What do you think about the Keystone pipeline? Is the reality what you think it is?

If you listen to the GOP you'll get a different story on a different day about why the USA needs the Keystone pipeline expansion.

They'll say that the USA needs it for energy independence. They'll say that the USA needs it to develop our resources. They'll say that the USA needs it for the jobs it will create.   Now they say we need it to make Russia weaker.

What is the reality.  The reality is their big donors in the Oil and Gas industry want it so they can make more money.  Plain and simple.
Let us look as some facts that are easily understood that show how much of a lie the GOP is pushing and how many Americans are swallowing it hook line and sinker.

So lets take point 1.  The pipeline doesn't help with energy independence.  The primary purpose of the pipeline is to get product from Canada to refineries in the gulf.  That refined product is then shipped around the world in a globally controlled market. Some of it will stay in the USA but the cost at the pump is the same regardless if the product came from a well half way around the world, from a well a thousand miles away or from a oil well 15 minutes from the refinery and your local petrol station.

On to point 2.  The fact is the pipeline will service mostly product from Canada.  Many people don't realize how much fossil fuel Canada has.  Mostly because up until recently it wasn't cost effective to extract and refine.  The oil isn't what you might think. It isn't like the oil Jed Clampett found while shooting at some food.  This stuff is dirty dirty dirty. The chemicals and processes they use to make it be able to flow through the pipelines makes it even worse.

Point 3.The jobs the pipeline will create are 2 kinds.  Short term construction jobs that go away and don't actually contribute in the grand picture.  The 2nd is the jobs created by the inevitable spills that will occur.  Some how I'd rather not have to employ people to clean up these environmental disasters.  First off our tax dollars goes into that clean up.  It isn't like Exxon flips the bill for the entire clean up.  Fuck the "clean up" is often a joke.  Many of them have the offending companies shrugging their shoulders how it could even be done leaving a natural disaster not only for you but your children when they are all grown up.

Point 4.  It won't make Russia weaker.  The global market for oil is controlled in ways you wouldn't even dream of.  Production is controlled to control prices.  No one in the gas and oil industry want to really compete.  They don't produce to capacity because that just drives down the price.  They keep the demand high so they can maximize their log term profits.  Russia will still drill, refine and sell the same amount of oil at the same price regardless of the situation with Keystone.

Lets move on to safety.  How many pipeline incidents do you think happen in the USA?  You might be able to think of a handful you've seen on the news if you are lucky.  But the reality is that there about 300 every year amounting to about 250 million dollars a year in property damage and around 20 deaths a year and almost 100 injuries directly attributed to the pipeline incidents.

Currently our refineries aren't laying dormant.  They are receiving enough product from existing pipelines and other transportation methods.

The fact is that this just reduces the cost for the oil and gas manufactures.  You might think this would drive down prices but this isn't a capitalistic market.  Free market principals do not apply here and any savings gained goes straight to the share holders, executives.  The consumer sees none of that.

You can be for or against the pipeline.  That is your choice.  But the GOP and their lies about why it should go ahead?  You should only swallow that if you like the taste of shit.

Sarah Palin will have you think environmentalist are complaining about nothing that "That earthworm can take one for the team" Note Sarah Palin doesn't care about the environment because she believes that the rapture is right around the corner.  Fuck why should she want an Earth where her children can raise their children when she thinks they'll all be brought up to heaven ahead of us heathens, that want to protect and preserve our environment, who will sit under judgement of Jesus for 1,000 years before getting our souls completely destroyed. That is going to happen any day now according to people like her.  How anyone could want a politician that actively promotes the idea that the world needs to come to an end is beyond me.  Up to that point she thinks she might as well get as rich and powerful as she can.

The History of Christmas

  Happy Holidays everyone and for those that feel offended about me not saying "Merry Christmas" read on and tell me at the end if you think of Christmas in the same way.  Nothing I am about to write about is under any doubt with biblical scholars including Christian biblical scholars.  It is simply the history of Christmas much of which you may find shocking.

