Is America Still the Land of the Free?

I recently came across a story where some high schools students were send home for wearing t-shirts with a picture of President Trump on them. The claim by the school was that they had received complaints from other students that they didn't feel "safe". The students were told they either had to turn their shirts inside out and leave the school grounds. They chose to leave. That wasn't the only instance.

There's been numerous examples where people have been harassed or even assaulted for wearing "MAGA" (Make America Great Again") ball caps. These attacks have come in restaurants, shopping malls, or even on the street. The attackers, as a rule, don't know their victims. In fact, they know nothing about them other than the fact they're wearing a "MAGA" hat or t-shirt which either shows their support for President Trump or for being conservative. What's most interesting is that the attackers, when caught (and most are), were questioned about what they did it, all claimed that they felt threatened! That's right, they were the ones who felt threatened! So, when they attacked some guy or gal waiting at the bus stop or while someone was ordering food or trying to enjoy their meal, it was the victim who was at fault, not the attacker.Of course, none of this includes that name calling, threats, or harassment these "threatened" individuals like to inflict or the blocking of streets and expressways, nor the random destruction of property.

But, of course, this hasn't been just about "MAGA" hats or t-shirts with Trumps picture on it, people (including school kids) have been attacked for wearing shirts or hats with American flags on them or pro-2nd Amendment slogans, or actually, anything patriotic. Can you imagine being told in a school to either turn you t-shirt inside out or face being expelled for the day all just because it had an American flag or something patriotic on it? Heck, you can even opt out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school! We have professional athletes making millions yet disrespecting American servicemen and women as well as first responders by taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem. They claim injustice and inequality, yet where are they during off season? Certainly not protesting! They are in fact enjoying their very lucrative salaries.

In the past, kids were sent home for wearing t-shirts, jackets, or hats which featured a Confederate flag or something else dealing with the Confederacy (it was deemed "offensive" or "racist"), yet kids wearing a black power or black pride t-shirt, Afro-centric jewelry weren't. Children who show up wearing a "Che" or "Malcolm X" t-shirt are fawned over, and of course, nothing ever is said to anyone wearing a Hillary or Obama piece of paraphernalia. Why is that? What's going on? We have seen historic statues removed in the dead of night; some destroy and many vandalized because someone claimed to "offended". Does that "being offended" work just one way or can anyone be "offended" and get what they want?

Just recently we had the incident where high school kids on a field trip from a Catholic school here in Kentucky (Park Hill to be exact) were tried and convicted not just by a politically biased media, but even by their own school without full disclosure of the events. I believe that we're all currently awaiting some public apologies which I doubt will be coming. Apparently a group of "Black Hebrew Israelites", which is a group which claims that they are the actual descendants of the ancient Hebrews and thus chosen by God, were taunting the mostly white school group with racial slurs when, in response, the kids starting chanting their school cheer rather than get into some pissing contest with this apparent racist group. I guess school pride trumped racial hatred!

Then in came a small group of Native Americans led by an activist and self-described Elder named Nathan Phillips claimed they were trying to "separate" the two groups (which were already well separated) except the Native American group got in the face of the school kids and starting chanting and banging on drums. The schools kids refused to be goaded into doing anything, and yet they were portrayed by the biased media as the aggressors.

Why this group of Native Americans didn't do the same thing to the "Black Hebrew Israelites" is another interesting question which remains unanswered. It took a few days before additional clips became available, but it certainly appears that the Catholic schools kids were being taunted and harassed by two racially motivated groups. Well, in my opinion, kudos to the kids for taking the higher roads and know race baiting when faced with it. It further damaged a corporate media and members of Congress who have already lost the trust of the American People. Meanwhile, I think some serious heartfelt apologies are due to these kids both as a group and individually starting with their school.

It's getting harder and harder to be patriotic American in this country. That is seriously something which I find to be hard to say. We were once seen as "melting pot"; a nation where you could come and start over in life, leaving behind the political, religious, ethnic, and class restraints of wherever it was that you came from behind. Here, everyone had a chance to improve their lot in life, to get an education and believe what you wanted to believe so long as you left other people alone. Not so any more.

People used to do whatever they could to find a way to come to America. They even tried to learn English before they came or on the trip here. They wanted to speak the language. They wanted to be Americans, not some hyphenated "half-American". Yes, the majority had a sense of pride of the culture, but that took a backseat to being an American first. Ultimately, much of their cultures and traditions became added to pool of other cultures and traditions to create something new; something genuinely unique. Something genuinely American.

In my own family history, my immigrant ancestors learned and spoke English. At home, in private, or in church, they may have spoken German, but out in public it was solely English. Their children were taught English and to think and behave as Americans, not "German-Americans". Even my Irish and Scottish ancestors did their best to learn the laws, traditions, and values of their new homeland. Mine family was far from unique. Many immigrant families did the same thing. Some even refused to teach their children the native language of their former homeland so strong was their desire to become Americans.

Nowadays, it's the opposite. Many immigrants, both legal and illegal, demand that we must adapt to their way of doing things. They not only refuse to learn to speak English, but insist that we find ways to enable them to continue speaking in their native language. Heck, in some places, even the street signs are in a foreign language, and government forms---paid for with US tax dollars---are printed to accommodate them.

