because ignoring it has the same effect.
One thing is glaringly obvious regarding the discussion about Syria & the authority to attack: no politician in DC and no one in the Corporate Media has said much of anything (perhaps nothing) about the Constitution. Instead, we hear about "precedents", the War Powers Act, Humanitarian imperatives, etc. There's a very good reason for that. Nowhere in the SUPREME Law of the Land is power delegated to the Fed Gov't to attack a country that is no threat to the USA and has not attacked us. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to see anyone in the Gov't or anyone in the Corporate Media point out exactly where that power is enumerated in the Constitution.
I'm not asking commenters on various public forums to show me the constitutional authority... because my experience with comments there the last few days has shown me that (if those forums are representative samples of Americans' constitutional knowledge) most Americans nowadays know almost nothing about how this Republic is supposed to operate legally.
Someone needs to tell "Bomb-Bomb-Iran" McCain that the War Powers Act, along with every other LAW, does NOT supercede the Constitution. If Laws trumped the SUPREME Law of the Land, there would be no point at all in having a Constitution. For decades, the puppets in DC have ignored the Constitution at will. Not long ago, I saw a clip on YouTube in which a Congressman (can't remember his name) said to an interviewer, "Half of what we do is unconstitutional. What's the big deal?". That pretty much says it for politicians.
The Supreme Law of the Land is crystal clear on the permitted uses of the military, there are only three...1. To execute the laws of the land (as in the case of the Whiskey Rebellion in the mid-1790s). 2. To repel invasions. 3. To quell insurrections. [Numbers 1 & 3 appear to be so similar that in the last 50 years I've usually said there are only two permitted uses.] People sometimes retort that this is modern-day America; all that old stuff is completely out-of-date. Perhaps so; that's why there are two mechanisms for updating the Constitution---the Amendment process and the Constitutional Convention. Both were purposely designed to be cumbersome...changing the Supreme Law of the Land should not be easy. For a time, the DC puppets did use the Amendment process to update the Supreme Law, but then they quit. It was easier to pass laws. They gambled that the American public would not know the difference; apparently, they won. I guess it never occurred to the Founders that We the People would allow our servant government to ignore the Constitution.
The Commander-in-Chief is constrained by the permitted uses of the military enumerated in the Constitution. I've been appalled to read or sometimes hear people say something like: The Constitution doesn't prohibit the President (or anyone in Gov't) from doing thus-&-such; therefore he/she/they can do it. We are a Gov't of Enumerated Powers [Google it]; the enumeration of things that the Gov't can do IS the prohibition. Creating a comprehensive list of prohibitions would be impossible---the list would be endless. [Isn't American Government taught in schools anymore?]
President Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar; I see no evidence of that at all. Or, if he is one, then he's deceiving the public. Again, I challenge ANYONE in Gov't or the Media to show me legitimate, constitutional authority for attacking Syria...constitutional authority. Anyone in Gov't or the Corporate Media. [I'm not naive enough to expect a response.] I like Woody Allen's old joke: I feel much better now that I've given up hope. :)
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Obama & "Socialism"...and Other Outrageous Stuff Regarding Syria
Here are quotes regarding President Obama from two well known socialists, men whom I admire---
First, Noam Chomsky, a brilliant analyst of the world political & cultural scene. He calls himself a Libertarian Socialist, which is another, less controversial label for Anarcho-Syndicalist---
"He's worse than Bush. Bush kidnapped suspects and had them tortured, but Obama just has them killed...suspects...even an American citizen [in Yemen] whose sole, known crime was that he ran an Al Qaida website."
"The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is gone with Obama."
"After running as a peace candidate, he initially expanded the war in Afghanistan."
"Obama is Head of the largest terrorist organization in the world, our central government."
"He's, at will, having suspects killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen."
"Obama purposely was marketed in a vague manner by the public relations firms that run campaigns. They read polls, so they came up with 'Hope' and 'Change'. Well, Hope for what? What kind of Change?"
