I think Thomas Perez will bring a much needed focus as Labor Secretary.

March 20, 2013

Just as they did when Thomas E. Perez (click here) was nominated to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Republicans are seeking to hold up his confirmation to head the U.S. Department of Labor, using any excuse they can think up, no matter how flimsy....

There is disproportionate statistics with labor in the USA. It is not just enough to bring down the unemployment rate; there has to be more equity in that number.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama criticized Mr. Perez, a former Montgomery County councilman and Maryland labor secretary, for his one-time service on the board of CASA de Maryland.... 

CASA de Maryland strongly supports Mr. Perez

...”His story reminds us of this country’s promise, (click here) that if you’re willing to work hard, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from, what your last name is, you can make it if you try,” Obama said. “Tom’s made protecting that promise for everybody the cause of his life.”

Perez thanked Obama in both English and Spanish.

“Over my career, I’ve learned that true progress is possible if you keep an open mind, listen to all sides and focus on results,” he said....

...But organized labor groups praised the pick.

“At a time when our politics tilts so heavily toward corporations and the very wealthy, our country needs leaders like Tom Perez to champion the cause of ordinary working people,” said AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. “And working families need and deserve a strong advocate as their Secretary of Labor — one who will vigorously enforce job safety standards, wage laws, and anti-discrimination rules, and who will speak out forcefully for working families and their workplace rights, including their right to join together to improve their lives and working conditions....

This is the man that took on Joe Arpaio and the Arizona laws that actually put people in danger on their own streets because of their ethnicity. He also assisted in the fight against draconian Voter ID laws, including the Pennsylvania law that was to guarantee the election of Mr. Romney.

...Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa complained that the president had nominated Mr. Perez for a cabinet post despite a congressional investigation into the Civil Rights Division and questions about whether he engineered a quid pro quo with the city of St. Paul, Minn....

He is a graduate of Brown University and Harvard Law School. He is 51 years old and was probably well acquainted with President Obama even in his early years. It is safe to say much of the minority leadership of this administration knew of each other and the careers they lead to improve the circumstances of minorities in the USA. My hat is off to them. Don't stop now.

To put it into a cliche' - "They know the head winds."

The issue with the complaint by Grassley and Sessions with the St. Paul, Minnesota is irrelevant. It was a complaint that a Whistleblower found fraud in government spending. In other words, funding was misused. Initially, Mr. Perez was going to join the lawsuit but as time went on it became obvious the Justice Department would not prevail. 

It has to be said the Whistleblower was in for a significant reward for finding waste and fraud within spending. The monies spent to stimulate the economy has an oversight provision that will pay the average person to be a Whistleblower if there is fraud and abuse. There is a lot of incentive and possibly more incentive to report than improve the economic purpose of the spending for Whistleblowers. The Obama Administration has gone out of their way to put power in the hands of the people to stop fraud and abuse. This is one of THOSE cases.

As the St. Paul case was pursued by the US Justice Department and the facts were more obvious the Justice Department decided to put the power in the hands of the city to reform the problem than to criminalize it. It was viewed by those involved as a bribe to the city. The US Justice Department saw it as an opportunity to do things differently because the criminal case would not proceed well or to an expected outcome.

It is a common strategy to eliminate record keeping where federal funds are involved. Much of the oversight of federal funding relies on record keeping. This was one of those instances. There was an absence of records. It could be argued that an absence of records is as prosecutable as the presence of them when wrong doing is discovered, however, that isn't how it would play out in court even if that stipulation was made in the law. A judge and jury would see that as entrapment more or less.

So, the idea was to create an incentive to drop the case and provide guidance that would insure the monies be distributed properly which is what should have been done in the first place. It is notable there has been a record $3.3 billion through lawsuits filed by whistle-blowers in the 2012 fiscal year. There is a lot of incentive for reporting. The question with St. Paul is what does the administration do with all the information provided and how do they make sure it will be straightened out rather than prosecuted in the face of a sabotaged law. That is what occurs when there is no record keeping. The oversight is sabotaged and the cities know it.

The only thing that can really be done in these instances is to eliminate St. Paul from future federal funding and that is a real incentive to follow the rules. But, for one term elected officials conducting themselves questionably by refusing to carry out oversight standards it is less of an incentive than one realizes. The punitive nature of oversight in such instances hurts the PEOPLE of the city and the city itself, but, NOT THE PERSON refusing to conduct the record keeping.

These incidents are not a straight forward path. It is corruption, it goes on and it exists.

Was that a failing by Mr. Perez? No. It was his responsibility to determine there was no clear path to a successful legal case and that is what he did. What he also did rather than dropping the lawsuit, which probably can still go forward, he decided to provide the city with an opportunity to turn the ship around. It was a matter of the focus of the outcome. Did the city benefit or was this going to be a higher risk of prosecution than should be pursued with 'the people's money.' The purpose of the integrity of the original law that provided the funding entered the circumstances and the law own.

And Sen.David Vitter of Louisiana said he will block Mr. Perez's nomination over complaints about politically motivated enforcement of voting rights laws.

Yes, indeed, the man that played sex games with prostitutes gets to be a star performer at the Perez hearings. In Florida, the state wanted to reduce the welfare rolls while providing reasons to prosecute recipients based in urine tests thus removing their voting rights and in Louisiana the welfare recipients were going to be made to lose their voting rights, too.

...Perez’ department’s lawsuit (click here) against the state of Louisiana for essentially running out of welfare recipients it could register to vote has given Sen. David Vitter a chance to make headlines in blocking his nomination, and Vitter’s been looking for other state officials to join the charge...

