NO GAY SEX! (unless you have a LOT of cash to fork over)

So here I am, sitting here at the computer wasting time on Facebook, and going back and forth looking at other pages. Along with Google, my spam mail is promising money left and right. Payday loans, bad credit loans worth more than I've ever had at any one time, free grants the government is just going to pay me to sit here on my ass.

So sure, I can definitely use more money. Not at 3500% interest or whatever, and I'm certainly not sending in $45 (normally $245, but I'm getting a special deal! they must know how awesome I am) to get my free information kit on how to make $1000s a day just like this guru with his fancy webpage and video of him driving nice cars. The whole thing on facebook of bill gates or some random ass lottery winner saying they will give you free money if you share the post and just ask for it...talk about a joke.

First off, Bill Gates isn't giving me money. Secondly, despite being part of the Giving Pledge thing a bunch of billionaires put together as their own little charitable club they belong to (I suspect mostly to make them feel better about themselves in a public relations sense), these guys aren't giving money away to regular people. They are looking at "legitimate" charities. I suspect they have a hand in running some of those charities to begin with, which is almost ridiculous if you ask me. That's more like a tax write off without actually losing a penny.

I tend to peruse the job ads from time to time, and I've found out hard work often pays less than everything else. A 16 year old ditz in high school speaking on the phone using a pre-written script to work from actually makes more money than most jobs I see where manual labor is actually involved for some guy just trying to support his family. And it's also amazing how many jobs now require a college education just to get some job that pays less than $30,000 a year! What the hell is THAT? Is the state of our public education system so bad that you need college just to get you closer to a simple wage that's high enough to pay the bills of a mediocre lifestyle? And what's with all the staffing companies? Every corporation out there is working with a bunch of $10-$15/hr workers who aren't really working FOR the company. Don't get me wrong, a lot of those people do great work, and for some that's the only way to get work. I guess it's better to float the CEO's pay when you underpay everyone and don't have to offer them perks...

Now, I don't have much in the way of job skills. I was the 16 year old ditz on the phone, I sided houses for awhile, I did security work, and I've worked in restaurants. None of which paid all that well. Sometimes I worked very hard at those jobs, but a lot of the time I kind of slacked off and just did what needed to be done without anything extra. Why? Because it didn't really matter much. Months of hard work resulted in me making no more than some guy who spent his entire day jerking off. Sometimes I made even less than those guys who didn't know their head from their ass, and I was picking up their slack. But it seemed my low wage was barely able to be afforded by the boss, so no raise for me or anyone else. Now don't mind me, I'm just venting, the entire point of this article isn't to complain, I just lost focus for a bit...and I'm too lazy to delete all that wasted effort.

These days I'm still trying to figure out how to make more money. A substantial amount to be exact, not just something to get me by for the next week or so. I'm talking about random ass jobs for good money. And I've decided I have VERY FEW caveats. You pick the job, task, etc- minus the caveats listed below- and we'll talk.

1) I will NOT kill anyone for cash (although I might maim someone for the right price- which also means you footing the lawyer fees). If you want me to be your killing dummy, we do the cash ahead of time of course so I can get the money to the wife and kids first. Then I'll be your huckleberry.

2) I will NOT let a bull charge me and ram me right in the gonads...or take a baseball bat there. Plain and simple: no nut shots that could result in permanent damage!

I mean c'mon, I'm pretty dumb, I'll admit that. But I'm not COMPLETELY insane!

3) NO GAY SEX (unless you're coming with something like a million bucks or more, I'm thinking closer to $10 million, but we can negotiate- AND that gets no publicity- save that for Dallas Cowboy fans)

Other than that I'm pretty much game. I'll drive you around town, do your shopping, you name it. You want your house demolished, re-drywalled or burned down, I'm your guy. You want me to clean your house in some odd looking outfit (or no outfit at all) while you videotape it? You're a special kind of odd, but I'll still do it! You want me to play a real life game of Frogger on the freeway, wrestle wild herds of feral cats, whatever your fetish might be, I'm your man. You tell me what game you want me to play, we'll discuss a price tag and then I'll do whatever it is you want for that price. Proof of funds are required and I get paid that day. Don't get me wrong, I still have every intention of continuing working a job, short of winning a big lottery I just want to raise about $100,000 so I can wipe my debts out and get a good down payment for a house. Although I would definitely take more money than that if the jobs just keep coming. Every man has his price, and I'm no different. It's all a matter of negotiation with me. I CAN be bought!

So pass this on to all your friends that actually have money they are willing to part with in order to be entertained by directing my antics and help me make some real friggin money.

I Am The Last Stand

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." --Ronald Reagan

Okay, full disclosure here, I am not talking political and economical ideologies here. What I am talking about is the freedom to avoid people and the encroachment upon my life made by advancing technology in the communication industry.

Everyone around me has a cell phone these days. I remember when I first saw cell phones. One kid, Tim, had a bag phone for his car, which we all rode in to go to work. Cell phones those days looked more like the kind of phone the Army used to call in air strikes. Today they come in all manners of shape and size. They also have more functions than ever. You can talk, take photos, video, or you can text people. With the standard phone buttons or a fold out complete keyboard. You can type out your texts with individual characters or use the T9 technology that will predict your words and help you get through a message even faster. That is unless you're me, I am hopelessly useless with the T9 functions when I borrowed my wife's cell phone once to go to a niece's 6th grade basketball tourney. And the only reason I borrowed it was so that I could check in that I made it there, and for when I was coming back, depending on how the tourney went.

I am constantly asked to text someone, or just give them a call when I get to where ever it is we are hanging out, or when I get to their house to let them know I'm there to pick them up. I have to inform them that sorry, I don't have a cell phone!

I get some pretty weird looks. They are incredulous that I don't own the new iPhone or Blackberry cell phones. They ask how I can possibly live without a cell phone. I tell them essentially to quit projecting their way of life onto me. I was born before cell phones, I never had one attached to me surgically once they did come out, and I will probably most likely NEVER own one. I can live without one, because I lived half my life without them even existing. I put a caveat on that never, because I'm sure at some point someone will get it in their head to ban landlines altogether through government pressure. In which case I suppose I will then own a cell phone. However, I can guarantee that if this happens, my cellphone will stay in the same spot my current home phone's base is located.

I carry a cell phone for work. It is part of the equipment that goes with my little rentacop route. I pass it on to the guy who relieves me, who passes it on to the next guy, who will pass it back to me when I come back on duty. Other than that, I am generally at home. I have a home phone to be reached by, so I have no need for a cell phone. If I am not at work or at home, chances are likely that I am doing something I enjoy, and wish not to be contacted by anyone that isn't physically present with me. Some people just can't understand this. People I hang out with will keep checking their phone in the midst of conversations for new texts, missed calls, etc. Now I don't mind that they do this. After all, ask my wife, I'm not the best conversationalist in the world, so its not like I feel slighted that they are not interested in an already not-so-deep conversation to begin with. Writing is my better form of communication. Although with some people I may have to learn how to write in a texting form of language in order to hold their attention long enough for them to get the point I may be trying to make. But at the same time they have become slaves to this technology, and that I abhor. The whole point of the things were to be a tool of convenience, not a ruler of your life. You use the phone to dictate and communicate. Instead, it seems the phone and other gadgets now dictate their lives for them. Even by their own admission to be feel the need to be left alone, or that they are addicted, cellphone users just can't shut the thing off or leave it at home. They even have SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that show the addictive capabilities of these devices. And the people wonder why they can't get a private moment in their lives without worry that so-and-so is going to call or text them at any moment.

