BLOGGING

This is probably the most ridiculous of all my "How ridiculous is this" blogs. It's about blogging, just the way I've been doing for the past year.

Why do we blog? Some do it to communicate with the entire Internet, others to share their thoughts with a bunch of people, including friends and family; and me...well...I do it to get in touch with my children, my second cousin Lisa, and very few close friends. It started with a larger goal, as I included other members of my family, such as cousins, distant friends, and even ex wives. But I soon realized that I was being too presumptuous, expecting all of them to comment on my writings, thus I have given up on them already to just concentrate on my children, Lisa, and a couple of friends. Pretty soon I will have to give up on at least one friend, and perhaps one child. They are either very busy or my blogs bore them. I would like to think that it is the

former. I hope so, for beeing busy will be easier for me to digest than to have someone yawn on my behalf.

However, in the "remote" event that my blogs are so boring, I from now on will write for 3 persons only. My son, who loves this type of conversation and has himself a very interesting blog under the name of " THE BLOGRUNNER", Lisa, and myself. I do get a good feeling when I write. It is therapy without a therapist. Writing comes in second after my golf on Wednesdays, which is the best mind absenteeism device created.

I am also writing this because I am sure that I will only get 2 comments maximum. It is a way to prove my point.

So... is this a ridiculous subject or what?

My next blog will deal with TV Decoration Programs. Be afraid. Be very afraid!

PS:

The blogger deserves the right to change his mind

HYPOCRISY

Abundant and overflowing. We have plenty of it in our government among politicians. If I am not mistaken, and why should I be? I listen very carefully to all TV commentators, poll specialists, Delegates analyzers, statisticians, and all I do is come up with realistic conclusions in what they say.

For example: Geraldine Ferraro, recently crucified by all for saying that the main reason why Obama is winning primaries and caucuses is because he is black. First of all let me clear the air by saying that yes he is black. And second he is an incredible demagogue, a very smart politician and above all a very good candidate to change this country around from the mess Bush and Associates got us in. That said...80 to 90% of black votes have been going to him in most primaries. while the general white vote has also been very favorable, although way below the black vote, but enough to make him so successful. Ms. Ferraro did not say anything against Mr. Obama. She just formulated an opinion, hers. Not the conventional hypocritical politically correct opinion. She was definitely, within the realm of stinky political base, incorrect. Did she do it because after we reach a certain age we say whatever we feel like? After all we've been accommodating to standards set by others all our lives. This time she wanted to be herself, honest and outspoken. Did not work Ms. Ferraro! You can't be yourself when you are a public figure, and especially if you are involved in a candidate's campaign. You need to remain silence and never ever express your true feelings, especially if they may incite the opposition. You gave them an excuse to keep exploiting the already over exploited issue on one-way racism. We cannot be blind to the fact that there is racism in this country, and that there is also prejudice against woman and senior citizens. But those subjects need to remain mute in the political arena, where the truth is only a good lie covered with sweet chocolate.
I challenge anyone to convince me that 90% of a certain population, black or white, young or old, man or woman, does not affect an election. That is what Geraldine Ferraro meant. There was not an iota of racism in her comment, just the truth. The truth always hurt, although most of the times it is needed. Not this time, unfortunately.

Ah, in case you think I am a racist or discriminate against anyone, if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate to oppose RoboCain (I could not resist) I will vote for him, but like Geraldine Ferraro, I am staying firm with my comments, for integrity and principles should always prevail over fear and convenience. Besides, I would rather call Obama at 3 am than waking up McCain. I understand he's got a short fuse. And calling Mrs. Hillary Clinton might give Mr. Clinton an opportunity to reciprocate...

COUROPHOBIA OR COULTERPHOBIA?

They are two very similar words and they probably mean the same thing.

Courophobia is the fear to clowns. Coulterphobia is the fear to Ann Coulter.

Clowns use a lot of make up to hide their real identity. Ann Coulter too, although the make up is inside.

Clowns make people laugh with their stupid acts. Coulter makes people laugh with her stupid comments. Deep inside we dislike both clowns and Coulter, because they are not who they really are. Many clowns are usually sad people in their normal lives. Coulter hides her sadness with her insults and demeaning comments.

