liberty · equality · eternity

“It is written in the holy Quran. If a believer has any question about the Quran, then he is not a true believer.”
—Major Mayhem

As “select” members in Congress were briefed on the Fort Hood shooting, several asked Nancy Pelosi to launch a full congressional inquiry into “alleged government miscues” before the alleged murderers. It is doubtful any reprimands will follow; it is certain there will be no examination of systemic failures, if the 11 September 2001 cover-up is any indication.

Consistent opponents of the Homeland Security Department concept have had their objections vindicated. A bureaucracy overseeing and coordinating other bureaucracies is an insane idea that could only be promulgated by the Federal government. We’ve got an idea: Add another layer of bureaucracy! It would be unfair to say Homeland Security does nothing, for they provide thousands of jobs and a sinkhole for federal funds. What they fail to do is coordinate different government departments, a problem easily solved by closing DHS and ordering each group (FBI, DOD, CIA and so on) to pick up the fucking phone once in awhile.

Sons of a gun ban
Surprisingly, it took awhile for gun-ban advocates to exploit this tragedy to advocate more Second Amendment rights reductions. Fort Hood is a military base, yet the rampage ended when a civilian policewoman, Sergeant Kim Munley, shot and immobilised the terrorist. Aside from the absurdity of an unarmed Army base, there is a lesson not only for the Federal government, but for terrorists watching the news. The latter need not restrict their attacks to unarmed civilian targets. Military targets are also defenceless.

Hero with proud children

Instead of making the mass-murderer a celebrity and sympathising with his woes, Ms Munley should be celebrated as a hero (what would have been called a heroine in my youth). I suppose we should be happy no one is suing her. Yet.

Sergeant Munley saved lives, including her own, by continuing to shoot at her attacker after sustaining wounds. A brave woman! We need more Americans like her and fewer like those who are not like her. More true believers in humanity, fewer proponents of insanity. 

Jackie Speier, illustrious Congressional Rep for my district, boasts of her pride in voting for a health care bill, keeping what she calls her promise to “the voters and taxpayers who sent me to Congress.” One reason she didn’t get my vote.

Surprisingly, she refers to the “most exhaustive and transparent review process of any bill in our nation’s history,” with input from all sides, or at least two sides — the Democratic and Republican wings of the Incumbent Party. Even so, it is clear to anyone paying attention that the Republicans were shut out of the process but, more important, critics of this ill-conceived legislation were ignored or demonised as racist enemies of the uninsured.

Since Hillary Clinton attempted meddling with health care, it is apparent the problem is not a lack of insurance, it is a surfeit of insurance. Wayne Rogers of “Cashin’ In” put it succinctly. The problem is “third-party payers,” whether private or public. When the doctor-patient relationship is breached, responsibility vanishes, costs soar.

Of the health care bill, Speier says, “Americans are right to ask: What’s in it for me?” I never thought to ask that. My question: Where does the Federal government get the authority to control our health care?

Bob Barr claims there’s this Constitution. Has anyone ever seen it? If it exists, Congress has read it as carefully as the trillion-dollar bills it passes.

Most Americans are asking: “How will this new intrusion hurt me?” For the answer, check the handy Obamacare cheat sheet. It’s in colour.

Speier advocates human rights. Selectively. Claiming women will pay the same premiums as men, she says they “will finally enjoy the same health care coverage that their fathers, sons and brothers have.” So I guess there won’t be coverage for pregnancy or exclusively female conditions, like hairy limbs. She waxes on about how the so-called reform bill is comparable to women’s suffrage, civil rights, Social Security and Medicare. Civil rights includes the vote for women and that is about rights. Social Security and Medicare are misguided government entitlements Americans are forced to pay for, although the premiums are taxes.

Retiring Americans will benefit, according to Representative Speiers, “… by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, eliminating out-of-pocket payments for preventative care and banning overpayments, this Congress is making good on [the] promise [of medicine for the elderly] and extending the Medicare trust for future generations.” [Does she mean the imaginary trust "fund?"] Declaring that you will cut waste, fraud and abuse is not the same as accomplishing it. Especially if you are in government.

The bill is also great, she says, for “the 14,000 Americans who lose their health insurance coverage every day.” Somebody has seen “Groundhog Day” one time too many.

Speier did not forget Americans who already have health insurance, who “get the best news of all.” It’s a bit confusing what that is; suffice it to say they will benefit from the reduced cost of insurance premiums in Fantasyland.

She says “no issue has been studied, scrutinized and debated more than health care reform.” More or less correct, but without consensus, how can a total overhaul be justified? Speier’s comments are light on sensible reasoning, heavy on partisan piffle. She even throws in a dig at the right’s misguided hero, Ronald Reagan.

