Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Recently, a friend of mine suggested that I read Super Freakonomics because of the section concerning transsexuals that he said reminded him of me. Interestingly, I have not seen this friend since late summer 1969. In fact, until somehow we connected on a social networking site a few years ago, we have had no contact in those intervening years. After I told him of my circumstances, he said he waited all these years just to reestablish a friendship, just to find out that everything had changed.  He really has taken it very well, considering that we were roommates those 40 years ago.  Wow, 40 years.  Man, is my friend old or what?

I found the passage in Super Freakonomics very interesting.  However, in a way it relates to my many posts concerning misleading statistical analysis. As usual, the authors hve experience and education far beyond mine. They are noted scholars and authors. However, in this case they do fairly shoddy work. Considering how much and how frequently he discusses other peoples misuse of statistics I found this disturbing.

In the passage, the authors are trying to determine if there really is an earnings gap between men and women that is not explained by something not related to gender, such as women take maternity leave, lack of role models and mentors, etc. etc. etc. They state that the best way to determine this is to turn men into women and women and men and see what happens. Although, as they realize, this is not physically nor politically feasible, there is a small subset of the population that do this to themselves. They go on to say that studying the earnings of transsexuals pre-and post-op will supply the answer to this question. In a perfect world I would agree with them. But as we all know this world is far from perfect. The problem with trying to measure the wage discrimination against women by comparing it with the earnings of post-op transsexuals is that what you are really comparing is the wage discrimination against women with the wage discrimination against transsexuals.  If they honestly think that there is no discrimination against trans-people, they shouldn't be writing books that are universally praised.  In fact, in most locales, discrimination against trans-people is totally legal.  We have no protections according to the law in most states.

As economists, the authors failed to take into consideration the most basic of economic concepts: the law of supply and demand. For you see, life pre-and postop, is dramatically different for the transsexual. As an example, I can tell you from experience, that I just do not fit into a construction environment. I have experience as a jobsite accountant in construction. Yet, at the few interviews I had for construction companies, I could see the look in the hiring managers eyes when I entered. So with fewer options I had to pay a price to get a job;  That price being lower wages.

I am willing to work for a higher salary, however, if anyone is interested.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

A tear in my eye

I have mixed emotions as to the end of DADT.  Obviously, I think it was an onerous implementation of hate and discrimination on a national basis and needed to end for common decency reasons.   However, as with most implementations of pro-LGB legislation, the T is left holding the bag.  This morning I began a lengthy post that centers, in part, around a friend of mine and the prejudices faced by T-women versus women in general.  That will be posted later today or early tomorrow.

Then today, I received a link in my email.  You know that I do not like linking to other sites.  Normally I consider it lazy and I know that you don't read MY blog to see what other people are thinking.  However, this is different.  As a former Marine, I appreciate this more than most.  As I don't know the people involved I must let them tell the story. So, as we celebrate the end of DADT, let us remember that there are still many in harm's way who still can't tell.

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/12/a_tribute_to_a_trans_warrior_in_afghanistan_my_dea.php#more

Monday, December 27, 2010

So now it is Thomas L. Friedman

 Don't the NY Times columnists have anything better to do than reference me.  Obviously, Mr. Friedman does not have the credentials of Mr Krugman.  After all, he's just won a couple of Pulitzer prizes and only a master's degree from Oxford.  But it is no reason to copy off of me.  In his most recent column he states"

"The politicians we need are what I’d call 'pay-as-you-go progressives'”

Now isn't that what I've been saying all along.  Although I am a progressive, I realize that we have to pay for it somehow that isn't off the backs of our kids and grandkids.  Then I realized what it is.
The following well-known quote, or some variation of it, is often attributed to Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin:

"There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."

goose that laid the golden egg
What we all must realize is that we are the leaders.  The politicians and pundits will say nothing unless we force the issue.  It is easier for them to offer bread and circuses (more on that in a later post.)  Now that we are screaming from the left and the right that something has to be done, they are finally paying attention.  I don't have much hope that it will be the right thing.  But at least we are being noticed.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

I'm going to sue

I can't believe it. As you know, a few days ago I sang the praises of Paul Krugman. Today he disappointed me.