Now I know you're probably wondering what the hell my point is with all this rambling. Well it is this. I TRULY am the last stand when it comes to not having a cellphone to interfere with my life. Especially in my family. My sister has one, her hubby does too. My wife and all her siblings and parents have cell phones. The only reason my kids don't have cell phones is that I'm not paying for them, and they aren't old enough to have a job to support their own cell phone ownership.

Then there is me without a cell phone, along with my parents. But that all ended this last weekend. I received a call from my mom, who informed me that she had accompanied the Evil Duane (of the Branch Duanians of Sac City) downtown and bought themselves a phone for each of them, ad to give me their new cell numbers. I thought I had allies in my anti-technology fight. Yes I realize I'm saying I'm anti-technology while maintaining a blog site on a computer, an old Myspace account, and a Facebook page. The latter two things I once said I'd never do, and I broke down and added myself to the millions of mind numbing activities provided by a social networking site. In my defense, this was the only way to keep track of some friends. A cell phone is still not necessary to this mission, and if they provide me with an ultimatum that they will only communicate by texting from here on out, then I shall issue them my resignation from the relationship on a grounds of irreconcilable differences of conditional relationship status.

Things may not be going commie around here, but I see everyone throwing their hat in the ring in order to get the newest gadget, make themselves more trackable and susceptible to identity theft and surveillance by those who fly the silent black helicopters. Don't deny the conspiracy, we all know they do it. Ultimately its all part of a much larger conspiracy to use the world's population to get to me. Luckily I am hiding out in my super-ultra-secret underground bunker located at...oh wait, never mind. No one can find me here. The Mookified State is in full control.

My parents getting cell phones only reinforces my position that I was key to the strength of the Branch Duanian organization. However, having branched out on my own and running the Mookified Compound along with my trusty executive officer, Colonel Beauregard Sterling Lovell, the power and ultimate autonomy of the Branch Duanians faded, leaving me as the last stand. The Rebel Alliance is no more, as it is just I now, and no others to help in the fight against all that is evil, such as Big Cell Phone, and other technology demons like Apple!

Yet Another Clueless Congress

It's always something with these clowns we elect to represent us in government. They hold their power due to a mandate of the people. This mandate is not unconditional. It is also not limited merely by the election process. They govern by our consent and by the spirit of that consent, they should be shaping things according to our consent. Not by the consent they grant themselves, or by a mandate from those senior to them, or by the President of The United States, who also is granted power only to see to it that he manage the country according to our will, not his alone.

They govern by our consent alone. However, members of congress have managed through the last couple centuries to further corrupt the system they operate in order to benefit themselves first, and the people second.

Many of our current representatives, including the President, were not elected solely on their platforms but by mere shifting of the political winds when voters felt disenfranchised by the opposing party who previously held control. Many voters are not total platform voters, but often make their decision on who to vote for based on one or two issues, by party affiliation alone, or merely because the candidate of their choice is simply "not the guy we have now".

However, to hear our elected leaders speak, the people voted them in to enact every single aspect of the leaders' platforms and thought processes. I hate to be the bearer of news from the universe of Mr Obvious, but it isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it. The approval rating of Congress is not the fault of one party or the other, but in its entirety. It isn't just about what legislation they are trying to shove down our throats, or just who's constantly filibustering the ideas of the other side. Although these are very valid ideas of why congressional approval has remained in the tank for quite some time. It seems the problem that these people just don't understand is this: IT ISN'T ABOUT YOUR SIDE OR MINE, IT'S ABOUT AMERICA AS A WHOLE!

Those who make the decision to vote for or support only the ideas from a singular party affiliation are point blank, MORONS.

Its funny how we see ideas bantied about in the halls of congress. Ten years ago the republicans came up with an idea, and democrats blustered about how horrible it was. Now, the same idea comes out of the mouth of a democrat, and republicans bluster about the disgustingness that it represents. Or vice verse. And all too often, when the latter party trying the idea defends themselves they use such a ludicrous defense of "well, the so-n-so party tried it first!"

I mean c'mon. Haven't we all grown up with the lesson of of jumping off the bridge or cliff because our friends did it? If you have to defend your idea, why not try to use the skills you learned in the halls of academia that you bragged about so much. Please don't use such a juvenile mindset of "they did it first."

Yesterday it was about war and terrorism, this week its about health care, and it will be something else again down the road after that.

But today I address just a few of the finer points of health care reform, since that's the big topic, and supposedly coming up for a final vote this weekend. (Conveniently scheduled for when everyone will be at home watching the NCAA basketball tournament and worrying about how they do in their office pools)

One one side you have the Democrats pushing hard to pass a monstrous health care bill through, read or not read, debated or not debated, passed or not passed through both houses on an identical passage. And the big argument: We have to do SOMETHING to reform our system of health care in America.

Here are my points on this
1. Yes, you are correct- you do have to do SOMEthing
2. No you do not have to have a zillion pages of complicated legislation that 3/4 of the lawmakers couldn't understand if left to look over it themselves.
3. You do NOT have to do EVERYthing all at once
4. Quit distorting facts, and quit using emotional laden stories as your main basis. Once you forget about logic, your ideas fall flat. No matter how many people you convince of your righteousness, a stupid idea, really is a stupid idea.

On the other side, you have the seeming "Party of No" that has been branded on to the Republicans. They have been deemed as the party that wants to keep the status quo, and keep the special interest insurance companies flush with control and cash from the hard working American population.

Here are my points on this
1. You really are idiots for making a huge deal out of anything that Obama supports. I suspect that if Obama fully supported your very mother, a good legion of you would immediately look for ways to vilify your mother. So quit being idiots.
2. Get focused, and craft an entire bill yourselves. Look to address some problems beyond the most very obvious, and be fair about it. Don't merely countermand that anything the democrats do is stupid and anti-American. Again, this only serves to make you look like idiots.
3. Don't assume you can use fear as a main tactic forever. Sooner or later your words get played out, and no one cares. Remember the little fable about the boy who cried wolf? Yeah, you guys are him.
4. Quit distorting the facts. Inventing ghosts and using end-times equivalent stories to make your point only work so well. Get your facts, check your facts, and be really specific on your points and exactly how things are working. Don't cherry pick your facts, so the people who oppose you can say "hey look he forgot to mention the second half of the statement that shows us to be right". If you fail to use logic, and your idea falls flat when applied to a litmus test, well like I said of the democrats, a stupid idea is a stupid idea, no matter how many people believe in it.

But lets look now at a few specific ideas within the health care bill and the concepts it brings to the table.

1. Individual mandates. In other words, you buy adequate health insurance (as deemed most likely by a government bureaucrat), or you pay a fine. If you won't pay the fine, spend some time in jail. the enforcement of this idea is under the jurisdiction of the IRS. You know, the tax guys.

