, (and for days before and a few after) we were all socio-economically equals. The doctor might have had $100 in his wallet and lots of credit cards but there was no place within a 30 minute drive to buy anything.
At that moment, everyone's net worth was what they could do to help others.
... and they were helping others.
Armies of people (at there own expense) remembered their humanity and descended on that area to help complete strangers. One day my group was helping an elderly couple to remove their destroyed possessions from their home. Word came to us that a neighbor needed help clearing some downed trees from their yard so they could reach the back of their house.
4 of us grabbed chainsaws (we had brought a trailer with every possible tool we thought we might need), went down the street and spent the next 3 hours in 98 degree heat and near 100% humidity cutting pine trees and hauling them out of the way. When we had finished, the homeowner came outside (she had been in her home ripping out moldering drywall) with her checkbook and ask how much she owed us. Baffled, we told her we were just there to help. She shook her head and ask what tree service we were with. When we each told her what we did for a living (we all were white collar professionals who had only just met that week) she got this far-a-way look and said in a deadpan "This is what Christians are."
It was clearly a "moment" for her but the real lesson there was for us because (IMHO) that is what Christians are supposed to be. Not out picketing to make someone's life miserable. Not trying to force others to follow your beliefs through legislation and politics. We're supposed to help each other. Actually physically help.
I was told later by a member of the church we had taken over as a base of operations and were living in, that the presence of all of these volunteers had changed that congregation. It was a very affluent congregation whose members had always been very ready to whip out their checkbooks when a "need" was brought to their attention … but the idea of putting your whole life on hold to just go and do for others in need (more then half the church members had their homes destroyed or flooded) had become foreign to them. Now, they got it. Being a "Christian" wasn't like joining a country club. It was a call to service.
The following spring, 10s of thousands of teens/early 20's traveled to the Gulf Coast on spring break. For the first time in decades, they were there not to immerse themselves in selfish hedonism but to selflessly help strangers.
I go back to my first point.
I have absolutely no idea why God would allow such destruction to rain down on folks. I can say that one of the results from Katrina was 10's of thousands (if not 100's of thousands) of people waking up and realizing the importance of not living just for yourself. It was also a wake up call to Christians who had fallen asleep at the wheel. Who had gotten comfortable and complacent and were willing to overlook a the people around them who could use a little help. Hurricane Katrina made it impossible to overlook the need.
I suspect these devastating fires will have that same effect in those communities. In the coming days and weeks there is going to be a need for a small army of people who realize we're all in this together. It will cause people to come outside the safety and complacency of their own 4 walls to help those who have lost theirs. Caring for what happens to neighbors and strangers NOT because some agency paid them to do so but because they share the same biology, joys and pain.
If it is all a just a lesson it's a pretty harsh on. Generally speaking though, we humans are a pretty stubborn and self absorbed lot. We get really good at ignoring the advice that would spare us from pain in the first place and then repeating the mistakes and folly we could have learned from the easier life lessons.
Some of the most important lessons I learned as a kid were only learned through pain and loss. I suppose that doesn't change just because we grow older.
I should start by saying I would never presume to know what God is thinking or had in mind at any given moment. It's my opinion that anyone who tells you they can, are probably trying to sell you something.
What I can share is my observations on the ground after another disaster, Hurricane Katrina.
I made several trips to the Mississippi Gulf Coast after that storm. The first, just days after. The scope of that sort of thing can bring on shock to even someone who didn't live there. The loss of property and life that I witnessed didn't cause me to question my faith but it absolutely left me thinking "Why? What could God have possibly been thinking here?"
After a few days though, I began to see a bigger picture taking place.
One day I found myself standing in a food line. I and a 100 others would get a lunch that day because of some people that had driven from Texas and set up a "chuck wagon" in a church parking lot. These people were volunteers. This trip actually cost them money and they would be sleeping on a sleeping bag on someone's floor that night.
I got to talking with those around me in line. I was standing between a doctor and a convenience store clerk with his family. Their homes had all been destroyed. At that moment, (and for days before and a few after) we were all socio-economically equals. The doctor might have had $100 in his wallet and lots of credit cards but there was no place within a 30 minute drive to buy anything.
At that moment, everyone's net worth was what they could do to help others.
... and they were helping others.
Armies of people (at there own expense) remembered their humanity and descended on that area to help complete strangers. One day my group was helping an elderly couple to remove their destroyed possessions from their home. Word came to us that a neighbor needed help clearing some downed trees from their yard so they could reach the back of their house.
4 of us grabbed chainsaws (we had brought a trailer with every possible tool we thought we might need), went down the street and spent the next 3 hours in 98 degree heat and near 100% humidity cutting pine trees and hauling them out of the way. When we had finished, the homeowner came outside (she had been in her home ripping out moldering drywall) with her checkbook and ask how much she owed us. Baffled, we told her we were just there to help. She shook her head and ask what tree service we were with. When we each told her what we did for a living (we all were white collar professionals who had only just met that week) she got this far-a-way look and said in a deadpan "This is what Christians are."
It was clearly a "moment" for her but the real lesson there was for us because (IMHO) that is what Christians are supposed to be. Not out picketing to make someone's life miserable. Not trying to force others to follow your beliefs through legislation and politics. We're supposed to help each other. Actually physically help.
I was told later by a member of the church we had taken over as a base of operations and were living in, that the presence of all of these volunteers had changed that congregation. It was a very affluent congregation whose members had always been very ready to whip out their checkbooks when a "need" was brought to their attention … but the idea of putting your whole life on hold to just go and do for others in need (more then half the church members had their homes destroyed or flooded) had become foreign to them. Now, they got it. Being a "Christian" wasn't like joining a country club. It was a call to service.
The following spring, 10s of thousands of teens/early 20's traveled to the Gulf Coast on spring break. For the first time in decades, they were there not to immerse themselves in selfish hedonism but to selflessly help strangers.
I go back to my first point.
I have absolutely no idea why God would allow such destruction to rain down on folks. I can say that one of the results from Katrina was 10's of thousands (if not 100's of thousands) of people waking up and realizing the importance of not living just for yourself. It was also a wake up call to Christians who had fallen asleep at the wheel. Who had gotten comfortable and complacent and were willing to overlook a the people around them who could use a little help. Hurricane Katrina made it impossible to overlook the need.
I suspect these devastating fires will have that same effect in those communities. In the coming days and weeks there is going to be a need for a small army of people who realize we're all in this together. It will cause people to come outside the safety and complacency of their own 4 walls to help those who have lost theirs. Caring for what happens to neighbors and strangers NOT because some agency paid them to do so but because they share the same biology, joys and pain.
If it is all a just a lesson it's a pretty harsh on. Generally speaking though, we humans are a pretty stubborn and self absorbed lot. We get really good at ignoring the advice that would spare us from pain in the first place and then repeating the mistakes and folly we could have learned from the easier life lessons.
Some of the most important lessons I learned as a kid were only learned through pain and loss. I suppose that doesn't change just because we grow older.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Some times it just doesn't work out.
So often when you hear of the untimely death of a child it involves drugs or gangs. In this case it was just really poor decision making involving girls.
This nephew was one of the sweetest kids you'd meet. A clever, sci-fi loving, shoe gazer who played in the marching band in high school, was super intelligent (made great grades) and had the really funny sense of humor, that is when he decided to speak up. His parents had divorced when he was maybe 6 and that probably had something to do with shy insecurity that left him to loose himself in what ever girl was giving him attention.
He barely left his home town after High School because he had a steady older girl friend. In the end, pressure from his mom to accept a scholarship he had been given, forced him to cut the girlfriend cord. He went a 2 days drive away from home and was studying to be a fire, forensic scientist.
There he met a girl.
The summer after that first year at school, he chose to follow the new girl friend back to her home town and get a summer job.
She then decided not to go back to the University but to enroll in the local community college ... so he did as well.
Then she broke up with him.
So now he was 20 and with out the financial assistance of the previous Universities scholarship he had to take a job to pay for his apartment and schooling. Which meant he wasn't in school full time anymore.
Then he met another girl. Only this one proved to be his final undoing.
He met her with a group of college kids. I never met her but apparently she was quite attractive and all over him. Unfortunately, when your 20 and at a party you don't tend to card anyone who comes up and starts talking to you. Especially when you are a shy, geeky guy with a need to cling and the girl is clearly hot for you. Apparently you should.
I really don't know how long they dated. Maybe 2 or 3 months before her parents found out and confronted him with the news she was 15.
Did he ever really wonder about why she didn't want to him to meet her parents? I don't know. She told him stories about them being abusive though in hind site one has to think there should have been other signs that things weren't quite right.
He was a smart kid but he was also a 20 year old guy with a girl who wanted him.
Pretty clearly, if he did have suspicions he let the wrong head do the thinking.
So when the parents found out they threatened to have him arrested but having had a history of trouble with their daughter, they told him that if he left the county they wouldn't press charges. So he did.
Then a few weeks later she called him up late one stormy night. She was hysterical and said she had had a big fight with her parents and they had thrown her out of the house. She was calling from a pay-phone at a convenience store and had no money and didn't know who else to call. So, being the sweet, stupid kid he was - he drove 1 and a half hours through the rain and picked her up.