Next, John Pilger, a peace and social justice advocate, a journalist, a documentary film producer & director, and a self-declared Socialist---
"Brand Obama...it's all fake."
"He's a product of the Public Relations propaganda system first instituted by Edward Bernays long ago."
"In his book, he said that his first job after graduating from Columbia was with a business consulting firm. For some reason, he didn't reveal the name of the firm or what he did there. The company is Business Systems International, a known front for the CIA. I know this because it's highly active in my home country, Australia. Perhaps there is nothing sinister in what he did for that company, but it seems it would be worth knowing in order to get a full measure of the man."
"During his brief stay as a Senator, he voted for the PATRIOT Act [what a misnomer], the Iraq War, and the death penalty. He voted against a single-payer health care system."
'The worst thing about having Obama as President is: that has silenced large portions of the Left and the Peace Movement."
Given those statements by two prominent socialists, I'd say that there's a high degree of probability that Obama is promoting fascism, not socialism.
----------------------------------------------------
On another topic, very recently I've been participating in the online Comment forum at CBSNews.com regarding the article, "Can Obama Attack Syria Without the Approval of Congress?". The focus of my comments has been the Constitution...Enumerated Powers, etc....and the War Powers Act. The entire proposed action, with or without the approval of Congress, is (in my opinion) unconstitutional...& plainly so.
I bring this up because of my experience with other commenters...literally hundreds of them. IF the comments on that forum are in any way representative of the knowledge that Americans have regarding how our Constitutional Republic is supposed to function, then we have no hope (no pun intended) whatsoever of surviving as a relatively free people.
The misconceptions were absolutely astounding...and were presented with sincere and great passion. Here are some examples...all paraphrased---
1. The Commander-in-Chief can do anything he wants with the military. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be Commander-in-Chief.
2. The President doesn't need the approval of anyone to attack another country... unless war has been declared. Without a declaration of war, he can do what he wants to.
3. What are enumerated powers? Whoever heard of that!?
4. The War Powers Act gives the President the authority to attack Syria, or anyone else.
5. The President is a kind & wise man; therefore, he should be able to attack Syria. He knows more than we do.
6. The Commander-in-Chief doesn't need anyone's approval to do anything with the military. The only exception to that is if he were to use soldiers to take over the USA.
7. We haven't declared war since WWII [that's true], so attacking Syria is permitted.
It goes on & on like that. I find it appalling. I only can guess that incessant propaganda and an extremely poor education system in the USA are to blame. What a shame. Just my opinion.
First, Noam Chomsky, a brilliant analyst of the world political & cultural scene. He calls himself a Libertarian Socialist, which is another, less controversial label for Anarcho-Syndicalist---
"He's worse than Bush. Bush kidnapped suspects and had them tortured, but Obama just has them killed...suspects...even an American citizen [in Yemen] whose sole, known crime was that he ran an Al Qaida website."
"The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is gone with Obama."
"After running as a peace candidate, he initially expanded the war in Afghanistan."
"Obama is Head of the largest terrorist organization in the world, our central government."
"He's, at will, having suspects killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen."
"Obama purposely was marketed in a vague manner by the public relations firms that run campaigns. They read polls, so they came up with 'Hope' and 'Change'. Well, Hope for what? What kind of Change?"
Next, John Pilger, a peace and social justice advocate, a journalist, a documentary film producer & director, and a self-declared Socialist---
"Brand Obama...it's all fake."
"He's a product of the Public Relations propaganda system first instituted by Edward Bernays long ago."
"In his book, he said that his first job after graduating from Columbia was with a business consulting firm. For some reason, he didn't reveal the name of the firm or what he did there. The company is Business Systems International, a known front for the CIA. I know this because it's highly active in my home country, Australia. Perhaps there is nothing sinister in what he did for that company, but it seems it would be worth knowing in order to get a full measure of the man."
