Why do people keep thinking Governor Christie will have a sudden inspiration to tell the truth and confess? He's the consummate arrogant, egotistical denier and liar who doesn't see anything or anyone but himself. He's incapable of seeing reality and incapable of understanding his own mistakes and failures. He's not acting, he really believes what he says about himself and he believes he can convince anyone of his view of things.
It's time to just ignore him and let the legal processes work where he'll be indicted, convicted and impeached, because even then he'll believe he's innocent and his own staff betrayed him. What would happen if he called a press conference and no one came? The media could just say, "Governor there's nothing new with whatever you'll say, so we'll just use reruns of your other press conferences."
The only way he's going to take notice is if he's not in the news. And the only way he's begin to see reality is when the New Jersey legislature forwards a motion to impeach him or the US Attorney for New Jersey indicts him. And both of those threats will remain for awhile.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Thursday, March 27, 2014
New Jersey Report
What's the difference between the report by the law firm Gibson and Dunn, lawers hired by Governor Christie (paid by the taxpayers) to determine the Governor's knowledge and involvement in the lane closures on the GW Bridge last September and a few gallons of white paint? You can use the paint to cover something larger than the Governor's political ass.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Ms Stefano
Jennifer Stefano, from Americans for Propersity, showed on Chris Haye's "All in With Chris Hayes" show on MSNBC that she is both verbally a bully and an idiot about the facts. The Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act will increase the eligibility to enroll in Medicaid with the federal poverty level by 138%.
In the interview Ms. Stefano would not stop talking, kept changing the subject, falsely called Chris out for badgering her, and lied on the facts while saying let's talk about the facts. She cited the increase, above, would raise the level equal to $94,000.
Really, except here is the 2014 federal poverty level and nowhere is there an income in the lower 48 states greater than a little over $40,000 for a family 8 (6 children), but most families below the poverty level earn less than $30,000, many far less.
For Ms. Stefano to lie so blatantly on MSNBC is outragous, but more so for being an asshole. She owes Chris Hayes, MSNBC and the American people who level near or below the poverty level an apology but I doubt she would give one, let one with any sincerity.
So yes, I can call her an asshole when she showed herself to be one, because at no time did she want to have an intelligent conversation and use proven facts. She simply wanted to shout lies and blame the interviewer for attacking her. That's an asshole.
Error correction.-- I mistook Ms. Stafano for Ms. Granholm, my mistake.
In the interview Ms. Stefano would not stop talking, kept changing the subject, falsely called Chris out for badgering her, and lied on the facts while saying let's talk about the facts. She cited the increase, above, would raise the level equal to $94,000.
Really, except here is the 2014 federal poverty level and nowhere is there an income in the lower 48 states greater than a little over $40,000 for a family 8 (6 children), but most families below the poverty level earn less than $30,000, many far less.
For Ms. Stefano to lie so blatantly on MSNBC is outragous, but more so for being an asshole. She owes Chris Hayes, MSNBC and the American people who level near or below the poverty level an apology but I doubt she would give one, let one with any sincerity.
So yes, I can call her an asshole when she showed herself to be one, because at no time did she want to have an intelligent conversation and use proven facts. She simply wanted to shout lies and blame the interviewer for attacking her. That's an asshole.
Error correction.-- I mistook Ms. Stafano for Ms. Granholm, my mistake.
Georgia Gun Law
This week the Georgia legislature passed a law allowing people to carry a gun almost anywhere the law does not specifically prohibit it, and which allows people to carry guns in bars, restaurants, churches, airports, schools, stores and malls, at sporting events and any government building where security checks aren't required.
They call it the "Carry your gun anywhere" law but maybe they should call it, "Don't piss anyone off" law. How are other people going to know if a person carrying a gun is a threat or just an idiot carrying a gun? I've never been to Georgia and now they've given me every reason not to every want to go there.
Oh yeah, Georgia already has the higest per capita rate of people being killed with guns. Apparently they want to surpass their own record as the most violent state in the country. All thanks to the NRA.
They call it the "Carry your gun anywhere" law but maybe they should call it, "Don't piss anyone off" law. How are other people going to know if a person carrying a gun is a threat or just an idiot carrying a gun? I've never been to Georgia and now they've given me every reason not to every want to go there.
Oh yeah, Georgia already has the higest per capita rate of people being killed with guns. Apparently they want to surpass their own record as the most violent state in the country. All thanks to the NRA.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Governor Christie
The internal investigation conducted by a law firm with ties to Governor Christie, requested by the Governor and paid by the people of New Jersey concluded he did not have any knowledge of the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge before the week of the lane closure. The law firm was able to access more people and review more documents than the committe with the New Jersey legistlature or the Department of Justice, including the Governor’s own personal records and communications devices.
They weren’t able to interview or review documents of the three key players in the closure and the coverup, but if the Governor is so innocent, why is he refusing to help the New Jersey legistlature or Department of Justice investigations? It doesn’t matter he asked them to investigate the obvious, which is that he didn’t directly know about the events, but they didn’t investigate if he had indirectly instructed his staff through his management style.
I thought if you’re innocent you have nothing to hide. Or does he think paying a law firm close to him to investigate him is proof enough and we’ll believe it? Really Governor, you think we're that stupid? A question you seem to love asking people, "Are your stupid or what?", when they question you at press conference or public forums?
The Governor was only recently re-elected (November 2013) and while he said he would serve out his term, you can bet starting next year, he'll be running for President at the expense of New Jersey and of course by the taxpayers of New Jersey. But only if he isn't indicted on charges by the New Jersey legislature or the Department of Justice.
They weren’t able to interview or review documents of the three key players in the closure and the coverup, but if the Governor is so innocent, why is he refusing to help the New Jersey legistlature or Department of Justice investigations? It doesn’t matter he asked them to investigate the obvious, which is that he didn’t directly know about the events, but they didn’t investigate if he had indirectly instructed his staff through his management style.
