Thursday, June 28, 2007

HR 180 IH, what does that mean? - 6.28.2007.2

Here is something annoying. You have not heard a single Presidential candidate speak about this. I don’t recall any news media coverage of this. Were it not for the efforts of Mr. Don Cheadle, and several other prominent actors, and the humanitarian award he received I might not have heard about this. Not that there was any significant attention made about Mr. Cheadle getting the award or why.

The point is that the United States government has reacted pitifully in regard to Darfur. So far 3 sessions of Congress have been discussing this and still nothing has been done. And here is the proof. On January 4th Representative Lee introduced HR 180 IH. If you wonder what that means it’s the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (Introduced in House). So far any attempt at accountability has gone out the window.

As of my writing this now, as Congress prepares to go on July 4th celebration seven months after introducing this bill the best thing that can be said is that it only took 3 months for a subcommittee meeting on this. In virtually seven months there has been no movement on this bill since March 20th. Perhaps if the members of Congress were in danger of losing loved ones there might be more action on the matter.

Now some of you may be saying, ‘Hold on, we don’t need to start another war.’ Others may be saying, ‘What is HR 180 IH?’

The answer to the first is that the bill doesn’t require the United States to put a single solider anywhere they aren’t already. The answer to the second is

“To require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes.”

Basically this bill cuts off money that goes to support what the 108th Congress
“declares that the atrocities unfolding in the Darfur region of Sudan, are genocide.”
That was almost 3 years ago to the day. How many have died since that time do you think? The GENOCIDE was unfolding according to Congress, it still exists, and we barely hear anything about it.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress there was a genocide, President Bush told the U.N. that there as a genocide, yet only 4 states have passed laws requiring that no company doing business with the Sudan can do business with their state. Odds are it’s not your state. I can guarantee that it’s not New York State, home of Wall Street, and where the big six brokerage houses invest millions of dollars in mutual funds that could be doing business with [thus supporting] the Sudan and genocide.

I bet that 99% of those reading this now, that have a pension or mutual fund, have no idea what that mutual fund is invested in. I would bet that 99.5% have no idea what businesses might be supporting the Sudan government. Yet I am sure that, of those over 30 [which is maybe 50% of my readers] everyone was for and supported the bans against South Africa and Apartheid back in 1986.

To my knowledge, virtually every member of Congress is old enough to have at least heard about the 1986 bans. They have no excuse.

Of the 24 colleges mentioned in this bill there is not one that I am aware of that is a Black college. That could be simply an oversite of Representative Lee, or that they are doing matters separate of this bill. But I recall that back in ’86, there was more than one black college that was invested in South Africa.

Perhaps Congress can sleep at night without doing more than speaking about this terrible situation. Perhaps they have more to do in preparing their particular candidate for the 2008 election, or raising funds for that candidate. Perhaps every candidate for President right now can’t spend any time to come up with a 30 second soundbite for Darfur, as there isn’t enough time after explaining the resolution to Iraq, taxes, terrorism, social security, and why they are so great and warm people. Each of those points explained in 30 second soundbites. Perhaps the moderators of the debates are too overwhelmed with questions on when America will be out of Iraq, that question can be and has been asked in each debate maybe 20 different ways, to find one on Darfur.

I know that I was too busy writing to 6 blogs, and growing my company to stop and get into this issue. But at some point you have to stop and say, I can do more.

Well here I am doing more. I’ve raised the bar. Now you know. What will you do? Will you get in touch with you Congressional representative and ask them what they did over the 4th of July while people died and a simple resolution sat on the congressional floor? Will you take a moment to read HR 180 IH, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Smearing Presidential candidates on the internet Part 2 - 6.28.2007.2

Continued from Smearing Presidential candidates on the internet Part 1...

No site is completely unbiased all the time. No blog writer, or any writer for that matter, is completely impartial. But when it comes to the next President of this nation, whose actions will impact generations to come, do we really want to elect someone that was the least negative of the pack?
Photo found at

At the same time, the Presidential candidates need to use the internet to better inform the public. They need to not just spam us with email blasts, or ask for money via the net and blogs. How about taking the time to answer the questions of the people? How about incorporating our questions into the multiple speeches, debates and press interviews?

I mean the questions and blogs of people less popular than Ann Coulter, or CNN, or the New York Times. How about using the internet to reach out to the people that actually vote. How about speaking to everyone in the world, in a consistent manner and not a soundbite laden speech in one part of the nation that conflicts with a special interest group speech they make in another part of the nation. How about a detailed answer to questions that take more than a glance to read.
Maybe answers to questions like

"Based on your reported desire to abolish the Department of Education (2002), what would you have to replace it and how would it function?"

"In regard to your stance on Roe v. Wade, you have said in 1999 that you would not repeal the law, though you wished there was no need for it. Recently you have changed your opinion to be actively against the law. What has caused your more aggressive stance?"

"Lastly, what is your position on the various laws and actions that are in place or proposed to impede illegal aliens from entering this nation from our southern border only? Do you agree or disagree with the thought that more should be done to protect our largely unwatched northern borders, especially since there has been evidence of how dangerous this lack of attention has been."

"Do you believe that the fact you have never served in the Armed Forces would have any effect on your ability to perform as Commander-and-Chief?"

Questions don’t have to be negative, nor does the website. Information about the facts, positions and thoughts are what is important for the best choice for America’s future. The sooner that politicians use the internet for that, the sooner the nation gets results.

That’s what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Smearing Presidential candidates on the internet - 6.28.2007.1

Thus begins the spam and negative email blasts for the Presidential race of 2008. For far too long there has been an emphasis on negative television ads and smear campaigns in politics. For elections of every level, politicians have de-evolved to telling the public what is wrong with this candidate or that one. More money and time are spent in advertising the problems voters should be aware of, than the actual platforms and issues that voters care about.Photo found at

For a time the hope was that the internet could change that. Many thought it would be the chance to get better answers than the now common 30 second soundbite. Politicians would have to pay attention to the people, and people could find what politicians have said and voted in the past on issues that matter to them. The public would be involved again.

Then I see a report like the one at Marketing Pilgrim and the wind leaves my sails. With months to go before the primaries, already 83% of the Presidential candidates have negative search results.

“Republican candidates managed only an average 42% positive sentiment search results, with Democratic candidates not fairing much better (45%).
Of those candidates with the most name recognition, only Barack Obama achieved zero negative sentiment results.”

