Gamesmanship Versus Fair Play - There Is A Big Difference

We have a problem in this country which I don't think the founding fathers anticipated. The President as renegade.  It is what happens when the President is accountable to no one and when he chooses to flout the law there is no recourse.

It seems to be emerging as common practice with Obamacare.  The latest has Congress complicit right along with him.  Just when I thought Congress may finally be getting it, they prove me wrong once again.  You see Obamacare was written so that Congress would have to buy into it just as the rest of us. Lots of us have been calling for that for a very long time - you pass it, it applies to you as well as the rest of us.  No matter what the content.

Some of the worry about Obamacare is the cost.  How it's going to be unaffordable for many or their premiums will increase dramatically rather than decrease.  Congress would have to give up their Cadillac plans and participate side by side with us.

But if you can imagine, they are whining that they can't afford the premiums and need an exemption.  Not only they themselves but also their better paid staffers.  Consider the Congressional salary of $174,000.  And many staffers making $100,000 +/-.  Also bear in mind that this is written into the law the President signed.  But of course we know no one had read it.

So rather than telling them to learn how to budget, he promises to fix it.  And he did. He made arrangements for  the Office of Personnel Management to write regulations allowing for the financial relief for members of Congress and their staffers - all government employees.

This type of shenanigan requires passage by Congress.  Obama didn't fear the Republicans would object but rather that they'd want to add more.  Of course he is right.  Republicans want that sweetener just as much as the Democrats.

Laws are becoming what they are at the pleasure of the President, not because Congress passed them and he signed them. Strange bedfellows they may be but bedfellows never-the-less. This goes way beyond class warfare.  This is a war between those in politics and the people.

I can't help but  think even those politicians I look on with a smidgen of hope aren't doing anything for my benefit.  Even though the reason may not be readily apparent, be sure it's for them.  I'd guess re-election so the game can continue.

Do they even know their approval rating is 14%.  If they know it, do they care?  More importantly how many of us know it and even more, do we care?  I don't care that it is so low, but I really care about why!

Economic Indicators Western Style

If you spend much time driving around Montana one of the first things you notice is that the highways, for the most part, follow the rivers as do the railroads. Because of this it is difficult to miss when freight traffic is down. The first indicator is when you just don't see trains. The next is when empty, out of use cars are mothballed on siding after siding.

We were over there yesterday and on our way home we passed a coal train - full. Car after car. What a joy to behold!

The fact that Warren Buffet recently spent a tidy $34 billion for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe might also be considered a hint things are looking up.

I wonder if there is a little Ayn Rand at play here. In 1957 she published Atlas Shrugged, her longest and last novel. It has an eerily familiar ring to it. A kind of deja vu in reverse. It tells the story of the collapse of our society as our government asserts more and more control over industry. The auto industry? The greening of America? The banking industry? Cap and trade? Health care "reform"?

Soon the minds that drive society and productivity begin to mysteriously disappear. It is hero John Galt's theory that without the rational and creative minds that drive productivity the country would be lead to total collapse. So, ever so slowly and ever so surely they simply (or not so) disappear!

The railroads reigned supreme in the days of the story. See what I mean about eerie? The ambition of the current administration is becoming more and more apparent. It is parallelling Atlas Shrugged.

This is not a situation where life imitates art, but where life is mirroring art. The prospect is frightening. What is even more so, to me, is that we have no John Galt!

A Sacrifice? Please!

Well, here they are, Michelle Obama and her "dear friend" and "chit chat buddy", Oprah. Isn't everything just hunky dory!

I'm totally disgusted by the tone deafness continually on display by the Obamas. Today is just one more example. There's no need to go into the details of how Chicago does business, nor the fact that Valerie Jarret, a close adviser to the President has holdings in the destitute areas due to be demolished for Olympic venues, that 47% of the people don't even want the Olympics, nor the fact I am becoming a conspiracy theorist, as I spoke of just a few days ago.

No. Today I'm picking up on what Byron York reported in the Washington Examiner. Oprah, Michelle and Obama's trip to Copenhagen to lobby for a Chicago Olympics is a "sacrifice" but they're doing it for the kids.

The blood is barely dry on the streets from where a 14 year old was chased down and beaten with a pipe leaving him in critical condition with a fractured skull. This follows on the footsteps of the death of 16 year old Darrion Albert who was beaten to death with planks wielded by a mob. There's two "kids" that won't be enjoying the Olympics!

Somewhat less violent but egregious none-the-less is the arrest of six charged with yanking an Olympic banner from the Daly Center's Picasso statue and tossing it into the "eternal" flame.

Sacrifice. Michelle and Oprah flying to Copenhagen on a U.S. government 757 and Obama on Air Force One. Sacrifice. What?

Meanwhile, the "new" strategy for Afghanistan awaits. Americans are still losing their jobs and homes. Soldiers are still losing their lives not knowing whether or not their own commander-in-chief is going to support them. You want to talk sacrifice? How about those men and women, not to mention their families!

When Michelle claims that as First Lady it has been a priority to "bridge the gap" between the White House and communities across D.C. and the country, she might need to look beyond the idea that where she came from setting foot in the White House was a dream kids never had.