I'm not saying being an immigrant is easy. It's not by a long shot. New laws, language, values, not to mention sights, sounds, and even smells. Practically every group which has immigrated has face discrimination in one fashion or another--the Italians, Jews, Germans, Slavs, Irish (and Scots), Chinese, and so forth. It's natural to seek out or form a community with those with whom you familiar. America has had various enclaves in nearly every city and town, and to a certain extent, still do. But still, the objective has always been to become an American.

Nowadays, we see people actually encouraged not assimilate; to stay separate. Whereas before, the goal of every immigrant was to become a citizen, it's now to find a job and send money home. There's no real desire to become an American. Ultimately, that creates a sense of separate identity. When you don't "buy in", you have no loyalty to the host nation. You want what's best for your particular group without regard to the nation as a whole. Eventually, that leads to division and the desire to create a independent community or state much like what happened in Yugoslavia.

Of course, this goes way beyond that just immigration. It's pretty common for people to complain about what you say if it's differs from their worldview. Somehow having a different opinion is deemed "offensive" or even "racist", especially if that comment comes from someone who is white. Why is that? Shouldn't everyone be able to say what they feel, so long as no one is physically abused? After all, the Founding Father's expressly provided us with the right to free speech. But there are groups---mostly those under 30 (the so-called "Millennials"), especially on campuses where free thought and rational discussion was once the norm---demand that those who differ in opinion from them actually be denied their 1st Amendment right to speak, even when they've been invited to!

There have been numerous instances where invited speakers have been shouted down, stormed on stage, physically assaulted, or simply "disinvited" by the school administration at the last minute. During the 1960's and early 1970's when campus unrest rampant, there was still open and free discussion of ideas. In fact, one of the key premises to higher education has been to the exchange of ideas, even with those with whom you disagree. No so anymore. Nowadays, that's actually discouraged. Students demand "safe spaces" so they don't have to hear opposing views. This has even gone as far to certain racial or religious groups demanding segregated "safe spaces", which to me borders on the absurd.

We are also facing new forms of discrimination, whereby religious groups, again, demand, that other religions be denied the right to display their religious symbolism or pray...even on their own college campuses. Whatever happened to our tolerance of religions? America never faced the religious hatred or violence which plagued Europe and the Middle East. People have been allowed to practice their faiths (or even lack thereof) in relative peace. That too seems to be changing as we are increasingly being told what is and isn't acceptable. Even the wearing of religious themed jewelry is becoming taboo.

Religious freedom has always been one of the beautiful things about this country. Naturally, there are those who try to claim that America was founded as "Christian Nation", the truth of the matter was that America was founded to be free from a state imposed religion like other countries in Europe. The Founding Fathers intended that America was to be a place where every religion was welcome and no one had to secure permission from government to practice their religious beliefs...or to have no beliefs at all! We are now starting to see where some are trying to impose their beliefs on others, including the creation of "no go" zones, no pets, restriction on certain consumable items, mandatory clothing, etc which violates several of our core rights as a country. If you that's what you want, have it, but don't try to impose it on others.

America has always been a nation which focused on roughed individualism, yet we've always been willing to lend a helping hand to those in need of it. Today, we have a government which is increasingly sticking its nose in our personal business. It is mandating what we can and can't do in our own lives. We find ourselves losing our personal freedoms almost daily. Some of it actually taken from us by the government through mandates by unelected bureaucrats which leave us no recourse. Some is through laws by those elected to office but who are unaffected by the very laws they pass. And some of it through corporations who, in partnership with government, seem to use us as economic resources to be exploited and discarded.

I can't help wonder what our Founding Fathers would have thought of our America if they could see it now. I wonder if they'd be proud of how we've progressed or would they hang their heads in sorrow? I think that in some respects they'd be pleased with what we've accomplished. Certainly with our technology, which would have stunned them into silence, as well as growth as a country from the original 13 colonies which stood toe to toe with the mightiest empire in the world at the time. I have no doubt they'd be most pleased that slavery ended long ago, but sadden by its cost on the nation just as they would have by all the wars we've faced as a nation. After all, they warned us about entanglements in the affairs of others.

Women's suffrage would have perhaps amused them, but I think they would have approved, however, the notion that we willingly accept that there is more than two genders would have appalled them to no end (I can't imagine what they'd say about the body piercings and tattoos). The notion that unsavory elements within government were trying to deprive the citizens of their expressly given right to bear arms would both alarm them but wouldn't surprise them. After all, to disarm the citizenry is the first act of any individual or group intent on tyranny.

What would surprise and disappoint them would be how few are willing to stand up and fight back (or just how many are willing to go along with it). They understood firsthand the cost in lives in creating a nation and what it took to maintain it. They would understand that we will again either have to bear an even greater cost or face eventual enslavement, even if it's a benign one. They would be pleased with all those who chose to come to this nation, but deeply disappointed about how many of those have chosen not to be become Americans or even show enough respect to learn the language.

While the majority of our Founding Fathers were capitalist of the libertarian variety, the power of Corporate America over its citizens and especially the government would terrify them. The "Deep State" along with corporate and government control over our lives would rouse their ire as did British taxes or the commandeering of homes to house British troops. State mandated control over our children or healthcare would freeze their very souls. They would demand of us an explanation as to why we had allowed government such power. Had some madness ceased the country that we allowed a corporate-government state---a ruling elite---to emerge which could dictate how we lived our lives, or pass laws without our approval---especially taxes---or which this new ruling elite was exempt? Why do we allow corruption and treason by these elites to go unchecked?