It was now the middle of the night so he decided to take her to a local motel room.
(Is anyone else screaming "Noooooooooo" at this point?)
What he didn't know was that the girl HAD in fact run away. She had gone to a local theater early in the evening and when her parents came to pick her up, no one could find her. After my nephew had left town, she had apparently continued to fight with her parents about seeing him ... so the parents naturally assumed that the two had run off together ... and they called the police.
Cut to the next morning. Some how the parents had gotten hold of the phone number for my nephew's dad (whom he was now living with) and explained that they were looking for her and had a warrant out for the son's arrest.
The dad then called my nephew's cell phone and explained the predicament. He suggested that my nephew go by the police station, drop the girl on the steps and get out of town. That wasn't my nephew though. That seemed cruel to him so he took the girl to the police station and walked her inside. Somehow he thought when he explained what had happened it would clear everything up. He was promptly arrested.
When the parents arrived and heard his side of the story, they didn't question it for a moment. They knew their daughter too well. So they dropped all charges.
Unfortunately, my nephew had just turned 21 and the D.A. decided they were going to make an example of him. When he couldn't pressure the parents into pressing charges ... the D.A. went ahead and pressed charges on behalf of the state, charging him with 6 counts of Statutory rape and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Perhaps the first brake he got was that the judge was able to take a rational look at the situation and gave him the very minimum sentence possible, a few months and then probation.
That was a year and a half ago.
Of course, he had his picture posted in the paper next to the headline "MAN charged with statutory rape of local teen". The story itself of course gave no back story to indicate this wasn't some perp hiding in the bushes and assaulting little kids. Not that anyone cares what is said after the headlines. All of the corresponding, self-rightous blog-commentors couldn't wait to jump in with their outrage, not knowing him or ANYTHING about the actual situation, they piled on with posts saying horrible things about this "SEXUAL PREDATOR" and "people like him".
My nephew's younger sister was a freshman in High school at the time and it was no time at all until she found those posts. She was so traumatized at how so many complete strangers could be so vicious towards someone she personally knew to be a good person, she had a break down and had to have counseling.
He also gots to carry the "sexual offender" label with him anywhere he lived and has to list his "criminal offenses" on any application he fills out. It seems no one ever wants to know the details about those sort of things, they just see the label and grab their pitchforks.
His dad got him a manual labor sort of job that allowed him to get an apartment . No longer in school and with a job instead of a career.
At some point along here he was diagnosed with depression and put on medication.
About Christmas time he got very ill. Flu then Strep Throat and bronchitis. For a month he was terribly ill.
So last Monday night he just gave up hope. He took all his anti-depresants and a full bottle of Tylenol. Sometime in the middle of the night he had a change of heart and called his dad for help ... but he didn't tell him what he had done. So when his dad picked him up he just thought he was still sick and took him home. It wasn't till 9am the next morning, when he found my nephew bleeding from the mouth on the bathroom floor that he realized the extent of the problem.
By then his liver was pretty much gone. He however, took another 2 days to fade away.
I just look at this and shake my head. My nephew wasn't a creep, a bully, a predator, or a druggie. He didn't hang with gangs or criminals. He really didn't do anything most of the rest of us didn't do as teens/early twenties. The rest of us though were lucky enough to never have to be accountable for our bad judgement.
He simply wasn't a bad guy.
He was just a stupid, sweet, insecure geek with an over active need to be in a relationship. For him though, life just didn't work out.
This nephew was one of the sweetest kids you'd meet. A clever, sci-fi loving, shoe gazer who played in the marching band in high school, was super intelligent (made great grades) and had the really funny sense of humor, that is when he decided to speak up. His parents had divorced when he was maybe 6 and that probably had something to do with shy insecurity that left him to loose himself in what ever girl was giving him attention.
He barely left his home town after High School because he had a steady older girl friend. In the end, pressure from his mom to accept a scholarship he had been given, forced him to cut the girlfriend cord. He went a 2 days drive away from home and was studying to be a fire, forensic scientist.
There he met a girl.
The summer after that first year at school, he chose to follow the new girl friend back to her home town and get a summer job.
She then decided not to go back to the University but to enroll in the local community college ... so he did as well.
Then she broke up with him.
So now he was 20 and with out the financial assistance of the previous Universities scholarship he had to take a job to pay for his apartment and schooling. Which meant he wasn't in school full time anymore.
Then he met another girl. Only this one proved to be his final undoing.
He met her with a group of college kids. I never met her but apparently she was quite attractive and all over him. Unfortunately, when your 20 and at a party you don't tend to card anyone who comes up and starts talking to you. Especially when you are a shy, geeky guy with a need to cling and the girl is clearly hot for you. Apparently you should.
I really don't know how long they dated. Maybe 2 or 3 months before her parents found out and confronted him with the news she was 15.
Did he ever really wonder about why she didn't want to him to meet her parents? I don't know. She told him stories about them being abusive though in hind site one has to think there should have been other signs that things weren't quite right.
He was a smart kid but he was also a 20 year old guy with a girl who wanted him.
Pretty clearly, if he did have suspicions he let the wrong head do the thinking.
So when the parents found out they threatened to have him arrested but having had a history of trouble with their daughter, they told him that if he left the county they wouldn't press charges. So he did.
Then a few weeks later she called him up late one stormy night. She was hysterical and said she had had a big fight with her parents and they had thrown her out of the house. She was calling from a pay-phone at a convenience store and had no money and didn't know who else to call. So, being the sweet, stupid kid he was - he drove 1 and a half hours through the rain and picked her up.
It was now the middle of the night so he decided to take her to a local motel room.
(Is anyone else screaming "Noooooooooo" at this point?)
What he didn't know was that the girl HAD in fact run away. She had gone to a local theater early in the evening and when her parents came to pick her up, no one could find her. After my nephew had left town, she had apparently continued to fight with her parents about seeing him ... so the parents naturally assumed that the two had run off together ... and they called the police.
Cut to the next morning. Some how the parents had gotten hold of the phone number for my nephew's dad (whom he was now living with) and explained that they were looking for her and had a warrant out for the son's arrest.
The dad then called my nephew's cell phone and explained the predicament. He suggested that my nephew go by the police station, drop the girl on the steps and get out of town. That wasn't my nephew though. That seemed cruel to him so he took the girl to the police station and walked her inside. Somehow he thought when he explained what had happened it would clear everything up. He was promptly arrested.
When the parents arrived and heard his side of the story, they didn't question it for a moment. They knew their daughter too well. So they dropped all charges.
Unfortunately, my nephew had just turned 21 and the D.A. decided they were going to make an example of him. When he couldn't pressure the parents into pressing charges ... the D.A. went ahead and pressed charges on behalf of the state, charging him with 6 counts of Statutory rape and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Perhaps the first brake he got was that the judge was able to take a rational look at the situation and gave him the very minimum sentence possible, a few months and then probation.
That was a year and a half ago.
Of course, he had his picture posted in the paper next to the headline "MAN charged with statutory rape of local teen". The story itself of course gave no back story to indicate this wasn't some perp hiding in the bushes and assaulting little kids. Not that anyone cares what is said after the headlines. All of the corresponding, self-rightous blog-commentors couldn't wait to jump in with their outrage, not knowing him or ANYTHING about the actual situation, they piled on with posts saying horrible things about this "SEXUAL PREDATOR" and "people like him".
My nephew's younger sister was a freshman in High school at the time and it was no time at all until she found those posts. She was so traumatized at how so many complete strangers could be so vicious towards someone she personally knew to be a good person, she had a break down and had to have counseling.
He also gots to carry the "sexual offender" label with him anywhere he lived and has to list his "criminal offenses" on any application he fills out. It seems no one ever wants to know the details about those sort of things, they just see the label and grab their pitchforks.
His dad got him a manual labor sort of job that allowed him to get an apartment . No longer in school and with a job instead of a career.
At some point along here he was diagnosed with depression and put on medication.
About Christmas time he got very ill. Flu then Strep Throat and bronchitis. For a month he was terribly ill.
So last Monday night he just gave up hope. He took all his anti-depresants and a full bottle of Tylenol. Sometime in the middle of the night he had a change of heart and called his dad for help ... but he didn't tell him what he had done. So when his dad picked him up he just thought he was still sick and took him home. It wasn't till 9am the next morning, when he found my nephew bleeding from the mouth on the bathroom floor that he realized the extent of the problem.
By then his liver was pretty much gone. He however, took another 2 days to fade away.
I just look at this and shake my head. My nephew wasn't a creep, a bully, a predator, or a druggie. He didn't hang with gangs or criminals. He really didn't do anything most of the rest of us didn't do as teens/early twenties. The rest of us though were lucky enough to never have to be accountable for our bad judgement.
He simply wasn't a bad guy.
He was just a stupid, sweet, insecure geek with an over active need to be in a relationship. For him though, life just didn't work out.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Egypt. Déjà vu ?
For those who may not be old enough to know that ... there was a time when Iran was NOT an Islamic fundamentalist state.