Well, I can suggest a dream they might have. At fourteen and sixteen to be able to walk down the street without fearing for their lives! Having the Olympics in Chicago is probably not a dream they have either.

As for their friends and parents who weep for them, they may dream the "no snitch rule" becomes unenforcable because they no longer fear those who enforce it.

Oh my, oh my. Chicago has so much to sweep under the carpet they might well throw their hat in the ring for the winter Olympics. By the time they're finished the heap will surely equal Mt. Olympus! How's that for fanning the flame?

Comic Relief

I never thought I'd be so happy to see Joe the Plumber pop up in the news again! Actually we need some comic relief before the lid blows off the country.

It seems he's going to add
"comedian" to his already lengthy resume. I thought he always was one; he certainly couldn't be taken seriously as a political consultant or war correspondent! Never-the-less he's signed on to appear in the 16th annual "Funniest Celebrity in Washington" competition. Funny, I thought he was from Ohio. He does get around!

As I said, though, we need a release before things get totally out of hand. I'm inclined to lay blame for the unrest directly at the feet of the politicians and the media. Not the people. After all, the politicians are the ones doing the fear mongering by calling us evil and unpatriotic and Nazi-like. Not the people asking the questions. The politicians who are being asked!

The media isn't helping matters any by hyping the discord rather than digging for the true wording in the legislation and by not reminding us there is as of now no legislation ready for the President's signature. Only that which has come from the House. We've yet to see a Senate version what's more the conciliation of both!

One of my readers mentioned a comment her son made, in effect saying someone was likely to get shot before this is over at the rate it's going. I should hope he is wrong! However, when media commentators fuel the fire it doesn't help. Take what Ed Schultz said on his syndicated radio show last Tuesday.

It's almost as if every one of these town hall meetings is turning into "The Jerry Springer Show". And there are many Americans right now who are starting to fear for the safety of the president of the United States. All over health reform. Folks, these people are psycho, that's what they are.

Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do! I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out. They "fear" socialism, they fear Marxism. They fear that the United States of America won't be the United States of America anymore.

There is nothing funny in that kind of rhetoric! Planting the seed should be considered criminal!

Bailouts And Jobs - In India??

I had a pollster call me last night. From his accent I gathered it was coming from a phone bank far from our shores even though it was of political intent.

Actually, most of us who have computers and have had to call for technical support more often than not talk with someone who is fluent in English but not "American" English.

That brought to mind a recent Jim Hightower column berating a recent move by JP Morgan Chase.

It also made me want to reiterate my advice to seek out news wherever you can find it because in this day of cut backs too much is slipping through the cracks. Even network news is little more than Obama and a recap of the day's headlines. Cable news is totally skewed to the right or the left and papers are scant of content to say the least.

So here's the nitty gritty. Mr Hightower tells us we, the taxpayers, have poured $25 billion into Morgan Chase. What have they done with it? They've increased their outsourcing to India by 25% - to some $400 million!

Talk about unintended consequences! The government has slapped them with cost cutting goals. How better to do it then outsource more than they already have? It doesn't stop with JP Morgan Chase either. According to Business Week India's top tech firms are also bidding on at least three other $100 million contracts.

The 25-30% saved by outsourcing to India goes to the company; the workers in this country who have been replaced get nothing. Mr. Hightower makes one other point of note. Lower cost bank executives can also be found in India, but strangely, no one is looking for them! Is this how the bailout was intended to work? Somehow I doubt it, but as with other aspects of the bailouts, as well as the stimulus programs, it's being made up as they go. Has anyone seen concrete evidence that any of it is working?

The question is being asked if too much is happening all at once. My assessment at this point is yes. Program upon program is being introduced. The debt has gone beyond comprehension. Is it time to slow down and get the programs already in place working before adding to them? Forget that it has to all get done now because mid term election campaigning will take over next year. This is no way to run a country! I'd much rather see less done yet done well than piling the table so full it ultimately collapses.

I've said before and I'll no doubt repeat again, the stimulus and bailout programs have not been well thought out before the beginning of implementation. Slick rhetoric does not make it so. Just think about it. The claim that 95% of Americans who pay taxes will not see their taxes go up one dime. No. But they will see an increase preceded with the $ symbol. Everything from the local level on up where taxes are increased, be it on gas or cigarettes or alcohol or "fees" or "levies"; they are all tax increases!

Just who is minding the store? None of those Indians holding our outsourced jobs pay one cent of our taxes!

YOU Be The Judge!

All too often a story appears telling of school officials having gone a step too far in the name of protecting their students. The case of a thirteen year old girl who was subjected to a strip search for the alleged offense of passing out prescription strength ibuprofen has made it to the Supreme Court.

On the complaint of one student a school official searched her backpack and found nothing. She was then taken to the nurse's office where she had to shift her under garments, exposing herself. No pills were found.

The question is whether it was or was not an unreasonable search. The school officials had not bothered to search her desk nor her locker. They questioned no other students. So of course the young lady must have hidden the pills in her underwear. They did draw the line at searching her body cavities only because school officials had not been trained on how to do so.

