Call for a special election for open New York Senate seat.

Considering the unfolding scandal in Illinois to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by president-elect Barack Obama, I urge New York Governor David Patterson to ask the New York state legislature to set a special election for the soon to be open New York Senate seat currently occupied by Hillary Clinton who has been nominated by Obama to be Secretary of State of the Unites States.

Governor Paterson, appoint me to the U.S. Senate.

Governor Paterson, appoint me to the U.S. Senate. Now that Hillary Rodham Clinton has been nominated by president-elect Barack Obama to be Secretary of State, you are considering candidates to replace her. How about a true citizen senator: me, Kenneth Matinale? I have all the lack of elected experience that Hillary had when she was elected in 2000 and that of the latest celebrity person to express interest, Caroline Kennedy. I cannot match Hillary’s qualifications to be Secretary of State, being married to the president for eight years, but then neither can Caroline who, as a child, lived in the White House for only three years ... with her parents. Which makes one wonder why Obama is still so concerned about the Clintons, who have been thoroughly vanquished, that he would completely overlook an equally qualified candidate for Secretary of State: Laura Bush. But I digress. I am a lifelong New Yorker, born in Brooklyn, raised in Queens, graduate of Xavier High School in Manhattan (same as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia), graduate of St. John’s University in Queens. Hillary did not even live in New York when she was elected in 2000, having just established phony baloney residence in cutsey Chappaqau in Westchester county only with the financial backing of Democratic party groupie, Terry McAuliffe. She has hardly lived in Chappaqau since entering the Senate. How many nights has she spent there in Chappaqau during her Senate tenure? Over/under 100? At least Caroline is a New Yorker, having lived her entire adult life here and raising a family. However, Caroline’s Uncle Ted lives in Boston, Massachusetts. OK, her Uncle Bobby had that New York Senate seat but that was a long time ago and he was a bit of a carpetbagger, although nothing like the TOTAL carpetbagger Hillary is; Bobby had lived in Bronxville for part of his childhood. I remember when Bobby pointed that out during his senate campaign in 1964, I had never heard of Bronxville and thought: oh, Bobby, it’s the Bronx, not Bronxville. Silly me. Hey, my Uncle Phil lives in Port Washington, NEW YORK. Yeah, how about that! Score another point for me! Does Hillary even have uncles? Like you I am a black person. And, if you want to replace Hillary with another woman, I can be a woman, too. You’re blind, so how the heck would you know? Don’t listen to any lies from the person reading this to you if he/she states that I am a sixty-year-old Italian guy. Unless, of course, you want to appoint a sixty-year-old Italian guy. Then I am a sixty-year-old Italian guy. There, that should establish my credentials to be a politician. My positions on a wide range of issues are contained in my blog, which has been provided. You will agree with me, unless that liar reading it to you lies again. You blind people really need to be careful about that. Governor Paterson, appoint me, Kenneth Matinale, to the U.S. Senate. You won’t regret it.

Do NOT bailout the auto industry.

Do not bailout any industry. Here are the top two industries that should NOT be bailed out: 1. Oil 2. Auto. See the connection. They undermine our new national direction on energy and environment. If those issues are not important enough, they also undermine the economy and national security. Dump them. Do not save them. To expect that either will change after a century of entrenchment is delusional. Propping them up is only supporting the opposite of what we know must happen: 1. Stop using oil. 2. Use only electric cars. Too big to fail. Wow, what a lousing reason to bail out an industry. It's less expensive to pay the auto workers until they get new jobs. If the federal government is willing to give auto makers $25,000,000,000, why not give it to NEW companies that commit to only producing pollution free electric cars? America needs to retool and doing it quickly is less painful in the long run. Cut the ties. Let the auto industry die a long overdue death.

Federal Reserve BANK

SEPTEMBER 21, 2008 No to the Federal Bailout of the Financial Industry ___________________________________ That was my post almost two months ago. I was one of the first to oppose the bailout. In today's New York Times, the first paragraph in the lead story: The Treasury Department on Wednesday officially abandoned the original strategy behind its $700 billion effort to rescue the financial system, as administration officials acknowledged that banks and financial institutions were as unwilling as ever to lend to consumers. Looks like I was correct. Let me expand. The Federal Reserve BANK should be our primary bank. It should deal directly with businesses and individuals, not just with private banks. It is a BANK. That word should always be used when referring to it. Personal savings accounts in the Federal Reserve BANK would be insured and implicitly regulated. Put these private institutions in the same boat as loan sharks. If individuals put their money in private institutions, then the individuals are on their own. No federal insurance much less a bailout. Same for loans. Borrow from the Federal Reserve BANK and be safe. Borrow from the others and you are on your own. That would be a much more efficient way to create capital and manage financing than throwing money around hoping that some of it does some good somehow.

21 ... 50 years later.

How about a quizz show competition between Herb Stempel and Charles Van Doren? The quizz show 21, of course. Fair and square. No cheating as in the 1950s version.

Ma Bell and the Electric Grid.

We need a new electrical grid: http://www.repoweramerica.org/elements/national-unified-smart-grid/ How about augmenting that effort using the existing right of way already in place for the fading AT&T long distance phone network, which is becoming obsolete? For those under the age of thirty, AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph) had the national monopoly for telephone service until about 1981. Long distance service refers to phone calls placed between states. This concept is now obsolete and the old public switched telephone network is being replaced by voice over IP (Internet Protocol).

Landslide elections: certainty, not knowledge.

I would not classify Obama's win over McCain in 2008 as a landslide. Big, but not a landslide. Franklin D. Roosevelt had 60.8% of the popular vote to Alf Landon`s 36.5% in the 1936 presidential election. Roosevelt had 523 electoral votes to Landon's 8. That's a landslide. Since 1936 here are the obvious landslides based on popular vote: Lyndon Johnson's 61.1% to Barry Goldwater's 38.5% in 1964. Richard Nixon's 60.7% to George McGovern's 37.5% in 1972. Ronald Reagan's 58.8% to Walter Mondale's 40.6% in 1984. Here are some really big wins since 1936 based on electoral votes: Franklin D. Roosevelt's 449 to Wendell Willkie's 82 in 1940. Franklin D. Roosevelt's 432 to Thomas Dewey's 99 in 1944. Dwight D. Eisenhower's 442 to Adlai Stevenson's 89 in 1952. Dwight D. Eisenhower's 457 to Adlai Stevenson's 73 in 1956. Richard Nixon's 520 to George McGovern's 17 in 1972. Ronald Reagan's 489 to Jimmy Carter's 49 in 1980. Other than Roosevelt's three and Johnson's one every other landslide or really big win was by a Republican. Why? We should want our decisions to be based on knowledge, not certainty. However, those voting for the Republican candidate were certain of their positions, especially since 1968. Votes based on knowledge are more tenuous. Certainty let's us do terrible things. Nazis were certain. See my previous post on dumb guys.