Ultimately, I think our Founding Fathers would be stunned into disbelief and silence. They would find themselves sitting, head in hands, wondering what had become of the America they founded. It would appear to them that the "Great Experiment" had failed. We had gone down the path which had destroyed all other democracies and republics. We proved too willing to sacrifice truth for illusion; freedom for the promise of security; honesty for silence. I think that collectively, they would reach into their pockets and pull out whatever money remained and hand it to us, saying "Here, give this to the Crown to pay its damnable taxes and restore things as they were". I hope we can avoid their disappointment.


Black Hebrew Israelites



The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story


How the Covington Catholic firestorm reinforced America's divisions

Revolution Yes! (But Whose Revolution?)

There's no doubt whatsoever that Americans across the board are fed up with Washington. Poll after poll reaffirm what you can hear practically anywhere. We know, for instance, that our democratic republic, fought bitterly for and bequeath to us by our Founding Fathers is gone. It wasn't taken from us by some foreign power or lost due to some natural disaster. We simply gave it away like so much day old trash. Little by little Washington chipped away at it while we were fixated on the latest video game, so-called "reality shows", pop star or celebrity stories fed to us by tabloids, or maybe by overhype of some sports event. Meanwhile, the corporate news spoon feed tiny tidbits of what's happening---or what they claim is happening---while carefully redirecting our attention to the events they want us to see and told in a way to create the opinion they want us to have.

Now we find ourselves under an Oligarchy; controlled by the top 1% and their corporate alter egos. To be precise, the Oligarchs are neo-fascist, which, as its founder, Benito Mussolini, said should be understood by its more accurate description, corporatism. It borrows from the Left on some issues (mostly social) and from the Right on others (including heavy surveillance, a militarized police state, control over the economy and foreign policy).The Oligarchy literally owns the government, or to be more accurate, they work together hand-in-mailed glove. Where they once operated mainly in the shadows, they now increasingly function in the bright light of day, thanks to Citizens United which gave corporations "personhood" and allowed them unlimited restrictions on political donations (while flesh and blood persons are still capped), gerrymandering, no or few term limits, unaccountability, and dedicated lobbyists.

They operate by a revolving door, passing off money for title every time the enter or exit from government to corporation and back again. Both major political parties help protect their interests while money and contracts grease the wheels. They pre-select who they want and leave us to pick between either of the two pre-approved competitors. They control 96% of all media---Internet, TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. They produce what they want us to see, hear, or read and present it in such a way as to distract, mislead through falsification, twist the facts, manipulate, and most importantly, to manufacture the "correct" opinion and either create support for or against; that is, if they mention the story at all. They build a story to create a "crisis" or an enemy to fear, just as they downplay or ignore real issues that we should be aware of. The Oligarchy controls the economy and our nation's finances (indeed, it can accurately be said that they control the world's economy with just 1% controlling 50% of the world's wealth). They influence what we buy and when we buy it, all by going further in debt, which is the golden chain by which they own us. We even come with certificate of ownership. It's called our credit rating. It reflects our value to them.

The name of the game for the Oligarchs isn't money. They actually own that already either directly or indirectly since they own the banks and more importantly, the Federal Reserve. They also control Wallstreet and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange which trades in commodities. They are interested in control; absolute and total control. They are pan-nationalist; they are loyal to no country or political ideology. They view countries simply as economic sectors over which governments and their corresponding agencies are the "hired help". They are to manage the resources and assets of the Oligarchs. We---you and I---are merely a resource to be used. Jobs are simply economic units within the corporate clog to be moved to where they can be employed more cheaply or eliminated all together. Unions, once the unbreakable wall protecting the workforce has become merely a gatekeeper; the enforcer for management. Their job is to keep workers on the assembly line and off the picket line as well as weed out (or rat out) the troublemakers.

As I said earlier, they control US foreign policy; that is, they use it a means to gain control over another country's resources. If they can do it as businessmen/women, fine. If they can't do it diplomatically, then, as a last resort, they use the US military as their own personal enforcers. Besides, conflict is good for artificially stimulating the economy and lowering unemployment numbers by removing "excess" numbers from the rolls as they are sent to fight for some oilfield or gas reserve. The media they own can always be counted on to "sell" it to the American Public as a threat to national security or our values in some imaginative way. Meanwhile, they work diligently to keep us divided at home and to promote as much disharmony and violence as possible. If we're fighting each other, we aren't focusing on them. They allow illegal immigration as a means to flood the job market which drives down wages and/or benefits. They allow entry to Muslims knowing that they're unwelcome and they will not be properly vetted, and thus poise a potential threat to our safety (which they are largely removed from). Besides, what better excuse to eventually impose martial law and achieve total control, including removing troublemakers or ensuring worker productivity (think "national security")? So, with all this in mind, is there any question that the American People have had quite enough? The answer has to be a categorical "yes". The majority of Americans have long considered Washington as the "enemy", be it the Federal Courts, Congress, the Presidency, and given some recent blunders, even the Supreme Court.