There is a lot to be said as to how this incident was handled at the school level. More interesting to me was the discourse that took place at the Supreme Court.

According to The New York Times the Court spent an hour debating what middle school students are apt to be hiding in their underwear and what should be done about it.

I may be missing something here, but if this case had been on my docket I'd have done a bit of research beforehand. Listening to debate over the "ick" factor versus how logical hiding things in under garments would seem, to learning that kids sniff marking pens to get a high, or learning that when one of the Justices was in school he undressed once a day - for gym class, and "things" often found their way into his underwear! This strikes me as a court of the absurd - and the uninformed.

I fully realize today's youth are far more savvy about drugs then I was at their age. Even now for that matter. Where to get them, how to hide them, even how to use them. Those who appear not to be so savvy are the school officials who don't cover the basics before reacting.

Worse yet is how out of touch the Supreme Court seemed to be on a problem that seems to be uncomfortably common. It provided no comfort that the highest court in the land found themselves uncomfortable with the search but were reluctant to second guess school officials who are often confronted with issues involving drugs.

They say "justice" is blind. In this case there's a bit of deaf and dumb in there too.

Let Me Be Frank, Barney!

Have you noticed that those who shout the loudest have the most to hide? Yep, Mr. Frank, I talking about you! You headed the committee which passed a bill giving Treasury Secretary Geitner broad control over salaries at bailout companies. Fortunately, good sense prevailed and it died.

Now you've taken it a step further with the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009" where you intend to penalize all employees of bailout companies by tying their pay to performance for as long us the bailout money remains unpaid. Retroactively yet!

Okay folks. It's time for another Dogwalk solution. No more automatic pay raises for Congress. Let's insist on a "pay for performance" scale for them. After all, it is tax payer money! Let's let the whole country rate each and every one of them, not just the people in their districts or states who might be swayed by pork.

How would Barney fare? Let's look at the mortgage mess which actually began back in the Carter administration when mortgage lenders were being accused of being racist. Pressured to make loans to minorities and those with bad credit, lenders began loosening their standards under threat of punishment by regulators. Government chartered mortgage lenders, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, encouraged this "sub prime" lending then bought up the questionable mortgages.

We all know what happened. The bubble burst but all the while Frank insisted Freddie and Fannie faced no financial crisis. Right. Also, all the while, he blamed the private sector for having gotten us into the mess. With a lot of arm twisting by the government.

Barney Frank is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. A one time partner of Frank's was an executive at Fannie who helped develop many of the lending programs. During that time Frank blocked tough regulations on banking companies.

Okay. Frank has been in the House since 1981. He's had his fingers in a lot of pies and a go round with the House Ethics Committee over a sex scandal. Idaho's Larry Craig, not unfamiliar with such, led an attempt to have him expelled or censured over that episode. It failed but the House did vote 408 to 18 to reprimand him. Of course, as it goes in Washington, he won re-election several times over.

In the 28 years he's been in Congress I'm sure he has been on the right side of some issues. His constituents would probably give him a 10 on a scale of 10, but what would the public as a whole give him? If we can't have term limits why not hit them where it really hurts? In the pocketbook. I'm not a constituent, you see, and my rating would definitely be "sub prime"!

Obama - Messiah Or Dictator?

There is a difference between anger and worry. I've experienced too much of both lately as I watch the administration try to mend the financial crisis by trial and error.

Today, I'm halting the emotions at worry. Tomorrow it may well be back to full blown anger. I am extremely uncomfortable with the sanctions that are being heaped on corporations receiving bailout money without the ground rules being set at the get go.

Take for instance the exit of Rick Wagoner from GM. GM was to submit their reorganization plans by March 31. That's tomorrow. However, the "auto czar", who has no auto industry experience, decided it wasn't adequate. The President, on his own, told Wagoner if there was to be any chance for GM to get additional help he had to go. Did Obama have that right? Should he have that right?

Granted, the GM board should have removed Wagoner long ago. And yes, it's tax payer dollars being used to bail them out. But without preset rules and an arbitrary opinion from someone outside the industry, it makes Mr. Wagoner the scapegoat. For what? To make the administration look tough?

I listened to Obama say that for GM to go in a new direction it needed new leadership. Wagoner's number two took over. Is that new leadership?

Okay, there can be a lot of arguments for everything the administration is doing because of tax payer dollars. However, more and more it looks to be an attempt to change the way corporate America works and if so, you'll soon see us as a diminished nation even more than we already are.

The New York Times had a story which was even more frightening. They are considering regulating executive pay via regulation rather then legislation. This smacks of dictatorship.

Even worse, they are considering extending this practice to financial institutions not receiving bailout money and even to publicly traded companies.

Obama campaigned on regulation to give share holders a larger say in setting executive pay. Well, that's the responsibility of the board. If the shareholders don't like what the board is doing they can vote them out. The hitch here is the shareholders have to exercise their right and vote their proxy's if they can't attend the annual meetings.

Just like politics. You have to vote to have a say. The responsibility, in that respect, falls on the shareholders, not the executives.

"What about corporate greed?" you may ask. There is far too much of it to be sure. But if what the administration is attempting doesn't shape them up nothing will. They will just move off shore.