Iran was an Authoritarian Regime in the middle-East whose ruler (The Shaw) was kept in power by the U.S. It was a place of great wealth but that wealth was held in the hands of the very very few. Most of it's people lived in poverty. Though the Shaw ruled with ruthlessness, the U.S. supported him because he was VERY friendly to the west and policy experts saw him as a stabilizing force in the middle east who was actively trying to modernize his country.
In 1976, President Jimmy Carter put Human Rights foremost on the U.S. agenda and began pressuring the Shaw to improve his Human Rights record. Buoyed by this, Iranian students began demonstrating against the Shaw, demanding freedoms and even Democracy. Many of these initial demonstrations were met with violence and the shootings of hundreds if not thousands of protesters. This however, only incited more students to rise up and then be joined by more of the general populace. Eventually there were country wide work stop-ages. Many outsiders cheered the brave Iranians and their fight for freedom and democracy.
In the end the Shaw fled the country.
Happy ending?
No. Not really.
It turns out that radical fundamentalist Islamists were not only waiting in the wings to take control, they had actually infiltrated the students and had been orchestrating many of the marches and protests.
These savvy militants knew that there were not nearly enough of them to overthrow the government AND they would never have the popular support of the people. 10's of thousands of emboldened, passionate students though, represented an army just waiting to be used to achieve their own goals. The protesters became the unwitting pawns doing the work for a greater evil.
The Shaw was thrown out, the fundamentalists moved in. They went from Authoritarian to Totalitarian. 30 years later the people of Iran have far less freedoms then under the Shaw and Iran is now a Destabilizing force for the entire world.
So now we have Egypt.
An Authoritarian Regime in the middle-East whom the U.S. helps to keep in power. It was a place of great wealth but that wealth was held in the hands of the very very few. Most lived in poverty. Though their "president" of 30 years rules with an iron fist, the U.S. supported him because he is VERY friendly to the west and policy experts see him as a stabilizing force in the middle east who was actively trying to suppress the spread of radical Islam. In fact Egypt's president is known to have zero tolerance for Islamists in politics, whether they are militants or moderates.
Protests that started with well intentioned students wanting freedoms and economic opportunity have now spread to the populace. So far, they cry out not for true elections or for another leader to be put in place but simply for the current ruler to be thrown out. A power vacuum.
Whose waiting to rush in and fill that void?
Currently, Egypt's largest opposition movement is the outlawed "Muslim Brotherhood".
Its support base comes in large part from its elaborate network of social, medical and education services. It made a surprisingly strong showing in parliamentary elections in 2005, winning 20 percent of the legislature's seats, but it failed to win a single seat in elections held late last year. Those elections were widely thought to have been rigged in favor of the president's ruling party.
The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has said that freedom from the current President would enable them to push effectively for more proper Islamic education and training, so Egyptians would be able to "stand up to the American-Zionist project."
So be careful Egypt. Work for human rights and democracy ... but before you throw out your government, have a plan.
Look to Iran. History has a nasty habit of repeating itself.
Iran was an Authoritarian Regime in the middle-East whose ruler (The Shaw) was kept in power by the U.S. It was a place of great wealth but that wealth was held in the hands of the very very few. Most of it's people lived in poverty. Though the Shaw ruled with ruthlessness, the U.S. supported him because he was VERY friendly to the west and policy experts saw him as a stabilizing force in the middle east who was actively trying to modernize his country.
In 1976, President Jimmy Carter put Human Rights foremost on the U.S. agenda and began pressuring the Shaw to improve his Human Rights record. Buoyed by this, Iranian students began demonstrating against the Shaw, demanding freedoms and even Democracy. Many of these initial demonstrations were met with violence and the shootings of hundreds if not thousands of protesters. This however, only incited more students to rise up and then be joined by more of the general populace. Eventually there were country wide work stop-ages. Many outsiders cheered the brave Iranians and their fight for freedom and democracy.
In the end the Shaw fled the country.
Happy ending?
No. Not really.
It turns out that radical fundamentalist Islamists were not only waiting in the wings to take control, they had actually infiltrated the students and had been orchestrating many of the marches and protests.
These savvy militants knew that there were not nearly enough of them to overthrow the government AND they would never have the popular support of the people. 10's of thousands of emboldened, passionate students though, represented an army just waiting to be used to achieve their own goals. The protesters became the unwitting pawns doing the work for a greater evil.
The Shaw was thrown out, the fundamentalists moved in. They went from Authoritarian to Totalitarian. 30 years later the people of Iran have far less freedoms then under the Shaw and Iran is now a Destabilizing force for the entire world.
So now we have Egypt.
An Authoritarian Regime in the middle-East whom the U.S. helps to keep in power. It was a place of great wealth but that wealth was held in the hands of the very very few. Most lived in poverty. Though their "president" of 30 years rules with an iron fist, the U.S. supported him because he is VERY friendly to the west and policy experts see him as a stabilizing force in the middle east who was actively trying to suppress the spread of radical Islam. In fact Egypt's president is known to have zero tolerance for Islamists in politics, whether they are militants or moderates.
Protests that started with well intentioned students wanting freedoms and economic opportunity have now spread to the populace. So far, they cry out not for true elections or for another leader to be put in place but simply for the current ruler to be thrown out. A power vacuum.
Whose waiting to rush in and fill that void?
Currently, Egypt's largest opposition movement is the outlawed "Muslim Brotherhood".
Its support base comes in large part from its elaborate network of social, medical and education services. It made a surprisingly strong showing in parliamentary elections in 2005, winning 20 percent of the legislature's seats, but it failed to win a single seat in elections held late last year. Those elections were widely thought to have been rigged in favor of the president's ruling party.
The leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has said that freedom from the current President would enable them to push effectively for more proper Islamic education and training, so Egyptians would be able to "stand up to the American-Zionist project."
So be careful Egypt. Work for human rights and democracy ... but before you throw out your government, have a plan.
Look to Iran. History has a nasty habit of repeating itself.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Obama - Economically? All the right moves.
As someone who spends way to much time studying the stock market and following the financial world I can say that, Economically speaking - This President has so far made all the right moves.
His first daunting task was to stop the U.S. economic freefall.
We were sliding toward the edge of a bottomless pit and picking up speed. The course of action he chose stopped that fall and now things are improving. If you have any real idea of just how grim things were, stopping the decline and loss of jobs would be enough in itself. What is more amazing though, is that he managed to do this while enduring some of the most contentious political conditions of any President.
President Obama has managed to navigate Washington politics while being one of the most productive Presidents in history, taking care of many of the little, unglamorous, "housekeeping" items that have been ignored by past White Houses and building up for decades on the national "to do" list.
He has gotten laws passed to reform the predatory credit card industry ... laws that congress has been simply passing the buck on for over 25 years!
He is the ONLY President to finally get a Health Care reform law passed. Now it is up to congress to make it the best bill it can possibly be. Will they work for America and make it better? Or will they just play politics and try to repeal millions of Americans' Health Care and cost us ANOTHER 350 billion dollars?
While both sides of the isle were too busy playing politics to effectively govern, this President has made unpopular compromises to keep things moving forward. After years of "out of touch millionaires", playboys, and idiot cowboys ... it's nice to finally have an intelligent adult in the Whitehouse.
Economically speaking though ... try to imagine the horror of where we would be without this President's leadership.
Even with the Republican's publically sworn effort to block EVERY bit of recovery and economic stimulus effort that the President tried to bring to the American people, even with the Republican's vowing to try and "shut down" the government this last year while our economy hung at the very brink ... this President has managed to stabilize the economy (keeping us from sliding into a "double dip recession") and engineered a recovery.
For the last two years though, the Republican machine has tried it's best to make the public believe(with some success) that there is some secret button somewhere that someone could press to put the economy right back where it was before the Great Bush Recession. However, all of the thinking, rational adults in the room(an ever decreasing number) realize that even under the BEST of circumstances (not where we are) undoing an economic crash is a long slow process.
You just don't expect the cancer ridden, crash victim to leap up out of bed and start dancing the highland fling simply because they no longer need life support.
This might also be the time to point out that the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, and the Nasdaq Composite are all at multi-year highs, lifted by a bullish outlook for financials and the recent Federal Reserve's beige book report showed that the economy was growing at a moderate pace, with some areas such as consumer spending and manufacturing showing actual signs of STRENGTH. That's "growth" that was occurring while the Republicans have been crying that the sky was falling.
As for unemployment, it is a huge entity that behaves not unlike a mile long freight train. It takes it a long long time to get up to speed and once moving it is very difficult to stop. Dubya Bush had been accelerating unemployment for 4 years and with it still accelerating he handed the controls to President Obama. Obama has managed to stop that train in less then two years and has begun to get some movement in the right direction. Who ever our next President will be, they will be reaping the rewards of this Presidents efforts with the economy as all signs indicate it will have steady forward momentum by 2012.
All in all, it really is quite amazing that with the Republican's putting forth their full effort to sabotage the recovery and the Democrats inability to form a cohesive, focused direction on ... well, anything - that this President has STILL managed to steer us out of the rocks and has us headed back to recovery.
Spectacular really.