We elected the smart guy.

Obama is way smarter than McCain. Since Nixon was elected in 1968 and 1972 the Republican party has nominated the dumber guy in every presidential election. What's the deal with dumb guys? It probably is connected to the Republican outreach to hillbillies and dumb working people. Republicans ran the 1968 through 1988 elections based on the lyrics in Randy Newman's song Rednecks: "keeping the niggers down". With Reagan in 1980 they had tossed in abortion. That lasted through 2004. By 1992 racial antagonism finally became too offensive even for them so they added junk like religion, socialized medicine, homosexual marriage, guns, pollution, and a fear and distrust of science. With all that baggage how could they nominate anyone who was smart? They couldn't. Here are the twosomes in the way smarter than group: - 1976 Carter way smarter than Ford - 1980 Carter way smarter than Reagan - 1992 Clinton way smarter than Bush the elder - 1996 Clinton way smarter than Dole - 2008 Obama way smarter than McCain. In 1988 Dukakis was much, maybe even way, smarter than Bush the elder. Clearly smarter than: - 1984 Mondale over Reagan - 2000 Gore over Bush the younger. In 2004 Kerry was much smarter than Bush the younger. Every year. Every damn one. The Democrat was smarter. That's not healthy, especially when the dumb guy usually wins. We should vote for candidates who are smarter than we are, not as dumb as we are.

City States in America.

In the early 1970s there was a PBS (Public Broadcasting System) program called The 51st State. The idea was that New York City was or could be a new state with its own perspective and issues. I always liked the idea and wanted it to happen but with additions: Westchester county to the north and Long Island counties Nassau and Suffolk to the east. I wanted this group of municipalities to secede from New York state and join the union as the 51st state. The U.S. constitution has many flaws. An obvious one is the disproportionate nature of the Senate. The founders did not intend for the Senate to be proportionate but they could never have imagined that it would become so hugely disproportionate because they could not have imagined that cities would become so populous. By becoming a city state, New York City would have its own two Senators. This would still not make New York's Senate representation proportionate but it would be a big improvement. New York City State would get direct federal aid. It would no longer need to ask the current New York state legislature for permission on local issues like increasing local sales tax. Currently the rural upstate tail wags the dog. Once New York sets the precedent, all large U.S. cities should follow. They all have the same problem: lack of representation in the Senate proportionate to their large populations. Once cities started to secede the Congress would have no choice but to admit them as city states. If not, they could each become an independent country. Then they could form an alliance. Cool.

Voted

I voted at about 6:15AM. On the way to the polling place I passed people returning to my apartment building. They seemed pleased and said good morning. There was a line of about eight people signing in. This surprised me. A poll worker asked for people up to the letter M, so I moved right up and signed in. The wait was not long. Once in the voting contraption, the only type I've ever used, I did not pull down the Obama lever with the vengeance that I had anticipated. It was a much more serene act. It felt good. The idea of voting for Nader because of my annoyance with Obama's pragmatism had long since passed. I had done the right thing. It felt like the first time I voted.

Electing the Vice President: a new system

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden are not very good choices for vice president. We have had poor choices for a long time. Presidential nominees in both major parties have selected running mates. Their parties have not. While views of party members are a factor, the presidential nominee makes the decision alone. Amend the constitution and eliminate running mates. Vote only for president. Oh, excuse me, vote for electors who then vote for president. We don't want democracy to take hold. After taking office, the new president would nominate a new vice president. I doubt that McCain or Obama would choose Palin or Biden if that were done. No need to balance the ticket or placate minor constituencies, just make a solid selection. We already have a method for filling the office of vice president. Amendment XXV (25) - February 10, 1967 Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Looks good to me. See my post: FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Electing the President: a new system

write-in votes

I just sent this message to the New York state board of elections at info@elections.state.ny.us: Your web site has nothing about election machines (other than those stupid new contraptions in certain counties) and write-in votes. I opened some of those annoying PDF files but they are not searchable. Are you trying to hide info? I want to write-in a vote and would like to know the current procedure before election day. How about implementing early voting? Many states already have it. ______________________________________________ I am pretty dissatisfied with my choices for offices other than president. I am settling for Obama, since Nader is not likely to win and Obama is a fascinating possibility. I want to vote for myself for the other offices. Not voting for anyone on the ballot might be interpreted as an accidental omission. I want them to know that the candidates were unacceptable. I have cast a write-in vote for myself a couple of times previously but who knows what the procedure is now. The one time I checked after votes had been counted, mine had not been counted. For several years I have thought that a person could be elected without jumping through the hoops and over the obstacles set by the two major parties. Getting on the ballot is EXTREMELY difficult without a party designation. http://www.elections.state.ny.us/RunningOffice.html "The current political parties are the Republican, Democratic, Independence, Conservative, and Working Families parties." There is no indication as to how these parties were designated. I suppose that they achieved a certain number or percent of votes in previous elections. Especially for local office, it should be relatively easy to get elected as long as write-in votes are counted. The web makes it so. Just create a web site, use youtube.com and promote your candidacy. That's the point that almost everyone misses about using the web for elections. Spending very little money, candidates can by-pass the two major parties and appeal directly to the voters. Pundits thought that former Vermont governor Howard Dean was really clever in his use of the web when he ran in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. All he did was put direct mail functions online. Big deal. Even Barack Obama has done little more. Once people wake up and seize the initiative and go directly to the voters, we can all become write-in candidates. Now that's democratic.

National Popular Vote: compromise reform of the Electoral College.

I support the National Popular Vote. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MD I prefer my of blog entry Electing the President: a new system (FEBRUARY 26, 2008): http://matinale.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html However, the National Popular Vote is an attainable goal that does not require that the constitution be amended. It should be limited to a candidate who receives at least forty percent of the votes cast. It assumes the dominance of two political parties. From the web site: The compact would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the membership of the Electoral College (that is 270 of 538 electoral votes). Under the compact, all of the members of the Electoral College from all states belonging to the compact would be from the same political party as the winner of nationwide popular vote. Thus, the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) will be guaranteed a majority of the Electoral College, and hence the Presidency. Because the compact guarantees a majority of the Electoral College to the winner of most popular votes nationwide, the compact has the additional benefit of eliminating the possibility that a presidential election might be thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives (with each state casting one vote).