Speaking of greed, how about the greed for power? To have the ultimate authority to reshape an entire country into a vision not necessarily sanctioned by the people? To dictate what CEO's can and cannot do while giving Unions a pass? By doing an end run around Congress?

Think about it. We criticized the Bush administration mightily for all Bush's signing statements stating he was going to ignore parts of passed legislation. We criticized Bush for ignoring the Constitution on many occasions. We criticize the Christian Conservatives for trying to hijack the government so they can force their agenda on those of us who don't agree with it.

I'm worried. Oh, yes I am. I see our President running around the country and the world as head cheerleader while in truth the team is making up the rules as they go. Who's our cheerleader and how can we win? Without a say, we can't.

Heros? Bully!

I listened to the noon news with a sigh of resignation as the story about a Dallas cop unfolded. It seems a car rolled through a stop sign in the wee hours of the morning in a rush to get to the hospital. He pulled it over - in the hospital parking lot. The occupants explained they had gotten a call that the woman's mother was near death and they were trying to get to her.

No dice. He refused to let them go, demanding the usual, drivers license, registration, proof of insurance. Flustered, the man had trouble finding everything and finally the woman fled into the hospital, arriving in the nick of time. The man did not.

I don't understand the mentality it takes for these jobs. The man in question was a member of the Dallas Cowboys. Did the officer want to make a score to impress his buddies?

How many of you as a kid wanted to be either a fireman or a policeman? What has happened to them as role models? Well, in Spokane they can get away with egregious behavior and lose little more than their jobs - if that. We just had a case wrap up where a drunken off duty officer chased a young man through a neighborhood ultimately shooting him in the head. He claimed the young man tried to steal his truck.

He was acquitted and will receive back pay. In the infinite wisdom of the judge, the jury was not allowed to be told the young man had already been found not guilty of trying to steal the truck in a previous trial! Fellow officers cheered the outcome. The chief declared she believes in the process.

Then just this morning there was a story about a former firefighter being convicted of assault. This is his second go round. The first, which cost him his job, was having sex with a sixteen year old in the firehouse and taking pictures of the episode to boot. To make matters easier for him detectives had him erase the photos from his cell phone.

The firefighter said the sex was consensual. In the firehouse? With a sixteen year old? I realize that everyone under the age of 60 looks 16 to me, but the offender was around 35 at the time! And married. The prosecuting attorney said he could not file charges because the evidence had been destroyed.

So. What did he do that finally caught up with him? He bought another 16 year old girl bras and asked her to model them in the adult care home run by his wife. He then fondled her, straddled her on a bed while giving her a massage. This time the charges stuck. His wife lost the license for her facility and he must have a psycho sexual evaluation. Do you think?

If soap opera writers ever get stuck for material for story lines they need but search the archives of the local paper for stories galore. This, unfortunately, is just one more in what seems to be a constant parade of deviant behavior.

Police and firemen are supposed to be our hero's! They're supposed to save lives, not ruin them!

As for the attorneys, the judges and the juries? That's another post after I get the distaste from this one out of my mouth!

Newspapers As Non-Profits

Every time I write a post about the print media I lament the fact that it is slowly, or maybe not so slowly, disappearing. I talk of how I'll miss it with my morning coffee. Just today it was announced the Boston Globe has been added to the list.
True, I sit at my computer browsing on line editions every day. It just isn't the same. So when I read that Senator Ben Cardin, D-Md, introduced the Newspaper revitalization Act I took notice.

Why not? Most newspapers are non profit already! That's why they're going under like corpses encased in cement!

The suggestion is that this may be more suitable for small local papers rather than those held by large media conglomerates. The ones vital for communities, like ours, to get the information needed to be well informed. There are a few caveats however. They must have a staff of reporters large enough to cover what the community needs. The dull and boring stuff like city council meetings, regardless of what's on the agenda, and school board meetings, commissioners meetings, etc. All the non-glamorous stuff. And they must do it. Picture pages of social events and pages and pages of legal notices doesn't cut it.

According to Cardin's thinking, this could open the door for a non-profit paper to purchase one held by one of those conglomerates. Imagine the Coeur d'Alene Press being able to buy, say the Spokesman Review! Now that would be something! Yeah, I know, Hagadone owns a chain of papers but I don't think he's in the same league as, say Gannett or even Spokane's Cowles!

As a 501(c)3 they'd be operating for educational purposes similar to public television. That should be a slam dunk. Isn't that what newspapers are for in the first place? Education?

The best part of all is that while they would still be able to cover all things political, including campaigns, they'd be prohibited from giving political endorsements. Locally that would put a crimp in the style of the blogs operating under the newspaper's banner. It would certainly make for an interesting change of pace. Maybe they'd get back to something else a newspaper is supposed to be. Objective.

Intimidation Is Not Justice

When I was a youngster, there were two things I was forbidden to discuss with my friends. My mother's age and my dad's salary. They were no one's business. Nor were they mine for I knew neither.

When I learned New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo threatened to make the names of the AIG bonus recipients public it was one more step too far. His rationale was that the public had a right to know where their tax dollars went. They already do. They went to bonuses. It need go no further. The recipients had no part in determining the bonuses.