"During his brief stay as a Senator, he voted for the PATRIOT Act [what a misnomer], the Iraq War, and the death penalty. He voted against a single-payer health care system."
'The worst thing about having Obama as President is: that has silenced large portions of the Left and the Peace Movement."
Given those statements by two prominent socialists, I'd say that there's a high degree of probability that Obama is promoting fascism, not socialism.
----------------------------------------------------
On another topic, very recently I've been participating in the online Comment forum at CBSNews.com regarding the article, "Can Obama Attack Syria Without the Approval of Congress?". The focus of my comments has been the Constitution...Enumerated Powers, etc....and the War Powers Act. The entire proposed action, with or without the approval of Congress, is (in my opinion) unconstitutional...& plainly so.
I bring this up because of my experience with other commenters...literally hundreds of them. IF the comments on that forum are in any way representative of the knowledge that Americans have regarding how our Constitutional Republic is supposed to function, then we have no hope (no pun intended) whatsoever of surviving as a relatively free people.
The misconceptions were absolutely astounding...and were presented with sincere and great passion. Here are some examples...all paraphrased---
1. The Commander-in-Chief can do anything he wants with the military. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be Commander-in-Chief.
2. The President doesn't need the approval of anyone to attack another country... unless war has been declared. Without a declaration of war, he can do what he wants to.
3. What are enumerated powers? Whoever heard of that!?
4. The War Powers Act gives the President the authority to attack Syria, or anyone else.
5. The President is a kind & wise man; therefore, he should be able to attack Syria. He knows more than we do.
6. The Commander-in-Chief doesn't need anyone's approval to do anything with the military. The only exception to that is if he were to use soldiers to take over the USA.
7. We haven't declared war since WWII [that's true], so attacking Syria is permitted.
It goes on & on like that. I find it appalling. I only can guess that incessant propaganda and an extremely poor education system in the USA are to blame. What a shame. Just my opinion.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Syria and Our Constitution
Here we go again. Read the Constitution---there are only two uses of the military permitted: 1. to repel invasions; 2. to quell insurrections. To get around that, Presidents have been relying on the War Powers Act to use our military pretty much whenever they see fit. The trouble is...laws do NOT supercede the Constitution. Using our military as the world's police force, no matter how justified, is unconstitutional. There is no legitimate authority for that use. Yes, what's happening in Syria is an obscenity, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with constitutional use of the military.
An Amendment is required to change the situation, but politicians just pass laws instead. [It's easier to do that than to get 3/4ths of the States to ratify a new Amendment.] That's called "Legislative Absolutism", a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901; it means passing laws with no regard for the limitations placed upon the Feds by the Constitution.
Let's not forget that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, & others all had "laws" in place to justify their actions, too. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Change it if you must, but do not simply ignore it. Changing it must be done by amendment or a constitutional convention; no other ways are permitted in our system of government. None.
As always...just my opinion...after ~ 50 years of serious study of the U.S. Constitution, probably the most plainly written document ever put forth by a government.
An Amendment is required to change the situation, but politicians just pass laws instead. [It's easier to do that than to get 3/4ths of the States to ratify a new Amendment.] That's called "Legislative Absolutism", a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901; it means passing laws with no regard for the limitations placed upon the Feds by the Constitution.
Let's not forget that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, & others all had "laws" in place to justify their actions, too. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Change it if you must, but do not simply ignore it. Changing it must be done by amendment or a constitutional convention; no other ways are permitted in our system of government. None.
As always...just my opinion...after ~ 50 years of serious study of the U.S. Constitution, probably the most plainly written document ever put forth by a government.
Monday, August 12, 2013
"Hot Coffee"
I just now finished watching the documentary, "Hot Coffee". It's online at NetFlix and probably other sites as well. Remember the infamous McDonald's lawsuit involving a lady who spilled coffee on her lap? Remember how most of us denigrated her for bringing suit against McDonald's? This film covers that case and several others in the tort arena; more than that, it delves into the Oligarchy's role in so-called Tort Reform.