Do we really need more spam, smear campaigns and jaded comments? It’s one thing to put out facts, another to just be negative for the sake of making a candidate look bad.

Every candidate has issues. None of them have a universal appeal, with the perfect position on every subject that all voters can agree upon. It can’t be expected. But having clear positions on issues isn’t a lot to ask for.

I don’t expect a parade of positive, yes-man, websites. But not seeing a slew of skewed views would be nice as well. You can point out a flip-flop a Presidential candidate has made without tearing them down. You can show a voting record, or YouTube coverage of comments that seem to conflict current campaign rhetoric without including bile.

I am no less perfect than anyone else. I get as heated on issues that matter to me as anyone else. I have written posts that take on a candidate harshly for comments or positions I feel cross the line. Then again I try to comment on all the candidates, and I try to support all my positions on them. When I lose my cool I try to note that as well.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Neil Cavuto discusses illegal immigrants and Home Depot - 6.27.2007.1

Today on Neil Cavuto’s show (on Fox News from 4-5pm) Mr. Cavuto had on a guest, a professor whose name I did not catch, to discuss a proposed law. I need help on verifying what this law states, but it seems that Home Depot is being required to provide for Illegal immigrants that are looking for day labor in front of their stores.

Again, I need to read this proposed law (someone must be familiar with it and can provide me a link), but if this is the essence of the law, then someone has lost their mind. How can anyone realistically expect a company to provide for illegal workers?

First let’s think this through, which the professor defending this proposed law seems not to have done. In essence it means that if a panhandler is standing in front of your grocery store, as an example, you the owner must provide for that individual. You have a Mime; you need to provide them with shelter, water, restroom facilities, and anything else you would provide an employee. According to my understanding you must essentially take on another employee, that you have not hired, that provides no benefit to your business, which could theoretically sue you if you failed to provide these benefits to them.
Photo found at

Then add the fact that this person is an illegal immigrant (alien) and you have a person that has violated the law pays no taxes, and may well be taking money out of the economy if they send any money to their home country. There is a business plan.

Perhaps I am wrong. The law may not state this. I may be missing something, and I hope I am.

Now some may say this isn’t fair. They are just undocumented workers trying to make a living. That may be true but the document they are missing is a birth certificate proving U.S. citizenship. There is no obligation to take care of them. They have no rights in this nation and are criminals from the second they enter the nation. No matter what anyone may call them this is a fact. Anything done to benefit their lives is a kindness, not an obligation. If that is upsetting to these illegal aliens/immigrants/undocumented workers then they can leave. They don’t even need to sneak back home, the government will take them their, and it’s on our dime. They can thank us later.

Some will say, ‘This is just racism in disguise.’ How? Who is this racist against? I’ve made no distinction on what illegal immigrants I’m speaking about. Nor do I wish to create a system of preference. If you are not a citizen by birth, not naturalized, have no immigration papers or other documents saying the government welcomed you here; you need to be kicked out.

That means if you are from Tbilisi, Milan, Jakarta, Berlin, Tokyo, or Mexico City and you are here illegally the above applies to you. The fact that the majority of illegal immigrants are from a neighboring country is incidental to the above, not because of it. I don’t think most people would allow a neighbor to just walk into their house, take the food out of their refrigerator, order movies on their cable account, and take their movie DVD’s. Then if the neighbor got hurt in your house, you get sued and have to pay the medical bills. Sound like a bright idea? Would you do it? Of course not. It’s the same thing with nations as with people.

Mark my words, if the proposed law is enacted, it will not be limited to Home Depot. The bum on the corner will have the same rights as the illegal immigrant at Home Depot. It’s not about race; it’s about where my taxes go, and the cost of goods. Illegal immigrants make both go up, especially when dumb laws like this are made.

Worse still if, like many other trends, this catches on and several other states start adopting it. I mean this law is based in the same state that recently had a city ban smoking in your own home. Yes, there was a restriction on smoking [to be exact at least in apartment buildings] that applied to every person, even if you are over 21, can vote, a citizen with the right to something… what was it… the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing like being told you can buy a legal item but can’t use it as is intended.

But I detract from the point. This law is stupid as I have come to understand it. If anyone can provide me the exact wording, I’d love to see it. If anyone can explain why I or anyone should be forced to spend my hard earned money on factual criminals, I’d love to hear it.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Presidential Candidates and national healthcare Part 2 - 6.26.2007.2

Continued from Presidential Candidates and national healthcare Part 1...

I found a portion of a report on how much money ALL the Presidential candidates have received from healthcare industry contributions. While I’m glad I found the report via a blog post by Sister Joyous Whip of Enlightenment, I must also mention that this post does not contain the full news release. Shane on you for not getting the whole story out there. The full news release can be seen on Yahoo News. What both sites show is the following,

“…candidates have accepted more than $3.7 million in campaign contributions this year from healthcare industry sources, with more than 45% of it going to just two candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney…”

That might or might not sound like a lot of money, until you look back over time. Adding all 18 Presidential candidates together we find that

“Presidential candidates total an aggregate $12.8 million since 1989 -- with 29% of that total donated just in the first quarter of 2007 alone.”

So far this year alone

“Clinton topped the recipient list with $868,722, 23% of all the healthcare money donated to candidates this year. Romney was a close second at $833,385, 22% of the total dollars. The other frontrunners followed. Sen. Barack Obama, with $574,268, 15%; Sen. John McCain, $423,751, 11%; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, $408,822, also 11%; and former Sen. John Edwards, $222,950, 6%.”

So the question must be asked, how impartial are the candidates when it comes to the question of national healthcare. It’s not a question of one party or another being more inclined to work on this issue. It’s not a question of if this is a good idea. Virtually anyone will concede that the likelihood is that some form of national healthcare will happen. But having an effective plan that is run better than the usual manner government agencies are run, is critical for it to work.

Do you think this is why so few sent representatives to the Accountability Coalition event? Is this why no Presidential candidate of either party will respond to my letters? Is this why we get soundbites and partial answers to a question that many in the nation want, and will affect everyone in the nation at some point?

The issues that are involved with the 2008 election are far too great and long-term in reach to be taken lightly. From terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, and many other issues we deserve answers that go into depth. Then we can make a decision that is the best for the nation as a whole.