He finally thought better of it. Considering the recipients had been instructed to call 911 should they feel at all threatened, to watch out for anyone who might seem suspicious around their place of business or home and to wear nothing that would indicate that they were an employee. Of course there was also the e-mailed suggestion that these recipients "should be executed with piano wire around their necks."

It seems this whole fiasco is surrounded by people who are trying to further their careers, like Mr. Cuomo, or save their careers like Geitner and Bernanke, Dodd and Frank.

This administration and those entwined with it are beginning to bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the Bush administration's governing by fear. Bush relieved us of too many of our rights in the name of "security". The Obama administration is using the economic melt down to grab power.

Yes, we are suffering the consequences of bad management and greed but fear mongering to the point of turning us into frothing mobs of hatred is no way to solve the problem.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" no longer rings true. We well should fear those who instill it.

They Want What??

The current climate of the government going after everything and everybody represented by a three piece business suit and matching martini lunch reminds me of Japanese horror films where the monster emerges from murky depths and destroys everything in its path!

The monster in this case is a two headed one - one a Geitner head, the other a Bernanke. If this wasn't so serious it would be funny - just like the old Godzilla movies.

Here we have two men who were a part of the AIG bonus problem from the get go. Here we have two men who have been floundering for months, in way over their heads. Finally they tell us they have a solution. They had to tell us something before the demand for their heads really gets serious.

Buoyed by having come up with something, no one is yet sure exactly what, they've found themselves emboldened. Now they want the power to take over any financial institution they deem in need! They've got to be kidding! We don't even know if the "solution" they've come up with under duress is going to work. How the heck are they going to save others from themselves when they didn't even recognize the perils before them as they sat in on AIG strategy sessions!

The only positive I see in any of this is that they are asking for the power rather than seizing it like the Bushies did in the name of "security". Give them time, however, if Congress doesn't give them the authority they seek, they, too, may just seize it.

As I've said before and often, when the government gains too much power over the private sector, the private sector and we, the people, will lose. Yes, the private sector and we along with them are suffering mightily for mismanagement and greed. Who, however, in government has the slightest idea of how to manage such a business? Chris Dodd? Barney Frank?

Oh, stop. I can't stop laughing. Seriously though, who's next? Hmmm. How about the struggling airline industry? Do we want the government running them? Will they be able to take over, say a GE, because they have a financial branch? How many other large corporations do? Ford. Once they get their foot in the door watch out. They will spin it as a mandate from the people. Populism at its worst.

When those old monster movies were popular I loved watching them. I never dreamed I'd be living in the middle of one. The trouble with living it I'm finding, is those posing as the good guys either aren't or are the most inept hero's ever brought to light!

...But will You Respect Me In The Morning?

There's a line from a morality play that went out of vogue with my youth. However, there is a morality issue here. The question is, what's moral?

When I read that
Judge orders FDA to let 17-year-olds use pill I wondered if Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston would have been spared a lot of grief and heartbreak had it been available to them. When I was young one of the great deterrents to pre-marital sex was the chance of getting pregnant. Those who partook were playing with fire for their reputations would have been ruined. My, how times have changed. Sex between unmarrieds these days is as common as getting up in the morning. Maybe that isn't the best analogy but you get the idea. This no longer seems to be a matter of morality.

Does use of the pill? The pill being referred to is the "Plan B morning after pill". It is available across the counter without prescription for anyone 18 and older. Unless, in some instances, where the pharmacist finds it goes against his or her conscience. Is that morality or travesty?

The good thing about the pill is that the youngster who had sex, thinking or not, has up to three days to potentially prevent a pregnancy. It gives them a chance to consider the consequences of their actions.

My dilemma is knowing how many girls in their teens, even their early teens, are having sex. The opposition to making this pill available to every female, no matter her age, is that it prevents ovulation or fertilization which they feel is equivalent to abortion.

Which is worse; access to the pill or children having babies? Economically the pill makes sense considering how many of those babies become the responsibility of the tax payer. The parents don't have the financial ability to provide for them. Or the father wants no part of the situation and leaves a teen age girl to fend for herself - and the baby.

I look at young Bristol and Levi. They've decided to go their separate ways. There wasn't enough maturity nor love to offset the results of lust. It makes one wonder how long the father will stay involved with the child. Without an education, how long it will be before he can assume a proper degree of financial support?

For all young people who find themselves in this dilemma, it seems it's a shame they are denied a solution to a misstep on the grounds of someone's elses sense of morality. Morality. How the meaning has changed over the years. It used to be a guide as to how to conduct your life. Now it seems to be something to impose upon others.

Morality. Forget about pre-marital sex. How about not having children out of wedlock? Or how about anyone in the business of dispensing medications shall not impose their wills upon those using them? Or - how about making available to any individual who needs it, a life saving solution to a problem? Life saving? Absolutely. The quality of life for the mother, the father and most of all the child who through no fault of it's own is the consequence.

That's morality.

Monument For A Liar

When a person has made "conflicting" statements, what does that say? To me it means somewhere along the line, one of the statements was a lie.

