No START Treaty?--My Response

(The following is my response to a story today stating that House Republicans will block any attempt by President Obama to ratify the START Treaty with Russia--aimed at reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles on both sides.

The Republican leaders are claiming that the lame-duck session (around the upcoming holidays) doesn't have enough time to sort out the terms of the treaty. In reality, this is just a taste of the political grandstanding that will occur when the Republican party controls the US House of Representatives in late January [following the recent mid-term elections].

Congress has had the terms of the START Treaty for more than eight months and has failed to even address the issue with any urgency. Now, they are using it against the President in order to gain political power throughout DC ahead of the shift in power within the House.)

"Just another pathetic display by the Republicans to show voters that THEY are now in control--again. A party of Jackasses--at least they got the party logo spot on!

So long as the new policy Republican party further widens the political ideology gap away from Democrats (and even the Moderates, too!), Congressional lawmaking will grind to a complete halt, and national policies and programs will all suffer for the cry-baby tantrum these whiners and demagogues are throwing.

What an embarrassment our democracy has become to the world. Party fighting and in-fighting is raging out of control; the uncooperative air in Congress is beyond anything this country has ever witnessed; and it seems that the sole purpose of the Republican party is to attack the President and destroy any hope of bipartisan cooperation that might help the country to move forward.

'To hell with the country, so long as we (the Republicans) are in power! We'll crucify the President, severely damage our tender relations with Russia by NOT passing the START treaty, undo everything the President has implemented, destroy the environment, plunder every natural resource available, allow the destruction of aquifers that are inconveniently near natural gas deposits, and decimate the hopes of 56 MILLION Americans for getting any sort of health coverage! Beyond that, we really don't have a plan; we just want to destroy the credibility of our President, and decimate his effectiveness simply because he's (gasp!)...... a Democrat.'

If you really paid attention to the just concluded election process, that pretty much sums up the goals of the Hee-Haw party. If you don't see it, then you either don't want to, or are completely blind to the hateful, divisive party rhetoric they've been spewing now for the last 14+ years.

Yeah...great plan....Jackasses.

(And by the way--for all you naysayers, I'm a registered Independent, and have always voted for whomever I believe is best suited for office. My ballots reflect votes for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. I do not favor one party over the other.)"

Local Congressional Rep Critisizes Federal Wage Earnings

(I made the following comment in my local newspaper after reading an article in which our House Representative, Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), criticized the average pay rates of Federal employees. In his remarks, Chaffetz falls well short of saying that he himself (and his fellow Congressmen/women) makes too much money--currently at $174,000+.)


"Typical comment from Chaffetz--What a putz.

He's spewing the latest Republican party rhetoric because they'll have control of the House in late January, and are posturing their 'cock of the walk' (in this case, the House vs. the President) stance well ahead of controlling the House to tell everyone that the Republicans are gonna make things better...well, at least that's their "Do as I say, not as I do" campaign smoke screen.

Chaffetz is a terrible Representative of his District--and yes, I made my vote accordingly on election day--and doesn't have an original political thought in his head. He constantly bows to his Republican masters rather than doing what his constituency wants. That's certainly no way to make a difference; it only further widens the political chasm that divides our Congress.

Former President Jimmy Carter was absolutely correct when he recently stated that the current political landscape in the US is an embarrassment to the rest of the democratic world.

So long as the political parties remain divisive on all issues, nothing positive and forward-thinking will be accomplished in DC."

A Very Personal Note

I just learned that my father died this morning at approximately 0200a Central time.

His death was not unexpected due to having contracted prostate cancer, as well as being burdened with advanced Alzheimer's disease.

Jerome Beryl W, a 3rd generation Swedish American; Born 05 Aug. 1932 in Bertha, Minnesota.

He was a great father; my hiking companion; my friend. He taught me responsibility, thrift, an indomitable work ethic, strength of purpose, photography, and a great love of the outdoors.

He also taught me that nothing is impossible so long as you believe, pursue, and effort your very best at all times.

He was a father of six, a grandfather of eleven, and a great grandfather of eight.

He now joins my mother who herself died on 14 Feb. 2001.

05 Aug. 1932 - 03 Nov. 2010 (Age 78)

Where Is The Tolerance?

I wrote the following as a response to an article that appeared in the Deseret News on Thursday, 07 Oct. 2010. The article stated that National Leaders for the LGBT community would be going to Salt Lake City to present the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church President, Thomas S. Monson, with 100,000 letters of protest to remarks made by church Elder Boyd K. Packer at the church's just concluded 180th semi-annual General Conference.

In his remarks, President Packer was speaking on pornography and overcoming its addiction, as well as addictions to other sexual sins. Nowhere in his talk did Pres. Packer reference gays, homosexuals or any other particular group; yet certain media have made his remarks to sound as if he was speaking about these groups directly.