I thought if you’re innocent you have nothing to hide. Or does he think paying a law firm close to him to investigate him is proof enough and we’ll believe it? Really Governor, you think we're that stupid? A question you seem to love asking people, "Are your stupid or what?", when they question you at press conference or public forums?
The Governor was only recently re-elected (November 2013) and while he said he would serve out his term, you can bet starting next year, he'll be running for President at the expense of New Jersey and of course by the taxpayers of New Jersey. But only if he isn't indicted on charges by the New Jersey legislature or the Department of Justice.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
The ACA
Let’s understand the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed to help those people who don’t have health insurance, can’t afford health insurance, have been denied health insurance, had claims rejected by health insurance companies, or find themselves underinsured.
This totals about 15% of the American people. The other 85% of American are not effected by the ACA outside of the new rules guarranteeing your existing coverage and improving your rights under your existing health insurance plan.
The changes in premiums are due to the rules the Republicans put into the ACA in the interim period beween 2009 and 2013 at the request of the health insurance companies. It’s not the fault of the ACA but the Republicans who wrote it into the ACA.
Let’s understand the ACA only applies to that 15% who are eligible for it or have enrolled in it. If that’s not you, then you don’t have the right to bitch about it at the cost of those who need or want it.
Let’s understand 5 million people now have health insurance through private health insurance companies subsidized or paid by the government with guarranteed coverage and rights. If that’s not you, then you don’t have the right to bitch about it at the cost of those who need or want it.
Let’s understand the ACA is here to stay, let’s improve it not destroy it for those 5 million people and all the rest who are eligible or want it.
This totals about 15% of the American people. The other 85% of American are not effected by the ACA outside of the new rules guarranteeing your existing coverage and improving your rights under your existing health insurance plan.
The changes in premiums are due to the rules the Republicans put into the ACA in the interim period beween 2009 and 2013 at the request of the health insurance companies. It’s not the fault of the ACA but the Republicans who wrote it into the ACA.
Let’s understand the ACA only applies to that 15% who are eligible for it or have enrolled in it. If that’s not you, then you don’t have the right to bitch about it at the cost of those who need or want it.
Let’s understand 5 million people now have health insurance through private health insurance companies subsidized or paid by the government with guarranteed coverage and rights. If that’s not you, then you don’t have the right to bitch about it at the cost of those who need or want it.
Let’s understand the ACA is here to stay, let’s improve it not destroy it for those 5 million people and all the rest who are eligible or want it.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Let Us Understand
Let's understand some facts.
The people of the autonomous republic of Crimea under the Ukrainian government did not rise up and revolt against their own government, meaning the government of Ukraine. Under the direction of Putin the Russian army invaded, occupied and annexed Crimea.
The Russian military then took Ukrainian military positions and dismissed the government of Crimea to sign a treaty with the illegal interim government of Crimea when the people "voted" for independence and then annexation into the Russian Federation.
That's the difference because all of the other revolts around the world have come from within the country by the people of the country. While the US invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't claim it as part of the US and we eventually gave it independence.
That's the difference which makes Russia's invasion and occupation of Crimea and now annexation. The people of Crimea didn't want independence from Ukraine, didn't ask the Ukrainian government for separation, and didn't revolt against their own government.
This was all Russia, and that's the issue before the United Nations and the issue under consideration by the European Union, NATO, and the U.S. Russia invaded another country contrary to every agreement they have signed with the treaties they signed with the Ukraine and other former Soviet republics.
And we're back to the real question, do we trust Putin who says all he wanted was Crimea and has no plans to invade the rest of Ukaine. And do we trust any negotiation and agreement he would make with the EU and the US about any future plans for the Ukraine.
And what do we do with the Ukraine? We have to build its economy and help it incorporate all of the people into a single government representing all Ukrainians. But we also have to see that the Ukraine has a modern military to ensure the integrity of its border with Russia.
We have to find ways for the Ukraine to pay down the debt with Russia over natural gas while getting Russia to agree to a price the Ukraine can afford and not be threatened with it being shut off on a moments notice at any time in the future.
But all that said, we don't know because we don't know what Putin will do since all we can do is reassure Putin his actions have consequences. It's all just talk for now, but at least it's not bullets as we've already seen in Crimea.
The people of the autonomous republic of Crimea under the Ukrainian government did not rise up and revolt against their own government, meaning the government of Ukraine. Under the direction of Putin the Russian army invaded, occupied and annexed Crimea.
The Russian military then took Ukrainian military positions and dismissed the government of Crimea to sign a treaty with the illegal interim government of Crimea when the people "voted" for independence and then annexation into the Russian Federation.
That's the difference because all of the other revolts around the world have come from within the country by the people of the country. While the US invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn't claim it as part of the US and we eventually gave it independence.
That's the difference which makes Russia's invasion and occupation of Crimea and now annexation. The people of Crimea didn't want independence from Ukraine, didn't ask the Ukrainian government for separation, and didn't revolt against their own government.
This was all Russia, and that's the issue before the United Nations and the issue under consideration by the European Union, NATO, and the U.S. Russia invaded another country contrary to every agreement they have signed with the treaties they signed with the Ukraine and other former Soviet republics.
And we're back to the real question, do we trust Putin who says all he wanted was Crimea and has no plans to invade the rest of Ukaine. And do we trust any negotiation and agreement he would make with the EU and the US about any future plans for the Ukraine.
And what do we do with the Ukraine? We have to build its economy and help it incorporate all of the people into a single government representing all Ukrainians. But we also have to see that the Ukraine has a modern military to ensure the integrity of its border with Russia.
We have to find ways for the Ukraine to pay down the debt with Russia over natural gas while getting Russia to agree to a price the Ukraine can afford and not be threatened with it being shut off on a moments notice at any time in the future.
But all that said, we don't know because we don't know what Putin will do since all we can do is reassure Putin his actions have consequences. It's all just talk for now, but at least it's not bullets as we've already seen in Crimea.
