Thursday, August 20, 2009


this is post number 444, and that's a whole other story from what i will write about now.

why does somebody/anybody wear a gun on their hip in public? let alone attend a town hall meeting or political rally? in my opinion, there are just a few answers. fear, loneliness, insecurity, and hatred. it seems to me that loneliness and hatred and insecurity are all rooted in fear. in my biased reality, i would prefer a world without guns. there are communities without guns. it's not that difficult to do. a group of people decide they're going to live together without guns. pretty simple concept really. like not eating meat.
but why do a tiny minority of people insist on wearing guns on their hip? what are they so afraid of? are they afraid? as far as i'm concerned, guns have only one purpose. to kill somebody or something. look, if you wanna kill somebody or something, why not use your bare hands? now that's really killing. using a gun? that, in my opinion, is the cowards way.
people who wear guns on their hip, in my opinion, are terribly afraid of change, and other people telling them how to live, and other people coming into their "space". people who wear guns on their hip, in my opinion, lack confidence. wearing a gun on your hip, and even owning a gun, indicates that you are willing to use it, and probably willing to use it to kill somebody. whatever happened to, "thou shall not kill"?
i am not a gun owner. i will never be a gun owner. i believe we should destroy all guns on this planet. this may make me as radical a person as the ones who wear the guns on their hip. all i know is this:
i will not have anything to do with guns or killing.
i hope one day to live in a world where there's no need for them.
please join me in promoting and living peace, love, happiness, tolerance, and harmony.

and now 444. i used to drive cab number 444. she was a good cab.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Yes, We Need Health Care Reform

The whole deal about death counseling for seniors is a hugely distorted lie being spread by Betsy McCaughey via email from Fred Thompson (one of many being spread by the right wing regarding health care reform).  As I understand it, it all stems from a proposal in the reform plan to offer financial assistance to create a “living will”.  That’s something we all should have in case of accidents, etc, no matter how old we are. 

Here’s another side of the story about Health care reform besides the one being circulated via email.  Health care reform is not a Liberal vs. Conservative issue. We must all ask ourselves “Who benefits?” when confronted with issues such as this.  Who benefits from “no reform”? Many in congress receive HUGE contributions from the present health care industry giants, like big pharmaceutical companies, and big insurance companies.  Who benefits from “reform”? Almost all of us average US citizens AND our children and grandchildren.

Health care in the US must be (and will be) reformed no matter what.  The costs are just becoming more and more ridiculous as time goes by.  Something must be done as more and more people are spending more and more money on less and less effective insurance and more and more people are losing health care altogether.  The free market ideal is just not working for health care.  Most authorities agree that we are spending twice as much (or more) on health care as other industrialized countries and all the statistics are worse than them in regard to adolescent mortality, life expectancy and other factors.

By the way, more US cars are being built in Windsor, Ontario than are being built just across the river in Detroit.  Why?  According to auto execs - less costly health care insurance in Canada.  We spent four winters with a group of retired Canadians in Southern California.  I made a point of engaging them in friendly discussions about their health care.  With the exception of one person who didn’t know the facts about American health care, they all were very enthusiastic about the Canadian plan.

We can’t afford not to reform health care in America.  The cost of goods in the US has a higher percentage of costs related to health care than any other industrialized nation.  No wonder we’re falling behind so fast!

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it -  it is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
Like it or not, there will be health care reform.
Get ready.

Friday, August 07, 2009

responsibility and accountability

Is Bush still relevant?

Andie Coller Andie Coller Fri Aug 7, 5:17 am ET

President Barack Obama may “own” the economy now — but he’s not ready to let anyone forget who left it to him.

Supporters and defenders of George W. Bush have been waiting for the shot clock to run out on Bush’s critics since before the 43rd president left office; a headline on a Washington Times opinion piece in December trumpeted, somewhat over-optimistically, “Only 26 days left for Bush bashing.” But with six months in the Oval Office behind him and Congress off for its milestone summer recess, Obama shows no sign of letting the prior administration or its advocates off the hook.

At a recent town hall in Raleigh, N.C., Obama ripped his detractors thusly: “You hand me a $1.3 trillion bill, and then you’re complaining six months later because we haven’t paid it all back.” And last weekend, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers flooded the TV talk shows with reminders that they had “inherited” a $1.3 trillion deficit and an economy “in free fall.”

“The battle for the history is always an essential part of winning the future,” says Republican strategist John Feehery. “From that perspective, I think that is what Obama is trying to do.”