Negative ads and media bias.

C-Span is hosting a couple of college professors viewing negative ads and responding to callers. They showed a McCain ad, which stated that Obama was not ready to be president. Not very negative. Then the C-Span host said now let's look at a negative ad by Obama. There was a photo of McCain and McCain quotes. When did quotes become negative? The kicker is that almost all the McCain callers are complaining about media bias for Obama against McCain. The one thing that I have in common with these people is that neither of us knows what they are talking about.

Driving kills Amercan soldiers.

Every time we press down on the accelerator of our car, we are pressing down on the neck of an American soldier. Press a little harder and the life is being pushed out of that soldier. By the time we reach our destination the soldier is dead. We all know that oil is the reason we are fighting in Iraq. Whether you think it is a diabolical plot by Bush or realistic world politics to maintain our energy supply, we all know that without oil we would not care about Iraq or about any middle east countries. But do we give a second thought to not only using oil but wasting oil? We know that speeding wastes gasoline but we speed. We speed even when it does no good, like speeding to a red light. Each Saturday afternoon anti war protesters gather at Main Street where I live and hold up signs encouraging drivers to honk if they are against the war. I am guessing that the protesters drive to get there. All involved are killing American soldiers and the protesters are blaming Bush. To whom do Bush's oil company friends sell their oil and gasoline? You want to stop the war? Stop driving.

Imbeciles prefer drilling and mining. And what is foreign v. domestic oil?

Imbeciles. What else would you call people who not only do things against their own best interests but cheer wildly about it? Arizona Senator John McCain, Republican candidate for president, has consistently emphasized fossil fuel over renewable energy sources. Maybe because McCain is such a fossil himself. The crowds attending his rallies and those of his candidate for vice president, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, confirm McCain's preference. Yesterday Gov. Palin was addressing a crowd in one of those annoying battleground states. Maybe Pennsylvania, which has an interest in coal. Maybe the amazingly stupid Ohio, which continues to vote for Republican presidential candidates and provide the margin of victory. In 2004 Ohio voted for Bush the younger over Senator John Kerry because Bush had the morons fired up over homosexual marriage. Nice job, Ohio. Four more years of ruinous energy policy and a financial crisis for a little extra abuse for the imbeciles in Ohio. Hey, Ohio, those steel mills are not coming back! Build some damn solar panels and wind mills. I cannot remember if Gov. Palin mentioned energy before or after she insinuated that Obama is a socialist but she mentioned, with little enthusiasm, renewables: wind, solar, etc. The crowd got the message. There was little positive reaction. Then she told how we need to use all sources ... including drilling for oil! Huge applause. The crowd gets it. McCain and Palin are not serious about renewable energy. McCain and Palin only mention renewable energy because it's politically necessary to attract those undecided imbeciles who will decide the fate of the nation. Who could possibly continue to be undecided? Imbeciles! The crowd began using the chant popularized at the Republican convention by Rudy Giuliani: drill baby drill. I can't believe that I actually considered supporting that jerk. Giuliani being both Italian and a New Yorker were factors but there is no excuse. Giuliani gets worse each time he speaks. Then it got even worse. Gov. Palin said we need to mine. The crowd chanted "mine baby mine". No joke. I understand that America is getting what it deserves from electing two oil men, Bush and Cheney, ... TWICE. That idiot Gore could not even point out in 2000 that they were oil men. I understand that they are bums who only care about themselves and their rich friends and that supporting fossil fuel is the easiest way to keep the money flowing no matter how much it is against the national interest. I understand that McCain and Palin desperately want the power that was built on this policy. But what the heck do the imbeciles in the crowd get? Do they actually like pollution? Do they doubt that wind and sun can produce energy? Maybe the anti-science attitude of Bush resonates with imbeciles. Do they think that real men do not get energy from wind and sun? Do they believe that they have a right to pollute? Or are they just stupid idiot moron imbeciles who don't know when they are being abused and beg for more abuse? Candidates of both major parties say they want clean coal. I do not believe that Obama and Biden are that dumb. I believe that Obama and Biden are weasels attempting to fool the imbeciles in Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. Same thing with off shore drilling. Obama says that he supports it but he prefers renewable energy. He's a weasel but he's not dumb. McCain and Obama mention dependence on foreign oil, that we need to end that. How about ending our dependence on oil? McCain sees off shore drilling as a way to add to the oil supply of the United States. What makes him think that multinational corporations would keep that new oil in the United States? They will sell it to the highest bidder. Drill off whose shore? Pennsylvania and Ohio are land locked. Florida does not want it. What state actually wants this off shore drilling? Bush described America's addiction to oil years ago. What kind of imbecile morons cure an addiction by increasing the supply? Drill and wait years for more oil that may or may not wind up in an American refinery. Mine and wait years. Build a nuclear plant, as McCain also prefers to renewable energy, and wait years. Install a wind mill or solar panel and have energy today. Individuals can do these things without waiting. Why cheer drilling for filthy oil? We need to fill up the oil wells and coal mines with dirt to prevent the politicians from even being tempted to use those fossil materials as energy sources. If they have the option they will exercise it in times of stress, even a little stress. Imbecile Gore in 2000 wanted to raid the nation's strategic petroleum reserve because the price of home heating oil might be too expensive that winter. Some statesman. Eliminate the fossil option. Convert to electric cars, not hybrids, so that the driver does not need to know what fuel is used to create the electricity. Don't be an imbecile. Is that asking too much?

No to the Federal Bailout of the Financial Industry

This week Congress will approve the Federal Bailout of the Financial Industry proposed by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Bank. Both presidential candidates will vote in favor of it in the Senate. I say vote no. Think Enron, only on a national if not international scale. 1. Congress does not know the problem. 2. This is throwing money at the problem hoping that a solution mysteriously occurs. 3. Unelected people will spend unprecedented sums of U.S. tax money with little oversight. 4. New regulations will not work. It's the nature of this industry to work around them and if needed, move entities outside U.S. jurisdiction. Today's schemes will give way to new unimagined schemes. If left alone the industry will purge itself and devour the troubled organizations, which is what the government bureaucracy would need to attempt but without the incentives nor experience. Eventually these banks would get back to business as usual. With the government getting nervous and ready to bail out the entire industry, why bother. Get that corporate welfare and party on. Why have private banks at all if the government must regulate, insure and bailout? Just let the government bank do it all. If the U.S. was going to precipitously spend $700,000,000,000 to nationalize some companies and bailout the rest it should nationalize the energy industry. That's where it's most needed. AIG has been nationalized so that the government can payoff its debts as if the government was the insurance company for AIG. That's exactly the business of AIG and AIG could not even take care of itself. Why save a company or industry that is so lame and does not provide real service? Why? At its core this situation is very similar to the vote that gave the president the authority to wage war against Iraq. Later, many who voted for it complained that they had been mislead. Too late.