First of all, even if the health care reform bill is passed, if this clause is in it, the fight has only just begun. It will go to the Supreme Court, and will most likely be struck down. You will have wasted a crap load of money dealing with the legislation, then the court case, and in the meantime while that's being decided, it may well affect a lot of people who will in fact be active dissenters to this clause. Never mind the fact that Congress, according to their position have to consider the constitutionality of their actions even before trying to see how it will go down in a Supreme Court decision. That's their responsibility, which more often than not, they shirk away from on their way to cash that check with their new taxpayer-funded raises they gave themselves.

Secondly, if this is not a tax, as it has been argued...then why are the tax guys in charge of compliance? These are the same guys who will arrest you and jail you for the mere act of following the very letter of the law when it comes time to filing and paying taxes. There's a couple key words in the tax code as it was written that says "voluntary compliance". Interestingly enough, it isn't so voluntary once you get down to the bottom of it all. And with this mandate, as it is worded, there will be nothing voluntary about it, so be prepared to pay a price if you choose not to buy a pre-approved plan.

Thirdly, they say that the argument against health care reform is headed by insurance companies as they are wanting to keep the status quo. Well, in one sense I can see it. However, the mandate specifically adds millions to these companies rolls of paying customers. the very clause says, individuals will buy insurance from private insurance companies. Never mind the unconstitutionality of this, just think about who profits from having millions of new people paying into them. Yeah, so much for "eliminating special interests" from the argument. You can tell with this one clause that those special interests have bought and paid for our elected officials who go along with this plan.

You really want to look at some options to go with? And no these are not merely my GOP provided talking points here.

Take your time. Decide what the problems are with the system. Then divide them up into smaller groups and legislate in a few fixes at a time. Then move on to the next group of problems. If some of the new legislation isn't working, try a different angle that goes into effect and repeals the previous legislation, so as not to keep clogging up our law books with antiquated and irrelevant crap. Any costs associated with the first idea, transfer to the replacement.

In other words, lets solve the problems one or two issues at a time. You don't need 2000 pages and an immediate and complete changeover to get things accomplished.

You want competition against the collusion and monopoly of health insurers??? Try using your power to replace some your predecessors idiotic measures. You know, way back when, our leaders were expected to protect us from trusts and monopolies of companies so that they couldn't take unfair advantage of us Americans. And yet, guess who specifically made an exemption so that health insurance companies could create their own monopolies and leave us to their mercy, god forbid they had any to begin with? Yep..that's right the Congress of the United States of America, and signed into law by our President at that time. Seems to me if you allow interstate commerce, you will see an increase in competition, and you will see premium costs go down, reductions in co pays and deductibles as perks to attract more customers away from the competition.

Allow interstate commerce within the health insurance industry.

Tort reform. Look I'm not talking about ludicrous ideas like capping rewards at a mere $250,000 per case. I'm saying give it a rational look and make monetary awards with a little discretion. If you want to mandate something here is where you do it. Whatever it takes money-wise to take care of a person who is injured or debilitated due to medical malpractice, give them that to start with. Say a free ride to whatever medical facility they have in their area or that treats such things if their isn't a local provider of such services. Just issue them a card that says, I get free treatment. As far as other monetary damages being awarded, look at their salary and years left to retirement, and give them that, maybe with a slight bonus to make up for any inflation. No more $10 million "pain and suffering" awards t someone who makes $20,000 a year and is only going to be working another 10 years before retiring anyways. I understand its their life we're talking about, but 9 out 10 people will never make $10 million in their life total, so lets be realistic here. If the malpractice results in a death, then figure out an amicable financial settlement for the family of the deceased. And again, it shouldn't be $10 million. It should take care of things, but not turn them into instant Forbes 500 kind of people. With a little tort reform, you will see an expansion of some medical services to certain areas that are lacking, geographically speaking. You will also see a lot less wasting of the unnecessary testing that doctors go through knowing full well their patient is not suffering from "hyper-idiomoronic syndrome". Many people will retort that tort reform will only make it harder to sue doctors who screw up, and that defensive medicine costs and malpractice insurance costs are only a sliver of a percentage of why health care is so costly. First off, lets not change the wording that makes it harder to sue, just change the monetary awards to a more common sense level. Secondly, so what about percentages of cost. Isn't every little bit saved that much better for everybody all around? After all, we keep voting in guys who just want me to put in fractions of a penny on the dollars I earn to pay for this program or that program, and everyone seems to be fine with that.

Tort reform should be fair to both sides.

Look, in the end, I don't have all the answers. I don't think there is a single member, much less the collective body, of congress that does. I don't think the President does. I don't think consumer advocates do, nor do the health care industry's many entities. But I think we need to slow down, get off the ideological train wreck we are all on, and figure out a few things a time to see what works, rather than changing up the system entirely in one fell swoop, with hardly a clue of the consequences. No plan goes perfectly in general, but in two areas it really shows its imperfection: battlefields and government.

We don't have to do things like other countries do them. We're America. We have created more wealth than almost every other country in the world combined, in fact some of those countries made a good chunk of money through our system or because of it. The reason we can give so much financial support in pure dollars to other countries to aid them in defense, or in the event of a natural disaster, is because we made the money in the first place. One may say there is something wrong with American exceptionalism. And maybe to a point there is, but it was our exceptionalism that led the world into modern times. You look around the world, and a lot of items were either created here in the U.S. (see: cars, airplanes) or we vastly improved upon items invented elsewhere (see: gunpowder, space travel). We can create our version of health care, improved upon what we have now, and make it unique and better than anyone else's if we step back and put our logical minds instead of our emotional minds to it.

We built our country on the idea of free market, with some government to reign in the players from hurting each other. Let us not just take all the players out and have the government draft only its own players to play the game. You'll never win with that kind of plan. Unless you're already one of the power players or well connected to them. Lets use the framework fo what got us here in the first place, re-tweak it, and use it to propel us ahead to where we need to go.



Let us be that Shining Beacon on the Hill, not just to Americans already here, but be the example for the rest of the world.

Glenn Beck Confronts CT Attorney General

When someone asks a legitimate question, why is it the people being asked work so hard to NOT answer the question?

What is America?

Maybe the real question is who, but I'll go with what anyways. I hope to convey my message as it is in my head, despite my lack of truly expressive literary skills. To begin to see how America came about, I think we need to go back, way back, in history.

Many centuries ago Rome was considered the light of the world, shining out over the dark and barbarian lands that surrounded one of the greatest and most powerful empires that ever existed in the history of man. Rome was not a monumentous machine of war, nor was it the embodiment of politics.

Rome was more aptly, an idea. An idea that was strong, yet so fragile.

While maintaining a monarch-like head, Rome was a place where the people who lived there ran their government as they ran their lives. They sent forth people to represent them in the Senate. The Senate was the link between the common people and the Emperor. The job of the Emperor and the Senate was to see to the needs of the Empire, while providing a place suitable to the peoples' wishes, without interfering with their ability to produce value to their society.

It was within this construct that Rome grew in its perceived greatness. Some surrounding areas willingly joined the Roman territories to be a part of its unique "center of the world" status. Others on the other hand chose either to defend themselves from Rome's influence, or to outright attack Rome for what they found offensive about this civilization.