To those who contend that the administration’s regular references to the provenance of its woes is nothing more than a blame game, Democratic strategist Phil Singer replies that the president would have to engage in advanced yoga not to refer to the policies of his home’s prior resident.

“Obama has to talk about it, because it helps explain the agenda that he’s advancing every day,” Singer says. “The legacy of the Bush administration is driving the agenda of the Obama administration.”

If that’s the case, then the task for Team Obama is to walk the line between explaining and complaining, says former Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. She agrees that the administration has to put its efforts in perspective, but she notes that it also must be cautious, particularly while people are still suffering from the effects of the economic crisis and unlikely to have much sympathy for anything perceived as whining from the top.

“I think it is very fair to make that point, but I think you have to do a way that acknowledges people’s pain and frustration,” she says. “It is a delicate balance, and I think that’s why it has to be done in a very pragmatic way and not in a way that sounds like an excuse.”

And indeed, lately most administration references to the previous management have been carefully calibrated to convey the message that Obama is taking responsibility for the economy without being responsible for it. Officials don’t speak of “having” problems but of having “inherited” them — and always in the context of what they are doing to try to solve them. And although he alludes to Bush and his impact often, the president has mentioned his predecessor by name only a handful of times in his prepared remarks since taking office.

Democratic candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia have been less circumspect. As POLITICO reported last month, both N.J. Gov. Jon Corzine and Virginia state Sen. Creigh Deeds kicked off their candidacies with broadsides against Bush — a strategy that, if effective, will likely encourage other Democrats to follow suit.

Which leaves those who have long chafed at Bush bashing to ask: How much longer can it possibly last?

With respect to Obama, at least, reasonable minds may disagree.

It’s already over, says Feehery — at least in terms of its effectiveness: “My own personal opinion is that six months is an eternity in politics, and it’s never about what happened six months ago — it’s about what’s happening right now.”

It might last another month or two, but that’s it, opines Republican strategist Ed Rollins: “I think you may have a little bit more time, but certainly by September, October, that story’s not going to fly. It’ll be Obama’s war in Afghanistan, Obama’s economy,” he says. “Whether it’s legitimate or not, that’s the way it works.”

The public is already holding Obama responsible, says Democratic strategist Douglas Schoen, who stamps a fall sell-by date on the tactic. “When asked the question, 'Who’s more to blame?' the American people say, ‘Bush is more to blame than Obama — but we’re looking to Obama for solutions.’” Schoen says the strategy may still be useful now, but it won’t be indefinitely: “Do I think they can get through the midterms with that? No, I don’t.”

Not so fast, counters Democratic pollster Paul Maslin; it all depends on what happens between now and then.

“If, next year, as we head into the midterm elections, the economy really starts to turn around, then he’s got a story line that begins with 'We inherited this' that works for him, and there’s no reason why he couldn’t take it all the way through the midterms and even through reelection.”

Or perhaps even longer. Muses Maslin: “Ronald Reagan ran against Washington pretty much the whole eight years, and he was in D.C. the whole time, as the head of our government.”

On the flip side, notes Singer, the political risk to the president is relatively low. “One of the ironies about the Obama administration is, for all of the accusations that it’s all rhetoric and talk, a lot of its success will be determined on nuts and bolts metrics,” he says. “If the economy is stagnant in 2012, people aren’t going to be saying, ‘I’m not going to vote for the president because he only wants to bash Bush.’ They’re going to say, ‘I’m not voting for the president because the economy is stagnant.’”

The main caveat, says Maslin, is that even if the president can safely continue to score points off the previous administration, he should be aware that the buzzer on Bush himself has sounded.

“I’m a partisan Democrat, but even I don’t want to kick him anymore,” he says.

Monday, August 03, 2009

the bird and the fish

there's an old saying that goes something like this:
"a bird can love a fish, but where would they make a home?"
where would they make a home indeed. this is an excellent question. perhaps they could build a nest near the water? perhaps a floating nest? i do not know. i do know they can definitely be friends, while living their own lives.
i would imagine the bird knows about as much about being a fish as the fish knows about being a bird. they no doubt have common interests. they may even enjoy some of the same foods, like worms. of course they have different life expectancies. and they are both prey for somebody.
i suspect, if they really got to know one another, they would find that they have more in common than not.
i believe this is also true for people.
we can only hope, and have great expectations, and positive thoughts, and of course faith, if you so desire.
on the level of DNA we are all very close. maybe this is what frightens some people so very much? at any rate, we can all, and we must all, continue to promote understanding and tolerance for one another or we will become extinct.
best of luck.
my films are on YouTube under, "franklandfields".
enjoy. peace. namaste.