MONEY BUYS THE PRESIDENCY

Who cares about the issues? Not here. The next US President will be elected based on how much money above the other candidates he/she will collect from contributors to spend on "messages". Let us analyze that:

Barak Obama is cleaning up with an average of 1.5 million dollars a day Hillary Clinton about 1 million/day, and McCain close to a million a day.

Since the primaries will be going at it for a total of 11 months, we can easily estimate that the total amount contributed towards these candidates will exceed the amount of $1,155,000,000 (yes you read it correctly: Over 1 billion dollars!).

All that money will go to waste! It will be spent on COMMERCIALS/ADVERTISING! Better known in the primaries lingo as APPROVED MESSAGES.

Unfortunately, most voters have no idea of the candidates track record on any issue whatsoever. They don't have a clue. Thus the only source they have to compare is the TV message, which ends with the candidate reminding the prospective voter what his/her name is and approving the "message". So let's say that candidate "A" wants the audience to know that he/she alone passed 250 bills in Congress to boost the economy, assist needed children, increase Social Security payments, cover 100% of health care expenses, etc., etc. All those lies can be easily covered with a few commercials ran for a whole month during prime time. The candidates buy the airtime with the money we donated, and we, ignorant that we are about the real accomplishments of this candidate, "buy" the message.

So this is how we choose a candidate. The more we give, the more they spend on television, and the more votes they get from the people who believe anything they see on TV. Of course, at the end our votes may not count due to the incredible "democratic" way of selecting a President by electoral votes of the feared Delegates!

There are, of course, other factors that influence the vote, such as speeches and debates, The better the speaker the higher the chances to win. Again, it is not the track record that counts because no one really knows what any candidate really stands for on any issue until he becomes the Commander-In-Chief. Thus, words speak better than facts with these politicians.

I, for one, have a rule of thumb to select a candidate. If the leaving Commander-In-Chief was a complete ZERO (what an incongruous thing! Complete and Zero!) I pick the candidate that distances himself/herself the most from the exiting president. No rocket science about this, just mere logical thinking.

But the best rule of thumb is definitely THE MONEY. The candidate that spends more money in "messages" on TV will be our next President. God Bless America.

Note: The amount in dollars are estimates based on what we hear from different TV News programs. There is a possibility that our figures might be wrong, but... who gives a hoot? Everything is permitted in the political arena.

YES, I AM A PROUD LIBERAL

It is so infuriating to hear the republicans talk about the democrats as "Liberals" as if that was an insult or a demeaning word.
For those who do not understand the real meaning of "Liberal " this is what the dictionary says about it: HAVING, EXPRESSING, OR FOLLOWING VIEWS OR POLICIES THAT FAVOR THE FREEDOM OF INDIVIDUALS TO ACT OR EXPRESS THEMSELVES IN A MANNER OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING ". Also: "TOLERANT OF THE IDEAS OR BEHAVIOR OF OTHERS".

Additionally, from the Latin "LIBERALIS" = OF FREEDOM, and
" LIBER " = FREE.

Considering that this country boasts freedom as the God given right to all of us, and considering that we want to "give" freedom to oppressed countries (i.e. Iraq), being a liberal is a compliment, which we Democrat Liberals should thank the Republicans for reminding us every day during political campaigns, primaries, and elections.

We should also thank them for calling us liberals when we try to protect the rights of a woman to have a justifiable abortion, a woman who has been raped by a subhuman species allowed to live among us and to have legal representation in court, while he is being dressed in a suit and tie and he is being called sir or gentleman by the justice. I am definitely a liberal who supports the choice of that woman to end the horrifying experience she had to suffer. Experience that was not commanded by God, but by the devil. Since we are so religious too in our country, it is important to make that clarification.

Yes, I am a liberal when I oppose the "war" in Iraq, an invasion that has already sent to their death 3,300 young Americans fighting for the material interests of a few and not to defend our country, as it is intended to be labeled by the republicans.