The federal law requires public service agencies to have contact with the opportunity to vote. Louisiana didn't want to comply. I think everyone understands why.

Louisiana is in noncompliance. Boo, who. Not bob,boo; not Honey Boo Boo, just plain Boo, who.

So now, Vitter plays politics at the hearing of a very aggressive advocate for CIVIL RIGHTS. The country beware. Seriously. These folks are no joke. They intend to route out the corruption and proceed to make it a plus for the nation. It is a good thing.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

The U.S. Justice Department is suing Louisiana, (click here) claiming its public assistance offices don't offer adequate voter registration services for people who get food stamps, disability payments and Medicaid.

The suit alleges that the Department of Health and Hospitals and the Department of Children and Family Services have failed to meet requirements of the National Voter Registration Act.

That 1993 law requires all state offices offering public assistance to be designated as voter registration agencies. The Justice Department says those offices handled millions of applications and renewals for Medicaid and food stamps over the past four years,but only 14,725 voter registrations.

It contends those numbers show the state is not in compliance with the registration law.

The two state departments say they haven't seen details of the lawsuit, but they claim they are complying with the spirit and the letter of the law.

Thomas Perez knows his responsibilities and the Right Wing extremists know it. He does his job well and he leads. It is his ability that is so threatening to understand the trials of daily living of our minorities and bring about support for their rights.

Mr. Perez wants to see an increase in the minimum wage which would reduce the Wall Street Tax on the people of the USA. But, the beauty of that idea is that an increase in the minimum wage will actually bring about greater market share and the profits will return to Wall Street after they experience an increase in operating expenses for a few weeks.

That's all, just a few weeks. Ah, oh, there goes the CEO bonus this quarter.

I wish Mr. Perez success as our new Labor Secretary and look forward to his administration. It is unfortunate it is taking this long. But, when Congress has more days off than working days it becomes a burden to the nation when this is the effect.

The Blue Dog Democrat from Kentucky

Own it.

Be the new voice of the Kentucky Democrats. She needs to introduce herself. She has to define whom she is to the citizens of Kentucky AND the Democratic Party within Kentucky.

She has to seek out an Establishment Democrat in Kentucky and ask to introduce her to the rest of the state's party members. 

People don't know her and she her as competition within the party. The Kentucky Democratic Party need to understand that she is not going to split the ticket if she is not nominated for the State Senate Election. She needs to attend their activities and support their agenda. She has to lead and bring the party to prominence in a way that works for Kentucky. She has her own ideas and she has to prove her ideas will lead Kentucky in a better direction.

Leading is not a passive process, it requires challenging the ideas and agenda that have cost the Democrats elections in the past in Kentucky. She has to worry about her dissonance. Her voice. She has to be heard by the people to bring about a common ground for her insight and her new Democratic agenda.

She can do this. She can overcome hurdles with the Democratic establishment and the electorate of Kentucky. She is great. She always been great. She has acted in political circles to save lives and improve quality of life by ending Mountain Top Mining. She did that. She saw a happier and safer people and a better tourism economy. If she can see a better life for the people of Kentucky, she can make it happen.

Why would the Health Care Public Option work?

Are you serious?

Come on now, everyone knows this.

15%

Would everyone like a 15% reduction in their health care premiums?

If the administration structure were left in place but the 15% profit were removed from insurance premiums what would that mean? Jobs without the additional Wall Street Tax.

The Wall Street Tax is never guaranteed to grow the USA economy; quite the contrary.

There should never be privatization of Medicare. None.

The citizens receiving Medicare coverage should have a reliable cost and that won't happen if it is privatized. As a matter of fact privatizing health care for the elderly will place them outside any reasonable market costs. They will be charged three times the rate of someone much younger. No way. They are left alone. If they want to supplement Medicare with a private insurance plan they can do that, but, the Medicare market is fixed and serviced by the federal government. 

I don't like what Sebelius is doing. At all. She is not administering this correctly. The waivers were for mini-medical plans. Those plans are very poor plans and should never have been encouraged to remain as an option to the American Health Care Landscape. I really oppose her lax ability to institute the Affordable Care Act AS WRITTEN.

If she didn't provide all those waivers, the mini-market would be reduced and the current private insurance enrollment would have received some more enrollments and changed the market costs. So, as far as I am concerned, she hasn't got a clue. 

There are ways of effecting a capitalism market and then there are ways that don't work. The ways mapped out in The Affordable Care Act were deliberately done for a reason. Does she actually think when the House wrote that law over two decades they didn't look at the mini-medical insurance markets. They addressed the ERISA laws very clearly. ERISA has been hugely problematic across the spectrum and until the ACA there was no way of bring about justice to people. ERISA was and to some extent until 2014 is still the problem.

WED SEP 16, 2009 AT 10:55 PM PDT
The outrageous scam of employment-based insurance: ERISA and its malignant effects (click here)
by Richard Johnston

So as far as I am concerned Sebilius had no standing to hand out waivers. Congress and the President passed this law for a reason and Sebelius took it on herself to negate it. The Mini-Market Health Insurance Market is a joke. People unable to qualify for Medicaid purchase those policies and receive virtually no value for their monies. There have been movies made about the deaths they cause.

Medicare is not up for grabs for the private industry. Absolutely not!