Governor of ... Alaska? You're kidding, right?

John McCain selected Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his vice presidential running mate. Wow! I had recently suggested that McCain consider outside the box candidate Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, just as I had suggested that Barack Obama select the inside the box former Iowa governor and current U.S. Senator Evan Bayh. Obama selected instead Senator for life foot in mouth Joe Biden. Which was a worse pick? Of the four potential presidents: McCain, Obama, Palin and Biden, only this new person, the Alaska governor has real executive experience: two years as governor; she was mayor, too. However, governor of Alaska seems like county executive. Plus, five kids, one four months old. She should finish caring for her kids before being governor much less president. What kind of family values is that? Hey, somebody had to have the common sense to say it. Worse pick? It's not even close. Joe Biden has been a senator for 35 years and knows foreign policy. Sarah Palin lives closer to Russia than to any other state and does not want polar bears protected. With McCain unlikely to live out his term who in his/her right mind would be comfortable having Sarah Palin become president? Maybe her oldest child who is leaving for military assignment in Iraq. McCain has shown collosally poor judgment in selecting Sarah Palin. It is so poor that there is an outside chance that whatever Republican party elders still exist may influence both McCain and Sarah Palin that Sarah should reconsider and stay in the frozen tundra. McCain has panicked. He has done that throughout this campaign. He has turned flip flopping on its head, including being for something before he was against it. Maybe women will respond to Palin and vote her and McCain into national office. In 1984 the Democrats nominated for vice president a three term member of the House of Representatives, i.e., someone who had not won state wide office: Geraldine Ferraro. It's a tough call as to whether Ferraro or Palin was/is more unqualified to be president. In 1984 Reagan was the big favorite but when women entered the voting booth and saw the name Geraldine on the ballot they could have responded. You never know. That was the wild card then and it still is.

Vice President

Obama has made the collosally unimaginative choice of Joe Biden, the Delaware Senator who cannot keep his mouth shut. Biden has all the negatives of John McCain plus vanity and foolishness. Indiana Senator Evan Bayh should have been selected. Bayh was governor of Indiana, so he actually has EXECUTIVE experience which the other principals are lacking: Obama, McCain (a little as a Navy officer), Biden and Hillary Clinton. Bayh has foreign policy experience from his work in the Senate. Plus Bayh is modest and will remain in the background until he is called upon to assume the office of president, which along with breaking tie votes in the Senate are the sole the responsibilities of the vice president. Biden was chosen in part to be Obam's attack dog with McCain as the victim. McCain has been given a huge opportunity. Biden cannot attack McCain on age, tenure or having voted for the war in Iraq. Biden is a very conventional choice who adds little and subtracts much. He is no agent of change. McCain can make a bold choice: Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. She satisfies both the gender and race constituencies. Her baggage is the many foreign policy failures of President George Walker Bush but she could draw many of Hillary's disaffected supporters. Rice could be the wild card who makes the election really interesting.

Most overrated Favre: Brett.

Can anybody stand this guy? Favre is way overrated: Highest rating in a season: #43 - 99.7 in 1995. never lead NFL in a season. (QB rating 85.7, #19) Highest Passer Rating, Career (1,500 attempts) 96.8 Steve Young, Tampa Bay, 1985-86; San Francisco, 1987-1999 94.7 Peyton Manning, Indianapolis, 1998-2007 93.2 Kurt Warner, St. Louis, 1998-2003; N.Y. Giants, 2004; Arizona, 2005-07 Some random ratings: Montana 92.3. Marino 86.5 Staubach 83.4 Favre is insufferable. Favre is overexposed. Predictions on how Favre will do with the Jets now that he has weaseled his way out of Green Bay: 1. Favre will NOT play every game. 2. Favre will play poorly. 3. Aaron Rogers, the Packers preferred quarterback, will play better than Favre. 4. Favre may quit, retire or otherwise run away from New York. Look at Favre 's numbers for 2005 (70.9) and 2006 (72.7). It is far more likely that Favre will play like 2005 and 2006 than that Favre will play like he did in 2007 (95.7, sixth);Tom Brady lead with 117.2. Favre's 2007 season is unexplainable for a player who had been declining for years. No way Favre will approach his 2007 numbers. If Favre had any sense Favre would have stayed retired. Down deep Favre knows it. That's why Favre was equivocating. What teams has Favre defeated in the playoffs in the last five years? Seattle? Favre was not even the best QB in Packer history. Bart Starr was despite his 80.5 regular season rating; ratings were much lower then; Unitas had 78 and he is clearly better than Favre. How many bad playoff games did Starr play? Favre personally lost the 2007 NFC conference championship (70.7) game to the Giants. Eli Manning beat Favre and Eli has a career rating of 73.9. Eli is not very good and he outplayed Favre. Favre, go away to Green Bay.

Gore finally gets it right: "Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power " - NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gorecnd.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin Al Gore kept this issue a secret in 2000 when he blew the unblowable election to a guy who barely knew anything. Finally he puts the goal into simple understandable terms. Going carbon free in ten years is too long for me but it is unimaginable to members of Congress who ignored Nixon's attempt to make America energy independent over 30 years ago. Today I listened for a while as members of the House of Representatives debated energy, mostly focused on the high price of gasoline, which would adversely impact their individual re-election prospects this November. That is the only reason that they addressed the issue at all. Republicans only want to drill. Democrats only want to raid the strategic petroleum reserve, which is in reserve in case of an emergency and high prices are not an emergency. Gore tried this stunt (raiding the reserve) during the 2000 election and I thought he was a pandering weasel then as I now think about the current Democrats trying it. We should pay workers to fill in the coal mines and oil wells. Otherwise these congressional morons will insist on burning every last drop of oil and every last chunk of coal before even considering alternatives. Sure they now mention renewable sources before spending the remainder of their remarks maintaining the status quo. They have finally been forced to mention the recently ridiculed renewables: sun, wind, etc. However, they clearly do not believe in these renewable energy sources because they have no imagination, no integrity and no intent of bucking the powerful financial forces that promote old energy. These forces will protect their sources of wealth. They will drain America of its vitality and leave us at the mercy of terrorist regimes that supply oil. We can clean the planet and make America safe by achieving Gore's goal: carbon free in ten years. Al Gore. Who would have thunk it?

