So that day has come upon us again.
Once again, I find myself wanting to hide and stay away from the onslaught of social media, urging me to "Never Forget", as if I could. It certainly is not my intent to tell everyone or anyone not to commemorate this day, nor is this meant to insult the memory of anyone we lost or anyone who wishes to look back and contemplate the events of the day. Like many other days, events, or experiences in life, this is personal to each of us and one that should be observed as one wishes. If you believe that we should "Never Forget" and that the meaning of this day is that we should be patriotic on this day, then by all means, that is your right, and I will not try one bit to prevent anyone from doing so.
As for me, I don't want to forget, but I don't want to be awash in the tidal wave of "patriotism" that images of the towers, first responders, weeping statues of liberty and bald eagles can rain down upon me in a single day.
For three hundred and sixty-four days a year, we face a continuous torrent of hate postings calling all of us anti-american, haters, bigots, etc., simply because we have some basic disagreements over how we should be governed, over our form of government, over how we approach basic decency between us. Much of this comes from our so called leaders and television commentators who all get way more attention than they deserve. I admit that I am probably as much a part of that onslaught for a good many people on the right. That being said, we come together for twenty-four hours a year because somebody else attacked us.
We don't seem to come together so much when it is a commemoration of when we attacked ourselves. Please note we do not come together April 19 every year. What is April 19? In case you forgot, that is the day of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by "one of us". We also do not seem to go into a national catharsis every year on December 14, which is the date "one of us" shot up Sandy Hook Elementary School. That day was not even enough to get a package of common sense gun control legislation passed.
We also do not seem to come together so much when it comes to upholding decent human rights and dignities in this country. It is worth remembering that the atrocities that occurred on September 11, 2001 were not perpetrated by every single Muslim in the world. It is also worth remembering that there are any number of persons in this country who are just as American as anyone else, but either look different, sound different, worship a different god than you do, love somebody you personally would not fall in love with and live a lifestyle you do not want for yourself.
On this day, and every other day, they are just as American as you are.
On this day, they hurt just as much as you do.
On this day, they remember too.
So on this day, as I search for something to say, as if I or anyone else really has to, I come back to what I wrote and posted on Facebook as the tenth anniversary of that day approached. It seems just as valid to me today as it did then:
"i was downtown at my office four blocks from the world trade center that day. i watched the second plane hit. i watched from my office as the first tower fell, and received word that the second tower fell while in the bomb shelter of the building. the attendant at the parking lot and i brushed a couple of inches of building dust and probable human remains off my car so i could drive home. at each corner was a national guardsman with rifles pointed straight at us. i don't intend to watch all the 9/11 hullabaloo tomorrow. i would like to spend a quiet day of reflection and relaxation, while not having the day shoved down my throat. i've had enough. i hope that doesn't make me a bad person".
God bless everyone one of those who we lost on that day, and may this be the year we finally remember each other with kindness and respect the other three hundred and sixty-four days of the year.
Monday, September 11, 2017
Friday, August 25, 2017
impeach him or remove him from office NOW.
On the morning after the election, I wrote:
"While I accept the results of elections and he is going to be the president whether I like it or not, I for one cannot yet bring myself to even say his name right now. My hope is that he can show me something very soon so that I can. Believe it or not, I hope he can show me something so that I can actually become proud that he is our president".
In spite of what you may have read from what I have written here and elsewhere, I truly believed what I had written at the time. I truly hoped that with the campaign behind him, he would turn to governing, and that the immensity of the task would transform him from histrionic race baiting, misogynistic, etc. campaigner into something presidential and worthy of calling a leader.
Today, I surrender.
I am not going to get into the campaign complete with the pussy grabbing nonsense, the race baiting, and his refusal to state whether or not he would be willing to accept the result of the election if he lost. The mere fact that he refuses to let go of the fact that he did not win the popular vote tells you he would, in fact, have willingly created a potential constitutional crisis if he had, in fact, lost the electoral college vote.
I am not going to get into the nearly all male lily white cabinet of curiosities he created to drain the swamp, including a collection of people who were primarily unqualified for the position appointed, including one who outright said he was not qualified for any position in the cabinet and then accepted a nomination to the position he now holds the very next day. So we have a secretary of state who had no prior government or foreign policy experience, matched by a U.N. Ambassador who also had not foreign policy experience. We have a secretary of education who does not believe in public education, but does believe we need guns in schools to protect the children from grizzly bear attacks. We have a secretary of energy, who when he can remember the name of the agency he now heads, has no degree or experience in nuclear energy or arms, which he now presides over. We have a secretary of the interior who has apparently discovered that a comprehensive study of national monuments he intends to remove from the protected list of national monuments can be conducted while smooching with his wife somewhere in the Greek Islands. We now have a head of the environmental protection agency who believes he can protect the environment by removing every environmental regulation he can find. What he does not believe in is climate change, leaving us in grand company with Syria and Nicaragua upon our withdrawal from the Paris Accords.
Etc.
No I am not going to get into that.
I am not going to get into the fact that in seven short months, he has denigrated the value of the United States of America to the point where North Korea... NORTH KOREA... is talking and acting in terms that are being taken seriously as amounting to a threat of war against this country. He is openly talking about starting a nuclear war with a peanut dictator, a war that considering the alliances of various countries involved, could thrust us almost instantly into a mass global nuclear event. There is no indication whatsoever that he has given any thought to the consequences of his words or his actions that have either led to this moment or could follow his pushing the button.
I am not going to get into the fact that he cannot control himself to the point that his closest advisors have apparently given up on advising him to stay away from twitter. I firmly believe in the first amendment, but would support legislation forbidding any president from posting ANYTHING other than perhaps directions for the public in the case of a national emergency on twitter.
I am not going to get into the fact that he violates the emoluments clause of the constitution daily via refusing to divest himself of his businesses or place them in a truly blind trust, while at the same time charging the government for offices in his buildings, rooms in his hotels, etc. We will not even get into the nepotism involved in appointing family members to government position, who have no business being near any governmental position of authority.
