The beauty of hitting rock bottom is, you have nowhere to go but up. So I've heard. Of course, the other option is frequently used by those suffering (?) from depression during the holidays..."To be or not to be". Thankfully, not there myself but I feel for those who can't cope.
I've pegged the beginning of my particular bugaboo to around eight years previous, when I was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. After cutting myself off of family and friends, it's time to be open and reaching out to those who I've cut off, pissed off, abandoned and just been an asshole to.
0 Comments
Holy shit!!! Today's the day. The day I never expected to see...the installation of Donald J Trump as the leader of the free world. Even though I'm an atheist, I'm going to say it: God help us.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by all this, after all the Republicans ran a clown car full of unworthy candidates for president. Actually there was one sane guy running, Governor Kasich of Ohio but he was far too sane and and still an establishment insider...definitely too intelligent to appeal to the voters. The Democratic establishment ran the far more qualified person but so much shit has been written about her that the electorate preferred a lying con man to a woman who would dare to break the ultimate glass ceiling. People are a lot crazier now than they were during the Bush years. A lot of nasty "Mo Fo's" out there now that are loaded with hate and are going to exploit that hate for all they can until they're stopped. By whom? No clue. It appears that American society is on the verge of civil unrest and who the hell knows how the next few years will turn out. I have serious doubts that I'm going to affected by the new administration (Barack never called me to thank me for my vote or ask my opinion of anything). Change takes time and at my age, by the time anything significant changes come about I suspect my ashes will be dust in the wind. Am I going to watch the festivities on television today? Shit no, I've got a bottle Gentleman Jack and some damn fine weed to smoke. No, I think I'll watch one of my favorite DVDs: Apocalypse Now. I remember when she first came to national attention as the future First Lady. Bill touted her as being a bonus, kind of like a two for one deal. After being elected, Bill turned her loose to push her own agenda: The dreaded Socialist plot to implement "Universal Health Care". A stunned nation prodded on by their Republican congress members soon shot down any hope of Hillary's desire to insure everyone.
For as long as I remember since 91 or 92, it seems to me that the Republican Establishment went after Bill and Hillary with a vengeance. It always seemed to be minor or trivial shit: "Travelgate, Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Bill getting a blow job and lying about it (personally I don't think it was anyone's business) and whatever else they could dredge up. She's being criticized for giving speeches to to corporate boards at over two hundred grand a pop. No one squawked when Reagan made speeches to the highest bidders after leaving office. Recent Emails suggest a pay for play deal while Hillary was Sec of State. Well, NO SHIT! Wrong? Perhaps but really, are we living in a bizzaro world where what she does while being in government is wrong but only because she's a woman? Does anyone really believe that no one else profits and uses the advantages of being a senior government official? I don't like Hillary but not for the usual reasons. I don't like her because of the way she used an already corrupt political system to steal the nomination from my preferred candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders. He was robbed. We were robbed!
We ended up with a less than stellar candidate as the Democratic Nominee. Lucky for us, the worst possible person in the world won the nomination for the GOP (does that stand for grab our pussies?). Someone who is an extremely detestable person who's popularity stands near 40%. That number is in itself scary. One other thing I meant to say about this case is that the Zehm family settled with the city of Spokane for 1.7 mil. That's taxpayer dough folks.
Now look, everyone knows how I feel about cops. I keep hearing about a few bad apples but when it comes right down to it, aren't the ones who ignore and defend the bad cops just as dishonest or corrupt? For example, recently two cops were filmed beating the hell out of a guy who had eluded them. The good cops stood around and watched. Good cops? The ones who watched their blue buddies assault a dude and didn't intervene? A pretty skewed version of good vs bad.
