Congress - If You Vote For It You Ought To Have To Live With It

"We have to pass the bill so we know what's in it...," so said Nancy Pelosi.  That statement on health care reform had to be one of the biggest groaners of this administration.

Enough time has passed that those of us aghast at was was foretold has come home to roost.  Nearly everything about cost containment has been proven wrong.  People are losing their full time jobs because their employers can't afford to pay for it.  States, as well as the government are behind in getting the exchanges set up.  It's a mess.

There would be a silver lining  however.  You see those in government who have legislated themselves exempt from nearly everything they impose on the rest of us have erred.  It would seem this bit of legislation will nudge legislators and their staff personnel into government exchanges.  Just in case you don't know, they get Cadillac benefits subsidised by the government. If this takes hold and they want to keep the same level of care they now have their premiums will go through the roof.  Strange, I don't feel at all bad about that.

Because of this, many are considering that feeding at the public trough isn't as appetizing as it has been and are considering bailing out. If they leave now they can stay under the current system.  I see this as a plus.  Instead of voting them out of office, which we seem reluctant to do, we'll drive them out with their own petard!  Some are worried about a brain drain just when Congress is about to tackle some tough issues like tax reform and immigration.

That doesn't worry me in the least.  Congress has no monopoly on brains when it comes to the issues.  In fact the opposite may be more accurate. Finding new people to serve who actually want to serve the country rather than themselves would be a refreshing change of pace.

It's all probably wishful thinking.  I'm sure there are enough of them who will vote for an amendment that will exempt them or raise their salaries to cover the cost.  It's a vote for which we should all watch and shout bloody murder about.

I have little sympathy for someone who makes $174,000 a year plus perks who can't figure out how to pay their insurance premiums.  It doesn't surprise me they are flummoxed though.  No real person budgets for themselves or their families the way Congress budgets for the country - or doesn't.

By the way, the immigration bill they are so worried about is up to 1500 pages and counting.  How many do you think will read it before voting?  They never learn!  Nothing needs to be 1500 pages long but they put out these massive missives time and time again.

One way to shorten them up would be to make it a law they have to obey what they pass.  They won't because they don't have to.  It doesn't drain any one's brain to figure out that many in Congress are brain dead.

Maybe that's why they won't read.  Some truths are just not arguable but we wouldn't want that in writing, now would we?  The written word is too difficult to obfuscate.

Data Gathering And The Politically Correct Exemption

There are more "secrets" floating around government circles than you can count.  Mostly they turn up when someone asks for proof that something being done is actually working.  Like the data mining of our private information.

Since with all the technology and the information it makes available they missed the Boston bombers, who did they get?  And under what circumstances?  Was it dumb luck?

The same goes for airport security done by those highly trained professionals we encounter so close up and personal.  What threat have they actually thwarted?  Baskets full of confiscated shampoo don't count.

Profiling is still politically incorrect, that is the given reason the remainder of the travelling public has to put up with indignities and delays.  Heaven forbid we offend someone from a country we know harbors the terrorist element we seek.

I wonder...  Yep, it's going on in the mega data gathering operations now fronting the headlines.  The buck stops at mosques.  They have been off limits to the FBI since October 2011 unless another secret entity, this one in the trustworthy justice department, gives a thumbs up.  The panel, the Sensitive Operations Review Committee, is also secret.  No one knows who sits on it, who chairs it or who does the staff work.  There was a time it wouldn't bother me but since it appears we can't trust much of anyone anymore, that makes me nervous.

How did this come about?  The squeaky wheel, the Muslims themselves in concert with the ACLU teamed up to sue the FBI for violating their civil rights.  These palaces of jihad recruitment and radicalization of the homegrown.  If the Muslims were truly against the radical element within their ranks I'd think they'd welcome the scrutiny. Especially since recent surveys of American mosques show that some 80% of them preach violent jihad and distribute like minded literature to their worshippers.

We can't do the job if we're cowed by those preaching political correctness.  The FBI never checked out the Boston mosque where the bombers were known to worship.  That's criminal - on our part.

It's also criminal that people, citizens and otherwise, who fit a certain profile aren't given stricter scrutiny at airports.

That Edward Snowdon put into words what was already widely known, that our government was gathering data about us, is hardly the crime.  The terrorists have known about it too.  That's why they buy pre-paid phones that have a few free minutes on them, use them once and throw them out.  No registry, no trail.

The crime is that with all their snooping capabilities, they aren't focusing on the most likely.  That makes believing that the information they have on you and I is helping to keep the country safe difficult.  Plus, if an Edward Snowdon can access and manipulate it as easily as he makes it sound, what might anyone with no scruples do with it?  The worry is even if you've never done anything wrong, someone with information about you can manipulate it to make it appear as if you had.  In that case where does the burden of proof lie?  It should be of concern to all of us.

Turkey - Here We Go Again

News video is beginning to look alarmingly the same.  It's either Congressional hearings or fire and mayhem in some city somewhere in the world.  Last night it was Turkey.  The only semi-secular country left will be Jordan and I fear it won't be far behind.