Copy the questions at M V Consulting, add your own, and send them to your favorite Presidential candidate. Let’s get the answers and get what the nation needs.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Presidential Candidates and national healthcare - 6.26.2007.1

At my M V Consulting website, many people have had the chance to review letters that I have sent to several of the Presidential candidates. Since December 2006 several of the leading candidates of both parties have received letters directly from me, and others that have copied and forwarded these letters. So far, there has been no response. Which makes me wonder why?

Part of that may be the questions that were asked. None are simple 30 second, soundbite generating questions. They are thought out, balanced, non-partisan, real questions that require a real serious answer. These questions are not just of interest to a particular party, a region of the nation, or any race found in the nation. Here is one example given to former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani,

“Considering the strong stance against organized crime and for law enforcement, as seen from your actions mentioned above and in your work as a U.S. Attorney, what stance do you believe America should take under your potential leadership towards countries such as Iran, and towards terrorist groups such as Al Quida?”

Another was posed to Senator Barak Obama,

“In terms of national healthcare, do you agree with the push for a national healthcare system? If you do how would you have this program funded? What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?”

The abovementioned question is an important one. I have asked many of our potential future Presidents this question in one form or another. And I have noticed the swelling of interest about a national healthcare program. In particular I have noticed a few things that have come out recently that I think should get more attention.

One item is the response by the various candidates to the Accountability Coalition. Now I realize that this article I read was written by the Democrat staff writer, Gretyl Macalaster, and the Accountability Coalition is based in New Hampshire. Bias may exist. Still the fact is that the Accountability Coalition is a group of Americans that want to understand what the candidate plan to do on national healthcare, and not just the 30 second soundbite that is provided on the news and at ‘debates’. Only 4 Republican candidate representatives and 7 Democratic showed up to a bipartisan event that invited all the candidates.

That is a pretty piss poor response if you ask me, and I mean that for both parties. But I also found out why the response may have been so lukewarm, as well as why I cannot get an answer to my questions on this subject.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Media and justice equal? Part 2 - 6.21.2007.2

Continued from Media and justice equal?

“For the last year we have seen anger in white men about the miscarriage of justice they claimed occurred against these kids. In the last year they have had a chance to get a taste of the imbalance that can occur when a prosecutor decides he wants to go after a defendant. They got a glimpse of what Black men get all the time.”

But I am not the only voice in this matter. I have not been the only one to question the ‘innoccence’ of they boys. Has everyone forgotten that this incident started because these ‘upstanding young men’ decided that they needed to call an escort service to have women perform sex acts with a broomstick, while they engaged in under-age drinking?

“… ive decided to have some strippers over to eden 2c. all are welcome.. howerver there will be no nudity. I plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. “

Innocent of the charges but not innocent individuals, though the media has glanced way past this.

But when was the last time that Black defendants received this same level of positive coverage by the media or the justice system? What case can you name?

In the OJ Simpson case the nation displayed a
reaction to seeing how dismayed whites were when the legal system worked for a Black man in the same way that it had worked for whites all too many times. The intelligence of the mostly Black jury was questioned by the media and became a national punch line on late night television.

The Rodney King case, which prompted the riots, had many
figured the case for police brutality was pretty obvious. Everything you needed to know was right there on video. Instead many white people accepted the LAPD’s defense that King was a threat and the Simi Valley jury’s acquittal of the officers. The juror’s intelligence was never questioned the way the jurors in the O.J. trial was.

Beyond this, how many cases have we heard where an ambiguous African American was the perpetrator only to learn that the actual criminal was the supposed victim. How many times has an African American been arrested based solely on this presumption, and the media demanded their conviction with the harshest penalties only to become completely silent when the truth becomes known?

Injustice is not a Black and White issue, according to the law. Inequality under the law is a fact of life. Now that former D.A. Nifong has been quickly disbarred, the alleged rapists decried innocent of their charges, purported millions paid to their families, and the original victim discredited by the media – who have released her name and image – what happens next?

[I have to mention that I have never heard of a case, no matter the outcome, where an alleged rape victim’s name, image and virtually their address has been released to the public and promoted on several broadcasts. It was an unheard of act, but in this case, for this woman, there was an exception of what was previously a media rule.]

Will the justice system and the media start treating all defendants the same? Will Blacks be defended vigorously when potentially involved in an event? Well just observe the coverage on the missing mother Jessie Davis. Perhaps the father-to-be is guilty, but the media seems sure of it. These kinds of cases often involve someone close to the victim so it could be. But if you compare the questions and amount of coverage being directed to the father-to-be versus the coverage and questions of the man whose entire family was found dead in a car, you see a big difference.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Media and justice equal? - 6.21.2007.1

Here is something that really hits home. This involves the Duke Rape Case, OJ Simpson, and the Justice system in America, the Rodney King riots and the news media. While one might think at a glance that none of these events could be linked the fact is that at their core they all are based in the same situation. It is that core that needs to be discussed more.

The question of injustice is always a hotbed discussion and something that gets the mouths of news media executives watering. It means ratings, and usually can be pumped for days sometimes weeks in a row. It’s something that every American has a viewpoint on, and sometimes the entire world wants to comment about. Injustice is the reason why our legal system was created and theoretically works to fight. Yet, it is the most obvious lie known to everyone but rarely ever seriously acted on.

The most recent image of injustice has been the Duke Rape case. Currently the nation was obsessed with the proof of innocence of the boys accused. For a year there has been constant attention to evidence, procedure, witnesses, the alleged victim, and what might have happened.

What was obscured in all this focused attention was the cause of the situation, the motivation for the claimed event, the prior environment leading to that day, and the immediate aftermath before the media got involved. The statement that the Duke students are ‘innocent’ was more powerful than any other fact.

I’ve spoken about the case from time to time

“Like most racial cases there is an opinion being promoted. Like the OJ trials, where a rich man used the best lawyers he could afford to defend himself, and police officers (or at least Mr. Furman) manipulated evidence. Yet the media screamed guilt though we are supposed to be presumed innocent. Or the case of Mr. Daryl Littlejohn. And I look at how the media downplayed the Bensonhurst murder, or Chapaquidiq (I know the spelling is wrong) or the beating of Mr. Rodney King. These are not extremes, and they are relevant. In cases of racial tension the media always picks a side.”

And then there was

“This is not what I would call fair or balanced reporting. Considering that perhaps millions hear your words and determine the facts of the case based on your reporting, I feel you have done a disservice to this News event. The coverage of this matter demands more than 30 seconds of airtime. It also begs an impartial coverage of the facts as they exist and not a view that implies, presents, and influences thoughts to one side or another.”