Speier concludes:

I not only agree, I predict we will not live to see that day. Here on Earth in 2009, the current legislation is not a catholicon, it’s a cancer.

One of many qualities US news media lack is fact-checking. Relaying the claims of some politician or bureaucrat is not news; it is a reporter’s responsibility to investigate their veracity. That’s the difference between reporting news and distributing a press release.

So, it was heartening to see an Associated Press piece by Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Palin’s book goes rogue on some facts.” Tuesday, Palin’s book, Going Rogue, will hit the stores. Based on an advance copy, Woodward questions many, many statements. By the way, several major newspapers repeated the story, even the headline, taking the AP at their word.

One complaint: Palin claims she financed her run for governor mostly from small donations, and that her campaign returned large checks if a conflict-of-interest was possible. Woodward questions some of the statistics, doesn’t come close to proving deception. Couldn’t the same be said of most politicians, including Barack Obama?

Overreaching governments invite corruption.

Calvin Woodward cites several instances of possible conflicts of interest, despite Palin’s boast that she rooted out such activities. Nothing conclusive, but it’s good to know AP will be doing the same for all lawmakers. They can start with Barney Frank.

Representative Frank was present during his partner James Ready’s marijuana arrest in 2007. Marijuana plants were found in Ready’s backyard. Frank claimed then, and subsequently, that he would not recognise the plants, since he’s not an outdoors-man. Really? Unimportant, in the scheme of things, but his role in manufacturing the housing finance crisis also is ignored by the press, even his history-reinventing justifications. Just check C-Span.

Some of the complaints about Palin are wrong. She notes that Obama said his climate-change policies will cause electric bills to “skyrocket.” The AP reporter notes that Obama has since changed his tune, but that doesn’t erase his previous comment. If AP had the contributing reporters investigate the actual effects and found Obama’s original statement was wrong, Palin would still be telling the truth. Obama said it. The president’s new appraisal may be based on the likelihood of no one being able to afford any electricity, as the effects of his economic policies kick in.

I’m not a Palin supporter because, come on, she’s a Republican. [Full disclosure: I ordered the book from Amazon, since it was only $9 (with no reading tax).  Now AP have spoiled the surprise.]

I maintain an open mind, as real journalists should. Since the governor entered the national spotlight, there have been constant, mostly erroneous and mean, criticisms of Palin. No one was troubled about inventing facts during that process. Certainly, she can present her side.

After following politics in newspapers, news and opinion magazines for decades, this is the first fact-checking article I’ve seen on a politician’s book or speech. It could be cynicism, but the article seems more a hit piece than anything else.

Reconsider “climate change.” Al Gore and his minions warned about “global warning” for a few years, until they were proved wrong. Now their cry, echoed in the media, is climate change. Problem is, defying nature by changing the climate sounds far more ridiculous than trying to slow global warming. Most large, sealed buildings — like the UN building in New York — cannot manage the inside temperature to the satisfaction of their occupants. Now humans will control the Earth’s climate?

Where is the skepticism that greeted Reagan’s Star Wars proposal? Seems the skeptics were eaten by starving sycophants.

There being no Homeland Security Day, let’s use today, Friday the thirteenth, to honour the men and women at the Department of Homeland Security for the tireless work they do keeping Americans safe in America.

Here are Red Flags to look for, so we can maintain vigilance at home:

If you tell all your colleagues, “Death is better than living with infidels,”
you might be a jihadist

If you write fan letters to Osama bin Laden,
you might be a jihadist

If you say you’re a Muslim second, a suicidal killer first,
you might be a jihadist

if you are a whack job, but no one wants to hurt your feelings by saying so,
you might be a jihadist

If you buy a gun that can murder the maximum number of infidels with one clip,
you might be a jihadist

If you wear a button saying, “Ask me about 72 Virgins,”
you might be a jihadist

top of page one in today’s Wall Street Journal:
World Tries to Buck Up Dollar

bottom line in today’s liberty·equality·eternity:
Fed Tries to Fuck Up Dollar

An article in The Examiner cited “questionable” projects funded by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act spending bill, which has created (or saved) hundreds of jobs.
Let’s keep an open mind because one person’s questionable project is another’s investment in the future. For instance:

