all Sorts

Are you an independent?

2010-10-29T11:10:00.000-07:00

Independents should start thinking independently, especially when proposition 19 is concerned.

Medical Marijuana, From Practical to Tactical: How the debate has lost compassion

2010-10-16T13:03:00.000-07:00

          One recent report by the Rand Corporation was developed by their Rand Drug Policy Research Center. The title of the Report is called "Altered State: Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets." This report, and others that have built their arguments based on its findings, emphasize tactical reasons for thinking twice about supporting prop 19. The practical purpose for voting to pass prop 215 or providing the legal protection for citizens that use marijuana as a medication came from, compassion. The practical thing to do was to vote "YES" for prop 215 because nature provided a variety of marijuana plants that alleviated the discomforts of people with ailments. That compassionate purpose has now been replaced by, tactical reasoning, or gaining tax revenues for the state. At least, tactics, is the emphasis of these reports and in the debates over this issue.   So, have Californians lost compassion? The polls indicate that support for prop 19 is holding but the narrative, which the media and the Rand Corporation prefer to repeat, is to concentrate on tactical reasoning, or collecting taxes, why? Lets get passed the obvious reason that the state needs revenue.

          The titled of the report is a play on a film titled Altered States, “…a 1980 American science fiction film adaptation of a novel of the same name by playwright and screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky. Edward Jessup (William Hurt) is a university professor of abnormal psychology who, while studying schizophrenia, begins to think that our other states of consciousness are as real as our waking states. Jessup begins experimenting with sensory-deprivation using a flotation tank, and he travels to Mexico to participate in what is apparently an Ayahuasca Ceremony.”
          “Banisteriopsis caapi, also known as Ayahuasca, Caapi or Yage, is a South American jungle vine of the family Malpighiaceae. It is used to prepare Ayahuasca, a decoction that has a long history of entheogenic uses as a medicine and "plant teacher" among the indigenous peoples of the Amazon Rainforest."

Marijuana --- the Rand Corps warns against listening to the "plant Teacher."
        The title of the report suggests that legalization of Marijuana will alter the state of California physically and also alter our collective, civic conscious or sense of who we are as Californians, as individuals and as members of the Republic. The facts in these reports were created by information that is available to the public but not information that the DEA has or other government agencies have which may indicate alternative data. That data, if released to the public, is a security risk. When the Rand Corp creates reports like "Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in

Mexico

: Would Legalizing Marijuana in California help" or "Altered State," that suggest that the sales of Mexican pot in California only amounts to 1.5 billion and not the $18 to $39 that others have estimated, their numbers (Rand Corps') are based on obsolete data. The authors of these reports themselves admit that it is not possible to estimate the profits of the Mexican drug cartels. The authors further admit that their study is limited to a small portion of the south-west and to a limited scope of information or data that the DEA or other law enforcement agency and government agencies feel the public is welcome to examine because the information was gathered using methods known to the general public or are not a security risk. Other secret methods with different data exist that the public does not have access to and neither does Rand Corp.

Rands' report "Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in

Mexico

: Would Legalizing Marijuana in California help" is based on the information established in “Altered State.” That tittle is a coded message warning the reader to think twice because the use of marijuana or a YES vote for prope 19, like the use of the sensory-deprivation tanks in the movie, will eventually lead to the use of "Ayahuasca" or the decoction or hard drugs. This implies the old "gateway drug" argument which falsely accuses the use of Marijuana as leading to "hard drugs." California will be led down a dark path and is that what we want?

          The implication is also that the use of this herb is part of an abnormal state of being which comes from a mysterious place like the Amazon Rainforst. In other words the legalization legislation is equated to the exotic mysterious and unknown dangers one finds in the rainforst which is not a natural environment for north Americans, specifically, those citizens that did not immigrate from tropical climates. People who normally immigrate from the tropical climates are not Euro-Americans and, so, a connection is implied between prop 19 and the exotic, rituals of racially different people. This is pitting Euro-American citizens and non Euro-American citizens on a symbolic and real divide as far as this issue is concerned.

          In fact, The NAACP and Latino citizen organizations are supporting legalization or prop 19 because of the disproportionate amount of members from the African-American and the Latino community who are incarcerated on marijuana related issues. From the report that Rand put out recently one would not know that tid-bit of information. The League of United Latin American Citizens of California and the NAACP held a conference where Alice Huffman said that these two communities have been disproportionately populating the prisons for “having a joint” On the other side of the legalization Sheriff Lee Baca is concerned that our youth will suffer “memory loss” and suffer other health issues. Many Cannabis clubs are against prop 19 because Cities and counties will “over regulate” the growth, distribution, and sales according to George Mull of the California Cannabis Association. (channel 7 Eyewitness News, October 12).

          In equating the use of marijuana with sensory-deprivation and the inability to tell one reality from the other the authors of the Rand reports turned the use of Marijuana into the dangerous ritual of the dark, exotic, jungle other people. Kilmer and his gang of trustees sculpt a report that targets the pressure points of fiscally conservative Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party and Independents who may lean towards favoring legalization and voting for this bill but only if it served the budgetary responsibilities of the state. It may not have been an intentional targeting, but, the effects of indicating that the price of pot is going to fall by eighty percent after legalization would scare the pants off of any fiscal conservative that hoped to bring in the pot dough to fill the municipal coffers.

The chart below was the model of the world of post legalization of marijuana, its farming, processing, and distribution, as imagined by Kilmer and crew, but also sets a framework for how California leadership should think of the process of legalization. The model is based on the imagined sales of a grow house – like seen in the popular HBO program “Weeds” – where a grower fills the house with pot plants. The report that Rand Corp just released

wants to provide a “…better understanding of how marijuana legalization in California could influence DTOs (Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations) revenues and the Violence in Mexico. We focus on gross revenues from export and distribution to wholesale markets near the southwestern U.S. border. DTOs also generate revenue from operations further down the distribution chain in the United States. It is difficult to assess how much they make from domestic (U.S.) distribution, and it is unclear how this would change post legalization because distribution would become legal only for one drug in one state.” P(3)
          The problem for the Rand Corps Group or the "RCG" is that they forgot to include the possibility that DTOs also have grow houses that are within the U.S. and networked into U.S. domestic gangland operations. Not to mention that domestic gangs setup grow houses for themselves too and sell the pot they grow legitimately through pot clubs. The report assumes that DTOs and gangsters do not have the technical expertise to grow hydroponics or other indoor grown varieties: does anyone really believe that? Lets not forget that DTOs grow outdoor pot in California too: the RCG forgot that point.

        The idea that indoor pot is a better medication alternative than pot grown outside is an assumption. Sinsemilla grown in the tropical and sub-tropical areas of South-America are known to be very effective at relieving individuals of their ailments. Outdoor pot grown in most places of California rivals or matches the quality of indoor pot or hybrid plants. The RCG failed to include this idea which indicates that their would continue to be a market for American outdoor Sinsemilla products.
          In fact, because of the tax regulatory scheme that the RCG suggest (taxing THC levels), the incentive will shift to grow less effective pot, that looks and smells like a hi-grade but patients have to smoke twice as much or more to feel the effects. This watering down of pot is already happening. The cost to the patient will not drop while the THC levels of their medication does drop. What this leads to is the patient returning to the clubs more often because they've used up their medication/pot sooner. This gives patients the impression that they are smoking more pot to become high more often, when in fact, they are smoking more pot to taken in an effective amount of THC.  This burns through their supply faster and brings the client back into the pot club to purchase the next round sooner.

Rand uses an unrealistic model of the anatopot agriculture to assess the effectiveness of Legalization

Lets look at the anatomy of the debate as of this date.

Proposition Nineteen --- or prop 19 is a “Hot button issue “ In California the bill is called the Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. The gist of the bill is as fallows,

A. It would make Marijuana legal to use for recreation but regulate and control the substance: just like Alcohol.

B. Because the U.S is the world largest consumer and one third of the citizens have used the herb for one reason or another we should start to control its use. Marijuana is healthier than alcohol and tobacco. The war on pot has failed, laws criminalizing marijuana have not worked and so laws legalizing it would put dangerous dealers out of business.

C. Money, the measure would tax pot like Alcohol and tobacco creating a flow of tax revenue for the state and create a legal regulatory framework for cultivation, distribution and sales.

Against or those apposing Prop 19 fear that the public safety is at stake or bus drivers, taxi drivers train operators, could drive under the influence on the job, employers would not be able to test for marijuana and employees could taking pot breaks. Advertising near schools, libraries and parks would send the wrong message to kids not to mention the loss of Federal grants to schools and fear that pot could be grown in backyards. If the "no on prop 19" group think, that the state can not regulate the sale and distribution of pot then their same logic pertains to the sale and distribution of beer. This same group is quick to add that citizens should not compile their problems by legalizing pot, but, that assumes that people are not already using pot who want to use pot. The Rand Corporations' report based an increase in the use of pot by calculating the increase based on an analysis of cigarette use:

“there is no truly satisfying estimate of this “total price elasticity” in the marijuana literature. For, tobacco, the total elasticity is roughly 1.5 or 2 times as large as the participation elasticity (Harris and Chan, 1999: Chaloupka and Grossman, 1996; Hu st all., 1995 Lewit and Coate, 1981). Thus, in the absence of Marijuana-specific information, we multiply our participation elasticity -0.3 by 1.75 to proxy the total elasticity. After accounting for the possible income effect, we settle on a baseline total price elasticity of -0.54. (7)

        The lower price of "....pot will make kid smoke it because Marijuana is analogous to cigarettes? Cigarettes are an addictive substance while Marijuana is not and that fact is in the “marijuana literature.” (7)

         The sale of Marijuana legally takes the illegal sale out of the hands of the drug dealer and the profits. Do we want people that need marijuana to buy it from drug dealers on the streets? Those individuals that currently smoke all the pot they want, because they can afford it, will not increase their use. Pot is not the addictive substance that cigarettes are. The state is not doing its job keeping beer away from kids but citizens decided long ago that it was up to the individual and their family to make the choice to stay away from using these substances. For this reason prohibition of alcohol was overturned: violence was reduced and taxes were collected.

          Opponents of prop 19 fear that people will be driving stoned and citizens are taking a tremendous risk because of the loopholes, Yes, the loopholes! This law is full of holes! Haven't you heard?
The law allows people to smoke pot before they get into their cars, no limits, no standards for what constitutes over the limit or under the influence. The Regulate Control, and Tax Cannabis (RCTC) or prop 19 legalizes the use of Marijuana for individuals over the age of twenty one, 21. According to Rand “In march 200 the DMV “changed its rules so participants in the medical-marijuana program could be issued a driver’s license; the restrictions imposed were the same faced by any other individual who is prescribed a psychological active drug” (Altered States, 26) Driving under the influence is against the law already and the appearance of the freeways will not change from what it appeared like today. So, lets drop that issue, please, I hope the Main Stream Media is reading.

        Rand Corp presented their findings to the California Legislation, and highlighted the affects of marijuana consumption and budget issues related, so, lets look at some facts.

          One club in Oakland made up to 21 million dollars in sales, remember, that is just one club, and it paid 3 million in Taxes. The clubs in Oakland work with the city as partners instead of fighting each other like the status-quo in many other places expect these two parties to act. This industry has something to offer the cities that the drug cartel do not, control of the product, money and tax revenues. The RCG countered by calculating that the price of pot before sales tax will fall by eighty percent after legalization. However, those calculations are based on an imagined community. The presentation to the California State assembly by Beau Kilmer titled “Insights on the effects of Marijuana Legalization on Prices and Consumption” was a report that relied on the facts laid out in another report titled “Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence: Would Legalization In California Help,” which in turn is based on “Altered States.” What this means is that the California assembly was being presented a report emphasizing not to let the dangerous, mind altering rituals, of exotic dark other people become law and change who we are as a state.
          The imagined “ grow house” of the Rand Corp. Group (RCGs) has a “production model where a 1,500 square foot residential house is essentially filled with hydroponics…” The plants are “…growing under artificial light, producing four harvest per year with a total yield of a little under 550 pound per year of sinsemilla. (Caulkins, 2010)” As a result of this study, Subha Ravindhran, of “Eyewitness News / HD” thought it was important to point out that Californians liked home grown pot, so, the Mexican drug cartels would hardly feel a thing “…regardless supporters of the measure are still rallying behind the prop…” This is a good example of how the media failed to read the report accurately. The report does suggest that drug lords will have to move their pot to other areas of the country where a black market for pot will still exist: that sounds right.

Why wouldn’t Californians want to vote for a proposition that moves crime and costs associated with a black market some where else?

Why would California turn into the exporter of pot after the bill is past but is not currently exporting pot to other states? After all according to the RCG, only U.S., law abiding, citixens have the Capacity to grow indoor pot.

“Changes in the Mix of Types of Marijuana” is one subtitle of the Rand Corps' “Altered State” report that gives a clue to what is in store for marijuana users.

“Marijuana is consumed in many different forms that very in THC content, ranging from commercial grade (low potency) to domestic mid-grade to high-grade sinsemilla (higher potency), as well other variations. The price per gram is roughly proportional to the THC content(Gierginger, 1994). For example, DEA data show that sinsemilla has about 2.4 times the potency and is a little more than twice as expensive per unit weight as commercial grade(NIDA, 2008). A tax assessed on the weight of the Marijuana(e.g., $50 per once) is higher in terms of dollars per unit of THC or per hour of intoxication for lower-potency forms than for higher potency forms. (an alternative taxation strategy would be to place a tax on the THC itself [and, possibly, regulate its ratio to cannabidol and other components] to discourage the production of more-potent marijuana product; MacCoun, 2010a).” ( Altered States: Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets)

        So, the threat is to the quality of Marijuana and ability of marijuana to alivieate the discomforts of those that need to use pot. This RCG concept discourags the growth of plants with a high THC content and incourages the sale of pot with low levels of THC. What the implication here is amounting to is that voting for this law will ruin the benefits that patients like about Marijuana, so, don’t vote for this law? Wait!

          Look again!, communities could tax the weight and leave the chemistry up to Mother Nature. What the RCG, and the mainstream media, forget is that proposition 215 was passed by voters that wanted to be compassionate and practical. The legislature, the media and the RCG have all forgotten to factor into their debate compassion. The law will allow people over twenty one to grow pot outside in their yards or in their homes and that will help bring the price down like the Rand Corporation agrees the price will fall. Mother nature will take care of the THC content. What Rand Corps also forgot was that many of the people that use pot are the disabled who are on a fixed income. Those people under the current system have to pay too much for pot. Money they can't afford but because medicare or medical does not cover the cost, the pot clubs profit at their expense.