Most recently I mentioned...

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Monday, June 18, 2007

What shopping at Olum's is like Part 2 - 6.18.2007.2

Continued from What shopping at Olum's is like

I was told that I would have an answer on my corporate account in 2 days after Olum’s received my corporate ID number. They received the number on Tuesday of last week, the next day after I had come into the presence of Linda. Mr. Dave Titus, as I recall, gruffly reminded me that it would take 2 days, so I am sure I was expecting to get an answer by Thursday.

I say gruffly because if you noticed, Linda in all her efficiency had scheduled my delivery for Wednesday and when I mentioned this and that it needed to be corrected Mr. Titus directly told me that couldn’t happen. When I mentioned that their automated system had already tried to confirm the delivery and that he should take care of it, he emphatical stated he would. Don’t you feel the love.

On Friday I called Mr. Titus to find out the status of my account. I only got his answering machine, and he never called me back. Hey it was a nice Friday, I figured he was out golfing or something, which I would have done if I wasn’t working. So Monday comes by, and I call him again.

I am on hold for him to pick up for 5 minutes. The receptionist picks back up and mentions he seems to again not be at his desk. It’s 2:30 in the afternoon. She asks me to leave a message in his voicemail, and in 10 minutes she would go in and remind him to call me. Odd that she knows where to find him if he is not at his desk, but I say ok.

At about 5:40 I walk into the same Olum’s store I was at 1 week ago. I ask if Mr. Titus is around, a woman takes my name and goes to check. Nope, not there. (Oh if it matters I’m in a pair of Dockers and a polo shirt – no time off this day). So I ask if I can get the status of the corporate account, I am hoping to schedule delivery as I may be out of town later in the week. 10 minutes to get someone that “might” be able to access the information, and another 10-15 later I find out that there is no one able to get the information and I will have to wait to reach the elusive Mr. Titus the next day.

Now I get a bit snippy, having been serviced poorly since the moment I walked in the door a week ago, and state that I will just purchase the furniture outright. 4 of the women working the sales desk all stopped and were startled. I was not rude in my words, nor loud, but I was direct. They seemed quite flustered that I wished to purchase the office furniture outright. I pulled out my corporate card, quoted the remainder of the balance due, stated that I was told delivery could be done next day as well as assembly of the items that needed it by Linda, and reminded them that this was an imposition as I had preferred to do this via a corporate account but no answers were disrespectful. # of the ladies then started to apply themselves for the first time since I was in the store and found my account, the balance (exactly what I stated it was) and made the purchase and set the delivery. It took 5 minutes of actual work.

Though I was annoyed I apologized to the lady helping me, as she was not whom I was angered by, and stated clearly but a bit more softly that this was the least professional service I had had in a while.

I think that 6 days are more than enough to make a 2 minute call. I think someone should be able to access the status of a corporate account at all times. I don’t think a man in a t-shirt is going to pick up a desk and sprint out of a store. I don’t like being followed as I look over a purchase. I don’t like being questioned if I have enough money for a purchase I state I want, or ignored when I mention I want to make a corporate purchase. I hate when my ability to own a company is questioned.

If you wondered, yes I was the only African American (besides my friend) in Olum’s each time I was there.

What do I think of Olums’s? I don’t use such profanity on this blog. Suffice to say that if I looked different in both instances I was there, and my name was less Hispanic, I would have been treated far differently.

Pass the word on this experience, as I also plan to provide a copy of this to the owners of Olum’s and I want them to know what kind of word of mouth they engendered from me.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

What shopping at Olum's is like - 6.18.2007.1

So here was a fun day. Before I mention more I want to give you some background. Binghamton, NY is a small town to me. It is considered a city and is the largest place south of Syracuse in the state. There are about 200,000 people living in the greater metro area, which includes several towns, and estimates of the minority population range from 2-5%. The average income in the area is about $30,000 but that includes a small population of executives from IBM and a couple of other companies. I say this so those from other places have an idea of the place.

Last week I went to a local furniture store, Olum’s. They are well known and large here. I was dressed casually in jeans and a t-shirt as I had some free time, it was 5pm, and it was a hot day. I had the intention of getting some new office furniture and asked where that section was. My friend and I were shown the area and selections they had and were there looking over the choices for about 3 minutes before being asked if we needed help.

I replied no and the worker, Linda, went off about 30 feet in direct line of site at all times for about 5-10 minutes. She returned to ask if I needed help 2 more times before I had selected some office furniture. I asked about a couple of options, switching the chair mostly, and then decided to purchase some items.

At this point Linda decided to let me know what the price of the purchase would be, which was clear enough to see that had I been blind I wouldn’t need braile to read the price. I just asked her if there were any corporate options available as this was a purchase I wanted to make via my company. Linda proceeded to explain how lay-a-way worked, which I corrected her 2x about. It was a corporate purchase not personal, not that I needed lay-a-way.

Linda excused herself for her error, and directed me to the main sales area. I was told that there was a form that I could fill out to create a corporate account. I mentioned that I was going to put down a third of the price and the rest in 30 days if that was possible. I was assured it was, which I expected. I proceeded to fill out the form that I was given as Linda went to arrange my delivery date for 2 days later, though the next day was available.

Another woman, I forget her name, came over when I had the form nearly done when I asked why it had no place for my corporate name. Well surprise it was because Linda had given me a form for a personal account. I was given the proper account form, which I filled out except for my corporate ID number, which I don’t have memorized. I was told it was no problem, it would take a day or 2 to process anyway and I could call later in the day or the next day to provide the number from my office.

At this point Linda is back, letting me know the delivery would arrive the day my application would be approved. She also casually dropped the fact, 3x, that I would need to deposit 20% for the corporate account. I reminded her, politely each time that I was placing a third down as I had originally mentioned. She then ran my corporate card, asked me if I was authorized on this account (I had mentioned several times at this point I was the owner/President of the company), I reminded her that it was my name on the card and showed her my ID again, then she ran it thru as a lay-a-way. After correcting her mistake I left, somewhat annoyed.

If you think that I was upset by her persistent implication, I felt, that I could not afford the office furniture, and that I was not an owner of a corporation, wait til you hear the rest.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Some spin about the Presidential candidates Part 2 - 6.17.2007.3

Continued from Some spin about the Presidential candidates Part 1...