His first daunting task was to stop the U.S. economic freefall.
We were sliding toward the edge of a bottomless pit and picking up speed. The course of action he chose stopped that fall and now things are improving. If you have any real idea of just how grim things were, stopping the decline and loss of jobs would be enough in itself. What is more amazing though, is that he managed to do this while enduring some of the most contentious political conditions of any President.
President Obama has managed to navigate Washington politics while being one of the most productive Presidents in history, taking care of many of the little, unglamorous, "housekeeping" items that have been ignored by past White Houses and building up for decades on the national "to do" list.
He has gotten laws passed to reform the predatory credit card industry ... laws that congress has been simply passing the buck on for over 25 years!
He is the ONLY President to finally get a Health Care reform law passed. Now it is up to congress to make it the best bill it can possibly be. Will they work for America and make it better? Or will they just play politics and try to repeal millions of Americans' Health Care and cost us ANOTHER 350 billion dollars?
While both sides of the isle were too busy playing politics to effectively govern, this President has made unpopular compromises to keep things moving forward. After years of "out of touch millionaires", playboys, and idiot cowboys ... it's nice to finally have an intelligent adult in the Whitehouse.
Economically speaking though ... try to imagine the horror of where we would be without this President's leadership.
Even with the Republican's publically sworn effort to block EVERY bit of recovery and economic stimulus effort that the President tried to bring to the American people, even with the Republican's vowing to try and "shut down" the government this last year while our economy hung at the very brink ... this President has managed to stabilize the economy (keeping us from sliding into a "double dip recession") and engineered a recovery.
For the last two years though, the Republican machine has tried it's best to make the public believe(with some success) that there is some secret button somewhere that someone could press to put the economy right back where it was before the Great Bush Recession. However, all of the thinking, rational adults in the room(an ever decreasing number) realize that even under the BEST of circumstances (not where we are) undoing an economic crash is a long slow process.
You just don't expect the cancer ridden, crash victim to leap up out of bed and start dancing the highland fling simply because they no longer need life support.
This might also be the time to point out that the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, and the Nasdaq Composite are all at multi-year highs, lifted by a bullish outlook for financials and the recent Federal Reserve's beige book report showed that the economy was growing at a moderate pace, with some areas such as consumer spending and manufacturing showing actual signs of STRENGTH. That's "growth" that was occurring while the Republicans have been crying that the sky was falling.
As for unemployment, it is a huge entity that behaves not unlike a mile long freight train. It takes it a long long time to get up to speed and once moving it is very difficult to stop. Dubya Bush had been accelerating unemployment for 4 years and with it still accelerating he handed the controls to President Obama. Obama has managed to stop that train in less then two years and has begun to get some movement in the right direction. Who ever our next President will be, they will be reaping the rewards of this Presidents efforts with the economy as all signs indicate it will have steady forward momentum by 2012.
All in all, it really is quite amazing that with the Republican's putting forth their full effort to sabotage the recovery and the Democrats inability to form a cohesive, focused direction on ... well, anything - that this President has STILL managed to steer us out of the rocks and has us headed back to recovery.
Spectacular really.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Good behavior doesn't sell ad space
My Pastor gave a wonderful sermon last Sunday ... I only wish it was getting as much publicity as the guy who is threatening to burn the Koran.
In reference to the debate on the "controversial" community center in NYC - he said the following (and I am paraphrasing here)-
1) When discussing this topic, as Christians, he would remind us (remember, I'm paraphrasing) DON'T BE A DOUCHE!
He then recited biblical quotes from Jesus, where he directed his followers (Christians) to be humble and polite and respectful and NOT to be prideful, boastful, ARROGANT and basically "Holier-than-thou"! The idea is to make people interested in his teachings and NOT to turn them away by being asshats.
2) DON'T PREJUDGE. If you wanted to see horrific acts carried out by people claiming to be doing them for their religion, Christians have certainly done quite a few of these throughout history. The Pastor went on to say he personally knew many Muslims and they are wonderful human beings just like you or me. They work hard and just want a good life for their families and themselves.
When we are prejudice against people we have NEVER met ... we are following the will of something but it ain't Jesus.
3) Christian's should always be looking for the truth.
We are now surrounded by people whose full time job it is, to deceive us for political and financial gain. The spend all day writing internet posts and news articles with deliberate misinformation and spiteful rhetoric, all designed to make us fear, hate and strike out against people we have never met. THAT, is a good definition of evil.
Christians shouldn't react to stories that make them mad but should instead try to spend some time looking for what the truth behind that story is.
++++++
IMHO, I believe that the above is who Christian really are.
Problem is that "faith" is a personal experience and when it comes to personal feelings and beliefs - "one size does not fit all".
just sayin'
In reference to the debate on the "controversial" community center in NYC - he said the following (and I am paraphrasing here)-
1) When discussing this topic, as Christians, he would remind us (remember, I'm paraphrasing) DON'T BE A DOUCHE!
He then recited biblical quotes from Jesus, where he directed his followers (Christians) to be humble and polite and respectful and NOT to be prideful, boastful, ARROGANT and basically "Holier-than-thou"! The idea is to make people interested in his teachings and NOT to turn them away by being asshats.
2) DON'T PREJUDGE. If you wanted to see horrific acts carried out by people claiming to be doing them for their religion, Christians have certainly done quite a few of these throughout history. The Pastor went on to say he personally knew many Muslims and they are wonderful human beings just like you or me. They work hard and just want a good life for their families and themselves.
When we are prejudice against people we have NEVER met ... we are following the will of something but it ain't Jesus.
3) Christian's should always be looking for the truth.
We are now surrounded by people whose full time job it is, to deceive us for political and financial gain. The spend all day writing internet posts and news articles with deliberate misinformation and spiteful rhetoric, all designed to make us fear, hate and strike out against people we have never met. THAT, is a good definition of evil.
Christians shouldn't react to stories that make them mad but should instead try to spend some time looking for what the truth behind that story is.
++++++
IMHO, I believe that the above is who Christian really are.
Problem is that "faith" is a personal experience and when it comes to personal feelings and beliefs - "one size does not fit all".
just sayin'
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Anatomy of a curfluffle
I have a friend who had taken an interest in the new iPhone.
She isn't particularly an Apple fan (she uses a PC) or even "into" gadgets really but because her company was changing data plans and she was going to have to turn in her old data phone. One of her choices is the new iPhone4.
Two days after she got this news, the storm about the iPhone's dropped call problem hit the press.
Being an engineer, she researched the issue and a few days later told me that she had never seen so much made over, for what most people, would actually be a non-issue. Apparently, if you are using the iPhone with any kind of protective cover on it the "antenna issue" goes away. As my friend said, "Who in the world has a phone this expensive and doesn't put a protective case on it?"
Now let's be frank, having the caseless phone hang-up because you have held it "wrong", is a flaw. My cell phone is like that. Put a careless finger on the wrong button and it hangs up. My cordless phone at home has a similar flaw. The button to disconnect is located such that if you get lazy and hold it to close to your head ... your jawbone hits it and the call is over (I've had several users besides myself do this with the phone). I've had to train myself not to use these devices in that manor and that "solves" the problem but it still doesn't make it less a flaw.
It's also true, that Apple should have immediately updated their instructions for the phone to say ... don't touch the phone "there" during a call. Also, providing any old, cheep-o case would have also have been a nice touch.
None of this though, would seem to warrant the world wide media attention that this has received. My friend was remarking on this and having given it some thought I was able to explain it to her as follows.
- The people who write the tech and gadget review articles are, of course, "Super Users". If you are going to get a guy to review a computer product, you just naturally hire the most knowledgeable computer geek you can lay your hands on. Usually, these are the people who not only write their own software but can field strip a PC in an airport waiting terminal and rebuild it with mail order parts to make it 17 times faster then it was when it came from the factory!
... and this is exactly why these people have never, ever, EVER "gotten" the Mac.
Macs were designed to give complete tech-tards the ability to use a computer to do their work, communicate over the internet and yes, even create passable music/video/photos.
Apple cleverly realized that there is a huge segment of the consumer public who (like with the automobile) don't want to have to know how it works ... they just want to use it!
So here you have these reviewers who simply can't wrap their giant brains around why there is any demand for the Mac in the first place and when you add in the way Apple has done a phenomenal marketing job of making their products THE THING for pop culture to want to own as a status symbol, it simply enrages the "experts".
They become like sharks, constantly circling, looking for any opportunity to strike. They want desperately to prove to the general public that they are wrong to like the i(whatever) and this dropped call flaw was like blood in the water to them. They rapidly spun out articles and blog posts proclaiming what a complete failure the iPhone and Apple and Steve jobs were and this finally once and for all proved it.
Of course, with that kind of buzz going on it wasn't anytime at all until the "mainstream media" began covering the issue, usually just reprinting or quoting from the articles that had already been posted by "the experts".
From there it is just the snowball effect and THAT is how a fairly unremarkable flaw turns into world wide media frenzy.
For my friend's part, she told me this morning that three of her coworker's have now had their iPhones for the last week. Keeping in mind that these people are not IT or computer geeks, they report that even with AT&T's service issues ... they don't know how they ever did their job before they had their iPhones.