The Real Question
Russia needs this deal, Exxon-Mobil doesn't need it and neither does the US economy, it's pure profit for Exxon-Mobil. But like BP, Exxon Mobil doesn't consider the power of political leaders, even the President, to be greater than the power of them and their checkbook. They, like the other energy giants, not only think globally but think they're better than nations, "Governments come and go, our company is always here." (Exxon Mobil).
Putin has the short term advantage and threat, but the EU and the US have the longterm advantage and threat. Putin and Russia can't survive economically without the EU and the US but he's willing to bet we won't go that far for he knows money rules global economics and international dipolmacy, not military might.
This is where the President can pressure the EU to suffer short term losses for longterm gain for the Ukraine and other eastern European countries, the question is whether those leaders will stand or bow to their own internal politics, and whether the Presdent will do the same here.
This is about the Ukraine but really the larger issue of Russia and the rest of the world. Do we sacrifice the Ukraine for our own economies or stand up for the soverignity of a nation being threatened by a bully.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Apple App Store
I've purchased a boatload of apps through the Apple App Store since it opened and I've dropped about half a dozen when the company removed the application because the developers couldn't get the app to comply to Apple's new rules, eg. sandbox, or decided to sale new versions through their Website instead of the App Store.
In some cases the company just walked away from the App Store leaving a few applications there which are rarely, if ever, updated to keep the Apple certification. Apple doesn't seem to have rules for companies which keep these apps just for the certification while selling most of their apps from their Website.
Anyway, my interest here is about companies which decide to keep old applications in the App Store but sell updates and upgrades through their Website and then don't honor Apple receipts to get a license key (App Store doesn't issue them) to transfer the application from the App Store to the company.
Like that's new or news, but my point was aimed at those companies when I wrote a review for one on the App Store about this practice, meaning the company stopped development of an Apple-complaint application to sell new versions through their Website.
In addition the company doesn't recognize Apple receipts to transfer the license to the company's version requiring you to buy the application again. When I sent them proof (receipt) of the purchase of the application, they refused to recognize it let alone honor it.
As you know all reviews about applications on the App Store are reviewed by Apple employees and so it seems they don't like criticism or complaints about companies. They don't mind criticism of the application, just not the company or Apple's tolerance of these companies.
This company has several simple applications in the App Store, I guess to get the certification, but all the main applications are sold through their Website, only two versions through the App Store. This is the kind of misuse Apple tolerates with the App Store, but the lesson I learned is don't call them out on it.
PS.--There are quite a few good companies which have problems with Apple's rules and sell different versions, but they will provide (limited) updated versions through the App Store while selling the non-Apple compliant one through their Website and honoring Apple receipt to transfer the license to the Website version for free.
In some cases the company just walked away from the App Store leaving a few applications there which are rarely, if ever, updated to keep the Apple certification. Apple doesn't seem to have rules for companies which keep these apps just for the certification while selling most of their apps from their Website.
Anyway, my interest here is about companies which decide to keep old applications in the App Store but sell updates and upgrades through their Website and then don't honor Apple receipts to get a license key (App Store doesn't issue them) to transfer the application from the App Store to the company.
Like that's new or news, but my point was aimed at those companies when I wrote a review for one on the App Store about this practice, meaning the company stopped development of an Apple-complaint application to sell new versions through their Website.
In addition the company doesn't recognize Apple receipts to transfer the license to the company's version requiring you to buy the application again. When I sent them proof (receipt) of the purchase of the application, they refused to recognize it let alone honor it.
As you know all reviews about applications on the App Store are reviewed by Apple employees and so it seems they don't like criticism or complaints about companies. They don't mind criticism of the application, just not the company or Apple's tolerance of these companies.
This company has several simple applications in the App Store, I guess to get the certification, but all the main applications are sold through their Website, only two versions through the App Store. This is the kind of misuse Apple tolerates with the App Store, but the lesson I learned is don't call them out on it.
PS.--There are quite a few good companies which have problems with Apple's rules and sell different versions, but they will provide (limited) updated versions through the App Store while selling the non-Apple compliant one through their Website and honoring Apple receipt to transfer the license to the Website version for free.
Pro Audio Converter
I'm a big fan of the Pro Audio Converter application, available through their Website or the Apple App store, but beware the versions of the application, like others sold through the company's Website and the Apple App Store, are slightly different to accommodate Apple's sandbox rules.
I use this application when I download music files with my subscription to Bowers and Wilkins music library (updated with 2-3 albums monthly) in different high quality formats to convert and import the albums into iTunes.
This application is great for it, or at least once before I upgraded to OS-X 10.9.2. The February albums worked but when I tried the March albums after upgrading, it broke, and working with folks at the company, who responded within hours to my e-mail, it appears to be due to the changes with OS-X 10.9.2.
I don't know if Apple gave folks the details of the changes for these types of applications (audio files, etc.), but something failed on Apple's part since this application hasn't had issues with previous upgrades or updates of OS-X.
I tested the applications with files which converted before and with a variety of formats of high quality audio files (.flac, .wav, .m4a, etc.) and the application had the same result, it didn't run. The company even transferred my Apple App store version (in a new separate folder) to the Website version, only to get different console log messages.
Well, that's the story so far, and I wait to see what happens. There are reports of problems with the audio stuff in OS-X 10.9.2 with testing fixes with beta 10.9.3, but with Apple I don't hold my breath anymore with Mavericks.
They created more problems than they solved and broke more fundamental features, tools, etc. for working on new bells and whistles. Mavericks is like new car you have to live with the problems and wait for recall notices to take it to the dealer to be fixed, if they do and simply leave it to owners to live with.
Apple bet their brand name on Mavericks and while I like it for a number of things, I don't like that fact they broke or removed some well liked features and tools and still haven't fixed or replaced some basic things. And now they're breaking third party applications and then blame them when those applications break
The question is which will happen first, OS-X 10.9.3 or an update to Pro Audio Converter.