But why is Senator Clinton so polarizing? What makes this one candidate so despised on one side and loved on the other? Is it the anger some have over the war in Iraq? Is it the actions of President Bush that is the real motivation, masking the actions of Senator Clinton?

Negative ads are bad. 30 second soundbite answers do no justice to the populace as we seek serious answers to serious questions affecting current and future generations. But to gloss over the failure in American politics as being a one-sided group of events is to be either naïve or ignorant of the truth.

Both parties have corporate backers spending millions on promoting one candidate or another. All the backers will obviously want some kind of consideration for the winning candidate. All the candidates have weaknesses. Several have serious character flaws, and many have flipped positions that bring their real political standpoints into question.

I don’t mind that everyone is interested in this Presidential race. It’s an important one. It will affect this country and the world at large for decades. But to look at it in a myopic view is ridiculous to me. I have yet to see a candidate that is not taking large funds from corporations and ultra-rich individuals that have a specific agenda. Not one of the candidates has been explicit in their positions on critical issues.

By that I mean, while several have stated in no uncertain terms that they will remove our troops from Iraq, they have not mentioned how this will be done nor what they will do to ensure that future aggressors will be prevented from creating a base once we are gone. While several candidates have said they will seek to create a national healthcare system, none have mentioned how this will be funded, how pharmaceutical companies will be motivated to create new drugs, nor what will prevent this system from being run like the Post Office, VA, or the DMV [the inefficiencies of each are too vast to go into detail about].

These are just a few of the issues that need to be discussed. Until there are clear answers, picking on either party or candidate is useless and worse distracting.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Some spin about the Presidential candidates - 6.17.2007.2

Here is an interesting bit in defense of Senator Clinton and denouncing the Republican Party. It seems quite interesting that this piece focuses on the election in France, cable news and a newspaper in London. Obviously the election of the next President of the United States affects the entire world, but the way this one blogger puts it you would think the world is hoping for a Democrat in the position.

To say that a Democratic President in 2008 would be a bad thing is a bit early to call. We don’t even know who will be the candidate of that party. The same must be said of the Republican candidates. But there are a few things we can definitely say.

The election of the President of France did have a large voter turnout. They do have a different style of politics, but one of the factors in their election was a pro-America (and that means President Bush) candidate. The anti-American candidate lost by an overwhelming number.

Add to this the fact that the candidates debate issues and you get a very different kind of race than what we have here. Liquor ads are banned on American TV, and we do discuss the past of our candidates. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

“Conservative groups and political figures are planning a film, books and a concerted media campaign to demonise Clinton, who is already one of the most polarising figures in American politics.”

I don’t know if demonize is the correct word here. There have been several books discussing Senator Clinton. They are bringing up her actions in Whitewater and motivations for getting elected in NY State. These are real concerns, and as a long-time political figure she knew they would be raised. There is even added interest as one of her former aides, Mr. Dick Morris, has raised concerns about her. I for one have to wonder why would someone who was instrumental to helping her husband get elected is one of those leading the charge to prevent her from getting elected President. That’s not negative.

As for the internet, to say that Republicans are using it against any Democratic candidate implies that the Democrats are not doing the same thing. I can point to at least a dozen unsolicited emails from Mr. John Edwards to prove that. [I mentioned previously that rather than answering a letter with question, Mr. Edwards has added me to his mass mailing list and has not made any other response.] Many of his mass mailings directly attack the position of the President and the Republican Party. I’m sure other candidates have done the same thing, including Senator Clinton. That sounds like a similar and equal use of the Internet to me.

One of the most interesting media campaigns against Senator Clinton was made by a fellow Democrat. While Senator Obama’s campaign denied involvement, it was found that they were responsible for the very popular remake of the old television commercial that spread on YouTube. They implied that Senator Clinton was the Orwellian equivalent of Big Brother. Republicans can’t be blamed for that.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

What about the other side of the Carpetbagger Report - 6.17.2007.1

Recently the Carpetbagger Report decided to take on the Republican candidates, speculating which was the ’scariest’. While this rundown of the candidates is scant on fact, and very much directed from a point of view that is opposed to the Republican Party, it does highlight some weaknesses of some Presidential candidates.

Lopsided as it is, I have to wonder what are the weaknesses of the various Democratic candidates? If the Carpet Bagger is to be taken seriously then why haven’t they made the same kind of critique against a Party they support? An honest look at all the Presidential candidates reveals flaws in all hoping to run now, anything other than discussing both sides rings hollow to me.

As an example of what I mean:

Senator Clinton has flipped her position on the Iraq war as recently as February of this year. It is only recently that the demand to leave Iraq at all costs has come to fore. That qualifies as a flip-flop I think.

Senator Obama has the least experience of the front-runners of the Democratic Party. A junior Senator, with few years and no real connections on an international basis.

Mr. John Edwards has made a lot of money from sources that questionably profited on the poor. His cries of standing up for the less successful in America seems to contradict his lavish home and $400 haircuts.

Anyone can pick on the flaws of the candidates, they are human so they have them. But to just pick one side and demonize them is unfair. The above is meant only to give a little balance to what is found on the Carpetbagger Report.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Friday, June 15, 2007

Why do Presidential candidates avoid foreign policy - 6.15.2007.1

It would seem that I am not the only person with questions for the future President of the United States. I doubt that Mr. Clinton Whitehurst and I are the only ones. Yet the candidates, of both parties, continue to avoid questions that go beyond the simple 30 second soundbite.

I have yet to hear a single candidate speak about some of the issues Mr. Whitehurst brings up. While these are questions limited to foreign policy, they are important. They include:

“If North Korea reneges on its promise to give up its nuclear-weapons program, should the US encourage Japan to develop nuclear weapons?

How should the United States Respond to a Chinese military action against Taiwan?

In the Western hemisphere, for example, should the United States lift its embargo against Cuba?”

And several other questions that the next Commander-and Chief must be able to respond to. While all eyes of the citizenry are turned towards the Middle East, no one is asking what will happen elsewhere. It’s not enough to know that the next President wants to end the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan for that matter. How they will end these current wars and what they intend to do about the rest of the world are critical in our decision in choosing among the candidates.

Perhaps one of the candidates will be bold enough to answer the questions that aren’t being asked, and give an answer that will be better than a soundbite. Then again it seems they are in no more of a hurry to answer the Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Clemson University than they are to answer me.

Don’t you wonder why?