Americans have polarized into volatile anti-Washington subgroups. On the Right (some would say far or extremist Right), we have the Tea Party (they had been co-opted the Religious Right and some GOP conformists to a degree) which evolved out of a distain for the Republican Party which they viewed as not "conservative enough" and betrayed the principles of the Founding Fathers and their scared writ, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Then we have the 2nd Amendment folks who see an attempt by Washington to disarm or impede our rights to possess guns. This ranges from those who oppose any and all restrictions to those who can tolerate some restrictions (such as registering new guns). There is also Oath Keepers, which is made up mostly up first responders and military (reservist mostly) and has a quasi-religious veneer to them. They pledge to protect ordinary citizens and uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You have those who challenge the legitimacy of the IRS and those who oppose what they consider to be State indoctrination through the public school system (State schools really) and resort to some form of home schooling (there is another sub-set of this group which refuses any or most inoculations which they believe do more harm than not). Of course, we can't forget other various groups such as some (Right leaning) libertarians, some veteran groups, second wave Babyboomers (1956 - 1964), anarchists (which usually include biker clubs), militia types, some religious groups (like those who favor a theocracy), survivalists and "prepers", Secessionists, race oriented separatists, and third parties such as the American Party, the Libertarian Party, or the Constitution Party.

What these groups have in common is that they all fall under the umbrella of "the Patriot Movement" , which has spawned a whole genre of books and magazines, blogs, and radio shows. Fox News used to be known as "America's conservative channel", but that title has been forfeited. Still, there are ample blogs, YouTube video hosts, and non-mainstream radio personalities out there. What these individuals and groups want is basically to dismantle a hopeless broken federal system and restore power back to the states and local governments as much as possible. That is, they want to fully and literally apply the Constitution as written, not interrupted. They want as little government in their lives as they chose. They want honesty from those elected (not to mention an end to gerrymandering, term limits, and requiring elected officials to live under the same laws as ordinary citizens and an end to their taxpayer paid perks including salary and benefits for life, security, revolving door policy with corporations and/or lobbyist firms to mention just a few).

On the other side of the anti-Washington plug nickel, we have the Left (often called the Far or Extreme Left as well as the "lunatic fringe"). The majority of these individuals tend to be older or first wave Babyboomers (1946 - 1955), Millennials, techies, some veterans, various media, Internet (including bloggers and YouTube personalities), alternative radio shows, some (Left leaning) libertarians and anarchists, some academics (tenured I suspect), minority racial groups, third parties (the Green Party or Democratic Socialist of America), and other socialist or socialist leaning groups, plus various non-profits and grassroots organizations. Essentially, a similar but diametrically oppose group to those on the Right such as the Occupy Movement vs. the Tea Party. They too have created their own media niche, be it books, radio shows, blogs, YouTube and so forth. Numerically, this is the largest group and statistically the youngest too.

What these groups basically want is an expanded federal government, but not based on the one we have, which they agree, is broken beyond repair. Some of these see the Constitution as a good guide but basically having outlived its relevance. They look to the socialist democratic countries of Scandinavia, which, despite propaganda to the contrary, has been quite successful. Their recent failures have been more a result accepting immigration unconditionally from low skilled or educated individuals from Africa and the Middle East. These individuals do not share a common history (either national or even European), a common religious foundation, traditions or values. Specifically, they don't understand the laws or the basis behind the laws, a similar work ethic, and tend to attempt to impose their beliefs and values on their host county. So, in a system where everyone shares a certain core system of values and work ethic that encourages everyone to pay in to take out, these immigrants are conditioned simply to take from the system which they quickly presume to be "entitled" to without paying in.

Anyway, most on this group favors some measure of a democratic socialist government with much greater participation by the public over the government and major restrictions on corporations (especially their proximity to government contracts and taxpayer money). As an aside, Communism has garnered little traction with this group. They would reduce the cavernous wage gap between ordinary people and the 1%, insure a taxpayer (mainly corporate) paid two year college education, maintain a government social safety net, a focus on people or nature friendly based technology, replacing Obamacare with single payer form of healthcare, legalized pot, equal treatment (social and legal) regardless of gender, orientation, or wealth and strong employee representation to name a few. Yet, many also support libertarianism, (small "L"). Of course, there are still those who would demand to be classified as a special class based on their race or ancestral history including payment of "reparations" (essentially semi-historical extortion) as well as those who favor independence or quasi-independence based on race or religion.

So, we have two groups which seem to on opposite sides of the political spectrum. One would think that they have nothing in common which could possibly unite them, and that may yet prove to be true. But if it is, then in all likelihood any potential citizens revolt or revolution would be unsuccessful. In fact, it's much more likely that we would see a nasty civil war which would result in the imposition of martial law and perhaps even a dictatorship of some form (not unlike Rome at the end of the Late Republic Period). In fact, I think this is exactly what the Oligarchs would like to see happen. It would provide them with what they crave the most--- direct control. And if you think about it, you can almost see it happening. Look at how are being divided as a nation into competing groups and pitted against each other with the outcome simply a matter of whose flag the Oligarchs will fly as they cease control. We can prevail simply be talking with an listening to each other and remembering that neither Washington, the Oligarchy, or that corporate media is on our side. I think by doing to so, we will find common ground as Americans have always done. Yes, there will be things we disagree about, but that's normal and natural. Even spouses, significant others, and good friends disagree and sometimes argue (like who's the best football team of all time when we really know it's the Green Bay Packers).