Message to Ralph Nader

This is a suggestion. I received your house party invitation. This is old thinking. Forget about getting on the ballot. Distribute instructions on how to write-in for each state. Then have lawyers standing by to make sure that those votes are counted.

Person to panda to weasel.

Remember the late Senator Paul Tsongas? He was running in the 1992 Democratic party presidential primaries against Bill Clinton. Tsongas accused Clinton (the real Clinton, not to be confused with wife Hillary who is often referred to as Clinton even in articles, which also mention Bill and completely confuse the reader just to make some pointless feminist point) of being a panderer. Soon after that Tsongas displayed a stuffed panda bear to emphasise his point. Bill Clinton had become a panda before becoming the world champ weasel we came to know, especially during the sex scandal that lead to his impeachment. Yes, he was impeached but not convicted. Barack Obama has made that double metamorphosis so smoothly that many have not noticed. I think that Bill Clinton has noticed. That may be the real reason that Bill is sulking. Barack has succeeded him as world champ weasel without paying any penalty. Sucking up to Hillary is bad enough but this whole help the Clintons retire their campaign debt idea is sickening. Plus, could Obama weasel talk on more issues: guns, death penalty, mortgages, immigration, energy, blah, blah, blah. I cannot stand this guy any more. I cannot stand Hillary even more but I cannot stand the guy who so recently seemed like a breath of fresh air and now is stinking up the joint. Obama even messed up his response to Ralph Nader's criticisms. Based on Obama's comments you would think that Hillary Clinton is Abe Lincoln and Nader is some low life. Their respective contributions to humanity are not even in the same league. A vote for Ralph in the general election is possible. At least I can still stand him.

Message to Hillary Clinton

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/help/contact/Default.aspx Hillary, leave the planet. You have made the country safe for Laura Bush to run for president. You are delusional: Bosnia gun fire, glass ceiling (we ALL vote), gender bias against you, etc. I live in New York. Either go back to work representing me in the Senate or go away. Forget VP, secretary of state, Supreme Court, Secretary General of UN, Pope, ... You are delusional about your own importance. Message to Obama http://my.barackobama.com/page/st/contact2 I donated to the Obama campaign. I am outraged at reports that Obama is considering sending money to Hillary Clinton to help retire her debt. If you do that, return my donation. I live in New York but am so disgusted with Hillary Clinton that I will not vote for her for anything, including vice president. There's always: http://www.votenader.org/

Message to Obama

http://my.barackobama.com/page/st/contact2 I donated to the Obama campaign. I am outraged at reports that Obama is considering sending money to Hillary Clinton to help retire her debt. If you do that, return my donation. I live in New York but am so disgusted with Hillary Clinton that I will not vote for her for anything, including vice president. There's always: http://www.votenader.org/

What do the Clintons know about Obama?

Do the Clintons know something about Obama that the rest of us do not know? I have this creepy feeling that they have some doomsday knowledge that can destroy his candidacy but that even they are reluctant to release it, even indirectly. Is that why Hillary remains a candidate when she can only get the Democratic party nomination if Obama implodes. A sudden downfall by Obama seems unlikely. Do the Clintons have insider knowledge? What could it be? Something worse than an extra marital affair, child out of wedlock, homosexuality, financial corruption. These seem quaint by current post Monica standards. Is Obama really a Muslim? He could probably explain away even that. But what if he really is the Manchurian candidate? I have wondered about that for some time. Or maybe he murdered another child while growing up in Indonesia. It would have to be something way out. What do the Clintons know? Maybe nothing. Maybe something.

Reverand Jeremiah Wright

April 28, 2008

by

Kenneth Matinale

In the 1977 Woody Allen movie "Annie Hall" Woody's character, Alvy Singer, is having a flashback in which he is nine years old encountering an old guy at a family event. The old guy's character is Joey Nichols who goes through a bunch of embarrassing stuff to impress upon the young Alvy that his last name can be remembered by thinking of the five cent piece. Joey Nichols even puts the coins on his own face. After Alvy turns away he mutters to himself, "What an asshole". That was my continuous thought last night as I watched on CNN Reverend Jeremiah Wright speak live and unedited to a large gathering of the NAACP. I also thought there goes Indiana.

How could Barack Obama have listened to this moron for twenty years? If I had heard this before the New York presidential primary, would I have voted for Obama? I cannot imagine the Pope sounding like this, nor even a Catholic parish priest. Maybe the problem is that Protestant clergy in many cases are independent operators. If a parish priest had spoken with the prideful ignorance, smugness, arrogance, and disdain of Jeremiah Wright, the priest would have been called in by his pastor and reprimanded and possibly punished or reassigned. If the pastor had done it, his bishop would have taken action. As mentioned no pope in my memory has ever spoken this way. If someone must shout at the audience, then he must not have much to say. Even Black Muslims would have disciplined a rogue speaker as they did with Malcolm X.

But it appears that Jeremiah Wright is not as much of a rogue as we might first think. Black commentators immediately made excuses. Black members of his congregation do not appear to have been upset in the past. Some white Protestant groups also approve of their clergy engaging in sectarian speech from the pulpit. Americans have the right to free speech and free religion but should the two be combined when American clergy are receiving free tax exemptions? When will blacks become embarrassed by guys like this? When will they have the social ability to express their embarrassment? Part of this is style and part is substance. Preening jackasses seem out of place in the pulpit and it is difficult for a preening jackass to say anything worth listening to. So what the heck was Barack Obama listening to ... for twenty years? Why did Obama feel compelled to bond with his American blackness in this way? And why did Obama not bond with his American whiteness in a similar way?

Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not going away. He has a book planned for release this year. Before election day? This nobody is having his day in the sun and it's all about him. He could care less about how he impacts Barack Obama's candidacy or the aspirations of millions of young American blacks who must be embarrassed by Wright and just want him to go away. Immediately and completely. It's time for a new generation of Americans, black and white. Please.