In the case of the lady suing McDonald's, my mind was completely changed. After seeing photographs of the burns, finding out that her medical bills were well over $10,000, and that there were hundreds of prior similar incidents and McDonald's ignored all complaints, and that her recovery involved numerous skin grafts, I decided she deserved every penny she was awarded by the jury. Most importantly, initially all she requested of McDonald's was that they pay her medical bills.
Another case involved a 19-year-old woman employee of KBR (a subsidiary of Halliburton at the time) who was gang raped in Iraq by male co-workers and then locked in a shipping container. The criminal case went nowhere ("He said, she said", I assume), and she couldn't bring a civil suit---tort case---against KBR because her employment contained a mandatory binding arbitration clause in fine print. It took her four years to get the case into court. Another case involved a mother who gave birth to a mentally damaged son, the damage being due to obvious medical malpractice. Because of caps on court case jury awards in her State, her son's medical bills are now being paid largely by MediCaid (in other words, by the taxpayer) instead of by those who caused the damage. There were other cases covered in the film, but I don't have time to go into them.
The above cases certainly make the documentary interesting, but it's real value is in the exposing of the so-called Tort Reform propaganda. Backed by mega corporations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and former politicians such as George W. Bush, the tort reform movement is attempting (with significant success) to bamboozle Americans into believing that juries who hear tort cases somehow are incompetent when it comes to determining the amount of awards to plaintiffs. Of course, the tort reform propaganda doesn't state it that way. :)
I'm beginning to doubt that most people know the function of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in our society. It's primary purpose is to be a lobbyist in DC for mega corporations. It also funnels campaign funds to candidates for State Supreme Court Justice who are favorable to mega business interests. Such Justices are then instrumental in overturning jury awards to wronged plaintiffs in tort cases. The film documents such actions.
Tort Reform propaganda concentrates on those nasty trial lawyers [:)]; I fully admit that personally I don't care much for them either. What the propaganda ignores and suppresses, however, is the fact that bringing suit in court is our main protection against shabby manufacturers, employers, and others. The propagandists say that what they're against is FRIVOLOUS lawsuits, not the concept of bringing suit...and so, they promote caps on jury awards. Think about that for a moment. 1. Frivolous lawsuits generally are thrown out of court. 2. Caps on awards apply to everyone and every case, not just those deemed frivolous by the Oligarchs.*** 3. Without the possibility of a very large punitive damage award against them, those causing damage to people have little incentive to clean up their acts. [***The film shows a clip of George W. Bush (back when) bragging to Congress that such-and-such Legislative Bill will put a stop to "frivolous" lawsuits by placing caps on jury awards to plaintiffs. The man never could reason (or at least appears not to be able to). Hey, Dubya, those caps you're so proud of apply to ALL cases. They would even apply to a hypothetical case against a surgeon I once knew who used to boast that he could operate on a patient even when he (the surgeon) was "three sheets to the wind"... drunk. Caps---what a dandy idea, George...yeah, right.]
The Oligarchs also are rapidly implementing mandatory binding arbitration wherever and whenever they can, the purpose of which is to keep people out of court. Do you hold a bank credit card? If so, there's a 99% probability that if you have a dispute with the company, you cannot sue them in court---you're subject to mandatory arbitration. The same is true if you own a cell phone...and many other manufactured goods. It's also true for a large number of employees at a large number of places of employment. According to the film, more employees now are subject to mandatory arbitration than there are members of employee unions. No redress in court for you. Anyone with common sense should be able to figure out that "arbitration" is a scam---it's biased in favor of the employer or manufacturer or other defendant. The supposedly "independent" arbitrator would like more arbitration business from the Oligarch. What do you, the plaintiff, have to offer? Nothing, as far as the arbitrator is concerned.