As with any major civilization, greater power led to expansion through military means. The need to control the known world, and press into the unknown seems to be inherent trait of ours throughout history. Power abroad was not only thirsted for by the government as a whole, but by individuals within the government over domestic affairs. Favortism, greed, and corruption of all sorts became the name of the game. Once ruled by statesmen, Rome found itself under control of mere politicians, jockeying for more personal power at every turn. To be sure, there were members of the Senate with a more pure heart, and a desire to provide the leadership for all of Rome and her people. But as time went on, the number of good men dwindled in comparison to that of the politicians. And eventually, after peaking as power of the world, Rome began its descent, eventually crumbling. Rome remained physically, but the idea that is Rome, and what made her truly great could only be heard in faint whispers.

Many centuries later, well after the fall of Rome, the American Colonies rebirthed themselves from British control to become The United States of America, a new and sovereign nation unto itself. Freedom to operate under their own authority, to accept responsibility directly for themselves, instead of from some King 3000 miles away, was the main objective. For all the complications that society, much less a new society, bears, the former colonies now had the opportunity to start fresh. A central government was started for minimist purposes of national defense and foreign policy was created, however most power was conferred to each state to attend to its own need as they saw fit.

Like Rome, and the Greek States before them, The United States placed its representative power with the people. For the people to elect leaders from amongst its own populace, they could all be assured a voice in the process which would make America a great and desirable society. Some of these representatives were mere politicians, seeking to either maintain or expand their power, but in the beginning, Statesmen were the order of the day. Seeing to the construction of a new country, with the Constitution as its base, America held great promise for all who lived there, as well as those who should wish to join the American experiment from lands abroad.

One can argue the politics throughout the decades and centuries of our existence as a country, but one thing I do not think can be argued: America has spent her history becoming less and less free. We still have the opportunities to go from a nobody to a wealthy somebody. We still have the opportunity to travel across this great land of ours without restriction, and put down our roots where we see fit. But something has changed since the days of our forefathers. Lawmakers in Congress have increasingly found themselves justifying their positions. Law after law becomes enacted. Some with pure intention, others with more restrictive malicious intentions. We have enacted laws that are redundant to each other many times over, with selective enforcement. We have enacted laws that merely serve to provide more of the citizens' money to governmental purposes, with no real value to be seen, other than satisfy one group's opinion on how the rest of society should act.

To be sure we have enacted more laws than scenarios requiring them than could even possibly exist, at least in my mind.

Everyone has their own version of their America. For some it is the simple desire to live in their house, earn their own living and to be left alone. For others, it is to see that all Americans are taken care of, be it with healthcare, or for more mundane services we take for granted, like satisfactory water and sewage processing systems, or access to education, housing, food, or whatever one's needs might be.

For me, I blend my personal rights with community needs. I wish to live where I want to, and the choice to determine how I make my money. I believe that the harder I work, the more I should be rewarded. I should not be punished for my productive values. I believe in helping those around me that are in need, by my own volition, not by government mandate. I find local, more personal options to seeing my neighbors do well enough as a good thing. For if my neighbors do well, surely so will I. All that contribute to a better society around them, should share int he rewards such harmony may bring. All those who choose to harm it, shall keep the consequences for themselves. I believe in some regulation, but only enough to keep us from harming each other, and it must be applied equally to all parties.

For being the most free country on Earth, it often seems that in other lands as mentioned by Scott, practice what we call a more socialized government operation (despite having less far reaching regulations over every little thing), that the people there are more free than we are here in America.

I know the world is not black and white, and our ideas of perfection will most likely never be attained, and/or they may change as we grow through experience. I know that in my heart, I am an idealist of sorts, which will aways leave me wanting. But what we live in today, is not the America is was taught to believe in as I grew up.

AIG Executive Resigns.....with good cause

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.


DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

Government and/or Insurance Companies Directly Driving Costs Of Healthcare UP?!?!

Below is an interview done by Glenn Beck from his show on Tuesday, March 17, 2009
It really is an interesting case. Is it the case just there in New York, everywhere, limited places, or where? I'd be rather interested in who is behind the decision of the State of New York to say how the doctor operates his private practice when it comes to how he charges his fees for his work. Is it just the state being power hungry, or maybe an insurance lobbyist who saw what was ging on and made the push to keep the insurance industry from losing some of its relevance, power, and all that GLORIOUS MONEY? Read below, and let me know what you think!




GLENN: When it comes to healthcare, do they want to fix the problem? Dr. Muney is a doctor here in the New York area. John Muney is his name. You are originally from Turkey, aren't you, Doctor?


DR. MUNEY: Yes, I'm from Turkey.


GLENN: How long have you lived here in the United States?


DR. MUNEY: Since 1975.


GLENN: Since 1975, you've been a doctor here since 1975?


DR. MUNEY: Yes.


GLENN: And you have a regular practice, and it's a thriving practice.


DR. MUNEY: Yes.


GLENN: How many patients do you have?


DR. MUNEY: Well, in our practice now we have about 7,000 to 8,000 patients.


GLENN: Okay, 7,000 to 8,000 patients, and you decided that there's too much waste, it cost too much money, just in your overhead. Tell me a little about the frustration of being a doctor in America today.


DR. MUNEY: Well, the system, it's the wrong system. That's what we have here. It really is mostly to paperwork, waste, bureaucracy, fraud, abuse and that's why we're paying about 50% increase in our healthcare premiums.


GLENN: Say that again. What do you mean we're paying 50% in healthcare premiums?


DR. MUNEY: I mean, the system, the way it's set up, it lends itself to abuse, waste, bureaucracy. And if we were paying $2.4 trillion in healthcare, I think $1.2 trillion is waste. It can be reduced. It can be eliminated.


GLENN: And how is that?


DR. MUNEY: Well, I mean, you know, the way the system's set up, the patient/doctor relationship is broken. People are trying to make as much as possible the way -- for example, the doctors are seeing the patients as a cash cow now, some of them. So they try to do as much, as many tests as possible, as many surgeries as possible. The hospital bills are enormous. $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 bills are common now. And this goes on and on.


GLENN: Okay. How come they can do this?


DR. MUNEY: Well, the regulations, the system itself allows them to do it.


GLENN: In what way? The insurance companies because it's a third party payor?


DR. MUNEY: The insurance company, it's a third party system and, you know, they are trying to do some job but because of the -- it takes certain amount of money to run the system and plus, the patients come to you, they say, "Doc, I have this insurance, do as many tests as possible." And the doctor said, "Well, okay, I'll do it because I'm getting paid. And the hospital does the same thing. And the cost keeps escalating.


GLENN: So in other words, this is -- and I've had this happen a million times. The doctor will say, "Does your insurance cover X, Y, and Z?" You'll say no. Then they will sit there and think for about 30 seconds and they will say, okay, we'll use this instead. That's where the waste comes in. They don't have to do some of the things that they --


DR. MUNEY: No, they don't have to.


GLENN: And would you include some of that waste in the paperwork, you know, to guard against litigation, et cetera, et cetera, and the insurance for the doctors on litigation?


DR. MUNEY: Oh, definitely, there's no question about it. I think in my estimation is the cost of our practice to our healthcare system's about 10% minimum.