Hillary the Bobble Head

I've noticed that Hillary Clinton in her increasingly strained efforts to project some sort of persona has evolved into a satire of a bobble head. With her ever increasing bulk, made more apparent in her bright pink or yellow jackets, she mugs an enlarged false smile with eyes practically bulging out of her head. Then she agrees with herself by nodding her head up and down. She looks more ridiculous than any Hillary bobble head that I could find on the web. Her perfunctory supporters placed in view behind her, of course, nod too. With Hillary's influence they appear to be her bobble head pips, you know, like Gladys Knight. The whole crowd is bobble heading to Hillary's screaming. She must think screaming is presidential. The other candidates nod in agreement with themselves, too, but they lack the comic value that Senator Clinton has achieved, probably because she is not a natural politician like her husband and must work at even the most elementary matters. Nod on, Senator Clinton! You can corner the bobble head vote.

Government should not pay for political party voting

by

Kenneth Matinale

The Democratic party is going into its usual wimp mode because of Florida and Michigan. It was made clear in the fall of 2007 that the schedule of presidential primaries would be determined by the national party, not by individual state organizations. The rules were set. Many states tried to make their primaries or caucuses early in the process to gain influence. The national party held to the old part of the schedule that kept the Iowa caucuses first and the new Hampshire primary second. I don't like giving so much weight to such odd states but that was the rule. Florida and Michigan should not be given what they sought: increased influence with a do-over, in this case far more influence by being the last than if they had been the earliest. Both Florida and Michigan defied the national party and moved their events earlier. The penalty was that the delegates would not be seated at the convention that the party is trying so hard to keep meaningless by settling on a winner well before that. Denying a state its delegates is the only way to maintain discipline. If the national party caves in, watch what happens in 2012. Without adequate sanctions it will be chaos.

However, voters are not being disenfranchised because this a party vote, not a general election. It seems mainstream only because it involves one of the two major parties that set the rules in each of the fifty states. If it were the Communist party, Nazi party, Ku Klux Klan party nobody would be concerned if party members were denied delegates. In terms of access to the state voting machinery there is no difference.

Political parties may have arbitrary rules for membership and process. They are not part of the government. They may limit membership on race, creed, gender, national origin, sexual orientation. Their nominating process may be by party bosses, convention, primary, caucus, lottery, bribe. Who cares? They are not part of the government. To expect fair voting rules and procedures is silly.

Why should any party be allowed to use state general election resources for selecting candidates for any office? The current debate concerning Florida and Michigan illustrates the arrogance of the two major parties. The Republican governor of Florida is merely making mischief in trying to set policy that only effects the Democratic party. The actions of any party are private matters. The parties should pay for their processes using their own resources, not those of the government. The fact that the parties have been getting away with this for so long is a disgrace and should be stopped immediately. See my post: Electing the President: a new system.

Obama by Kenneth Matinale March 10, 2008

I had intended to vote for former Senator John Edwards in the February 5 New York presidential primary but Edwards dropped out before then. I was not nuts about the Edwards message about saving unsavable jobs but I figured that he was most likely to stand up to corporate interests, for the weak against the powerful. Obama was my second choice, Hillary last. She annoyed me a lot sooner than Obama did. Obviously, I have not drunk the Obama Kool-Aid. I was calling Obama the Manchurian Candidate long before it was mentioned in the New York Times. In the immortal words of Maxwell Smart: "There was a book?" Apparently there was a novel by Richard Condon and then a play by John Lahr then the two movies: 1962 and 2004. The plot changes a bit but the basic idea is that bad guys capture and brainwash an American soldier, turn him into an assassin with his mother as his handler for the purpose of making the mother's husband/soldier's step father (1962) or the soldier assassin himself (2004) president of the United States to be controlled by outside forces: Chinese communists (1962), an evil corporation: Manchurian Global (2004). Of course, McCain and Hillary could also be Manchurian Candidates. McCain was a prisoner of war for five years. That's got to mess with your brain. And Hillary could be multiple characters all rolled into one: the mother and candidate. In her case, she may have done the mother thing as Bill's wife. How creepy is that? My basic concern about Obama: who is this guy? He just showed up and he wants to be in charge. He grew up where? Indonesia? I am almost finished his memoir, "Dreams from My Father". I couldn't wait for him to get out of Chicago and get to Kenya. At least he plays basketball. We need big, fundamental change. Hillary is the least likely to deliver anything but incrementalism ... like Bill. Even McCain is more likely to shake things up. And why is she yelling so much? Reagan didn't yell. He was the first politician I noticed delivering a public speech in a normal tone of voice. McCain doesn't yell either, nor the incumbent Bush. Raising one's voice in a controlled way can be very effective in a public speech but it is not required since Reagan did away with it. Obama does it well with the proper timber in his voice. Kennedy did it very well. Others have raised their voices a moderate level: Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter (not well), Bush the elder, Bill Clinton (not bad but a ragged voice). Obama is a risk. His experience is so limited. But he is such a quick learner. I am concerned that he is a bit of an intellectual dilettante. If he is not elected president I could see him dropping out. I do not see him slogging through Senate minutia waiting for another opportunity in four or eight years. But such opportunities do not come often and he is right to seize his. We have seen potentially great presidents do their Hamlet routine and not take the risk: Mario Cuomo and Colin Powell. Obama has been a weasel like the others. He favors the right to bear arms. He attacked NAFTA because Hillary suddenly did it to win the Ohio primary; those Ohioans went against their own interests in 2004 because Bush had them lathered up about homosexual marriage. Obama makes me cringe when he discusses people crossing our borders illegally by stating we would have to have all our law enforcement people stop enforcing any other laws in order to apprehend those breaking into America. Barack, come on, how dishonest is that? Part of the process is to deal with the process. We want a president who can handle the rough stuff. Obama needs to do that without being a weasel and without being dishonest. He needs to be presidential. Obama. His name would send a message to the third world. His face would send a message to everyone and might finally end the racial tension in America. What other country has come this far where we are close to electing a person with a black African father? Even though Obama is not the descendant of African-Amercan slaves he could free their children from a heritage of bondage and second class citizenship. Obama being Obama sends a message of hope, reconciliation and a new direction for our great country. We need someone to say: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". We need someone to pull the sword from the stone. I voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 New York presidential primary. I contributed to his campaign.

Women: separate but equal?

by

Kenneth Matinale

March 1, 2008

As far as I can tell the only two bastions of segregation remaining in American society are women's sports and the entertainment awards. The Academy Awards were recently given for best actor and best actress. Whenever I hear women refer to their craft they use the word actor, not actress. They make a point of indicating that they are equal to men. However, they continue to accept the old gender segregation when awards are distributed. Oddly this is only for acting, not directing, writing, etc. Why? Maybe because that doubles the number of awards for acting. Is gender relevant in evaluating acting skills and performances? Why not demand it for directing? Writing?

