Monday, September 29, 2008

Might it Might or Might it Not?

I came by a communication that was startling - but because of the addressees, I cannot show the content, not even passages, without potentially revealing my source. I can give approximate flow of the framework.

~~~~~
Wed 01 Oct - late afternoon, clampdown on all SP communications before 5pm Eastern. By 6pm, transport out of all view.

Wed 01 Oct - 9pm Eastern, JL will appear on FOX to tell how moving and 'substantial' the entire [and make the plans expansive] wedding. Emphasize 'forming a family' 'missing older brother' 'transition to adulthood' 'prepare for overwhelming responsibilities parenting' 'tenuous pregnancy with health challenges' drop any all, build rhythm. 10pm, MR on CBS interview about sanctity of marriage, taking it seriously.

Thu 02 Oct - 1030am Eastern - leak to Plain Dealer that there may be a family event happening. KC Star, hint SP may have a noon or 1pm Eastern announcement - no questions.
~~~~~

I am not free to explain more. these are not the actual contents, but are extrapolated from the actual text. What is shown amounts to about 35%-40% of what I was shown. I was allowed to touch the document, read the entire page, but not copy it. I have years of working with full email headers and these looked extraordinarily real.

I do not have enough to say firmly, but I will be watching the Plain Dealer and the Star as well as Fox and CBS live and websites.

Do as you need to do.

-jb

Saturday, September 27, 2008

One Debate Down

So you understand my perspective, I watch virtually all of both conventions, virtually every primary debate for both (or all) parties, and all the presidential and vice presidential debates during the campaign. I expect a lot from both parties and almost always feel disappointed by each party. This is just how I feel about politics as it is practiced in our country these days.

This submission will do two things today. First, I will say what I like about debates and second, I will share what I dislike most about debates. I think that what I share will be examplar of what I think of the campaign process.

  • I Like: I particularly like seeing candidates respond when it is clear that they need to 'think on their feet' - when a question is not too well rehearsed and requires the development of an actual idea and the words to express the idea.
  • I Dislike: I particularly dislike attacks or negative comparisons. An utterance that begins with "Unlike my opponent, who is in favor of people starving ..." has lost my respect immediately. And a statement like "My opponent can not possibly be [reasonable, patriotic, American, believed, or ...], but I can" turns me off.

So, last night, who best thought on their feet? I thought both candidates did well at quick thinking. I did think Senator McCain sometimes went to the well of History too often. I wish he would frame talk of Viet Nam era events in the light of ill-concieved and badly-administered war. I could never dimish the cost the senator paid, but that cost was not a down payment on the presidency. If that were the case, fellow-hero Jeremiah Denton may be in line with or even ahead of John McCain.

I thought that mainly based on his speaking ability, Senator Obama was very ableto think on his feet - to the surprise of few. However, I wish that the senator had capitalized on his opportunity by being able to dive to specifics. I am still a fan of the pre-"Change" mantra, "Hope", and wish there were more specifics of plans that will bring Hope. We have all endured eight recent years punctuated with fear and hate. Others may not, but I certainly need release from fear and hate and I need a reason to hope.

In the area of my dislikes, I think both senators launched attacks. But, I believe that Senator McCain did more and 'lower' attacks - and he did them in a manner that infers he is more patriotic than Senator Obama.

So, how can a candidate 'fight back', you might ask? What I consider to be a 'fair' fight-back happened when SenatorMcCain used a segment form his stub speech where he indicates a bracelet (from the mother of a deceased soldier) that he wears in honor of a fallen soldier - with his promise to the mother to not let her son have died in vain. Later, Senator Obama indicated that he, too, wore the bracelet for a fallen soldier - a bracelet also given by a mother, with the plea to not let anothe mother go through what she was going through.

So, all in all, I think the debate was essentially a technical tie. But on tie-breakers, Obama was more 'Presidential' by being less petty. And, the real victory might turn out to be that Senator Obama appeared to undecideds like a very reasonable and intelligent human, equally patriotic, that cares about his country just as much as Senator McCain, even if through differing strategies.

Bottom line. Become informed, get registered, and vote VOTE VOTE!

-jb

Sunday, September 21, 2008

If A Bowling Ball Fell Out Of John McCain

If a bowling ball fell out of John McCain, and it had a note attached, written in lipstick, signed by Thomas Jefferson himself, telling me to vote for McCain/Palin - I'd write my own note back to my friend Thomas telling him to get his head examined. And then send the bowling ball back.

