a new job

My son applied for a new job and is both excited and apprehensive as he waits for news as to whether he landed it.  So being a loving parent I thought that I would send him a supportive email.  I thought that I would share it with you all.

"

I think you get it.  But the boss is a major asshole and you break under the pressure.  You become a raging alcoholic, addicted to Molly, and fall to depths of deprivation seldom experienced by a human.  Then one day, when you can fall no further, you find a battered baseball in the gutter with a scuff mark on it that looks like the face of Jesus.  You remember all of those great days when you were an All Star in the Little League and thank Christ for saving you.  You found a mission dedicated to saving all the former Little League All Stars who have, like you, fallen to the wiles of the demon rum, albeit not as far as you fell.  You are so successful that Oprah picks you as her charity of the month.  The President awards you the National Medal of Honor and you win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Or you die of ebola next week.  No matter. It's all random.
"

The never ending story.

Thousandth verse, same (and worse than) the first.

I sound like a broken record.  However, I didn't write the fucking song!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Will it ever change?????????????????????????????

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Banner&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news



But Hey, c'mon.  We do honor our veterans by singing "god bless amerika" during the 7th inning stretch at Yankee games.  What else do you want?

this saddens me

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/pentagons-web-timeline-brings-back-vietnam-and-protesters-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

WOW $15 million dollars to the Pentagon to whitewash, er, I mean commemorate the VietNam war.  I don't even know how to begin.  Maybe with this: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Lejeune_water_contamination

I was in Nam, briefly, and I was in LeJeune, not so briefly.  I am covered by the VA for a gazillion unpronounceable diseases because of exposure to Agent Orange and I drank the Camp Lejeune water.  That is, of course, if I could even get an appointment at a VA hospital.  My last application for an appointment was rejected because they can't find my military records, even though I sent them copies.

So nothing will be said about the Johnson Tapes in which he admits that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never occurred and that the war was being escalated for political reasons.  None of the perpetrators of these war crimes will ever be brought to justice.  Monsanto will continue to make billions of dollars on one of the two ingredients of Agent Orange, AKA Roundup.  You, know, the spray that kills the weeds on your lawn, the genetic modification made to most GMO crops that you and livestock ingest on a daily basis.  And it doesn't stop there.  In the Gulf War it was DU (Depleted Uranium) that the Pentagon said was safe and wasn't making the Gulf War troops sick. 

So yeah, I maybe don't quite trust the Pentagon to use that $15M to create a fair and balanced history of Nam.  It sound a little too much like "We report.  You decide."

As the saying goes:  "I am already against the next war." 

DANGER WILL ROBINSON - EBOLA!!!!!!!!!!!

This one is a no-brainer comment on the ebola death yesterday.

Cause of death        US Deaths per year         Public Response

Tobacco                     380,000                 Ban on advertising to minors
Automobile                   35,000                 Mandated safety features that add profit to manufacturers
Alcohol                         90,000                 Ban on advertising spirits, no beer advertising aimed at minors
Guns                             30,000                 HA HA - Yeah right
Ebola                            1, only 1               WIDESPREAD PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  WE'RE ALL

GOING TO DIE.  HELP US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm back (maybe) with a Feminist Twist (at least for today)

I just read this article. 

http://m.runnersworld.com/womens-running/do-i-look-like-a-man?cid=socMOT_20141007_33080086

By coincidence this subject came up in a discussion I had with a dog walking friend last evening.  Obviously, not having my surgery until my mid 50s meant that I had all those years of testosterone poisoning.  She and I were talking about how masculine I am and how I felt as a child.  She thought that I must have been very feminine as a child but as my cousin said when he found out that I am trans:  "Wow, I never would have thought that of you.  You were the biggest badass I knew growing up."  And I was.  And I still am and I am proud of it. 

