Sunday, May 4, 2014

Deal Gives Georgians A Raw Deal

Why didn't Georgia Governor Nathan Deal let the marketplace drive insurance prices down instead of granting an insurance monopoly to Blue Cross Blue Shield in Georgia, guaranteeing that Georgians must pay whatever the insurance giant wants to charge? Blue Cross Blue Shield is NOT affordable in parts of Georgia. Vetoing legislation that would have forced him to offer other, cheaper insurance options to Georgians, the governor has proved that he isn't working for the good of Georgians but for the insurance lobby. Let's kick this worthless crook out of office.

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Should Auld Acquaintance Be Forgot, It Won't Be A Moment Too Soon

Now that the former VDT editor has quit in a snit because she didn't get her way, she can do what so many of her former employees have had to do--thanks to her--look for work. That may not be so easy when your biggest qualification is being an arrogant jerk. Alas, who will now tell us What We Think? The mills of the gods grind slowly, but finally gave her a taste of her own medicine. We bid her a fond fondue.

Monday, April 7, 2014

Play it Again Uncle Sam

If this govt. spent less time negotiating extra-legal trade agreements and trying to run the rest of the world, they might actually have time to work for those who elect them. What goes on in Ukraine and Syria may be concerning, but nowhere in our Constitution does it authorize our govt. to rush in whenever a foreign power has a problem. Where is the outrage in Norway, Sweden, Brazil, Australia, etc. for what Russia is doing in Ukraine or the civil war in Syria? Or maybe they just feel they already have enough to do without taking on everyone else's problems. I think the US govt. should send a billion dollars to every other country just in case they forgot someone who needs aid and then remind us why Medicare and Social Security are broke.

And will the major media outlets please hurry up and tell us who to make war against next?! We're on a deadline here!

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Blame it on the Black Guy

Why are so many blaming Obama for his assault on the Constitution when GWB shredded the Constitution during his two terms until there was nothing left? I'm not an Obama fan but the damage was already done. It's true he has done nothing to stop or reverse it, for which he deserves blame. Do people really believe we still had any Constitutionally protected rights when GWB left office? What about FISA and the Patriot Act? Get serious. Name me one Constitutional right Obama has rendered null and void that wasn't already dispensed with by the previous administration.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

What's More Important Than Surveillance? Almost Everything.

I've compiled a brief list of things that are more important than doing surveillance on all Americans:

1. Cleaning up the environment and stopping further environmental degradation, including our lakes and rivers.
2. Converting to renewable energy like solar and wind and shutting down coal, fossil fuel and nuclear, which are dangerous.
3. Protecting endangered species.
4. Trying to regain our moral standing in the international community, which has been totally shot to hell.
5. Get us out and keep us out of foreign wars and stop assassinating people without any trial or due process.
6. Curb the influence of wealth on our election system and restore confidence in govt.
7. Clean up the corruption in Congress.
8. Repair infrastructure.
9. Rebuild the diplomatic corps to avoid future wars.
10. Stop nuclear proliferation.
11. Drastically reduce foreign aid except humanitarian aid.
12. Feed the hungry.
13. Literacy.
14. Close tax shelters and loopholes for the wealthy and corporations.
15. Stop subsidizing big oil and other billion dollar industries.
16. Rebuild our manufacturing base and restore the balance of trade.
17. Get rid of NAFTA, which gave us the shafta.
18. Trash the New World Order.
19. Restore our Constitutional rights to full effect.
20. Reduce the prison population.
21. Stop police brutality.
22. Ensuring the safety of the food supply.
23. Prevention and education to minimize preventable health problems.

I could go on.

Sunday, January 19, 2014

The Govt. Is The Problem

Our so called leaders are narrow-minded morons. For example, instead of attempting to outlaw abortion, why don't they work for a world parents want to bring their children into? Who wants to bring kids into a world where there are few good jobs, no healthcare or safety net, widespread poverty and wealth inequality, a toxic environment, rampant violence, police violence, where they'll likely be jailed for petty offenses or killed fighting some misguided war, where they have no privacy and are just viewed as consumers and exploited, etc.? Create a world parents will want to raise their kids in.

Do you want to cut down on handguns? Stop idealizing violence and using it to solve all your problems. Create a govt. people can trust and look up to, that treats people fairly, instead of one they rightly fear will snatch their rights out from under them. Then they won't feel like they have to defend themselves against those elected to represent them.

Our govt. isn't solving problems, they have become the problem.

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Those Who Have Everything Want More

I take self-determination to be an inalienable right because it requires force to deprive us of it. My freedom to do as I please within reason doesn't need to rest on God or natural law or any other philosophical premise. I am free until I say otherwise, and anyone who says different isn't making a statement of fact but a threat. No one can deprive you of your right to self-determination "for the good of society." The good of society depends more on my freedom than its suppression and no one by any fictional authority has the freedom to deprive me of mine.

It's very simple: authority, or the right to rule others, rests either on the consent of the ruled, or on sheer force. There is no expertise that entitles one to rule another. Authority doesn't rest on the belief that you know more than I do or have access to privileged information. That's a ruse. I either consent to follow rules recognized as for the benefit of all, or else I follow rules to avoid the negative consequences of those who undertake to enforce them on behalf of an "employer." Money rules, but only by force.

It is 'natural' I suppose for those with the greatest access to wealth and influence to use said influence to try and secure even more advantages for themselves and their associates. Iron-clad security for some means insecurity for all the rest. Self-interest is an asset in the struggle for survival. Perhaps what these folks don't realize or don't give a care about is that by making their struggle ever easier and easier, they heap hardships on the rest. In fact, if wealth and influence were more evenly distributed or limited we might still have the occasional struggle against nature but we would not be pitted against each other on ideological grounds. Reduce avarice and mutual aid would increase. Cooperation is a natural human trait and not something that needs to be handed down and enforced by some politburo or enlightened regime.

The ballot box is not an effective tool for regulating legislative agendas, especially when those agendas are being manipulated from within. Laws are just words. No government can take away freedoms just by adding new laws or changing the wording of old ones. One can still reject unjust laws through non-compliance.

Conventional wisdom has it that the so-called founding fathers left the wording of the Constitution vague on purpose so citizens would have to debate and consider well any proposed changes, additions, deletions or modifications of existing laws. In some ways I wish they had been more specific. They could have said, for example, "No president shall take the country to war on his own account," or "No president shall engage in secret judicial proceedings or assassinate others based on proceedings not open to the public." How about, "The President or Congress shall engage in no military action in other countries except to defend the nation against foreign attacks on its own soil." Or "No president or member of Congress shall authorize pre-emptive strikes against another country." We might wish such things were spelled out more clearly.

Here's another: "The president and Congress shall not violate the privacy of its citizens through any kind of surveillance in the name of national security or on any other pretext without a public warrant stating that the person or entities being investigated pose an imminent threat to the physical safety of the public." Or "Congress or the President shall not be granted nor exercise in secret any blanket authority to detain or violate the privacy of any persons for any reason, but each individual case must be reviewed and approved beforehand by an independent judicial body and such proceedings must be open to the public."

When the citizens are the ones doing the dying, there's no justification for keeping the reason for the dying or the results of the fighting secret, troop movements excepted. Of course it may be, as someone recently suggested, that Mr. Obama is going along with the policies of the previous administration because he doesn't want to become another Jack Kennedy.