Apparently, the misquoted remarks have stirred a hornets nest amongst the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community. These leaders, still lashing out at anyone they believe is a target in their ongoing struggle for equality, actually think that their delivery of these letters will sway church leadership to change the doctrine of the church to accommodate the wishes of these individuals.

The message boards were sharply divided. I wrote my response to a particular respondent who attacked a number of other respondents for standing up for the church, and President Packer. His arguments were inflammatory (to say the least), wholly argumentative, and without a single shred of support for any of his outlandish claims. I just HAD to respond!

"Respondent______

Your post was laughable; and completely unsupported. As per the recent pattern displayed by the LGBT community, you attack relentlessly spouting skewed or completely false rhetoric, yet demand respect and equality.

If you're going to make any argument, please omit personal opinion and heresay. Provide factual information that can be easily referenced. Otherwise your arguments are hollow and utterly irrelevant.

Tell me--The LGBT community espouses compassion and tolerance...correct? When the citizens of California voted against the legalization of gay marriage, where was the tolerance and compassion when businesses were ransacked, when homes and places of worship defaced, elderly women harassed, and people in general called profane names, or were verbally abused because they had the temerity to have a differing opinion than those on the losing side?

Please remember that we live in the United States of America; in which The Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of its citizens to believe, worship and opine as they wish. If someone disagrees with you, then have a thoughtful, intelligent discussion with them. If you can't do that then don't hypocritize yourself by calling others hateful and [by] showing them complete disrespect."


*My comment, while obviously not addressing the right or wrong of the issue, was meant to illustrate the hypocritic "Do as I say, Not as I do" mentality that seems to be a huge part of the LGBT's agenda as they look for equality in the eyes of the law.

My big issue is not their equality; rather, it is the methods these groups are employing of literally attempting to strong arm everyone who disagrees with their choice of lifestyles; be it individuals, communities, cities, and governments on all levels. It would seem that anyone disagreeing with them becomes a target for protests, demands, harassments and [sometimes] violence.

Where is the freedom of choice? Or the love and tolerance these individuals and groups claim to abide by? So long as you agree with them, you are safe. But if you have the balls to stand up and disagree, then you become fair game...at least, that's how I see it.

Big Oil Is After ANWR Again!

Today, a story emerged that stated the people behind our ever-present energy dependence--aka Big Oil--are once again trying to persuade Congress to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling once again. All throughout the Gee Dubya Bushie presidency they tried unsuccessfully to open ANWR. To this point, neither Congress, nor the Courts, have been willing to allow this.

I wrote the following commentary to the story, and to the many respondents who are either completely for drilling, or immovably against it.

"I'm against drilling in ANWR. The oil companies would have you believe that the area they want to drill in is of no consequence; when in fact, the area is one of the largest breeding and calving grounds for caribou and polar and grizzly bears. How can drilling NOT impact the area?

Also, Big Oil themselves state that they wouldn't even begin pumping oil for at least 10-15 years! Plus, they have no concrete data on the size of any oil reserves. They estimate, guess and then line the pockets of lobbyists and Congressmen, and spout "oil independence" to a gullible American public.

The last time I read (2005 I think), the US government was giving Big Oil over $5 BILLION dollars in tax breaks per year; but was only giving $7 million dollars towards energy research. Yeah...you read that correctly!

How about the idea that Congress puts $5B towards energy research, and give all of Big Oil just $7M in in tax breaks? After all, with the record profits regularly reported by Big Oil, do we, the people, the source of those record profits, really need to be giving these businesses tax breaks? C'mon! Think about it!

How much research; how much further could we get, if $5B per year were put into energy research? How many new industries [and jobs] would be created because of that investment? How much more secure would the United States be if oil were out of the political and economic landscape for good?

Throughout the history of the United States, anytime we were faced with having to improve, the people rose to the challenge. Just think of industrialization, the increased manufacturing capabilities during WWII, and the drive to reach the moon. Creating alternative, renewable energy resources could very well be the next wave of invention, world leadership and increased pride in being American!

ANWR drilling is NOT the answer! It's time that Congress stands up to Big Oil, and deflate their rather sizable...ahem...economic ego."

More Foul Calling in the NBA?

I wrote the following response to a news story coming out of the National Basketball Association offices which stated that NBA refs are being instructed to call more fouls on players who are protesting foul calls made against them. The intent is to stop the whining by players, and to speed up the game a little as it has become bogged down in mini-rants and incessant cry-baby complaints out of players and coaches. My response:

"It may not seem like much, but at least the League is starting to tap into the things fans find most irritating about today's game.

Personally, I'd like to return to the NBA of 30 or 40 years ago when actual skill in footwork, dribbling, and non-contact defense were prized by fans, and a joy to watch; when hanging on the rim was un-sportsman-like conduct; putting your elbow into a defender was an offensive foul, and traveling was called when any player took more than two steps without dribbling.