GLENN: Okay. So you're talking now about 60% of what we all pay for healthcare is between waste and guarding against litigation?


DR. MUNEY: That's true. I strongly believe it. I believe that we can reduce our healthcare costs by 2/3 easily.


GLENN: Okay. Now so you know, America, I'm just talking -- this is just one man's opinion. He's just a doctor here in New York.


DR. MUNEY: Yes.


GLENN: But he got sick of it and he decided that he was going to charge all of his patients $79. You weren't going to take any more healthcare, you weren't going to do -- no insurance. Just $79 every month and you can go see him -- you can go -- your patients can come see you as many times in that month as they needed.


DR. MUNEY: That's true. They can come, for $79 there's unlimited preventive checkups and includes the bloodwork, sonogram, x-ray, whatever they need at that time.


GLENN: And if somebody gets sick and they need to see you five times in a month, they only would have paid you $79 and there was no, there was no office pay or anything like that. It was just $79 and you can come as many times as you want.


DR. MUNEY: Yes, that's true. As long as they are coming for preventive checkups, yes.


GLENN: What does that mean?


DR. MUNEY: Well, my original idea was to charge $79 flat rate every month for unlimited visits but unfortunately the state stepped in saying that if I do this, I'm doing insurance business.


GLENN: Okay.


DR. MUNEY: So they --


GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. But what I want to go to originally is you said anything for $79 a month, they could see you for anything. That was your original idea?


DR. MUNEY: That was my original idea.


GLENN: Then the state came in and said, "No, that makes you an insurance company and so you can't do that."


DR. MUNEY: That's true.


GLENN: And then the state sent you a letter saying that you couldn't do that.


DR. MUNEY: Yes.


GLENN: And then you came on my program.


DR. MUNEY: Yes.


GLENN: And then they said, "Okay, you can do that; however, you can't charge the $79, it can only be for preventative medicine."


DR. MUNEY: Yes.


GLENN: A checkup, which kind of defeats the purpose. And then you also have to charge them, what is it, $33?


DR. MUNEY: Yes, $33 for sick visit only. If they come in for sick visits, I must charge them $33 because, to cover my overhead costs. That's the law.


DR. MUNEY: Why -- yeah, I know. It's convenient, isn't it?


DR. MUNEY: Yes.


GLENN: How does that help people getting healthcare, who don't have healthcare, how is that helping to have $79 for preventative and if you get sick, you can also pay $33 when the doctor himself says "I don't need to charge the $33"?


DR. MUNEY: That's true.


GLENN: How is that helping?


DR. MUNEY: I mean, it really makes it more difficult for us to charge $33 because then it will increase or administrative costs as well. But I think $79 will cover my costs. That's what I believe, and I wanted to do this but unfortunately in order for me to salvage the program, I still believe it's a good deal, no question about it in my mind. But I had to agree to some kind of compromise.


GLENN: Okay. Have you asked them if, that let's say you go to a restaurant and it's all you can eat for $9.99 if that $9.99 is an insurance program? Have you asked them if that $9.99 for an all you can eat, if you also wanted dessert if they would have to charge an extra $33 for dessert if that would be fair? Have you asked them how do they explain gym membership?


DR. MUNEY: Lawyers, retainers fees, it works on the same principle.


GLENN: What is their response to that?


DR. MUNEY: Well, I haven't -- I never talked face to face with them. We've been only communicating through letters, and my lawyer has contacted them several times and so this is a compromise we chose. I'm hoping that hopefully some legislator will sponsor a bill to change the law and take the primary care out of the insurance business.


GLENN: You know, Texas, South Carolina.


DR. MUNEY: Washington. Washington, the primary care is not under insurance law. They can do it and they are doing it.


GLENN: And is it working out fine for them?


DR. MUNEY: Yes, exactly. I communicated with a couple of doctors from Washington State.


GLENN: Be careful when they get all this stimulus money. I wonder what kind of strings are attached in that. Dr. Muney, I appreciate you very much, sir.


DR. MUNEY: All right. Bye-bye.


GLENN: This is why -- just don't believe them when they say, oh, we're just trying to help out. No, they're not. No, they're not. They're looking for their own power. That's all they're looking for. When they say that they're against giving bonuses to the AIG executives, ask them, do they have a contract? Yes. Is it valid? Yes. In your bailout did you not say that all contracts signed before this date are valid and must be withheld -- must be upheld? Yes. Did you guys in congress write that law? Yes. So it's a valid contract? Yes. You said that if it was signed before a certain date that it was valid? Yes. It would be honored? Yes. You don't believe we can break the union contracts, right? Of course not, no. But this contract with AIG that makes you popular to fight, you can break that one? Yes. So that's like we enforce the law sometimes on the border and sometimes we don't. That means that sometimes this drug law we need to go ahead and enforce but sometimes we don't. That means that sometimes you'll pay a tax penalty if you don't pay your taxes and sometimes you'll be made secretary of the treasury? Yes. Okay, I just want to make sure I understand the rules, which basically means there are no rules... unless you're important or powerful, which is weird because I think that's the way communist Russia used to work. But call me crazy.

If it's Fair, Does That Make It Right?

So, the topic of unions has come up recently. I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in Iowa, union leadership is trying to push through bills including the idea of "fair share" in the workplace.

In Iowa, we have right to work laws, that state that in order to work, one needn't necessarily join a union or pay union dues, just because a union is present in a particular workplace. Union and non-union members alike work side by side. With Fair Share, if put into legislation, any worker in these particular workshops would be required to pay union dues (people hired before enactment of any such law would be grandfathered in, as this is limited to new hires) regardless of union membership.

Now, let me first say this. I am not against unions. I think they have their place in our society. They have done many good things in the past for workers (the 40 hr week, weekends off, etc), and still presently provide benefits to their members.

Where my argument against this idea of fair share lies is the limitation of my choices. If I'm a welder by trade (which I'm not, just an example), and I wish to go to work at a local foundry or whereever, and they have union representation in that particular shop, the union leadership is trying to say that I have to pay them, or go look elsewhere for employment. I've never met an employer that demands payment from me, for my work. It's always been that they pay me for my doing work so that they can make and distribute a product, or provide a service. But in order to participate in this hypothetical scenario, I now am required not only to pay about 20% or so of my earnings to the government in taxes, social security, and medicare/aid, but also now I'm throwing a percentage of my check at the union leadership. What all they do these days, depends on the local and the particular workplaces, I don't know the specifics. If the union leadership decides everything in our shop is hunky-dory over the span of my career, what exactly is my money funding?
In the end that's not even the point. The point is, I need money to support myself and more importantly my family, so that we have what we need to live. If I have the money by trading my time and efforts, and I have to use this money to pay for al these things, why should I also pay someone for the God-given right and responsibility to support my family?

Does my union membership somehow make me a better worker? Or for that matter, lack of membership suddenly decrease my talents and abilities on the job? I don't think so. I know some union workers who make my work activities look like kid's play, but I also know union workers who wouldn't work as hard as me, because they don't get paid enough to work that hard (despite making more than I do, which isnt hard to do), or "it's not their job" (I dont much care...if your forklift load lost a package off the pallet, pick the damn thing up if it isnt all that big or heavy).