Sports is the other remaining oddity. There are school teams, meaning any gender may join. There also are women's teams, which are restricted by gender. In professional tennis and golf there are separate brackets for each gender.

The rationale given is that women would not be able to qualify and compete with men and therefor would be denied participation. Most people would not be able to compete with good athletes. Why are women singled out? And why is pool (pocket billiards) segregated? Pool is hardly athletic competition. The Supreme Court Cases Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, KS in 1954-1955 declared "separate but equal" to be intrinsically unequal and thus unconstitutional overturning Plessy v. Furguson 1896, which upheld racial segregation under the doctrine of "separate but equal". Yet to mention this to a woman is to risk ridicule and scorn. There is no risk of rational response. Women want their cake (Brown) and eat it too (Plessy).

If you substituted any other arbitrary description of people for the word woman/women it would be obviously offensive and unacceptable: the Jewish U.S. tennis champion, the University of Tennessee black basketball team, the homosexual New York marathon winner. The New York marathon officials go so far as to set up a "separate but equal" finishing tape for women to break when the first woman crosses the finish line and God help any man runner who is near that event; he will be tackled and removed from view to preserve the pristine moment of female triumph.

What the heck is the WNBA (Woman's National Basketball Association)? Are young girls to aspire to one day play for a WNBA team? Should my niece want to play for the New York Liberty or the New York Knicks? She should want to play on a team in the best league, not in some concocted and segregated organization. What is the lesson to be learned by young girls? That they can only succeed if they are provided a separate environment? When they look for a job should they look in these companies: WIBM, WAT&T, WCoca-Cola? Such companies do not exist, nor should they, any more than the WNBA and segregated tennis and golf should exist.

Pro tennis is further differentiated by gender: men must win three of five sets, women two of three. Are women too weak to play five sets? They do not complain about this but do complain about not receiving equal pay for less work in a segregated field. Perhaps the real victim is our ability to think rationally. I do not know any woman who shares my view. That could mean that I am incorrect. It could also be that women are locked into a frame of mind similar to that of the "separate but equal" people who may have been well meaning back in 1896. The segregation of women in sports and entertainment is maintained by a mind that is set and unwilling to reason.

Stop Using Petroleum: (Don't buy a new car unless it has a plug)

January 21, 2008 This is both an environmental issue and a national security issue. We need to deal with climate change. If the change is not as big a problem as it now seems, we get a cleaner environment. There's no downside. We need to make petroleum producing countries irrelevant. They want to return to the middle ages. Let them.

There are two ways that this can be accomplished:

1. Top down. The federal government, maybe even the president, finally says: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Outlaw the use, sale, production and anything else we can think of doing with petroleum. Do it over one year starting with the beginning of spring; that gives people time to prepare for winter. No exemptions. No gradual process. It is supposed to be a shock that will change behavior and the economics of energy and transportation. Leave the rest to the free market. This should outrage and hurt pretty much everybody. Doing it nice is not getting it done. The Republican candidates for president want to find more domestic oil. WRONG! We need to stop using ALL petroleum. The Democratic candidates for president want to massage it to death; Hillary Clinton, the queen of gradualism, wants to reduce by two thirds foreign (no mention of domestic) oil by the year 2030. Hillary and most of the other candidates will be dead by then. This is typical pass the buck.
We need action NOW!

2. Bottom up. Number one is not politically likely given the lack of integrity of the candidates. They won't even increase the tax on a gallon of gasoline by ten dollars to force a decrease in consumption. They all know or should know that corn based ethanol is not effective. But because of the Iowa caucuses none of them will say it. In fact they support it. We need to take over this issue. No, not by the usual crowd of incredibly ineffective environmental people who drive to the save the planet meetings in their pollution mobiles. Regular every day people need to WAKE UP and change things NOW. Stop waiting for some candidate to convince you that he/she will do anything different. Force the issue.

Here is what we need to do:

1. Repeatedly tell both our elected officials and the leaders of the auto industry, both foreign and domestic, that we will not buy any new vehicles unless they have a plug. That means plug-in hybrid at the very least, preferably all electric. Forget hydrogen. Bush pushing it confirms that is is merely a delaying tactic. Take a year off. No car sales for a year should get their attention.

2. Reduce driving. Close the damn stores one day a week. It won't kill us. Let your kids ride bikes to soccer practice instead of driving them everywhere. With fewer cars on the road you won't be as irrationally panicked. OK, you get the idea.

3. Push the utility companies to dramatically increase their capacity to produce and deliver electricity. ALL power should be based on electricity. Produce it with wind, sun, hydro, whatever. Nuclear if we need to. Not coal. Clean coal is clean filth and just an excuse for the candidates to pander to another power group. Utility companies need to make it much easier for us to sell electricity to them from multiple locations and sources: electric car batteries, home solar and wind products, etc.

4. Trains! We need to develop the best train transportation in the world. We have the resources and the space. Inter-city travel should be primarily by train, not airplane. High speed, high tech trains. Many should carry our new electric cars. The federal government must provide the stimulus. The investment in infrastructure is too great to expect that private companies will initiate the projects needed.

5. Plastics. Stop buying those stupid packages that are ten times the size of the product and which mangle your fingers trying to open them. Plastic comes from petroleum and increases waste.

*** The End ***

Electing the President: a new system

by

Kenneth Matinale

The 2008 primary and caucus circus has shown us that selecting nominees for president by the two major political parties is much worse than the electoral college system for the general election. I propose a simple fair system that combines the nominating and general elections.

The objective is for an American citizen to get forty percent of the votes cast. If two citizens get forty percent then obviously the one with the higher percent becomes president elect.

There would be at most three national elections. The first person to get forty percent becomes president elect. All elections may be one day, a weekend, a week, whatever. Voting would be online and the system could be used by states to elect members of the House or Senate at their discretion. Most states would use it for Congressional elections as it eliminates cost.

1. July 4 - Independence Day. What better time to start the process? The top four vote getters advance to the second round, unless of course someone gets forty percent and becomes president elect.

It is around the time of the first party convention. The Republican and Democratic parties swap having their conventions: one in July and the other in August. Since both are petrified to have the nominee actually selected at the convention this election would only be an improvement. The major parties can act before this to settle on a candidate to eliminate votes being splintered among multiple candidates and having all shutout of the next round. They can continue to jerk around with conventions, primaries, caususes, back room selections, ... However, people may vote for anyone. Third party candidates and those completely independent can receive votes. The major parties can be ignored. Ralph Nader and Mike Bloomberg would have a chance. An incumbent president might get the forty percent and end it.