She isn't particularly an Apple fan (she uses a PC) or even "into" gadgets really but because her company was changing data plans and she was going to have to turn in her old data phone. One of her choices is the new iPhone4.
Two days after she got this news, the storm about the iPhone's dropped call problem hit the press.
Being an engineer, she researched the issue and a few days later told me that she had never seen so much made over, for what most people, would actually be a non-issue. Apparently, if you are using the iPhone with any kind of protective cover on it the "antenna issue" goes away. As my friend said, "Who in the world has a phone this expensive and doesn't put a protective case on it?"
Now let's be frank, having the caseless phone hang-up because you have held it "wrong", is a flaw. My cell phone is like that. Put a careless finger on the wrong button and it hangs up. My cordless phone at home has a similar flaw. The button to disconnect is located such that if you get lazy and hold it to close to your head ... your jawbone hits it and the call is over (I've had several users besides myself do this with the phone). I've had to train myself not to use these devices in that manor and that "solves" the problem but it still doesn't make it less a flaw.
It's also true, that Apple should have immediately updated their instructions for the phone to say ... don't touch the phone "there" during a call. Also, providing any old, cheep-o case would have also have been a nice touch.
None of this though, would seem to warrant the world wide media attention that this has received. My friend was remarking on this and having given it some thought I was able to explain it to her as follows.
- The people who write the tech and gadget review articles are, of course, "Super Users". If you are going to get a guy to review a computer product, you just naturally hire the most knowledgeable computer geek you can lay your hands on. Usually, these are the people who not only write their own software but can field strip a PC in an airport waiting terminal and rebuild it with mail order parts to make it 17 times faster then it was when it came from the factory!
... and this is exactly why these people have never, ever, EVER "gotten" the Mac.
Macs were designed to give complete tech-tards the ability to use a computer to do their work, communicate over the internet and yes, even create passable music/video/photos.
Apple cleverly realized that there is a huge segment of the consumer public who (like with the automobile) don't want to have to know how it works ... they just want to use it!
So here you have these reviewers who simply can't wrap their giant brains around why there is any demand for the Mac in the first place and when you add in the way Apple has done a phenomenal marketing job of making their products THE THING for pop culture to want to own as a status symbol, it simply enrages the "experts".
They become like sharks, constantly circling, looking for any opportunity to strike. They want desperately to prove to the general public that they are wrong to like the i(whatever) and this dropped call flaw was like blood in the water to them. They rapidly spun out articles and blog posts proclaiming what a complete failure the iPhone and Apple and Steve jobs were and this finally once and for all proved it.
Of course, with that kind of buzz going on it wasn't anytime at all until the "mainstream media" began covering the issue, usually just reprinting or quoting from the articles that had already been posted by "the experts".
From there it is just the snowball effect and THAT is how a fairly unremarkable flaw turns into world wide media frenzy.
For my friend's part, she told me this morning that three of her coworker's have now had their iPhones for the last week. Keeping in mind that these people are not IT or computer geeks, they report that even with AT&T's service issues ... they don't know how they ever did their job before they had their iPhones.
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Bush burns on.
Oh WHEN will people stop blaming Bush for all of the things he has done to us!
+++++++++++++
+++++++++++++
CHART OF THE DAY: Reminder, The Deficit You're Freaking Out About Is Bush's Fault.
Gregory White and Kamelia Angelova | The Business Insider
President Obama's administration has been blamed for reckless spending that has put America into its debt hole. But in reality, much of that spending emanates from policies of President Bush, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
They argue that Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts (along with the economic downturn) are what is driving the U.S. deficit, not stimulus spending.
The chart presents the ugly truth.
The Business Insider covers new media, venture capital, entrepreneurship and the digital landscape. You can find the original version of this story here.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
From the Dept. of Things You Might Not Know.
Did you know that nearly half of the oil produced from the Gulf Coast states ... is shipped over seas? That's right.
In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration databases (you can see more on this report here - http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/gulf_oil_exports.html), between 2003 and 2008 (while we were at war in Iraq to secure their oil for our consumption) U.S. oil exports nearly doubled.
Yep, all of that wailing and gnashing of teeth about the need to "drill baby drill" because we sooooo desperately need that oil here in the U.S. ...
... only apparently we don't need that oil as much as Mexico, Canada, and the Netherlands, or perhaps we're not willing to pay as much.
So "we the people" shoulder all the risk (and now the nightmarish cost) of drilling offshore while other countries get the oil and a handful of corporations pocket the cash.
Ain't it cool ?
... AND SOME MORE ... (added 5/11/10)
Here is a bit more to ponder over.
News stories yesterday touted the fact that BP had spent $350 million so far in it's oil spill damage control efforts.
Before anyone gets all teary-eyed about this though, they should know that last year BP's NET profit (that is how much "mad money" they had left over after they paid all their bills) was 20.09 BILLION dollars. That means that at the end of EVERY day of the year, when they went to empty their pockets, they had another 55 MILLION dollars to throw into their spare change jar.
So, it will only take BP 6 days to make back all the money they just spent on this mess. Of course, that is not taking into account the fact that BP (and every Corporation for that mater) was insured against damaged caused by such accidents.
Somewhere, BP had a group of engineers and accountants do a cost benifit study that showed it was much more profitable to opperate their rigs with the minimal safety standards they could get by with and then pay for clean-up in the statistically low chance they had an catastrophe.
When you look at the numbers it is clear that BP could aford to opperate at the maximum safety level and to maintain a quick response force to prevent what is now happening. They (and ever other oil company) could clearly do this and still make a NET profit. They just wouldn't be making as much of a profit.
THIS is where a corporation's priority is. NOT in the publics best interest or even in the National interest. It is first and foremost in the interest of their stockholders.
This holds true for the Corporations that run the Nuclear Power industry as well. They're only interested in as much safety as they can get by with and their plan for dealing with catastrophic failure is to count on it's statistical likely-hood of not happening.
Ask the business owners along the Gulf Coast what they think about statistically low probabilities.
In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration databases (you can see more on this report here - http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/gulf_oil_exports.html), between 2003 and 2008 (while we were at war in Iraq to secure their oil for our consumption) U.S. oil exports nearly doubled.
Yep, all of that wailing and gnashing of teeth about the need to "drill baby drill" because we sooooo desperately need that oil here in the U.S. ...
... only apparently we don't need that oil as much as Mexico, Canada, and the Netherlands, or perhaps we're not willing to pay as much.
So "we the people" shoulder all the risk (and now the nightmarish cost) of drilling offshore while other countries get the oil and a handful of corporations pocket the cash.
Ain't it cool ?
... AND SOME MORE ... (added 5/11/10)
Here is a bit more to ponder over.
News stories yesterday touted the fact that BP had spent $350 million so far in it's oil spill damage control efforts.
Before anyone gets all teary-eyed about this though, they should know that last year BP's NET profit (that is how much "mad money" they had left over after they paid all their bills) was 20.09 BILLION dollars. That means that at the end of EVERY day of the year, when they went to empty their pockets, they had another 55 MILLION dollars to throw into their spare change jar.
So, it will only take BP 6 days to make back all the money they just spent on this mess. Of course, that is not taking into account the fact that BP (and every Corporation for that mater) was insured against damaged caused by such accidents.
Somewhere, BP had a group of engineers and accountants do a cost benifit study that showed it was much more profitable to opperate their rigs with the minimal safety standards they could get by with and then pay for clean-up in the statistically low chance they had an catastrophe.
When you look at the numbers it is clear that BP could aford to opperate at the maximum safety level and to maintain a quick response force to prevent what is now happening. They (and ever other oil company) could clearly do this and still make a NET profit. They just wouldn't be making as much of a profit.
THIS is where a corporation's priority is. NOT in the publics best interest or even in the National interest. It is first and foremost in the interest of their stockholders.
This holds true for the Corporations that run the Nuclear Power industry as well. They're only interested in as much safety as they can get by with and their plan for dealing with catastrophic failure is to count on it's statistical likely-hood of not happening.
Ask the business owners along the Gulf Coast what they think about statistically low probabilities.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Bogus e-mail inrages terrorist
So there you have it.
In my last post I postulated on how the simple act of forwarding bogus e-mails, urban legends and political scree - could further terror.
Well, now we have a real world example.
While clearly, this domestic terrorist was surrounded by an enviroment of hate, distrust and good old fashion "bat shit crazy" ... it is fake e-mails like the one mentioned below that can push that sort of the person over the edge. From simple fear filled, ignorance based, hatered ... to a person who takes up arms and plans to kill other citizens.
Don't tell me that no one is hurt by SPAM.
++++++++++++++++
In my last post I postulated on how the simple act of forwarding bogus e-mails, urban legends and political scree - could further terror.
Well, now we have a real world example.
While clearly, this domestic terrorist was surrounded by an enviroment of hate, distrust and good old fashion "bat shit crazy" ... it is fake e-mails like the one mentioned below that can push that sort of the person over the edge. From simple fear filled, ignorance based, hatered ... to a person who takes up arms and plans to kill other citizens.