I stopped watching NBA games about four years ago because what I see is no longer skill so much as the ability to brawl on court and get away with as much as possible without getting caught. Then when they do get caught, these overpaid whiners throw a mini temper tantrum and act like they are being picked on by the refs. I long for the days of player loyalty to the cities they played for; when being a role model to kids actually meant something to the average player--rather than being an irritating afterthought.

I say, start calling all contact, all swiping at the ball, and definitely any complaining for committing a foul that the players themselves know damned well they did. The game needs to get back to its roots in just about every way.

The NBA will probably start attracting more fans back into the overpriced seats in the luxury arenas that Stern and Co. insisted be built in order to fit into their new "economic model." Maybe then they'll own up to creating the monster that is now the National BasketBRAWL Association. But I doubt it.

Are Political Parties Still Necessary?

I wrote the following response to a question posed on the website Intersect.com that asked, "Are political parties still necessary?

John Adams, the second President of the United States wrote, "The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries." (Balancing and compromise between parties.)

I don't doubt the need for political parties for even a second. Without structured goals, ideals and leadership, out government would quickly fall into chaos. On the other hand, I completely agree with those who state that Congress has lost its way; that millionaires now control the country on not just the National level, but the State level as well. The voice of the commoner has become lost in a proverbial sea of Special Interest lobbyists who are more concerned about their right to pollute the environment, put unpronounceable chemicals in and on our foods and increasingly deny hardworking American the health care we so desperately need. Who is speaking now for the average American? I guarantee you it's NOT my Representative or Senator! They are too busy dancing the DC two-step in order to appease their business lobby financial backers.

The Founding Fathers did not want an exclusive wealthy leadership. They framed the guidelines for elected office with the thought that even the least noticed could lead the wealthiest.

Also, the Spoils System was supposed to have gone the way of the Dodo back in the early 1900's. But, it's back! We see this in Cabinet appointments, National Leadership appointments, passage of laws favoring certain industries as exchange for election backing (money, votes, etc).

It seems that what made this country great, what really separated it from other national governments, is being lost as party fighting (and in-fighting) reaches an all new crescendo as each tries to out shout the other in their quest to "carry the banner of freedom."

So, how do we fix it? Easy--Get rid of all lobbyists; electively replace every member of Congress with those having a real and true desire to serve *the will of the people*, insist that our Presidents abandon any semblance of the re entrenched spoils system, and reduce the powers of the presidency to its original parameters.

Return the power of the government back to the people. That would be a good start.

Will it happen? I doubt it; but it is a worthy goal that is certainly worth working towards. For the sake of the United States, I hope it actually happens.

Fidel Castro Was Wrong?

I was going to try and comment on this story, but have been feeling so bad that I decided to abandon that effort as this piece of news was too important to let it pass by much longer. So, here is a copy of the story as it appeared early on Thursday, 09 Sept 2010. Full credit is given.


By Jeff Franks (Reuters)

updated 9/8/2010 9:36:59 PM ET

HAVANA — Fidel Castro said Cuba's economic model no longer works, a U.S.-based journalist reported on Wednesday following interviews with the former president last week.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly magazine, wrote in a blog that he asked Castro, 84, if Cuba's model — Soviet-style communism — was still worth exporting to other countries and he replied, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."

The comment appeared to reflect Castro's agreement, which he also expressed in a column for Cuban media in April, with his younger brother President Raul Castro, who has initiated modest reforms to stimulate Cuba's troubled economy. Goldberg said Julia Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in Washington who accompanied him to Havana, believed Castro's words reflected an acknowledgment that "the state has too big a role in the economic life of the country."

Such sentiment would help President Castro, who took over from his brother in 2008, against those members of the ruling Communist Party who oppose his attempts to loosen the state's hand, Sweig told Goldberg.
Goldberg wrote in a blog on Tuesday that Castro summoned him to Havana to discuss his recent article about the likelihood of conflict between Israel and Iran, with possible U.S. involvement, over Iran's growing nuclear capabilities. He said Castro criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for anti-Semitism and denying the Holocaust.

Castro, since emerging in July from four years of seclusion following intestinal surgery, has become an anti-nuclear weapon crusader expressing concern about the future of the world. He fears that if the United States and Israel try to enforce international sanctions against Iran for its nuclear activities, nuclear war will break out.
Castro also criticized his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when he urged the Soviet Union to launch nuclear weapons against the United States, telling Goldberg "it wasn't worth it at all."

Goldberg described Castro as physically frail, but energetic and mentally acute. During their visit, Goldberg and Sweig went with Castro, at his invitation, to see a dolphin show at Cuba's National Aquarium in Havana. They were accompanied by local Jewish leader Adela Dworin, who Castro kissed in front of the cameras in a possible message to Iranian leaders, Goldberg said in his Wednesday blog. Inside the aquarium, Goldberg was introduced to the veteranarian — a woman named Celia Guevara, Che's daughter.