That said:

..."If you only focus on Medicare, (click here) you shift the costs," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, adding that Medicare and Medicaid are not the reason health costs are going up. Costs in these programs are increasing at a slower pace than private-sector health care costs, she said. "You don't do anything about the trajectory the U.S. is on unless you concentrate on the underlying costs."...

Any estimated costs to the health care market will be effected by the pool of participants. That is fairly fixed and there is absolutely no way of looking into a crystal ball either. There is no accurate model 'out there' that accurately reflects the health care pools as of 2014.

To begin, no one knows the level of participation in the year 2014. There will be folks deliberately trying to effect the costs of premiums in one way or another for personal convictions based on political standing. That is a given. It is my estimation there will be mischief for at least two years. When 2016 rolls around there will finally be a national participation and I expect nothing short of that.

As far as premiums, there will be proof that Joe Lieberman did his job for his health care insurance companies by obstructing the Public Option. There will be trials of different strategies in the State Pools for a few years to reduce costs to all citizens. There will be scrutiny of which pools provide effective cost containment and those that don't. There will be methods sought to bring about effective strategies under the heavy wet blanket of a privatized market for a year or two and then we'll see.

The ACA provides for ONLY 15% profit by any health insurance company. The PERFORMANCE of the State Pools will improve in time, but, the initial years will have lassitude until more information is known about the general health of the American people.

The ACA is a paradigm shift. People will live where they died before. These changes don't happen overnight, but, I guarantee you there will be improved quality of life as the nation pulls itself together and seeks better health.

This is not an experiment that can be dissolved with the elections of 2014 or 2016. It is a better standard of living for the American people. No one can predict the outcome of the ACA and if they try they don't know the resolve of this nation of people to solve their problems with compassion and a clear understanding of a happier life.

Think of it this way.

Michael Phelps eats over 10,000 calories per day when he is training. Now translate into an economy where a 'FIT NATION' participates in recreation and fun. There will be less and less focus on food and calories as a nation of people move away from screens and seek physical activity as improvement to their quality of life. I sincerely believe there will be less sedentary lifestyles once the people of this nation actually 'feel better.' 

Look, if a person is going to be popular in a social setting they need to be ABLE to dance. Okay? We need to go forward with this. There will be economic growth when the nation is healthier. It is just going to happen. Local economies will benefit from healthier folks in them.

The healthier the country, the lower the premiums. The ACA is designed for that outcome.

Is there a constitutional right to marry? No.

Marriage grew out of property rights. It falls under contract law.

Women until the 1960s were considered chattel. A man literally married his property within the bounds of spiritual purity. So, there are NO DIRECT connections between marriage and the USA Constitution.

The contract between two people is recorded in the records of a city or county. It is recognition of a 'responsible' relationship between two people. "I am responsible to you and for you and you are responsible for me and to me."

Contract law is why divorces exist. Breaking up the contract can be simple, but, it also involves other lives, namely children. So, divorce is a measure to be sure all parties are served well by the dissolution of the contract.

There is no Article of the USA Constitution that guarantees marriage. It has always been under the direction of a contract. Even under Puritan understandings back in the day of. So, the idea that the USA Constitution was ever suppose to legislate marriage was never a promise to anyone. If it was ever considered that vital to democracy the founding documents had plenty of time to incorporate that cornerstone. That is not the case. Freedom is not about binding a man to a woman; that limits freedom. There were LGBT people in 1776, too. They were probably the witches of Salem, Massachusetts.

It can get interesting to discuss, but, marriage is a contract. It is best defined as a contract. The contract can be modified through the ages to reflect changes in society. If marriage were a cornerstone of the USA Constitution it would complicate life immensely. It could be debated that if marriage was mandatory under the USA Constitution it would demand citizens to change behaviors and dictate a religious paradigm. Believe me the founding documents were written with distinct separation of church and state.

Powerful churches have an oppressive force on a populous. They even limit economies and choice. So, the folks in 1776 knew what they were doing.

Where the entire concept departs from 'reasonal' legal standard are the demands for a Marriage Amendment but the refusal of Sharia Law as a dictate in the USA. Right from the start the Marriage Amendment wants to dictate a specific religious standard. There are a lot of problems when ANY privacy issue is dictated with constitutional authority. These privacy issues cause oppression when dictated as a constitutional standard. It is not reasonable to pursue the demands to control the behaviors of an entire country.

I am not going to engage the thought, but, when a country carries a religious standard for it's government it ONLY requires an additional costume to the daily lives of its citizens. The most extreme example are the Taliban. If one is not wearing the costume life becomes dangerous.

In current USA history, was the stark shift in personal fashion, primarily of women, after Bush #43 took office. It was startling to realize what was occurring in the USA. It definitely was a new costume for the country and it was oppressive. Definitely. That occurred as soon as the change in office took place and before September 11th.

When it comes to talking about their families, I hope the LGBT community believes they don't have to live up to stereotypes to be successful before the USA Court system. I mean, what kind of abuse is the community receiving across the country?

NORMAL is not a real word. Sanity or insanity effects everyone regardless of their sexual identity. "Sex Addictions" occur everywhere and have nothing to do with the ability of a couple to love each other.

What the heck goes on because I don't recall any evidence of procreating LGBT couples being presented as a grossly inappropriate understanding of Prop 8 of the community. That would defeat Prop 8 from the moment it was written. It does defeat that discriminatory directive of the law.

The procreation issue is based on the idea a country has to have children to 'carry on' and even to staff the military. Well, hell, in talking to Rumsfeld and his Robo Forces that argument can be thrown out. So, it seems to me that when an argument of procreation manifests to victimize the LGBT community someone needs to rise to the occasion.