          By legalizing pot parents of people with disability will have the blessing of the State to grow pot for their loved ones instead of watching them pay exuberant prices at the clubs. Clubs like to add that they give people on fixed incomes a price break but that’s not all the clubs and not all the time. Many disabled or people with cancer or Aids do not live in a place that has a yard to grow their own pot and often do not have the physical or financial ability to do so: not everyone has a green thumb.  The threat of a Federal Raid can still deter people from growing pot for family or friends.

          The clubs that do provide the discounts provide a limited break. One club gives a daily 10 percent off to fixed income clients and twice a month they get 25 percent off their purchase. The best pot costs $70 to $80 per eighth (by best I mean the pot that takes care of the ailments and that last an hour in between taking in more THC) which means that even with the discount the client on a fixed income pays too much.
          In other words folks, the disabled are forced to buy the low grade pot and they are the people that need the best pot. A client will usually come in to buy an eighth of pot, with their discount they will still pay roughly $50.00 for their eighth, three times per month and that means they spent $150 of their SSI money. If pot prices fell eighty percent then this group of clients, who Californians wanted to give access to their medication, would benefit. Instead of paying $150 every month for pot, they would pay roughly $66.00 every month for the same amount of pot, or they would get it free from people that grew pot for them around the city. More money in the hands of people means they spend it on other things and the economy corrects itself rather than concentrating so much cash in the hands of the pot clubs.  As of now, if you live in an apartment unless the landlord gives the renter permission to grow marijuana they face eviction. The landlord is afraid of any legal issue that they may have to deal with in the event of a federal raid.

          The idea that the THC content is going to be regulated down is counter to the idea that it is pot that is helping many people that are truly in need and the compassion of Californians. Lets be honest, there are many stoners, able-bodied individuals that benefited after prop 215 past.  The campaign used “Compassion” for those that suffered from cancer, AIDS, and pain from disabilities to sell the proposition to voters. The campaign for prop 215 urged citizens to have compassion and the clubs opened up their doors with the idea of providing that compassion but what happened was something else.

         What happened was (with the exception of one club owner in Oakland) that mostly, able-bodied citizens benefited while the disabled community was left paying high prices for pot. As far as the owners of pot clubs are concerned everyone is disabled and the clients that get into the clubs represent that ideology. The clubs have this ideology because, there are not that many severely disabled clients to sustain the profits that the clubs want, as long as people have to buy pot from them, the prices stay high, the state can tax those greater sales and they make millions.

          Even if pot is legalized the clubs will make money becase not everyone wants to grow and process their own pot,just like peaple in California don't like growing their own grapes to make their own wine. But some people will grow their own and those are the people we want to help. The compassion that you, as a voter had in mind when you voted for proposition 215 in the late 90s, is still needed. By voting yes on prop 19, what you will be doing is giving relatives of the disabled, (relatives who do not like violating laws), the room to feel comfortable about helping a loved one and will grow pot in their yards. A yes vote on prop 19 brings the price of pot down for the disabled and others on fixed incomes and puts that money back into the economy and not just in the hands of the pot clubs. Yes, on prop 19, gives parents and relatives peace of mind because they know that the pot their loved one is smoking did not finance drug cartels or gang members but was grown by their hands.
         There is no way of verifying where the pot that the clubs sell comes from, there is no independent verification that happens, no regulators or grow house inspectors. Sellers drive to the pot clubs and sell them their pot or the clubs just grow it themselves. What often happens is that clubs and growers will shake the THC off of the plant before selling the pot to make the Hash they sell out those same clubs. Not all the THC falls off but the plant losses a great deal of potency. The clients are being sold pot that smells good, looks good but the benefits of the pot only last a short time creating a cycle where the client has to buy more often. The disabled do not have the funds to feed this marketing meat grinder, they need their medication and they do not need it watered down. By advocating or accepting that a tax be laid on THC, leadership would be manipulating the prescription for the client instead of the medical doctor.

Vote yes and end the abuse of the disabled by the pot clubs and the state.
.
Rafael Buelna
Good luck Democrats

Wanted For Murder -- Dead or Alive

2010-06-28T23:38:00.000-07:00

Update -- regarding the murder of Mathew (Mateo) Benjamin Butcher.

Wanted for murder. $200.00 (two hundred dollars) for information regarding the murder of Matt Butcher. If anyone wants to add to this amount , here is what you do first.

Follow this link to the “Ask the Mayor” page and ask him:

1. Why did you shrink the Number of pot dispensaries considering that it was foreseeable that a concentrated number of clubs, with concentrated amounts of cash would increase the chances that these clubs would become targets of crime?

2. Why do you not understand that legal pot means lower prices and that means people on limited incomes can save money, and buy more stuff to make the economy go round and round?

3. Will concentrating the pot clubs in Pacoima, California assure a steady market for distributing Gangster pot?

4. Are you protecting the pot market for gangsters?

5. Why can’t you see that legal pot means that renters and home owners can grow their own pot and/or that legal marijuana farmers, processors, and distributors will put an end to dangerous underground grow houses that are currently under the control of gangsters?

6. Don’t you think that it is ridiculous that pot clubs are blamed for an increase in crime but liquor stores are not?

When he fails to answer your questions then email me at rafaelbuelna2003@yahoo.com and tell me the amount you want to donate and I will keep names confidential and post the increase in the reward as the money comes.

There will be vigil at Eagle Rock High School on Wednesday at 8 p.m. I attended the candle light vigil and people called for the city of Los Angles to put up a reward but I have heard nothing about that happening or not.

There is also a memorial fund starting which people are welcome to donate and the link is at ktla.com. I am throwing in $200.00 of my money to start the reward that I will pay to anyone that gives me information that will lead to the capture of five brutal killers roaming the streets of Los Angles. California who killed, executed Mateo Butcher. Just post the information anonymously if you want.

RafaelBuelna2003@yahoo.com

Wanted Dead or Alive

2010-06-25T11:44:00.000-07:00

Wanted Dead or Alive!

A reward is being collected for the person/s who bring to justice the killers of Mathew Benjamin Butcher. The reward will be paid whether the four killers are dead or alive.

The murderer of Mathew Benjamin Butcher needs to be brought to justice for the sake of his memory, his family and for the work he involved himself with. Matt was a kind person who helped bring pot to those of us who need to use it. Gansters are killing anyone who do not sell marijuana for their crimal network.

There is some pot smoker out there in Los Angeles California who knows something about this murder.

Yesterday a good man was gunned down in cold blood named Matthew Benjamin Butcher, 27, of Los Angeles. Matt worked for a Marijuana dispensary called The Higher Path on Sunset Blvd and when ever I stepped into the pot club he greeted me with kindness and was always ready to chat, hangout, and sell me a great bag of pot.

In fact here is the link to the article that also discusses the other two victims of this crime spree. Let me make this short -- Matt was murdered! Who did it?

Was this just a robbery gone wrong? The use of a knife and ransacking the place indicates a personal and passionate attacker. Was this an execution by gangsters that want to control medical pot?

The club on Sunset had security cameras but the police stated no video was available?

Join me tonight in front of The Higher Path. To remember Matt and the other victims tonight.

But help me collect money to put up a reword for information leading up to the capture of those who murdered Mathew Benjamin Butcher. Help me Los Angeles make an example of these four killers. Send a message to gangsters, that if you kill us, we will hunt you down. Bring me their heads L.A.

Rafael Buelna

A creepy Thing

2010-05-25T22:29:00.000-07:00

OK, I just saw Kate Gosselin from John and Kate plus Eight dance on dancing with the Stars. The creepy part happened when Kate runs up to the camera for an extreme close up and it lasts too long.

I am sure you can find it on YouTube if you want to see creepy that is.

Rafael Buelna

Power, Expansion and Health Reform

2010-03-29T23:19:00.000-07:00

      (Click the title to read a 2008 Government study of the limits to Congressional Power)

      If your interested in the politics of the United States for the next few months or at least until November then read me out. Their are powers reserved for Congress and those are enumerated in the constitution all others belong to the states. The Supreme Court has no precedent for legislation that, like the new health insurance bill, forces a citizen to purchase a product from a private vender. The problem is not the new benefits that the health care bill promises nor the costs, in my opinion, but the possible expansion of powers. Specifically worrisome is the ability to legislate inactivity because a connection can be made to interstate commerce. This is not like making every American donate to their social security retirement plan because that legislation was created via powers enumerated in the constitution for Congress, like the power to wage war, tax etc. Keep in mind that difference between enumerated powers and an expansive interpretation of enumerated powers. States can create mandates but when Congress reaches out to mandate or give incentive it must reach using a tool called the commerce clause: Congress must justify every use of this tool.

             It is my contention that progressives, liberals and even well intended conservatives that assisted in passing (H.R. 3590) or the health care reform bill are trapped within a paradigm but what is needed now is a paradigm shift and quickly. This path to health care reform is leading to an expansion of powers for Congress that in the future could be dangerous for individual rights. A professor once showed me an image but this image appeared in a autostereogram (click here to see a few of these images on line) which at first glance was difficult to identify. In that image there appeared a random assortment of black and white dotes along with black and white splotches which all appeared randomly placed. Without the proper viewing technique it was not easy to see the image of a Dalmatian which the professor pointed out to the class. Once a person has seen the image the viewer can never go back or they cannot un-see the image. So what follows is a different way of looking at the picture of health care reform or insurance reform.

“don’t worry the fines are really taxes” or “if a state can use mandates so can the federal government.” Quotes from The Media

          The issue of mandating health care or penalizing individuals for not participating is not an issue that is going away soon considering cases have already been filed in federal courts. There are plenty of good hearted people that want this issue to go away or are brushing it off as silly but take a closer look and consider what could happen if the Supreme Court decides to hear those cases. The high court could decide that Congress has over reached its powers. The issue is not whether the republicans are hypocrites for filing law suits against the new mandates to purchase health insurance. After all the GOP first brought up this concept of “mandating” the purchase of health care insurance from a private entity years ago during their fight against the Clintons “Hilary Care” in the early 1990s.

          The issue is whether Congress can regulate inactivity using the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. In United States v. Five Gambling Devices, the court stated that "The principle is old and deeply imbedded in our jurisprudence that this Court will construe a statute in a manner that requires decision of serious constitutional questions only if the statutory language leaves no reasonable alternative". The new health care bill mandates purchasing insurance from private venders without a reasonable alternative like a public option or not buying insurance at all which simply means the court just might hear the cases.

Facts. Congress has passed a bill (H.R. 3590) and this new law mandates all citizens to purchase health care coverage from a private insurance company but can only purchase a policy from an insurance company specific for their state. Citizens that refuse to buy insurance are penalized with a fine which is collected by the IRS who will investigate everyone on a monthly bases to assure they comply.

ISSUE -- Does congress have the power to regulate inactivity or does mandating that an individual purchase insurance from a private insurance company exceed the powers granted to Congress by the Interstate Commerce Clause? Is a mandate to buy insurance from a private vender an expansion of power justifiable as a noble purpose?

Rule -- 1 Article one section eight of the constitution states that

“Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; --- To borrow money on the credit of the United States; --- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…”

In United States v. Lopez the court pointed out that there are three broad categories of activity that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause: 1. the channels of interstate commerce, 2. the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, and 3. activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce

Rule -- 2 The tenth amendment of the U.S constitution states that all powers not delegated to the United States Federal government are reserved to the states.

Analysis --   In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld that:

"[E]ven if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as `direct' or `indirect.' " Id., at 125. The Wickard Court emphasized that although the farmers own contribution to the demand for wheat may have been trivial by itself, that was not "enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." Id., at 127-128.

           So, what is happening here is that the farmer was engaged in an activity or he grew and processed wheat for sale and for his own use, the activity was in the physical work. Not buying wheat on the market for his family is not the inactivity that the court was granting congress the power to regulate. Rather the court referred to the activity of growing and processing the extra wheat as that activity which led to not buying wheat on the market. What is crucial to understand here is that it is activity or growing and processing extra wheat which is at issue. If many farmers grew extra wheat for thier own needs and so did not purchase their needs on the market they would cumalitivly effect comerrece.

When an individual is not participating in the health care plan there is not an activity that substantially effects commerce. The individual just does not have health insurance which is unlike the wheat farmer who had his home grown wheat. The farmer supplies his needs at home and does not buy the products on the market which would have an exponential effect if many farmers were involved. The alternative is not to grow the private wheat and purchase on the market but here the alternative is just to take a personal chance. Automobile insurance is different because the person takes a chance with the lives of other people when they drive. In United States v. Lopez, the “…Court, through Chief Justice Marshall, first defined the nature of Congress' commerce power in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 189-190 (1824): "Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse…” Not wanting to participate in the new health care plan is hardly “intercourse.” There are many people that can afford health insurance but do not purchase a policy and just pay their medical bills. How are people that choose to pay their medical bills having a negative effect on interstate commerce and was that what congress intended?

Also in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) the court stated:

“But even these modern era precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits. In Jones & Laughlin Steel, the Court warned that the scope of the interstate commerce power "must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government."

       So, the court finds it important to respect the idea that the constitution wants to limit the federal governments power and the power of states which keeps a distinction between them both. One very important way to do this is by defining “commerce.” The word commerce includes the idea of trade and in order to trade something requires activity. This means that inactivity is too weakly associated with trade and so weakly associated with commerce. Otherwise Congress is asking to regulate things that do not happen in interstate commerce. In Lopez “…our case law has not been clear whether an activity must "affect" or "substantially affect" interstate commerce in order to be within Congress' power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause... the Court has never declared that "Congress may use a relatively trivial impact on commerce as an excuse for broad general regulation of state or private activities. We conclude, consistent with the great weight of our case law, that the proper test requires an analysis of whether the regulated activity "substantially affects" interstate commerce.”

So, lets consider the power of Congress (look under “rule 1: above for the three criteria) to enact a mandate to buy insurance from a private vender in relation to the concept of “substantially affects” commerce. The first two categories of authority may be quickly disposed of because the health care bill is not justified as a regulation of the use of the channels of interstate commerce, nor is it an attempt to prohibit the interstate transportation of a commodity through the channels of commerce; nor can the bill be justified as a regulation by which Congress has sought to protect an instrumentality of interstate commerce or a thing in interstate commerce. Thus, if the mandates are to be sustained, it must be because the bill falls under the third category as a regulation of an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.