  First many Christians believe Jesus was born on December 25th but this is most likely not true.  First there is no date specified anywhere in the bible's New Testament of Jesus's birth year forget its day.  The year can be deduced from 2 passages, but like many things in the bible are not consistent. The first is Luke 3:1-23 which reads

1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; ...

the bible goes on to say

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Now this means he was born 15 years before Tiberius was in power or Augustus's 28th year of power.  This equates to 754 Anno Urbis Conditae which was the calendar in use at that time.  So 754= 1AD.  The problem is that Luke 1:1-26 puts Jesus's birth in the time of King Herod and King Herod died in 750 AUC or for you that are good at maths, 4BC. Even if you deal with the length of the pregnancy of Elisabeth and some change you are still 2+ years short of 1AD. There are many other scholars that put Jesus's birth as far back as 9 B.C.  One thing we do know, and have very good records of, is that the Romans where very good at having very detailed records of governmental actions and they show no evidence of the census Luke speaks of in Luke2:1-52

So there is some doubt to the year Jesus was born.  The day also has no evidence of even being in December.  Clement of Alexandria estimated the birth of Jesus to be in April or May 4-2B.C. (750-752 AUC).  Joseph Fitzmyer, professor emeritus at The Catholic University of America, estimates Jesus was born in September 11, 3 B.C.  It was also a common Jewish belief in those early years that great men, like Jesus, died on the day of their birth putting Jesus's birthday at March 25th.

So if December 25th isn't Jesus's Birthday then "what is going on with Christmas?" you might ask.  Well it is very clear that early Christianity co-opted the Festival of Saturnalia which was celebrated from Dec 17^th to the 25^th. This was a brutal holiday in the Roman Empire that concluded with the festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti or for you that don't speak latin it is the birthday of the unconquered sun.  Saturnalia included such practices as going from house to house singing, modern day caroling, they just did it nude back in those days, eating cookies that are in the shape of people, giving of gifts between people and a few others.  The Roman Empire, in those days, was a large group of "cults".  Before you get up in arms there are plenty of Christian cults too.  The "Christmas tree" is an adoption of the Asherah symbol.  In early years of Christianity Asherah was worshiped as also the consort of Yahweh.  Hey look ... "God" had a wife!.

Santa Claus has a very interesting history.  First let me point out that despite what Fox News will have you believe Saint Nicholas was not white. He was born it what is now Turkey.  So instead of looking like this

rather he probably looked like this

Not very "white" but very indicative of the region he was born.  He was also part of the Council of Nicaea that was responsible for the creation of the New Testament in 325.  Centuries after his death his remains where brought to Italy where there used to be a belief that an ancient female deity would put gifts in stockings.  This seems to be a merger of a fable of Saint Nicholas placing gold coins in he stockings of 3 poor girls. The cult of Nicholas promoted the change of gift giving from Dec 6th, the day he died, to December 25.  Another part to incorporate pagans of the time into the Christian faith.  In the early 1800's Dr C. Moore published "Twas the night before Christmas".  Later in the 1800's Thomas Nast illustrated a more jolly Santa and assigned him a home in the North Pole.  In 1931 Coca-Cola finished the transformation of Saint Nicholas into the modern image we have of Santa.

The practice of forcing Jewish people to run, nearly naked, through the streets of Rome, a throw back to the early Saturnalia festival, was only stopped by Pope Clement IX in 1668.  A practice that lasted just over 2 centuries after Pope Paul II revived the practice in 1466.  This practice was again altered in the 1700s to force rabbis in Rome to walk through the streets while dressed in degrading costumes and having items thrown at them by on lookers.  A petition sent to Pope Gregory XVI to stop the practice received the reply of "It is not opportune to make any innovation"

It is because of the pagan origins of Christmas that the Puritans banned Christmas in Massachusetts for over 20 years in the mid 1600s. They didn't accept the holiday since the primary purpose of its creation was to appease pagans and fold them into the Christian faith.  Today this type of practice would be similar to "lying for Jesus" a practice where some Christians justify lying to others if it serves what they believe to be the greater good of Christianity.

Today's holiday's roots do run very deep but today's version is very recent.  Many Christians believe it has been a wonderful holiday for the last 2,000 years but the reality is for 90% of that time it was a very cruel holiday that used old pagan traditions to persecute the Jewish people.