It started off as a typical day starts. When I creaked over,  glanced blearily at the alarm clock, groaned, and crawled out of bed with just enough energy to push the start button on the coffee maker. Allowing sufficient time for at least a mouthful of coffee to drip I desperately poured it into a cup, collapsed into my lounge chair, snapped open my computer, and clicked on the New York Times online.

As is my wont, I immediately went to the op-ed page area and happily seeing a piece by Mr. Krugman I double-clicked on it and began to read. Much to my shock and dismay I learned that Mr. Krugman is a plagiarist. Not only that, but he plagiarized me. Now why a Nobel prize-winning economist would want to steal ideas from me, I can only guess. As I stated, I have a very large ego concerning my intellectual abilities. In fact, it really takes someone of Mr. Krugman's capabilities and accomplishments to put me in my place. Not any longer!!!

The subject of today's op Ed piece by Mr. Krugman was (drum roll please) the misuse and dissemination of inaccurate and incomplete information. Tada! If Mr. Krugman had asked permission after reading my blog of a couple of days ago I surely would have granted it. But his wanton disregard for  the law, as it relates to plagiarism, leaves me no choice. Unfortunately, since I am poor, and he has the weight of the establishment behind him, I will not sue. However, let it be known, that I, Edie Novicki, have had an idea taken from me by Paul Krugman, who did not even have the decency to credit me with his use of my idea.

Believe me, if you think I was unbearable in strutting my stuff in the past, you just wait for the future.  Thanks Paul!!!!!

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Some things just make your day

I had to call BCBS about an employee's coverage and after waiting on hold for an eternity I talked to a young lady who apologized that I would probably have to be transferred several times before we found the person who could help me.  I replied that it was probably one person, in a small cubicle in the basement, and no one even knows he exists. She replied "and looking for his red stapler."

Cracked both of us up.

demagoguery and disseminating false information

It's interesting the way that things come together. Recently, I received an e-mail from a friend of mine. Among other topics,he briefly touched upon a book that he had read. I quote from his e-mail.


"I just finished reading “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton.  I know there are lots of reasons why we need to protect the environment, but the book pointed out what big business it is to be a non-profit organization receiving donations for ecology.  In the book a fictitious organization is involved in eco-terrorism, to try and improve the amounts of their donations.  He did his research showing how easy it is to manipulate the data to give it the perception of global warming, however if you step back and look at all the data you see only large cities are actually warming, most of the country side isn’t."


I do not want anyone to think that I take everything that Michael Crichton says as gospel.  However, in this case there is, or may be, an inkling of truth. Here is my reply to my friend.


"On the other hand, if the cities are getting warmer, you know that the atmospheric flows will adjust accordingly.  How much and in what directions I don't think we have any idea.  The whole problem was that the greenies (which I am to a degree) screwed themselves over by taking a theory and trying to pass it off as a postulate."


I hope it is obvious that I am against any demagoguery whether it be from the far left or the far right. The greenies stuck it to themselves in this case. They took a good topic, a vital one, and disseminated theories and explanations and claimed them to be gospel.

SPEAKING OF THE GOSPEL, now to the real subject of this post.

Recently, I extolled the virtues of David Brooks, a conservative op-ed contributor to the New York Times. His arguments, as I stated, are reasonable, although I seldom agree with his conclusion. Ross Douthat,on the other hand, often relies on demagoguery to press a point. In his most recent op ed piece, he decried the usurpation of Christmas by what he calls
The use of the word "Christmukkwanzaa" is so full of racial and social bigotry that it defies the imagination to think that there are people who buy this bullshit. I can see Bubba at the breakfast table eating his cornflakes and drinking his moonshine, adjusting the chaw in his cheek, spitting on the floor, and drawling "them their commie pinko's are trying to take the baby Jesus from us." 