That's the view from here. And Whutt a view it is.
-GW

Note:
Today's comment is sent by my friend Guss Whutt and is not intended to be taken seriously. Seriously, this is so.
-jb

Thursday, September 18, 2008

What Does It Really Cost YOU??

Like you, I have been sitting listening to the news mention various bailouts, loans, and other prop-ups to mismanaged companies, purportedly to help or save our economy or even that of the world.

Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, FHA ... you have heard it also. I felt that I needed to do some math to see what was really happening. It was an eye-opener!

According to the 2000 census, there are 105 million households in the US. Each household represents an average 2.6 persons. So things will change if you have 3 kids or if you are single, but start your calculations with these estimates.

I started by wondering what it meant when I heard the word "Billion." So I divided one billion by 105 million and computed that every 'Billion' actually means a real $9.52 to your household.

I was onto something, and looked up what has been reported in the government rescue funds for the Wall St. fat-cats. (Please note, that reports vary and I chose not to fight the noise and took the first source I found that showed all five companies: Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and FHA.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/18/news/economy/bailout_tally_taxpayer/index.htm

[COMPANY] [PROP-UP (in Billions)]
Bear Stearns 29
Fannie 200
Freddie 200
AIG 85
FHA 300

Then I added the prop-ups and applied YOUR $9.52 to see that we have spent, loaned, or committed $814,000,000,000 and that means $7,752.38 of your household's money. Feel like coughing that up tomorrow? Next week, month, or maybe next year?

This is a single big bill, but I went on to wonder about something else: Iraq.

There are conflicting numbers of $10-12 Billion per month spent in Iraq. (SUPPORT the troops, this is not about the troops, this is about your household monies!)

Every month that we spend $10 Billion, your household is being indebted to the tune of $95.24 and if it is $12 Billion, your bill is 114.29 per month! That means that your annual bill for Iraq is $1,142.86 to $1,371.43.

Makes a person think that they actually have a tangible part in these happenings.

Peace someday.
-jb

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Open Question to Obama/Biden Ticket

Gentlemen, Last week I asked some questions to the GOP ticket and this week it is your turn. This will have to be quite short, so you will temporarily receive brief questions and I will come back and edit them by adding more context dialog, expanding on the questions to be fair with both parties.

1. With all the financial 'bailing out' such as with Fannie and Freddie, should not someone go to jail? My question is who and why?

2. The last 8 years has seen drastic erosion in several of the Rights we have expected from our Bill of Rights. Which will you completely restore to us, when and why? Which will you not restore completely, and why?

3. Will you make an absolute public stand against any and all torture, and live up to it?

4. We have a large group of 'detainees' - I want them to get justice and if guilty be punished. When will this happen?

As I said, I will expand and expound on these questions, but this is probably sufficient to get some answers...

-jb

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Seriously not funny

While you might find it amusing, it is not a bit funny.

-jb

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Nationalized Medicine, WHUTTT !?!?!

I got into a conversation with a couple just the other day and when I mentioned that I am probably going to vote for one candidate over the other, the lady asked "Are you really in favor of nationalized medicine?"

I took a moment, I am sure I looked at her quizzically, and responded that I was totally unaware of any candidate from either party proposing nationalized medicine.

What followed was a brief, but fruitful, discussion of medical care philosophies.

I am not an expert, but I hope to have enough expertise to vote well in November. However, in my understanding, 'nationalized medicine' is the situation where all medical providers (doctors, nurses, technicians, etc) actually work for the government - more specifically, in 'nationalized' systems they would work for the Federal government.

It is my understanding that what is proposed as the health care reforms is actually 'insurance reform.' That is, steps will be taken such that insurers will not be allowed to refuse to cover the 47,000,000 individuals they refuse to cover today. In addition, for the highest-risk patients, a government pool will be established to fund part of the costs of their relatively more expensive health insurance and care.

Now, I will be the first to acknowledge that forcing insurers to cover everyone is interfering to some degree with free enterprise. It is exactly equivalent to the situation if states forced auto insurers to offer liability coverage to all car owners, even if they are high-risk drivers.

WHOA! Wait! Every state already DOES require insurers to offer insurance to all drivers. But we don't have 'nationalized auto ownership' or 'nationalized accident repairs' or 'nationalized body shops' to the best of my knowledge.