Should you not celebrate Christmas because of this?  I wouldn't say that. I would say you should know were your holiday came from.  Know its good parts and its bad parts.  Celebrate your savior if you so wish but understand it is not his birthday.   Know that Saint Nicholas was  middle eastern and not anglo-saxon just like Jesus was not blond hair and blue eyed but also was of middle eastern descent.  Next time you hear someone say Jesus or Santa was white...point out that you don't like when they lie for Jesus and if they aren't lying then they should learn the truth about their religious figures and embrace their heritage. Hopefully their heads won't explode when you explain that they are middle eastern and not white.

If you consider your self religious then please learn about your religion and where it came from!

  Does the average Christian out there find it embarrassing that the average atheist knows more about the Christian religion then most Christians do?  Christians shouldn't feel alone though.  Atheist on average know more about all religions then any other group based on belief.  Mormons and evangelicals can feel good that they know slightly more about the bible and Christianity then the average atheist but not much.
  This quick rant was triggered by reading a bunch of ignorant Christians bitch about how they would not thank Allah because Allah is a false god or something similar.  Allah is the same God as Yahweh and Jehovah.  All three religions are Abrahamic religions.  They all have the same roots.  They all worship the same "God".  Sure there are differences in the religions but that doesn't change the fact that you worship the same "God".  Within Christianity there are over 40,000 different denominations and some very radical differences between them too.  There is a joke about how there are as many different denominations of Christianity as there are Christians.
  So please before you bag another religion actually learn about it and while you are at it learn about your own religion at the same time.  If you just want to believe as you do now without learning more then keep you mouth shut about other religions.  In fact take some advice from Saint Augustine.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
In short if you don't know about a topic keep your mouth closed in discussions about that topic in relationship to your religious beliefs.  Because you just weaken your religious position in the eyes of others.  Why should I give any credit to your religious beliefs if you make stupid statements trying to defend your religion that are easily shown to be false?

US terrorism on foreigners. When will America stop killings innocent people? Warning Graphic Pictures!

  Just one year ago on Oct 24, 2012,  Momina Bibi, a grandmother, was out picking okra with some of her grand children.  She paid for that with her life.  Her grandchildren eye witnesses to her execution.

  The people live in constant fear of US controlled drones.  But life must go on.  They hear the drones every day, 24 hours a day.  They must still tend the fields for the food.  They must still carry about their day.  Sure, this family had never been hit by a drone strike before but it wasn't uncommon for innocent people to be killed by drones.

   The number of people killed by US drone strikes isn't easy to pin down but the best estimates range from 2,526 to 3,621.  Of which between 416 and 948 innocent civilians have been killed, depending on how you classify some of the young men aged and boys.  What is clear is that over 150 children have been killed by US controlled drone strikes.

  On Oct 24 Zubair Rehman, the 13 year old grandson of Momina, watched his grandmother literally get blown to piece.  Along with loosing his grandmother Zubair received shrapnel to his leg and had to undergo expensive surgery.  Surgery that you might think the USA paid for because they mistakenly bombed and innocent family, wounding a few children and killing a 67 year old grandmother.  But you would be wrong.  The USA government's position on this attack is vague.  They will not release any information about it.  They tried to claim 4 militants were killed in the attack but Momina was the only fatality.  When further questioned Caitlin Hayden, from the NSC, called the strike "Precise, lawful, and effective."  WTF?  Precise? Yea you blew a 67 year old lady picking Okra in a field from a drone flying high over head.  I guess that is "precise".  Lawful?  You have to be a huge scum bag of a lawyer to call killing a 67 year old grand mother "lawful".  Effective?  You have to be a huge fucking idiot to call it effective unless being a terrorist is your goal.  Because these innocent families live in constant fear.

  The kids no longer want to go to school and they come from a long line of educators.  Zubair's father is a teacher.  Zubair's grandfather, Momina's husband, is a teacher and he said "I wish God would just take my life, I can't live without her".  Zubair testified "All of a sudden things became very dark.  It was like she was exploded to pieces.". The kids don't like it when the skies are clear because that is when the drones are used the most. They live in fear because the US drones that circle over head.  They live in fear because the USA is terrorizing them. It is as plain and simple as that.