Such is the case with Roland Burris when he emphatically stated he had no contact with then Governor Rod Blagojevich, or anyone connected with him, before being appointed to Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat. Then we find out his voice is among those on tapes not yet released by the U.S. Attorney's office. Then he admits he did indeed attempt to raise money for Blagojevich. Yet he denies doing anything wrong.

Now he is seeking permission from the Senate Ethics Committee to establish a legal fund. This would allow him to seek contributions of up to $10,000 per contributor for his legal expenses in "proving" he did nothing wrong. He claims the costs will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yes, I imagine so. It takes a lot of money to alter the truth.

The Ethics Committee says such a decision can take as long as three to four weeks.

I'm beginning to have fun with my Dogwalk solutions. This one is a no brainer if the Senate wants to take a giant step toward cleaning up its own image. "Just say no!"

Why? He lied. Chisel that into his monument as the final epitaph!

The Bill Doesn't Go Far Enough???

Why in the name of good sense should there be a "pharmacist conscience law"?

You're sick. You go to your doctor. You're given a prescription. Your pharmacist refuses to fill it because it goes against his or her conscience. It's all perfectly legal in the state of Idaho. I don't know what's worse. The fact that such a bill has been proposed or the fact that it isn't needed because there is no law requiring pharmacists to dispense prescriptions in the first place! Should there be one? I think yes!

There are times I wish I were a lobbyist because I sure would lobby against this insanity! Why should any legal prescription be denied anyone? A pharmacist has no right that I know of to endanger a life by refusing to fill a prescription. He/she has no way of knowing the need nor the circumstances. The lack of a law with such a requirement apparently, here, gives him/her that right and it borders on criminal. If a person should die because of not getting said prescription would the pharmacist be guilty of murder?

If that in itself isn't bad enough, the proposed bill would extend "conscience law" to cashiers and other workers. So. Even if the pharmacist will fill the prescription but the cashier objects, you'll be barred from buying it? What kind of insanity is this?

I remember going into a doctor's office awhile back, in miserable pain with a bad back. There was a sign above the receptionist's desk that read Be Nice or Leave . I no longer see that doctor. The point that anyone who is ill does not need the additional aggravation of getting static over a perfectly legal prescription.

If your job is to dispense medicine, do it. If your conscience gets in the way change careers. How dare you endanger others! As for the cashiers, don't work in a pharmacy.

As for the law makers, how dare you to allow the uninformed to deny another his or her well being. Where is your "conscience law"?

Blogging Does Not Automatically Equate Journalism

There is an article on Breitbart that tells me journalism is evolving, not dying. It points to the ever widening spread of the Internet as the reason. I, for one, skim many news sources on the web just to put together a post. But what of the millions of people, not only in this country, but worldwide, who do not have Internet access be it because of location or financial ability? Without hard copy newspapers how are they to be informed?

This brings to mind a headline today from the Salisbury, Maryland paper in which the Mayor, in her State of the City address suggested that mean spirited bloggers were the biggest threat the city faces. The news story was a fair analysis of the Mayor's comments.

The Spokesman Review's Huckleberries picked up on it and asked the following:

Question: In Coeur d’Alene, there are three online sites that touch of city of Coeur d’Alene business regularly — this one, OpenCDA.com, and the Coeur d’Alene Press comments section. The latter two sites are openly antagonistic to Mayor Sandi Bloem’s administration. Do you think those sites help or hurt the city?

I find it interesting when asking if readers thought the local blog sites were detrimental to the city, the moderator neglected to include his own. While he is correct that the other two sites are mostly antagonistic to the city administration and it's urban renewal agency, it is not always without cause. I should think being pro administration, no matter what, can be just as detrimental.

Following is the pertinent excerpt from Mayor Parsons' speech:

While we face the same challenges that other cities and towns are facing, our biggest
challenge by far is a small element within the City that consistently seeks to find
“smoking guns” and conspiracies within the ranks of the City workforce. Daily, I run into
citizens who are weary of the constant “gotcha” mentality on the part of a few citizens
and City Council members. Citizens fear standing up and serving because it quite simply
is not worth the vilification they chance at the hands of blogs and with threatening phone
calls.

Each week I do a taping on a radio station. This past week, I interviewed Gary Comegys
who is running for Mayor. The day the taping was to be broadcast, the station received a
very early morning call from a local lawyer threatening the station manager that if the
station aired the program they would be in violation of the FCC regulations. The week
before, that same lawyer called the owner of a senior complex at his home in
Westminster with a similar threat. The owner of the complex had invited his residents to
a lunch for Comegys and Councilwoman Shanie Shields. This lawyer stated that if the
luncheon were held, the owner would be in violation of federal law because the complex
was built through a program that awards tax credits on a highly competitive basis to
ensure affordable rents for residents. In both cases, there appears to be no legal backing
for his statements. He simply is utilizing threats and intimidation in the hope that those
whom he opposes in the election will have no advantage.