Don't tell me that no one is hurt by SPAM.
++++++++++++++++
TPMMuckraker
Hutaree Member Angered By Fake Hamas Resettlement Bill
Justin Elliott | March 31, 2010, 4:04PM
The Detroit Free Press notices that charged Hutaree militia member Tina Stone bemoaned the passage of H.R. 1388 on her Facebook page recently. That bill has been the subject of a false chain email that warns President Obama provided money to settle Hamas members in the United States.
(Stone made the statements on the same page that features the militia wedding photos we told you about yesterday.)
"H.B. 1388 Passed.... It's bad news for us all," she wrote.
She added: "I'm peeved,,, when people in this country is getting kicked out of there homes everyday and our government passes a bill to spend more then 20 billion dollars to bring Hamas here and supplies them with food and homes that just wrong."
It's pretty clear that Stone got these bogus ideas about H.R. 1388 from a chain email that has been thoroughly debunked by factcheck.org.
The email warns: "Obama funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA. This is the news that didn't make the headlines..."
According to factcheck.org, the bill "actually expands AmeriCorps and other federal public service programs, more than tripling the total number of positions to 250,000."
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
"Careless Forwards Further Terror!"
I have a problem with relatives who like to urgently forward Urban Myths to me - usually warning me of some impending doom brought on by the current Presidential Administration, Nancy Pelosi, or Bill Clinton (which I find quite odd as he hasn't been in office for well over a decade!) but sometimes it is due to "The Media"® (which doesn't include Fox News for some reason) or some corporation that didn't donate to the "Tea Baggers" (which IS Fox News ... but I digress).
When ever I get these bits off bad fiction I quickly go to Snopes.com, find the link to the e-mail they have just forwarded to me (and EVERYone on their list) and send them proof of the HOAX they have just particpated in. I then gently (though not as gently now as the years of this drag on) suggest they go to Snopes and check this stuff out before forwarding it.
Of course, they still never bother to check these e-mails out. It's aways, "Grab your torch and pitchfork first - worry about those pesky 'facts' later."
As I was reading through this latest bit of sludge that fictitiously told of some guy who had predicted some attack (on Fox News of course) that later came true ... I started looking at these bits of fiction in a new light. Since I feel certain I am not the only one on the Internet who suffers from these "Spam who cried Wolf" friends ... I thought I would share my response.
Feel free to copy it and send it to your Uncle next time he sends you that bit about the Twin Towers being an inside job done by Bill Clinton.
++++
Good news! Snopes says your latest e-mail is a Hoax so you needn't fret about it.
It has gotten me thinking though.
Since the original creator of this piece of fiction meant to generate an atmosphere fear, distrust and growing terror among U.S. citizens, shouldn't that person be considered a terrorist?
If you and I in turn (even unwittingly), help to spread this sort of fear by passing along a terrorist created e-mail, are we ourselves aiding in an act of terrorism?
The more I think about it, terror e-mails like this could be considered the modern equivalent of the propaganda pamphlets that enemy armies used to drop from aircraft over cities and towns?
With e-mail though, just one initial attack might reach hundreds of thousands of civilians, striking directly into their homes and actually using the unwitting civilians themselves to launch the NEXT wave of terror and misinformation on their own friends and family ... simply by hitting the "Forward" button!
When you think about how little a "hoax" e-mail messages costs the enemy, this then is a very diabolical and cost effective tool in the terrorist's arsenal. We've been hearing for years that wars would someday be fought in "cyber space". Bogus e-mails like the one you were fooled into sending me could very well be the opening shots in that war!
Given all this, I pledge to check and double check any "Warning", "Cautionary tale", or "Anti U.S. Government/Personnel" e-mails that get forwarded to me - before I forward them myself.
I for one, refuse to voluntarily be used by terrorist/anti-American forces to help them spread their messages of fear and hate! I would like to encourage all of my friends and family to join me in this fight against the spread of terror and hope you would encourage your friends to do so as well.
Remember the phrase "Loose lips sink ships" ? Well, this is "Careless Forwards Further Terror!"
When ever I get these bits off bad fiction I quickly go to Snopes.com, find the link to the e-mail they have just forwarded to me (and EVERYone on their list) and send them proof of the HOAX they have just particpated in. I then gently (though not as gently now as the years of this drag on) suggest they go to Snopes and check this stuff out before forwarding it.
Of course, they still never bother to check these e-mails out. It's aways, "Grab your torch and pitchfork first - worry about those pesky 'facts' later."
As I was reading through this latest bit of sludge that fictitiously told of some guy who had predicted some attack (on Fox News of course) that later came true ... I started looking at these bits of fiction in a new light. Since I feel certain I am not the only one on the Internet who suffers from these "Spam who cried Wolf" friends ... I thought I would share my response.
Feel free to copy it and send it to your Uncle next time he sends you that bit about the Twin Towers being an inside job done by Bill Clinton.
++++
Good news! Snopes says your latest e-mail is a Hoax so you needn't fret about it.
It has gotten me thinking though.
Since the original creator of this piece of fiction meant to generate an atmosphere fear, distrust and growing terror among U.S. citizens, shouldn't that person be considered a terrorist?
If you and I in turn (even unwittingly), help to spread this sort of fear by passing along a terrorist created e-mail, are we ourselves aiding in an act of terrorism?
The more I think about it, terror e-mails like this could be considered the modern equivalent of the propaganda pamphlets that enemy armies used to drop from aircraft over cities and towns?
With e-mail though, just one initial attack might reach hundreds of thousands of civilians, striking directly into their homes and actually using the unwitting civilians themselves to launch the NEXT wave of terror and misinformation on their own friends and family ... simply by hitting the "Forward" button!
When you think about how little a "hoax" e-mail messages costs the enemy, this then is a very diabolical and cost effective tool in the terrorist's arsenal. We've been hearing for years that wars would someday be fought in "cyber space". Bogus e-mails like the one you were fooled into sending me could very well be the opening shots in that war!
Given all this, I pledge to check and double check any "Warning", "Cautionary tale", or "Anti U.S. Government/Personnel" e-mails that get forwarded to me - before I forward them myself.
I for one, refuse to voluntarily be used by terrorist/anti-American forces to help them spread their messages of fear and hate! I would like to encourage all of my friends and family to join me in this fight against the spread of terror and hope you would encourage your friends to do so as well.
Remember the phrase "Loose lips sink ships" ? Well, this is "Careless Forwards Further Terror!"
Monday, November 30, 2009
What a difference a year makes.
A little over a year ago, a close friend of mine was chosen by her company to attend a GOP fund-raiser. Her company paid a zillion dollars and in exchange, she and a handful of other VIP's from her Defense contractor, engineering firm were going to get to go through a line and shake hands with President Bush, then get to sit and listen to an hour of speeches.
For this to happen, her company had to write the big check and then submit the names of those who were going to attend so they could be vetted (I assume by the Secret Service).
Actually, getting to the event itself was a whole other story.
Although it was being held in a public convention center, the Secret Service had cordoned off a two block area around the facility, to include a public park. NO ONE gets in. In order to attend this event, my friend had to drive to a separate parking lot some miles away where she was to be screened again before being allowed to board a bus. The bus was then to take these vetted and thoroughly screened, paying guests to the event where they would be screened again before entering the venue.
Fast forward to a little over a year later. Now we have a new President at his first State function. An event in the White House itself. A facility where the most state of the art surveillance and screening equipment have been in place for some time now.
Yet, a couple merely playing the part of guests, two people who apparently didn't even have to produce any credentials what so ever, are allowed by the Secret Service to merely walk in the front door and shake hands with the leader of the free world.
This is simply unfathomable to me.
In a time in which public already has very little trust in our governments ability to do it's job, it would seem our secret service couldn't even manage to perform the most very basic function of their job, checking credentials at the door, in order to protect a Democrat President. Our first Black President. A President who had received a record number of death threats before he even swore the oath of office.
I just can't even begin to understand this incident. Because the simplest answers are simply unconscionable.
For this to happen, her company had to write the big check and then submit the names of those who were going to attend so they could be vetted (I assume by the Secret Service).
Actually, getting to the event itself was a whole other story.
Although it was being held in a public convention center, the Secret Service had cordoned off a two block area around the facility, to include a public park. NO ONE gets in. In order to attend this event, my friend had to drive to a separate parking lot some miles away where she was to be screened again before being allowed to board a bus. The bus was then to take these vetted and thoroughly screened, paying guests to the event where they would be screened again before entering the venue.
Fast forward to a little over a year later. Now we have a new President at his first State function. An event in the White House itself. A facility where the most state of the art surveillance and screening equipment have been in place for some time now.
Yet, a couple merely playing the part of guests, two people who apparently didn't even have to produce any credentials what so ever, are allowed by the Secret Service to merely walk in the front door and shake hands with the leader of the free world.
This is simply unfathomable to me.
In a time in which public already has very little trust in our governments ability to do it's job, it would seem our secret service couldn't even manage to perform the most very basic function of their job, checking credentials at the door, in order to protect a Democrat President. Our first Black President. A President who had received a record number of death threats before he even swore the oath of office.