Tort Reform and mandatory arbitration are two more oligarchical tools designed to dominate individuals and bypass basic individual rights. Don't fall for the blatant propaganda.
Happy Trails
In the case of the lady suing McDonald's, my mind was completely changed. After seeing photographs of the burns, finding out that her medical bills were well over $10,000, and that there were hundreds of prior similar incidents and McDonald's ignored all complaints, and that her recovery involved numerous skin grafts, I decided she deserved every penny she was awarded by the jury. Most importantly, initially all she requested of McDonald's was that they pay her medical bills.
Another case involved a 19-year-old woman employee of KBR (a subsidiary of Halliburton at the time) who was gang raped in Iraq by male co-workers and then locked in a shipping container. The criminal case went nowhere ("He said, she said", I assume), and she couldn't bring a civil suit---tort case---against KBR because her employment contained a mandatory binding arbitration clause in fine print. It took her four years to get the case into court. Another case involved a mother who gave birth to a mentally damaged son, the damage being due to obvious medical malpractice. Because of caps on court case jury awards in her State, her son's medical bills are now being paid largely by MediCaid (in other words, by the taxpayer) instead of by those who caused the damage. There were other cases covered in the film, but I don't have time to go into them.
The above cases certainly make the documentary interesting, but it's real value is in the exposing of the so-called Tort Reform propaganda. Backed by mega corporations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and former politicians such as George W. Bush, the tort reform movement is attempting (with significant success) to bamboozle Americans into believing that juries who hear tort cases somehow are incompetent when it comes to determining the amount of awards to plaintiffs. Of course, the tort reform propaganda doesn't state it that way. :)
I'm beginning to doubt that most people know the function of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in our society. It's primary purpose is to be a lobbyist in DC for mega corporations. It also funnels campaign funds to candidates for State Supreme Court Justice who are favorable to mega business interests. Such Justices are then instrumental in overturning jury awards to wronged plaintiffs in tort cases. The film documents such actions.
Tort Reform propaganda concentrates on those nasty trial lawyers [:)]; I fully admit that personally I don't care much for them either. What the propaganda ignores and suppresses, however, is the fact that bringing suit in court is our main protection against shabby manufacturers, employers, and others. The propagandists say that what they're against is FRIVOLOUS lawsuits, not the concept of bringing suit...and so, they promote caps on jury awards. Think about that for a moment. 1. Frivolous lawsuits generally are thrown out of court. 2. Caps on awards apply to everyone and every case, not just those deemed frivolous by the Oligarchs.*** 3. Without the possibility of a very large punitive damage award against them, those causing damage to people have little incentive to clean up their acts. [***The film shows a clip of George W. Bush (back when) bragging to Congress that such-and-such Legislative Bill will put a stop to "frivolous" lawsuits by placing caps on jury awards to plaintiffs. The man never could reason (or at least appears not to be able to). Hey, Dubya, those caps you're so proud of apply to ALL cases. They would even apply to a hypothetical case against a surgeon I once knew who used to boast that he could operate on a patient even when he (the surgeon) was "three sheets to the wind"... drunk. Caps---what a dandy idea, George...yeah, right.]
The Oligarchs also are rapidly implementing mandatory binding arbitration wherever and whenever they can, the purpose of which is to keep people out of court. Do you hold a bank credit card? If so, there's a 99% probability that if you have a dispute with the company, you cannot sue them in court---you're subject to mandatory arbitration. The same is true if you own a cell phone...and many other manufactured goods. It's also true for a large number of employees at a large number of places of employment. According to the film, more employees now are subject to mandatory arbitration than there are members of employee unions. No redress in court for you. Anyone with common sense should be able to figure out that "arbitration" is a scam---it's biased in favor of the employer or manufacturer or other defendant. The supposedly "independent" arbitrator would like more arbitration business from the Oligarch. What do you, the plaintiff, have to offer? Nothing, as far as the arbitrator is concerned.