I am not going to get into the fact that he can routinely denigrate in schoolyard terms anyone who has the temerity to oppose him, to the point where it can now reasonably be said that there will be no significant legislation of any kind that can be expected to be passed for the foreseeable future for the simple fact that he cannot get anyone in congress to work with him. It takes a special kind of talent to get Mitch McConnell, whom I have previously called the worst person in the world, to no longer be on speaking terms with you.
On the other hand, while he can routinely excoriate people, who unlike himself or anyone in his family, have spent their entire careers in public service, even if you do not agree with their politics, he cannot seem to unequivocally bring himself to condemn nazis, white supremacists and the ku klux klan. You would think this is the easiest thing he would ever have to do; however, I have no doubt that I could get my cats to issue a clear condemnation of the nazis, white supremacists and the ku klux klan before I could get him to do it, and then not backtrack on his words the next day. And I would not even have to offer the cats the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake you ever saw.
I am not going to get into the fact that he apparently has never seen a fact he cannot lie about. You have to wonder about the state of the presidency when it reaches the point where you can tell the president has said a lie simply because his lips are moving.
No, I am not going to get into any of this, even though he has turned us into the laughing stock of the world from all of the above and more.
I am simply going to point to today.
1. He has brought us to the brink of war with North Korea, while at the same time increasing the number of troops dedicated to the quagmire in Afghanistan without any apparent strategy for how that is going to end this abomination, other than his assurance that we are in it to win it, which is about the same strategy I have used in the past in playing the lottery. Hint, I have not yet won, but inspired by the president, next week, I will spend more money to play more numbers. In the mean time, while he is bringing us further into war, for no real reason I can discern, today, he actually signed that order disqualifying transgenders from military service. He can point to nothing at all that shows that patriotic persons who happen to be transgender cannot serve ably and honorably. Instead, he hides behind the canard that unidentified generals have told him they cannot absorb the cost of gender transition surgery that obviously all transgenders are using the military to obtain. I assume I will be seeing an executive order shortly banning the military from spending any money on viagra.
The bottom line on this is that at a time, when he is ramping up military adventure, he is reducing those eligible and who are otherwise qualified to serve. In other words, he is deliberately setting us up to have a weakened military in a time of war.
In my book, that is treason.
2. He has pardoned a man, who is about as disgusting a figure in public life to come along in decades, not waiting for the courts to issue their final verdict in the form of a sentence upon him. It appears quite possible that this pardon comes simply because the man supported his candidacy early and never wavered in his support. You can support the policies of Joe Arpaio if you want. It is certainly your right. He was not convicted of any such policies. He was convicted and found in criminal contempt of repeatedly ignoring federal court orders. You cannot ignore or support this. This is a country built upon the rule of law. Without respect for the law, we are no better than any tinpot dictator in any banana republic, including North Korea.
And now, I am hearing and reading about talk that he is looking for ways to pardon himself, his family, friends and cronies from anything to do with Russia and Robert Mueller's investigation.
So in one single day, putting aside all the other nonsense since January 20, he has weakened the military simply due to the fact that he can't stand transgender people for no logical reason, and undermined the rule of law in this country.
I said on November 9, 2016 that I could not bring myself to state his name. Now I can.
DONALD J. TRUMP IS A MONSTER. HE IS A MENACE TO THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE DEMOCRACY WE SEEK TO SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
DONALD J. TRUMP MUST BE STOPPED, AND THE SOONER THE BETTER.
DONALD J. TRUMP MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR THE GOOD OF THIS COUNTRY, AND FOR THE GOOD OF THE WORLD.
HE MUST BE IMPEACHED OR REMOVED VIA THE TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT.
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT ANY LONGER.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???
With apologies to my mother, who does not like when we use certain language in describing events and feelings here on line...
We now know precisely how sincere his statement was yesterday. It took only a day to walk it back. It will take a lifetime to walk back our moral standing in the world. In the mean time, where do the rest of us go to protect ourselves from the monstrosity that occupies the White House and the under the surface evil he has unleashed.
We are back to there are bad people on all sides. Ok, there are bad people on all sides. How many bad people on the left yelled nazi slogans in Charlottesville? How many bad people on the left were there with a published purpose to let the world know that Jews, Blacks, Immigrants, Gays, Transgenders or anyone "who does not look like us" does not belong? How many bad people on the left ran down the good folk on the right with their cars, killing and maiming along the way? How many bad people on the left put those good little nazis on the right in hospitals?
But they were just protesting the removal of statues and renaming of a park. Never mind that the statues were offensive to a very large percentage of the citizens of this country, many of those offended not being Jews, Blacks, Immigrants, Gays, Transgenders or anyone "who does not look like us". Where does it stop, he wants to know.
No, it does not stop at Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson. I may not have taken all the history classes at Penn, where I am ashamed to say he also attended, but if I search the back of my mind, I seem to recall something along the lines of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson being generals in an army that fought against the United States in the Civil War. They were Americans who fought against their own country. Translation -- they were traitors. Worse, they committed treason against this country. Last I looked, we did not erect statues and celebrate treason and traitors.
Yes, it does stop short of George Washington. Last I looked, he was and is still called the father of this country. He fought to establish this country, not to tear it apart. I know you did not major in history at Penn, but I would have thought this knowledge was a basic requirement to entrance at the university.
This false equivalence is bad enough, but he used it to try to justify the behavior of nazis.
Think about that for a second.
The president of the United States just tried to justify the behavior of nazis.
NAZIS.
Holy shit.
He just tried to justify the behavior of nazis in this country, just barely a generation after THE greatest generation, of which I am sure he tries to think himself a part of, fought and died in a war to defeat nazis and save the free world. Since that war, more than a generation has lived by "NEVER AGAIN". When a list of the worst people in the history of the world is compiled, Hitler, the leader of the nazis, is always at the top. There are countries in the world where just being a nazi is a crime. That's how bad it is.
But according to this jerk, "there were many very fine people from both sides in the crowd".
I suppose those were the ones yelling "Jew will never replace us", because we know that the Jews had everything to do with the South being on the losing end of the Civil War, which led to the erection of the statue being taken down and the renaming of that park that all those very fine people were "concerned" about.
I may have missed the class that he apparently took at Penn where we were taught that the nazi salute was a call to arms for all the good people of the confederacy, and has since morphed into a source of cultural pride for them. Maybe that's what those very fine people were there remembering.