In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld that "[E]ven if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce …” The key word in the phrase above is activity. People that do not have health insurance and then go to emergency rooms for assistance cost tax payers who pay for these services. The public seeks relief from these costs and claims a substantial effect on interstate commerce is occurring which justifies an increase of power to congress. However choosing to mandate hospitals to help the uninsured is just that a choice that the citizens made because they thought that was important. This was a very noble endeavor but now that the bill or costs are getting too expensive, Congress seeks to alleviate the cost of a new project it chose to start. Again, how does a citizen that chooses to pay for their own medical bills negatively effect commerce?

The mandate to purchase insurance is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. The high court might not sustain the mandates under cases, as in Lopez, “…upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce… In United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971), the Court interpreted former 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a), which made it a crime for a felon to "receiv[e], posses[s], or transpor[t] in commerce or affecting commerce . . . any firearm." 404 U. S., at 337. The Court interpreted the possession component of §1202(a) to require an additional nexus to interstate commerce both because the statute was ambiguous and because "unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal state balance." Id., at 349

The Governments’ contention, is that the mandates are valid because non compliance at the local level does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce. The Government argues that not purchasing insurance may results in emergency room visits and that can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways. First, the costs are substantial, and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population. Second a healthy population will lead to a healthy economy. The Government, under its "costs of non participation" reasoning, could regulate not only purchasing health insurance, but all inactivity that might lead to being unhealthy, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce. Similarly, under the Government's "national productivity" reasoning, Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens. As said in Lopez “Under the theories that the Government presents" in support of its mandates, "it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if the Government's arguments are accepted, it is difficult to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”

As long as “…Congress' authority is limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and so long as those enumerated powers are interpreted as having judicially enforceable outer limits, congressional legislation under the Commerce Clause always will engender "legal uncertainty" as Chief Justice Marshall stated in McCulloch v. Maryland. The ability to legislate inactivity is beyond enforceable outer limits.

When an individual pays their medical bills, out of pocket, it is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantially negative affect on interstate commerce which Congress intended to avoid. Not participating in the new health care plan is less an activity that effects interstate commerce than it is an activity that only effects a health care statute.

The Constitution's enumeration of powers "presuppose something not enumerated", (Gibbons v. Ogden) and that envisions a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.

Conclusion. No. Health care insurance is a noble cause but not connected enough or tangentially related to commerce and so does not justify an expansion of congressional powers to regulate the inactivity of an individual. This legislation significantly changes the federal and state balance of power which was unintended.

Many aspects of this insurance reform bill are very important and needed but they do not justify an expansion of power that can easily be foreseen as a tool that could be misused in the future. Our collective euphoric feeling for having passed health insurance reform should not blind us to the danger that an expansion of power like this could mean for our future.

The GOP is contending that they wish to comply with the constitution while lowering premiums and that they intend to draft the replacement bill to comply with the guidance of the Supreme Court, that is, after that body hears a few cases on the issue of “mandates,“ Click here to read what Politico had to say about the mandates. Law professor, Randy E. Barnett, asked the same question

“Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Historically, insurance contracts were not considered commerce, which referred to trade and carriage of merchandise. That's why insurance has traditionally been regulated by states. But the Supreme Court has long allowed Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of "economic" activities that are not, strictly speaking, commerce. The key is that those activities substantially affect interstate commerce, and that's how the court would probably view the regulation of health insurance.

"But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause's power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying "cash for clunkers" is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds. If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. Senate Republicans made this objection, and it was defeated on a party-line vote, but it will return.”

That analysis is part of a longer post titled “The individual mandate.” If the mandate is stricken by the court as over reaching the bill goes back through the Senate and the House of representatives. Without a mandate to purchase insurance, this will make the insurance companies vulnerable because H.R. 3590 prohibits denying coverage to children and later adults but without a mandate people will only buy insurance when they’re sick or ill. Insurance companies will not have enough individuals paying into the system but will find themselves confronting and challenging their legal obligation to accept all applicants with preexisting condition which is going to lead to even more cases filed with the courts. Without this mandate, the insurance industry would declare a deal breaker. If people are not forced to participate and fined for not doing so the pool of resources shrinks and the system can not afford to pay for the patients with preexisting conditions.

Most laws are crafted to withstand constitutional scrutiny but that does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees. What the drafters of the health care bill failed to consider was that an increase of such power would be based on criteria that can reasonably be foreseen as a possible hazard to other personal rights, creates an imbalance of power by expanding a centralized government, and obliterates any outer limit to the commerce clause

Including a n opt-out option, or Public Option or the ability of purchasing out of state policies may have saved this bill from being undercut by the Supreme Court becuase it over reaches congressional power.

Rafael Buelna

The Ink, The Bill and the Hate

2010-03-21T21:43:00.000-07:00

The ink of the presidents pen has not been placed to paper but the rabid anger over the new health care bill is already out there where ever one looks. Take a look at this bit of anger titled “Waterloo” writen on March 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by David Frum. David Frum concluded by saying “….So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.” With some luck, like many political and legal strategist have predicted, this health care reform will withstand any repeal attempt and just become part of the political background and fade into history as a political, social and economic positive step forward that the United States decided to take.

In the past bills like Medicare were divisive but were signed into law and later adjusted to better serve both patients and health care providers. The anger that has been fueled by this new health care reform bill has to subside for the sake of the nation because what did not happen during the creation of Medicare was that states were not lining up to mount legal oppositions. Mr. Frum describes the kind of none cooperation between parties that stops progress on important issues of the day from being made. Mr. Frum is also pointing out a disappointment associated with what’s is better phrased as “we lost and they won.” There are not many people (GOP, Tea Party) who were against this bill throwing up their arms and saying “we lost, now lets all work together and move on.” The President is going to give a victory speech to a nation that is more divided politically now than ever before and also more polarized economically. No matter how much reconciliatory President Obama paints into his victory speech on health care reform, Washington viciousness, hate, and anger has officially been cranked up several degrees.

Obama will declare such talk about “increased anger,” a “divided country like never before” as the non sense of “sour losers.” The Problem is that calling anyone that suggests this chaos is waiting for us down the road, names, does not make it untrue. It is hardly untrue that this issue was hotly debated in kitchen tables, bars, garages and laboratories all over the country and divided both parties in half. Medicare was passed by both parties but it was a democratic bill and helped citizens regardless of party affiliation yet republican victories occurred in the years that followed. Republicans will have a hard time repealing this bill because it has too many republican elements, ideas, proposals attached to it and people have a problem giving back what has been give to them. The democrats have tied the hand of progressives because it will be an up hill fight to convince the middle class to increase their tax payments again in the near future to include the millions this new bill leaves behind.

Yes -- this bill has many great aspects to it --- now students can be on their parents health care plan until they are 26, no denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions is a violation of the law, and families making under eighty thousand dollars (80K) per year or less will be given money to help pay for their expensive premiums. Families making eighty thousand dollars or more will not get assistance and actually pay higher premiums. Time goes by and pressure mounts on the middle class and they’ll get tired of paying high monthly health care bills. Eighty thousand per year for a family of four can mean two parents working hard and yet not getting ahead. Aside from the fifteen million people this health care plan is leaving behind today or will not help each year millions more will be uninsured and their pleads for help might be ignored. Those citizens that make eighty thousand dollars annually just might stop donating to the Democrats each time they want to add more people to the new health care system This cycle is why failing to include everyone in today’s new health care reform bill was failure.

Rafael Buelna

Obama co-opted the health care movement and in return gave the people...?

2010-03-18T10:21:00.000-07:00

1. Is the office of the President hurt if health care reform is not passed, or just the Presidential ego?

If comprehensive health care is not passed into law then it is people that suffer, which is why health care reform should be comprehensive. A real conscious and pragmatic vote would be to vote NO on this bill which is very different than saying No to health care reform. The democrats will deflate the will to reform health care and its momentum by passing the current plan. Within five to eight years their will be millions more that are under and uninsured and this debate will start all over again, for their sake, I hope so. It is untrue that the president has incorporated the best ideas on health care, he ignored the best ideas.

Thirty million or so more Americans will be covered by this new health care reform, no dropping clients with preexisting conditions and those that are not covered, about twelve to fifteen million, may some day get help, who knows. Pro-reformers insist that those millions will be taken care off in the future but is that true? If the president could only help some Americans, get health care, by using parliamentary gymnastics, then how is he going to help the millions left behind once the momentum for reform has faded. Senator Kucinich "I doubt that this president or any president in the near future or any Congress in the near future will want to touch anything remotely related to health care." Will fixing the Presidents health care plan be as easy as its been to tweak and fix Medicare problems over the years?

The president had a mandate to pass comprehensive health care, which would have been single payer, in his first few months in office. That mandate was used up fighting over “Public Option” which was too confusing and a political liability from the start. Now that the president has used up his mandate the citizens are forced to accept a health care reform package that they are divided on and hardly looks like reform. Listen to Rachel Maddow over at MSNBC for an explanation on how this bill will benefit people because she does a great job. Those of us with preexisting conditions will now have the opportunity to pay too much for health care each month or face legal penalties. What Maddow and many other progressives forget is that often people don’t pay that five to eight hundred monthly medical premium for a few months to save for the purchase of something else or just to pay for living expenses.

If a family did not pay their monthly premium they would just start over again in the future, that is if the insurance company accepts their application. Now that the new health care law requires a family to pay their monthly bill the government acts as the insurance companies private collections agent and collects fines. Politicians should expect to face a backlash for this change because not paying this bill was part of the American savings plan. This is why no health care plan other than one that included and assured monthly premiums would drop immediately for citizens would suffice. Senator Kucinich did not want to be on the wrong side of history by making himself a health care road block. What did happen was that Kucinich took part in co-opting the health care reform movement by the Obama administration who strong armed a bill through congress that fell far short of health care reform in order to appease the insurance industry and big pharma or the big special interests very invested in the president. In the end there was no comprehensive reform to health care passed by the Obama administration: they deflated the movement and passed a face saving bill for Obamas' ego.

Congratulations America at least There are some great aspects of this health care bill liket now the insurance industry can not discriminate against serving those that have preexisting conditions. Lets hope that moral victory is going to make paying those high premiums feel much better each month. During the election expect to hear demands and promises to repeal this legislation because, after all, what other product is a citizen forced to buy? Hint, it is not car insurance, remember, driving is a privilege and a person has alternatives to driving a car they could use.

If the economy does not turn around enough to put the dollars in the pockets of Americans so they can pay for this new entitlement, they are forced to buy, then the democrats will face an up-hill fight on election night. If the GOP wins elections, this bill the Democrats ramed through, just might be easily repealed. The democrats hope that once the people are given something, (health care) which is better than nothing, they will not want to give it back and so will push back against any republican attempt to repeal this bill.

The problem is that between now and the deliverables (the benefits people get as a result of the president signing the bill into law) tied to the presidents health care plan a popular movement could gain momentum offering something better, something without penalties and that brings down premiums. It would not be difficult for the people to give back something that they hardly feel made any difference in their lives other than an ideological difference.
The White House does the best job at describing the health care reform so click here if that is the information that you’re seeking or go to MSNBC and listen to Rachel Maddow explain the reform. The point of this posting is to discuss the issues that will not disappear after a bill is signed whether law makers use the “deemed” rule or “reconciliation.” Constitutional lawyers are debating whether or not the Supreme Court could end up weighing in on the health care bill the president might sign. One group says that there is precedent for not getting involved and the other says that the Supreme Court gets involved when lawmakers violate the constitution. Put that aside and lets just concentrate on the new world we will live in where even Rachel Maddow says will hardly change at all except that 31 million will get health insurance, no more denying preexisting conditions and the middle class continue to pay high monthly rates.

By keeping the health care debate alive the democrats could pass real and fundamental reform but in the future, not now. The democrats are pressing through a health care bill which Americans, at best, are divided on. Voting for a health care bill using parliamentary gymnastics will only assure a nasty November election season not to mention a gridlocked congress filled with hate and animosity. The election season and the debates will be framed as democratic trickery Vs. republican stonewalling. The deliverables or the advantages of this health care reform will trickle through over the years but not fast enough and with no relief to people already paying premiums that are too high. The conversations about the under and uninsured will continue because millions will remain uninsured after the bill is signed making the whole process appear similar to Le Mythe de Sisyphe.

Shouldn’t citizens ask what is the point of passing a bill any other way or why not pass bills using reconciliation all the time? The democrats are justified in using this process because the republicans used this process before according to the circular reasoning of pro-health care reformers. According to anti-reformers that process was never used on such a fundamental subject as health care. They are bad, we are good, they are wrong, we are right and the hate goes on and round and round.

A. Our premium payments will not be lowered and will increase. B. There will be penalties for not buying health care. C. The costs have not been well vetted D. Only thirty million uninsured will be covered. and millions will be left without.

Regarding Preexisting Conditions, the insurance company can still deny a person coverage if they are willing to pay a one hundred dollar fine per day. That is not a fine that frightens the insurance companies.

2. “The perfect should not be the enemy of the good”

The democrats should be careful when using the “either your with us or against us” argument when discussing health care reform because it may come back to haunt them just like using reconciliation has come back to bite the GOP on the rump. The Daily KOS, Markos Moulitsas, is not happy with the outcome and upset that the democrats gave up an opportunity to get passed true health care reform before they lost their super mahority. Moulitsas is also one of the these interesting strategist that believe that democrats and republicans will make the bill better as time goes on just how they did with Medicare.

It is in killing this bill that the health care reform America needs will get accomplished because the momentum is not defused. Finally, if your going to ram something through the legislative process make it something the people want, like single payer, not this legislation that does more for the health care insurance industry than for the people. The leaders of the future democratic party could be those that stand against Obama on this issue today because they had foresight on how this legislation only temporarily defused the inevitable march towards single payer or towards a Medicare buy in plan. I hope that the benefits of this bill are as exiting as Obama and Rachel Maddow says they will be, otherwise, lets get rid of her along with the democrats for defusing a very important movement that could have made a diference.

3. In the end, it is health care that matters not the presidents place in history.

Rafael Buelna

The Byrd is The Word! (press to hear President Obama explain why reconciliation should NOT be used for passing a Health care bill)

2010-03-02T02:01:00.000-08:00

Why the President may have to “start over”

Regarding RECONCILIATON-- Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering an"extraneous matter" Could abortion or the idea that this legislation regulates an industry be considered extaneous matters?