2. Early September - Labor Day. The final four are on the ballot, although we could allow write-ins. Two will advance unless someone gets forty percent. Then it's over.

If the process were in place in 2008, the two finalists could be from the same party, say Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, eliminating John McCain and Mike Huckabee.

3. First week in November. This would be pretty much like what we have now but without the silly electoral college, winner take all nonsense.

Simple and fair. Easy to understand and implement.

Immigration: the solution

By Kenneth Matinale

May 16, 2006

1. Raise the minimum wage significantly and ENFORCE it.

2. Enact national health care for all U.S. citizens.

This is in addition to the obvious stuff:

1. deport illegal aliens and put them on the end of the line;
2. solve two problems at once by bringing our troops home from Iraq and have them protect the borders, especially along the wall that should be built between the U.S. and Mexico.

Yes, the United States Army, not the national guard, not the border patrol, should be used to protect the nation’s borders. That’s as basic as it gets when it comes to national security and defense. Change or remove any laws that may preclude this such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It would also be helpful to treat Mexico as an antagonist, not as an ally. Mexico has no incentive to stop the flow of its most disadvantaged citizens into the U.S. Stop pretending that it does and stop trying to not offend the Mexican ruling elite. How about a Radio Free Mexico program to incite the poor Mexicans to petition the Mexican government to address their grievances, rather than illegal aliens rallying in the U.S. Until the economic system in Mexico is changed, Mexicans will continue to flow into the U.S. Mexico has natural resources. It needs to distribute the wealth.

We also need a national database of all U.S. citizens and of all persons in the U.S. The president’s idea about an ID card for aliens only is a distraction as are all of the rest of his proposals on immigration. His only concern is to continue to allow his rich friends to exploit the aliens as cheap labor who have no rights.

The business people claim that they do not know if a worker is illegal. Sure they do. If the worker is willing to work for much less pay, that worker is illegal. Raise the pay and Americans will do the work. Have the government pay for health care and the business owners will not have that expense.

President Bush proposes an ID card but only for aliens, not for U.S. citizens. That won’t work. If a person states that he/she is a U.S. citizen, how will the employer know that the person is not lying? Will the employer request documentation? That will be fun. Americans have been conditioned to irrationally resist a national ID card or database with unexplained elliptical emotional metaphors such as 1984, black helicopters, Nazis, Communists, Waco. You name it. We currently rely on state drivers licenses. Great, national security based on the competence of the motor vehicle department. Times 50.

Bush basically indicates that the problem is that illegal aliens do not have papers. His solution is to give them papers. That’s no solution. That’s obfuscation.

Republican business owners are intrinsically opposed to illegal immigration. However, twenty years ago they realized that they had entered pig business heaven: cheap labor that they had only dreamed of. For them the current system of exploitation is better than slavery, which was one of many forms of cheap labor as were indentured servitude, serfdom, etc. As opposed to slavery, the business people do not need to house, feed, or clothe the illegal aliens; nor do they need to wait years for the young slaves to grow and become productive. They also do not need to buy slaves: no capital investment. They can get rid of them quickly and completely by contacting the border patrol to remove them, sometimes without even paying them. Of course employers do not pay social security, health care, workers compensation, etc. This system is an opiate for these Republican business people. They try to resist but they cannot. They are addicted. It trumps all their biases.

How about toughening and then enforcing the law against hiring illegal aliens? And add this: deport the employers along with the workers.

The Constitution needs to be amended in three ways.

Amendment XIV (14)

Section 1.

"All persons born ... in the United States ... are citizens of the United States"

This is being abused. Change it to require that at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen for the child to be a citizen.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Change person to citizen.

Section 2.

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons"

Change persons to citizens. This is the most fundamental mistake in the Constitution.

Later "inhabitants" should be changed to citizens.

The only way to remove the business advantage of hiring illegal aliens rather than American citizens is to:

1. Raise the minimum wage significantly and ENFORCE it.
2. Enact national health care for all U.S. citizens.

______________________________________________

Mass Transit


Sunday, November 18, 2001

President Bush and Senators Schumer and Clinton:

Please read “Connect the Connectors” (Mass Transit) by Alex Marshall, The New York Times Magazine, page 106, Sunday, November 11, 2001. The basic point is this.

“Last year, Washington lavished $12.5 billion on air travel, $33.4 billion on highways and a mere $520 million on Amtrak. This is a ridiculous imbalance, all the more so when you factor in the $15 billion that went to prop up the airlines after Sept. 11. It’s also dangerous. Relying so much on air travel is what military planners call a lack of necessary redundancy.”

Obviously, this could also mean less dependence on oil, especially foreign oil. Finally, it would reduce pollution and improve quality of life.

Kenneth Matinale

10 Stewart Place, 2CE
White Plains, NY 10603

Irag War

October 10, 2002

To: Senators Schumer, Clinton and Rep. Sue Kelly

CC: George Walker Bush

Vote NO on war.

CIA letter to Congress:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10INTE.html?todaysheadlines

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. against the United States," Mr. Tenet's letter read, referring to chemical and biological weapons. "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."

_______________________________________________________________

How many American lives are you willing to lose to accomplish what appear to be unnecessary and imprecise goals against Iraq? Against Syria? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Wouldn’t they be next?

The best way to reduce U.S. involvement in the middle east and vulnerability to terrorist attack is to reduce U.S. use of oil by conservation and development of alternate energy sources.

How many American lives is that oil worth? If we could save American lives by conserving energy, why shouldn’t we do it?

Show some backbone.

P.S. I was appalled that the president chose to address the nation about war, not from the oval office, but before a cheering partisan audience. Take him to task.

Pets are slaves
by
Kenneth Matinale

February 18, 2008

Free slave animals, a.k.a., pets. There is no euphemism applied to human slaves that cannot be applied to animal slaves. If you "own" a pet, you own a slave.

They have been subjected to breeding that results in dogs with horribly short legs, dogs that fight and attack, etc.

They are transported in cars in ways that would have the driver arrested if they were children: seated on the driver's lap (great air bag), with head hanging out the window (great for decapitation), unrestrained (no seat belt - what they cannot go flying?).

They are neutered.

Their young are taken away.

They are handled and played with as if they were toys.

Animals like all this? Perhaps some human slaves liked their treatment. It was still slavery. It is the natural order of things? White humans dominated blacks, men dominated women? That was the natural order, too, or so we thought.