I use this application when I download music files with my subscription to Bowers and Wilkins music library (updated with 2-3 albums monthly) in different high quality formats to convert and import the albums into iTunes.
This application is great for it, or at least once before I upgraded to OS-X 10.9.2. The February albums worked but when I tried the March albums after upgrading, it broke, and working with folks at the company, who responded within hours to my e-mail, it appears to be due to the changes with OS-X 10.9.2.
I don't know if Apple gave folks the details of the changes for these types of applications (audio files, etc.), but something failed on Apple's part since this application hasn't had issues with previous upgrades or updates of OS-X.
I tested the applications with files which converted before and with a variety of formats of high quality audio files (.flac, .wav, .m4a, etc.) and the application had the same result, it didn't run. The company even transferred my Apple App store version (in a new separate folder) to the Website version, only to get different console log messages.
Well, that's the story so far, and I wait to see what happens. There are reports of problems with the audio stuff in OS-X 10.9.2 with testing fixes with beta 10.9.3, but with Apple I don't hold my breath anymore with Mavericks.
They created more problems than they solved and broke more fundamental features, tools, etc. for working on new bells and whistles. Mavericks is like new car you have to live with the problems and wait for recall notices to take it to the dealer to be fixed, if they do and simply leave it to owners to live with.
Apple bet their brand name on Mavericks and while I like it for a number of things, I don't like that fact they broke or removed some well liked features and tools and still haven't fixed or replaced some basic things. And now they're breaking third party applications and then blame them when those applications break
The question is which will happen first, OS-X 10.9.3 or an update to Pro Audio Converter.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Abby Huntsman
Today (3/13/2014) Abby Huntsman in her editorial on “The Cycle” on MSNBC scolded the politicians for not “fixing” the entitlement programs for future generations. And while I agree with that view, I totally disagree with her about Social Security. She confused Social Securty, which is funded by a Trust Fund not the annual budget, as a “drain”.
It is easily fixable, not by raising the eligibilty age to 70 or higher or lower benefits, but by raising the ceiling on the maximum income to a $1 million or more, even removing the ceiling, and making illegal immigrants legal citizens to expand the base by 8-10 million people, mostly young (20-40) who will pay into the system as everyone else.
Those two things, economists have argued, will ensure the Social Security Trust Fund is solvent to 2075 and beyond without cutting benefits. That, Ms. Huntsman is the answer, not attacking those who have paid into it and have to live on it in retirement. Most aren’t like you, with a good salary, benefits and retirement package. They rely on it for 100% of the retirement income.
Don’t take your politics out on them, take it out on the policians but with real solutions, not ones which devastates people’s lives.
It is easily fixable, not by raising the eligibilty age to 70 or higher or lower benefits, but by raising the ceiling on the maximum income to a $1 million or more, even removing the ceiling, and making illegal immigrants legal citizens to expand the base by 8-10 million people, mostly young (20-40) who will pay into the system as everyone else.
Those two things, economists have argued, will ensure the Social Security Trust Fund is solvent to 2075 and beyond without cutting benefits. That, Ms. Huntsman is the answer, not attacking those who have paid into it and have to live on it in retirement. Most aren’t like you, with a good salary, benefits and retirement package. They rely on it for 100% of the retirement income.
Don’t take your politics out on them, take it out on the policians but with real solutions, not ones which devastates people’s lives.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
The Republicans and the ACA
Republican: “I want to repeal Obamacare.”
Voter: “You mean the Affordable Care Act?”
Republican: “Yeah, Obamacare. He’s putting government in my health insurance.”
Voter: “You mean your insurance the insurance company determines the coverage, claims and premiums?”
Republican: “Yeah, my health insurance.”
Voter: “Did you need or qualify for health insurance under the ACA?”
Republican: “No, I don’t need or want it.”
Voter: “So why are you angry with something that has nothing to do with you? It only applies to the 10-15% of Americans who are uninsured or underinsured?.”
Republican: “I don’t care. I don’t like it. It’s socialism.”
Voter: “Did you know half of the ACA was written by the health insurance companies for the Republicans as part of the compromise?”
Republican: “No, but it’s still the President’s fault.”
Voter: “Since you want to repeal it, what will you replace the ACA with for those who need or want better, affordable health insurance?”
Republican: “Nothing. I like my old health insurance.”
Voter: “The one you still have?”
Republican: “Yes.”
Voter: “So the ACA didn’t take away or change your health insurance?”
Republican: “No, but I’m still against it.”
Voter: “Because it offers health insurance to those who don’t have it because it was too expensive, were denied insurance or had the insurance cancelled?”
Repubilican: “That’s their fault for getting or being sick and trying to get someone else to pay for it.”
Voter: “Like Medicare and the supplemental plans and like Medicaid?”
Republicans: “Yeah, but not Medicare.That’s a good program for seniors.”
Voter: “Like your family or friends?”
Republican: “Yes, it’s not Obamacare.”
Voter: “Because the ACA is just like the health insurance program the Republicans proposed years ago?”
Republican: “That was a republican plan.”
Voter: “But the almost identical plan.”
Republican: “I don’t care. I’m still against Obamacare.
Voter: “Only because of President Obama?”
Republican: “Yeah, he’s pushing a socialist health insurance program.”
Voter: “The same one the republicans proposed. The same one half of which was written by the Republicans. The same one to guarrantee coverage for people previous denied, rejected or cancelled insurance. The same one giving people good, affordable health insurance run by the states for the private insurance companies.”
Republican: “Yeah, I’m still against it.”
Voter: “Ok, you just want the past. I’ll vote for the future thank you.”
Economic Lessons
In the 1930's with the sign of war looming on the horizon in Europe an economic geographer proposed the notion that countries who traded with each other, meaning had strong economic financial ties and trade for both goods, services and materials, won't go to war with each other.