The president reversed his opinion on using reconciliation, ok, people can reverse their opinion but does this mean that it does not concern the president that such a comprehensive change as Health Care is going to occur using a process that he himself said was unrepresentative of the peoples will? The president was as passionate over this issue as he is over passing a health care bill. When can we take him serious about what really matters? This just means that when the GOP has control, they'll use the reconciliation process to pass legislation that the Democrats don't want and the process will continue to go round and round.

In the “Money and Policy” section of The New York Times an article titled “ President Urges Focus on Common Ground” By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ROBERT PEAR, was published on February 25, 2010 where they wrote about the presidents health care summit that had been televised recently.

“Throughout the day, Mr. Obama skirmished with Republicans over the effects of the Democrats’ proposal on health insurance premiums. Republicans, citing a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate bill, said the average premium for individual policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium that year under current law. Mr. Obama countered that under the Senate bill, the federal government would establish standards for “decent insurance,” and that the better benefits might be more costly. And in any event, most people buying individual policies would qualify for federal subsidies, which would substantially lower what they pay.”

One very important phrase to chew on is “decent insurance.” What is decent insurance? A better term would be “adequate health care” and there in lays the gist of what is wrong with the presidents way of visualizing health care: its short sighted. The elite would get exceptional, state of the art, “better” health care while the masses would receive adequate health care? If a parent is suffering from some ailment, the family he/she supports does not need “decent insurance” they need the best. It is true that decent health care is better than no health care but who decides when the good stuff trickles down or the newest technology and healing methods help us all? This does not mean that there should be no reform only that the president may have locked himself into “starting over.”

Reconciliation is a very good place to begin since it is the big word of the year. This is a term that refers to a process used by law makers to pass a bill with fewer votes than normally needed but it is also a threat the president is using to persuade the GOP into a dialog over health car reform. The GOP used this process in the past but not to pass “comprehensive reform.” This last term has been used by both parties as a goal and describes their intent regarding health care and because of that acknowledgment the process maybe beyond the tools available to the democratic party. Senator Tom Coburn believes that the purpose of the senate was to add a process that brought consensus to big issues in this country and where a reasoned and thoughtful approach is suppose to take place. The Senator wanted to highlight this point to contrast it with the plan to use the process to pass health care reform. On this point people might agree with the senator but the senator is adopting a new ideology at a politically convenient time. Nevertheless, that does not make his argument less true or meaningful.

The real and most knotty obstacle for the president is that the bill is too big to fit into a small reconciliation hole.

Senator Kent Conrad (D) North Dakota, Chairman of the Budget Committee stated on this weekends Sunday talk shows that Reconciliation can not be used to pass comprehensive health care reform because it was not designed for “significant legislation” and that “…it was designed for deficit reduction.” So, it can not work for health care reform. Conrad also said that the role for reconciliation is limited for passing “side-car issues” or for relatively minor issues not a major issue like health care reform. Reconciliation is not for the “main package” (referring to the presidents health car proposal) but “…for issues like what proportion of Medicade expansion, expenses, etc…” the government would be responsible for paying, any other use, would be “unreasonable.”

Meet the press Nancy-Ann DeParle the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform on “Meet The Press” Sunday February 28 said that the president is trying to work with both parties to build a reform bill for health care but did not indicate that reconciliation was off the table. Unlike, Senator Conrad, DeParle did not mention "The Byrd Rule."

SUMMARY OF THE BYRD RULE

Under the Byrd rule, the Senate is prohibited from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill or resolution or conference report thereon. The definition of what constitutes extraneous matter is set forth in the Budget Act; however, the term remains subject to considerable interpretation by the presiding officer (who relies on the Senate Parliamentarian). The Byrd rule is enforced when a Senator raises a point of order during consideration of a reconciliation bill or conference report. If the point of order is sustained, the offending title, provision or amendment is deemed stricken unless its proponent can muster a 3/5 (60) Senate majority vote to waive the rule.”

The term “extraneous” can present an overwhelming obstacle like during THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS.

“In the Senate, total debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours, although the actual time for consideration of the omnibus package often exceeds this time limit set in the Budget Act. Motions and amendments may be offered and considered without debate at the end of this time period. There are also restrictions on the content of a reconciliation package and on the amendments which may be offered to it. For example, any amendment to the bill that is not germane, would add extraneous material, would cause deficit levels to increase, or that contains recommendations with respect to the Social Security program, is not in order.
The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the "Byrd Rule", provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote. Furthermore, the Budget Act prevents reconciliation legislation from being filibustered on the Senate floor.”

The point is that the reconciliation threat is empty! When considering the “Byrd Rule,” the bill is very likely to get bogged down in debate over whether or not it falls into the category of an extraneous matter.

Issue --- Health Care

Rule --- The Byrd Rule states that the reconciliation process is not for extraneous matters

Analysis --- Health Care Reform has been considered a comprehensive reform process by both parties. The use of such terms by both parties clearly indicates that this bill is greater than the kind of legislation that the reconciliation process was designed to work with and has worked with in the past.

Conclusion -- If the Democrats use the reconciliation process, they could find themselves legally challenged by the GOP and facing the Supreme Court on this issue during a midterm election season and well into the 2012 election season. If the process is found to be say, out of bounds or an extraneous matter, by the Supreme Court then the Obama administration will appear to have wasted Americas’ time. So, starting over may not be such a bad idea? Just so long as the GOP works within a reasonable time frame. Had Obama suddenly agreed with the GOP and pushed to start over, live, during the TV summit, the GOP would have been cornered and pressured into announcing a time line to get the bill designed, ready, voted on and signed. That however is “what if” history.

The contributing reporter, David M. Herszenhorn, of The NYT continued:

“For the president, Thursday’s session was a kind of Hail Mary pass, a last-ditch effort to keep his top legislative priority from slipping out of his grasp.” The president is a law professor so he can answer the question, how does the democratic health care reform bill get past the Bryd Rule? Is it that there is nothing specifically that says not to shove circles into squares?

It appears then, that in the present reality, in a game of basketball, a three point, full court or a “hail Mary” buzzer, beaten shot is still very difficult, but, not impossible. Just, don’t plan on winning the game that way.

So, in the meantime, the Byrd is the word.

Good News! Chancellor's office releases $50 million stimulus funds

2010-02-05T20:55:00.000-08:00

Up-Date

Read what Kristine Guerra wrote today regarding education and funding for 2010!
By Kristine Guerra Published: Friday, February 5, 2010, Updated: Friday, February 5, 2010

Chancellor Charles B. Reed announced Thursday the allocation of the remaining $50.9 million in one-time federal stimulus funds for campuses to add courses for fall 2010.

Every little bit of funding helps create a better learning environment.

The Silver Bullet

2010-01-09T19:40:00.000-08:00

Some believe in this rare but possible “Hail Mary.” Basketball players and fans believe in this last chance possibility. It is the last seconds of the game and the losing team can still pull out a victory if one of their teammates scores by succeeding at some great athletic feat. Here the silver bullet and the Hail Mary are similar concepts because a team can’t count on it to win the game it just happens to occur in the last few seconds. The Silver Bullet, unlike the Hail Mary, can be produced before one needs to use it and usually is. How does one create a silver bullet?

The Silver Bullet is a mythical weapon mostly used against the werewolf. A werewolf is a mythical creature that presents mortals with extreme danger, it will tear them limb from limb. It could also be a creature that symbolically represents horrible crimes of murderous individuals. A creature humans created and transformed into dark tales to make sense of nonsense. The werewolf is a danger that no one person can deal with by themselves. Immortal wolf pitted against a mortal man or woman.. In other words, they need a special mythical weapon to solve a problem they don‘t understand and or is too big for one person to deal with alone like the economy. The silver bullet represents mortals aiming their faith at a problem (the werewolf) that is too ferocious to handle by themselves. The silver bullet symbolically represents faith in god. To believe in a silver bullet is to believe in god and to deny its existence is to admit atheist tendencies: to each his own. Recently, the energy crises prompted president Obama to deny that their was a silver bullet to solve the worlds energy needs. Instead the president preferred a “silver shotgun blast” metaphor. Both the silver bullet and the silver shotgun are metaphors but they mean very different things.

The president, with this metaphor, meant to convey that a comprehensive approach was needed to lower energy cost and deliver a cleaner energy product for citizens to use and rebuild the American economy. The visual here is that many pellets of silver ideas fly out of the barrel (the barrel is the presidents policies) to shoot down the ignorant ideas people have that are standing between him and his reforms. The many silver ideas come after years of research, debates and trails. The faith lays in the hope that the idea or in this case many ideas will work to solve our problems and in the people that developed those ideas. While the presidents’ metaphor works as a visual aid for his reforms, it warps the concept of the silver bullet and is redundant at best. A silver bullet is a concept never meant to describe a presidents energy reforms or other policies it is a concept meant to describe a method of dealing with an urgent and dangerous problem that appears greater than one individual: having faith in a god. The silver bullet often comes after extensive planning, efforts, faith and luck while the Hail Mary is a last minute desperate and unplanned act of faith and also luck. While either happening (the Hail Mary and silver bullet) often materialize out of nowhere and at the last minute the difference is in the planning. A team does not plan to win the game by Hail Marry but scientist do chase the silver bullet.

The power of the silver bullet comes from faith in a god and the power of the shotgun blast comes from faith in the ideas packed into that shotgun blast. Those that believe in the silver bullet imagine that there is an endless well of inventions and ideas that can revolutionize the world. During times of stress people have “faith” that god will send an idea or silver bullet via a person and penicillin is a good example.

There they are, scientist, atheist on one end and chasing the silver bullet with the other. The silver bullet does not preclude us from self help (after all, God helps those that help themselves, right) but it is the last arrow in the quiver our souls carry, our faith that god will provide. The concept of radar was the silver bullet that the allied forces needed to overcome the Nazi air force and Luftwaffe. Many smart people got together to create radar but the Nazi’s had smart people too. So, why didn’t they come up with radar first? It was just hard work and luck to the atheist and to the person that believes in a silver bullet it was hard work, luck and their faith in god. The idea of a silver bullet never included solving everything, just the werewolf problem like radar did not win WWII by itself it killed the big bad wolf that was going to tear the allies limb from limb.

Electricity transformed into light was another silver bullet that was created by hard work and a little luck. Smart people around the world were trying to discover how to manipulate and use electricity to benefit economic growth but it was the United States that “lucked out” because it was her citizens who had the ideas or connected all the dots first. Another unexpected silver bullet was the “horseless carriage” or the automobile built on a Ford production line. These silver bullets came at a time when people needed them, our country needed them, to appear but also these ideas came on gods schedule. We can prove that the concept of electricity into light was the end result of centuries of hard scientific enquiry but not that the discovery Edison came up with arrived on gods schedule. That Edison was a U.S citizen was just plane luck because many brains around the globe were chasing that silver bullet. The thing is that the concept of “luck” is another way of saying percentages. So, if the percentages have delivered in the past shouldn’t we believe that they might deliver in the future? All I am saying is that what some people call percentages others call faith in god and silver bullets do appear now and then out of nowhere.

The long and the short of it is that if you’re an atheist and don’t believe in a silver bullet I can understand. What I don’t understand is how can a person that believes in god, like president Obama, not have faith that a silver bullet is out there or that it exists but just waiting for us discover? The idea to solve our energy problems is probably just out of our reach. Just out of our reach like many of the silver bullets I mentioned earlier were just out of the reach of our competitors in the past. How hard are we trying to reach for the silver bullet? Comprehensives approaches are the right strategy sometimes but at other times a silver bullet is what is called for and the effort to reach for it is very important. This is why education must be funded and especially during the most difficult times. The word “stimulus” is a bad word right now because the economy is not creating the jobs fast enough to satisfy a frightful and struggling citizenry.

Our nation needs people reaching for the radar and the horseless carriage of our times but educators and students need money. Those new silver bullets do exists just like the concept of the automobile existed before the first car was built. Every car on the planet can be melted down but the concept of the car would still exist. Education needs a second stimulus ejection of funds and before the summer sessions of 2010 begin. This second wave of funding may not provide the answer to cold fusion (a possible energy silver bullet) but it reifies the faith we have in our citizens that they will put in the effort needed during dire times and reach out for the silver bullets. Keep those that want to study in school reaching for those ideas that reshape the world. The more students are studying the more they are not taking up a job that another citizens desperately needs. Give the schools (Junior collages and state universities the money they need to higher the staff and faculty needed to properly reach for comprehensive solutions and silver bullets. Increase loans, grants, lower tuition to get the people, that want to learn, off of the job market until they graduate. Hopefully by the time they do graduate the economy is ready to absorb their efforts.

The current White House plan to “Educate and Innovate’ is not enough: it is a fair effort not exceptional. America needs an exceptional effort to solve her problems not a fair effort. Students should work for their education, but there are workers that are not students. If students have the classes and the funding they need to complete their education they leave jobs open for those individuals that are not students. When students graduate they add value to our workforce. So keep the students in classrooms away from jobs that others could use right now a little bit more. If the economy is struggling to create jobs then invest in students and teachers beyond the current White House plan. For example, build and remodel junior and state collages which adds construction work that is badly needed. So for gods' sake, increase, the funding for collages and universities during the second half of the 2010 scholastic calendar and all of 2011.

These suggestion are not silver bullets but additional pellets for the silver shotgun metaphor the president believes in. Its just that I have faith that our citizens can deliver a silver bullet and that education will deliver results but those results depend on the efforts all of us put into the process: the exceptional efforts. The self help comprehensive approach to solve our nations economic problems is a very smart one to adopt and I am glad our president did just that. That fact remains, that even if the banks start lending the amount of jobs the U.S economy needs in the present is staggering and the speed at which the private sector is expected to create jobs is not enough.

In the meantime, it feels like the president knows he’s losing the game and his big plan for a 2012 election victory is to count on a “hail mary” shot from across the court but has no faith he‘ll make the shot.

P.S

Provide free water and free power to your corporations and sit back to watch the U.S economy out pace the others. The bargain is that citizens of the U.S provide an updated power grid, highway system, and re-pipe the country. Water can be better stored, reclaimed and redirected around the country to give U.S manufacturing and business a competitive advantage. Maybe given the new stylish U.S. highway system, free electricity and water investors will see the benefits of bringing jobs back to the U.S.