Or maybe those very fine people were the ones walking around in white shirts with symbols of the old South emblazoned over their hearts, carrying tiki torches to remind everyone of the good old days when those lovable louts from the Klan rode into town all robed up and with torches so they could lynch the nearest uppity nigger. Ah the history. Ah the nostalgia.
Here's a clue for the clueless.
THERE ARE NO VERY FINE NAZIS. THERE ARE NO VERY FINE GRAND WIZARDS OF THE KKK. THERE ARE NO VERY FINE BLOOD AND SOILERS. THOSE "VERY FINE FOLKS" ARE NOT BIDING THEIR TIME WAITING FOR THE RIGHT MOMENT TO CONVINCE EVERYONE ELSE THAT THEIR COMRADE REALLY DID NOT MEAN IT WHEN HE PUSHED US INTO THE OVENS, HUNG US FROM THE TREES ON THE EDGE OF TOWN, OR JUST SHOT US AND BURIED OUR REMAINS IN EARTHEN DAMS OUT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE.
Just because your daughter married a Jew does not make you one of us. It also does not make you tolerant. Some of the worst anti-semites, racists, etc., try to convince you that they are not who they really are because they "have a friend who is a (fill in the blank)". I am sure Ivanka loves her husband. That does not make you a true friend of any Jew on this planet, other than perhaps your son in law.
Let me clue you in further.
YOU ARE NOT ONE OF US. YOU WILL NEVER BE ONE OF US.
There is no Jew who can now morally claim any part of their heritage and embrace you. The same goes for people of color, women, gays, transgenders, immigrants, Native Americans, anyone who does not look like you, most people who do look like you, and anyone who has a brain and a heart.
You have ceded the moral ground permanently. For crying out loud, the leader of fucking GERMANY, the birthplace of the nazis, came out with the appropriate statement. She came out quickly, and without the need to be told it was the right thing to do.
The president of this country is supposed to be our moral compass. We now have no compass, no rudder, no steering wheel, no navigational system. We do, however, have all those good nazis and klansman who prevented an all out massacre last weekend, and their cheerleader in the white house.
We also have a congress who can now not avoid their moral and constitutional duty to this country to get this menace away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as fast as their grubby little minds can move him.
Until then, God help us all.
We now know precisely how sincere his statement was yesterday. It took only a day to walk it back. It will take a lifetime to walk back our moral standing in the world. In the mean time, where do the rest of us go to protect ourselves from the monstrosity that occupies the White House and the under the surface evil he has unleashed.
We are back to there are bad people on all sides. Ok, there are bad people on all sides. How many bad people on the left yelled nazi slogans in Charlottesville? How many bad people on the left were there with a published purpose to let the world know that Jews, Blacks, Immigrants, Gays, Transgenders or anyone "who does not look like us" does not belong? How many bad people on the left ran down the good folk on the right with their cars, killing and maiming along the way? How many bad people on the left put those good little nazis on the right in hospitals?
But they were just protesting the removal of statues and renaming of a park. Never mind that the statues were offensive to a very large percentage of the citizens of this country, many of those offended not being Jews, Blacks, Immigrants, Gays, Transgenders or anyone "who does not look like us". Where does it stop, he wants to know.
No, it does not stop at Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson. I may not have taken all the history classes at Penn, where I am ashamed to say he also attended, but if I search the back of my mind, I seem to recall something along the lines of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson being generals in an army that fought against the United States in the Civil War. They were Americans who fought against their own country. Translation -- they were traitors. Worse, they committed treason against this country. Last I looked, we did not erect statues and celebrate treason and traitors.
Yes, it does stop short of George Washington. Last I looked, he was and is still called the father of this country. He fought to establish this country, not to tear it apart. I know you did not major in history at Penn, but I would have thought this knowledge was a basic requirement to entrance at the university.
This false equivalence is bad enough, but he used it to try to justify the behavior of nazis.
Think about that for a second.
The president of the United States just tried to justify the behavior of nazis.
NAZIS.
Holy shit.
He just tried to justify the behavior of nazis in this country, just barely a generation after THE greatest generation, of which I am sure he tries to think himself a part of, fought and died in a war to defeat nazis and save the free world. Since that war, more than a generation has lived by "NEVER AGAIN". When a list of the worst people in the history of the world is compiled, Hitler, the leader of the nazis, is always at the top. There are countries in the world where just being a nazi is a crime. That's how bad it is.
But according to this jerk, "there were many very fine people from both sides in the crowd".
I suppose those were the ones yelling "Jew will never replace us", because we know that the Jews had everything to do with the South being on the losing end of the Civil War, which led to the erection of the statue being taken down and the renaming of that park that all those very fine people were "concerned" about.
I may have missed the class that he apparently took at Penn where we were taught that the nazi salute was a call to arms for all the good people of the confederacy, and has since morphed into a source of cultural pride for them. Maybe that's what those very fine people were there remembering.
Or maybe those very fine people were the ones walking around in white shirts with symbols of the old South emblazoned over their hearts, carrying tiki torches to remind everyone of the good old days when those lovable louts from the Klan rode into town all robed up and with torches so they could lynch the nearest uppity nigger. Ah the history. Ah the nostalgia.
Here's a clue for the clueless.
THERE ARE NO VERY FINE NAZIS. THERE ARE NO VERY FINE GRAND WIZARDS OF THE KKK. THERE ARE NO VERY FINE BLOOD AND SOILERS. THOSE "VERY FINE FOLKS" ARE NOT BIDING THEIR TIME WAITING FOR THE RIGHT MOMENT TO CONVINCE EVERYONE ELSE THAT THEIR COMRADE REALLY DID NOT MEAN IT WHEN HE PUSHED US INTO THE OVENS, HUNG US FROM THE TREES ON THE EDGE OF TOWN, OR JUST SHOT US AND BURIED OUR REMAINS IN EARTHEN DAMS OUT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE.
Just because your daughter married a Jew does not make you one of us. It also does not make you tolerant. Some of the worst anti-semites, racists, etc., try to convince you that they are not who they really are because they "have a friend who is a (fill in the blank)". I am sure Ivanka loves her husband. That does not make you a true friend of any Jew on this planet, other than perhaps your son in law.