One of the very strong bias of the folks seeking power over others through Prop 8 and DOMA is that children are not suppose to be born out of wedlock, whether stated or not. Then they need to get out of the way and allow loving couples marry to conceive their families within wedlock. The country has imposed that lack of status of LGBT communities to conceive within wedlock, not the community.

What goes on that there exists such a misunderstanding of the community? How are the Justices suppose to speak to a minority status in the nation if they don't have the truth before them?

I would expect some of the best proof to the adverse outcomes of the LGBT community and their children are found in ugly custody battles. There are plenty of legal battles to refer to in a legal brief. I am sure there are progressive decisions as well as poor decisions that could be presented as proof of procreation of the LGBT community.

I suppose any Justice could do their own research and should, but, at the same instance they may not focus on this and that would be a debilitating gap in arguing the case.

LGBT couples procreate.

They adopt, but, they also procreate. Gay men have surrogates to carry their family depending on the financial resources and sometimes based on who their friends are. 

Lesbians use donated sperm and artificial insemination or sometimes otherwise if the desire is enough to seek intercourse with a man. It happens. That choice is also sometimes based in financial ability to conceive otherwise.

Why is the conversation about LGBT couples so sterile? It isn't serving the community to have ignorant people draw up laws based in procreation to qualify marriage. The entire idea of limiting couples to marry based on procreation is more hideous than most people like to realize.

There are LGBT couples that also have children from previous heterosexual marriages.

Quite frankly, any delineation of creating a special status on the idea of procreation is nothing more than bigotry. Religious to be exact. Just because LGBT couples are a challenge for some to get their minds around doesn't mean those seeking special status are correct. It simply means they are ignorant.

In all honesty, I don't see the reason for the discussion regarding procreation as necessary if the LGBT community are too modest to discuss it in the first place. But, the LGBT are parents and they aren't necessary adopted. As a matter of fact depending on whom's uterus and sperm are used in the conception sometimes creates custody issues with couples seeking a separation or divorce from each other. Marriage would end that. It would place both partners on the same status to children born to those relationships.

Some of this appears to be an aspiration to build the perfectly religious country. Heterosexual relationships, marriages exclusive rights to procreation, no abortion, no contraception.

DOMA and Prop 8 as well as the NC Amendment are very dangerous laws. Grossly inappropriate and do not reflect the reality of the country's populous.

Genderless

One of the attorneys stated the word genderless in regard to Prop 8, I believe it was. Marriages of same sex couples are not genderless. Even if two people are neutered for whatever reason they might be, that does not preclude a loving relationship that leads to marriage.

I don't like the word genderless in statements before the Supreme Court. The use of the word does not make sense. A same sex marriage does not negate the gender of the couple. So, that 'idea' is troubling. How is it that a LGBT is genderless in the eyes of other Americans. That is strange. Really strange. It is also depersonalizing. Just because a person is LGBT means they lose their gender??????????????

The Prop 8 and DOMA folks have it wrong. They are looking at loving relationships through a very strange lens. I don't like it at all.

I think the word genderless shows an attempt to remove parenting capacity needed to maintain a population called the USA. That is why off base and can be contrived as racist. The USA is a sovereign nation without definition of ethnic or racial status. The USA is quite the contrary. The USA is considered a melting pot. I don't care if the entire country is genderless, there are many other methods to increase the population that lives in the USA.

Could the society become sterile? Sure. Especially if there are leaders that view a limited nuclear war as a real possibility in the world. If that were to occur would the USA still have sovereign status? Yeah. If the USA won the war. But, to say there aren't other methods of populating a sovereign country other than procreation is a hideous reality.

Why do they love being a Justice? I am sure there are days they wonder, too.

My Beloved World (click here)

It is an autobiography of her life up to her entrance to the legal profession. She had a challenging life and not without discrimination. It is unfortunate that tone continues even today.

Laura Shaine Cunningham

Updated 5:55 pm, Friday, February 22, 2013

...Sotomayor (click here) is very much the poet-exile herself as she relives her childhood and that of her parents. Born in New York, she returns to Puerto Rico as a child to visit her family and recapture the sights, the blue of the ocean where it meets the sky and the almost sweet taste of coconut milk sipped by a straw through a hole punctured in a fresh green coconut, not one of the "shriveled hairy brown things" sold on the streets of the Bronx. Sonia sips and tastes her "beloved world" - filled with exotic flavors and savored most often in the company of her vast extended family....

Ya got to love it. A Hispanic female Justice asks a presenting attorney a question and she is told to mind her wifely ideas as she has the issue wrong. Then a caucasian male Justice tells the presenting attorney to shut up and answer the question put to him.

It was definitely a legitimate question. It wasn't based in anything except prudent legal purpose.

The refusal of an attorney to answer a question from a USA Justice is attitude. There is no reason for attitude when the arguments are winning arguments.

Harm is a reason to take a legal question seriously and the answer that harm was not an issue as the Justice has the question wrong is so very arrogant. It is a heck of a defense for a law that should never have been written in the first place.

Posted: 02/26/2013 3:57 pm
...We can talk about race and class (click here) in America all we want but Justice Sotomayor describes better than any sociologist or politician just what a different planet you live on if you have education, power, and wealth. And what it feels like if you don't.

She puts us in the Harvard/Radcliffe admissions office circa 1970, where everything from the oriental rug to the white couch to the perfectly coiffed hair of the admissions officer conspire to say: you don't belong here if you're from the Bronx....