Meanwhile, we need to refuse to be manipulated by the corporate media and focus our attention on the Oligarchs, the Washington politicians and lobbyists, and the corporate media. We don't need to protest that "Black Lives Matter" when we know all lives matter or attack whites, Asians and Hispanics when we know that we have to work together to see the change we want. We should be careful about demanding more money or services from the government when we know that only brings more control over our lives. We shouldn't have to sacrifice competent healthcare for a lack of choice and options. For that matter, we shouldn't have to be forced to have healthcare at all if we don't want it. As adults, we shouldn't tolerate government telling us what kind of soap or grease we should use, what we can eat, or whether to fine us if we don't wear seatbelts. We know certain kinds of grease, sodas, food are unhealthy; we know seatbelts can help save our lives, but those are our choices and our decision provided that we also accept the responsibility without complaint too. We know companies should make a reasonable profit and employees should be compensated for their effort and time, but not that ordinary employees barely get by while corporate officers make over 500% more in compensation.

We know Congress makes laws, and that's ok, but exempting themselves isn't. Taking bribes or gifts is never right. Keeping their six figure salary, benefits and security for life isn't. Unlimited tenure in office isn't. Gerrymandering districts to stay in power isn't. Corporate "personhood" and unlimited corporate donations isn't. A revolving door between corporations and the government isn't, nor is private "closed door" lobbying, corporate lobbyist written bills or policies. Neither is the lack of transparency when it comes to government contracts and bids concerning public lands and resources, or non-published committee votes. Restricting who can run by making the cost so high that only millionaires need apply or prohibiting anyone outside the two corporate controlled parties---the Democrats and Republicans---from participating in debates is wrong just as providing the politicians with a list of proposed questions is. Unauthorized surveillance by government agencies on ordinary citizens is wrong, and the list goes on and on. I think these are at least some of the things both sides can agree on. The time for us to come together is now. The time for us to act is now. If we continue to fight against each other and accept the "spin" of corporate media, we may not have much time left.


The Secret Language of Millennials
http://time.com/2974185/millennials-poll-politics/


What Millennials Want From Life and Work
http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/191435/millennials-work-life.aspx


Millennials' Political Views Don't Make Any Sense
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/millennials-economics-voting-clueless-kids-these-days/374427/


What Conservative Really Want
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-conservatives-really_b_825504.html

Having the Stones to Take on Goliath

As readers of Another Opinion know, I've been engaged in a battle Kynect (Kentucky's "model" insurance exchange) and with Humana, to which I've been assigned. Just to briefly recap, my wife and I applied for insurance through the Kentucky insurance exchange known as "Kynect" (we have the distinction of being the second applicants to register when it went operational in August 2013). Somehow we managed to find every computer glitch and SNAFU in the system despite repeated assurances to the world by Governor Beshear that program was working without any hitches. By early October, our status had been elevated to the highest tier and I found myself dealing with programmers, systems analysts, and systems designers as they attempted to create "work arounds" in their programming and a host of other corrections.

Finally, by February 2014, things had settled down. Since we were enrolled in the system at the end of 2013, we were permitted to pick our start date for coverage to begin. We could chose from January, February or March. Since January had past and we had no medical bills worth any note, and as February was about over, we opted from March. However, "someone" at Kynect decided, when entering the information, that we really meant to say April instead of March, and changed our start date so we ended up absorbing medical bills for March (in all fairness, the senior manager at Kynect with whom we had been working gave us the option of correcting it back to March, however, the time required would have put us well into April anyway, so we opted just to "eat" the costs). Nevertheless, we ended up with some pretty good insurance, but no good deed goes unpunished, especially when dealing with the government.

At the end of 2014, we started getting notices from Kynect saying our coverage was changing (and apparently without our consent). I called our insurance provider several times over the next 45 or so days and was "assured" that our coverage was not changing and we should ignore the notices received from Kynect; we would keep our existing coverage we were repeatedly told. Finally, in early February 2015, I phoned Kynect to see what was going on. Well, it seems that their income calculation formula had changed and we were being removed from our insurance provider and transferred to Humana. Despite my protestations, we were moved in mid-February. At the same time, we received notices from our (now) former provider that our premiums were about to expire (Kynect paid a portion and we paid the balance). Although I repeatedly explained what had happened and offered to fax or email our notices from Kynect, I was advised that my offer (and my explanation) were appreciated but not acceptable. They needed "official" notice direct for Kynect. "Okey dokey" I said, and promptly contacted Kynect to (again) express my frustration and relay their request. I was told that an official notice will be sent, however, an "advisement" had already been issued.

Meanwhile, I discovered that despite Kynect's repeated promises (parroting Obama's) that I could keep my doctors, that in the event I

couldn't, my new carrier would pay for any prescriptions and tests. I, however, would be responsible for paying the office visit. Needless to say, I was dismayed when my primary doctor of 32 years (and who is the area's only known sub-specialist) wouldn't see me when I showed up for my scheduled appointment. I was told that I couldn't even pay cash money for the visit, and to jab the knife a little deeper, my doctor could not write me any more prescriptions while I searched for his replacement. Once my refills ran out, I was, to use the proper medical terminology, screwed. As soon as I got home, I immediately phoned Kynect. Again, they offered their heartfelt and most sincere apologies, but there was nothing that could do about changing the insurer. It was suggested to connect my new provider, Humana, to see if they could locate a doctor for me. "Fat chance" I thought as I said "thank you" as politely as I could muster and hung up the phone.