Let me clue you in further.
YOU ARE NOT ONE OF US. YOU WILL NEVER BE ONE OF US.
There is no Jew who can now morally claim any part of their heritage and embrace you. The same goes for people of color, women, gays, transgenders, immigrants, Native Americans, anyone who does not look like you, most people who do look like you, and anyone who has a brain and a heart.
You have ceded the moral ground permanently. For crying out loud, the leader of fucking GERMANY, the birthplace of the nazis, came out with the appropriate statement. She came out quickly, and without the need to be told it was the right thing to do.
The president of this country is supposed to be our moral compass. We now have no compass, no rudder, no steering wheel, no navigational system. We do, however, have all those good nazis and klansman who prevented an all out massacre last weekend, and their cheerleader in the white house.
We also have a congress who can now not avoid their moral and constitutional duty to this country to get this menace away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as fast as their grubby little minds can move him.
Until then, God help us all.
Monday, August 14, 2017
white domestic terrorists
I posted this one originally in my own name. I repost it here.
I do not care if your daughter takes a few seconds out of her very busy day to tweet out a condemnation of white supremecists and nazis as domestic terrorists.
I do not care if you send your minions to the sunday morning talk shows to tell the world that "of course" you condemn white supremecists and nazis as domestic terrorists.
I do not care if the vice-president is willing to be your sychophant once again and blame the press for your ongoing failures by pointing out that "of course" you condemn white supremecists and nazis as domestic terrorists.
Frankly, I do not even care if your wife comes out and says the right thing, even if she could only do it by plagerizing Michelle Obama yet again. At least she tried.
You are the president, the so called leader of the so called greatest nation on earth.
You are the leader of the free world.
You have sworn an oath to protect the constitution and the people of this country. That means everybody. All the citizens. All the immigrants, all the tourists, anyone here peacefully, and yes even those who came here illegally, but are simply trying to make a new life for their families without breaking any other laws.
We need to hear it from you, and not when you hide behind the anonymity of a tweet.
Go in front of the cameras. Look us in the eye. Do not read a script written by somebody else, or even by you for that matter.
YOU ARE THE FREAKIN' LEADER OF THIS COUNTRY. LOOK US IN THE EYE.
As you said to Hilary and President Obama -- call it what it is.
SAY THE WORDS.
It won't take long. Maybe a few seconds. As i used to tell my sons when they were little and had misbehaved, I do not even care if you do not mean a single word of it, just say it.
Look into the camera and talk to us. Don't send somebody else to do it for you. It does not mean the same thing when it is not said by the president himself. Don't hide behind a tweet. Say it. Say the words.
"I CONDEMN WHITE SUPREMECISTS, NEO-NAZI, RACIST, ANTI-SEMITIC DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN OUR SOCIETY, AND AS YOUR PRESIDENT, I WILL WORK WITH YOU TO RID THIS NATION AND THIS WORLD OF THIS SCOURGE".
Practice it a few times. Go in front of the camera and take the ten or fifteen seconds it takes to say it slowly, pronouncing each word properly. Do not make a face while saying it. Do not roll your eyes. Do not add anything else.
Say it.
Because until you do, you are part of the problem.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
my son
Allow me to introduce my son, Jeremy Michael Graber.
Jeremy is the kind of son most of us can only dream of having. He is a kind, loving and charitable young man. He gives without question and without thought to himself, seeking only to help those who cannot otherwise help themselves. He has set up and run a number of charities and charitable events which seek to assist those in his community in need. He has served this country in the military and is an honorably discharged veteran. He is a paramedic, meaning that he is still out there on the front lines everyday rendering assistance, and not seeking any kind of recognition in return.
And he is the kind of person our president and our attorney general care so much about that they would deny him basic rights they would readily grant to themselves, their families and their friends. The guy in the Oval Office and the guy heading up the Justice Department may not care very much for each other at the moment, but they are united in their hatred of my son, a person they have never met.
You see, Jeremy does not fit into their vision of what a "real man" is supposed to be.
Jeremy prefers to go by the name "Remi". It is what all his friends and his partner call him. He prefers this name because he prefers his lifestyle, and he believes the name fits his lifestyle better. Jeremy prefers not to have any kind of gender identification. He does not refer to himself in the masculine or the feminine, and members of his lifestyle community prefer the same. I do not confess to understand his lifestyle or that of his community. There are certain aspects of it that I find rather strange; however, it is his chosen lifestyle, and as far as I can see, that lifestyle does not hurt anybody in any manner whatsoever. Within his community he is well respected to the point of downright admiration, and most importantly, appears to be loved by all. Who am I to disrespect or disapprove of his choice in life?
Yet, because Jeremy does not believe that he should be identified by any particular gender, the commander-in-chief would deny him the right to serve in our military, even though he already has honorably served. Perhaps you did not notice, but on the same day he could not stop the urge to tweet, his Justice Department, headed by his favorite attorney general announced that they would be seeking to end protections afforded to transgender individuals under federal housing and federal workplace discrimination laws. In other words, if either of these fine gentleman were to suffer a heart attack while they were in the jurisdiction where Jeremy works, they would expect him to show up in his ambulance and save their lives without questioning or giving thought to who they are; however, when he returned to his base, they would allow his employer to fire him simply because of who he is and for no other reason. When he then returned home to tell his partner what had happened, from their hospital beds while a recuperating after Jeremy saved their lives, they both would allow Jeremy's landlord to kick them out, once again for the sole reason of being who they are.
It would not matter to the president or the attorney general that he had just saved their lives.
It would not matter to either of them that he had served this country honorably.
It would not matter to either of them that he is a person, who in spite of limited wealth and means has probably given more in his lifetime than either of them combined, and I am not referring to money.
It would not matter to them that he is presently in the midst of a campaign to establish yet another charity, "Not 1 More". The project was conceived after the Pulse nightclub shootings last year. It is designed to provide protections to vulnerable members of the LGBTQ community, not that our president or our attorney general would care. Check it out under his facebook page. I know two who live in Washington who won't.