The Guardian News website on a daily basis publishes how many citizens have been killed by American "Peace Officers". This morning I checked, to see what the number was and was startled to see that in the space of several hours, the death toll had increased by a few more people to 697. I don't care how many people there are in the U.S., that's a shitload of people being killed in our names. If you don't care and think that the cops are doing a bang-up job (no pun intended), support them no matter what rights they violate then you're not thinking clearly. It costs you money. Big money. Every time a cop beats up someone or kills or injures a person (whether or not they're suspected of a crime), they or their survivors end up in court to sue the shit out of whatever jurisdiction these bullies happen to work for. "Hey, it's no skin off my ass. They're getting the bad guys off the street". Wrong Bubba. Everyday local governments decide whether or not to pay out huge sums of money to settle claims of police misconduct out of court. Others end up in court with massive damage awards to the plaintiffs. The folks who decide on how much to offer in settlement couldn't care less about the amount...It's not their dough. It's ours. Money that I'd rather see going to schools and public health. Sure in the big scheme of things the money that comes directly out of my pockets for these awards is minuscule. But that's my dough as well as yours. Cops investigate themselves and for the most part find that they acted properly. Then the attorneys look at the legal ramifications of the cops actions and figure they're going to lose big in court and offer up great settlements to avoid the publicity and the possibility of a larger award. In the meantime, cops continue to violate citizen rights, injure and kill in the name of the people. How do we change the system? It would take a few years but I believe I have an idea that change can be had by utilizing the free market and natural selection. First off, we all agree that we need police forces to keep the peace. Unfortunately Sheriff Andy left the building years ago and that leaves the bully culture running the departments. Reigning in the errant cops and taming the powerful police unions will be the hardest part. Entire forces will need to redesign their training programs and toss out the old guard. The phrases "I feared for my life" or "Quit resisting" while beating the shit out of someone have to be eliminated. (Allow me to interject some hearsay. An acquaintance of mine who was a cop at one time, told me that during police academy training an instructor mentioned off the record that those two phrases would give them Carte Blanche. Bullshit? Boasting? Possible). Salaries will come into play. Officers should be well paid for their work. Let's say a starting cop is paid 60k a year. Top cops and those who have been around for years probably rake in in excess of 100k. I would propose that all cops get a pay raise. That raise in pay would be equal to 110% of the price of personal liability insurance. In essence, a small increase to their overall salary. Let's say an entry level cop is paid 60k a year. Not bad dough for a job that doesn't require a college degree or high I.Q.,s and requires less training than a hair stylist or veterinary technician. The seasoned cop makes 100 grand a year but he's already tainted by the blue code. With my plan insurance companies would be invited offer up competitive rates of personal liability policies for all officers. As i said previously, cops would be given an insurance allowance of 110% the price of coverage. If the going rate for insuring a rookie cop was say, 3,000 then the cop would get $3300 a year. If the seasoned cop is pulling in 100k and his premium is $5,000 (old cop, old methods, equal higher liability risk) then his pay would increase by $5500. Every year, the insurance companies will look at their payouts and adjust premiums accordingly. A standard rate increase for all cops would be reflected by an increase in their pay. A rate increase for cops who have caused insurance losses would naturally be higher but the department would only pay for a standard premium. So, the rookie cop in the second year who has cost the insurance company nothing and who's standard premium increased to $5500 will see his pay increased $6,050. A slight increase in his take home in addition to normal cola raises. On the other hand. the rookie cop who generates a lot of complaints and cash settlements ends up with a higher than standard premium. He's riskier and costs a lot more dough to cover. His premium increases to $6500 per year however, his pay is increased the same as the non-offending rookie cop. His pay is increased the standard premium amount of $6,050 but his risk assessment has raised and if he wants to keep his job, he has to cough up the additional $450 for the coverage. Money talks and bullshit walks. Older cops who routinely violate citizen rights and generate lawsuits will have the incentive to change their outlooks because their jobs and standard of living will be at risk. You can pretty much figure that the older cops are going to have higher standard premiums which will skyrocket and eventually with any luck police abuse of authority will decrease. Sure, there are flaws to my plan but hey, it's a beginning. With all the cases of police abuse being published daily there is one that stands out for me and still reinforces my disdain for the cops (yeah I know, the next time I need help, call a crack addict. If my choice is between a crack addict or a cop, I'll take the crack addict). OTTO ZEHM. Otto was a developmental disability afflicted janitor who at 36 years old was beaten to death by a Spokane cop. He was mistakenly suspected of trying to rob an ATM. After the cops investigated themselves they found no wrong-doing and exonerated Officer Karl Thompson. A couple of years later the Feds charged Thompson with unreasonable use of force and basically lying to the FBI with a written statement. He was found guilty and the most disturbing thing to me is this excerpt from Wikipedia: On November 2, 2011, the jury found Thompson guilty on both counts; excessive use of force and lying to investigators about the confrontation. Over 50 police officers were in attendance when the verdict was announced and saluted Thompson in a show of solidarity. That's the part that pisses me off. The cops were WSP, and cops from assorted jurisdictions. Gotta change the culture. I see this as nothing more than a pipe dream since the police unions have more power than the people. After attending my first ever LD caucus several things have occurred to me. The first is: what a piss-poor job the organizers did. While standing in line for 45 minutes (I showed up at 12:30) I watched a lot of people leave without registering. After entering my precinct group to actually cast my ballot for for the CD delegates it took several more hours to get to the point for the candidates to address us. Out of the 78 or so candidates for delegate, I suspect 10 to 15 voting delegates left without pitching themselves and in doing so forfeited their votes. All in all it was a long and inefficient day.