DOMA and Proposition 8 have to be struck down. There is no valid argument to maintain their integrity. Every reason to do otherwise.

Let me state the obvious of the wayward demands of procreation to burden marriage in the USA. It is dangerous. That is not a valid definition.

Marriage is not about procreation. A citizen can procreate with and without a marriage license. A citizen may procreate, but, doesn't have to procreate. A citizen can decide to not procreate. Does that mean they don't marry? It is a hideous and dangerous faux face for bigotry.

There are slippery slopes all along the this discussion. If people marry because they have special status and don't procreate, but, yet the Supreme Court of the USA state Proposition 8 is a constitutional law, does that mean a citizen will be have demands to procreate outside their decision otherwise?

What happens then to the North Carolina Amendment which victimizes couples with children but are not married? This entire discussion can lead to 'child harvests' of people not married with children or couples married but not procreating within that relationship.

What if to maintain a married status a couple is demanded to have a child and they don't want children? Adoption, right? Bouy, that might even serve the adoption industry in a way they can only dream about.

The exclusion of marriage to a special status creates all kinds of problems. It is obviously unconstitutional to seek to regulate marriage.

Marriage is a privacy issue. It is no one's business who marries who or if they have a family. That is not the purview of government. Any laws that seek to regulate marriage is bigotry at its worse.

Marriage is not a State's Right issue. Marriage applies to all the citizens. It is not an exclusive focus of only California. 

If the Supreme Court plays politics with Proposition 8 it is incompetent. It is not the place of the Supreme Court to politicize any case before them. That is legal malpractice. 

Deferring to the 'political process' to play out is not a constitutional right. The Vote is a constitutional right. The political process is not a constitutional process.

Politics falls under Freedom of Speech, but, there is no constitutional right to politics in the USA.

For Alito to state this is a new political dilemma is blatant malpractice. The reality of LGBT is as old as the species itself. Alito is showing his bigoted side. Just that simple. There are vast amounts of information about the prevalence of LGBT through history, including ancient history. Alito is biasing his opinion by even raising such bigoted remarks during the hearings.

Marriage is not defined by the Bible. The biblical definition can be interpreted by many denominations of religions for the practice of faith, but, faith has nothing to do with marriage; not at the level of government; not in the USA. 

If the practice of faith discriminates between whom is fit and whom is not fit to marry for the sake of procreation that my be a doctrine of the religion or a dogma of some kind, but, there is nothing legal about that definition. When faiths discriminate based on procreation it is about raising numbers of members based on birth and not participation. The merits of that are interestingly debated, but, are not important here.

DOMA and Proposition 8 carries the question of special status.

Basically, does California and the entire of the Legislative and Executive branches of state and federal government have the right to create a special status of citizens.

I think the implications of this decision go far beyond that of same sex marriage rights.

It is about isolating some citizens away from the right to exist in the same way as citizens within the special status, be it marriage rights or parenting rights or working status. This decision is about creating 'the right to exist' as a citizen in the USA. Why is there any special considerations in the USA for a group of citizens over that of others. Being born a citizen or achieving citizen status through immigration needs to be upheld as the only status to achieve the rights of that citizenship.

There is a lot here to be concerned about. Any adverse outcome to the status of marriage as a 'special interest' to citizen rights at this level opens up a slippery slope that could eliminate more than marriage from 'citizenship' status.

I don't see this appeal to the Supreme Court failing. Marriage is as much a right to a citizen as the right to seek education, employment, health and happiness. If the Supreme Court wants to say marriage is a special status, then does nutrition fall into that same category. Why not eliminate all rights of citizens and qualify them based in special considerations. This is nonsense, this should have been thrown out as an issue at all a long time ago.

If a special status is required for full citizenship then who determines that status. The government? Will marriage licenses now require a psychiatric certification to what a sexual identity is and whom is heterosexual and whom is not. Are you bisexual, transgender? What makes anyone think they can self identify at all? There is that whole closet stuff, too. I mean how do we protect those 'fit' to marry from those that are not? The laws themselves are completely out of line with the definition of citizenship. This entire issue is crazy. It reeks of hatred and religious bigotry. 

Those seeking to pass legislation by POPULOUS vote to challenge the definition of CITIZEN need to get over themselves. Proposition 8 and DOMA are assaults against the definition of citizen. They are legislative initiatives based in political wedge issues defined in discrimination and that is putting it politely.

Proposition 8 and DOMA state, "You can be married if..." No. No. The right of the citizen is "You can be married." End of discussion. Any Supreme Court opinion outside that parameter is simply wrong. Then competency has to be decided on the Justice. Do we as a society allow this level of hatred to exist at the level of the Supreme Court?

There may be a private sector solution to the VA Backlog with sufficient funding.

BULLETIN TODAY | MONEY & SAVINGS

By Kevin Freking of The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Although the number of pending (click here) veterans’ disability claims keep soaring, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki on Sunday said he’s committed to ending the backlog in 2015 by replacing paper with electronic records....

...Shinseki said that the VA has puts its new computer system in place in 20 regional offices around the country and all regional offices will be on the system by the end of the year....

I realize the problems with assessing a veteran's disability is unique from that of the Social Security Disability services, but, the Social Security folks get it done. There have to be aspects of the SSI system that will apply to the Veterans. 