I am one of those people that cannot get insurance on my own. And even when I get it through employment, I pay about $1600 per month! Because of past health issues and present chronic conditions, insurers won't insure me. I have to pay exorbitant rates to try to reduce my risk of bankruptcy at the hands of medical bills. Medical bills are teh number one cause of bankruptcy claims!

No, I do not want nationalized health, I want a fair shake at being assured the chance of obtaining affordable health insurance and only one candidate offers that to me today.

-jb

Friday, September 5, 2008

Open Letter to the McCain/Palin Ticket

Open Letter to the McCain/Palin Ticket

At this point I will not be voting for your ticket, but I want to leave open some questions that will give you the option of removing my concerns and allowing me to reconsider my vote. These are in no prioritized order, simply a list of important concerns in a random order.

1. Mostly for Governor Palin, but a concern for you both - I worry about the issue of those who would ban books. I worry about any censorship in my home (or community services like libraries), when that censorship comes from others outside my home. I do not want to argue one book or another, ANY book should not be banned, burned, or suppressed. If I choose to read or not read "The Catcher In The Rye", this is up to me. I absolutely refuse to force someone else to read any book, it is not my place. But, I also absolutely refuse to accept someone else banning a book for me, it is not their place. This is not a qualitative statement or negotiable. An assurance that "The Catcher In The Rye" is not on a target list is not adequate. NO book should be banned. Nazi's burned books and I have an openly acknowledged prejudice that I view all book burners as resembling Nazis. So, Senator and Governor, can you assure me that voting for you would result in a constitutional philosophy I could live with?

2. A famous Republican was quoted as promising to 'get government off our backs.' I basically think this is a good ideal to work toward. However, I have concerns that come from both of you about what it means to get off my back. I have heard that both of you would limit (or even ban?) birth control medicines and devices. Specifically, I have heard that both of you would move to limit or ban condom use, even among married couples.

Now, I am very worried that it appears you may condone climbing into my bedroom in spite of, or because of, the concept of 'getting government off my back.' I fail to see how banning birth control gets government off my back. Does the ticket have any wisdom to impart to me about how I will personally be better served by a ban on birth control medicine and devices?

3. I am extraordinarily worried about the condition of our national security as it is portrayed by your ticket. I hear repeatedly from your ticket that 'the Surge worked and that your opponent refuses to acknowledge this.' You would think it would be a stretch that this makes me worry about national security. But my concern is the interpretation of 'success.' My memory is that the Surge was designed to accomplish a reduction in the violence and thirteen (13) major points, like agreement on sharing oil profits, local elections, some very specific legal actions, etc.

These 13 points were determined to be essential to the effort of the Surge and actually having impact on our national security. It is my understanding, that your ticket has completely abandoned those 13 points. This makes me concerned for your ticket's tenacity in following up on our national security. Your opponent has freely admitted that the violence was reduced by the Surge, but views the other 13 points that have not been successfully addressed as constituting important influences on our national security. When future lists of national security objectives are defined, will meeting just one or just some of the listed objectives be all it takes to satisfy your administration?

What can you tell me to help me better understand your ticket's commitment to national security?

4. Probably mostly for Senator McCain, but also Governor Palin to some extent: The final concern I have to request help understanding is about the economy in general and specifically about health care. I do not feel that you understand what it is like to have health care not be available to me, today. I am not talking about the end of the next administration, I mean today. I do not mean tomorrow or next week. I have chronic issues that need to be managed and I have waited for years and years and heard Presidents say, we will fix the market and it will happen. It hasn't happened. It has gotten worse. In the early 90's it was a serious problem when over 15 million people were without adequate health care and we have reduced that number to 47 million today! WHAT!?!?

Waiting for the market to adjust and for insurance companies and health care providers to do the right thing has not worked for the last 16 years. I have NO belief that it will work any time soon. Senator, you are covered by Medicare, VA, and Congressional health plans. If I lose my job, I will be bankrupt. This is a disconnect and I do not see how you can possibly understand - or care about - my situation.

What can your ticket tell me that will help me feel that a vote for you on November 4th will improve my situation on January 20th?

I am sincere in stating that I do not believe that either ticket will substantially help with my concerns on January 20th, 2009. But I will listen to both tickets. I intend to write a similar open letter to the Democratic ticket next week.

-jb