I just can't even begin to understand this incident. Because the simplest answers are simply unconscionable.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Unemployment - can you handle the truth ?
With all this talk about a "jobless recovery" and claims that we can't actually have a recovery unless the job situation gets back to normal, I've begun to question what normal really is (was?).
Looking at an "unemployment rate" graph from google, I see that since 1990 during any given 4 year Presidential term, the most the rate has changed (up or down) is about 3%.
So ... after the cataclysmic economic events in the Fall of 08, in which the unemployment rate spiked nearly 6% to a high of now 10.2% , the most we should seem to rationally expect out of an administration would be to lower that back down to around 7%
To get unemployment back down to the 4 - 5 % range would take the sort of extraordinary economic prowess not shown by either party in nearly 2 decades.
However, even that wouldn't really be "back to normal".
From the beginning of the Bush Presidency until the extraordinary events in the Fall of 2008, the unemployment rate only decreased 0.1%
Yes, they did have about a 3% change between their high and their low but in the end, almost 8 years later, all their efforts just managed to hold unemployment steady.
But the job scene was changing rapidly.
Corporate America was in full scale "right-sizing" mode and was trying to trim as much "fat" as they could get away with. The outsourcing of work to foreign countries and even the relocating of corporate headquarters was in high gear. Jobs were disappearing at a voracious rate.
The main thing that prevented the unemployment rates from drastically climbing during the last administration was long unemployed workers being dropped from the unemployment rolls and a massive amount of Government hiring.
The birth of the Office of Homeland Security was the creation of one of the largest, open-ended Government programs since Social Security! This massive expansion of the Federal Government helped to offset the number of "private" jobs that were being lost.
Where we now stand.
Pun-dents keep talking about the Obama stimulus effort not "creating jobs" yet "normal" would be to just stop the bleeding and hold steady where we are. As for actually lowering the unemployment rate, that may be a dream of decades long gone. With productivity on the rise (doing more with less) and overhead now as lean as it has been in decades, does it really make sense for corporations to return to the "bloated days" and hire all these U.S. workers back?
What about massive government spending to create jobs? The public didn't so much as bat an eyelash at the previous administration for doing this. Now though, with a LOT of cheer-leading from FAUX News and Hate Radio, it seems that the public has no stomach for the current administration's suggestions for doing the same.
So now what?
I really couldn't say but I do know that it is past time to embrace the changing reality of the U.S. employment situation and start making plans based on what we face and NOT on nostalgia for an era gone by.
Looking at an "unemployment rate" graph from google, I see that since 1990 during any given 4 year Presidential term, the most the rate has changed (up or down) is about 3%.
I picked the "4 year term" time period because (right or wrong) "we the people" seem to correlate unemployment directly to actions taken (or not taken) by a Presidential administration. I only went back to 1990 because that was the only graphed data I could find at the moment.
So ... after the cataclysmic economic events in the Fall of 08, in which the unemployment rate spiked nearly 6% to a high of now 10.2% , the most we should seem to rationally expect out of an administration would be to lower that back down to around 7%
To get unemployment back down to the 4 - 5 % range would take the sort of extraordinary economic prowess not shown by either party in nearly 2 decades.
However, even that wouldn't really be "back to normal".
From the beginning of the Bush Presidency until the extraordinary events in the Fall of 2008, the unemployment rate only decreased 0.1%
Yes, they did have about a 3% change between their high and their low but in the end, almost 8 years later, all their efforts just managed to hold unemployment steady.
But the job scene was changing rapidly.
Corporate America was in full scale "right-sizing" mode and was trying to trim as much "fat" as they could get away with. The outsourcing of work to foreign countries and even the relocating of corporate headquarters was in high gear. Jobs were disappearing at a voracious rate.
The main thing that prevented the unemployment rates from drastically climbing during the last administration was long unemployed workers being dropped from the unemployment rolls and a massive amount of Government hiring.
The birth of the Office of Homeland Security was the creation of one of the largest, open-ended Government programs since Social Security! This massive expansion of the Federal Government helped to offset the number of "private" jobs that were being lost.
Where we now stand.
Pun-dents keep talking about the Obama stimulus effort not "creating jobs" yet "normal" would be to just stop the bleeding and hold steady where we are. As for actually lowering the unemployment rate, that may be a dream of decades long gone. With productivity on the rise (doing more with less) and overhead now as lean as it has been in decades, does it really make sense for corporations to return to the "bloated days" and hire all these U.S. workers back?
What about massive government spending to create jobs? The public didn't so much as bat an eyelash at the previous administration for doing this. Now though, with a LOT of cheer-leading from FAUX News and Hate Radio, it seems that the public has no stomach for the current administration's suggestions for doing the same.
So now what?
I really couldn't say but I do know that it is past time to embrace the changing reality of the U.S. employment situation and start making plans based on what we face and NOT on nostalgia for an era gone by.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Good news about the "TARP"
With everyone taking their shots at the administration's plans to save our necks, I thought I might share this example of where "Troubled Asset Relief Program" IS working.
Seems it can work when you can find bankers who want to make it work.
The Republicans are on a massive PR tour to try to talk up the amount of "pork" that was in the budget that got passed yesterday. They keep throwing out figures that are specifically tweaked to try and enrage the masses.
What they are NOT telling you is that the amount of earmarked projects that are in this Omnibus budget have been reduced to just 2% of the total. One of the lowest amounts of such spending in a long, long time.
BTW: I saw an interview with one of the chief Republican congressmen who is attacking the amount of earmarks in this budget. When the reporter pointed out the millions that had been put in for earmarked projects in HIS state, he said he would put those items back IN the budget if they were to get removed. Apparently it is only "pork" when the money goes to someone else.
Hypocrite.
Seems it can work when you can find bankers who want to make it work.
How the TARP Should Work: A Prime Example
One other note;The Republicans are on a massive PR tour to try to talk up the amount of "pork" that was in the budget that got passed yesterday. They keep throwing out figures that are specifically tweaked to try and enrage the masses.
What they are NOT telling you is that the amount of earmarked projects that are in this Omnibus budget have been reduced to just 2% of the total. One of the lowest amounts of such spending in a long, long time.
BTW: I saw an interview with one of the chief Republican congressmen who is attacking the amount of earmarks in this budget. When the reporter pointed out the millions that had been put in for earmarked projects in HIS state, he said he would put those items back IN the budget if they were to get removed. Apparently it is only "pork" when the money goes to someone else.
Hypocrite.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Take. A. Deep. Breath.
If you watch CNBC or pay any attention to the news, you may be ready to throw your hands into the air and yell "We're screwed".
Commentator after commentator gets in front of a camera and talks about what is wrong with the Obama administration's economic plans and why they won't work.
This is where the controlled breathing needs to come into play.
Last Friday, the non-stop cry on CNBC was how terrible it was that The White House was leading us towards the "Nationalization" of our financial institutions. On Monday afternoon of this week though, the CNBC "Fast Money" folks were just tearing into the President because he wasn't going to "Nationalize the banks and get it over with".
Anecdotally speaking, if you had 10 "experts" come on CNBC to talk about what we need to do to fix this problem, the 1st might say that the President's plan was exactly what was needed and the other 9 would say it's the wrong direction.
However, if you took ANY of the other 9 and adopted ONE of their plans you would get the same "wrong direction" reaction from the remaining 9 "experts" !
It is also important to keep in mind that many of these "experts" represent the failed economic policies of the previous administration and they are just as terrified that this administration's plans WILL work as those who are worried that they won't! Also, many more of these "experts" are far more worried about what the stock market will get out of all of this then they are worried about how "mainstreet America" will fare. When a corporation ships it's work overseas, it's profits and stock price go up while life for it's former employees just gets more desperate.
The bottom line? Right now, there is simply NO consensus on how to fix things. We are in un-charted waters here. This global economic disaster is not like anything that has come before it. While there are many "plans" out there, none has any more support among the "experts" than does President Obama's.
This President is a very smart man. We trusted him enough to elect him. Giving up on him before his plans have even had a chance to be implemented just doesn't make sense.
Commentator after commentator gets in front of a camera and talks about what is wrong with the Obama administration's economic plans and why they won't work.
This is where the controlled breathing needs to come into play.
Last Friday, the non-stop cry on CNBC was how terrible it was that The White House was leading us towards the "Nationalization" of our financial institutions. On Monday afternoon of this week though, the CNBC "Fast Money" folks were just tearing into the President because he wasn't going to "Nationalize the banks and get it over with".
Anecdotally speaking, if you had 10 "experts" come on CNBC to talk about what we need to do to fix this problem, the 1st might say that the President's plan was exactly what was needed and the other 9 would say it's the wrong direction.
However, if you took ANY of the other 9 and adopted ONE of their plans you would get the same "wrong direction" reaction from the remaining 9 "experts" !
It is also important to keep in mind that many of these "experts" represent the failed economic policies of the previous administration and they are just as terrified that this administration's plans WILL work as those who are worried that they won't! Also, many more of these "experts" are far more worried about what the stock market will get out of all of this then they are worried about how "mainstreet America" will fare. When a corporation ships it's work overseas, it's profits and stock price go up while life for it's former employees just gets more desperate.