Additionally, combat Veterans need to be considered 100% credible in their claims. They should have a 'predisposed' determination. No man or woman returning from a combat position should be treated in less than 100% credible. A physical examination and/or psychiatric evaluation is all this should require. Outside the combat veterans the VA and DOD can proceed in a less urgent method, but, the combat veterans should have special status.

..."The (federal) response(click here)  has been slow and has not matched the magnitude of this population's requirements as many cope with a complex set of health, economic, and other challenges," said co-author Dr. George Rutherford. He chairs the IOM’s committee on the assessment of readjustment needs of military personnel, veterans, and their families. The IOM, an independent nonprofit, is the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences....

...Among the recommendations within the 500-plus page report:

• DOD and VA must “boost efforts to reduce the stigma” associated with service members or veterans simply asking for help to deal with mental-health issues or with substance-abuse problems.
• The tool DOD uses to assess cognitive function following a head injury – Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM) — carries “no clear scientific evidence” to show that it works. That’s key because more than 200,000 U.S. troops have sustained traumatic brain injuries since 2000 — most non-combat-related. On March 5, Congressional members sent a letter to the chiefs of DOD and VA seeking data to investigate a new theory linking TBIs with the military’s suicide crisis.
• One of the VA’s “first-line treatments for depression” — Acceptance and Commitment Therapy — similarly “lacks sufficient evidence” to show its efficacy.
• Research has found that curbing access to lethal weapons prevents suicides, however, “DOD policy prohibits restricting that individual's access to privately owned weapons” — even if a service member is known to be at risk for suicide.
• DOD and VA should link their databases so that the health records of all service members are available to track their medical conditions from the moment they enter the service through the day any future treatment is eventually rendered by a VA facility....

General Shinseki has done excellent work to bring about change that will serve our veterans. They can be treated immediately, if necessary, within the VA system and that is important. General Shinseki is correct in focusing first on treatment of dangerous illnesses either physical or mental. He has applied resources to the Department of Veterans Affairs to triage the dangerous our veterans face. 

There is a computer system. This is the first time in all the decades of claims there has been modernization. Like, what? Finally. The backlog is felt profoundly because of the numbers of veterans waiting in line. The numbers make the backlog. I am quite confident General Shinseki is focused and determined. He is dedicated to the best outcomes of our soldiers and he has demonstrated that.

There may be alternatives to standard claim assessment though. There are attorneys that assist veterans in their claims. I can't help but believe if these attorneys could be used in an advocacy manner rather than adversarial relationship with the VA there would be quicker outcomes. In other words, find a way to have our university hospitals and private attorneys process paperwork on a fast track method to resolve the backlog for combat veterans.

If the university systems can expedite the claims based on VA standards it should be valid. I realize this might mean spending resources General Shinseki would use otherwise, but, it might be a reasonable idea for veterans already in the process over 6 to 8 months. 

The justification to spending outside the VA system, focusing first on combat veterans, is the longer the claims take the more likely the VA medical system will be stressed with soldiers in a negative spiral. The entire VA system could achieve a better operational status if the backlog was resolved and soldiers were allowed to improve their lives though support in the face of their disability. The resources available for treatment might increase if so much wasn't used to process a backlog.

General Shinseki cannot guarantee there won't be some fraud in an accelerated process conducted in the private sector, but, oversight would be needed. A reassessment of these claims within the VA system within a year to eighteen months from the date of the decision would reduce continued fraud. That would bring the target date of 2015 online with a less stressed backlog demand and more support for the veteran.

I apologize to the people of Newtown, Connecticut.

We live in a country where freedom of speech is suppose to be respected above all other means of participation in our society. Rather unfortunately, that means robocalls from offensive parties. 

Posted: 03/25/2013 
Last Updated: 13 hours ago

NEWTOWN, Conn. - NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — Some residents (click here) in Newtown, Conn., say they're outraged at receiving robocalls from the National Rifle Association only three months after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings....

It can be argued the calls should be limited to members only in areas of the country most effected by gun violence. People have a right to recover from violence without such insults. To limit robocalls to members is to realize there is a percentage of the American populous interested in what the NRA states.

The NRA is incapable of conscience. They are unable to apologize for the unlawful use and sales of guns. The leadership would have realized the silenced voices due to gun violence are more powerful than any telephone call that seeks to make gun owners victims. Gun owners are not victims of any government actions. Quite the contrary, we can all benefit from sincere responsible gun ownership.

I don't know if the families of the victims in Newtown realize standing together and bringing their stories to powerful companies actually works when it comes to guns. In 2009, two of the victims of Columbine had a profound impact on the executives of K-Mart when they asked for the sales of ammo to stop. K-mart did stop selling it. I have made purchases at K-Mart and even had prescriptions filled there, but, I won't go to Walmart.

Walmart is the store where the gunman in Arizona purchased his ammunition. It is sadly ironic to realize Walmart finds the highest profits of Wall Street.

AP/ April 29, 2009, 9:59 PM

At Kmart stores across the country, (click here) shoppers cruising the aisles for diapers, garden hoses and microwave popcorn can also find ammunition for everything from pellet guns to handguns.

But some of those shelves soon will be empty as Kmart phases out the sale of handgun ammunition over the next three months.

Company officials made the announcement Thursday following meetings that included company executives, a prominent gun-control advocate and victims of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.

Kmart stores have not carried handguns since the 1970s, but still sell hunting rifles and other long guns. For some time, the Troy, Mich.-based company has been under pressure from gun-control advocates to stop selling firearms....