Well, it didn't quite prove the case as nationalistic politics overwhelmed any economic ties the countries in Europe had during the 1930's, but many took note of it after the war to improve the ties between the major European countries.
And despite all the up's and down's of the European countries' economies, they've avoided conflicts for the very reason the geographer proposed. The issue was the divide between Eastern Europe, then dominated by the then Soviet Union, and Western Europe.
The divide fell by the wayside with the change of the eastern European countries to separate themselves from the Soviet Union which became Russia and now the Russian Federation with some of the former Soviet Republics.
This indepedence from Russia was emphasized with the predecesor to and the current European Union where many of the new nations from the former Republics are in or wanting to get into the European Union.
And this is where the old idea still holds until nationalistic politics overwhelms the economic realities of countries, and in this case, the Russian President wanting to reestablish the old Soviet Union into his view of the Russian Federation.
Except the countries don't want it, which is where we're at now as President Obama has to decide the severity of economic and financial sanctions against Russia either under the threat of Russia annexing Crimea and worse invading the southern or eastern regions of Ukraine.
He also has to weigh the impact on the US government and corporations of any sanctions when we would lose economic gains many US corporations have made even in the light of current government and leadership of Russia.
It's the lesson of what happens when the KGB becomes the leaders and government of Russia. It never became a democracy and only a republic in name and is now an autocratic, corrupt, oligarchy for a government, almost the same as it was before it all fell apart.
And this is where we're at, in ways similar to the 1930's with some crazy government leaders putting nationalism ahead of economic realities. Do you think if Russia had been a more open government and country with strong economic and financial ties to the world Putin would be allowed to act as he has?
Or would the opposition leaders would raise their voice, and the people with the business leaders express their views against him and his actions which threaten their nation, their economy and their lives?
You can argue all the hindsight you want about the situation in the Ukraine and the circumstances they face against Russia, where the US and EU failed to help the country build a strong economy where the Ukrainian people were united despite their heritage as a nation.
That's all in the past and we have to find a solution with the situation which exists now and prevent one of the most powerful nations in the world from repeating history which lead to a war in Europe. We can hope it won't happen but we know Putin has different ideas and plans and doesn't care about the consequences.
One thing you can bet on is that the Joint Chiefs of our military has submitted all the scenarios and plans to President Obama and has put all the appropriate forces in Europe and in the Mediterrean Sea on alert. And you can bet NATO is similarly prepared for all scenarios.
Let's hope President Obama chooses his actions wisely and President Putin sees and understands the reality. And yes, it made be a trade, giving Putin Crimea in return for recognizing the sovereign borders of the Ukraine, minus Crimea.
And then let's help the Ukainian government and people build a strong economy, and yes a military too, to ensure its future and right to be respected by Russia, including stronger balanced economic and financial ties.
Well, it didn't quite prove the case as nationalistic politics overwhelmed any economic ties the countries in Europe had during the 1930's, but many took note of it after the war to improve the ties between the major European countries.
And despite all the up's and down's of the European countries' economies, they've avoided conflicts for the very reason the geographer proposed. The issue was the divide between Eastern Europe, then dominated by the then Soviet Union, and Western Europe.
The divide fell by the wayside with the change of the eastern European countries to separate themselves from the Soviet Union which became Russia and now the Russian Federation with some of the former Soviet Republics.
This indepedence from Russia was emphasized with the predecesor to and the current European Union where many of the new nations from the former Republics are in or wanting to get into the European Union.
And this is where the old idea still holds until nationalistic politics overwhelms the economic realities of countries, and in this case, the Russian President wanting to reestablish the old Soviet Union into his view of the Russian Federation.
Except the countries don't want it, which is where we're at now as President Obama has to decide the severity of economic and financial sanctions against Russia either under the threat of Russia annexing Crimea and worse invading the southern or eastern regions of Ukraine.
He also has to weigh the impact on the US government and corporations of any sanctions when we would lose economic gains many US corporations have made even in the light of current government and leadership of Russia.
It's the lesson of what happens when the KGB becomes the leaders and government of Russia. It never became a democracy and only a republic in name and is now an autocratic, corrupt, oligarchy for a government, almost the same as it was before it all fell apart.
And this is where we're at, in ways similar to the 1930's with some crazy government leaders putting nationalism ahead of economic realities. Do you think if Russia had been a more open government and country with strong economic and financial ties to the world Putin would be allowed to act as he has?
Or would the opposition leaders would raise their voice, and the people with the business leaders express their views against him and his actions which threaten their nation, their economy and their lives?
You can argue all the hindsight you want about the situation in the Ukraine and the circumstances they face against Russia, where the US and EU failed to help the country build a strong economy where the Ukrainian people were united despite their heritage as a nation.
That's all in the past and we have to find a solution with the situation which exists now and prevent one of the most powerful nations in the world from repeating history which lead to a war in Europe. We can hope it won't happen but we know Putin has different ideas and plans and doesn't care about the consequences.
One thing you can bet on is that the Joint Chiefs of our military has submitted all the scenarios and plans to President Obama and has put all the appropriate forces in Europe and in the Mediterrean Sea on alert. And you can bet NATO is similarly prepared for all scenarios.
Let's hope President Obama chooses his actions wisely and President Putin sees and understands the reality. And yes, it made be a trade, giving Putin Crimea in return for recognizing the sovereign borders of the Ukraine, minus Crimea.
And then let's help the Ukainian government and people build a strong economy, and yes a military too, to ensure its future and right to be respected by Russia, including stronger balanced economic and financial ties.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Adobe Flash Installer
Apparently Adobe doesn't test the flash installation for browsers on the most recent version of OS-X. It's been a habit of theirs over the last few years so if you're running OS-X 10.9.2 you can download the installe, but don't run the installer until you reboot and then do the installation before you open any browser.
This is because if you have any browser open or did have a browser open but closed it, the installer will stall about 50-51% showing the browser(s) which are supposedly open and then instructs you to close them and retry, but the retry repeats the same thing.