Does union membership or lack thereof determine who I can trust in the workplace? Or suddenly preclude me from friendship with a memebr of the other side of the issue? No, because that's stupid. I'm a conservative, yet many of my closest friends and family are bleeding heart liberals, who agree on nothing with me politically. We don't say to each other, either take my side, or you're not a firend, or someone I can trust. I'm a devout gun guy, but those who don't care for guns, are fine by me. I also like to eat meat, a LOT. Do vegetarians offend me? Not really..although if you try to sneak in a tofu burger in place of my all beef patties, we might have ourselves a bit of a disagreement on the spot.

Anyways, my ADHD-like ways took over again...sorry. If I'm out looking for a job, and I'm offered an opportunity to work at a place, I'm going to take the job. If a union is present, undoubtedly a union rep will find me. I will listen to what he has to say and offer me. In the end, it should be my decision as to what I participate in, for exchanging my time and labor. If the employer is offering me one wage, and the union offers me better pay for the exact same position, I'll most likely go through the union rep. But in the end, I'd like the opportunity to sign my own deals. Either way I go, the rewards or consequences solely rest on my shoulders. My work choices shouldn't be mandated by the government, as these bill, if passed, would be a reality.

Pro-union people have pushed the "right to work" laws as "right to work for less". The way I see it, I have the right to work for whatever amount of money is within the limits of an employers ability to pay. Again, I'm not opposed to unions, but unions shouldn't be opposed to me making my choice of where i work, and for what amount of money.

Iowa Lawmakers Still Considering Smoking Ban Options

A majority of state representatives is supporting legislation to allow smoking in outdoor areas of bars and restaurants, but a House leader says efforts to alter Iowa’s smoking ban still have little chance to pass this year.

Smoking would be allowed in outdoor seating and serving areas of bars and restaurants under House File 211. Currently, those areas are almost entirely restricted.


Rep. McKinley Bailey, D-Webster City, who is leading the effort, said many lawmakers did not intend for the outdoor areas to have smoking prohibitions and that the health department overstepped its authority in the rule-making process.

But a health official noted the law specifically says smoking is prohibited in “outdoor seating or serving areas of restaurants.”

“That is the law. Even if we wanted to change it some way, we couldn’t,” said Bonnie Mapes of the state’s health department.

Twenty-three Democrats and 28 Republicans have signed onto the bill. The supporters include Speaker Pro Tem Polly Bukta, D-Clinton, and Assistant Minority Leader Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton.

Democratic leaders have said it is unlikely that changes would be made to last year’s smoking ban. The ban was narrowly passed last year and reopening debate could cause the ban to be reversed, they have said.

“We’re basically trying to fix what we believe the Department of Public Health messed up in the rules process last year,” Bailey said.

House File 211 also allows smoking in theatrical productions. The bill has not yet passed a subcommittee.

So far this year, at least four other smoking bills have been introduced, some that would add additional smoking restrictions, such as Senate File 57, that would ban smoking in gambling areas of casinos. Seventeen senators have signed their names as sponsors of that bill.

House Speaker Pat Murphy, D-Dubuque, said majority leaders in both the House and the Senate have discussed the smoking issue and agree that they have no plans to debate any of the bills this year.

“I still think it’s highly unlikely we would take up a bill that would not go anywhere in the Senate,” Murphy said. “We’re focusing on balancing the budget, dealing with disaster priorities, working with the federal government on a stimulus package and what we can do to create jobs to offset what’s going on in the economy.”


NOW..go back to the previously boldly highlighted statements. Is it just me, or does the health department's spokesperson not make any sense. Its a law and we cant change it? Wasn't it NOT a law before, but our lawMAKERS changed the game by making a law? Haven't many laws been changed, ammended, or overridden by new laws multiple times in our history?? Isn't that how they change things?

Big Brother Coming to a Neighborhood Bake Sale Near You

Thanks to Linda WHOOPS...I mean LYNDA (sorry) at What Is Going On? for reprinting this, and to Sandy at the Junkfood Science blog, for providing this to us:

It’s already being called Posole-gate.

“The more we look to the government to protect us, the more freedoms we lose,” said one resident. This became a reality today when government health officials went after an 84-year old tradition and told the nuns at St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, that their church dinner of homemade posole, tamales and biscochitos was against the law. Every December 14th, after the Our Lady of Guadalupe procession, church ladies have served traditional posole and biscochitos for parishioners and the public. The Environment Health Department, however, determined the potluck was a threat to public safety and a violation of the city’s food ordinance.

“Our concern here is only about public safety,” John Soladay, Albuquerque’s environmental health director, told the Albuquerque Journal. Homemade food doesn’t comply with city law, which is intended to protect the public from contaminated food, he said. It’s no different from homemade cupcakes and cookies, nachos and popcorn no longer being allowed in schools because they might put children at risk of foodborne illnesses.

I wasn’t aware that there have been far too many people poisoned, made ill, by participating in Community Pot-Luck style meals.

Schools and churches and community centers of all kinds have been holding/hosting pot-luck dinners, bake sales, picnics for decades………..all of them open to the public. I’ve never seen any news reports of outbreaks of illness because of this. The only stories like it I’ve seen have been from cruise ships/restaurants/produce we buy in the stores!!!

According to the story in the Albuquerque Journal a city official states:

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

No Home Cookin’ at Festival

COPYRIGHT:Copyright 2008 Albuquerque Journal

By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

A city official said Tuesday that because the event is open to the public, the church must abide by city laws for food handling and distribution.

“Our concern here is only about public safety,” said John Soladay, Albuquerque’s environmental health director.

City law “stipulates that food prepared for distribution to the public must be prepared in an approved kitchen,” he said. “Food prepared at home does not meet that criteria.”

The city ordinance is intended to protect the public from contaminated food, he said.

So, food prepared at home doesn’t meet the cities safety standards? Then why are people allowed to poison themselves? I mean if you don’t trust the people to cook for their friends and neighbors for a block party, then why trust them to cook for themselves?


All this “safety” nonsense is going way too far now if you ask me. This festival has been held for more that three-quarters of a century and NOW the city wants to pull this crap? Talk about government going too far. It’s enough to make me want to cook up a storm and offer the food on my front lawn to anyone who passes by!!

What’s next? Can’t feed your guests because you might have contaminated food? Well guess what? THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE CHEMICALLY LADEN FOOD IN THE STORES IS ANY SAFER!!!!

Senate Passes Bailout version #2

So the senate has passed a new version of the bailout bill. With some new little perks, most of which still do not benefit those who will spend their lives footing the bill to save those who couldn't fix their own problems.

See my last posting to know my view on pretty much any bailout bill. Borrowing nonexistent money at a huge cost to clear up the books of lost money so that these already powerful people who have plenty of their own personal money can get a little more of each.

Inevitably I see some version of a bailout bill passing, but its satill a bunch of money being thrown to cover up a problem without actually taking care of the root problems, just the results. Many countries have been advised by us before to let the markets correct themselves, and keep government out of it. But, as usual our government couldn't contemplate such a concept for us, the ones who should matter a little more considering our overall wealth and power throughout the world. Instead, we'll go against our own advice, and use the problematic people to oversee how to fix all our woes, which they helped to create in the first place, to an even larger degree than all the other countries we advised before.