All that would matter to these two cretins is that Jeremy does not gender self-identify, as if that is any of their business, and once in a while, in spite of the fact that the doctor who was present at birth yelled, "It's a boy!" when he was born, he prefers to wear a dress. His parents don't care. Why do they?
So in the end, I find myself asking one question:
Of the president, the attorney general, and my Remi, which one or more is the real deviant?
Jeremy is the kind of son most of us can only dream of having. He is a kind, loving and charitable young man. He gives without question and without thought to himself, seeking only to help those who cannot otherwise help themselves. He has set up and run a number of charities and charitable events which seek to assist those in his community in need. He has served this country in the military and is an honorably discharged veteran. He is a paramedic, meaning that he is still out there on the front lines everyday rendering assistance, and not seeking any kind of recognition in return.
And he is the kind of person our president and our attorney general care so much about that they would deny him basic rights they would readily grant to themselves, their families and their friends. The guy in the Oval Office and the guy heading up the Justice Department may not care very much for each other at the moment, but they are united in their hatred of my son, a person they have never met.
You see, Jeremy does not fit into their vision of what a "real man" is supposed to be.
Jeremy prefers to go by the name "Remi". It is what all his friends and his partner call him. He prefers this name because he prefers his lifestyle, and he believes the name fits his lifestyle better. Jeremy prefers not to have any kind of gender identification. He does not refer to himself in the masculine or the feminine, and members of his lifestyle community prefer the same. I do not confess to understand his lifestyle or that of his community. There are certain aspects of it that I find rather strange; however, it is his chosen lifestyle, and as far as I can see, that lifestyle does not hurt anybody in any manner whatsoever. Within his community he is well respected to the point of downright admiration, and most importantly, appears to be loved by all. Who am I to disrespect or disapprove of his choice in life?
Yet, because Jeremy does not believe that he should be identified by any particular gender, the commander-in-chief would deny him the right to serve in our military, even though he already has honorably served. Perhaps you did not notice, but on the same day he could not stop the urge to tweet, his Justice Department, headed by his favorite attorney general announced that they would be seeking to end protections afforded to transgender individuals under federal housing and federal workplace discrimination laws. In other words, if either of these fine gentleman were to suffer a heart attack while they were in the jurisdiction where Jeremy works, they would expect him to show up in his ambulance and save their lives without questioning or giving thought to who they are; however, when he returned to his base, they would allow his employer to fire him simply because of who he is and for no other reason. When he then returned home to tell his partner what had happened, from their hospital beds while a recuperating after Jeremy saved their lives, they both would allow Jeremy's landlord to kick them out, once again for the sole reason of being who they are.
It would not matter to the president or the attorney general that he had just saved their lives.
It would not matter to either of them that he had served this country honorably.
It would not matter to either of them that he is a person, who in spite of limited wealth and means has probably given more in his lifetime than either of them combined, and I am not referring to money.
It would not matter to them that he is presently in the midst of a campaign to establish yet another charity, "Not 1 More". The project was conceived after the Pulse nightclub shootings last year. It is designed to provide protections to vulnerable members of the LGBTQ community, not that our president or our attorney general would care. Check it out under his facebook page. I know two who live in Washington who won't.
All that would matter to these two cretins is that Jeremy does not gender self-identify, as if that is any of their business, and once in a while, in spite of the fact that the doctor who was present at birth yelled, "It's a boy!" when he was born, he prefers to wear a dress. His parents don't care. Why do they?
So in the end, I find myself asking one question:
Of the president, the attorney general, and my Remi, which one or more is the real deviant?
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
no military for old queers
So today, the idiot in chief decreed that transgender people will no longer be allowed to serve in the military of this country in any capacity whatsoever. Not on the front lines. Not at desks. Not in the supply rooms. Not in the war rooms. Not in the bathrooms -- and God help one of those trans service people who walk into a public bathroom that does not correspond to what he thinks is your assigned room by birth sex. In support of this harebrained idea, the commander in chief cited the incredible medical costs of allowing transgenders to serve. Some thoughts come to mind about this:
1. I was unaware that transgenders are flocking to join a military so that they could get the government to pay for sex transition treatment and surgery. I guess I was naive in thinking that there are people who have otherwise "different" lifestyles that love their country enough to want to serve it. Regardless of what I think, the only studies I am aware of regarding transgenders serving in the military have just about unanimously concluded that any increase in medical costs would be negligible, and probably attributed simply to the fact that a few more people are now serving, not that they are all seeking transition treatment and surgery. The number to look at is not the total being spent on medical costs by the military, but the cost per soldier. My understanding is that number is no different in study after study.
2. Apparently, it is okay to absorb without question the medical costs of heterosexuals and plain ole vanilla gays who get their brains bashed in and their limbs blown off serving military adventures at the whim of whomever is in the oval office, as long as they do not have what the guy sitting there thinks is deviant sexual orientation or practice. This is pretty rich coming from Mr. Grab Them by the Pussy. Oh, and by the way, you plain ole vanilla gays better watch your backs. He's coming for you next.
3. If you think it is a coincidence that this announcement, made, as is customary and called for in the lost but recently found sections of the Constitution via twitter, came on the anniversary of President Truman opening up all branches of the military to equal opportunity in 1948, think again. If nothing else, the present idiot in chief is big on symbolism. He's not big on much of anything else, but symbolism he knows, just like crowd size, everything Russia and the Boy Scout Creed.
4. Here we are in the twenty-first century. Global conflicts and threats are surging almost everywhere. North Korea is threatening us with nuclear warfare. ISIS, Al Queda and their ilk threaten all democratic institutions at home and abroad. Sabre rattling with Russia is at an all time high... and he wants to shut off the military from a few thousand otherwise patriots because they want to wear a dress instead of levis, and they want to put on make up and date a nice guy who does not mind the lifestyle of the person he or she is with. In other words, at a time of great need, because of nothing more than bigotry, because he cannot cite anything at all that would show that a trans soldier is any less effective than a straight soldier, he is not going to allow a person patriotic enough to volunteer because he does not fit his definition of what a real man or a real woman is.
I will give the clown in chief a few hints:
1. A real man or woman would serve this country without thought as to the sexual orientation of the person in the foxhole next to them.