  So not only are they terrorized by the USA but the government won't even explain why the mistake happened or even acknowledge a mistake was made.  They call it "collateral damage".  The issue is the American public don't want to know about the problem.  For fuck sake the politicians don't want to know about the problem either.  Only 5 members of Congress listened to these families, and there was more then just this one family, at the briefing.  Rep Alan Grayson from Florida, Rep Jan Schakowsky from Illinois, Rep Rush Holt from New Jersey, Rep John Conyers from Michigan, and Rep Rick Nolan from Minnesota.  Why?  Because most American's don't know, or don't care, about the damage the US drone program causes.  The people killed, even if innocent, are non-people.  They aren't as important as you, your brother, your mother, your friend, your neighbor or even some guy in the next town over that you've never even met before.  The less you think about the victims of US military actions the better is the position of most Americans.  I can say that because the evidence shows it to be true.  If American's cared that we, as a nation, are responsible for hundreds and even thousands of children loosing their lives from US military actions then our politicians would know it.  They'd care because you care.  They'd know you cared because you would let them know you care.  Every time another one of these reports surfaced you'd contact your representative.  You call your senator.  You'd petition the White House to stop the terrorism perpetrated by the USA via our military and civilian combat programs.

  In the past war was out of sight but US casualties kept it in our minds.  The knock on the door of 2 men in uniform to tell the family that their son has died.  If you didn't get the knock yourself you probably knew someone that did.  So while the images of war wasn't there we had a sense that there is a price to military action taken on by the USA.  In Vietnam we got exposed to not only those knocks but we also had a lot more understanding what was going on via returning vets and journalists.  Pictures that are now timeless that show not only the ugly face of war but let the people know that the USA isn't always the good guy.

  The young people today might not really understand the image above.  Sure the kids look scared but so what?!  Well lets look at Kim Phuc, the little naked girl there today.  She was a victim of a US Napalm attack.  For those of you that don't know it is a disgusting incendiary weapon that was designed to stick to flesh as it burned.  Think of it as hand sanitizing gell that is a LOT more flammable and a lot stickier.  Back then, in 1972, using it on civilians wasn't "illegal".  The UN didn't declare it a war crime until 8 years later.  Unfortunately that didn't help Kim.  Napalm burns at temperatures of 800-1200 Celsius.  For those that are metric impaired that is 1,500-2,200 Fahrenheit or 8-12 times hotter then boiling water.  The problem is that the drones are today's Napalm.  The government calls them lawful and effective but ignore the children and innocent people that are killed by them.  Kim is actually lucky.  She survived.  She lived through the pain of almost being burned to death.  Zubair survived.  He lived through the drone attack that killed his grandmother, wounded him, his sister and a few of his cousins.

  The issue now is that journalists in the USA refuse to publish images that the American people NEED to see.  Images that should outrage all American's.  Images that should stir you to act.  To contact your politicians.  To stop the USA's terrorism program.  We as a nation can not hold the moral high ground and complain when some "evil dictator" kills a few kids when our nation has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of children in Afghanistan alone.  We can not complain about Assad killing a few hundred kids with chemical weapons if we, as a nation, allowed our government to kill hundreds of innocent children with unmanned aerial vehicles.  Just because we are using weapons that have yet to be declared as a war crime if used against civilians doesn't give us the moral high ground over some dictator killing children with chemical weapons.  A dead child is a dead child.  The method of killing them isn't what should outrage you it is their death in the first place that should make you scream.

You should look at these and jump into action.  Remember when the Boston marathon bombing happened?  How outraged where you?  Sure the journalist showed the images over and over but those are images of American's being terrorized, injured and killed.  What about these kids?  Where is your outrage for them?  Where is your posts on Facebook showing support for their families?  Where is your insistence that those responsible for their deaths are brought to justice.  Sadly those you have elected are often the closest you'll get to seeing who is directly responsible.  Look in a mirror and you'll probably see someone that is indirectly responsible.  Someone who, through inaction, allows this to happen.