Tort Reform and mandatory arbitration are two more oligarchical tools designed to dominate individuals and bypass basic individual rights. Don't fall for the blatant propaganda.
Happy Trails
Saturday, July 13, 2013
The Class War in America
I just now finished watching a fairly recent piece on Frontline, "Two American Families" with Bill Moyers. Brilliant. He chronicled the struggles of two families in Milwaukee, Wisconsin over a period of about twenty years. What a vivid illustration of the economic travails of those hard-working folks and of a once-great country going down the drain. I tried to leave a comment on the PBS website, but that function was not working for some reason. My comment follows...
In my opinion, The Big Picture related to this story is as follows. As Warren Buffett stated not long ago, "There's a Class War going on in America, and unfortunately, my class is winning.". The Oligarchy, devoid of political ideology, for decades has been promoting Globalization for the simple reason that it greatly benefits the upper, upper crust. Cheaper labor, relatively few health & safety standards for workers, relatively few environmental regulations with which to comply, no labor unions, etc. all mean more profits for the transnational mega corporations. Manufacturing and jobs leave our country. We are rapidly approaching the day when only two economic classes will remain in the USA: the super rich and the poor or so close to poor that the difference doesn't matter.
Despite their rhetoric to the contrary, both Republican and Democrat politicians support (or do not oppose) the above scenario. You think not? If you were to name all the American politicians who do NOT support NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, and the like, I predict that the numbers of them would not take up more than the fingers of one hand...and those few folks have been marginalized completely. Despite the unceasing propaganda in this great land, politics is (for all intents & purposes) dead in the USA...all that remains is Crony Capitalism...Mega Business...Fascism.
The situation will not improve until Americans fully realize that we have been Divided and Conquered by the Oligarchy. They get richer while we get poorer. Even if that realization ever comes, I fear that Americans cannot effectively divorce themselves from divisive politics long enough to take the peaceful action necessary to correct the mess that we're in. Even if, by some miracle, the political propaganda was ignored...even if Americans could analyze what's going on devoid of the dead political paradigm...I fear we would not have the will to execute a solution. It would take a massive boycott of the Mega Corporations and their Cronies in DC. The chances of that happening essentially are zero. I don't see it ever happening; I hope, for the sake of my grandchildren, that I'm wrong.
In my opinion, The Big Picture related to this story is as follows. As Warren Buffett stated not long ago, "There's a Class War going on in America, and unfortunately, my class is winning.". The Oligarchy, devoid of political ideology, for decades has been promoting Globalization for the simple reason that it greatly benefits the upper, upper crust. Cheaper labor, relatively few health & safety standards for workers, relatively few environmental regulations with which to comply, no labor unions, etc. all mean more profits for the transnational mega corporations. Manufacturing and jobs leave our country. We are rapidly approaching the day when only two economic classes will remain in the USA: the super rich and the poor or so close to poor that the difference doesn't matter.
Despite their rhetoric to the contrary, both Republican and Democrat politicians support (or do not oppose) the above scenario. You think not? If you were to name all the American politicians who do NOT support NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, and the like, I predict that the numbers of them would not take up more than the fingers of one hand...and those few folks have been marginalized completely. Despite the unceasing propaganda in this great land, politics is (for all intents & purposes) dead in the USA...all that remains is Crony Capitalism...Mega Business...Fascism.
The situation will not improve until Americans fully realize that we have been Divided and Conquered by the Oligarchy. They get richer while we get poorer. Even if that realization ever comes, I fear that Americans cannot effectively divorce themselves from divisive politics long enough to take the peaceful action necessary to correct the mess that we're in. Even if, by some miracle, the political propaganda was ignored...even if Americans could analyze what's going on devoid of the dead political paradigm...I fear we would not have the will to execute a solution. It would take a massive boycott of the Mega Corporations and their Cronies in DC. The chances of that happening essentially are zero. I don't see it ever happening; I hope, for the sake of my grandchildren, that I'm wrong.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Google Flaws
This is my second rant regarding Corporatocracy computer tech whiz kids. In this case, here are some pointed questions/comments for the Google folks [I would have emailed these to them, but they don't allow a customer to do that.]---
1. Why do you have 89,000,000 [:)] "accounts" for ONE person?...a separate YouTube acct., a separate Blogspot acct., a separate Chrome acct., etc., ad nauseum.