Masculinity and Femininity are social constructs that have nothing at all to do with a person's body/mind connection.  As Lauren stated so much more eloquently than I can.  When did being strong become a masculine trait?  Man up?  Don't make me laugh.  Big strong professional football players, who are stronger and tougher than 99.99% of the general male population still have to beat up on woman to "prove their superiority."  If that's "manning up"  who would want to be a part of it.

I agree with Lauren as far as doing away with any gender reference relating to strength or weakness whether it be mental, physical, or emotional.  Grow a set should refer to boobs and balls equally.

What makes someone a hero?

Stormin Norman died this past week.  A real man's hero.  War hero.  What could be more heroic than being a war hero? Of course since history is written by the victors, he is even more heroic.  None of the Nazi soldiers were heroic in WWII, nor the North Vietnamese soldiers in that "police action." And none of the North Korean soldiers of today could ever be called heroic.  They are all vicious murderers supporting vicious corrupt regimes.  Not at all like the peace loving people of the US with it's thousands of gun deaths per year.

But this is about Norm and not those vicious animals from the losing armies, nor the debate about gun control.

Posted on December 27th on theblaze.com:

 “I may have made my reputation as a general in the Army and I’m very proud of that,” he once told the AP. “But I’ve always felt that I was more than one-dimensional. I’d like to think I’m a caring human being. … It’s nice to feel that you have a purpose.”

"Caring"?  not if you were gay.

From the May 12thy, 1993 edition of the  La Times:

Retired Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf told a packed congressional hearing Tuesday that the U.S. military would become "a second-class armed force" if President Clinton lifts the ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

To the best of my knowledge he died having never rescinded that remark. So what makes a hero?

Support my son

It has now been 20 months since I wrote.  Since then I've lost about thirty pounds (the bad part of that is that I had gained the thirty pounds that I had to lose.), I have run a half marathon (slowly jogged is more like it), and  bought an RV so I can soon return to the Road Warrior life. 

However, today's post will be short.  It's purpose is to introduce you to a web site:

http://wewillnotsupportviolence.org/

and its sister Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/petitiontomsmtonotprofitfromviolence

My son, Phil, is the author of the sites.

The web site is a petition to the major media to stop glorifying mass murderers for a profit and the FB page is a purveyor of good news.  Please visit and friend or sign if you agree.  If you disagree, please leave a message so that we can have an intelligent discussion about such an important issue.  I find it ironic that one of my last posts concerned Jared Loughner.  To be honest I couldn't even remember which of the atrocities he committed.  Its a sad commentary when we become so inured to the violence that it is nothing special and "they all look alike."

There are many other sites like Phil's. That's good.  I know that I feel helpless.  I am sure that many of you feel the same way.  But maybe by supporting him he can join with others who have similar support and they can accomplish something.  And I truly believe that something needs to be accomplished .... just sayin.

I leave you with a Youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTU2Y0VFH0E

wow- almost four months

Obviously, I've been away from my Blog.  So much so that I don't even know if anyone will read this.  But if you do read this, you deserve an explanation. 

I was getting too ornery.  There is just so much wrong with so many things that I felt overwhelmed.  I still do.  But I was complaining so much that I wasn't enjoying this.  Maybe this time I can strike a balance.  But not today.

Today I got into a discussion with a friend about Michael Vick being on the cover of Madden 12.  My friend said:

"... but i will say that being on madden's cover is about being a fantastic football player and whether they are good
humans is kind of tertiary, much as we wish it were not."

I totally agree with him.  He is right.

But I feel differently.  I am so tired of politicians, athletes, the super rich, what have you, feeling a sense of entitlement because they are they and we are not.  So, as I told my friend, they can all "eat shit and die" for all I care.  

So for all the dogs that Vick tortured, the woman that Ben R and others raped, and the poor people on the #7 train excoriated by John Rocker ...

This Bud's for you!!!