Now why they always pray to the baby Jesus, I don't know.   This reminds me of the dinner scene in Talladega Nights, where the family is arguing as to which Jesus they should pray to for the blessing. Somehow the baby Jesus always wins out. Now, as far as I am concerned, picking the Jesus that is crapping in his diaper, and mewling and spitting up is not that good a decision. If I wanted Jesus on my side I would pray to the Jesus that is pissed off and throwing out the moneylenders and moneychangers at the Temple.  Man, he was one bad MF that day. I wouldn't mess with him. Would you?

Be that as it may,Douthat totally ignores the point that 2000 years ago the Christians co-opted the feasts of many religions that celebrated the winter solstice, celebrating the hope of spring ahead. The Romans celebrated a several day holiday of Saturnalia. You can go back even further and study how many other cultures celebrated this event. Do your own research as to how this date was chosen.  Besides, I'm of Eastern European heritage and we celebrate the Epiphany, not the birthday.

Therefore Douthat is complaining that others are doing what the Christians did 2000 years ago. I don't know any other way to say that. It is demagoguery, and disseminating inaccurate and incomplete information, just to rile up Bubba against the  Christmukkwanzaa multiculturalism that permeates our country.  Well, not his and Sarah's country, but New York and California at the very least..

In another blog post, I intend to discuss why and how we fall for so easily for demagoguery. However until then happy Christmukkwanzaa.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Call the question

So the question remains why am I so against the recent tax cut. There really are several good provisions in the bill. In fact, I might even have backed it, even with the tax cut for the rich, except for one provision. Part of the tax cut is a 2% cut in the employee portion of social security deduction.

Now conservatives have been fighting social security since its inception.   However, it really came under attack with Reagan's attempt at privatization. Since then the cry for privatization has not stopped. One of the strongest arguments in favor of privatization is that the cost of the program will be increasing so dramatically in the near future that the government can no longer afford it. So what does this tax cut do? It accelerates the time that the social security trust fund goes from a positive balance to a negative one. Long before that happens the cries for privatization will become louder and stronger. It is inevitable that the fund will soon reach a negative balance. At that time privatization becomes not only a possibility but a probability, and a strong one at that.

I have often said that I am a progressive that is against big government. Although this sounds like a contradiction, it really is not. I just believe that the role of government should be limited because "Power corrupts ......"

I worked for Nortel.  Nortel no longer exists. It filed for bankruptcy and was dissolved because of the actions of the senior financial and operational leadership, many of whom are in jail today. My 401(k) was decimated because of those criminals. However, I did not work for them long enough to earn a pension. Many of my friends did. Now, they no longer have their 401(k) nor their pension. I do not have to discuss the recent bank failures, stock market crash, interest rate bubble, home value bubble, etc. etc. etc. Do you really think it is a good idea to have the retirement plans of the general population in the hands of the people that caused these crises.? Not only that, but how will a mother of two, earning $21,000 a year, going to be able to put enough money away to ensure a safe and moderately comfortable retirement? Privatization is great for those seven-figure earners with large trust funds. But that is not the majority of us.

So this tax plan is not a question of finances. It is a question of who we are as a country.  Because of this plan the inevitability of the privatization of social security is nearer to becoming a fact.   Is this what we want? Many may say that it is not the role of government to take money from the rich to give to the poor, ala Robin Hood. I agree.

However, in the past, before World War II, the interstate system, the advent of extended families, it was common for a family to have several generations living under one roof.   While we were a more rural, agrarian society, neighbors knew neighbors and the communities took care of their own. However, that is not the case today. With social security, we said as a nation, “we know we can no longer personally take care of our sick and elderly.  But, morally, we know that we have to do it.  AND WE WILL.”