I'd have bet Turkey would fall to the Islamists.  The Prime Minister attacks his own people for merely wanting to keep a public square.  The Prime minister has been arresting those opposed to him and jailing them without charges. He wants to change their constitution so he can remain in office.  Obama likes him.  Does all this sound familiar?  Too much so perhaps.

What I found really disturbing, however, is how often the point was made that the White House was watching the situation closely.  Why?  Will there be more lines drawn that will be crossed with impunity?

The one thing that struck me is why wasn't the focus of the news at the time on what the White House was doing about Benghazi?  Why wasn't the White House watching it closely? Why was there little if any concern? After all, it was American lives and American property under attack.  In Turkey, not so.

Mr. Erdogan, the Prime Minister, has learned his lessons well.  From Syria he has learned about staying power no matter how bloody it gets.  From Russia he has learned about manipulating public office to retain power. From the United States he has learned he has nothing to fear and how complicit politicians make it so easy.

Have we learned anything?  Well, yes.  We've learned, or are learning, those complicit politicians are incompetents who can't keep their security details and ambassadors out of  beds in which they don't belong or their departments within the Constitution.  It's about time we citizens draw some red lines.

A Dogwalk Look Into The Future

A while back a reader, who works for a government agency, told me to be careful.  I was being watched.  For what? This blog? I find that hard to believe.

However, with the recent news, which really isn't "news", of phone record surveillance and now computer content oversight, I guess maybe I am.  Not the way the pundits were worrying themselves over on all the shows last evening.  Governmental data mining isn't looking for me personally, but rather whether or not the patterns of my activity might indicate I am a terror threat.

I doubt it.  I'm just an aging malcontent that is having trouble adjusting to a changing country.  Heck, every time I turn on my computer the information from the time  I sign on to the sites I visit go into someones data bank.  Why is everyone so surprised the government is doing it?  Are we more afraid of our government knowing as much about us as Google or Facebook?  I'll leave that as a question.

I will suggest this is nothing new.  It just gets massaged different ways depending what they want to know.  Since the President has told us the war on terror is no more, it's curious why this continues, but then we know the truth about that war, now don't we.

So what's down the road?  My crystal ball shows me something like the identity chip that was in my dog.  I expect before the next generation gets to be my age, similar chips will be placed in all of us at birth with the history of every preceding relative of the new born embedded in it.  "They" will be able to track every move we make from that point until death.  Unless we figure out how to disable it but there will be technology to prevent that from happening.  Just think what fun hackers will have when they figure out how to alter those chips to make us all electronic age Manchurian candidates.

Before that I wouldn't be surprised to see the national identity card become a reality.  After all the government already has access to the information we so fear them getting. Okay, if they make those cards a national driver's license I'd not mind.

I understand and don't disagree with a certain amount of flexibility to search data for patterns that might lead to a national security risk.  The problem is any such activity is open to abuse which is why it's making headlines now.  When we're told the government is so large and unwieldy at this point that the President can't possibly know what's going on I wonder why we need him?

Obviously we can't depend on our government officials - either hired, elected or appointed to act responsibly.  That being the case it seems a pretty good arguement for shrinking government back to a size of which the President can keep track.

Unfortunately that idea isn't appearing in my crystal ball no matter which party is controlling the computers.  I wonder what are adversaries are doing with their electronic skills. Are they ahead of us or behind us?  If they have their secret organizations and courts and permissions like or better than ours I wonder if they can make us switch our mind set?  Nah.  That won't come until the chips do.

Feelings Cannot Be Legislated

The local City Council passed, last night, a LBGT anti-discrimination law.  I cannot help but wonder the reasoning behind trying to legislate how people should react to one another.

I know we have a smattering of gays in our community.  I know some of them.  I did not know we had a problem with their being discriminated against.  We might now. Emotions for a time will be raw. We also have a very large evangelical population who believe homosexuality is evil and are vehemently opposed to it but I doubt they are seeking out gays to drive them away.

I wasn't at the meeting nor have I read the debate but I understand it was long and spirited.  Here's how I feel.  Anyone should be free to live, eat and patronize whatever business they so choose.  Business owners should also have the right to deny service they feel is detrimental. Work it out. If there is a demand for services for the gay community that aren't being met, the void will be filled.  It's called free enterprise.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not anti-gay.  I also do not agree that homosexuality is a learned behavior.  I do believe one is born as such.  I know also that it has been a long, difficult struggle for them - mostly for religious reasons that I feel are arguable. But, oh, they've come so far with broader and broader acceptance.  First from family then friends than a more broader spectrum of younger, more open generations.  It's because they aren't the norm, whatever that means.

Legislation however, sets them apart from the rest of us.  It doesn't bring them more into the fold.  Why do I think that?  Because you cannot legislate what someone believes.  Now a wedge has been driven between those who truly believe it is wrong and those who would be all encompassing.

This is a short post for me because I've got to get to the airport to pick up my cousin David and his husband - Walter.  Are we coming back here for lunch?  No. No one would know who they are or what, but I would and I'd know that some here would not welcome them.  Others would.

Does it matter?  It does to me because before last night I'd never have given it a thought.  Without legislation to help the process.