The point is families and victims are powerful in the USA. Their reality can't be denied. I applaud them and apologize for what they are going through because they have inherited the power of being victims of gun violence in the USA.

K-Mart vs WallMart (ammo) (click here)

---

I recently moved to Monroe County I have a K-Mart and a Wallmart right across the street from each other. As far as a can tell they sell a lot of the same stuff... at about the same price. I have only been into Kmart once... and that was to see what they had. I saw what they did not have...Ammo.

It seems that K-mart took all the ammo out of their stores. As a result I only go to Wallmart to shop. The way it usually works is that I either go to Wallmart to buy things for the house, and buy six boxes of ammo while there.... or I go to Wallmart to buy Ammo, and end up buying other things for the house. Given that I just had a new house built, you can imagine the amount of money I have spent at Wallmart since in the last 6 months. Hint... over $3,000. This is all money the K-Mart did not get because they do not carry ammo. I hope this message gets around to K-Mart.

There is one other issue that does not involve robocalls. It is the donations made to the people of Newtown. I thought the article in the NYTimes was noteworthy. So while the families and victims are at the forefront of improving the quality of life of a nation through advocacy, they also have another responsibility. This responsibility might be more immediately rewarding. They have monies to direct from the people that sincerely do care.

By PETER APPLEBOME

Published: March 24, 2013

...Now, with almost all the money still unspent, (click here) sharply differing views are emerging over what exactly should be done with it.
The bulk of the money, $10.2 million, was donated to the United Way of Western Connecticut, and has been transferred to a local foundation that will decide who should receive it and when, and how much should be set aside for community needs like counseling and long-term issues.
But this weekend, 50 parents and family members directly affected by mass tragedies, including those that occurred at Aurora, Columbine, the World Trade Center and Virginia Tech, issued a statement saying that in the past, charities had failed to distribute aid to those most in need, and that, unless donated for specific purposes, funds raised for Newtown should be sent directly to victims and victims’ families. A separate statement, signed by those family members and 14 more from Newtown, said that this should become the national model for future tragedies....
...Cristina Hassinger, the daughter of the Sandy Hook principal, Dawn Hochsprung, who was one of the 6 educators killed along with 20 children at the school on Dec. 14, said that the donated money was meant for victims and their families and should go directly to them....

I agree with Cristina. This is an opportunity for state legislators and governors to seek to make these donated monies achieve their intended goals. These monies were not a result of a fund raising effort. These monies were given out of grief and in hopes it would ease the suffering of those involved. I hope the state governments protect the interest of the victims and their families as was intended by other citizens of this country wanting to help, but, lacking for another expression.

In no way should such a tragedy benefit budgets and treasuries of organizations. The organizations were entrusted with the monies by others in expectations it would reach it's intended purpose.

I wish the families and victims of these American tragedies peace in their lives.

Don't let the Republicans run out the clock.

Talk is cheap. But, to allow needed legislation extend into next year for the sake of a political issue in 2014 is simply wrong. This announcement by President Obama was on June 15, 2012. Two years from that date places The Dreamers outside the impact of this Executive Order long before the November elections. 

The Immigration Reform legislation has to go forward now. I would encourage the USA Senate to write the Immigration Reform Bill and vote to pass it as soon as possible. If President Obama was able to act last year, the Congress should be ready to act as well. 

The elections of November 2014 is too late. It will then only be a carrot and stick measure to entice the minority voter without real resolve.

It is the coveting of 'the gun' itself. The coveting is the problem. Militarized values of a society.

These are the weapons used at Sandy Hook Elementary School. 

How did they get there?

Yes, the media finds violence a very interesting venue, but, there is also a personal coveting that takes place when one owns a gun. The advertisements of these weapons happen nearly on a continuous basis in news reporting across the USA. The news reporting in the USA based on violence and guns far out weighs the reporting on any other topic. And forget it, any environmental issue is never put first or in the headlines. Our heroes are not Climate Scientists, they are Rambo. 

How does that happen?

News reporting is not weighted to it's social value? Why not? Why is there disproportionate reporting of violence across the USA?

It is no different than when a person purchases a new computer or a new car or a used car, there is a personal coveting that occurs. 

The same thing with guns. In order to purchase a gun there has to be a reason to do that. A need of some kind. Isn't it the job of advertisers to create a need where one does not exist for such offensive items?

That said, try a thought experiment. Put a picture of a military style weapon on the refrigerator. See what family says and then realize you have just introduced an image that will result in discussions about the purpose of that image.

Then think about purchasing one and putting in the house. Then realize the more invested a person is in the outcome to the monies they spent the more there will be a presence of that item in the life of that person(s).

A computer isn't purchased because it collects dust. It is purchased and used. A car is not purchased to put in the driveway so the neighbors will drool, it is used in the lives of those that own it. Realize that a coveting takes place first to purchase these weapons and then after they are purchased. There is no sense in having one if it is not used to build a competency in handling it. Seriously. The gun becomes an issue in the house if there is no competency in using it.

So, the entire mess of having these weapons among the people begins LONG before they are purchased. I think that is a valid point of view. We don't allow cigarette commercials on television, either. There is a reason for that.

These guns need to be made obsolete in the USA. The numbers of them in our society is far too high. They are bought by straw purchasers with impunity. They cause insults to the USA national security and to national security of other nations, namely Mexico as an example.

Enough of this mess. We need to stop it.

Talking about 'getting it.' Iraq can't value life the same as the rest of the Arab nations?