When we said that, we passed a law that we would tax ourselves to pay for the elderly and the sick. I will not attempt to refute that there are those who take advantage of the system. We are still fairly intelligent and can come up with a solution to that problem. However, we can not come up with a solution that is better than “we all pitch in a little to take care of the old and infirm.”

So you now see why not only am I against the recent tax cut, but I am also ashamed of it.

Friday, December 17, 2010

States Rights

Damn, I'm starting to sound like a tea-bagger.  Currently I'm reading a book about the Whiskey Rebellion and all I can say is it's Deja vu all over again.  That would be a good name for a post if I hadn't used it already.  The gist of the rebellion is that Alexander Hamilton wanted a strong central government that was favorable to trade and commerce.  Funny thing but the people who were in favor of this were the rich and powerful who made their fortunes through trade and commerce.  It was the little guy who got screwed. 

Since taxing trade and commerce to support a government whose purpose was to support trade and commerce wasn't popular with the trade and commerce group, Hamilton came up with a novel idea -  tax the little guy.  Back then, the littlest of the little guys were the settlers in the West.  They were too far from the seats of power in the east to have much influence.  That is, except the trade and commerce people out there who were rich enough to travel back and forth and ensure that they had lunch every now and again with their buddy, Alex.

For a variety of reasons, they decided to tax whiskey....sin tax, used by the common man, regressive tax, etc..  Of course, those reasons/techniques are still used today proving that there is no problem with beating a horse to death as long as the horse belongs to someone who isn't one of the rich and powerful.

So a rebellion occurred, it was crushed, everyone was forgiven (except the leaders) and the Republic was saved.  That is, the republic that was designed to protect the interests of the rich and powerful was once again able to protect those interests with no further resistance from the proles.

So what does that have to do with States Rights and tea baggers.  Well, Vermont has a fairly active secessionist movement based on not wanting to fund wars and protecting the rich and powerful but wanting to fund human and ecological needs instead.  So we want what they want.....but only different.

Makes sense, eh?

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Paul Krugman and my son Phil

Paul Krugman is an op-ed writer columnist for the New York Times. I read him religiously and, for the most part, universally agree with his sentiments. I have often wished that I could be as erudite as he is.  He is an understandable William F. Buckley.

So I was talking to Phil the other day about the economic mess we are in and mentioned an op-ed article that I had read by Mr. Krugman.  Phil was so kind as to say, "he kinda makes you think that you're not as smart as you think you are, doesn't he?"  Now anyone who knows me is conscious of the fact that I am very conceited, especially about my brain-power.  I always say "Of course I think I'm right.  I'd be an idiot to go around with opinions that I thought were wrong."  So I am seldom wrong. (I wish.)

That's right, back to Paul Krugman.  He is a Nobel prize-winning economist, former professor at M I T, and currently a professor at Princeton. Somehow, I can forgive myself for not reaching the level of his expertise.

I am also very good at making excuses for myself!!!!

Saturday, December 11, 2010

The Republicrats

I read a comment to an op-ed article this morning that was lambasting the Republic tax cut and their policies in general.  On the whole I agree with that philosophy.  However, the comment said that if you make it a Republican issue, you are being partisan and part of the problem.

I agree.  Obama and Reid in this case are no better than the rest of them.  Selling out the common folk for the rich.  PLEASE do not buy the BS that this tax plan is good for the lower class.  It does not extend Unemployment Benefits past the original 99 weeks, it expires in a year, it is only valid in some states, and it has to be paid for in some manner.  As I've been harping ... the ONLY programs with a large enough budget to offset the new deficits caused by this plan are Defense and Social Programs.  Guess which ones will be picked.  So we, the middle and lower classes will be paying for our tax cuts in the long run as well as the tax cut for the rich.


So I hereby will never complain about the Republicans unless they stand as a bloc against a policy that the Democrats stand for.  From now on I will complain about the Republicrats.