And god? “Science tells me God must exist. My mind tells me I will never understand God. And my heart tells me I am not meant to.” -- From Angels & Demons, the novel

Oh! Legalize marijuana!

Good Luck Democrats
Rafael Buelna

© January 2, 2010 EU and US all rights reserved. Posted in accordance with Title 17, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.

Updated -- Mid-Term Elections -- Not Just for Seniors Anymore!

2009-09-23T21:37:00.000-07:00

Updated 10/18/2009

Should there be health care reform?

All parties agree that the answer is -- yes.
The health care reform will be “deficit neutral” and won’t bite into the profits of the health care industry. This last statement sounds fishy but if it can be done then more power to you.

The Democrats say Americans have been waiting too long for health care reform.
the Republicans say that law makers should slow down and do it, health care reform, right.
The dems accuse the Reps of just stalling to ruin any chances of reform and the Reps accuse the dems of willing to bankrupt the nation for the sake of a political victory.
Each political side on this issue have their extremists.

If a public option is not included in the final health care bill the democrats will feel they’ve lost. That is until the economy begins to turn around as a result of this new health care bill. If that happens the president is vendicated because that is what he has said would happen all along. When people get into new jobs or get their old jobs back and are spending their dollars on Chinese goods Americans will forget what all the fuss was about.

But what if the public option is not in the final bill and the economy does not create the jobs? The ghost of “public option” will haunt the 2010 midterm elections. The dems will point out that but for the exclusion of the public option the economy would have performed much better. The democrats will ask the country to send more democrats to the capital in order to get work down easier.

The Republicans will point to a rushed health care bill as the cause of a slow, jobless economy and ask the public to send more Republicans to Washington to reverse the damage caused by a democratically controlled congress.

No matter how you slice it folks, unless there are jobs, that pay well and make Americans happy, the 2010 elections will be an up hill climb for the democrats. Any politician who is thinking of keeping their job should concentrate on creating as many jobs as possible. Nothing new in that statement. right?

Well if Americans are currently saving their money there is nobody to buy Chinese goods.
So, the midterm elections are going to be very contentious and both parties are going to target young voters like never before in a mid-term election. The contest to win over Seniors will be just as ferocious.

For the Democrats:

A. voters will have to feel an economic difference in their lives, that is, by January of 2010
B. People will have to respond to the “new health care reform” positively.
C. The general public will have to have a positive outlook on the countries fiscal crisis by 2010.

For the Republicans:

A. The democrats must fail.
B. The failure must appear as if a result of the Democrats not listing to their advice.

If you think health care reform is an issue on the news these days, just wait until the mid-term fight for control of congress. If the Republicans can shake the appearance of the party of “No and I don’t have a better solution” they will pick up more seats than the democratic strategist predict.

The Democrats can avoid this problem but they are betting on the idea that ;

A. once health care reform is passed, people will relax and the issue will be in the past.

B. Once people appreciate their new health care, people with new health care will vote to keep the democrats in power.

So, use reconciliation! Why just threaten? The democrats have argued that those apposed to the public option are crazy and that their numbers are “artificial.” If that is the case then the Democrats should stop wasting time and use this option. If the Democrats insist that their health care reform bill will function as beautifully as they insist it will then they should pass the bill using reconciliation.

However, if by the 2010 election the effects of their health care bill is having a negative effect on the country then run the democrats out of Washington.

So, if we pass the health care reform using reconciliation, how can we measure it’s effects on the economy by the 2010 mid-term elections?

UPDATE --

What happens to democrats if by the 2012 elections soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan and Iraq?

What happens to the democrats if by 2012 the DOW is well above 10,000 and still no jobs?

What happens to the democrats by 2012 if health care reform does not appear to have delivered its promise of more bang for your buck?

Obama insisted that reforming health care would turn the economy, it was the first thing that needed to change before anything else was worked out, so, what happens to the democrats if by 2010 or 2012 health care reform appears to be a tax payor burden?

With any luck, by the 2012 election the benefits of a reformed health care will inspire voters to support the democratic ticket. A healthy economy and a healthy people will emerge by 2012 to vindicate the parties current political struggles. An easier victory for Obama than his first run for the White House.

It all hinges on jobs, good old fashioned or new fashioned jobs.

Good luck democrats

Rafael Buelna

President Obama, Governor Paterson and disability discrimination

2009-09-22T00:03:00.000-07:00

President Obama is not a racist, he is just another able bodied man that exaggerates about how much they can stand looking at the disabled or their comfort level. My knowledge on this subject comes from personal experience and a little research. Consider that if Paterson does not run for governor the parties chances of winning will diminish despite what the current polling says. Paterson should drop the race argument, don't even bring it up anymore but pick up the disability argument, but quickly.

I know the able bodied readers are just about now getting mad but read me out for a moment.

Candidate Obama was fond of reminding America that just because he looked different, when compared to our pasts leaders, it didn’t mean he was not qualified to lead the country. Candidate Obama wanted Americans to see past physical difference, just like MLK Jr had asked years ago. Many political commentators wondered if Americans were ready for a “black president.” Candidate Obama insisted on running regardless of whether his decision could have hurt the parties chances of winning the election in 2008. The party and then America took a chance and voted Obama into the White House.

Now that President Obama is concerned about his own political destiny taking chances on “change” is no longer in fashion. After all how many disabled African-Americans are governors in the United States? Obama chose now Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor because he sought someone qualified that had empathy. President Obama wanted to give the spot to a group that has been traditionally under represented. Haven’t the disabled been traditionally under represented? An article in TIME “The Limits of Empathy for Sonia Sotomayor” discusses this point clearly.

I am now going to say something, nay, write something again that not many people across the country want to announce.

President Obama and the Democrats do not want N.Y Gov. David Paterson to run for governor because people, the general public, do not like looking at the disabled and the Obama administration is no different.

Here is my argument.

It’s not about race or poll numbers, Gov. Paterson is blind and people love to exaggerate their comfort with looking at him or at any disabled person for that matter. If you can view the sky, hear a bird, walk, talk, jump and do simple math at the same time your considered an “able-bodied” person. If your one of the few hero “able-bodied” people that can hang around people regardless of their disability then god-bless you but most people can not stand looking at or being near the disabled. Especially when high stake games like a governors office is concerned and the balance of congress.

Please continue to humor me, just consider how popular the SNL parody of Gov. Paterson is with the audience. In one particular skit the audience laughed because the “governor” can’t tell that a graph he is holding is actually up-side-down. In this skit the governor is being made fun of simply because he’s blind. Would SNL portray President Obama to appear incompetent because he was Africa-American? A continuous SNL barrage of skits aimed at laughing at disability for the sake at laughing at disability. The disabled can be made fun of but SNL crosses lines the Democrats would never accept if the President was being lampooned but just for being African-American. Defending against the SNL barrage has cost the Governor resources and weakened his poll numbers.

The Poll numbers Speak for themselves.

Read an article published in the NY Daily titled “New Yorkers prefer disgraced ex. Gov. Eliot Spitzer to David Paterson, Marist poll finds for the breakdown on how the pollsters are sizing up the 2010 election and to find out what people currently feel about Gov. Paterson’s chances at winning the election. It appears that in a little over a year the people of New York and the democratic leadership can properly evaluated their governor but not their president. Apparently we are suppose to believe that the people of New York and that states democrats can get inspired by Mario Cuomo to beat Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2010 but not for Gov. Paterson.

OK, so Mario Cuomo is also a well qualified candidate and a minority (Italian-America) but how is voting him into office anything but the status quo the President is asking us all not to accept these days? Maybe if the democratic leadership in Washington and the democrats of NY would have backed their governor a fraction of the amount of times they’ve backed the President the Poll numbers would be better for Gov. Paterson? The NY Democrats rather punish Gov. Paterson for not appointing Caroline Kennedy to the senate this last year. So the democrats and their money supply, insider knowledge and sympathetic news networks abandoned Gov. Paterson and are now surprised to see his poll numbers down even concerned that he may not win a 2010 election.

This punishment came down on the Gov. because he did not appoint to office a famous person with no prior experience to a public office. The democratic party punished Gov. Paterson regardless of what the effects of that punishment might have on the office of a fellow democrat. They did not take into consideration the good of the party when they decided to collectively shun the governor and start a wink campaign against any of his future attempts to run for the office. Where was the Presidents concerns for the party months ago when NY democrats began to slice away at Gov. Paterson? Instead of supporting him through fiscal and administrative issues they chastise their governor for not out performing President Obama.

No, Governor Paterson the president doesn’t want you to run but its not because your black nor your poll numbers its because your disabled and you frightened the good voters of NY; no offense Governor. Wasn’t there a “Seinfeld” episode about this issue with disability and in “Frasier” and one in “Curb Your Enthusiasm?” Those good democrats or informed progressives of NY that would support Mario Cuomo can not vote for Paterson. Why? Those democrats that would be disappointed because Gov. Paterson was on the ticket would rather give their vote to Rudolph W. Giuliani? Paterson is so bad, only after a year and a half, that Giuliani is a better person to run the state?

Is this the argument which the democratic leadership is really making?

Has the president come to the conclusion that, after reading reports and listening to advice, he feels that citizens of NY (because of ignorance or shallow souls) would prefer a Gov. Giuliani over a governor Paterson? This judgment made only after a short while because, after all, Paterson inherited the Bush economy while President Obama still has a two years leeway left. Can somebody explain that one please? How can New Yorkers hold the Governor responsible for not turning their economy around before the rest of the country?

Yes folks, Obama and the rest of the democratic leadership believes that when it comes to disability the status quo works. The party can not take a chance, like they did for Obama to experiment with supporting a disabled man for governor when a very important election seat is at stake.

The party will suffer if Paterson runs for governor and then the democrats decide to stand behind him with whole hearts. The Time to support him is now because any person that runs for Governor will ask why the democrats threw one of their own under the proverbial bus. Why did the democrats grade Paterson using a whole different set of criteria?

On September 21 the NY Times reported that the African-American leadership is trying to persuade Governor Paterson not to run because of the lack of excitement from the Obama administration towards a Candidate Paterson. Recently, in a 4-3 vote the court upheld Gov. Paterson's decision to appoicnt appoint a Lieutenant Governor which he had been criticized for attempting.

It seems that Democrats where wrong on that issue. Is there anything else they've been wrong about?
　
P.S
　
　
"There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford."

Nowadays people say “there for the grace of god go I.” In the United States the severely disabled (like the blind) receive welfare and are not expected to work. In fact in the minds of many people the disabled are excluded from any expectations of being active participants in society. Participating in society is an option for the disabled not a mandate. So, when a disabled person like, Gov. Paterson decides to step into a leadership role the general public has a problem manipulating their ideologies. For example:

A. If blind people get free money because they’re blind and don’t have to work how the hell is this guy going to sympathize with my able-bodied needs?

B. What the hell does this blind guy know about running a city that able-bodied people built?

C. Elections are important and experimenting with minority issues (disability issues) only threatens our parties results.

The polls are down for Gov. Paterson but that is true about other democrat governors around the country. What is not true about other governor races is that they are not all happening in New York and do not include a blind candidate. What is the real story behind Gov. Paterson’s low poll numbers? Are the poll numbers down because the performance of the governor has been hampered by New York’s sluggish democrats? Democrats that move as slow as molasses in the winter time to help their governor.

In a survey put together January 6, 2009 by the Public Policy Polling, Kennedy did not appear to be the strongest potential candidate in 2010. The results showed state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was leading Rep. Peter King, who still is the most likely Republican candidate, 48 percent to 29 percent while Kennedy’s numbers were 46 percent to King's 44 percent.
　
CNN reported that in August the White House was concerned about the polls and Gov. Paterson’s ability to win an election against Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2010. In July the poll numbers started to go down for Gov. Paterson.

The NY Times offered an article titled “Conceding Errors, Paterson Vows to Regain Trust” By DANNY HAKIM and CONFESSORE Published: February 22, 2009. In that article Gov. Paterson is critiqued but take a close look at the problems people have with Paterson. Issues with forming an administration, the state economy, which all sound like GOP critiques against President Obama. While the Democrats and other talking heads remind America that the Obama administration inherited a Bush economy the same reasoning does not work to shelter Gov. Paterson from Democratic criticism. That Obama is having difficulty filling key positions is reasoned away by the administration as part of the process but when Gov. Paterson has this problem its because of his ineptitude.

Gov. Paterson stated to the NY Times

“…the governor, who was abruptly elevated last March after Mr. Spitzer resigned in a prostitution scandal, also said he had taken the job in an unusually difficult period, and expressed confidence he could gain the trust of New Yorkers if he managed the state’s finances well.”

In other words, just like Obama, Paterson inherited a bad economy and people should be patient because it will take a while to turn around and improve. So, why do Democrats accept that President Obama can have nine months in office and not own the economy while Gov. Paterson must turn the economy of New York around?

Well folks, the disabled are a minority of sorts and they, like other minorities, must out perform all counterparts. Otherwise, why hire a disabled person for any job. This complaint, of having to out perform others or do twice the work, is common among Chicanos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and other people. Read some of the information a cursory search on the web can pull out on this issue. At one particular web page called “Blogtalkradio” one particular blog post says it clearly titled “The Feminization of the African American Male.” Here is another article titled The Only One: Being Black in the White Working World By Camille Jackson, New Haven Advocate. Posted March 20, 2002.

Here is the voice of a Latina, Stephanie Valencia had to say from Las Cruces, NM at the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs, The White House CHCI Fellowship 2004-2005: Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee. Each one of these Americans have a common complaint that other minorities can relate to but somehow can not apply the reasoning to the disabled.

So keep convening yourselves that the reason that Governor Paterson is behind in the polls has to do with his ineptitude but your only fallowing for warped reasoning that will lead you into a warped future. Just because the democrats have supported a hand full of disabled candidates in the past doesn’t mean they’re above being shallow minded and short sighted.

Rafael Buelna

Eighty or Bust! Reduce the Total Student Load

2009-09-17T23:34:00.000-07:00

Reduce the Total Student Load (TSL)and the performance of students and teachers increase. William Ouchi, author of "The Secret of TSL: The Revolutionary Discovery That Raises School Performance" (Simon & Schuster) spoke today on Air Talk and explained how lowering the TSL will help improve the quality of education public school students receive but especially for crowded cities like Los Angeles.