• $30 million for a spring-training complex for the Colorado Rockies and the Arizona Bullwinkles.
• $800,000 to build a backup runway for the John Murtha Memorial Airport serving as many as 20 passengers daily, 17/7.
• $219,000 for a Syracuse University study on the sex lives of freshman women or freshwomen. [Guess what I'm thinking — talk about stimulus!]
• A $300,000 helicopter with GPS to locate radioactive rabbit droppings in Washington state. Seems to me, it would be easier (and cheaper) to locate the hot rabbits.
• Providing equal protection for reptiles, a $3.4 million, 13-foot tunnel for turtles and other creatures to cross US 27 in Lake Jackson, Florida — $261,538 per foot.
• $2.5 million in stimulus checks for the deceased. It they get cashed, it will confirm my fears that the afterlife is expensive.
• $1 million for Portland, Oregon, to replace 100 old bicycle lockers and build a parking garage for 250 bikes. I like bikes, and that’s just $2,857 per two-wheeler. Of course, buying 350 new, really neat, bicycles would cost about $175,000.
• $173,834 to weatherise eight pickup trucks in Madison County, Illinois. That’s $21,729 a truck, but they have lots of weather there.
  And finally,
• $300 apiece for thousands of signs informing drivers that their construction delays are funded with stimulus money. You might wonder if they could have gotten a lower price, but these are big, bright, beautiful signs. Hopefully, made in the USA.

If you check the progress of the Recovery Act, you will learn that the Feds have been able to create or save 110,185.36 California jobs. That’s why the Unemployment rate here is only 12.2%. Michigan fared better by population, with 22,513.86 jobs created or saved. Their unemployment rate is 15.3%.

Still, it must be working because they have their very own official seal. Kind of like my official eyeglasses.

Let’s play Allegory, shall we?

My uncle shows up at my house with a tow-truck hauling a decrepit automobile. The operator lets it dawn, replacing it with my car, which he tows away.

I try to stop him, but I’ve been injected with a paralysing drug. When I can finally move, I am furious, but my uncle explains that the car he has swapped for mine is more efficient, so I should be grateful.

Really?

He says, “This car gets great mileage, as long as you go downhill.” Seems it has no engine, and a body cobbled together from pieces of several different cars, none of which was that great to begin with. I ask, can get my old car back, but he says it’s too late.

How am I supposed to get the car from the bottom?  While he admits that’s an uphill battle, he tells me, “you have something called the public option.”

“And what’s that, Sam?”

“Buses, trains,” he explains. “Or you can carpool.”

Great.  And what will you do, uncle?

As he drives off in his BMW, I am thinking I do not deserve this. Maybe I can travel to work and back, but what about shopping? I live on a hill. Besides, I was satisfied with the car I had, which met my needs at a reasonable cost. Now I’ll be at the mercy of public transportation systems that cannot be depended upon, except to raise their fares and reduce their service.

I guess there’s a moral: My parents were right. Sam is a shitty uncle.

Got a spurious tax notice from the California Franchise Tax Board, wrong for several reasons. Thought I’d write detailing their errors and omissions, but I found something strange. While they include an insert about taxpayer rights, they do not give an address to mail disagreeing correspondence. There are many ways to pay the amount, seemingly none to contest it.

Tried the web site, which had the identical document with no mailing address in PDF form. I always remind readers that government agencies are incompetent at best, but this was so wrong it embarrassed me. Without going into detail, in October 2009 they mailed a refund check for tax year 2008. A month later, they claim I owe four times the amount because a payment “has been returned by your financial institution unpaid.” That is hard to reconcile. I deposited their refund check, then sent them a check for the same year? Ridiculous. I have never bounced a tax check, tempting as that is.

Speaking of ridiculous, on their site I clicked on a link labeled “frivolous returns.” A link much like the one in the previous sentence.

I wondered what a frivolous return might be:

A frivolous return penalty is imposed if all of the following apply:
* The taxpayer submits what is purported to be a required return.
* The purported return does not contain sufficient information to judge the substantial correctness of the self-assessment or contains information that, on its face, indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect.
* The purported return is based on a frivolous position or reflects an attempt to delay or impede administration of the tax laws.

From that definition, almost any return could be considered frivolous, especially if the filer left out a form or something. The law is silent on frivolous assessment notices. On its face, it seems like an attack on First Amendment rights but, of course, the Bill Of Rights do not apply to tax law, where you are guilty until proven innocent.

By the way, if you are not in California, don’t think you’re safe. According to the web site, this ridiculous rule applies to Federal tax returns as well.

All of which begs the question: Can we trust the government with any more involvement in our health care? 

Best to ignore screwy criticisms, so as not to make them seem less screwy. However, Thomas Frank attacked Glenn Beck in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Beck has appendicitis, and is so unable to respond. The essay maligns those who watch and/or agree with the broadcaster, which makes it personal.

Like Frank, let’s begin with the red phone, which he writes “never seems to ring.” No “seems” about it, Frank, indicating that you miss the point. The White House generalises that Beck is wrong. He has been requesting specifics. So far, the only White House correction was that he referred to special assistants as “czars,” not Beck’s term. They did not deny that these appointees skirt Congressional approval and have nebulous powers. When Anita Dunn was assigned to monitor his Fox programme, Beck installed the phone, so she could instantly correct any factual errors he makes.  He promised to apologise on the air immediately.