This is the same man who fostered the idea of a taxpayers’ suit against me during my first
year in office. This was dismissed at the most basic judicial level, but not before it cost
the City and our insurance carrier $32,000. In the intervening years, he has enjoyed the
ears of at least one member of each City Council and has cost the City tens of thousands
of dollars in legal and staff time. In almost every case, there has been no legal basis for
his claims and accusations. However much like the taxpayers suit against me in 1998, it
costs money, energy, time and focus from those good and decent people who come to
work everyday to simply do their job.

This is not about differences of opinion and policy questions. This is quite simply mean-
spirited ugly constant intimidation. Combined with the lies and innuendo of several
“bloggers” this city is under siege. Routinely, I receive calls and e-mails from citizens
who disagree with my positions on individual matters. We talk and often find common
ground, and sometimes agree to disagree. It is a very valuable process and I always find
that I see whatever issue under consideration from a new perspective.

This poses a far greater danger to the Salisbury’s future than the current financial crisis.
When people are afraid to step forward, run for office, speak on relevant issues, write
letters to the editor expressing individual opinions, then the future is in jeopardy. I leave
this job, an adventure that I have enjoyed with a firm conviction that the people of this
great city need to stand up and say, “No More”. Only then can we move forward to meet
the serious challenges and build upon the dreams and hard work of the twenty-four
mayors who preceded me in service to this City.

Sorry it is so lengthy, but it goes to the point that Coeur d'Alene's Mayor Bloem could have used much the same rhetoric. What isn't known, in either case, is how close to the truth the "mean and nasties" have come versus the credibility of the mayor's complaint?

There is no "journalism" involved in these blogs even though the Press blogs are under the banner of the Coeur d'Alene Press and Huckleberries is under the Spokesman Review's banner. Blogs are not necessarily and most often not journalism! They are opinion - right, wrong or indifferent. Bearing a newspaper's banner, at least locally, does not change that.

Rhetoric, on either side, can mask the truth. It cannot negate the truth. The question is will the truth will out? And if so, without good journalism, how?

Good Legislation/Bad Legislation

Two articles caught my attention this morning. One was a guest opinion in the Spokesman entitled We'll live to regret suicide initiative ; the other was a poll in the magazine section regarding whether the government should pass laws to fight obesity.

As to the first, Washington state has recently legalized physician assisted suicide similar to what has long been legal in Oregon. I prefer calling it death with dignity. It eases the more tawdry implications, while being a better indicator of it's true purpose.

The writer feels this is the first step toward a convenient way of killing one another when death may or may not be imminent even though the medical opinion may so state. He uses himself as a case in point. He had been given the six month prognosis back in November 2005 and has lived to write this column.

As I read his thoughts I was thinking of the power Hub and I are holding over our dog's life. One day, probably in the not too distant future, we will have to make the decision if it's time to let him go. We've done it five times before and it never gets any easier. You ask yourself if you have the right to make that decision and you agonize over the timing.

One of the writer's points is that this legislation will eliminate trusting in God to determine the course. I have some problems with that thinking. I will concede, not having read the legislation, that he may have some valid points in pointing out weaknesses in the details. I look at the issue from a broader perspective.

First, just because the legislation is in place does not mean anyone has to utilize it. If you'd rather take your chances, go for it!
On the other hand, when one is in such severe discomfort that it's being considered in the first place, I, at least would like to have the option.

Those of you who are long time readers know I had a friend in Oregon who exercised the option. She was not weak, nor was she coerced. She was just plain exhausted from fighting constant pain and no hope. What course would God have chosen for her? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Who's to know. She was at peace with her decision as was her family. Those of us left behind are the ones who struggled with it. The question foremost in our minds was could we make that decision for ourselves. There may well come a point where many of us might want that option.

We ask the same about Bacchus. We've already decided we will not take extraordinary measures again. We did it at the onset to keep him with us awhile longer, but he's an old dog who has had a good life. We'd choose not to have him suffer more extreme trauma for our own selfish desire to have him with us for what we know will be a short time at best.

If we can do this for a beloved pet, why not people? I'd like to think, and I believe statistics from Oregon would bear me out, abuse has been rare if at all. Fearing all the "what ifs" does little but upset for unsubstantiated reasons.

This ties into the point, too, that we are dealing with adult human beings here who should be allowed to make decisions for themselves to leave this world with dignity and without pain.

It also ties into the poll about government legislating the fight against obesity. While death with dignity, with the proper, enforceable safeguards in place, is good legislation, trying to legislate obesity is big brotherism several steps too far. Again, we're dealing with human beings here. We may make the wrong choices for ourselves but to legislate removal of that right could lead to an expansion of government in our lives that would strip us of everything that makes living livable.

The worst part about government intervention in our lives is the government itself - made up of humans that supposedly have the ability to think things through and make good decisions. Look at them at work today. Is there any one of them that can make the decision for you better than you can make it for yourself? I won't even ask you to look at how many of those law makers are obese by today's medical standards.

So there is good legislation and bad, too much government intrusion versus some long overdue. The safety net, I would suggest, is the people we put into office to make those decisions. There are times we do a pretty poor job of "vetting" them!

How Many Tax Evaders Are Acceptable?

Here we go again! Headline on Yahoo News Trade nominee Ron Kirk agrees to pay back taxes! Yet he's the right person for the job.