  The dynamic has changed though.  We no longer have lots of knocking on doors.  Most of you may not know someone that has either died or lost a love one to the current military conflicts going on.  The US "news" outlets seem to weak to expose the public to the ugly side of war.  To many people would look away in disgust.  To many people would call the journalist unpatriotic.  Both these types people disgust me in one way or another.  Every adult should have some understanding of the cost of war.  Right now to many American's call others terrorists because they strap a bomb to themselves and kill themselves and others in an attempt to change things.  But when American's pay lots of money to have foreigners killed without getting their hands dirty at all it they think it is right and just.  It isn't because the policies that control these strikes are flawed.  The people executing these strikes are flawed.  The intelligence gathered that these strikes are based on are flawed and to many innocent people are getting killed.  If you have a program where you know at least 25% of the people you kill are not guilty then there is a major fucking problem. If you don't do anything to stop this program then you are part of the problem.

  Right now the majority of American's support the drone program.  But how many people support the use of a strategy that kills the wrong target at least 25% of the time?  Who supports a program where over 5% of the people killed are innocent children?  Who in their right mind thinks this is "lawful and effective".

  If that all doesn't stir you then think of it this way.  The "interpretation" of the laws that is being used right in the US drone program allows the government to execute you, with out any trial or even oversight from any judge if you are overseas.  There is even grey areas about there use on, or rather above, American soil.

  Take back control of your government.  Let them know you aren't going to let them do what ever they want any more. That it isn't in the best interest of the USA and it's citizens to be terrorizing people half way around the world just because we have more expensive military toys.

Your government held hostage by republicans!

It is crazy.  Our government is being held hostage by Americans voted for to run our government.  There is blame going both ways and there is normally 2 sides to every story and this one does too.  The difference here is that one side is very definitely lying about the situation which involves the Debt Ceiling and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

So if you live in a cave here is what is being said by both sides.

Many republicans including the leadership:
"We want to fund the government and we want to give the American people what they want with regards to the ACA."

What a few republicans and all democrats are saying:
"We want to fund the government and will not let a few republicans hold the entire nation hostage in a attempt to kill the ACA."

Now what is the situation?

Well there are 2 parts to this.  One is funding the government by raising the debt ceiling.  This involves allowing the government to get the funding they need to pay bills they have ALREADY incurred.  This has happened, automatically many times. The only times it hasn't is when the republicans try to hold the country hostage over some legislation that they don't like but still passed.  This isn't new spending.  This isn't money for new stuff.  It is paying the bills you already have.

  It would be like going and getting a mobile phone that isn't pre paid.  Signing a contract saying you'll pay $25 a month for a certain plan.  Using your phone for that entire month using all the benefits of the plan you signed up for.  At the end of the month when you get your bill you then refuse to pay and tell the phone company that you won't pay unless they provide you electricity in the Antarctic.

  Sadly this is what to many American's think ...that not raising the debt ceiling now is the way you stop spending later.  This is like thinking by not paying your bills now that you won't buy that new toy tomorrow.  How about pay the bills we've incurred, stop fighting wars we can't afford, stop buying tanks our military doesn't want, start asking the extremely wealth to actually pay their fair share!

The second demand has nothing to do with your phone plan.  The second part being the affordable health care act which the republicans claim most people don't want.  What is the reality tho?  The fact is that Obama was re-elected on a platform that was clear that the ACA was going to be implemented.  Citizens voted and he was placed back in office.  The law was legislated and even challenged as unconstitutional but the highest court of the land ruled that it is constitutional.  It has been challenged over 40 times in congress, costing the American tax payer about $2.5 million each time it has been, and won every single time.  The president is willing to talk about sensible changes to the ACA but will not have the government held hostage over it.

  The talking heads in the republican party would have you think they are willing to "compromise" but this is like a hostage taker saying they'll compromise on how many millions of dollars they'll get while they hold a gun to your child's head.  All of the "compromises" equate to the same thing.  Death of the ACA.

  The republicans are lying when they say they say they will compromise and the democrats are unwilling.

  Too many American's don't understand even the basic premise of the ACA.  Many American's don't even know that "Obamacare" and the ACA are one and the same.  No wonder with the smear campaign using misinformation against the ACA.  One can argue that the ACA is complicated and you would be right.  But the issue is complicated.  How can you unfuck a broken health care system that leaves out so many Americans with a "simple" system.  It is like complaining that you can't cure a genetic disorder by taking an aspirin.  The executive branch hasn't explained the program very well either.  Some of the confusion arises from introduced bits as "compromises" that republicans asked for.

  Here is the ideal ACA premiss.