Secretary of State John Kerry (right) with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad. "I made it very clear . . . anything that supports [Syria's] President Assad is problematic," Kerry said.

Matthew Lee, Associated Press

POSTED: Monday, March 25, 2013, 3:01 AM

BAGHDAD - Just days (click here) after the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry confronted Baghdad for continuing to grant Iran access to its airspace and said Iraq's behavior was raising questions about its reliability as a partner.

Speaking to reporters during a previously unannounced trip to Baghdad, Kerry said that he and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had engaged in "a very spirited discussion" on the Iranian flights, which U.S. officials believe are ferrying weapons and fighters intended for the embattled Syrian government.

Kerry said the plane shipments - along with material being trucked across Iraqi territory from Iran to Syria - were helping President Bashar al-Assad's regime cling to power by increasing their ability to strike at Syrian rebels and opposition figures demanding Assad's ouster....

It takes a former Presidential candidate.

Thank you, Secretary Kerry. Job well done.

I have a request of the Secretary. This isn't really about foreign policy. Next time he has a moment, could he ask his spouse to consider producing Catsup in addition to Ketchup. Heinz is a wonderful company with high quality products, but, they need to offer an alternative to sugar in the condiment.

Thanks. Keep up the good work.

This video shows rescuers removing a child, (click here) said to be alive, from the rubble of a collapsed building in the al-Sukkari neighborhood of Aleppo on Wednesday. Dozens of people standing atop the rubble searching for survivors celebrated the rescue. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, based in Britain, said airstrikes in al-Sukkari and in another part of Aleppo killed 13 civilians, including seven children, on Wednesday. At least four apartment buildings were destroyed by the airstrikes.

Baghdad can claim responsibility for this in an international criminal court.

30 round clips were used at Columbine High School. When is this insanity going to end?

The articles below are from Forbes Magazine. The section of the magazine where these articles appear is called "SECURITY." I think they 'get it.' It is time the Congress does.

1/14/2013 @ 3:43PM

Five months ago, (click here) the group of homemade gun enthusiasts known as Defense Distributed set out to create a lethal firearm that could be downloaded and 3D-printed entirely from scratch, circumventing all gun control laws. But as new gun bills have been proposed in the wake of recent shootings, creating a bootleg weapon with digital pieces may soon be far easier: As simple as printing a spring-loaded plastic box.

Over the past weekend, Defense Distributed successfully 3D-printed and tested an ammunition magazine for an AR semi-automatic rifle, loading and firing 86 rounds from the 30-round clip....

The Downloads are going to happen anyway. National Security can easily be introduced into the priority to end the potential of dead police nationwide. We need our first arrest of criminals. I doubt any city in the country needs the drug cartels to have this capacity. The law needs to be passed now.

1/16/2013 @ 4:34PM

...To head off those proposed regulations, (click here) Defense Distributed began offering downloadable and printable blueprints for a 30-round magazine on its website, Defcad.org, over the weekend on its website. The group’s founder Cody Wilson told me earlier in the week that files for the three pieces of the group’s printable magazine have been downloaded from its website more than 2,200 times already.

Wilson says Congressman Israel’s call to ban the devices will only increase that steady flow of downloads. “I love it. It’s so reactionary,” he said when I reached him by phone. “I hope he gets tons of attention for this push, and that people download hundreds of thousands of magazines.”

The details of Israel’s suggested ban aren’t entirely clear. Plastic and polymer high-capacity magazines are already common, and aren’t currently covered by the current Undetectable Firearms law. So it would seem Israel would need to distinguish between those plastic magazines and 3D-printable ones, or ban possession of all non-metal high-capacity magazines outright....

"Morning Papers" - It's Origins (click here - thank you)

The Rooster

"Okeydoke"

VOA News

March 21, 2013

Japanese researchers (click here) say they have proof that an internal biological clock -- the so-called Circadian rhythm -- plays a role in letting roosters know when it's time for their morning crow....

..."'Cock-a-doodle-doo' symbolizes the break of dawn in many countries," says Takashi Yoshimura of Nagoya University. Writing in the journal Current Biology, Yoshimura added it's not clear whether crowing is under the control of a biological clock or is simply a response to external stimuli.

Yoshimura notes that roosters don't only crow at dawn, but also at other times of the day, which suggests that external factors, such as the stray glare of a car's headlights, or the sound of another rooster crowing nearby, can motivate the bird's vocalizations....

"Good Night, Moon"

Waxing Gibbous

94% Full

March 21, 2013
By Ben Rankin

Asteroids: NASA say best way to handle moon rock heading to Earth is to Pray. (click here)

The head of NASA revealed that the best way to handle a large asteroid heading for Earth... is to PRAY.

Charles Bolden told Congress that prayer was all the experts or anyone else could currently do about asteroids that may be on a collision course with the planet.

Over 1,500 people were injured when a meteor exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, last month - generating shock waves that shattered windows and damaged buildings.

On the same day, an asteroid discovered last year passed 17,200 miles from Earth, closer than television satellites that ring the planet.

When asked what Nasa's plans were if an asteroid was heading for New York, Bolden said: "The answer to you is 'pray'."

Democrat Eddie Johnson added: "We were lucky recent events were a coincidence, not a disaster."

A Moon Rock heading to Earth?

Huh?

What makes anyone think there is going to be pieces of the Moon coming to Earth? That satellite hasn't moved or spewed volcanic fragments since the Earth found an atmosphere. 

Moon Rock heading to Earth.

Right.

NASA said this? 

Really?