Lowering the TSL should be a priority for the Obama administration. At a private school the total student load is 6o students per teacher but at public schools a single teachers is responsible for 245. Lowering the TSL is different from lowering the classroom size. While lowering class size helps if the total Student load is above eighty students the quality of education suffers. So, the maximum load is eighty students. The teacher in the above cartoon is having a hard time balancing her students. So, two hundred and forty five would mean she and the studen ts would all fall off the tight rope.

Save our children and our teacher by reducing the TSL.

Check on the interview, click the title.

Obama is interrupted by Kanye West

2009-09-16T01:18:00.000-07:00

Obama is interrupted while giving a speech to a joint house of congress by Kanye West.

GOP bites the fingers off Mr. Public Option

2009-09-13T11:26:00.001-07:00

In the United States two individuals who disagreed with one another over the Health Care Reform debate, got into a fight because of that tension and one of them lost a finger. In the cartoon above Congress negotiates behind closed chambers while the public has a ferocious debate about the "public option" attribute of the health care bills currently making their way through the House and Senate.

Throughout America events called "tea parties" are being held and growing. Although, news sources, to the left of politics, are reporting on these events the number of people showing up to them are worrisome. The left explains these gatherings as "Astro turf," or not a real grass roots movement and likes to expose the tensions and ignorance of people that attend these tea parties. The idea is that if readers are informed about how bizarre these tea party goers are the democrats will hold together as a unified party ready to back their president.

Referring to the people that go to these parties as "tea baggers" or "Astro Turf" just helps fuel political fires. It is unclear whether these parties will continue to grow after any health care legislation is passed or whether they will fizzle out. Their members suggest that this movement is much more than about health care but instead describe a deep seated dissatisfaction with the way their elected leaders are managing the public trust -- specifically fiscal matters.

The left believes that this movement is really a thinly veiled protest against president Obama because he is an African American and that they are partisan in nature. The left points to statements made by tea party goers as proof of their racist motives and the tea party goers find ignorant statements the left make to prove their points.

Here is an example of the stupid things the left says that makes them little friends, "fat people are responsible for global warming...bigger carbon foot print...eat more...buy more..." There is no doubt that having a healthy weight is a good idea and eating right, exercising is part of that. Here is my problem, when you want to begin the difficult process of health care reform (within the first six month of a new president) don't start off by calling people, that are over weight, the cause of global warming. People stop listening as soon they hear they've been treated rudely.

Politicians need people to listen. Hasn't this been a summer of not listening? I am not saying that calling them fat is the reason behind the tea parties and the anger at the town hall meetings, only that when the left swept into office so did typical partisan politics. To right wing, conservative America anyone that brings up taxing junk food is "a liberal trying to take over their lives" So, attacking junk food just added to the tension between the left and right political parties. The fact that eating junk food has a negative reaction to a persons health has nothing to do with the debate, for tea party members, its "personal freedom." The fact that this "personal freedom" to gain too much weight ends up having costly repercussions for the country in the long run also matters little.

The tea party goers are beginning to consider themselves a nativistic movement. Calling them a racist or republican movement will only feed their fire and increase their numbers. Ignoring nativistic movements has never been a good idea but showing them that they are not the only party in town has always been a good idea.

In the cartoon above, while the right bites Mr. Public Option to pieces the left stays behind closed doors debating. What this indicates is that the left is a passive entity while the right is aggressive. What the left needs is creativity and to come to terms with its reality. The reality is that the left did not win the 2008 election alone. The left allied themselves with independents and conservatives liberals in order to give them the edge over Senator McCain to win the 2008 presidential election.

While the left would like to ignore that alliance those conservative liberals and independents are now absent without leave during the health care debate. The left half of the democratic party can not win health care reform alone.

While the left relaxed this summer the right was actively networking their rank and file members together under a reworked ancient slogan of "Locals Rule." To the tea party members the state "rules" over the republic and the community "rules" the state and individuality rules the community. The tea party is meant to remind us all that the evil empire (back then it was England) or our republic is taxing without representation. The tea party in Boston was also the inspiration for insurrection, violent resistance.

So, Glenn Beck, a commentator, author has called the president a racist and is throwing parties that inspire insurrection.

How creative can those that want health care reform or those that support President Obama be in defending their vision of what rules in the United States? Did we fight all these years for a Republic or a weak Federation?

Rafael Buelna

Democrats, Health Care and Circular firing Squads

2009-09-07T01:59:00.000-07:00

It’s Important to Keep Being Transformative
　
What can be transformative to the health care system of the United States that brings its people satisfaction?

While some citizens want a paradigm shift others want the same system but modified. In other words these people would agree with the statement “we understand the health care system needs reform, so fix it Mr. President but don’t rock the boat for us and we don‘t want to pay very much for it.” Some pundits describe the current health care reform debate as simply moving the current state of affairs from the private to the public paradigm. So, the president is pursuing the wrong paradigm because the traditional paradigm is not transformative. What I have learned from my own investigation is that what makes Health Care transformative is three things. After making the process “patient centric” the next steps are:

A. making costs transparent,
B. lowering administrative cost and
C. adding incentives for a healthier life style.
　
These, of course, are a small fraction of the suggestions floating around the health care reform debate. Folks, the public debate on this issue has only touched upon a fraction of the contentious points yet to make headline news. Funding for this “deficit neutral health care plan” is one aspect of this debate not yet fully flushed out. Still others have added:

D. If the president compromises on the public option insurance choice then no bill!
E. Cooperatives might help.
F. Add the public option as a trigger.
G. Run the health care system like a public utility.
H. Add a trigger that releases a public option only if the insurance companies fail to comply with the wishes of progressives but on a state by state bases..

The President is about to give a speech on Wednesday and according to talking heads, like Keith Olbermann, he will be speaking not so much to the citizens but to his party and a few conservatives. The key message from the presidents corner will be directed to democrats urging his party not to let perfection be the enemy of good. The consensus is that President Obama will ask his party to keep a stiff upper lip and accept half a loaf of bread. On the progressive liberal side they question whether they ever asked for perfection at all from health care reform but for good and fair care.

By accusing the progressive liberal wing of seeking perfection in health care reform the president’s emissaries, the Sunday before his speech to Congress, were diminishing the needs and suffering of the constituents those representatives serve who lack health care, are under insured or are drowning in debt because of health care bills.

Instead of the Democrats situating themselves to reap victory from any reform in the health care system, they have fostered an atmosphere that situates them as “sell outs” which is a phrase used by Keith Olbermann from MSNBC in the last few days.

While candidate Obama promised a great deal of reform to the health care system in the United States President Obama actually did not write any of the proposed health care bills, his party did. Which means the politics of his party are a stronger force than President Obama. Candidate Obama promised not to bring politics as usual to Washington but health care reform was blocked all of August by politics.

Rank and file Democrats like accusing Republicans for the problems they’re having passing a health care bill but not many historians were surprised by the political response to the presidents attempts to get this legislation passed by Christmas. Being surprised by the conservative and health insurance industry response to health care reform is like fighting WWII over again and wondering if the Nazi’s are going to be respectful to Jewish people.

While progressives, such as Keith Olbermann, feel betrayed and contemplate punishing President Obama in the 2010 mid-term elections at least he has the good sense to interview people like Jonathan Cohn, author of the book Sick who believes that health care can still be reformed without the public option. Cohn warned that the reform must “provide the foundation” for proper health care in the future. Cohn was concerned that people who are waiting for health care get relief soon and that the President not compromise too much of what the current bills offer. While the public option is not essential, a health care system can run like a public utility and high standards can be set believes Cohn “This option is for those people that don’t like the public option.”

To be fair to Keith Olbermann he’s crying foul because “the White House [is] preparing to sell out…” all or most of the following “…the public option, the national health care exchange, no discrimination protection against those with preexisting conditions, and credits for small business that help make health care affordable.”

These attributes to health care reform are important and it is sad to see them bargained away but lets give the POTUS the benefit of the doubt and consider that he did everything he could to get the people of the United States something for their suffering. If liberal progressives celebrate something, anything the president gets them, anything, then they’ll take victory from those that wanted nothing in regards to health care reform. Liberal Progressives could celebrate that next year the fight continues for more transformative change.

In the mean time do not execute those sentenced to death using a circular firing squad. Think about it for a second, it's horrible. The only people that suffer are the soldiers in the squad. Their leader and the accused get away with murder! Kidding, I think?

What this means is that the Democrats are going to shoot themselves no matter how much warning anyone tries to given them.

Since hindsight is 20/20 lets stop talking about what the president should have done these last few months to move this issue forward. Lets, instead, look at some of the sentiments percolating to the top of the madness associated with health care reform these last few months.

As far as rage is concerned a man in California recently bit the finger off another man because they disagreed over this issue. Democrats are puzzled when Republicans are disrespectful at health care forums which to many people just indicates how little history people have read on this subject because this behavior is nothing new. If liberal progressives wanted a president that would not compromise on their ideals then they should not have let liberal conservatives and independents decide who was going to occupy the oval office.

The result is that on Wednesday progressive liberals will have a choice to make, punish President Obama because he has compromised too much or accept compromise with a smile and say “thank you sir, may I have some more?”

Progressives, in some circles, are tired of caving into conservative fears of "government take over" and in fact are tired of hearing that a government run organization must always mean a badly run organization.

Health Care is like Civil Rights Reform

Reforming civil rights did not take one bill or one political cycle but was a process that required multiple political battles and there were many political casualties along the way.

Is this analogy correct?

If progressives liberals stick to their guns and punish the president in 2010 for not holding out for the complete health care package candidate Obama promised them, what will a week party deliver for the two years that leading up to the 2012 election?

The Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats would benefit the most from any punishment the liberal progressives plan to dole out in 2010. Citizen independent will point to the progressive liberals as the key political obstacle to “half a loaf of bread.” In other words, as the pressure of the economy continues to press down on citizens, independents will regret not having a bill signed before Christmas to at least have had some help with lowered premiums. You get it right! A little help with the bills might be better than nothing?

Christmas was just an arbitrary date that means nothing to the health care debate. If health care comes by Valentine's Day or Easter that would be fine...with many people the date matters little.

Reforming health care has been described as an issue with the urgency of civil rights reform. It is not difficult to understand why people make that association considering the millions of citizens that deserve and need health care. What I do not see are the marches on Washington D.C that happened during the civil rights movement. If millions of Americans marched on Washington then maybe this issue would carry the sense of urgency that civil rights did. Yes, my fellow Americans, what I am saying is that were I your Commander in Chief, I would march on Washington to let the Congress and all Americans understand how serious about proper reform I was and what steps I was willing to take. At least I would if I were making this analogy.

But President Obama won the presidency because he courted the conservative liberals and the independents. So, unless the President coddles their fears he faces something worse than a progressive liberal punishment but a punishment by independents. Independents don’t have the commitment to march on Washington D.C. That is also the same group that is slowly abandoning the president according to recent polls. President Obama knows that he can disappoint a progressive liberal and still count on their vote because the progressive liberal has no where to go; what other party? Will the progressive liberal ever vote Green again and risk giving the country over to another Bush-like figure?
　
The piece of loaf vs. the whole loaf.
　
The Republicans are “shadow boxing” simply to hurt the president while progressive liberal Democrats are willing to push the health care reform into a new paradigm that has many liberals, conservatives and independents feeling that the devil they know is better than one they don’t. In other words these groups are not comfortable with the possible outcomes that come with transformative, comprehensive reform that progressive liberals have proposed. Also, the progressive liberals are willing to accept having to post-pone passing a health care bill if it means compromising on key issues. This is kind of frightening considering that people are losing their homes these days and want help quickly.

“Competition,”
“Choice,”
“Protection against discrimination for having a preexisting condition”
“We need a strong network to start out… a public option… not a trigger… not a patchwork or a weak group”
“…progressives should walk away ..”
“…The insurance industry should make concessions”
“…the president should talk to the forty seven million and tell them they should continue to compromise...”
“…those that get millions in contributions should compromise?"

These are some of the current narratives creating havoc in the minds of the left these last few days of Summer. Since the left fancies themselves as the reasonable half then they should ponder the following question before the speech on Wednesday by the POTUS.

1. If the president lowers the cost of monthly premiums for all citizens will that be enough to help during a economic down turn to keep some people above water? Or What are the repercussions of fettering an industry during an economic down turn?

Keep feeding from the anger of Keith Olbermann on the one end and Glenn Beck on the extreme other and the result is a weakened presidency. Maybe just getting one concession on health care could help turn the economy around and stabilize it there a few years. A citizenry making tangible economic progress will not vote out of office their commander in chief. Those citizens might vote the president into a second term to get a little more health care reform.

Mr. Olbermann means well and is frustrated because 77% of the public is in favor of a public option insurance plan which means this is the time that liberal progressives should strike out and get what they want: the iron is hot. But alas! The liberal progressive base will be asked to be good soldiers and put on a good show for the cameras on Wednesday which is pissing off Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann said “Triggers, ha, ha, ha, when the system does not work know!” In other words as soon as the health care bill is passed the triggers would release and fire off the public option insurance choice because the system is already broken. What Mr. Olbermann failed to realize is that the “triggers” will only have to release fifty times to have a public option choice of insurance for every citizen. If all the compromise would do is delay the public option for a while why put the presidency at risk?

This may just end up being one of those years where fighting for health care finally pays off or it will be another year of fighting for health car reform. Either way the fight is always worth having because of constant need: forty seven million.

Liberal progressives understand that many of the congressman that promise to stand their ground and vote down a bill with no public option insurance choice are merely political posturing or saving their jobs. These law makers will simply say “sorry, I tried to get the public option and voted down this bill, now, I have to get my constituents something and vote for this bill over here.”

So be original Democrats. Stand behind the president when he disappoints you this time around. Show the health care insurance industry that the health of America is more important than our egos.

Hey, and if President Obama asks us to march on Washington D.C. to defend the transformative health care reform 77% of Americans want then prepare yourselves to march. Otherwise, stop comparing the health care reform debate to the civil rights movement.

Tell the reporters that your content with what the president did for health care reform this year. Also, tell them that next year you’ll expect more from him and so on and so on.

Rafael Buena © all rights reserved 09/06/09

Give me Fair-Care, COME ON!

2009-07-26T20:53:00.000-07:00

Update -- July 29, 2009

Fraud is a crime the president does not need congressional authority to ask the Attorney General to investigate. If the president suggests that there is fraud occurring within the Medicare system, then he should pick up the phone or email the the Attorney Generals Office to arrest and charge those responsible today: he did say fraud. Is this welfare fraud? Who is fraudulently taking money that is suppose to benefit Medicare patients?