• Health care should be attainable by all American.
• Most American should be able to pay for private health insurance.
• Insurance companies should not be able to deny health insurance to those that need it most.
• Insurance companies should not be able to stop providing insurance to those that need to use the insurance they supposedly have.
• The government should subsidise health care for those that are of lower income status.
• Women shouldn't have to pay more for health care then men.
• Health care should not have their costs artificially and arbitrarily inflated.

  For those that want specifics and more detail then go here.  Just don't complain that it is to complicated.  If you want to know the mysteries of the universe then you can't complain that you have to understand things like quantum physics, general and special relativity. 

This is achievable because insurance companies that previously denied benefits to individuals either for pre-existing conditions or cut off benefits to individuals that end up needed said benefits now can offset that risk by knowing that everyone will be covered.  

  Many people complain that they shouldn't have to be covered medically.  But we require people who drive to have insurance.  Some might say that people can choose not to drive and thus not pay car insurance so some people should be able to choose not to receive health care and not pay insurance.  The difference is somebody that doesn't drive doesn't all of a sudden find themselves behind the wheel of a car.  People who are healthy DO find themselves faced with an unexpected illness or injury.  People don't often just agree to lay down and die but will seek medical attention. 

  The biggest cause of bankruptcy is from medical bills.  This means that the bills remain unpaid.  People without insurance also end up using forms of care that are inherently more expensive like emergency rooms.  Going to a general practitioner to get looked at is much less expensive then going to the emergency room and taking up a spot that is geared up for situations that are more life threatening.  

  Another part is getting the cost of health care down.  Right now in the USA health care is the free market gone crazy.  Do you know you can pay 20x or more for medication in the USA then you would in other countries.  Same medication! Why is this?  Well in places like Australia, England and Canada the government says "Hey we'll put medication x on our pharmaceutical benefits scheme but you have to make the cost reasonable!"  The government then will subsidise the cost of the medication a bit.  People still have the choice to use medication that is not on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme if they choose.  So what happens is the pharmaceutical companies still make money and the people don't get ripped off unless they choose to be.  

  This doesn't just happen with drugs.  It happens all over the place.  Sure this does mean that you might end up paying more if you choose to use something that isn't on some government benefit scheme but that is your choice.  For example the government goes to companies and says "We want product x with these specifications" and those companies come back with their solutions and a the cheapest ones that meet the specifications are chosen to go on a benefits scheme.  Those companies know that they'll sell more so their margins can be lower.  This doesn't stop other companies from making more expensive products and does not stop you, the consumer, from using those companies.  What it does do allow most American's to access that product at a reasonable price.  In health care this is especially important because if you are told "You need medication x to stay alive." you shouldn't be held to ransom to pay 20x the reasonable cost of that medication.  Really what are you going to say?  "No I refuse to pay!" which in reality many people are forced to do when they can't afford to access the health care they need.  Others access that health care but end up going bankrupt and the rich just pay the costs and move on.

  Health care shouldn't be a luxury.  If governments can say that "Internet access" is a basic human right I'm sure that basic health care should be one too!

Watch this video.  There is a lot of humour in it but it is very informative too.  You'll find yourself laughing then a bit disgusted when you realise that while some of it sounds ridiculous it is actually all true.

  What the republicans need to do is let the government be funded no strings attached because it is a bill the government has already incurred.  Then if they want to make changes to the ACA then that is another matter that can be handled separately.  Note almost every other time they've done this they've just tried to kill the entire thing not make it better.  Also note that the basic plan is THEIR PLAN!  The individual mandate is a republican idea.  Many people might not like it but, at present, it is the most logical plan on the table.  The government is all about doing what is best for the citizens as a whole even if they don't understand it.  Ask all Americans if they would like medical care if they are injured.  See how many people say "no".  That should be the same number of people that support reform in the health care sector.

My German heritage makes me proud.

While much of the rest of the world says it is to hard, to expensive or not even possible Germany is doing it.  What are they doing you ask?  Converting over to renewable energy sources like wind and solar.  They are doing it at a very nice pace to.  They are putting the change ahead of corporate greed.  They are giving control back to the people.