Yes, I am liberal when I see people suffering with incurable diseases and I want our government to do extensive Cell Stems research to find cures for these people, instead of debating about the religious aspect of it, as if we were experts on the wishes of God. Although I am sure that God does not want us to have cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other republican accepted plagues.

Yes, I am a liberal when I see that the big oil companies announce billions of profit every year while there are 40 million children living in poverty.

Yes, I am a liberal when I know that the level of education in our country
is substandard compared to many European and other civilized countries and I don't see anything being done to motivate teachers to be better and students to take more interest in their future and less in their below the waist baggy pants.

Yes, I am a liberal who wants every American to have access to health insurance without having to foreclose on his/her house to afford it. A liberal who wants to be able to have control of his life instead of being a commodity entry in an HMO's ledger.

Yes, I am a liberal who worked very hard for 34 years, contributing to the tax and social security pool, to realize that now I am a forgotten member of society who gets a 2.4% increase on his monthly check, while the cost of living goes up 20%, while the big corporations keep showing higher profits than in previous years, and the pharmaceutical companies are allowed to mark up their medicines up to 2000% over the production cost.

Yes, I am a liberal who wants the economy to jump out of this sunken ship for 7 years, by creating a different type of energy for the cars we drive, other than gas, a different approach to creating new jobs in relation to the global warning, a menace to our planet, and bringing back the outsourced employment to the USA, where it belongs.

Yes, I am a liberal, when I believe that the immigration rumpus regarding illegals can be solved by integrating all these people to our society, by giving them proper documentation and making them an integral part of our system with its benefits and penalties. At the same time that we establish strong border measures to avoid the entry of future illegals.

Yes, I am a liberal with the intelligence to know that when people are born in the physical body of any of the two sexes, their genes may be of the opposite gender, and they are prisoners of their own existence. Thus, they have the right to be what their souls tell them and we have no right to condemn them and forbid them from having the same rights as we all "normal" (according to republicans) people have.

And yes I am a liberal when I can vote for a black person or a woman, while republicans prefer to elect a white Anglo-Saxon candidate on the basis of his religion, faked patriotism and phony hypocritical strict antiquated values. Nevertheless, I respect the republican views, although I do not like them and do not agree with them, because I AM A PROUD LIBERAL, who believes in the real democracy and true freedom.

CAR INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE YO-YOs

You can't go into deep analysis to determine who the yo-yo's are. It is you and me. It is all of us with a half decent driving record (more decent than half). State legislature in Florida recently eliminated the "No-Fault Insurance" because of who knows whose interest's reasons. It was probably a good measure for some and a bad one for others. It was another one of those political decisions with lawyers controlling our lives with the "Yes or No" answer in every aspect of it. The color spectrum when making laws is only Black or White, and I do not mean race, I am talking about the narrow minded politicians and the opportunistic lawmakers to make their life easier and ours even more complicated every day. There is nothing in between to reward good drivers versus bad drivers. It is either NO-FAULT insurance or FAULT INSURANCE for everybody! Pick one. If you pick No-fault your premium goes up. Should you go for the FAULT (modified now with ridiculous amounts of coverage if you want to stay at the same level of coverage as before) you may save some money but your coverage is so minimal that God forbid if you end up in a hospital for a couple of weeks after a bad car accident. You might have to get a second mortgage on your house (hoping you own one) because that modified FAULT insurance might only cover for your first two days at any hospital.

So what are the Insurance companies doing about it? NOTHING. The reason is the usual one...GREED. Insurance companies will now make more money with this new law of FAULT insurance (for lack of better word), whether you choose no medical accident coverage at all or a "token" coverage, let's say of $15,000, which will bring your premium above the level you were paying when you had NO-FAULT insurance, which provided a much larger medical coverage.

Now, some of these Insurance companies are running scared because it seems that State legislature is thinking of reversing their decision and reinstating the NO-FAULT insurance. It is a game going on between the State politicians and the "poor" Insurance companies. And guess who are the insurance companies asking support from to maintain this new status quo? Us, the insured victims! They are sending us letters asking us to contact our state representatives, senators, or the Governor's Citizen Services Hotline, etc. etc. to ask them not to approve any deal "which harms Florida drivers or takes away our savings". This is so pathetic and laughable. We are being used as yoyo's to fight for them, not for us. Nothing changes and vaseline still works.

