just another "five and dime"

"The U.S. government still functions as a five and dime store in an eBay world."

                                     -- Donald Rumsfeld*

A "five and dime store" has:

• accountability,
  
• you can see what you're buying,
  
• you know what you're really expected to pay
  
• the sales clerks can eyeball the customer and get correct payment,
  
• there is person-to-person contact and finally,
  
• a higher degree of trust.
  

With "eBay" you:

• have little apparent accountability
  
• don't really know what you're buying,
  
• can be cheated on the price,
  
• the sales clerk never see the customer and can't be sure of getting correct payment,
  
• there is no person-to-person contact and finally,
  
• a high degree of anxiety and little if any trust.
  

<sup>* This quote taken from 26 February 2006 Doonsbury.

This URL is also: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html</sup>

Farewell to Senator Pat Roberts...

When I first met Senator Pat Roberts, I congradulated him on "being his own man, unlike that other Senator; it was a sincere compliment but he seemed disturbed.

Over the years, I've watched Senator Roberts become more and more a party man. Recently, I've began to think of him (and it pains me to write this) as a Republician Apparatchik (2nd definition).

A recent editorial in the Hutchinson [Kansas] News
Relinquishing our rights (subtitled: Senator accedes authority to Bush administration ) is rather depressing and dismaying.

The title is figurative, not literal. Senator Roberts is not leaving the Senate and will probably be a Member for a number of years to come. I am merely wishing farewell to the memory of the Senator Roberts who so favorably impressed me 6 to 8 years ago.

The Christian Scientist Monitor and "Whistle Blower" non-protection...

So, they're just figuring out that whistle blowers get shafted in spite of "protective laws". I read a statement that "whistle blowers would be safe from prosecution" back in 1986 and remember thinking this was hilarious! After all, what is a "whistle blower" doing but committing person treason against his/her boss? (Treason is defined as betrayal of a benefactor and a boss is a benefactor since the boss sees that you are:

paid

receive your benefits

usually get requested time off (unless the boss screws up and grants leave to other folks and cancelled your leave request two days before your leave was to start...)

get appropriate training (if they can't come up with a reason not to...)

are not fired -er- permantly laid off just before retirement...

Making your boss look bad makes your boss' bosses look bad because they

aren't properly supervising your boss,

don't have better ideas of running things and

may be guilty of the same lapses of judgement them selves. (Of course, you boss would never blow the whistle on his/her bosses just because you've blown the whistle on him/her!)

"Blowing the whistle" may be the morally proper and in fact, the morally superior thing to do. It is usually career suicide and not only results in a person being unemployed but in that person being unemployable!!!

Here is an example from the Christian Scientist Monitor article:

Richard Levernier is one who went public with his security concerns - and feels he's paid a heavy price. He first reported security breaches at the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons sites to management. Seeing no changes, he released an unclassified report to the media. While government investigators found his concerns credible, he lost his security clearance. Four years later, he's unemployed and, he says, unemployable.

"Whistleblowing" is career suicide; quietly briefing your boss about problems and telling said boss "I'll leave this in your hands to fix and will help you if you wish. I won't go over your head or public or bother you about this in the future" gives your boss a face saving way to do nothing. It allows your boss to be a coward and not try fixing problems. (I have done this!) But, God Help You should the news media find out or your boss' bosses investigate or some Congress Critter get a but up his/her ass and want to investigate!

Having written all this, I'd like to point out that I strongly approve of folks having the balls to try to fix serious problems. However, they should realize they're cutting their throats. Just look at Linda Trippe{sp}: she was transferred to a different office, her co-workers would not work with her (I wouldn't trust her either!) and ended up losing her security clearance (this practice is discussed in the SCM article) and ended up on the street. Now, I think she was shafted. Having said that, I also think she was a frigging busybody who should have minded her own business and not tried to fuck over President Clinton! But, that is editorizing in an editorial and...

William F. Buckley's hypothetical drug user test...

Liberator Online, Volume 4, Number 18, September 16, 1999 has the following thought experiment envisioned by William F. Buckley. He calls it "Button A or Button B?". Now, I wasn't an English Major at university (not that Oregon State University has ever been considered an English Major school) but I think that I've properly sourced the following quote:

(Source: Libertarian Party media release / MSNBC)

William F. Buckley: Button A or Button B?

"Now the question has become less 'Did George W do it back then?' than, 'Does George W's situation merit a re-examination of drug policy?' Eighty million Americans have used illegal drugs.