2. A real man or woman would be someone who would recognize that they themselves never served at all, and did all they could to get out of serving until reaching an age where they could not be sent into battle, but could reap all the monetary rewards in the world for "serving".
3. A real man or woman does not hide behind anonymous support. If your generals supposedly urged this on you, tell us which generals urged this, and allow them to come before the public and explain themselves.
4. A real man or woman makes an executive decision like this in person, in public, in full view. Not on twitter.
But then again, what do you want from somebody whose only service in life has been to himself?
1. I was unaware that transgenders are flocking to join a military so that they could get the government to pay for sex transition treatment and surgery. I guess I was naive in thinking that there are people who have otherwise "different" lifestyles that love their country enough to want to serve it. Regardless of what I think, the only studies I am aware of regarding transgenders serving in the military have just about unanimously concluded that any increase in medical costs would be negligible, and probably attributed simply to the fact that a few more people are now serving, not that they are all seeking transition treatment and surgery. The number to look at is not the total being spent on medical costs by the military, but the cost per soldier. My understanding is that number is no different in study after study.
2. Apparently, it is okay to absorb without question the medical costs of heterosexuals and plain ole vanilla gays who get their brains bashed in and their limbs blown off serving military adventures at the whim of whomever is in the oval office, as long as they do not have what the guy sitting there thinks is deviant sexual orientation or practice. This is pretty rich coming from Mr. Grab Them by the Pussy. Oh, and by the way, you plain ole vanilla gays better watch your backs. He's coming for you next.
3. If you think it is a coincidence that this announcement, made, as is customary and called for in the lost but recently found sections of the Constitution via twitter, came on the anniversary of President Truman opening up all branches of the military to equal opportunity in 1948, think again. If nothing else, the present idiot in chief is big on symbolism. He's not big on much of anything else, but symbolism he knows, just like crowd size, everything Russia and the Boy Scout Creed.
4. Here we are in the twenty-first century. Global conflicts and threats are surging almost everywhere. North Korea is threatening us with nuclear warfare. ISIS, Al Queda and their ilk threaten all democratic institutions at home and abroad. Sabre rattling with Russia is at an all time high... and he wants to shut off the military from a few thousand otherwise patriots because they want to wear a dress instead of levis, and they want to put on make up and date a nice guy who does not mind the lifestyle of the person he or she is with. In other words, at a time of great need, because of nothing more than bigotry, because he cannot cite anything at all that would show that a trans soldier is any less effective than a straight soldier, he is not going to allow a person patriotic enough to volunteer because he does not fit his definition of what a real man or a real woman is.
I will give the clown in chief a few hints:
1. A real man or woman would serve this country without thought as to the sexual orientation of the person in the foxhole next to them.
2. A real man or woman would be someone who would recognize that they themselves never served at all, and did all they could to get out of serving until reaching an age where they could not be sent into battle, but could reap all the monetary rewards in the world for "serving".
3. A real man or woman does not hide behind anonymous support. If your generals supposedly urged this on you, tell us which generals urged this, and allow them to come before the public and explain themselves.
4. A real man or woman makes an executive decision like this in person, in public, in full view. Not on twitter.
But then again, what do you want from somebody whose only service in life has been to himself?
Sunday, July 2, 2017
health care for the masses in one way too easy rant
Fair warning. Even by my standards, this is going to be a long one.
Now that the geniuses in Washington have gone home for the holidays and a full schedule of baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and hiding from their constituents, a brief reprieve has set in that allows us to have the debate on health care we should be having, not the bail out the rich, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries debate we are having.
As I have said before, the debate in Washington is completely misdirected, and as long as it remains focused where it is, there will never be true and truly affordable health care in this country. In a nutshell, Washington is debating whether there is a right to health insurance coverage. As such, all that is being debated is how much of a profit the insurance and pharmaceutical companies are going to make, as they have absolutely no incentive to provide a single product or services, especially for a reasonable price. They are, for the most part, for profit companies that have shareholders to answer to and CEO's who want to pay for their latest toy. As such, they have no incentive whatsoever to deliver health care. Their only incentive is to make as much of a profit as they can; therefore, as long as they keep the debate focused on whether or not people are entitled to health insurance coverage, they win. You will note that none of the debate has been or is likely to be about health care itself, only how to pay for it.
I will cut off the debate right there.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.
There is nothing in the Constitution or in any moral, philosophical or ethical argument that says that anyone has the right to purchase health insurance, and that any company has an obligation to sell it to you. Health insurance companies exist for one reason -- to make a profit. As such, they have the right to sell insurance to whomever they wish and charge whatever they want, as long as the market will bear it. And for the most part, the market will bear whatever it is they charge, especially when health insurance is primarily not sold across state lines, which gives a mini-monopoly to a few companies in every state. This also gives insurance companies the right to sell their product to whomever they wish, to charge ridiculously high rates to whomever they deem a risk, or to outright refuse to sell to any particular person, as in anyone they do not believe they will make a profit on. It also allows pharmaceutical companies to sell their products at whatever price they wish to charge.
That is why the costs are so high.
It has nothing to do with regulations, the cost of which is easily absorbed by any health insurance company, and churned out in increased premiums and deductibles in any event.
And this is why health insurance companies want to keep the debate focused on whether or not there is a right to health insurance coverage, rather than whether or not there is a right to health care itself. When the debate is focused on the right to health insurance, the natural tendency is to say yes, there is a right, when in fact there is not. This way, the concentration in the debate is on how we deliver health insurance to the masses, in what form, and how do we pay for it, which in turn, drives the insurance companies' profits. Notice that there is nothing in the debate about actual health care itself, which as noted above, has never been part of the debate in either Obamacare or the present nonsense proposed by Senator McConnell and his band of rich old white guys.
Why?
BECAUSE ONCE YOU FOCUS THE DEBATE ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE, THERE IS NO DEBATE, AND THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES LOSE.
I have said it before and I will say it again until I am blue in the face:
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE, BUT THERE IS A BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL AND MORAL RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE, AND THAT MEANS HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYBODY.
If you start with this basic premise, the rest falls in line.