Here's a thought---one person can have one account that's good for all the Google stuff. At the very least, you could allow us to have one User Name & password for all these separate accounts. Oh, I know---"security" issues. You let me worry about my security on all these innocuous websites of yours. There's nothing to secure!
2. Speaking of "security", stop telling me that I MUST choose another password because the strength of my choice is weak. Mind your own business. I should be able to use any password that I please.
3. Why do you insist on continuing to use a defunct, nonexistent email address for my Blogspot sign-in...& refuse to let me update it?
4. Do you purposely make creating an "account" difficult & incredibly convoluted? Do you have any common sense at all? I tried to set up an AdSense "account"; after an hour, I gave up.
5. Do you really believe that your "Help" pages are speaking to the lay person? Here's a clue: I have a Master's Degree, & half the time you may as well be speaking Greek to me. Have mercy...wake up. Not all of us are tech geeks.
6. Stop being so cheap---hire a bunch more people so you then can permit us to email you. The fact is, it appears as though you don't really care what problems your customers are having with your convoluted procedures. Just remember, we're the reason you're able to make money from your advertisers.
Now, sign out of this account, sign in to your Google account to get your verification number, then click on "Help", scroll down to "Numbers", take note of the Number in the red brackets, then sign out of your Google account, check your email, follow the link given in the email, then sign in to your XXXXXX account, scroll down to "Add Account", click on that, then sign out of that account, sign back in to your Google account, look for "Add Account, Step 2", then click on that, then sign in to your YYYYY account, look for the box that says, "Step 3", click on that, go to your email, click on the link, then look for "Step 4", then verify your ID by supplying a new password, then type in the code letters (that no one can read half the time), click on "Submit", then sign in to your Google account, scroll down, and then...
Hey, Whiz Kids--- creating an "account" should be a one-page, one-click process. Why are they "accounts" at all?---they're all free of charge. Oh, forgive me, I forgot--- you're tracking all of us and our interests, and then selling that info to advertisers. Are you selling or giving the info to anyone else?
1. Why do you have 89,000,000 [:)] "accounts" for ONE person?...a separate YouTube acct., a separate Blogspot acct., a separate Chrome acct., etc., ad nauseum.
Here's a thought---one person can have one account that's good for all the Google stuff. At the very least, you could allow us to have one User Name & password for all these separate accounts. Oh, I know---"security" issues. You let me worry about my security on all these innocuous websites of yours. There's nothing to secure!
2. Speaking of "security", stop telling me that I MUST choose another password because the strength of my choice is weak. Mind your own business. I should be able to use any password that I please.
3. Why do you insist on continuing to use a defunct, nonexistent email address for my Blogspot sign-in...& refuse to let me update it?
4. Do you purposely make creating an "account" difficult & incredibly convoluted? Do you have any common sense at all? I tried to set up an AdSense "account"; after an hour, I gave up.
5. Do you really believe that your "Help" pages are speaking to the lay person? Here's a clue: I have a Master's Degree, & half the time you may as well be speaking Greek to me. Have mercy...wake up. Not all of us are tech geeks.
6. Stop being so cheap---hire a bunch more people so you then can permit us to email you. The fact is, it appears as though you don't really care what problems your customers are having with your convoluted procedures. Just remember, we're the reason you're able to make money from your advertisers.