  For those of you that don't know Germany has a big push and big incentives for people to do things like install solar panels.  There are many people that take out loans to install solar systems that end up not only providing all the power needs for those people but also produces enough excess power to actually pay for the loans and maintenance of the solar power systems.

  This makes me think about the Berkeley professor that redid his house to use more efficient lights and appliances and at the same time install a solar panel system.  The professor paid for the entire conversion by adding on to his existing home loan.  The money the professor saved by going off the grid was more then the increase in his mortgage payment.  It can be done if people want to make the effort.

  Back in July Germany produced over 5.1TWh of power via solar. This broke the record of renewable energy generation previously held by wind turbines of 5TWh.  Germany is looking to get 80% of its energy needs from renewables by 2050 and at this rate Germany will have no trouble not only meeting that goal but exceeding it.

  So successful is the German model that corporations that own old fossil fuel power plants are trying to threaten to leave Germany.  To me that is a bit like a bully threatening a little kid that they'll to go to another school and beat up someone else.  The fact that these corporations are having a hard headed approach to changing to the markets is very telling.

  This is all something that the USA should have been doing back in the late 70s and early 80s but oil corporations lobbied the Reagan administration hard and not only put a stop to changes President Carter put in place but even had solar panels removed from the White House.  Carter said the following "a generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people; harnessing the power of the Sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil."  Well a generation and a half later we are basically at the same point.  Obama had panels put back into the White House in 2010.  30 years have gone by.  30 years not completely wasted but not even close to being even partially realised.

  This revolution can either be one that the USA can be spear heading and profiting from or one that the USA can watch from the side lines and resort to being just another consumer dependent on other countries for the market and innovations.

  All this is ignoring the benefits of renewable.  All I'm saying is that the conversion can be done.  It isn't beyond our ability.  When people say it is then they are being VERY short sighted and even more ignorant of the reality of the situation.

  Do you think it can and should be done or are you one of the above?
Which of these do you want near your home?

This?

Or this?

Pride and Shame - A tale of a US Marine 20 years after leaving the Corps

I am moving into a new unit this weekend.  Out of an old one I've lived in for over 15 years now.  The new one's floor plan is pretty much a mirror image of the old one. Slightly more open because the wall between the kitchen and living room was removed to give it a more open feel.  In addition everything is new.  New kitchen, new bathroom, new laundry.  New feel.  I'm excited with the change.

So over the next few days I'll be shifting my stuff up to the new unit.  It is just one over and one up.  Bit of a hassle to shift stuff but well worth it.  I've got the TV, microwave, liqueur cabinet and my music instruments that have been collecting far to much dust up there already.

I wiped down a metal plate with the Great Seal of the United States on it a few hours ago and put it in my cabinet.  For those of you that don't know much about it see the picture and read my explanation of the symbolism.

  The Eagle represents our nation. In is beak is a ribbon with words "E Pluribus Unum" meaning, "Out of Many, One" the unofficial motto of the since 1776.  When our great nation was founded.  So when people tell me "Why do you want to change the motto from 'In God We Trust', it has been that for so long!" I point out that for 180 years "E Pluribus Unum" was our motto and it is more in tune with what our fore fathers envisioned for this nation then the one we've had for less then 60 years now.  This nation was built on the principal of individual freedom.  The freedom to hold what ever religious belief a person wishes.  To worship the god of their choosing not one forced upon them by others.  To worship many gods if that is your belief and not be oppressed by a government saying your gods are not true.  Or to not worship any god as I do.

  This means people can look to their government to help bring us together.  The nation is the unifying force.  Not one persons invisible sky god.  A nation of people where the government is accountable to the people and worshipping Yahweh, Allah, Izanagi, Elohim, Brahman, Jehovah, Huwa, Shangdi, any other god or gods, or not worshiping any divine being is not a factor of your citizenship or patriotism.  Where we unite as a people of a great nation for the betterment of all regardless of our religious belief compared to our countrymen.

  In the eagle's left talon are 13 arrows representing the 13 original colonies and the recognition that sometimes we, as a nation, must fight for what is right.  In the eagle's right talon is a olive branch.  A symbol of peace while the eagles head is turned towards the olive branch signifying our nation's strong urge for peace and not war.