Over and over, it doesn't matter, until you reboot and run the installation before opening any browers. Adobe did this with all versions of 10.8 and have with all version so far of 10.9. It makes you wonder who's in control at Adobe anymore as their software is always one version behind OS-X.
I like Adobe Creative Suite applications, but I get tired of the problems I have after upgrading OS-X and then find they know about the problems but haven't fixed them to release an update. This sucks for the subscription people are paying.
Anyway, it's not about Adobe this time, just the flash installation under OS-X 10.9.2.
This is because if you have any browser open or did have a browser open but closed it, the installer will stall about 50-51% showing the browser(s) which are supposedly open and then instructs you to close them and retry, but the retry repeats the same thing.
Over and over, it doesn't matter, until you reboot and run the installation before opening any browers. Adobe did this with all versions of 10.8 and have with all version so far of 10.9. It makes you wonder who's in control at Adobe anymore as their software is always one version behind OS-X.
I like Adobe Creative Suite applications, but I get tired of the problems I have after upgrading OS-X and then find they know about the problems but haven't fixed them to release an update. This sucks for the subscription people are paying.
Anyway, it's not about Adobe this time, just the flash installation under OS-X 10.9.2.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Divided Nation
With respect to access for women to clinics for their reproductive healthcare, including abortions, we’re becoming a vastly divided nation on two fronts.
The first is between states where access is legal and relatively, and states where it’s illegal and almost impossible. The second are women where access is available if they can afford the time and money to go anywhere and women don’t have either and who can’t travel.
These divisions are not mutually exclusive, and for women who live in a state where access is nearly impossible and they don’t have the time and money to travel, our nation is no better than a third world country run by a government which doesn’t care about them because they’re poor and they’re women.
Welcome to the new Republican version of America, something they would like to make the standard for the whole nation no better than a third world nation for women’s reproductive healthcare. Be rich or be nothing.
The first is between states where access is legal and relatively, and states where it’s illegal and almost impossible. The second are women where access is available if they can afford the time and money to go anywhere and women don’t have either and who can’t travel.
These divisions are not mutually exclusive, and for women who live in a state where access is nearly impossible and they don’t have the time and money to travel, our nation is no better than a third world country run by a government which doesn’t care about them because they’re poor and they’re women.
Welcome to the new Republican version of America, something they would like to make the standard for the whole nation no better than a third world nation for women’s reproductive healthcare. Be rich or be nothing.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Reasons
If there is a reason the UN, EU, NATO and the US should intervene in Crimea, it is simple, for the protection of the minority Ukrainian people and especially the TarTar people who were the original inhabitants of Crimea before all of them were deported by Stalin and face deportation again by Putin.
If there is a reason for military intervention in Crimea it is this and the Ukrainian government can request it since Crimea is within the intergrity, soveriegnty, and borders of the Ukraine, not Russia. They have the right ask the UN for military help in the form of UN peace keeping forces and ask NATO and the US to establish a military presence in and around Crimea.
This would raise the stakes and push Putin to decide if he wants war or not, but we would make it clear we're not backing down to protect the people of Crimea, but only if the UN agrees military intervention is necessary to offset the actions of the Russian forces in Crimea.
The question is do we want war with Russia. You can bet President Obama already has been briefed on the all the interations of military action including all the risks and chances, all the consequences in lives, all the consequences in any possible escalation. The military is ready waiting on the command from the President if necessary.
Let's hope it's not but let's remember Crimea is in the Ukraine, given it by Kruschev and respected by every leader of the Soviet Union and Russian Federation since.
If there is a reason for military intervention in Crimea it is this and the Ukrainian government can request it since Crimea is within the intergrity, soveriegnty, and borders of the Ukraine, not Russia. They have the right ask the UN for military help in the form of UN peace keeping forces and ask NATO and the US to establish a military presence in and around Crimea.
This would raise the stakes and push Putin to decide if he wants war or not, but we would make it clear we're not backing down to protect the people of Crimea, but only if the UN agrees military intervention is necessary to offset the actions of the Russian forces in Crimea.
The question is do we want war with Russia. You can bet President Obama already has been briefed on the all the interations of military action including all the risks and chances, all the consequences in lives, all the consequences in any possible escalation. The military is ready waiting on the command from the President if necessary.
Let's hope it's not but let's remember Crimea is in the Ukraine, given it by Kruschev and respected by every leader of the Soviet Union and Russian Federation since.
Crimea
While the Republicans, wingnuts and rightwing journalists and analyists are rattling verbal sabers and calling the President weak while admiring President Putin, President Obama is exhibiting exactly what we need right now with respect to Russia and Crimea, intelligence, patience and leadership.
This is not a sporting match or some game, it’s high stakes, complex and complicated international diplomacy where you have an autocratic president leading a oligarchic republic against the world. He wants Crimea and he took it in violation of the laws and treaties of his own country, and we need a President who weighs all the facets and factors, listens to all those involved, including Putin, and takes measured steps to ensure nothing worse happens.
The truth is as many experts have said, the Ukraine won’t get Crimea back. The question is what happens next to ensure Ukaine is secure and stable and can and will resist any further invention into their country by Russia. That’s less a military issue than an economic one to ensure Russia understands the serious consequences of further escalation.
That takes what this President has and is doing. Disagree or not, it’s your right to your opinion, but he is our President, not Putin. Don’t help Russia as many Republicans, wingnuts and rightwing media pundits are doing, by admiring Putin. Some might call that un-American.
This is not a sporting match or some game, it’s high stakes, complex and complicated international diplomacy where you have an autocratic president leading a oligarchic republic against the world. He wants Crimea and he took it in violation of the laws and treaties of his own country, and we need a President who weighs all the facets and factors, listens to all those involved, including Putin, and takes measured steps to ensure nothing worse happens.