YAWN

So now we have confirmation that Nixon was a racist anti-Semite.  Really?

I spend a lot of time ranting about the TSA amongst other threats to our freedoms.  Why?

Because the government is made up of men who are like you and me; never better; most times worse.  Nixon is NOT the exception.  He got where he was for a reason.  Very rich and powerful people wanted him there.  Obama is there because very rich and powerful people want him there.  If McCain had won it was because rich and powerful people wanted him there, many of whom are the same rich and powerful people who want Obama there.  The point is, you don't get anywhere NEAR the top of the political spectrum unless rich and powerful people want you there.

So my point is that NEVER does the government do something for us.  It is there to keep rich and powerful people, rich and powerful.  Cynical?  Yes, but I can give you WAY more examples that I am right than you can give that I am wrong.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Deja Vu all over again

 I was vilified this morning. The same pundits that argued that we progressives would have to accept the health care reform package because it was the best we could do are now making the same argument for the Republican tax cuts. Those of us who are against the tax cuts, allegedly, are undermining Obama, and will destroy the economy.

I accepted this argument for the health care reform because it was a once-in-a-lifetime program. We had to get reform started, no matter how poor the outline was.  However, tax cuts are not like that. If we do not accept this plan, believe it or not, something else will come up within the next few weeks. It always happens. This is tax reform or tax cuts or tax whatever you want to say. Congress messes with taxes constantly. This is not the last chance that Congress has to make tax code changes.

Another argument they use are is that somehow the fact that Sarah Palin and the teabaggers are against this plan is an argument for me to be for it. Just because I am progressive and want progressive tax programs does not mean that I am for unlimited deficits. In that case I do agree with Sarah Palin. We cannot keep on borrowing, borrowing, borrowing, letting the deficit grow exponentially and not do something about it. The only difference between us, well maybe not the only, is that I believe that our fiscal and tax policy should help the majority of Americans and not the richest one or two per cent. She thinks that helping the richest one or two per cent is sufficient. And let the the others eat cake.

So to all of those pundits I quote our former president:  "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Unbelievable

Now that the super-rich have their tax cuts we can start worrying about the deficit again.  The House voted against a proposal to give the elderly $250 because there has not been a cost of living adjustment in two years.

They didn't want to add to the deficit.

This could be considered like an Ionesco play but at least the plays made SOME sense in an absurd way.

TSA agents

I've heard complaints that I've been attacking the agents and not the system, and that I jumped the shark with my pedo remarks.  However, I do try to be fair and reasonable.  For example, when I say that you are being groped by ex bartenders and waitstaff, it's because I read an interview with some agents and one of them said that was his background.  Knowing that bartenders, on the whole, are those who I would like LEAST to be groping at me, I passed that information on to you.

However, once again, to be fair.  I did some research on the TSA web-site. 

First, the person groping you is NOT a law enforcement agent, and has no enforcement authority or training.

Second, He (or she) is earning a starting salary of $12.25 - $14.08 per hour. (Of course, that is about what we pay starting teachers in many states.    So maybe they are "professionals.")  However, that thought kinda gets blown out of the water when you read the qualifications and you discover that a GED, or equivalent, is all that is required.  By the way, WHAT is EQUIVALENT to a GED?

Finally, said individual can be a convicted felon.  There are some felonies that do preclude one from being hired and are listed here.


https://hraccess-assessment.tsa.dhs.gov/TSOFAQs/BackgroundRequirements.pdf

The one I found most interesting is that the only assault convictions that disqualify an applicant are Aggravated Assault and Assault with Intent to Murder.  Using the legal concept that if certain items are specifically listed, it is the intent of the writers of the law to exclude other like items, then other felonious assault convictions, and ALL misdemeanor assault convictions are non-disqualifying.

Now, granted, I may have been too explicit in my comments about cavity searches, even though I am seeing more and more commentary that they are next on the agenda.  However, if and when they come to pass, read the above qualifications of the person doing them.  In fact, those are the people doing the groping now. 