Labels: , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Thursday, June 14, 2007

How important is healthcare to you? - 6.14.2007.1

In reading about the candidates I came upon an article from the Southwest Nebraska News that discussed the Presidential candidates’ position on AIDS and other infectious diseases. The subject has recently become more of an issue with the attention that Mr. Andrew Speaker brought in his trans-Atlantic flight while having tuberculosis.

I do not recall any of the candidates speaking on this issue, outside of condemning the actions of Mr. Speaker. Yet this is a major issue not only to the American public, but the world at large. Millions across the world are at risk from not only AIDS and tuberculosis but malaria, bird flu, and other diseases that the average American will most likely never get. That is until the day that we do, and on that day we have the potential for hardship on epidemic levels. Addressing these diseases in other parts of the world helps us protect our own nation, and as Mr. Speaker made clearly apparent that can protect us as well.

But the part of the article that really got my attention was the comment that 68% of Americans polled were concerned about health issues, AIDS in particular. While that would be a great thing, it’s not what I have noticed in my own polls.

In my poll (found at I see that the leading concern at this moment is the economy, at 17%, followed by national security, education and anti-terrorism efforts all tied at 13%. Now I must admit I don’t have healthcare (national or otherwise) on my list of choices, but I have not received any comments stating that it is a major issue. To further defend my lack of listing healthcare, I felt that social services and foreign policy covered them both (each at 9%).

While pundits and Presidential candidates are mentioning a nationalized healthcare system, I’ve notice most people are worried about making more money and maintaining their lifestyles. I know of no one that wants the government to provide health services, the general consensus being that it would turn into a DMV or Post Office clone. Even less thought has been voiced, by those I know and interact with, on the question of what aide is being given to combat AIDS and other diseases in other nations.

Perhaps more attention should be paid to these items. I agree that improving healthcare is a vital requirement for the next President, and those that follow. I cannot say that I feel it is the most pressing issue though. I also do believe that most Americans share my thoughts. The downside of this consensus is that AIDS and other diseases plaguing the rest of the world are not getting combated as they should. Of course without a strong economy, good national defense, and limits of illegal immigration we can’t help anyone else either.

Am I right? How important is healthcare, national or otherwise, to you?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Why pundits think they know who will be President - 6.13.2007.1

Would a Democrat win the White House as some pundits speculate? Could it be Senator Clinton? Why would Senator Obama settle for Vice-President? Why in the world would they say this?

All of these things ran through my mind recently. I have to say they could be right. The fact is that if this does happen it would be for all the wrong reasons. Let me explain.

The way the math is being done now, there are more women than men in the nation. This is not new, but they historically come out and vote less than men do. It is often stated that one of the reasons that President John Kennedy was elected is due to his appeal to women as opposed to his opponent. A similar motivation is being posed as a factor for Senator Clinton. As the first woman, she will bring more women to vote for her without regard to her political views.

Add to this that Senator Obama, as the first Presidential candidate perceived as having a chance to make a critical impact, will garner the African American vote for similar reasons. Given the fact that Senator Obama is very new on the political scene and started with far less recognition, he will not gain the nomination but is too vital with minority voters and thus gets the Vice-President nod.

On top of this is the fact that immigration reform is seen as a Republican initiative, which is something many Latino and Hispanic Americans are angered by. Because of the emotion involved it is seen as weakening any Republican candidate’s chance.

Have you noticed that not one of these reasons, whether or not valid, have nothing to do with political platforms, benefit to the nation or ability of any candidate. This line of reasoning seem better suited for picking a winner of American Idol, or some other brain cell depleting ‘reality’ program. Do we really want to pick a President because we emotionally think they feel better than another candidate?

If that is a reason to pick a candidate then we might as well say that X is the better choice because they have on blue as opposed to black on election day. Deciding who will run the most powerful nation of the world should NEVER be relegated to the equivalent of a coin toss. I just can’t believe the general citizenry of this nation are that dumb.

I don’t care who wins, IF they are the best choice for the nation. Male, female, White, Black, Latino or whatever they should be the most qualified of the choices at the time. Anything less damages the nation and has repercussions for DECADES.

Maybe the pundits are wrong. There is a lot of time between now and the election. Maybe I will get some answers to the questions I have asked the current Presidential candidates. Perhaps someone will stand out as actually having plans that are fully formed and coherent. Possibly we will get comments that are more than mere soundbites, and a full choice will appear.

But if the pundits are right, for the reasons they claim, this nation is screwed.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Talking about Cancer Part 3 - 6.10.2007.3

Continuing from Talking about Cancer Part 2...

Nothing is worse than suddenly knowing you have a tumor, especially when it’s the size of an orange or more. Nothing affects your loved ones more than knowing that you have an affliction that could have been worked on years earlier if someone just checked and paid attention. It just shouldn’t happen. Yet the mortality rates prove that it does.

Politicians may want to talk about national healthcare and affordability, but no one seems willing to talk about quality of care and accuracy. No one mentions that there hasn’t been a cure to anything since Polio. No one mentions that many studies find that the care given to African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics and other minorities is not the same as to Whites. No one mentions that various medications do not affect men and women the same. Having healthcare is not the same as getting good healthcare. It’s not about money, at least not from what I have observed in those close to me.

I hope I am wrong. I hope these are exceptions and not the rule. But somehow I don’t think so. I’d love to hear someone ask this of the various Presidential candidates. Perhaps a question similar to one posed by myself to Senator Barak Obama (who has not to date responded in any manner):

What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?

[To be fair, none of the Presidential candidates has formed any response to any of the questions I have sent to them. The reason for this lack of response is open to question, but the fact that they were sent these questions months ago is a fact. You can see all of the questions I have asked at Letters to Presidential candidates.]

This is a serious subject. I hope it has provided some thoughts. I will be discussing it more in the future.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Talking about Cancer Part 1

Talking about cancer Part 2

Labels: , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Talking about Cancer Part 2 - 6.10.2007.2

Continued from Talking about Cancer - 6.10.2007.1 Part 1...

Why is early detection so critical?
African American women, who have much lower ovarian cancer incidence rates than Caucasian women, are less likely than their Caucasian counterparts to survive five or more years with this disease, regardless of the stage at diagnosis.

African American women are more commonly diagnosed with widespread and therefore advanced stage, ovarian masses than Caucasian women.

African American, Hawaiian, and Alaskan native women have overall cancer mortality rates that are at least 40% higher than other minority populations.