My suggestion to these insurance companies and state legislators is as follows: Come up with a law to to eliminate the No-Fault Insurance, but that at the same time rewards the good drivers. Do away with the No-Fault but give substantial discounts to proven safe drivers. Not $20 or similar ridiculous discounts. Allow safe drivers to buy into a Medical coverage for accidents caused by others which will not increase their insurance policy above what it was before the elimination of the No-Fault, and which will provide real coverage in relation to the ridiculous hospital and medical bills that are current today, and not 5, 10 or $15,000, as they are now offering at a premium.

My suggestion to any one receiving these letters from the car insurance companies: THROW THEM AWAY. Don't fight for them. They should fight for us! They get our money!

HEALTH CARE?

Transcript of taped conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman (1971) that led to the HMO act of 1973

Ehrlichman: " On the health business..."
Nixon: "Yeah"
Ehrlichman: " We have now narrowed down the vice president's
problems on this thing to one issue and that
is whether we should include these health maintenance
organizations like Edgar Kaiser's Permanent thing. The
vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from
Friday to explain it to him and then help him to
understand it. He finally says, "Well, I don't think they'll
work, but if the President thinks it's a good idea, I'll
support him a hundred percent".
Nixon: "Well, what's...what's the judgement?"
Ehrlichman: "Well, everybody else's judgement very strongly is that we
go with it."
Nixon: " All right."
Ehrlichman: " And, uh, uh, he's the one holdout that we have in the
whole office."
Nixon: "Say that I...I...I'd tell him I have doubts about it, but I
think that it's, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me
your judgement. You know I'm not to keen on any of
these damn medical programs."
Ehrlichman: "This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am..."
Nixon: (Unclear)
Ehrlichman: "This, this is a..."
Nixon: "I don't (unclear)..."
Ehrlichman: "...private enterprise one."
Nixon: "Well, that appeals to me."
Ehrlichman: "Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit.
And the reason that he can...the reason he can do it...I
had Edgar Kaiser come in...talk to me about this and I
went into it in some depth. All the incentives are
towards less medical care, because..."
Nixon: (Unclear)
Ehrlichman: "The less care they give them, the more money
they make."
Nixon: "Fine." (Unclear)
Ehrlichman: "...and the incentives run the right way."
Nixon: "Not bad."
(Source: University of Virginia Check-February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm -
5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.)

Interesting, isn't it? These HMOs have been around screwing our lives since that conversation took place during a Republican government ran by a president and a vice president who had to resign from power. However, the damage caused was not corrected. We live, (or rather die) with it since the conversation between Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman in 1971 that led to the HMO act of 1973. It's been 34 years already! And no president in this country, since, has had the courage to at least propose an alternate plan to help his constituants, mainly the poor and the middle class. The rich don't need any plan.

So here comes Hillary Clinton, running as a formidable candidate to the presidency for 2009, who has the bravery of offering a plan called "Universal Health Care" to enable us to have decent coverage. And before this plan is laid out in detail, most Americans are already against it. Apparently this plan sounds "socialist", or if you want to...even "communist!" How stupid are we? Isn't the current one administered by the HMOs a communist plan? They control our health. They tells us what we can have and what we can't. They tell us what doctors to go to. They even tell us if our illnesses are to be treated or not. Isn't that communism?
Until we remove the blindfold from our eyes, which unfortunately seems to be part of the apparel most of us permanently wear, we will never have a REAL, GOOD, HUMANE HEALTH CARE plan

I would vote for Hillary Clinton's plan if I knew we would automatically get rid of all the leaches, a.k.a HMOs. For now I am trying to find out more about her plan, without a blindfold and with an open mind. Rather than contributing to polls with complete ignorance of the facts.

Oh, yes, regarding that transcript of Nixon and Ehrlichman...are you surprised?

Note: If you are interested in more details about the Edgar Kaiser's Permanente Plan you may check it out with Google. Kaiser claims that the HMOs are clones of his original PERMANENTE PLAN.