I heard someone mention, I think it was Glenn Beck (whether they were his words, or quoting someone else), that Oct 29, 1929 wasn't the Great Depression, but was an anomaly that would;ve corrected itself and registered as a minor economic blip in the course of our history, but that the Great Depression actually happened because of all the well-intentioned government programs set up and designed to "rescue" our economy. Too bad that 10 years into the programs our country still saw 20% unemployment....so much for a good rescue. Why is it I see the same (while maybe not 20% unemployment)type of recovery this time around if our own leaders in the government can't keep their mittens out of this proverbial oven?

And one more question- aren't there 100 senators in the senate??? With a total tally of 99 votes going yay or nay, who didnt vote (or just vote themselves present)?

A Little Friday Fun With VERY Localized News

Terrorist Flight Taken Down Over Domestic Shores


This report just in, and will probably never be aired or printed by the mainstream media.

Recent flights over sovereign territory by terrorists have escalated as of late. To date no terrorist has been found to have conducted further acts of terrorism, other than the blatant harrasment of our border defenses coupled into aerial intel probes.

Today we can proudly say that our military arm reacted to a clear and present terrorist threat within our airspace, and downed the enemy with precise targeting measures that eliminated the possibility of any collateral damage.

A source within the administration speaking on condition of anonymity, as he was not cleared to make public comment, confirmed the altercation, the military's response, and subsequent recovery of the now deceased terrorists body.

Colonel Beauregard Sterling Lovell, Supreme Commander of the Mookified Armed Services was personally responsible for overseeing the operation and was credited with singlepawedly eliminating the threat.

At approximately 0945HRS, An enemy Wren was spotted making incursions back and forth over the coastal base known simply as "The Deck", making touch and go landings on the "cooling zone", which is known to most civilians as a wall mounted AC unit. Also known as a localized seasonal global warming combatant, this unit was feared to be endangered by terrorists.

The low flying Wren fighting bird, who had previously made deliberate passes at the Colonel's head, once again harassed Colonel Lovell. This time with much different results than previous incidents. With fine bones, stealth like movements and cat-like reflexes (pun intended), the Colonel leapt to action, bringing the enemy bird down, and quickly killed the terrorist. Reports are that the body was personally delivered to the kitchen of General and President Mike "Mookie" Lovell. It was quickly dismissed as a poor specimen for lunch and discarded in the way that the administration deals with the deceased enemy combatants: Unrespectfully dumped off the shores of the Democratic Republic of Mike Lovell.

No further comments could be obtained, and the Administration has yet to issue a direct official statement.

Voter ID Laws Help, Not Hinder

Here is a recent article regarding Voter ID laws, specifically that of Indiana. It is written and was submitted to Human Events Publishing by Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita. I looked into this after reading a posting by Sherry Chandler, which included note of Missouri's Voter ID law being struck down. You can find the link to her blog on the right hand side along with other blogs to consider. Feel free to leave your point of view, or questions.

Indiana Photo ID Law Works
by Todd Rokita
Posted: 05/29/2008

As the Indiana polls opened at 6:00 am on May 6, opponents of Indiana’s Photo ID law eagerly anticipated word from our more than 5,500 precincts that the state’s requirement that all voters show a photo ID at the polls was causing havoc. It’s what they told the United States Supreme Court would happen. To them, it was time to watch Indiana’s most highly anticipated presidential primary in generations collapse under the weight of the requirement.

In Indiana, our election officials and voters are fully committed to increasing confidence in and the integrity of our elections. We have invested a great deal of time, money, and energy over the last few years in needed improvements to our election processes. The central component to this effort is the preservation of the fundamental right of each citizen over the age of 18 to have ONE vote, and to have that vote count.

In recent years, sweeping reforms and improvements to the way we administer elections have included new voting systems in all 92 counties, improved accessibility of polling places, educational outreach and training, and absentee ballot reform. One of the most significant and important reforms has been our photo identification law, which requires voters to prove their identity by presenting a photo ID before casting a ballot.

One week prior to Indiana’s primary elections, the United States Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s photo ID law. The Justices agreed that, with our law, Indiana is paving the road to better voter confidence for states by preventing in-person voter fraud.

Jeffrey Milyo, a professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri, had noted in a recent study that overall voter turnout in Indiana has actually increased since the implementation of the photo ID law. I attribute this directly to voters having better confidence in the process, and therefore, being more willing to invest their time in it.
Several other studies by organizations like the Universities of Nebraska and Delaware and the Heritage Foundation tell us requiring ID at the polls does not reduce voter turnout.
On May 6th, opponents to the law were left disappointed. Indiana experienced one of its highest turnouts ever for a primary election. Turnout increased from 21 percent in the 2004 primary to around 40 percent for the 2008 primary. Presumably, the hotly contested Democratic presidential primary brought scores of new voters to the polls. Nearly 76 percent of the participants took part in the Democratic primary. By comparison, in 2004, only 40 percent of those who participated voted in the Democratic primary.

Simply put, Indiana voters showed up by the hundreds of thousands to fulfill their civic duty with a photo ID in hand. According to our figures, the number showing up to vote without ID continues to be miniscule, dropping slightly even from previous elections when the rate has been two-tenths of a percentile. In fact, opponents of the concept of having a voter identify his or herself still cannot produce one voter who has experienced a violation of his or her rights.

The deadline to file recounts with the state recount commission has passed. Despite close contests in both the Democratic presidential race as well as that party's gubernatorial primary, no one has filed for a recount. No one has found reason to question the results our closely watched, closely contested statewide election.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, election leaders across the country can now confidently move forward with their efforts to protect voters and improve the integrity of the election process. Mississippi, Missouri, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Kansas, Illinois, Oklahoma and Texas are all states where photo ID requirements were debated and voted on in legislatures this year, and scores of other states have called my office wanting details on the law.

Sure, my staff was in place before sunrise on primary day, ready to ensure a smooth election by helping voters find their polling places, answering questions, and looking into any polling place issues that would come up. But of the more than 1,300 calls we took that day from voters, only two even related to enforcement of Indiana’s photo ID law -- neither demonstrating that someone was shut out from voting.

And even if they were, photo ID opponents fail to point out one very important Federalist notion – that states have the right to put parameters on, and therefore, introduce order into their electoral processes. To not do so would allow chaos to ensnarl the process, rendering it useless. Results would be in doubt and voter confidence shredded. The likelihood of increased participation would dwindle.

Indiana has now conducted eight successful elections since the passage of the photo ID law. There has not been one proven instance of a voter who was unable to exercise his or her right to vote due to the law. The law itself helps prevent this, including provisions to allow voting by those who forget their ID, can’t make it to the polls on Election Day, or who have religious objections to being photographed. The well-publicized nuns in South Bend, who were reportedly unable to vote during this year’s primary election due to not having proper photo ID indeed had the opportunity under the law to cast a provisional ballot and have their votes count by producing ID within ten days. This is eight days longer than Jimmy Carter even suggested when the Carter-Baker Commission suggested photo ID was needed in the polling to boost election integrity and participation. Sadly, they all waived this right to participate in the election process.