Sorry.  I'll still opt-out of all of it.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

I'm glad I didn't vote for Obama

 I guess I can't complain. I asked for it. It seems as if we may be getting an extension of unemployment benefits. Normally I would be ecstatic over that. However, in this case I am very upset. I can't believe that Obama allowed the Republicans to hold unemployment benefits hostage for a tax cut for the wealthy.

A few days ago Sen. Sanders, from Vermont, gave a speech that I saw on YouTube.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=3A474094-8631-45CE-BE9C-AB9C96C165AF

If you listen to him you will be appalled and sickened. In it he states that the top 1% of the population earns as much as the bottom 50%. Not only that but 80% of ALL, I repeat ALL, new income generated between the years 1980 and 2005 have gone to the top 1% of the population.

Good old Bernie says that he will filibuster this bill. This morning I sent him an e-mail of congratulations for taking that position. It is unbelievable that a president who was elected because of the efforts of the more progressive people in the country could kowtow to the Republicans like this.

Obama in his speech this afternoon stated that now is not the time to take a political stand. If not now,  when the hell should we take one? Besides, isn't that what the Republicans did?  They said, as a bloc, if you don't give everyone, including the richest of the rich (think Warren Buffet and Donald Trump) a tax cut, no one gets a tax cut.

It's ridiculous to think that things will get any better when the Republicans take over the House.  There  is absolutely no reason that unemployment benefits have to be tied to a tax cut.  They are entirely different issues.  If these tax cuts go through someone like me will get a tax benefit of approximately $1000 a year. However the average tax cut for the top 1% from what I have heard will be approximately $70,000?     Just who in the hell do you think will be paying for that $70,000? That's right, the bottom 50%.   The increase in deficits have to be paid from somewhere.  Social programs are the only programs other than the military that have a budget large enough to affect the deficit.

 I guess we owe another apology to the youth of our nation.  We are leaving you a pile of crap,  and debt, that you will never get out of.  However,  you can sleep soundly knowing that the rich all have that extra $70,000 a year to spend on vintage cars, vacations in Monaco,  or anything else that they want to do.   That is of course if you still have a bed to sleep in.

My readers are Geeks

Only half use Windows and only one-third use IE.  Says a lot for Progressives.  (and even more about Microsoft!!!!)

Got my Voice Recognition Software installed last night/this morning.  Hope to have my first dictated post tonight.  Then on to my book.

From a friend

Monday, December 6, 2010

WHY WE ARE LOSING ALL OUR FREEDOMS

OUR PRESS IS AN ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT

Granted, it's only the Daily News and is usually suited for bird cages.  But people do read this rag and believe what they read.  So follow me please.

1.  TSA starts intrusive invasion of our bodies.
2.  People naturally gripe about their kids being felt up by strangers. 
3.  Government says it's for our safety.
4.  We don't swallow their bullshit.

5. So what happens next?  They plant this bullshit story.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/06/2010-12-06_al_qaeda_is_truly_gutless_terror_doc_eyes_sewing_bombs_in_thugs.html

6.  Next step.  Prostate tickles for 6 year old boys and let's find your G-spot for same age girls.  All done by your local "Professional" (meaning former bartender) TSA agent.

If my post is too candid for you and you want to avert your face, bend over the next time you want to fly, because you're next.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Emiril and Bagels

I like to bake as many of you know.  Good old fashioned yeast, dough, and kneading.  I've only been doing it since I was a Mess Officer as a collateral duty in the Marines, about 30 years or so.  In all that time I never found a bagel recipe I liked.  I will admit that I am a little lazy and by the time I get to the 13th or 14th step in a recipe I say screw it and look for a new one.  So I googled easy bagel recipe and near the top of the list was one by Emiril.