So I contacted Humana's Customer Service Department. After going through a battery of options to select from (which included what language I wanted---I will never ever press a button for English as long as I live in this country), and a ten minute wait, I finally spoke with a living breathing person. After explaining my situation (while listening to timely interjections of "we're sorry for your inconvenience), I was given a list of six doctors for me to call. I quickly learned that none of these were specialist of the type I needed, but it didn't matter. None were accepting Humana. So, for the next two months, I made my daily calls with the latest of doctors Human had given me, but I jump ahead of myself.

Somewhere along the third week, I managed to get lucky. One of the customer representatives I spoke with (and whose first language was apparently English), blurted out near the end of one of my frustrated phone calls that I could submit a "Continuing Patient Care Request" and then almost as an afterthought, asked if I would like to do so. "Hell yeah" I said. So together---her writing out the synopsis while I provided my medical history, prescriptions, and reason for my request. When we ended, she said it would take approximately 7 to 10 days to get a decision (really? That was like a sleepover by this time). So while I waited, I continued to make my calls and get my daily rejections only to call Humana and get my next list of six doctors with the names sounding less and less familiar by the day from the ever changing representatives (after, of course, having to repeat my story). Some of the rejections were due to the physician winding down their practice; moved out of state; or were simply located in the wrong part of the state; wrong specialty; or simply was not accepting Humana any longer.

Finally, the tenth day came and I was on the phone for what I hoped would be my approval. However, as if to throw salt on the previously mentioned proverbial knife wound, I was told that no decision had been reached yet, so in addition to calling for my list of six, I now had to ask for status updates (as an aside, I was also providing them with updates on the doctors whose names they had given me. Evidently their list hadn't been updated in quiet awhile). Then it came.

I had been reading when the phone rang. I started to ignore the call, figuring it was another solicitor calling, despite my being on the "No Call" list, when I noticed it was my (now) former primary doctor's office calling. So I answered, expecting to hear some other piece of bad news. I don't know if I can correctly express my emotion or thoughts as I was informed that they had just concluded a series of conference calls with my current provider and given my medical needs and length of time I've been with their office, my request was approved. She was calling as quickly as possible to let me know and schedule an appointment as soon as I wanted. I remember being instantly relieved; excited; angry at having been put through the hoops; the corporate and government bureaucracy, that I must of had her repeat herself two or three times (I don't she minded. She knew me from all these years and how much I had fought this).

So, we scheduled an appointment and she explain that my efforts also resulted in a change in policy, both for their offices as well

as for Humana's that would allow longstanding patients to remain with their primary care physician provided the physician was willing to keep the patient on. I didn't feel the need to gloat but I was quietly pleased to know that my efforts may also be helpful to others in a similar position as mine. Most people would have given up I realize, but I not one of those people. I don't believe in giving up the fight if the cause is just, be it for me or for someone else. I've been a community and political activist for well over 35 years. I've also helped countless numbers of individuals take on their own "Goliath" over the decades (while "Goliath" is a good, if not common, analogy, I'm reminded more of Odysseus and the Cyclops, Polyhemus, and in particular Odysseus's response as he sailed away; having outwitted this son of Poseidon). I did it from elementary school on; while in the military; in college; and in every job I ever had. It's simply my nature I guess.

As an comical aside, remember those notices I had been receiving from my the original insurance provider mentioned above? Well, I continue to receive them, advising me that my premium remain due while I continue to advise them that I was removed by Kynect at the end of January. Meanwhile, I've checked with Kynect and have been assured that they have been repeatedly notified of my removal from their policy (I was even provided a reference number which I had sent on). Despite their disinterest in my notices from Kynect, I faxed of copies to them all the same. Just a few days ago, I received a new set of membership cards. You just have to love corporate bureaucracy.


Greek Myths & Greek Mythology
http://www.greekmyths-greekmythology.com/odysseus-and-cyclops-myth/

Wall Street's Bailout:Charity or Payoff?

Why are the same Wall Street Robber Barons who rail against national health care, unions, minimum wage, and helping the average the home owner is now trying to get on the taxpayer financed 700 billion dollar gravy train? For the same reason that got them in trouble in the first place---greed. What happened to the Capitalist mantras of “financial survival of the fittest” or “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps”? It’s funny how those same individuals who call any government program to help the poor and working class “socialist” now have their greasy hands out for a piece of the largest bailout in history. I guess when it’s you and me, it’s “socialism” and when it’s them, it’s a matter of national imperative. To listen to Bush and Company, you would think this was a humanitarian rescue operation to some backwater country.

For anyone who wants to make this out as a Republican made crisis, let’s get this clear---it took both parties to blow this one. The Democrats and Republicans are both to blame for encouraging the unethical level of greed and unregulated environment which dominates the culture of Wall Street…and Washington. Let’s not forget either that these same soulless creatures who make their living off other people’s labor are the same people who underwrite both the Republican and Democratic parties. It doesn’t matter one iota to them which party wins since they own both. So don’t worry about whether or not there will be a bailout; there will most certainly be one. The real question is just what this corporate handout…err…I mean bailout, is going the American Public.