The truth is as many experts have said, the Ukraine won’t get Crimea back. The question is what happens next to ensure Ukaine is secure and stable and can and will resist any further invention into their country by Russia. That’s less a military issue than an economic one to ensure Russia understands the serious consequences of further escalation.
That takes what this President has and is doing. Disagree or not, it’s your right to your opinion, but he is our President, not Putin. Don’t help Russia as many Republicans, wingnuts and rightwing media pundits are doing, by admiring Putin. Some might call that un-American.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Dreamweaver CS6 & CC
I use Dreamweaver (DW) as my main Web page design and edit application. I've used it since Adobe bought out the company which developed DW and dropped their own Web design and edit application, GoLive. I still use GoLive 9 which has continued to work under all versions of OS-X.
But with the upgrade to OS-X Mavericks, 10.9.x (.1 and .2), DW produces endless messages in the console log from the initial startup to closing the application. And while posting on forums looking for an answer, even sending bug reports, all I got was, "It's an Apple problem..."
Well, after submitting another bug report I finally got confirmation it's an Adobe problem they've known and haven't fixed, as they responded to me:
"We would like to let you know that we are aware of all the three console error related issues and have internal bugs for each of them separately, the details of which are given below:
3683183 - dynamic_cast error
3688745 - CGSGetWindowBounds messages
3700713 - CoreText performance note for CTFontCreateWithName()
We would also like to let you know that bug # 3683183 is not reproducible on Dreamweaver CC; it is only reproducible for Dreamweaver CS6. For the remaining two issues, we are investigating them and will try to prioritize them for fixing."
So until they fix this bug, remember it writes the one of these error messages every 2-4 seconds, I'll use DW CS5.5 and GoLive 9. Dreamweaver CS3 and 4 didn't run under Mountain Lion and CS5 doesn't run under Mavericks.
I haven't tried the other applications with CS5 since I have and use the latest versions of CS6 and have versions of CC available to install if I want. I bought the monthly fee for the whole package for $20 per month for the first year which increases later this year to the full monthly fee.
The only CC applications I use are Muse and Dreamweaver. I've found the others are too similar to the existing CS6 versions not to install and use them, yet anyway. Whether I'll continue to pay is an open question because I really like DW CC, because DW CS6 has some major design user design flaws where I use CS5.5 instead.
Sometimes to be proven right is nice.
But with the upgrade to OS-X Mavericks, 10.9.x (.1 and .2), DW produces endless messages in the console log from the initial startup to closing the application. And while posting on forums looking for an answer, even sending bug reports, all I got was, "It's an Apple problem..."
Well, after submitting another bug report I finally got confirmation it's an Adobe problem they've known and haven't fixed, as they responded to me:
"We would like to let you know that we are aware of all the three console error related issues and have internal bugs for each of them separately, the details of which are given below:
3683183 - dynamic_cast error
3688745 - CGSGetWindowBounds messages
3700713 - CoreText performance note for CTFontCreateWithName()
We would also like to let you know that bug # 3683183 is not reproducible on Dreamweaver CC; it is only reproducible for Dreamweaver CS6. For the remaining two issues, we are investigating them and will try to prioritize them for fixing."
So until they fix this bug, remember it writes the one of these error messages every 2-4 seconds, I'll use DW CS5.5 and GoLive 9. Dreamweaver CS3 and 4 didn't run under Mountain Lion and CS5 doesn't run under Mavericks.
I haven't tried the other applications with CS5 since I have and use the latest versions of CS6 and have versions of CC available to install if I want. I bought the monthly fee for the whole package for $20 per month for the first year which increases later this year to the full monthly fee.
The only CC applications I use are Muse and Dreamweaver. I've found the others are too similar to the existing CS6 versions not to install and use them, yet anyway. Whether I'll continue to pay is an open question because I really like DW CC, because DW CS6 has some major design user design flaws where I use CS5.5 instead.
Sometimes to be proven right is nice.
Texas Stupidity
To Texas, or really any state, Republicans, banning abortions won’t reduce the number of abortions, only drive them to illegal providers and Mexico. Providing comprehensive women’s reproductive health clinics for reproductive health services and contraceptives will reduce the number of abortions because more women won’t have to consider the decision of abortion.
That’s proven with the facts and reality, the more women’s reproductive healthcare clinics and services, the fewer abortions because there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies. Something you don’t seem to want to know, let alone care about women in Texas, or any state for that matter.
That’s proven with the facts and reality, the more women’s reproductive healthcare clinics and services, the fewer abortions because there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies. Something you don’t seem to want to know, let alone care about women in Texas, or any state for that matter.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Keystone XL
What we should remember about the Keystone XL pipeline to transfer oil from tarsands from Canada through the US to refineries in Texas.
One, it’s a Candadian company, not a US company, so the revenue and profit from the oil will go to the Canadian company and Canadian government.
Two, the pipeline will be maintained and operated by another company who has a history of pipeline failures, not the Canadian oil company.
Three, the oil will be refined and sold on the global oil market to customers outside the US. Very little, if any, of it will be refined for sale in the US market.
Four, the oil will not reduce the price of gas in the US or our dependence on foreign oil since we won’t be seeing that oil, and even if we did, it’s not a US company.
Five, oil from tarsands is harder to clean up when there is a leak. It’s not if there will be one, but when and how damaging, including seeping into the groundwater and rivers.
Six, the extraction and production of oil from the tarsands increases carbon emissions and greenhouse gases over conventional oil extraction and production.
Seven, if the President doesn’t approve the pipeline, the Canadian company and government will use another pipeline route for the oil in Canada to refineries or ports.
The oil from the tarsands is a Canadian problem, not ours. We don’t gain from it and only get the impact and damage from the leaks in the pipeline.
One, it’s a Candadian company, not a US company, so the revenue and profit from the oil will go to the Canadian company and Canadian government.
Two, the pipeline will be maintained and operated by another company who has a history of pipeline failures, not the Canadian oil company.