Jared Loughner as he relates to William Daley

First, any commentator/blogger, even one as insignificant as myself, needs to do a little soul-searching after this weekend's events.  Me? I was not able to finish my first beer before I was finished. I believe that I know each of my readers personally. Although I call on you all to become angry, somehow I doubt if my angry reponse, which you know to be letters to my Senator, thanking him for taking a specific position, engenders any  violence; especially with my readership.

So onto today's topic. Once again, the press gets it wrong. Why, oh why, can't they come up with the right issue? The issue, in this case, is not how vitriolic political discourse has become.  It is not the violence of the individual.  If you look at all the political assassinations and domestic terrorist events you'll note that the vast majority of them have been committed by nut cakes. They may be wing nuts, whether left-wing or right-wing, but they are definitely nut cakes. The average wing nut, no matter how angry he or she becomes, is not liable to pick up a glock to solve his or her problems.  That does take a little bit of insanity.


So what, in my opinion is the issue?  I think you have to go back one step as to what causes the vitriol and the anger.  The issue is NOT that there is vitriol and anger, but why it exists.


One tactic of the rich and powerful (R&P) has always been to drape themselves in the flag and cry mom, apple pie, and the American Way of Life (AW0L.)   In doing so they have convinced a class of people, who are NOTHING like the rich and powerful, that the rich and powerful are like them.

Of course since they have the same core beliefs,. They believe in a strong government, belief in God, and keeping America for Americans.
(prompt:  flag waving and America The Beautiful playing in the background.)

So the ignorant continue to vote in the rich and powerful thinking that they and the rich and powerful have the same goals.

BUT IT AIN'T SO!!!!!

Our new Speaker of the House, Congressman Boehner, has sent letters to 150 businesses asking them what government regulations they would like to see overturned. Now Pres. Obama, already a moderate pro-business politician, feels the need to appoint William Daley as his new chief of staff. William Daley is the epitome a pro-business politician. So the biggest businesses, and the R&P, in the country are getting help from both the left and the right. And the little man, once again, is getting screwed.

Thus the anger. One percent of the population controls 50% of the wealth  Can someone please tell me why the hell does that 1% need even more representation. Why does it need to be asked what can we do to make your lives easier? When there was even a mention of a National Consumer Advocate why was there so much outrage about the government “wanting to tell us what to buy” yet there is no outrage that the government wanting to protect the rich even more at the backs of the poor?  It's because the R&P have convince the Poor and Ignorant (P&I) that they are in this together.  We both wear flag lapel pins, we want to pray to Jesus, and we want them furners out of our country.  So the right of the political spectrum is angry because their friends have told them to be angry.  As to the left?  Hey, just go back and read about the 1% and 50%.  That's why we're angry.  An if the P&I ever understood what the R&P was doing to the, they'd join us.  But as it is, we are all angry.  And we are all getting screwed.

So the question is, when will we get the government that protects the people instead of the rich? When we start asking that question then we will begin to understand the anger and vitriol that is in existence today.

My bona fides vis-a-vis Capt Honors

The military is a strange bird. A perfect example is the use of the third person. I'll explain this and then give an example in which I was involved that demonstrates that I am not new to the task of ridiculing the ridiculous.

The military uses the third person much in the sense of Louis XIV, the Sun King who stated “L'etat.C'est moi.”   For example, I would ask “is there anything else that the Colonel desires?” The Colonel would then have the option of saying "No, I'm okay” or “the Colonel is not very happy with the results of our discussion.” This is an indication that the rank and the person are one.

When speaking to a subordinate there is also a very large difference in whether a personal pronoun is used or the rank. For example, if my CO said to me “how could you do something so stupid?” it would be much different than if he had said “how could a lieutenant in the Marine Corps do something so stupid?”  (In fact, the latter case is probably a lot worse.  It's ok for him to think I was an idiot, but not that I was an idiot as a Lt.)

A good example would be if you were a supply officer going on a field exercise and you had sufficient rations for four people but five people had to be fed.  So you make the decision to give each person 4/5 of the full ration. You get called in by one of the people's commanding officer and  he asks you “why did not my Marine get a full ration?”