Do we need to address the opioid epidemic? You bet we do. We need treatment doctors and treatment centers. We need to educate doctors not to listen to pharmaceutical companies urging them to prescribe, prescribe, prescribe, which results in a generation of addicts. We need alternate forms of therapy for those in pain that does not cause addiction. And we need to have the system deliver it to those in need.
The same holds true for treatment of mental health.
Do we even need to debate that women are entitled to maternity care? For those who fret minute by minute about the health and welfare of a fetus, does that not mean that the mother needs to be cared for during the pregnancy and beyond? The argument that as a man I should not have to pay for maternity coverage is so ridiculous as to be beyond belief, but just for a second, I guess I should remind some of the guys out there that babies require two sexes to create, and that alone should therefore bring about at least some form of responsibility that includes caring for mother and baby.
Nobody debates whether or not we should treat a sick or injured person, even if it is treatment for opioid or alcohol abuse. And do not tell me that we do not need to provide drug and alcohol treatment because it's their own fault. If somebody tries unsuccessfully to commit suicide by slashing their wrists, I do not hear anyone saying we should not suture the wounds. When an accident victim is brought unconscious to an emergency room, even an emergency room in Beverly Hills, nobody asks or should ask if the victim is an illegal immigrant or has the means to pay. They just provide medical care, BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
So, you ask how to we pay for all this wonderful medical care and treatment that is a basic human right? After all, I have heard some, even some who are close to me and whom I admire and respect, tell me that they do not want to pay for the care of somebody else, and should not be forced to do so, especially if they are in this country illegally. While illegal immigration is a debate for another place and time, I would note that for purposes of this particular argument, I have your solution in two easy steps, after all, if the administration can put forward a comprehensive outline of a budget and tax reform in one page, I can easily solve health care in this country in two sentences.
1. Lower personal income tax rates across the board by three percent. I just made everyone, especially the really rich anti-tax guys delirious with joy.
2. Impose a national sales tax of three percent on the sale of absolutely everything, and dedicate the sales tax revenue entirely to health care. No exceptions.
There are two fun parts to this solution. First off, it is not revenue neutral, as there are plenty of people out there, rich and poor, who pay no income tax at all, some because they have no income to tax, and some because they have made a career of paying no tax, some all the way to the White House. As such, more will be collected from a three percent imposition of a national sales tax than will be lost in a three percent decrease in the income tax rates. Secondly, there is no longer any rant about paying for the health care of illegal immigrants. Now, they are paying for it themselves. After all, even illegal immigrants have to eat, have to buy clothing, and presumably have to put gas in their cars. So do the Koch brothers.
And each time a guy who has come here through a hole in the wall in the border with Mexico to try to make a better life for his family either back home or that he has snuck into the country with him buys a loaf of bread or a pair of work boots, he has paid for his health care, just as every time the Koch brothers buy an ad on television to try to convince you that liberals are plotting to destroy the country or that Hillary Clinton is the devil, or the idiot in the White House buys a new set of golf clubs, they are paying for their health care too.
Obviously, the exact amount of the decrease in income tax and corresponding imposition of a sales tax can be set by economists much more adept at figuring out what the proper number is, but you get the point.
And the overall effect?
The first thing that comes to mind is that when we pay for our own health care coverage with a dedicated national sales tax, we end up having an entity paying for health care that is not interested in making a profit; therefore, the profit built into the present health care delivery system is gone. The result is that the amount of money we are forced to pay for health insurance and for health care, for those who do not have it, goes down proportionately. We no longer need to pay for the mansions and yachts of the CEOs. Down goes the price further. With health care a public system, there is no longer any need to pay for advertising for health insurance companies. Down goes the price again. Etc.
Yes, there will be a bureaucracy created by this, and yes the health insurance industry will be harmed, but look at it this way. There will be plenty of jobs available in the public sector for underwriters and adjusters to review and pay for the goods and services through public health care delivery. Why not hire from the private insurance sector? As for the CEOs? I am sure they will manage. And the bureaucracy will be absorbed in that there is no duplicity of services. Everyone gets the same universal coverage, including mechanics, congressmen, food service workers, soldiers and health insurance CEOs. There is therefore no need to compartmentalize medical care among different sectors of society, which prevents duplication of cost at the administrative level.
Want more than a publicly administered health system will offer? Then buy a supplemental health plan from your favorite health insurance company and pay what you want for it. Go and buy whatever goods and services you want above and beyond what my proposed system offers. And pay the three percent national sales tax on the policy that goes towards paying for health care for everyone, including you.
Yes, this is overly simplified, and the details would have to be worked out, which basically means that Washington would get involved, and it would be screwed up. But the basic premise remains that health care and treatment is a basic human right, and this system, overly simplified as it may be, at least addresses that right, and not the right of an insurance or pharmaceutical company to make an obscene amount of money playing upon our health and welfare.
As such, it's a start.
Now that the geniuses in Washington have gone home for the holidays and a full schedule of baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and hiding from their constituents, a brief reprieve has set in that allows us to have the debate on health care we should be having, not the bail out the rich, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries debate we are having.
As I have said before, the debate in Washington is completely misdirected, and as long as it remains focused where it is, there will never be true and truly affordable health care in this country. In a nutshell, Washington is debating whether there is a right to health insurance coverage. As such, all that is being debated is how much of a profit the insurance and pharmaceutical companies are going to make, as they have absolutely no incentive to provide a single product or services, especially for a reasonable price. They are, for the most part, for profit companies that have shareholders to answer to and CEO's who want to pay for their latest toy. As such, they have no incentive whatsoever to deliver health care. Their only incentive is to make as much of a profit as they can; therefore, as long as they keep the debate focused on whether or not people are entitled to health insurance coverage, they win. You will note that none of the debate has been or is likely to be about health care itself, only how to pay for it.
I will cut off the debate right there.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.
There is nothing in the Constitution or in any moral, philosophical or ethical argument that says that anyone has the right to purchase health insurance, and that any company has an obligation to sell it to you. Health insurance companies exist for one reason -- to make a profit. As such, they have the right to sell insurance to whomever they wish and charge whatever they want, as long as the market will bear it. And for the most part, the market will bear whatever it is they charge, especially when health insurance is primarily not sold across state lines, which gives a mini-monopoly to a few companies in every state. This also gives insurance companies the right to sell their product to whomever they wish, to charge ridiculously high rates to whomever they deem a risk, or to outright refuse to sell to any particular person, as in anyone they do not believe they will make a profit on. It also allows pharmaceutical companies to sell their products at whatever price they wish to charge.