Now most of the big time chefs have to show off their knowledge of complicated recipes using esoteric ingredients.  Otherwise, we common folk would think that we know how to cook and bake.  (I actually have a recipe for Babka, from the "old country" that says to let the dough rise overnight under your bed.  Remember that without central heat, the bedroom was the only room heated at night.)

From past experiences I know that most of Emril's recipes are a bit on the complex side.  You find a recipe for hot dogs and two hours, 16 ingredients, and $26.95 later you have a hotdog.  Much of the expense was for the lemon persimmon juice that only comes in pint bottles for $11.99 a bottle.  Of course those three drops that you need for the recipe are absolutely essential.  And you can always use the rest in the only other two recipes in the world that call for it; a recipe by Rachel Ray for tacos and a lasagna recipe by Bobby Flay.

Then the kids drown the hot dog in ketchup anyway so why bother?

I mention all of this just to say that I was fooled.  It is about as easy as a bagel recipe can be and the bagels come out great.  To be honest, I'm not even careful with the recipe so it is close to being foolproof.

I cut the recipe in half and utilizing Quantum, instead of Newtonian, techniques made eight bagels instead of six.  Try it.

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/emeril-lagasse/homemade-bagels-recipe/index.html

Saturday, December 4, 2010

LZ Granderson

My intention for this Blog is to comment on events, perspectives, people, etc., not to summarize what other people say or to provide link after link.  Of course, some linking is necessary.  A few days ago, when I refuted David Brooks' take on Wiki-Leaks you had to know what he said for my Blog to make sense.  So I linked to it.  Also, recently I linked to a NY Times article on the recent unemployment figures because I was using the article as a source of data.  Although I am not a professional writer I know enough to source my material.

However, there are many times when someone treats a subject so well that I just can't not link to it.  In this case it is an article about Transgendered Athletes.  Granderson quotes ESPN commentators calling us "Shims" and "Shemales."  He also said that he guessed some people used to think it was funny calling black people "monkeys"

So if you want to read an interesting perspective on athletes who are trans written by an sportswriter who is gay here's the link.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5879536

Just no jokes about Dykes on Spikes please.

(And I can tell Jim Gray personally.  NO, they don't get in the way!!!)

Friday, December 3, 2010

I don't know whether to laugh or cry

Ron Paul and I agree on something.

Earlier on Friday, when a judge in Pakistan refused to bar WikiLeaks he argued,"We must bear the truth, no matter how harmful it is." Some hours later, a Republican member of the U.S. Congress, Ron Paul, echoed those words, writing to his 19,000 followers on Twitter: "Re: Wikileaks - In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."

Keep your replies coming. I love them.

A very dear friend of mine wrote in a reply to my position concerning the Wiki-Leaks:

"Regarding the Wiki-Leaks. I agree with you that the latest release may not endanger many lives; however, if the US can't promise its allies that what they say to us in confidence won't be made public, then they will stop saying anything to us other than their "public" stance. I also think that the reason they tell us one thing and their people another is because their people would rebel otherwise. If the Saudis knew their rulers were more afraid of Iran than Israel, what might that lead to? And sure, ideally it would lead to some Saudis changing their own minds. But that's in an ideal world."

I could not agree with my friend more.  However, since this is not an ideal world, I don't like being treated like a mushroom.  Where do I start?  The Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, Iran-Contra?

You know that our leaders have lied to us constantly to justify wars we would have refused.  All governments do. You state it yourself when you talk about the Saudi leaders lying to their people.  What that has caused is JIHAD, JIHAD, JIHAD, and retaliation, retaliation, retaliation.

So, as long as we live, and I mean the entire world lives, in a Kleptocracy, I want everything out in the open.  My entire point is that the only reason that governments lie is that their people would revolt otherwise; to which you agree.  So it is NOT for our good that they lie to us but to maintain a subjugated population and to protect their privileged status.