Despite an overall decline in cancer deaths for all Americans regardless of race, 36% more black men and 17% more black women are dying from cancer than their white counterparts, finds a new study by Pfizer Inc and the National Medical Association. The study covered the period of 1990 to 2003.

For all five cancers examined – cancers of the prostate, colon and rectum, lung and bronchus, breast and uterine cervix – Racial Differences in Cancer found that blacks have higher death rates, as well as lower five-year survival rates. From 1990 to 2002, the gap between the races in deaths from breast cancer and colorectal cancer has grown, from a 14% greater rate of deaths from breast cancer for black women in 1990 to a 36% greater rate of deaths in 2002. For colorectal cancer, in 1990, blacks had a 24% higher death rate compared to a 40% higher death rate in 2002.

And in a previous post on Breast Cancer I noted:
Also of note is that Black/African American women are more likely to die from breast cancer without regard to age.

I think this says why without any need for further explanation from me.

Early and consistent diagnosis is important. Knowing the risk factors is vital. Yet, without doctors and medical institutions doing their part in identifying early stages of these diseases people will suffer and die for no reason. Not doing their job is not a reason for anyone to be inflicted with the trauma these diseases bring.
I am angered by the lack of attention I have been made aware of. The ‘sudden’ discovery of tumors of such sizes is insulting. The fact that African Americans may have lower incidence rates is not a reason to fail to pay attention to the exams being done.

I can say that I know a bit more about colon cancer in African Americans than my current doctor. When I had my last physical in February, we discussed the subject and he had to do research on the subject to get up to date. Not very inspiring I must say. It’s also odd since I had a previous doctor that was hyper-sensitive on the subject. Both work for the same hospital and are in the same area with similar client bases.

Suffice to say that just relying on your doctor or medical institution is not enough. Don’t wait to find out when the problem is advanced. Ask questions. Force your doctor to give you exams that you should get, based on age and risk. Make sure they know what they are talking about. Give yourself a fighting chance.

Concluded in Part 3...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Talking about Cancer - 6.10.2007.1

I want to talk about something that hits home for me. I want to discuss cancer. I don’t have it but it is someone very close to me. I won’t say who to protect her privacy, but she knows I love her dearly.

The situation is that this 35 year old Black Hispanic woman is about to have surgery to remove a tumor. The tumor is 14cm large. Not one doctor noticed this until very recently. The odds of malignancy are high, sadly. To say this is unacceptable is an understatement.

I have read that African American women, under 50, are less likely to have ovarian cancer. It’s not nearly as prevalent as in White women. I must assume that this causes doctors to not look for it, especially in those that are younger. Thus when it is looked at, we see larger tumors and further progression of the disease once detected. This is a major factor in that African American women have an exceedingly higher mortality rate than any other group. I have a lot of trouble accepting this.

But this is not an isolated case. I am aware of another woman, older but not 50 at the time and also Black that also had a tumor that was suddenly found. Luckily it was benign, though that does not excuse how a tumor the size of a lemon was not noticed for years. Obviously this is increasing my concern for my sisters and friends. Tumors should not be ‘suddenly’ found after years of growth at sizes ranging from a small fruit to that of a grapefruit. It’s not an oversight; it’s insulting and potentially deadly.

This doesn’t just happen in Black women though. I have known of the father of 2 close friends that died of colon cancer, also detected very late in life. In the case of one it was an African American man, younger and diagnosed in a more advanced stage. There is no reason for this.

I keep saying there is not reason, and let me clarify. In the cases of the African Americans let me describe the backgrounds. None are drinkers. 2 don’t drink at all, one rarely. One is a former smoker that quit about 22 years ago. None take drugs. One was a former war veteran that remained in excellent shape, another also served in the military. In each case these are people that live regular lives with at least better than average health other than the cancer. All of them have had professional careers. One, at least, has a Masters Degree.

I say all this because it shouldn’t be a sudden discovery. None of these tumors just appeared overnight. Each of these people should have had some one notice the tumors before they became so advanced. The anger this creates in me is more than I can explain.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Rev Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton Part 2 - 6.7.2007.3

Continued from Rev Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton...

In Mr. Gibson’s own words, Paris Hilton getting released from prison and confined to a mansion with access to all her friends, family, servants and luxuries is “rich white privilege in action.” That is not to say that if you are African American, or Asian or Hispanic/Latino, and have a lot of money you can’t get the same privilege. It’s about money and not color of skin. Sadly, there aren’t a lot of Black Americans with net worth’s of the amounts needed to get this same treatment. If there were at least then the system would be fairer.

No one can doubt that an African American woman in jail right now would be released to home confinement if a psychiatrist said they were ‘about to have a nervous breakdown.’ It won’t happen. But I agree with Rev. Sharpton in his stated effort to go seek out women under similar circumstances and ask they receive the same treatment. It won’t happen, and thus some judge or law enforcement officer should pluck Ms. Hilton from her cozy mansion and but her spoiled butt back in a cell. As to the women Rev. Sharpton will pick to represent, I would hope they are “white daughters of coal miners” as well as African American and Hispanic/Latina women. The point is about justice, not color.

But be ready for the general news media to spin this in to a race issue. If they do it will divert attention from Paris Hilton to Rev. Al Sharpton. It will obscure what happened with issues that while real, do not apply here. Its smoke and mirrors played in front of televisions across America. And it may well happen.

Actually, thinking about it as I write I have to wonder if that isn’t the real reason Rev. Al Sharpton was sought out for a response. The Hilton family didn’t make and keep all their money because they are all as ‘smart’ as Paris. A diversion could help keep the most publicly recognizable family member out of prison and in her no doubt lavish domicile. If that is the case, then it wasn’t an inebriated exec but a very sober and far-planning Hilton that made the call. We shall see.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Rev. Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton - 6.7.2007.2

Here is a hot match for you. Rev. Al Sharpton and Paris Hilton. Just titillating don’t you think? Perhaps if you don’t you need to chug a 12 pack of beer. For those not inebriated I will continue.

It would seem that some exec over at Fox News, if not several other news organizations, thought that this match up made sense. Between 4 and 6pm there has been footage of Rev. Al Sharpton commenting on the news that Paris Hilton was released from prison and now is confined to 4000 sq. feet at her Hollywood mansion home for the next 40 days. I assume that whoever was the person making decisions on who to interview for an opinion of this news was inebriated. Why else pick Rev. Sharpton.