According to Bloggingstocks (http://www.bloggingstocks.com), there are 305 million Americans. At $700 billion dollars, that breaks out to roughly $2,295.00 per person. If you look just at working Americans (excluding retirees, kids, and I suppose illegal aliens), the cost jumps up to $4,635.00 per worker. Taking it from another angle, if the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is 13.8 trillion dollars, the bailout will equal approximately one year’s domestic product. The best example I think is that, according to the article, at 5% a year, it will equivalent to working 13 days for free (well, not exactly free, since your money will be going to pay some Wall Street mogul’s salary). Now, I don’t know about you, but that really ticks me off.

Should government, which is ultimately you and I, be involved in rescuing companies because their owners got to greedy; to sloppy; and made bad decisions? When you mess up your checkbook, does your banker say “awl shucks, forget about it. We’ll get the other depositors to make up the difference?” I don’t know about you, but my mother taught me personal responsibility and dealing with my own mistakes. However, rewarding irresponsibility is what’s happening here, except on a really big scale. And the kicker is, we’re going to get to make up their multi-million salaries to boot. So when this bailout is done, do you think Wall Street is going to thank the American People for the $700 billion “gift” by offering us some really good interest rates or great stock tips? Don’t hold your breath. This is corporate fascism pure and simple, where government is there to serve the needs and interests of Big Money while you and I just hope we can make our next mortgage payment.

By the way, does anyone have any idea just how many people can be feed with $700 billion dollars? How much healthcare for the poor and eldery could this buy? How many Headstart programs or other primary education resources could this buy? How much medical research could be accomplished with the same amount of money? How many roads could be paved? How many police officers, firemen, and EMS workers could this employ? Just asking.


History is filled with “what ifs” and “what were you thinking?” moments. Perhaps we think of presidents as in some way more intelligent than the average person. The reality is that most aren’t. We tend to put them on pedestals and then proceed to throw rocks at them. Presidents and the Presidency are in many ways shaped by the occupant’s personalities, the times they live in, as well as by events outside their control. Tom Craughwell has written a terrific book that looks at some of the biggest goofs, blunders, and horrific mistakes made by the men who’ve occupied the Oval Office. Below is an excerpt from the book. If you have an interest in history, politics, or human nature, I urge to you read this book.

"Failure of the Presidents" by Tom Craughwell

The Bay of Pigs Invasion
John F. Kennedy

A TOTAL FAILURE. Many of the men of Brigade 2506 believed fervently that they were the first wave of Cuban freedom fighters who would liberate their homeland from Castro. They were convinced as they storrned ashore that they would be supported overhead by some of the finest fighter pilots of the U.S. Air Force, and they thought that as they advanced into Cuba, the U.S. Marines would be right behind them. Whether the insurgents had talked themselves into this conviction or the trainers from the United States had made such a promise is still a subject of debate.

The air support promised by the CIA consisted of sixteen B-26 twin-engine light attack bombers. From an airstrip in Nicaragua to the Bay of Pigs was a journey of 1,000 miles, round-trip, which left a B-26 with enough fuel to provide less than forty minutes of air cover for the Brigade. Anything longer than forty minutes and the pilots risked running out of gas somewhere over the Caribbean.

On April 14, 1961, just three days from the invasion, Kennedy called CIA Operations Chief Bissell to ask how many planes he planned to use in the operation. Bissell told the president the CIA planned to use all sixteen of their B-26s. "Well I don't want it on that scale," Kennedy replied. "I want it minimal." So Bissell cut the number of planes for the invasion to eight. The next day, those eight planes attacked the three airfields of the Cuban air force, knocking out some of the aircraft, but not enough to cripple the fleet.

On the morning of April 17, as the Cuban militia pinned down the men of Brigade 2506, the Cuban planes that had survived the air strikes attacked the exiles from the air. Meanwhile, the B-26s, their fuel low and their forty minutes up, veered away from the beach for the flight home. The Brigade's commander, San Román, radioed his CIA handlers for help. "We are under attack by two Sea Fury aircraft and heavy artillery," he reported. "Do not see any friendly air cover as you promised. Need jet support immediately." When San Roman's request was denied, he replied, "You, sir, are a son of a bitch."

With the sea at their backs, no means of retreat, and no chance of advancing into the interior of Cuba, the Brigade was in a desperate position. Back in Washington, the CIA and the Kennedy administration concluded that the invasion would fail. In a conversation with his brother, Robert Kennedy, the president said he wished he had permitted the use of U.S. ships to back up the Cuban exiles. "I'd rather be an aggressor," he said, "than a bum."

On April 18, Kennedy authorized six fighter jets from the aircraft carrier Essex to provide one hour of air cover for the CIAs attacking B-26s over the beach at the Bay of Pigs. But the jets from the Essex and the B-26s missed their rendezvous because the Pentagon forgot to factor in the one-hour difference in time zones between the B-26s' base in Nicaragua and the beach in Cuba.

That same day, Kennedy's national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, gave the president a status report on the invasion. "The Cuban armed forces are stronger, the popular response [is] weaker, and our tactical position is feebler than we had hoped," Bundy said. That was perhaps the kindest possible description of the Bay of Pigs operation.

As a humanitarian concession, the president permitted U.S. destroyers to approach the Cuban coast to pick up survivors. The ships were authorized to get within two miles of shore after dark, but no closer than five miles during daylight hours. The directive meant the rescue mission was beyond the reach of almost every man in Brigade 2506. A handful who had managed to swim to one or another of the bay's outlying cays were picked up, but the rest lay dead on the beach or were captured by Castro's forces.