Three, the oil will be refined and sold on the global oil market to customers outside the US. Very little, if any, of it will be refined for sale in the US market.
Four, the oil will not reduce the price of gas in the US or our dependence on foreign oil since we won’t be seeing that oil, and even if we did, it’s not a US company.
Five, oil from tarsands is harder to clean up when there is a leak. It’s not if there will be one, but when and how damaging, including seeping into the groundwater and rivers.
Six, the extraction and production of oil from the tarsands increases carbon emissions and greenhouse gases over conventional oil extraction and production.
Seven, if the President doesn’t approve the pipeline, the Canadian company and government will use another pipeline route for the oil in Canada to refineries or ports.
The oil from the tarsands is a Canadian problem, not ours. We don’t gain from it and only get the impact and damage from the leaks in the pipeline.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Job Creation
The Republicans' view of job creation is the banker who forecloses on your house, the inspector who condemns it, the bulldozer driver who razes it, the realtor who sells you a new home on the same lot and the contractor who builds it. In the end nothing changes except you pay a lot of people for something that didn't need to be done, as Dire Straits sang it's "Money for nothin'."
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Crimea
What we know so far is this.
One, Crimea is 60% Russian and only 25% Ukranian, the rest mostly Tartars.
Two, Crimea has a huge Russian naval and military presence throughout Crimea and in major seaports.
Three, the Ukranian military in Crimea is not equiped to do more than protect themselves.
Four, access to Crimea is though narrow land routes and mostly by air or sea, easily defensible by Russian forces.
Five, Russia supplies a significant amount of natural gas to Ukraine and the European Union which both needs to keep flowing or face serious disruptions in their respective industries and economies.
Six, Putin knows this and more, and has calculated the Ukrainian government, the European Union and the United States can't do anything but express concern and voice threats.
Seven, Putin knows the US and NATO will not engage the Russian forces in Crimea but likely would assist Ukranian forces if Russian forces cross the eastern Ukrainan border.
Eight, Putin wants Crimea and he's willing to do anything for it and pay any price to get it, and he doesn't care what the US, EU and NATO says or even thinks.
Nine, the solution may be to have the UN recognize an independent Crimea nation. The question is if any other member of the UN Security Council would veto the proposal, unless of course it has provisions for the rights of the minority group living there.
Last, option nine wouldn't last long as Russia would assimiliate it into the Russian Federation. So, in short, who really knows but reality knows the alternatives are major conflicts and massive number of casualties.
So, we don't need Republican and Democratic war mongers and hawks rattling verbal sabers and criticizing the President. There isn't much he can do outside of diplomatic pressure on Putin and signal any further action into Ukainian territory would change the US and NATO military position where we have the military capability to assist the Ukrainian military and counter Russian forces.
Let's hope we don't go there because it's not about the Ukraine, it's about Crimea.
One, Crimea is 60% Russian and only 25% Ukranian, the rest mostly Tartars.
Two, Crimea has a huge Russian naval and military presence throughout Crimea and in major seaports.
Three, the Ukranian military in Crimea is not equiped to do more than protect themselves.
Four, access to Crimea is though narrow land routes and mostly by air or sea, easily defensible by Russian forces.
Five, Russia supplies a significant amount of natural gas to Ukraine and the European Union which both needs to keep flowing or face serious disruptions in their respective industries and economies.
Six, Putin knows this and more, and has calculated the Ukrainian government, the European Union and the United States can't do anything but express concern and voice threats.
Seven, Putin knows the US and NATO will not engage the Russian forces in Crimea but likely would assist Ukranian forces if Russian forces cross the eastern Ukrainan border.
Eight, Putin wants Crimea and he's willing to do anything for it and pay any price to get it, and he doesn't care what the US, EU and NATO says or even thinks.
Nine, the solution may be to have the UN recognize an independent Crimea nation. The question is if any other member of the UN Security Council would veto the proposal, unless of course it has provisions for the rights of the minority group living there.
Last, option nine wouldn't last long as Russia would assimiliate it into the Russian Federation. So, in short, who really knows but reality knows the alternatives are major conflicts and massive number of casualties.
So, we don't need Republican and Democratic war mongers and hawks rattling verbal sabers and criticizing the President. There isn't much he can do outside of diplomatic pressure on Putin and signal any further action into Ukainian territory would change the US and NATO military position where we have the military capability to assist the Ukrainian military and counter Russian forces.
Let's hope we don't go there because it's not about the Ukraine, it's about Crimea.
Distinguishing Pain
I pinched my Sciatic nerve in June 2011 and July 2012 and have been walking to help it heal, which was working until about a month ago when I aggrevated it and kept on walking for 3 more days. After two weeks of rest I got bored and started walking again and learn to tell the difference between nerve and muscle pains.
Nerve pain is when the muscles work but the nerve don’t make them work right and the nerves continually yell at your brain. Muscle pain is when the muscle are tired or sore and those nerve remind you when you use the muscle.
Nerve pain can and will happen regardless of what you’re doing, standing, sitting, walking, exercising, etc., meaning it’s independent of the muscles. Muscle pain only happens when you use the respective muscles which hurt.
Nerve pain is irrelevant to the muscles because it’s indicative of skeletal problems. Muscle pain only happens with muscles. This I’ve learned from my walking to distinguish the two and to ignore the nerve pain and pay attention to the muscle pain.
Nerve pain is when the muscles work but the nerve don’t make them work right and the nerves continually yell at your brain. Muscle pain is when the muscle are tired or sore and those nerve remind you when you use the muscle.
Nerve pain can and will happen regardless of what you’re doing, standing, sitting, walking, exercising, etc., meaning it’s independent of the muscles. Muscle pain only happens when you use the respective muscles which hurt.
Nerve pain is irrelevant to the muscles because it’s indicative of skeletal problems. Muscle pain only happens with muscles. This I’ve learned from my walking to distinguish the two and to ignore the nerve pain and pay attention to the muscle pain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