Monday morning and the white noise is going to start our day here in the U.S. Pushy agendas on every news outlet will have health care, including the net, at the top of the play list. The Democrats are scheduled not to shot themselves in the foot and pass some form of health care reform. Unless.

The recession has been declared over but the pain remains the same. The talk this Monday will be about lagging indicators and the importance of cautious optimism. Now that the economy is doing well people will hesitate to embrace reform that threatens that recovery; maybe. For those that need and hope for insurance reform the tension over this issue will raise but for investors the tension will ease up a bit. I know America, what we want is a recovery and the single payer plan for health care or some kind of reform.

Can we have a recovery and health care reform in unison?

What I hope happens is that the Democrats pass a well thought out health care plan and that the recovery will quickly bring along with it jobs. This economic recovery put a damper on President Obam's assertion that costs associated with health care are holding back the economy from recovery. It looks like the economy is doing better with out any drastic measures needing to take place. If we want to pass health care reform it looks like the economy has got to be in the dump. That is until health care reform is passed and then it jumps right back up magically to where we need it, the DOW for example, to indicate. After all we don't want to pass health care reform and then have the economy get worse, right.

So, America, how much pain can we take?

On the one hand individuals are sinking under the weight of health care costs and on the other thousands of people each day are losing their jobs and a recovery could mean those people get jobs and can afford to buy homes, food, etc.

This is an emergency and the democracy gives the office of the presidency special powers to compensate for certain dangers or threats. If health care reform is passed despite the recovery then god bless but consider taking bold actions.

Go to whitehouse.gov and read up on the emergency measures that the president has already passed to make the lives of those losing their jobs a little easier by, for example, extending COPRA. Are those measures enough to solve the problems of the under insured? A

Put the fifty million people that need health care coverage on medicare temporarily or give them medicare coverage. This world be an emergency measure not a permanent solution that would only last for one or two years. By all means, however, fix the fraud and waste while your at it. Consider using the Safeway plan and many other of the Republican suggestions for the next year as additions to the Obama plan not as alternatives. If after a year the consensus is that the measures are working to alleviate the tensions associated with health care reform then continue the good work but if not then try something different.

The big question is how will the president pay for the reforms his administration proposes. The white noise is drowning out the details of many of the plans being proposed.

Let me just just say this one last thing. If you don't fallow my suggestions then at least let us know what can we, not as a country but as individuals, expect to pay each and every month for health care?

Rafael Buelna

P.S. You should read my latest fiction.

Health Care Reform -- I want Fair-care

2009-07-22T18:21:00.000-07:00

The President is fond of saying that if your happy with your health care insurance or provider you can keep what you have. The problem is that the employer decides what health insurance an employee has not the employee unless a person is self employed or paying for it themselves. A caller on CNN asked a very important question that both the Republican and Democratic response skirted around answering directly because it is the core issue that divides Americans and politicians currently.

The question was: How is the current health care bill going to protect the free market while creating a health care exchange?

First of all lets put aside, for a moment, the 40 million or so uninsured that the media likes zeroing in on. Americans, all of them, want to know how the bottom line is going to effect their wallet.

The issue here is that an employer will choose the cheaper government plan over the more expensive private plans. After all, one would think that the government run health care plan or government option will have to run better than Medicare and Medicaid currently operate. The problem is that President Obama is not answering how other private insurance plans would be worth purchasing or keeping if a government competitor is offering a worth while plan.

I know cable TV is not health insurance but for the sake of argument just suppose the state of California was offering cable TV at competitive rates and quality for a set price. The private cable TV companies would have to offer the same services or better at a cheaper if not competitive price set by the government. In this scenario the Obama plan makes sense because the price of cable TV stays down, is universal and creates a standard. By standard I mean the quality of service.

But cable TV is not health insurance because everyone needs health insurance not cable TV. A government run option means the standard will be set or the floor for health care is created by the government just like it sets a standard for those who use Medicare. Medicare is a sort of government health insurance that very few doctors want to accept because of problems getting them to pay for treatment that doctors and the patients feel are necessary or they pay 80 cents on the dollar.

Since everyone needs health care that means it must be affordable but also offer quality for the price. As of now what Medicare will pay for, when they pay at all, can best be defined as adequacy. The adequate treatment and adequate care that is just enough to get the patient stable and living at home. They pay for the adequate wheelchair or adequate durable medical equipment not the latest equipment that can get the job done better. For example, there are many individuals that use a wheelchair for everything they do which includes recreation. They do not have a workout wheelchair.

To many people a workout wheelchair may sound like opulence but it would go along way towards saving the wear and tear of the patients daily wheelchair. The patient would workout or stay active and not be concerned that they could only get a new one every five years which is the standard set by Medicare. It is a preventative measure to pay for a workout wheelchair but the current government plan will not pay for such a thing. What about the latest cancer treatment? How long will it take for the government plan to authorize payment for a new treatment as apposed to the standard adequate treatment? It is not enough to simply say that the current private health care insurance companies do not offer to pay for the current cutting edge treatment for cancer. The reform we need is an insurance plan that will seek out and authorize new and out of the box treatments for our ailments.

The President says that he will find the money for his reform in the waste and fraud found in Medicare but maybe he should have found the fraud and waste first and showed America the money he saved us all. As of now Americans just see a bunch of numbers on a teleprompter. Maybe the president should have reformed Medicare and insisted that Americans take a look at what his administration can accomplish so that we could give him the green light to reform the health insurance industry.

However, the president has his momentum and his ego is preventing him from slowing down. There are millions of people that currently need health insurance. What they need is insurance not a debate.

The quality of that insurance needs to be articulated and so does the price per individual and per month if the democrats are to succeed. If they do not articulate these concerns in fifteen days or at the very least before Christmas they will lose this debate.

I would have preferred a single payer plan but since it looks like I must compromise I have made some suggestions.

So lets start off by being upfront with what people want. While there are many people that would prefer not to pay a cent for health care most people want to pay a fair rate or want fair-care.

What is Fair-Care?

1. It is unfair that a family pays hundreds of dollars per months for health care only to find out later that their coverage leaves them paying for too much of the costs associated with the family actually having to use their plan: the under insured. Health insurance should mean that the insurance company pays for everything the doctor and patient say they need to heal associated with their ailment.

2. The price of insurance for a family where the household income is less than one hundred and fifty thousand ($150,000.00) per year should have health care monthly payments (their premiums) capped at $200.00 two hundred dollars per months. Those making less than 120k but more than 90k should pay $125.00 per month.

3. For American families earning less than Ninety-thousand per year (90K) the cap should be lowered to $95.00 per month. For Americans earning less than (40K) forty thousand per year the cost per month for insurance should be lowered to fifty five ($55) dollars per month. Individuals that have very low income (20K) should fall under current health care programs.

4. There should be no costs a patient pays which includes hospital visits or stays except for that annoying $10.00 co-pay. There should be no costs for durable medical equipment that doctors find necessary.

5. Digitize medical records

6 . Keep the paper work down for doctors and nurses. Do not cut costs by cutting administrative staff because that always leads to doctors and nurses having to do paper work.

7. Concentrate on preventative medicine and paying for those upfront costs for treatments that will save money in the lone run. Consider the workout or exercises equipment that the severely disabled need because there are no disabled gyms.

8. The Safeway plan is worth including into the reform plan as an addition not as an alternative. In fact consider incorporating many of the Republican suggestions as additions to the reform plan Obama is suggesting.

9. Take your time to put together an insurance plan for America -- after all you want to do it right --- but pass an emergency recession health care coverage plane that covers the unemployed, under insured and those that have no insurance until a long term plan can be worked out between the parties. After a plan is put together then transfer all the clients over to the new plan.

10. more mediation less lawsuits.

11. preexisting conditions should not be a barrier to being insured.

Press the following link for a side by side comparison of all the health care proposals currently under debate. Not one proposal explains what an individual will pay per month just a confusing formula.

I would like to quote a famous American named ET who once said "be good."

Rafael Buelna

Why has leadership lost their Imagination and the will to solve a problem like water shortage?

2009-06-02T14:32:00.000-07:00

The Daily Reckoning put out some information about investing in water that I thought provided an interesting perspective people should consider who live in areas where water is hard to come by. If water becomes a rare commodity its price goes up and people who hold stock in water benefit not citizens who live in cities were they are paying continuously higher taxes and fees as water scarcity increases. By trading stock in water, the incentive is decreased to keep the price of water down and to take pragmatic steps to increase the amount of water in our reservoirs and rivers. Think about it for a moment. Stalk holders in water commodities need a return in their investment. That profit can only come from the investment federal, state, and countries make to counter the effects of water shortages. If the drought were to end and the reservoirs and rivers were back to flowing at their capacity then citizens are less likely to accept spending tax funds on water conservation projects. If citizens do not spend tax funds on water conservation projects then how will stockholders in water commodities make any money? Citizens must then be kept in perpetual fear in order to justify spending on conservation programs that fail to ease the annual ritual of fear associated with drought, taxes and fees. This is not to say that leadership has an official plan to keep citizens in fear, only that this is the inevitable result of failing to use imagination to solve a problem like water shortages.

There is a method that if used could quickly increase the water in our reservoirs, lakes and rivers.

Press the title to read more about what leadership can do to help.

Toilet Water Reuse System

2009-05-15T10:57:00.000-07:00

I NEED YOUR HELP

Please help me put an end to the Royal Flush

There is a project I would like you to consider and that will create thousands of jobs in both the private and public sectors.

The solution is in the toilet please don't flush it away!

Let me expain. Press Here

Paradigm shift anyone?

2009-02-28T21:38:00.000-08:00

The media and the Obama administration are asking the public for any idea they might have on how to turn the economy around. Apparently, all the “kings horses and all the kings men are having problems putting Humpty Dumpty together again." Therefore, call or email CNN or the federal government with those ideas. However, if a person has a good idea what incentive is there for them to reveal it to the rest of the country? Self-satisfaction, patriotism, or religious faith is apparently the prize for presenting the United States government or CNN with a way out an economic crisis.

Unless a person already works for a think tank or some government agency, there is little chance of benefiting from ones ideas. If a BA, MA, or PhD does not back the idea, then the intelligential community will always discourage the concept. Once a person has the credentials, they publish their ideas and they make money because people pay to read their work: that’s just how it works. Otherwise, the ideas that people spend their time on are just scooped up by individuals already in the position to advance their careers. The one thing a person can count on is that once your ideas are scooped up by one of these individuals they will just take credit and reap the benefits. So the lesson is keep quite get a degree and then publish your concepts.

CNN is getting free reporting from their “I reporters” and the only compensation the satisfaction of having your few seconds of images aired on their channel. That kind of reward might work for day-to-day "I report" opinions and rantings but it's not motivation for a bonafide solution to the economic problems the U.S. and other countries face. If President Obama and CNN want creative solutions to the economic problems of the U.S., they should consider using real, all American incentive: Cash. In fact, CNN is predicating that the economy will start to recover in one or two years: in the meantime what to do? Talking heads have their ideas of how the U.S., and other economies, managed to lose upward economic momentum. Consider that economist live in the same subjective world that everyone else inhabit and do not sit on a privileged objective platform: no person does. A “paradigm shift” as Thomas Kuhn would put it or a Foucault like rupture is as difficult to view as the image in an autostereogram without the proper viewing technique. Once a person has seen the image the viewer can never go back or they cannot un-see the image. So, one must be careful to guard their intellectual secrets.

To deny that a “silver bullet” exists and that it can turn the economies of the world around is as ridiculous as forgetting what impact electricity had at the end of the 19th century. It reminds me of those people that laughed at the horseless carriage. Let us please remember the impact of a consumer driven economy on the former Soviet Union. The multiple “five-year” plans Stalin insisted on helped the USSR to a degree but they ultimately were not enough. The United States is embarking on its version of those five-year plans. However, are U.S. citizens as sturdy as Russians who are capable of sacrificing themselves, say, like at the Moscow “show trials” for the sake of keeping their country together on the verge of WWII?

There is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. has the gumption to succeed or overcome this crisis. If the herculean attempt to fix our economic troubles does not bestow fruit, a new approach or an altered one may be in order. Leadership might need a little assistance seeing the image in the autostereogram? In the meantime for the sake of country, I hope the Obama plan works and I will keep my ideas to myself until I am paid or they’re published: but feel free to share yours!

Dear Diary

2009-02-16T10:28:00.000-08:00

President Obama is going to sign his Stimulus Bill tomorrow, the economy of the United States has not yet reached bottom but the good news is that it is raining in L.A. The word “socialism” is the “hot potato” these days and is tossed around from FOX to CNN, over to Comedy Central then to the Republicans, over to the Democrats and so on. The public could decide that the Republicans are not working with the president and are simply playing the role of spoilsport during a time of crisis. This means that if the Stimulus bill works or at least begins to show signs that it is starting to work the Republican Party will suffer a loss of public confidence. As a strategy, Republican leadership insists that they have effected some change in the bill but that they had a limited role hoping to mitigate the loss of public confidence that might occur.

On the other side, if the Stimulus Bill does not work by 2011 nor show any vital signs then as President Obama has already said “you’ll have another president.” What it also means is that the Democratic Party will lose public confidence as well. This is a high stakes game of politics these two parties are playing. An economic crisis does not strike the same kind of fear in the hearts of leadership like war with a formidable opponent. The Nazi and the Communist struck fear in the hearts of leadership and so when the public demanded that all sides work together, they did just that: work together. An economic crisis only means, for leadership, that if they cannot fix the problems our economy faces then they have their wealth to fall back on after leaving office.

Democrats point out members on the right side of politics as wanting "Obama to fail” and view that attitude as “un-American,” "childish,” “dangerous,” “uncooperative,” “divisive” and so on. What is interesting is that when former president Bush was in office the same accusations were directed at the left.
Each time one party wins the White House or a majority in the Senate, House or both these accusations shift course

For the sake of the country, both parties could have left out pork from the stimulus bill but they did not. In addition, for the sake of the country, both parties could have made the process appear friendlier, cooperative and caring but they did not and will claim they both tried. Third parties, left or right, emerge during times of crisis, economic, political or both. So the warning to both parties is to trek safely. Nobody wants the socialist hot potato because no one wants to be seen interfering with market forces during a depression or recession. Remember, the essence of a market economy is motivation. If people with money are not motivated to invest, money does not circulate. People are not motivated to invest if there is little return on there investment.