I am from the government and I am here to help you is now, and always has been, a lie.  We can't trust them to protect our cities with dams and levees, our food from e-coli, our basic medicines from contamination, our rivers and streams from radioactive discharges from nuclear power plants... ad nauseum.  Do you want me to go on as to the thousands of reasons that I do not trust the government?  Read The Pentagon Papers, Nixon's tapes, Johnson's Tapes, etc., etc.,

So If you think that diplomacy is the ONE area in which the government is not lying to us and we need to trust them, just look at what this leak says about Karzai.  Is this REALLY how we want our country to be run?

No, it's not an ideal world, and it seems that the only thing that is out in the open is what we have to reveal if we want to fly anywhere!!!!!

Enough is Enough - THIS MAKES ME SICK!!!!!

Today's Unemployment Report

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/business/economy/04jobs.html?hp

Look, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Tea Bagger ... Can't anyone see what is going on?  These people NEED help.  Tax cuts to the wealthy won't do it.  Balancing the budget short term won't do it.  Blocking the Senate's work won't do it. 

I don't care if you call it extended benefits, workfare, stimulus spending, or anything else.  People are losing everything they ever had or ever wanted to have.  The human suffering is tremendous.  HOW CAN ANY ONE OF YOU SIT THERE AND NOT SCREAM AT OUR ELECTED LEADERS  "DO SOMETHING!!!!!" 

And yet they sit up there in Washington with their collective thumbs up their collective arses and argue their partisan bullshit and will all go home in a couple of weeks to Holiday cheer...AT OUR EXPENSE!!!!!

Pogo was right.  We have met the enemy. 

PS:  Yes I am screaming.  We all should be.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

an open letter to Senator Sanders

I recently settled in Burlington after several months of unemployment and homelessness.  I am a 59 year old transwoman graduate of the Naval Academy and an MBA from Duke.  So this was not a lifestyle to which I was accustomed.

I give that little background because to be honest, I still have nothing but debt and a roof over my head. Yet, I would prefer that MY taxes be RAISED than one more penny be given to the rich.  PLEASE be like KYL or BUNNING.  Do NOT allow ANY bill to pass that has that provision.  It will hurt me and many others, but the long term implications of the Republicans winning this is too great to back down.

Thank you.

Edie Novicki

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Unemployed

Considering the reasons that I started this BLOG I would be remiss if I failed to report that yesterday ended all the additional tiers of unemployment benefits.  Over 2 million people will lose their benefits in December. 

However, on a brighter note, the Republicans will do nothing until the rich receive their tax cuts.  Thank dog that the rich people have someone to protect their interests.

Senate GOP pledges to block all bills until tax dispute resolved

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/01/gop.senate.demands/index.html?hpt=T1

I love feedback

A friend of mine who chastised me for not mentioning her in my final email wrote this:

I'm in my own little world of 5 year olds and I don't read up on current events. Bad American, huh? I am not a fan of the airport security policies, but was unaware of them until I got your message. I never understood war; I've always thought the countries' leaders should just arm wrestle or rock, paper, scissors and that wound be that, instead of the senseless killing of young men & women.

I kinda agree with her. Now I have imaginary friends, let's call one of them Sarah for the heck of it, who would say: But Edie, the problem is that there are people over there who hate us. And we need to protect ourselves from them.

My reply to Sarah would be that what she thinks is the problem is only half the problem. The other half of the problem is that there an "over-there Sarah" saying to an "over-there Edie" but Edie, the problem is that there are people over there who hate us. And we need to protect ourselves from them.

So I agree with my real friend. I think that the over here Sarah and the over there Sarah should meet somewhere the hell away from over here and over there and use their money and their families to do the fighting, instead of ours. Then the over here Edie and the over there Edie, and all of our friends and families, can go on trying to make our lives just a little better.

Hey, if you haven't gathered, I'm a pacifist and I love the bumper sticker that said:

I'm already against our next war.

This is TOO good

Saw this on a bumper sticker.


Inner beauty won't get you laid.


Amen to that!!!