...Conceive a fantasy: You are required to push the 'A' button or
the 'B' button. The 'A' button would instantly incarcerate all
illegal drug users. The 'B' button would drop charges against
illegal drug users. Which button would you depress? Does your
allegiance to law and order propel you to put millions of people in jail? Or are you inclined to modify your opinion about what should be a jailable offense?"

- conservative syndicated columnist William F. Buckley Jr.

I've always had a problem with this test. Does button A refer to current
users of illegal drugs or is it anyone who has ever used illegal drugs?

It makes a difference!

Chenny! Chenny! Chenny is the Man!

He rode multiple draft deferments to avoid 'Nam but he's shown that he can shoot a man!

the government's report card on the government...

"Taxpayers in America don’t want us spending their money on something that’s not achieving results..."

...........................................President George W. Bush
..........................................................February 7, 2005

A new US Government report on the effectiness of various governmental agencies included the Department of Justice. Although they got a "passing grade" ("adequate"), there was a rather piss poor report card for the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration). Given the amount of time, effort, political capital and especially money spent on this agency over the decades, I would have hoped for much better results!

On a different subject, it looks like these "program measuring folks" want to fuck with the Veterans Home Loans programs. I guess this is just a continuation of the fuck the veterans, what have they done for us lately mentality!

"They" (the auditors) want to send Veterans to agencies set up to provide loans to civilians. Those loans are much harder for folks to obtain. When I was in the Navy, I was told that one of my benefits was no down payment, easy to obtain, loans. I guess since I'm not "turning to", I don't deserve the benefits promised to me! (Like the Feds haven't reneged before...)

Mikey the scapegoat

I used to think that Michael Brown was a complete dufus who had bungled the Katrina disaster. I've been watching him getting ragged on, by members of a Senate investigating committee this mornng, about his response to Katrina and I'm beginning to think he may not have been a total dufus and has been "thrown off the sled to the wolfes". "Mikey the scapegoat" was passing the buck at this inquisition but it also sounds like he was not getting support from his "superiors" when he was FEMA Director. He referred to telling his people to "go balls to the walls".

None the less, there have been too many stories about FEMA not having "gamed out a large Hurrican and not being prepared. Michael Brown, the Commanding Officer was responible (thus speaks the Navy Officer in me...) for the fucked up situation. Had the brilliant James Lee Witt been Head of Fema, then FEMA would have had a moment of glory!

But, El Presidente replaced Mr. Witt with a political appointee...

Cost of the War in Iraq...

This is from a web site called costofwar . com

Rolling Stone on Senator Sam Brownback or Nothing Stings like the truth.

I've always thought that Senator Sam Brownback was over the top but this article paints a man far more scary that I had thought!

I also had the silly idea that Sam represented Kansas but reading the article leaves me with the idea that he may think he represents God in the Senate. I guess "separation of Church" and State doesn't apply to Members of the Congress. (Of course, I could be wrong but I don't think so...)

puzzlement about a "Men Of The Book"...

The Kansas Legislature is hearing testimony on the subject of limiting access by protestors at funerals. (There isn't much "fun" in "funerals".) The "Reverend" Phelps of Topeka Kansas has been protesting funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq or Afghanistan. He is saying that God is attacking America for "protecting gays".

 

I don't understand how a "preacher" could bring such misery to a funeral.

 

Phelps is outraged that the Kansas legislature could want to act against him and his kin. If he can't see the point, they the is no point in talking with him.

fighting dirty...

I've gotten disgusted with the way the National Republicians fight dirty. There is the up-front "we respect our enemies" approach coupled with the "veteran" who pops up and says "that Democrat Senator or Representative didn't really earn his purple heart or told me that it was for nothing" [or words to that effedt]. How can they find former military folks who can verbally attack the Democrats like this? How can anyone honour those who lied? (i.e. "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth")

How can the Democrats fight back against slander like this given there is the suggestion of truth in the attacks? How do you deal with the lie wrapped in truth like worms in a healthy looking watermelon? How can they prove themselves honourable men when those attacking also claim to be honourable men?

Why is it the Democrats are so poor at this kind of assualt?

Why are the Republicans so damned good at rebuffing similiar attacks by Democrats?

Oh, before some schmuck decides that I didn't really earn my Purple Heart, I should mention that when I was in the Armed Forces, I was injured but not in "time of war" and so I wasn't awarded a Purple Heart!

Let me be the first to denounce myself!

I did not earn "my" Purple Heart!!!