If you began to answer “I thought...” The CO would scream at you "I don't give a shit what you thought.  I asked why my Marine didn't get a full ration.”

So the correct response is: “Sir there were four rations remaining. There were five Marines to get those four rations. The two options I saw were to give each Marine 4/5ths of a full ration or to give four Marines a full ration and one Marine none. I consulted with my sergeant who stated that in other cases such as this he learned that it was better that all Marines get a partial ration then one to get none. I then made the decision to take the Sgt's. advice and give each Marine 4/5 of a ration. I take full responsibility for the decision, Sir.”

Of course saying "I thought that it would be better to give everybody partial rations then have one person get no ration at all." is really the exact same answer.  But as he stated, the CO did not "give a shit" about what someone thought.  He wanted the answer of a Marine Corps Officer.  A person wasn't standing before him, a Marine Lieutenant was.

Very silly? Maybe.  But it does demonstrate Capt Honors' error.  It was not he, Owen Honors, who made those videos.  It was the XO of the USS Enterprise.  "Le XO?  C'est lui."


So now to my personal example and this is a "No shit story", i.e. the god's honest truth.

I had a collateral duty as Mess Officer for the enlisted Mess Hall. In English, that means I ran the facility that provided meals to the troops.  One day a particularly asshole type Marine, a Corporal, came in, complained about the food, stated “this food isn't fit for dogs to eat" and then left. I knew I would hear more of this. The next morning proved me true. I got called in to the Marine's commanding officer's office. After screaming at me about the shit I was serving for his men to eat and how it was bad for morale and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah (you know on Charlie Brown cartoons how the adults sound like blah blah blah blah blah blah blah? That's how the CO sounded to me.)

I looked the Colonel in the eye and said “Sir, the corporal is a liar.” (Notice the use of the third person.)  The Colonel looked at me incredulously and said “what do you mean?” Standing at rigid attention  I stated “Sir, the corporal said that the food was not fit for dogs to eat. I brought some home last night and gave it to my dogs. They loved it.”

The Colonel looked at me and I could see the anger in his eyes. I thought I was fucked.  Then he screamed at me “Lieutenant, get the fuck out of my office.”  So I did.

(This should not be confused with the time I was called into the Master Gunnery Sergeant's Office because one of his men claimed that he had sold me pot.  He was a liar too.  He never sold me pot.  He sold it to a civilian friend of mine from whom I bought it.  I would never have bought pot from an enlisted man.  That is SO against the code of an officer and gentleman about which I wrote yesterday.)





PS:  They use the word "fuck" a lot in the military.

Capt. Owen Honors

As usual, the press gets it wrong and the extremists scream.

However, before I start I want to say that I do know that Captain Honors was a Commander and the XO of the the ship at the time of the incidents.  However, many of the crew were on the Enterprise when these events occurred and obviously would remember them.

Imagine that you live in a small town of about 6000 people.  The population of the town is approximately 1/3 ranchers and 2/3 farmers. The mayor of the town is appointed, not elected, and must be a rancher. The mayor is also the chief of police, the town magistrate, the town sheriff, and the town judge. The Mayor has the power have people arrested, put in jail, have their salaries reduced, have their job position reduced, and he holds the keys to rewards also.  The only complaints against him can be made to those who appointed him.

Now imagine that instead of the town this is a US naval vessel. There's the Air Combat Navy, of which the captain is a member, and the surface warfare navy, which is the majority of the population. The captain is that mayor.  He has absolute power over that vessel and all who are on. And don't forget that he holds the power over life and death. Remember, you are on an aircraft carrier. Think what the purpose of it is.  In an all out war its mission would to would be to get all of its aircraft in flight before it was sunk, most likely by an enemy submarine. So yes, it is life-and-death.