What in the heck is going on? Everyone is complaining about the tax payer money the administration is pouring into businesses that should be allowed to fail, mortgages that people shouldn't have in the first place and programs that haven't been thought through as to the possible unexpected consequences. Nothing new here. It's politics. It's also known that we are actually borrowing this money from foreign countries, mostly China. Why? Could it be that too many tax payers aren't paying?

Okay, the tax code is confusing at best and it's easy for an individual to make mistakes. But what about the tax programs you buy to simplify the process? Plug in the numbers and walla, you've got your tax return. Are they flawed? Or all the tax preparation companies that have their Uncle Sams on the street corners to entice you in. Do they know what they're doing? And the professionals on a higher level who work with the Daschles of the world; do they not sit down with their clients to make sure everything is in order before submitting the return for signature? Or are these people, you know the tax payer who signs the return, truly - cheats? And if they are why are they being included in the administration under the guise that it's a "few minor issues"?

There has been much criticism about the bailout packages rewarding people for bad behavior. I believe it to be true but apparently I am wrong. Bad business decisions. Buying unaffordable homes and allowing it to be done. What the heck, those are but a few minor issues.

How can it be anything else when this is the standard applied to those who would serve in the administration? The return was prepared by a paid tax preparer. Right. Now you know where the buck really stops!

If It Looks Like A Duck And Quacks like A Duck, Is It A Duck?

Attorney General Eric Holder, in a speech to Justice Department employees, said the Untied States is a nation of cowards on matters of race and that most Americans avoid discussing awkward racial issues.

That begs me to question if such is the reason Roland Burris is still a member of the United States Senate. A spotlight seeking egomaniac with questionable abilities, he has been controversial from the start as Obama's replacement. He convinced everyone, at the outset, that he was squeaky clean when it came to his appointment by "Pay to Play" Blogojevich. Well, as squeaky clean as one is when involved in Illinois politics. Which would seem to be not very.

That he is an embarrassment is an understatement. What I don't understand is why the revelations that are coming out now weren't discovered before he was sworn in. At first he swore he had no contact with either Blago nor any of his team. Now, he claims, it was a matter of semantics; one question being answered while another was being asked thus confusing both. Balderdash! He lied. Pure and simple. He's on the bloody tapes!

Next I wonder why the ethics committee is pussy footing around this. Is it because he's black? That was why scrutiny was eased at the beginning. No one wanted their objections to be linked with race.

This is truly a bad play within a bad play. Obama continues to cover the country in an attempt to convince us all these billions of dollars going to a multitude of bailouts is necessary. Sorry. I'm not convinced. When GM is asking for loans on top of loans and the same man sits at the helm, I'm not convinced. When Nancy Pelosi's marsh rat gets zillions for saving it's habitat I'm not convinced.

When the new attorney general states we're a nation afraid to discuss that which is awkward, he has a point but it has nothing to do with race. After all, we did speak out for hope and change. Why is it so many individuals haven't gotten the message? Because we're too timid to call them on the carpet because they happen to be black? I don't think so. I think we're just too timid, period.

Who's next? There are a whole lot of Chicago and Illinois politicians in this administration. If they're all as squeaky clean as Burris, regardless of race, we're in big trouble. We'll be governed by nothing more than a bunch of quacks. Not unlike an ostrich with its head in the sand, we'll have ducks with their heads underwater and their tails in the air. As they hold their collective breath hoping not to drown, we're the ones who will be tortured!

Police Guild = Justice Denied

There are days when I just don't get it! You read time and time again about zero tolerance policies, especially in our schools. A little kid who may have a GI Joe with a gun tucked in the innards of his back pack is expelled. A disruptive eight year old is led off in handcuffs because a teacher felt threatened. By an eight year old girl!

Sex offenders have to register even if the crime was sex between a nineteen year old and his sixteen year old girl friend.

Appointees to high government positions pay their taxes only when the job may be at stake.

Now, the Spokane Police Department is back in the headlines. An officer gets reinstated with back pay after arbitration ruled firing was too stiff a penalty. For what? For driving his city assigned car after having been drinking and using his city issued cell phone to snap pictures of a bare breasted woman then having sex with her in her car.

According to arbitration, the penalty was too stiff. He deserved punishment but not dismissal.

Here's Dogwalk's take. There was no policy regarding cell phone pictures. Come on! It was city property. A Mayor was ousted for cruising gay web sites on a city computer!

He was nowhere near legally intoxicated. Just when was he tested? He's a police officer for crying out loud! What can I say?

Excited about his reinstatement he let it be known he didn't want to work anywhere else. Who can blame him? Spokane police, time and time again get a free pass! I give a thumbs up to Chief Kirkpatrick for firing him; a thumbs down for saying "That's our system of justice and I respect that." As for the officer, Spokane is welcome to him.

Unions. They protect athletes who cheat. They demand concessions that reduce companies to the verge of bankruptcy. Think baseball and the auto industry as examples. They protect police officers from punishment for behavior that would have landed the rest of us in jail.

Isn't it time we reassess the zero tolerance rules now on the books before somebody really gets hurt?