The bottom line? Right now, there is simply NO consensus on how to fix things. We are in un-charted waters here. This global economic disaster is not like anything that has come before it. While there are many "plans" out there, none has any more support among the "experts" than does President Obama's.
This President is a very smart man. We trusted him enough to elect him. Giving up on him before his plans have even had a chance to be implemented just doesn't make sense.
Friday, February 6, 2009
"Confused" Grampa, Thriftfully Drives Car Off Cliff !
Old Grampa's confused state may make him a cute and cuddly member of the family ... but would you really pick him to lead you and your family out of a burning office building?
The group that is currently getting the most press coverage as they attack President Obama's stimulus efforts, has decided to choose Senator John McCain as their leader.
John McCain, the man who admitted just a few months ago that,
Yes, this very same man is now saying that he has all the answers and we should scrap the plan of the man we just chose as our President and instead, follow him.
Either he has copious amounts of audacity or he suffers from short term memory loss.Or perhaps, both.
Still, he just might succeed in gathering a mob. Because, while the President is giving us the straight, hard news - Senator McCain is telling everyone what they want to hear.
This man, who told us that he didn't really understand the economy, is now saying that with his plan we can fix the economy at half the cost.
Swell.
Our economy is very very sick and the danger with Senator McCain's fairytale ending is that we will skimp on our unpopular meds, taking less then the prescribed dosage to save money.
The result? Instead of spending $850 billion and being on the road to recovery - we will have spent just $421 billion and be even sicker then we are now.
Specialists, (people who's profession IS understanding the economy) have prescribed some nasty tasting, VERY expensive medicine. No one wants to have to do this thing, Mr. McCain but sometimes you have to make the tough choices and you have to be strong and you have to take your medicine - ALL OF IT.
The group that is currently getting the most press coverage as they attack President Obama's stimulus efforts, has decided to choose Senator John McCain as their leader.
John McCain, the man who admitted just a few months ago that,
“The issue of economics is something that I’ve really never understood as well as I should.” (Boston Globe,12/18/07),and then at the GOP debate in Fla clearly demonstrated his economic cluelessness by stating,
“I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong.” (GOP Debate, Myrtle Beach, FNC, 1/10/08)
Yes, this very same man is now saying that he has all the answers and we should scrap the plan of the man we just chose as our President and instead, follow him.
Either he has copious amounts of audacity or he suffers from short term memory loss.Or perhaps, both.
Still, he just might succeed in gathering a mob. Because, while the President is giving us the straight, hard news - Senator McCain is telling everyone what they want to hear.
This man, who told us that he didn't really understand the economy, is now saying that with his plan we can fix the economy at half the cost.
Swell.
Our economy is very very sick and the danger with Senator McCain's fairytale ending is that we will skimp on our unpopular meds, taking less then the prescribed dosage to save money.
The result? Instead of spending $850 billion and being on the road to recovery - we will have spent just $421 billion and be even sicker then we are now.
Specialists, (people who's profession IS understanding the economy) have prescribed some nasty tasting, VERY expensive medicine. No one wants to have to do this thing, Mr. McCain but sometimes you have to make the tough choices and you have to be strong and you have to take your medicine - ALL OF IT.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Thank you Mr. President
In a press conference today, President Obama finally spoke out against his critics and said what I had been writing here for days.
President Obama continues to "reach across the isle" and allow the Republicans to have their say on what spending items stay or go ... but it's time for them to come to terms with the fact that they are no longer steering this ship.
http://tinyurl.com/bsfxom
Obama said the criticisms he has heard "echo the very same failed economic theories that led us into this crisis in the first place, the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems."
"I reject those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change," said the president, who was elected with an Electoral College landslide last fall and enjoys high public approval ratings at the outset of his term.
President Obama continues to "reach across the isle" and allow the Republicans to have their say on what spending items stay or go ... but it's time for them to come to terms with the fact that they are no longer steering this ship.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Welfare queen
Some of you kids out there may not remember this term. It was heavily used during Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign when he described a "welfare queen" from Chicago's South Side. In this "made for sound bite" tale, there was a woman receiving government assistance and she had supposedly used the money to buy a Cadillac and was living the "high life" on the Tax payer's money.
Soon, the far right was in full on "foaming at the mouth mode", crying out against an imagine army of "project" dwelling freeloaders.
All of this was far from the truth of course. While you can always find a handful of people to support ANY stereotype (especially when you are talking about the MILLIONS that require government assistance just to survive) this "living the high-life on taxpayer money" just wasn't a reality. Those that were abusing government assistance were a barely visable blip on the budget radar screen. The Reagan mob could have had every one of those who were mis-using their "welfare" checks shipped off to Gitmo and it wouldn't have reduced the money that was needed by even a 10th of a percent.
Still, the OUTRAGE behind this idea - the idea that ANYONE would take Government assistance and selfishly spend it on themselves - was pivotal in swinging voters to Reagan's side.
Fast foreword to NOW.
Through a series of VERY bad financial decisions based on terrible and inept judgment at best and simple greed at worst, Wall Street financial firms have destroyed themselves and much of this nations economy. Wasting no time, they marched into Congress and demanded that the Taxpayers bail them out of this mess or they were going to take everyone down with them.
So congress wrote them some REALLY BIG WELFARE CHECKS with the intention that they use that money to continue making payroll, pay their debts and lend it to Americans in need.
Instead, these modern day Welfare Queens used the money to go shopping for smaller banks, to prop up banks overseas, to share with their stock holders, and to pay themselves multi million dollar bonuses.
They took tax payer assistance money, meant to keep their doors open and paid themselves bonuses for the previous years disastrous efforts. Do you know how many Cadillacs 1 million dollars is?
Why is what they are doing any different then what the Regan administration was vilifying?
Where is the national outrage?
Soon, the far right was in full on "foaming at the mouth mode", crying out against an imagine army of "project" dwelling freeloaders.
All of this was far from the truth of course. While you can always find a handful of people to support ANY stereotype (especially when you are talking about the MILLIONS that require government assistance just to survive) this "living the high-life on taxpayer money" just wasn't a reality. Those that were abusing government assistance were a barely visable blip on the budget radar screen. The Reagan mob could have had every one of those who were mis-using their "welfare" checks shipped off to Gitmo and it wouldn't have reduced the money that was needed by even a 10th of a percent.
Still, the OUTRAGE behind this idea - the idea that ANYONE would take Government assistance and selfishly spend it on themselves - was pivotal in swinging voters to Reagan's side.
Fast foreword to NOW.
Through a series of VERY bad financial decisions based on terrible and inept judgment at best and simple greed at worst, Wall Street financial firms have destroyed themselves and much of this nations economy. Wasting no time, they marched into Congress and demanded that the Taxpayers bail them out of this mess or they were going to take everyone down with them.
So congress wrote them some REALLY BIG WELFARE CHECKS with the intention that they use that money to continue making payroll, pay their debts and lend it to Americans in need.
Instead, these modern day Welfare Queens used the money to go shopping for smaller banks, to prop up banks overseas, to share with their stock holders, and to pay themselves multi million dollar bonuses.
They took tax payer assistance money, meant to keep their doors open and paid themselves bonuses for the previous years disastrous efforts. Do you know how many Cadillacs 1 million dollars is?
Why is what they are doing any different then what the Regan administration was vilifying?
Where is the national outrage?
Monday, February 2, 2009
Pot calling kettle, come in kettle ...
Hang on, the spin is going into top speed.
The Republican's cry "PORK" over and over again but have you heard even one of them give any hard figures about how much of the proposed stimulus package they actually consider "pork"?
No, you haven't.
That's because all their rhetoric is just a smoke screen. If you cut everything out of this package that they don't like ... the price tag STILL doesn't drop below $800 billion!
In fact, since the bill has left the House and the President has continued to press the Republicans for their input ... the price tag has actually gone up! Gone up to the point that the President has had to instruct them to try and keep it under $900 billion.
The Republicans are crying crocodile tears, making a big spectacle over how expensive this is because they know how appalling it is to the tax payers. In reality though, they have no intention of reducing the price tag by ANY appreciable amount.
They just hope that if they protest about it loudly enough, the public will be duped into thinking they had nothing to do with it. They're patting the public on the head with one hand while slapping them in the face with the other.
The Republican's cry "PORK" over and over again but have you heard even one of them give any hard figures about how much of the proposed stimulus package they actually consider "pork"?
No, you haven't.
That's because all their rhetoric is just a smoke screen. If you cut everything out of this package that they don't like ... the price tag STILL doesn't drop below $800 billion!
In fact, since the bill has left the House and the President has continued to press the Republicans for their input ... the price tag has actually gone up! Gone up to the point that the President has had to instruct them to try and keep it under $900 billion.
The Republicans are crying crocodile tears, making a big spectacle over how expensive this is because they know how appalling it is to the tax payers. In reality though, they have no intention of reducing the price tag by ANY appreciable amount.
They just hope that if they protest about it loudly enough, the public will be duped into thinking they had nothing to do with it. They're patting the public on the head with one hand while slapping them in the face with the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)