That is why the costs are so high.
It has nothing to do with regulations, the cost of which is easily absorbed by any health insurance company, and churned out in increased premiums and deductibles in any event.
And this is why health insurance companies want to keep the debate focused on whether or not there is a right to health insurance coverage, rather than whether or not there is a right to health care itself. When the debate is focused on the right to health insurance, the natural tendency is to say yes, there is a right, when in fact there is not. This way, the concentration in the debate is on how we deliver health insurance to the masses, in what form, and how do we pay for it, which in turn, drives the insurance companies' profits. Notice that there is nothing in the debate about actual health care itself, which as noted above, has never been part of the debate in either Obamacare or the present nonsense proposed by Senator McConnell and his band of rich old white guys.
Why?
BECAUSE ONCE YOU FOCUS THE DEBATE ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE, THERE IS NO DEBATE, AND THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES LOSE.
I have said it before and I will say it again until I am blue in the face:
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE, BUT THERE IS A BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL AND MORAL RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE, AND THAT MEANS HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYBODY.
If you start with this basic premise, the rest falls in line.
Do we need to address the opioid epidemic? You bet we do. We need treatment doctors and treatment centers. We need to educate doctors not to listen to pharmaceutical companies urging them to prescribe, prescribe, prescribe, which results in a generation of addicts. We need alternate forms of therapy for those in pain that does not cause addiction. And we need to have the system deliver it to those in need.
The same holds true for treatment of mental health.
Do we even need to debate that women are entitled to maternity care? For those who fret minute by minute about the health and welfare of a fetus, does that not mean that the mother needs to be cared for during the pregnancy and beyond? The argument that as a man I should not have to pay for maternity coverage is so ridiculous as to be beyond belief, but just for a second, I guess I should remind some of the guys out there that babies require two sexes to create, and that alone should therefore bring about at least some form of responsibility that includes caring for mother and baby.
Nobody debates whether or not we should treat a sick or injured person, even if it is treatment for opioid or alcohol abuse. And do not tell me that we do not need to provide drug and alcohol treatment because it's their own fault. If somebody tries unsuccessfully to commit suicide by slashing their wrists, I do not hear anyone saying we should not suture the wounds. When an accident victim is brought unconscious to an emergency room, even an emergency room in Beverly Hills, nobody asks or should ask if the victim is an illegal immigrant or has the means to pay. They just provide medical care, BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
So, you ask how to we pay for all this wonderful medical care and treatment that is a basic human right? After all, I have heard some, even some who are close to me and whom I admire and respect, tell me that they do not want to pay for the care of somebody else, and should not be forced to do so, especially if they are in this country illegally. While illegal immigration is a debate for another place and time, I would note that for purposes of this particular argument, I have your solution in two easy steps, after all, if the administration can put forward a comprehensive outline of a budget and tax reform in one page, I can easily solve health care in this country in two sentences.
1. Lower personal income tax rates across the board by three percent. I just made everyone, especially the really rich anti-tax guys delirious with joy.
2. Impose a national sales tax of three percent on the sale of absolutely everything, and dedicate the sales tax revenue entirely to health care. No exceptions.
There are two fun parts to this solution. First off, it is not revenue neutral, as there are plenty of people out there, rich and poor, who pay no income tax at all, some because they have no income to tax, and some because they have made a career of paying no tax, some all the way to the White House. As such, more will be collected from a three percent imposition of a national sales tax than will be lost in a three percent decrease in the income tax rates. Secondly, there is no longer any rant about paying for the health care of illegal immigrants. Now, they are paying for it themselves. After all, even illegal immigrants have to eat, have to buy clothing, and presumably have to put gas in their cars. So do the Koch brothers.
And each time a guy who has come here through a hole in the wall in the border with Mexico to try to make a better life for his family either back home or that he has snuck into the country with him buys a loaf of bread or a pair of work boots, he has paid for his health care, just as every time the Koch brothers buy an ad on television to try to convince you that liberals are plotting to destroy the country or that Hillary Clinton is the devil, or the idiot in the White House buys a new set of golf clubs, they are paying for their health care too.
Obviously, the exact amount of the decrease in income tax and corresponding imposition of a sales tax can be set by economists much more adept at figuring out what the proper number is, but you get the point.
And the overall effect?
The first thing that comes to mind is that when we pay for our own health care coverage with a dedicated national sales tax, we end up having an entity paying for health care that is not interested in making a profit; therefore, the profit built into the present health care delivery system is gone. The result is that the amount of money we are forced to pay for health insurance and for health care, for those who do not have it, goes down proportionately. We no longer need to pay for the mansions and yachts of the CEOs. Down goes the price further. With health care a public system, there is no longer any need to pay for advertising for health insurance companies. Down goes the price again. Etc.
Yes, there will be a bureaucracy created by this, and yes the health insurance industry will be harmed, but look at it this way. There will be plenty of jobs available in the public sector for underwriters and adjusters to review and pay for the goods and services through public health care delivery. Why not hire from the private insurance sector? As for the CEOs? I am sure they will manage. And the bureaucracy will be absorbed in that there is no duplicity of services. Everyone gets the same universal coverage, including mechanics, congressmen, food service workers, soldiers and health insurance CEOs. There is therefore no need to compartmentalize medical care among different sectors of society, which prevents duplication of cost at the administrative level.
Want more than a publicly administered health system will offer? Then buy a supplemental health plan from your favorite health insurance company and pay what you want for it. Go and buy whatever goods and services you want above and beyond what my proposed system offers. And pay the three percent national sales tax on the policy that goes towards paying for health care for everyone, including you.
Yes, this is overly simplified, and the details would have to be worked out, which basically means that Washington would get involved, and it would be screwed up. But the basic premise remains that health care and treatment is a basic human right, and this system, overly simplified as it may be, at least addresses that right, and not the right of an insurance or pharmaceutical company to make an obscene amount of money playing upon our health and welfare.
As such, it's a start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)