Frank questions whether it is fair to call Dunn a Maoist for quoting the tyrant, whom she called one of her “favourite political philosophers.” In the Journal writer’s opinion, “lots of people, including conservatives, have cited Mao and Lenin and other such demonic figures in all sorts of contexts, and… they aren’t always careful, when so citing, to point out what bad people these were.” Lots of people? Name one. I have never quoted Mao, though I might to illustrate how evil he was. Anita Dunn told some news person, who asked, that she was joking. Having seen her delivering the remarks in context, I missed the humour, like her audience.

Frank mentions Mark Lloyd, Chief Diversity Officer of the FCC, who recently referred to the “incredible revolution” in Venezuela by Mao’s fellow philosopher, Hugo Chavez, which was failing until Chavez had the good sense to silence the media. There’s probably a plausible explanation for what seems an odd statement coming from a man with a mysterious job at the Federal Communications Commission. Frank e-mailed Lloyd, who said he wasn’t asked to respond. No one was stopping him, although Beck’s questions were directed at the Administration which appointed him.

Frank ignores Van Jones. Beck aired remarks Jones made on video and sound recordings, espousing the green czar’s radical ideas. Beck asked the White House if Jones still holds these views, and if they are shared by the Administration. This was before the red phone. The response was that Jones’ responsibilities weren’t related to his views, an evasion of a simple question. When Jones became infamous, he was jettisoned at midnight, on a Saturday, in an attempt to keep it quiet. No explanation.

Sure you can select embarrassing quotes from any public speaker, but Beck has a point when he says there seem to be numerous Administration figures who proudly claim to be anti-capitalist and anti-democracy. Given the choices made during the first months of Obama’s presidency, his advisers’ views seem worth examining, particular those who were not vetted.

From his shallow, misleading analysis of Beck, Frank provides the paradigm that “ideas have consequences,” which is true, especially in the case of Mao Tse-Tung. In this country, Beck has the same freedom to question as Thomas Frank. If Glenn’s curiosity seemed misplaced, millions of viewers wouldn’t be tuning in every day.

Anything said about Beck could apply to Keith Olbermann’s hateful “Countdown” programme on MSNBC, which spreads ideas like all opponents of any Obama policy are racists. I guess KO doesn’t warrant a column because hardly anyone is watching, likewise most of the media, with some exceptions, such as the Wall Street Journal.

Oops! Not Glenn Beck, Kate Beckinsale. I’m always getting those two confused.

One problem with 24/7 news coverage is that a tiny, off-year election receives the same amount of coverage as a major election. To justify blanket coverage, the talking heads must attribute major importance to the results. Whatever.

One race that received too little attention yielded the third term of Mikey Bloomberg as New York’s mayor. He’s held that office for eight years, during which the highlights seem to be restrictive social measures on diet and smoking that make San Francisco seem like a picnic. New York City is not doing well, with high unemployment, lower revenues and a $5 billion budget deficit, yet he was able to change the term limit law, so he could run again. Despite the billionaire spending over $90 million of his own money, over ten times his opponent’s expenditure, Bloomberg got a mere 51% of Tuesday’s vote.

I read that he may be weakened enough to “empower the left” to challenge his agenda. Really? His agenda is to cut crime by 15%, make the city’s schools the nation’s best and build the “largest affordable housing system” in the US by 2013. Hard to believe any leftist would oppose those lofty goals. Well, maybe Mark Lloyd.  

Just when I thought I’d seen everything, here is absolute, unbelievably total fuckery.

The overpaid California legislature’s stop-gap measure to balance the budget:

1) Withholding taxes will rise by 10%. It’s not a tax increase, it’s a loan. Taxpayers can get back their own money (with no interest) when they file next year.
2) In addition, the personal income tax rate increases temporarily by 0.25%, expiring at the end of 2010. (Unless it is extended.)

Returning to 1), the state is borrowing a few dollars from every worker’s pay check. A loan cannot be initiated by the borrower without the lender’s consent, at least until now.  This scam subverts the reason for payroll deductions, which is to disguise the amount of tax paid by spreading it out over the year.

I don’t know about you, but sometimes I’ve needed a few extra dollars at no interest to make ends meet. Maybe I missed California’s offer to loan me money.

The Franchise Tax Board should be forced to accept IOUs for the confiscated money.

What scumbags!

Gotta hate ‘em.

P.S. Thanks Governor, for all those fabulous jobs you promised us.  You got yours.  Where are ours?