That is what the press does not say about this affair. It is not a case of keeping up the troops morale, or free speech, or left wing political correctness. Under the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice, a Captain has the following  Judicial powers:

Field Grade (O-4 to O-6) may impose:

• Restriction for not more than 60 days
• Extra duties for not more than 45 days
• Restriction with extra duties for not more than 45 days
• Correctional Custody for not more than 30 days (only if accused is in the grades E-3 and below)
• Forfeiture of ½ of base pay for two months
• Reduction by one grade if (USA/USAF E-6 or E-5; USMC E-5 or below; USN E-6 or below); or reduction to E-1 (USA/USAF E-4 to E-2)
• Confinement on diminished rations or bread and water for not more than 3 days (USN/USMC E-3 and below only, and only when embarked on a vessel)
• Admonition or reprimand, either written or verbal

There is also an article of the   UCMJ that talks about all conduct unbecoming an officer. Common saying in the military is that RHIP, that is, rank has its privileges. What is more important, just as common is RHIR, or rank has its responsibilities.

(from Wikipaedia)

Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (or conduct unbecoming for short) is an offense subject to court martial defined in the punitive code, Article 133, of the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), enacted at 10 U.S.C. § 933.
The elements are:

1. That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and
2. That, in the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

Here "officer" is understood to include commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen of both sexes, hence the more common term conduct unbecoming. A gentleman is understood to have a duty to avoid dishonest acts, displays of indecency, lawlessness, dealing unfairly, indecorum, injustice, or acts of cruelty.


Now imagine life on-board that ship as a surface warfare type when the captain said:

"This evening, all of you bleeding hearts - and you, fag SWO boy - why don't you just go ahead and hug yourselves for the next 20 minutes or so, because there is a really good chance you're going to be offended tonight."

Imagine what it was like for the more religious who were offended by watching simulated masturbation by the captain  or simulated sex acts in the shower by two men or by two women. Imagine what it was like for the gays, for gays could serve under don't ask don't tell as long as nobody asked nobody told. So imagine what it was like when he made fun of fags.

So, no this is not a subject of free speech or of good morale. It was gross, gross misuse of his position. For someone like a 2nd Lieutenant or Ensign to fool around with his troops to boost morale is one thing. However, even then there are limits as to what should be said or done. The limits for  a CO are astronomically higher. He has to be the epitome of fairness, justice, good judgment, and bring not even a modicum of disgrace to the position.  He is that mayor I mentioned previously.



Now, in my opinion,  Capt. Honors is not the subject of the witch hunt. He demonstrated such poor judgment that was “detrimental to good order and discipline” that it reach the degree of “conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman."


One of the first things I learned at the Naval Academy was “if the Navy wants you to have an opinion, it will give you one”.  One of the reasons I left..... just so I could give you my opinion.  

vacation is over

 and time to get back to my ranting and raving. I want to continue my last post concerning wage discrimination. As I stated, using a more discriminated against group E. G. Transsexuals to prove discrimination against a less discriminated against group E. G. Females cannot provide an accurate result.

However, although I normally dislike anecdotal evidence, I do have a better example. I have a friend who is a world renowned engineer in a very specific field. She is an academic, normally a very liberal group. Therefore her entire environment is one in which an individual is judged mainly by the quality of his/her work. Or so we would hope. My friend tells the story concerning the first seminar she attended after her surgery. Prior to her surgery my friend said when she spoke everyone listened.  I will use Larry as her pre-op name (obviously I would not use her correct name.) When Larry spoke, people listened.  When there was a discussion everyone waited to see what Larry's pronouncement would be. Larry was THE expert in the field. However, at that first seminar after her surgery. Laura (again a false name) was not treated the same. When she entered the room someone said to her: "As long as you're up, you can bring in the coffee." This would never have been said to Larry. I asked Laura if that's if it were a joke. She said no, the individual was serious.

Anticdotal evidence of course. But isn't the life of a female mostly anecdotal evidence?

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.

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

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."
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.

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!!!!!

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

Christmukkwanzaa multiculturalism

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.

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.

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?