A primary system is opposed by the state Democratic party (one speculation is without a caucus system the party wouldn't be able to obtain names and addresses for future use) but damn, that would be a hell of a lot easier and more inclusive. Besides which, voters are smart enough to choose a candidate right? I mean, look at the Republican front runners. American intelligence reigns. O.k., sarcasm aside, I can see problems with either system. Washington state has about 4 million registered voters out of which only 5.8% bothered to show up and vote at their caucus sites. Basically, 4% of our states' voters gave Bernie his landslide victory (I didn't just pull these numbers out of my ass but relied on newspaper accounts). I suspect that a primary would have attracted far more people and perhaps narrowed the margin. Way more fair right? But wait a minute. It's the party who is proposing the candidate not the general public. Anyone can join the party, it just requires that you actually pay attention to what the issues are and what the candidates stand for. I figure the toughest part is you have to get off your dead ass and participate. You bet voting in a primary would be easier and more inclusive! Unfortunately, far too many people rely on sound bites and misinformation when making their selection which leads to nothing more than a glamour show (see my comment above regarding Republican voters). A primary system would also be open to vote rigging, purges of voter rolls (see N.Y) as well as voter suppression (see Arizona). Yeah the caucus system is a pain is the ass and plagued with problems but for my money I think it's the one...dummies don't participate in events requiring thought as well as time. Christ, will somebody at least comment on my thoughts? Peace to all. As a Sanders supporter, I'm feeling a little low. After watching the obstacles encountered by the folks in Arizona attempting to cast their primary votes, roadblocks thrown up for New York voters and our own mismanaged caucus sites here in Washington I'm getting the feeling that just as in the past, our efforts are futile.
Long before he died, George Carlin stated during one of his stand-ups that in an election we are under the illusion that we have a true choice but in reality it's nothing more than the option of Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum, candidates presented to the public by Corporate America and the moneyed elites. Now, I admit that there is a true difference in the presidential race this year. We have a bullshitter billionaire who is supposedly self-financed versus a widely despised and distrusted former first lady. A lying bigot vs a shill for big money. Both of whom have pretty piss-poor favor-ability ratings among the public. It's looking like once again, the "fix" is in, just as it was in every election cycle I've participated in from my support of Eugene McCarthy in '68, McGovern in '72 and now here in 2016 where the democratic candidate was already preordained. This election cycle, to me represents the last chance for Americans to take back their country from America, Inc and we're failing miserably. Far too many people seem to be brain dead in their casting of votes (i.e. the Trump and Cruz phenomena) and really think that their savior is a guy who belittles anyone who disagrees with him or a wing nut who wants to shut down the government, invade women's bodies and bomb the middle east until it glows (the Christian thing to do, I guess). I believe this may well indeed be the last national election that I participate in (I was an LD delegate) not because I'm in my mid 60's, but it just feels like being a hamster on a wheel. In other words, it seems pretty pointless. I believe the only way change will come to this country is through revolution. The ballot box has been corrupted by politicians in the pocket of big money, resulting in crooked numbers and non-representatives. Good luck America. I'm still trying to figure out why people seem to discount Senator Sanders proposal to provide free college education to Americans. Pundits and cartoonists all seem to perceive this as a pie in the sky proposal and a gimme or freebie. Is there a problem with free healthcare for all? Insurance companies skim off around 20% of premiums to administer healthcare as opposed to Medicare which according to government statistics cost right about 5% to administer.
Granted, no system is perfect but why would anyone prefer to have big business determine your healthcare needs as opposed to having a physician submit your claim to an agency whose goal isn't cutting costs and improving profits? I don't get it. Especially when I come across people who are on Social Security and Medicare who rail against the government and demand government keep their hands off their benefits but continue to vote against their own financial interests. Can our guy really win? He has great ideas! Who the hell doesn't support free education as well as health care for all? What kind of reasoning can one possibly use to deny this to fellow citizens? Is that Mexican family you pass by on that highway who are picking beans and fruit somehow or another not entitled to the same opportunities?
I keep seeing polls that show Hillary far ahead of Bernie and Martin but keep seeing more and more support for my guy. What's with this paradox? Is it really media and corporate moguls who allow who wins? I've just watched Bernie and his performance on the debate this evening. He ranged from a populist who is aligned with my values (mostly) to my loud and outspoken grandfather with his unshakable views that FDR was a Communist tool (thankfully minimal). Great views and great record of standing up for and with the common folk. I've gotta ask though. Will the fear perpetrated on us by the ruling class cause the masses opt for someone from the crazy side? |