Now, sign out of this account, sign in to your Google account to get your verification number, then click on "Help", scroll down to "Numbers", take note of the Number in the red brackets, then sign out of your Google account, check your email, follow the link given in the email, then sign in to your XXXXXX account, scroll down to "Add Account", click on that, then sign out of that account, sign back in to your Google account, look for "Add Account, Step 2", then click on that, then sign in to your YYYYY account, look for the box that says, "Step 3", click on that, go to your email, click on the link, then look for "Step 4", then verify your ID by supplying a new password, then type in the code letters (that no one can read half the time), click on "Submit", then sign in to your Google account, scroll down, and then...
Hey, Whiz Kids--- creating an "account" should be a one-page, one-click process. Why are they "accounts" at all?---they're all free of charge. Oh, forgive me, I forgot--- you're tracking all of us and our interests, and then selling that info to advertisers. Are you selling or giving the info to anyone else?
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Political Correctness (PC)
This (below) is from a postscript that I wrote to my brother. It may be of interest to some or all of you...and, as always, it's just my opinion. [Thankfully, I think the PC Movement is on its way out of our society; at least, I see the beginnings of that.]
Russell Means (R.I.P.) of A.I.M. stated in an interview with a Caucasian, "I'm an American Indian; a 'native american' is anyone born in this country." John Echohawk of the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) once wrote, "There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the term, 'American Indian'."
As you might guess, I really don't like the whole "politically correct" schtick. I think it's akin to de Tocqueville's "mild despotism"...the bending & shaping of individuals by the power structure. It doesn't bother me that others use the term "native american" (as long as they don't insist that I use it), but I prefer "American Indian"... and I have only the greatest respect for those folks. [I'm aware that some Indians prefer "Native American".]
To illustrate how silly (to me) all the PC stuff is--- Almost everyone would refer to us as "White"; even the Fed Gov't uses that term on forms. I really dislike the term. Typing paper is "white"; I certainly am not. European American, Caucasian, Anglo---fine, no worries...but please, not "White". As applied to humans, I think the term is stupid...but...I don't make a big deal out of it & start a PC movement to pressure everyone into not saying "White". After all, taking offense to something like that is (to me) the problem of the offended...I think it's a sign of insecurity & psychological weakness. I say to such folks: look inward to solve your problems, not outward. Whatever happened to "Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."?
Point is: I believe that the whole PC Movement is a contrivance of the power structure (Oligarchy) to intrude upon Individualism and limit free speech. The Oligarchy does its best to make us into a Nation of Sheep. Well...enough of that whole subject. [It's good to vent... avoids ulcers...& prison :)]
Happy Trails
Russell Means (R.I.P.) of A.I.M. stated in an interview with a Caucasian, "I'm an American Indian; a 'native american' is anyone born in this country." John Echohawk of the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) once wrote, "There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the term, 'American Indian'."
As you might guess, I really don't like the whole "politically correct" schtick. I think it's akin to de Tocqueville's "mild despotism"...the bending & shaping of individuals by the power structure. It doesn't bother me that others use the term "native american" (as long as they don't insist that I use it), but I prefer "American Indian"... and I have only the greatest respect for those folks. [I'm aware that some Indians prefer "Native American".]
To illustrate how silly (to me) all the PC stuff is--- Almost everyone would refer to us as "White"; even the Fed Gov't uses that term on forms. I really dislike the term. Typing paper is "white"; I certainly am not. European American, Caucasian, Anglo---fine, no worries...but please, not "White". As applied to humans, I think the term is stupid...but...I don't make a big deal out of it & start a PC movement to pressure everyone into not saying "White". After all, taking offense to something like that is (to me) the problem of the offended...I think it's a sign of insecurity & psychological weakness. I say to such folks: look inward to solve your problems, not outward. Whatever happened to "Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."?
Point is: I believe that the whole PC Movement is a contrivance of the power structure (Oligarchy) to intrude upon Individualism and limit free speech. The Oligarchy does its best to make us into a Nation of Sheep. Well...enough of that whole subject. [It's good to vent... avoids ulcers...& prison :)]
Happy Trails
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)