  This symbolism is especially significant these days.  Where we have the chance to achieve so much through diplomacy with other nations to get an outcome that is better for all with only  a credible threat of war in the back ground.  I wonder with the massacre occurring in Syria how will our grand children look upon us for our actions and inaction's? It saddens me that the politics of the world cares so little for so many killed in that civil war.  At least some progress may be made to remove the chemical weapons without going to war.  That said I fail to see what difference it makes if someone is killed by a bullet to the head or exposed to a nerve agent or something similar.  Not many of you would know that I've had a lot of training dealing with chemical weapons while in the USMC.  Some may have heard an odd story hear or there pertaining to some of the more comical situations I found myself in.  What I can tell you is this.  If I had to choose how to go, by bullet or by gas, I would not care.  The end result is the same.  The person responsible for my death is not more or less evil for killing me one way over another.  Thus when a few dozen people die from a chemical attack we should not be out raged by the chemical attack.  We should be outraged by the slaughter of dozens of people.  Should we feel less for Jews and others shot by Nazi's then those that were gassed? No we should not.

  I hope that diplomacy works in removing chemical weapons from Syria but recognize that it doesn't solve the underlying problem.  A problem that to much of the world doesn't really care about.  The use of force that has been suggested would not have solved the underlying problem either.  So in this case I take the lesser of 2 evils and support the use of diplomacy to remove, at least, one tool that government could use against its own people.

   I also just unpacked a box that I haven't seen in years.  It had an award I got from the Republic of Korea Marine Corps commandant back in 1993.  Sgt Kinney and I were the first 2 enlisted to ever receive that award.  When I opened the award I found a picture of me in my dress blues.  So many conflicting thoughts in my head right now.  I have such a sense of pride from back then and I now have such a sense of outrage for how much our nation has deviated from the principals that made the USA great.  Not just since I've been in but for so long before.  While I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever done while serving our nation I am ashamed of so many things I was ignorant to.  When I joined the Marines I thought the biggest threat to me was from the middle east but I really did not know the real reasons why.  Even today you'll hear "reporters", because I refuse to call them journalists, say that "they hate us because they hate us!" and this is so far from the truth it isn't funny.

  The reason we are hated is because of the way we conduct ourselves as a nation and as a people.  As a nation we are self serving and take everything we can.  As a people we are largely willfully ignorant of how our nation treats the rest of the world.  We condemn foreigners for fighting for what they believe in.  Those ideals are often at odds with our "national interests".  "National interests" that may be "good" for the USA short term but often very bad for the foreign nation and end up very bad for the USA long term.  Yet if the shoe was on the other foot we would be calling Americans doing the same thing to the hostile nation "Patriots".  We condemn Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons but don't blink when we use white phosphorus against our "enemies".  We didn't have a problem when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran.  Fuck we even told Saddam exactly were to send those chemical weapons for the biggest effect possible.  We quietly turned a blind eye when he also used them against his own people.  It is hard for us to try to stand on any moral high ground and say that al-Assad is committing war crimes when we ignore war crimes that our own nation commits.  It would be a lot easier to point the finger at Bashar for killing a hundred thousand of his own people if we, as a nation, were not responsible for the deaths of 20,000 civilians in Afghanistan over the last decade.

  The issue I have right now is the fact that the biggest pressure we have to fight there is to make corporations more money as we funnel money into a new war.  Not enough Americans care about 100,000 dead Syrians.  Not enough of the world care either.  The death of over 500 children in the last 18 months isn't enough because, whether you like it or not, to many people consider them as "non people".  If I could get the world to get Bashar out of control then, I hope, things would be better there.  But there are no guarantees.

  So where does that leave me.  Well like many things it is out of my hands.  I could ignore it but I've never been good at willfully ignoring stuff.  So I do what I can.  I let my elected politicians, in both countries, know how I feel.  I let people around me know how I feel, much to the disgust of some of you.  But if you've made it this far you must not be all that disgusted with my views even if you don't agree with me.  I understand how people don't want to get involved in Syria.  I only wonder what our grandchildren will think about what we did or did not do.

  If anyone has got to this point and don't want to see my rants let me know.  I'll give you the steps you need to do so that my posts don't show up in your news feeds within FB.  The only other step you  need to do is stay away from my blog, or as I call it "my online rant board"