At 2 p.m. on April 19, after two days of being pounded by militia, tanks, and the Cuban air force, Commander San Román and Brigade 2506 surrendered. "Everything is lost," Allen Dulles told former vice president Richard Nixon. "The Cuban invasion is a total failure."

Sixty-eight Cuban exiles were killed in the Bay of Pigs debacle; 1,209 were captured, and nine of them died of asphyxiation in a windowless sealed truck that took them from the beach to prison in Havana. After twenty days of interrogation, the prisoners were given show trials and sentenced to life in prison.

Soon after the conviction of the men of Brigade 2506, Castro made a public offer to exchange the prisoners for farm machinery. Kennedy leapt at the proposal. Immediately he formed the Tractors for Freedom Committee, chaired by former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, with the purpose of collecting donations to purchase farm equipment for Cuba. But the group was not able to meet Castro's exorbitant demand of $30 million worth of capital relief, and it disbanded. The tractor deal fell through.

Negotiations between the two governments went on sporadically over the next twenty months. Finally, on December 24,1962, Castro announced that he was releasing the Brigade 2506 prisoners in exchange for $53 million in medicine and food from the United States. He also promised, "as a Christmas bonus," to permit 1,000 of the prisoners' relatives to emigrate to the United States.

The animosity between Cuba and the United States intensified after the Bay of Pigs debacle. Cuba allied itself with the Soviet Union, while America continued its policy of isolating Cuba economically and diplomatically. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev viewed America's failure at the Bay of Pigs as a sign of Kennedy's weakness and inexperience, an assessment he felt was confmned after meeting Kennedy at the Vienna Summit of April 1962, where it appeared to some that Kennedy was sandbagged by Khrushchev's threat to cut off West Berlin from the Western powers. Within six months, Khrushchev was placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, an action that brought the world as close as it has ever come to all-out nuclear war.

In the face of the missile crisis, Kennedy held firm. The Soviets backed down, removing the nuclear weapons from Cuba, but the tension between Cuba and the United States has dragged on for more than forty years. During that time, political observers and historians have argued that the failed invasion actually strengthened Castro's grip on Cuba. Certainly Che Guevara thought so. In August 1961, at a meeting of the Organization of American States in Uruguay, he sent a note to Kennedy saying, "Thanks for Playa Giron [another name for the site of the invasion]. Before the invasion, the revolution was weak. Now it is stronger than ever."

Author Bio
Thomas J. Craughwell is the author of several books, most recently How the Barbarian Invasions Shaped the Modern World (Fair Winds Press, 2008) and Stealing Lincoln's Body (Harvard University Press, 2007). He has written articles on history, religion, politics, and popular culture for the Wall Street Journal, American Spectator, and U.S. News & World Report. He lives in Bethel, Connecticut.

Journalist, lecturer, and historian M. William Phelps is the author of eleven books, including his most recent, Nathan Hale: The Life and Death of America’s First Spy (Thomas Dunne Books, 2008). He lives in Vernon, Connecticut.


A friend of mine sent me this. It’s great! I just wish there was really someone out there who had the chutzpa to run on a platform like this:

WRITE-IN CANDIDATE

I have decided to run for President. After careful consideration, I decided that this was going to be my platform:

(1) Press 1 for English is immediately banned. English is the official
language, speak it or wait at the border until you can.

(2) We will immediately go into a two year isolationist posture to straighten out the country's attitude. NO imports, no exports. We will use the 'Walmart' policy 'If we ain't got it, you don't need it.'

(3) When imports are allowed, there will be a 100% import tax on it.

(4) All retired military personnel will be required to man one of our many observation towers on the southern border. (six month tour) They will be under strict orders not to fire on SOUTHBOUND aliens.

(5) Social security will immediately return to its original state. If you didn't put nuttin in, you ain't gettin nuttin out. The president nor any other politician will not be able to touch it.

(6) Welfare - Checks will be handed out on Fridays at the end of the 40 hour school week and the successful completion of urinalysis and a passing grade.

(7) Professional Athletes/Steroids - The FIRST time you check positive, you are banned for life. By the way, the FIRST time you attack your coach or fellow player, or get busted you’re history. I don’t care about your childhood. You are responsible for your actions.

(8) On second thought, one export will be allowed, Wheat, The world needs to eat. A bushel of wheat will be the exact price of a barrel of oil.

(9) All foreign aid using American taxpayer money will immediately cease, and the saved money will pay off the national debt and ultimately lower taxes. When disasters occur around the world, we'll ask the American people if they want to donate to a disaster fund, and each citizen can make the decision whether it's a worthy cause.

(10) The Pledge of Allegiance will be said every day at school and every day
in Congress.

(11) The National Anthem will be played at all appropriate ceremonies,
sporting events, outings, etc.

Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes but a vote for me will get you better than what you have, and better than what you're gonna get. Thanks for listening, and remember to write in my name on the ballot in November. God bless America!

Anyone want to be my VP???

Poll Results

I asked what you thought about Sarah Palin's qualifications to be Vice President. Interestingly, we have 40% of you who said they were excellent while another 40% of you said poor. 20% thought her qualifactions were only fair. Actually, the results seem pretty reflective if the election itself--a near draw.