Image found from
Rev. Sharpton has a dubious history, and is well noted for championing issues that solely affect African Americans. His efforts have had mixed results, the most recent being the removal of Mr. Don Imus from the public airwaves. That effort was one which I shared his view on. Other views not so much. Yet, the media has titled Rev. Sharpton as a leader of the Black community. I don’t know how he became one, nor do I recognize him in such a position, but the media seems to believe all the same.
Yet, without the sensationalism provided by the newspapers, Mr. Sharpton would probably not have become a known figure. Even with the newspapers influence what has he acheived? Has his presence led to changes in the actions of police in NYC in 1987? in 1989 or 91? Has he helped to create legislation that improves peoples lives? Is he taken seriously politically when he speaks about a subject?

Image found from
Paris Hilton is a spoiled, inept, seemingly obtuse individual. Oh I forgot to mention that she has a trust fund that has almost as many digits as the national gross product of Belgium. Given that last fact Ms. Hilton has had few people reject her desires to be in movies, make record albums, and generally pretend she has talent. She has far too much money and the family has far too much clout to say no, in most cases. Such is the shame of her life, in my opinion. In my opinion having a lot of money is not a redeeming quality.
I have to say, I hope that Ms. Hilton gets a cell with ‘Shanequa’ and ‘Betty Jean Sue’. Let her think that her name will get her out of cleaning a toilet, and a couple of those rough-neck girls will straighten her out on the real facts of life. Perhaps that will help her get her act right. Or at least let us all have less chances of being forced to see and hear about her antics. Either one would be good for me.

So some executive said ‘we have to hear Rev. Al Sharpton’s comments. Let’s get the African American view.’ Or so I think it might have gone. Ratings numbers on the rise from a racializing [not a word I know] of an obvious miscarriage of justice must have danced before their eyes.

Yet I must admit that Rev. Al Sharpton was correct in part. He stated, this is the “worst example of a double standard…” There is no question of that. Rev. Sharpton went on to state the more racial inequality of the release of Paris, which I find fault with. This is not based on an issue of Black and White. It’s an issue of celebrities [no matter how dubious the claim to fame] and entertainers, in addition to those ultra-rich, being treated in a massively preferential way.

There is no question that the clout of the Hilton family was a factor in the sudden release of Paris. The D.A. was not even notified of the release. Reportedly he found out via the news just as millions of other have. That smacks of politics in action. The kind of response only large amounts of cash and connections provide. In this respect I agree with Mr. John Gibson (The Big Story anchor on Fox News), that it’s similar to the OJ Simpson trial. If anyone, of any color, has enough money and celebrity, they can beat the system. That is more than a shame, it’s a crime.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Count down to the Robin Roberts free book give away - 6.7.2007.1

Just a quick reminder that there are only 3 days left to the end of the Robin Roberts free book giveaway. M V Consulting, Inc. has joined with and Hyperion books to provide a 5 book giveaway. The contest is open to all United States residents, age 18 and above.

The contest is simple and easy to enter. Rules for the contest can be seen at Robin Roberts - From the Heart - Book Giveaway.

You can also see my review of Ms. Robin Roberts book here.

Take a chance and enter, you have nothing to lose and a good book to gain.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Monday, June 04, 2007

Which Presidential candidate is winning? - 6.4.2007.1

As the half way mark approaches on the Robin Roberts book giveaway contest, I want to mention that there is still time to get in. There has been a lot of activity so far but there is always a chance of winning a copy. Winners will be selected on the 10th so tell your friends.

In other update news, the current status of the [found on Black Entertainment USA and M V Consulting, Inc.] online poll choosing which Presidential candidate should be the President in 2008 continues to be a close one. According to the poll on this site, 34% are looking for Senator Obama to win. Senator Obama is closely followed by Senator Clinton with 26%, and then Senator McCain with 16%, and Mr. Giuliani at 13%. There are your front runners. I may update the poll (which will require a restart) to include Mr. Fred Thompson, and other candidates of both parties. If you go by Rasmussen Reports the current leaders are Mr. Rudy Giuliani (60% for Republican) and Senator Obama (58% for Democrat). Keep voting until the real vote comes. Every vote counts!

More soon.

Labels: , , , ,

Ask for ad rates

Friday, June 01, 2007

More issues at the Canadian border - 6.1.2007.1

While everyone is busy being afraid about the potential problem that Mr. Andrew Speaker has posed to the health of various airline passengers around the world, I have focused on another matter. True, one person can cause a huge problem, infecting enough people to quickly spread an infection to multiple nations and thousands of people. Yet, given the low transfer rate of this form of Tuberculosis and the relatively limited time to contract the disease, my concern is more focused.

What could be more of a concern for me? What is more devastating than this well-hyped health scare? Our northern border.

I do not blame Canada for allowing a U.S. citizen to enter their country, and to leave it. They had no idea who this guy was, nor did we tell them to look out for him. Canada did nothing wrong. But how does a person who is flagged and sought after by the American government enter the nation? Through Mexico, crossing the border with illegal immigrants in the dead of night across difficult terrain? No, a casual drive over the northern border is all it takes.

I’ve spoken about this several times,
“…But if we are to posture about security and claim a need to patrol and defend the southern border, no less attention needs to be directed at our neighbors to the north….”

I further stated,
“The government may wish to stick its head in the sand, and assume that if we protect one border all are safe. The public at large may wish to assume that one culture is more dangerous than another. But the fact is, and is shown to be again, that such precepts are both false and dangerous.”

In that post I spoke of 17 terrorists, in this one we discuss a man who carried a virulent disease, was flagged by the nation, and used his passort that stated exactly who he was. Yet there is rampant terror about what happens at the southern American border. How much more ridiculous does this all get?

I have mentioned this several times, and as often as the media discusses various individuals entering America from the north, nothing is being mentioned by our politicians. That’s quite troubling. Think about it, if you were a demented fanatic and you see the world news where American pundits are arguing about the Southern border – yet let Mr. Speaker pass without hesitation – where would you head to cause trouble? Fanatics may be sick, but they are not necessarily stupid.

When will we stop being obsessively worried about the darker-skinned and more obvious neighbors to the south, and pay attention to the larger, least watched border to the north? If 17 terrorist, among the many others we know have already crossed into the U.S., are not enough of a wake-up call this one incident definitely is. Border security is not a one sided issue, nor should it be focused against one type of people. That’s a huge group of –ism’s that only lead to one thing, a nation less safe for it’s population.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: , , , ,

Ask for ad rates
Ask for ad rates