Indiana’s photo ID law is our state’s means of protecting the integrity of elections in a manner that creates the least burden for citizens. Furthermore, it’s a right and duty given to us by the 10th Amendment. It is about ensuring accuracy through increased integrity. It’s a 21st century way to manage our election process that gives us confidence again in exercising our franchise -- our most sacred civic transaction. I look forward to an exhilarating 2008 general election with this issue finally settled.

Lopsided Political Outrage

These days it seems, the political scene is as divisive as ever. When it comes to elections, many people seem to vote one way or the other across the board. To Republicans, all democrats have become super liberal socialists. To Democrats, all republicans are vast right wing warmongers. If you're a democratic representative at any level it is expected by the party that you support the party despite your own ideals, and the same goes for republican lawmakers as well.
Especially the republican party....If you go too far towards the middle you are labeled as a liberal hiding in the Republican party, or a RINO (republican in name only).
On the individual level, and granted this is the bias of an independent conservative, it seems that democratic voters will defend their party to the death. Obama, for example, despite early on his campaign was nothing but positive sounding rhetoric, without substance in any way shape or form, people were ecstatic about having him as the next President of the United States. And yet, despite any positive things Bush has actually managed to accomplish, they would rather dismiss it witha comment about all the things he has done wrong (admittedly, this is many, but not worthy of cancelling out anything good).
Another example of lopsided political outrage has come in the form of corruption and scandals. (Former)Republican Representative Duke Cunningham of California gets caught accepting bribes....HUGE OUTCRY. Large Media coverage, including lots of mention among late night talk show hosts. Same with Tom Delay
Former Democratic Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana faces charges of corruption, after being videotaped accepting 10s of thousands of dollars,a nd subsequently raided by the FBI. HUGE OUTCRY....not about what he did, but that his offices (that of a sitting representative) were raided by federal authorities. Less media coverage.
Take also note of the contrasting statements about DeLay's situation with that of Jefferson, by Nancy Pelosi (democrat representative from California):

After Tom DeLay was indicted on September 28, 2005, Nancy Pelosi had some very harsh words: “The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people.”

But, if you forward to yesterday, she's got a very different tone about the indictment of Rep. William Jefferson, of her own party:
“The charges in the indictment against Congressman Jefferson are extremely serious. While Mr. Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power.

I have no problem with what she says about Mr. DeLay (it is rather true), but I disagree with the softening middle section she gives to her own party's member she won't give to Mr. DeLay.

I find it rather odd the similarity between both situations: In the face of idiocy by a republican, it is often the republicans who put more pressure on their party's member than anyone. In the face of idiocy by a democrat, it is still up to the republican party to press for action on the matter.

Now, obviously I take my vantage point from what I see within the mainstream and talk radio medias, and I don't see as many of the activities that occur on a more frequently than we know basis. But it seems to me that to attack a democrat is akin to murder, while attacking a republican is as everyday normal to people as flipping a light switch. Maybe I'm wrong, but then again this is only a somewhat informed opinion that I make. Feel free to correct me.

Detaining Youths In The War On Terror

An AP article by Peter James Spielmann I found in today's issue of the Des Moines Register:

NEW YORK (AP) -- The U.S. military is holding about 500 juveniles in detention centers in Iraq, and has about 10 detained at the U.S. base at Bagram, Afghanistan, the United States has told the United Nations.

A total of 2,500 youths under the age of 18 have been detained, almost all in Iraq, for periods up to a year or more in President Bush's anti-terrorism campaign since 2002, the United States reported last week to the U.N.'s Committee on the Rights of the Child.

Civil liberties groups such as the International Justice Network and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) denounced the detentions as abhorrent, and a violation of U.S. treaty obligations.

In the periodic report to the United Nations on U.S. compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United States confirmed that "as of April 2008, the United States held about 500 juveniles in Iraq."

"The juveniles that the United States has detained have been captured engaging in anti-coalition activity, such as planting Improvised Explosive Devices, operating as lookouts for insurgents, or actively engaged in fighting against U.S. and Coalition forces," the U.S. report said.

The majority are believed to be 16 or 17 years old. In the United States a 17-year-old can enlist in the U.S. army, with parental consent.

The report said that of the total of 2,500 juveniles jailed since 2002, all but 100 had been picked up in Iraq. Of the remainder, most were swept up in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military says it has held eight juveniles, ages 13-17, at Guantanamo since the detention center opened in 2002.

"It remains uncertain the exact age of these individuals, as most of them did not know their date of birth or even the year they were born," the report says. But U.S. military doctors who evaluated them believed that three were under age 16.

Six were released and two are now adults facing war-crimes charges.

Canadian Omar Khadr, now 21, was captured in July 2002 and is charged with murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. special forces soldier. Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan who the military says is about 23, faces charges of attempted murder for a 2002 grenade attack that wounded two U.S. soldiers.

In Afghanistan, "as of April 2008, there are approximately 10 juveniles being held at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility as unlawful enemy combatants," the report said.

In Bagram, a U.S. military spokesman, Marine 1st Lt. Richard K. Ulsh, told the AP on Sunday: "At any time there are up to 625 detainees being held at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility. There are no detainees being held under the age of 16 and, without getting into specifics due to the frequent fluctuation in the number of detainees being held, we can tell you that there are currently less than 10 detainees being held under the age of 18."

Civil liberties groups were outraged.

"It's shocking to me that the U.S. government has not figured out a way to keep children out of adult prisons. It's outrageous, and it is not making us any safer, I can say that about Afghanistan from personal experience," Tina M. Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, said Sunday.

Her group brought lawsuits on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees in 2006, and has taken on the cases of adult detainees in Bagram. She said the U.S. military does not release the names of juveniles it is holding in Bagram, so her group is trying to learn who they are by finding Afghan relatives.

"It is shocking to know that the U.S. is holding hundreds of juveniles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even more disturbing that there is no comprehensive policy in place that will protect their rights as children," Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, said in a statement. "Juveniles and former child soldiers should be treated first and foremost as candidates for rehabilitation and reintegration into society, not subjected to further victimization."

"Although age is not a determining factor in whether or not we detain an individual under the law of armed conflict, we go to great lengths to attend to the special needs of juveniles while they are in detention," the U.S. report said.

According to the ACLU, the lack of protections and consideration for the juvenile status of detainees violates the obligations of the U.S. under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict that the U.S. ratified in 2002, as well as universally accepted international norms.

The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child is scheduled to question the U.S. delegation on its compliance with its obligations on May 22 in Geneva.

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the General Assembly in 1989, with backing at the time from the U.S. government of President Bill Clinton, and with strong lobbying from then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who now is competing for the Democratic Party presidential nomination with Barack Obama.

---

Associated Press writer Fisnik Abrashi contributed to this report from Kabul, Afghanistan.

My personal opinion is that if a teenager wants to participate in war or terrorism, he should be treated as any adult soldier or terrorist would. Would those from the ACLU and other leftist groups presume that we release kids who threw a grenade into a group of our soldiers, just because they are kids and shouldn't have to face consequences? They have argued that Bush is over there to impose Americanization upon Iraqis...given the state of how people raise their kids to operate without consequences until they are adults over here, maybe their opinions actually support this transfer of Americanized "values". Your thoughts?