The economic Stimulus Bill should be accepted with open arms and excitement because if it fails a lot of people will suffer for a long time. If the economy fails to even show vital signs of a recovery then the Obama presidency should be held accountable but it is too early in the process to criticize. The biggest issue will be how to fix things considering that almost one trillion did not do the trick: what then? I, unlike President Obama, do feel that there exists a “silver bullet” but before firing off my round of ammunition lets see if Obama and his staff hit their mark first and wish them “God speed.” In the meantime I am very grateful that it is raining in L.A.

Dear Diary

2008-11-05T10:02:00.000-08:00

Dear diary,

Day one after the 2008 election and nothing has happened to improve things. Is it to early to expect anything?

Well, I voted for President Obama but what I really cared about was prop 8. I really wanted to help out the LGBT community and hoped my fellow Californians did too but to no avail. Regulating love is a horrible and inhumane practice. I could not stand it if someone told me who I could and could not love, marry (as long as we are talking about consenting, unrelated adults). It was a state marriage license people wanted but religion had to be brought into the matter to tear the hearts out of good people. Nobody was going to force a religion to marry anybody. The schools were just going to teach that when two consenting adults, of any sexual orientation, want to marry they take their sorry asses down to city hall and pay a fee.

Anyway, there will be an inauguration and hopefully no one throws eggs at the Presidential limo like they threw at President Bush during his inauguration. Democrats surround President Obama and so there should be no reasons for things not starting to improve for our country. Nothing will happen in November and December and the Big Change will get in motion after January. So if your poor, starving and or homeless just hold on there.

I can’t wait to see the big change. Everyone is getting health insurance, clean modern cars and don’t forget new holograms. The green economy is going to employ the jobless and war is coming to an end: I think; I'm still not sure what candidate Obama said, maybe just out of Iraq. I hope he doesn't start new ones or shift the fights of old ones.

The housing crisis is going to get fixed and homelessness is going to be at the forefront of this administration since Obama was a community organizer. A President Obama is not going to cut welfare or raise the bar for benefits right? According to talking heads on CNN and Fox racism is “over” because minorities can’t complain about upward mobility anymore. I know! Racism is over? Life is good with rose-colored glasses.

Good lock Democrats

Rafael Buelna

Jobs, Socialists and Steven Colbert

2008-10-30T09:49:00.001-07:00

When making a point it is important to stick to the issue or your argument will fail to hit its mark. For example, last night I saw that Steven Colbert interviewed the American socialist party member Brian Moore. The purpose was to dispel any ideas that Obama “was a socialist.” Colbert feels that because Obama does not call himself a socialist then Obama cannot be a socialist. However, lets remember that the debate is not about Obama being a socialist it’s about Obama having socialist traits and making socialist assumptions.

To the socialist party candidate Moore, Obama is not a socialist because he does not go far enough in his economic plans to please Moore. Obama assumes that the resistance of the middle class to being taxed for the purpose of spreading around economic happiness will not affect the economy. The idea being that faith will guide our economy into the black and growth will fallow. Faith, however, has not seemed to convince banks to start lending money again and volunteer to help out the poor, innocent people who could not read a mortgage contract and so are currently disadvantaged. Americans upset at the state of the economy want it to rebound but taking the motivation out of investment and growth is counter productive. Incentive is the lubricant capitalism uses to keep its dynamics working and free of friction.

Banks have no motivation to spend and lend in an environment where the motivation to grow will be hindered by a lack of incentive. This means that people in general will likely have less money to pay their bills back because less money is circulating in the economy. For example the opportunity cost of paying the Obama tax hike is spending your money on creating a new coffee shop. A new coffee shop creates jobs for more than one waitress but the Obama economic plan simply gives a waitress (for example) $500 at the end of the year but only if she has a job.

The trait Obama shares with socialist is that government will inspire growth through the redistribution of wealth. According to the Obama economic plan the waitress will take her $500 and spend it in our economy, which will then inspire growth and then create jobs. If banks don’t lend, however, the doors to the coffee shop will have to close, the waitress will lose her job and need to save as much of her $500 as possible to survive an environment with few jobs.

Obama needs to answer why his economic plan inspires growth and has incentive for investors.

The higher tax brackets will only sustain the tax hikes for so long before they begin to protest. When this resource of wealth is taped out then the Obama economic plan will end with it. Obama is currently wanting to tax those making over a certain amount, lets put it at $250 thousand per year for the sake of argument. When this group does not prove to bring in enough tax revenue to sustain the Obama plan the bar will fall to $200 thousand per year and continue to be lowered each year to make up the difference. The point is that a socialist trait is to rely on government and not the private sector for growth.

If the economy has not shifted into the black within a year, Obama will lower the bar in order to get more revenue and unless the banks are nationalized they will continue to sit on their money. Obama does not need to be certified by the socialist party to have socialist traits. The circular reasoning that Steven Colbert used, although funny, does not address the issue but deflects it instead.

Good luck President Obama
Rafael Buelna

Jobs, The Rich and The Future

2008-10-22T10:17:00.000-07:00

Obama is already making excuses for the possibility of a failed administration. The inauguration of Obama has not occurred yet and he’s already down grading the expectations for his administration and what his economic team can do to help. “No matter who is elected, the next president will be tested” is the new line Obama is giving the public. So, this is where the Democratic Party insures that the same old politics continues in Washington. Every presidency is challenged and nothing is special about Obama but the fact the he thinks he’s special. A rank and file democrat can expect this betrayal from a Republican president but democrats usually like to look the other way when it’s their team.
Obama wants economic happiness for everybody and to redistribute the wealth of the rich using Bill Clinton tax cuts. If you make a ¼ of a million dollars per year you will be taxed more under an Obama presidency and not at an unfamiliar rate, which is why they tied it to Bill Clinton tax cut. Obama feels that his wealth should be taxed extra to make the life of a waitress, for example, happier. The big problem is that rich people can always keep their money safe while they ride out the Obama administration. In other words why should anyone invest in the economy of the United States during the four years Obama is president when they can just wait until he’s voted out of office.
The quantitative effect of rich people not investing their money in order to avoid the Obama tax can be devastating to a world economy let alone that of the United States. Obama is set to win this election and that is having an effect on the global economy. Investment in our economy has slowed because rich people do not want to finance Obama’s socialist reforms. Think about it for a second if an economic engine like the United States is going to tax the rich and the rich are fleeing the market then the effects will manifest itself in a lack of growth. The waitress Obama wants to enrich will get a tax break at the expense of her job.
During the Clinton administration there was a dot.com rush before there was a dot.com bust. The dot.com rush flooded the Clinton administration with revenue and was too enticing of a financial incentive for rich people to keep their money out of the economy. Obama is banking on the hopes that the world economy will turn around making the United States a profitable place to circulate ones money and watch it grow but no dot.com rush is going to save the day for an Obama administration. So go ahead and keep distracting yourselves with a “credit crisis” but if you really want to know where the money has gone or why it has dried up then look under the mattresses of the rich.
If the rich keep their money in their mattress then industry does not grow capitalism is slowed and jobs cannot be sustained. Is the only incentive to invest money in the U.S. economy because it’s the “biggest and richest?” Since financial institutions are currently holding on to their money around the world that last question must not be true. What has to happen is an explanation as to why it is still worth investing in the United States. Can a person still make money investing their riches into the U.S. economy? Why shouldn’t I hold on to my money until Obama is out of office and I can keep more of it for myself instead of giving it to Obama’s waitress?

I don’t think that McCain has any better ideas but I don’t usually expect much from the republican. I am still voting for Obama but his lack of creative solutions to our problems is scary.

Good luck Democrats

Rafael Buelna

The Great Debate

2008-09-26T16:08:00.000-07:00

The Great Debate is on and both of the candidates are veterans in this arena. The questions well be critiqued and so will everything else including of course our two stars Obama and McCain. The two names alone sound as if they came from the creative minds of a Hollywood Production team. The following day we’ll hear every talking head this side of the Mississippi (and the other) explain why either McCain or Obama stole the night.

Both the Democrats and Republican are banking on their assumptions that they have reason and faith on their side. These two party leaders want us to follow their reasoning on issues that not only affect us first but with greater veracity and viciousness. Hunger is vicious in case somebody out there does not know that. The United States is at a moment in time that if it’s leaders act with proper respect to our countries original purpose and prime directive which was and is to offer sanctuary. It is our responsibility to secure sanctuary for future generations. Each side wants to convince independents to sway their direction, remind their rank and file members to hold fast or to convince the other side to jump ship or to mutiny.

The debate however comes at a time when both sides have had to rethink their campaign promises. Regardless of who wins the White House the ability for the president to tax or not tax will be limited by the impact of this 700 billion dollar bailout. Democrats are wisely blaming Republicans for this ordeal but the bar or Catina conversations I’m hearing are asking “the Democrats are in charge now, right? Didn’t they win in 2006.” It’s hard to explain to people why the Democrats did not see this bailout coming yet they can pin point exactly who to blame and what evidence there is to justify their finger pointing.

What both parties can’t afford to talk about is why they are both the two foxes that killed every chicken in the coop after being asked to be the guard. Each party is acting as if no one could have ever seen this bailout coming because had one party stood in consortium against slackening oversight this would have never happened. If American were really angry about this massive raid on our tax money they would vote both parties out of office.

Obama often criticizes McCain of having been in “Washington for twenty years” and did nothing except be part of the problem but so was everyone in both the Democrat and Republican parties. That includes everyone that currently surrounds Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain. Each party has been fighting each other for years and every current member has been part of those fights even Obama. So, in regards to this 700 billion dollar bailout, both parties failed together to spot the danger the led to this bailout or else they’re both responsible for knowingly ignoring the traffic signs.

So, what is important to know about these to candidates is not how they’re a different kind of politician but how will they help us make more money. Fighting two wars is expensive so why would it be cheaper to pull out of Iraq? Using gasoline to fuel our cars is awful and too expensive so how will any of these two candidates relive our pain? If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq are we ready to enter again for humanitarian reason if matter worsen? Now that there is no money for Obama’s great give away what can Americans expect to get in exchange for giving him our vote? Since it’s more than likely that American tax payers will get nothing now that both parties gave away the cookie jar shouldn’t we stay in Iraq and suck as much oil as possible until we’re better off?

The angry, selfish questions that people ask silently of themselves are always the ones that politicians tend to want to answer. The reason is because those angry selfish questions are motivators that get people up and into the voting both or voting early.

Good luck Democrats

Rafael Buelna

Shriek and steel

2008-09-16T08:12:00.000-07:00

Poem By Rafael Buelna

A crowd stands by frightened of obligations,
And Commitments will not be broken,
Foreign places?
We can’t be expected!
To die!
What money?
What faces?

Uneasy peace stressed by tribalism,
Nativism, nationalist or some sort of
Creepy pride that by sunset would be buried,
If we’re lucky
Deep in the earth,
It’s not over,
Don’t bother,
And for god sakes don’t cry!

Couldn’t bear to watch her die,
Nor to see him fade out,
Used and finished it was time to turn away,
To hear the shrieks would be in poor taste,
Some hearts are steel and cut without haste.

Hutu and Tutsi Genocide,
How could anyone forget?
Who forgot to dial?
The help never arrived.

Couldn’t bear to watch her die,
Nor to see him diminish,
That’s why I keep doing nothing.
But shriek when I close my eyes
And see nothing but blood drip down steel,
Souls fade away,
As a watch my heart dwindle.

eucalyptus trees (a poem)

2008-09-15T09:54:00.000-07:00

by Rafael Buelna

The eucalyptus trees will always be there,
A wonderful grove and safe shade,
The comfortable trees gave us songs using leaves, trunks
Wind, rain and earth,
Those songs created memories that keep me there.

The look in our eyes once we made it there,
Was thirsty for the future,
And in love with the promise of lovers to
Meet there in an attempt to cheat the after life from
Thinking it could take one soul without the
Other.

The smell of eucalyptus is a memory
That triggers my heart,
A place to wait for no one now,
A place where the eucalyptus
Is now beyond her smell.

A promised made in life to meet there
After death so that two unbreakable hearts
Could find each other by a sweet smell
Of eucalyptus and a beautiful grove.

Good bye is hard to say.

Losing a chance to gain face

2008-06-01T10:06:00.000-07:00

To save face is not something that is only worth holding onto for fear of losing it, face is something worth regaining as well. In China there are many suffering after a devastating earthquake as we all have heard and seen. Before the deadly quake and its subsequent frightening killer after shocks China was being ridiculed for attempting to host the Olympic games before freeing Tibet. Put aside for one moment the difference in opinion between the leaders of China and all who want Tibet to be freed and to see this happen with out violence. The people who rule China are the Chinese people. Similarly, the people who rule the United Stated are its citizens. Both countries use imperfect methods to govern and to assist the needs of their respective people. The people of China have much patience so never underestimate their ability to progress or choose the right place, time and style of change: likewise for the United States.

The government of China is responding quickly and as appropriately as can be expected to the current traumatic situation resulting from the earthquake. The United States is currently in a rough situation after responding to Hurricane Katrina unprofessionally and in a manner unbecoming its stature as a first world country. Leaders of the United States would appear as hypocrites if they where to complain about the abilities of China to care for its people during hard times. The vary fact that the people of China are receiving first rate treatment, at the moment, is because the leaders of China care about their people, have the resources to help and would not like to be embarrassed for improperly responding to a communities cry for help right before the Olympic games begin.

The last things I just mentioned about the Chinese leadership caring about its people and that earthquake victims are getting first class help are assumptions I am making (in some circles) but I make them in order to clear the way for a new relationship between our two nations. The two systems of government are being challenged and North Americans are responding as predicted: selfishly and slowly. We need to help China save face right now and by doing so we give them an indication that we are serious about peace, friendship and caring for our fellow man, woman etc. The way in which the world reacts, especially the United States, to assisting China will help pave the way of the future. Helping China save face helps make the ride (the future) less bumpy and gaining a little face for the United States along the way would not hurt.

Rafael Buelna

On Saturday, What's at stake?

2008-05-29T13:21:00.000-07:00

While the DNC punished Florida and Michigan they also failed to move down the finish line to win the nomination or in other words the DNC broke their own rules. The debate is about how many delegates does it take to win the nomination for the Democratic party. The Obama camp says the number to the finish line is 2025, to the DNC its another number or 2209 and Hillary Clinton agrees with the DNC.

Since the DNC failed to move down the finish line (or lower the number of delegates to win the nomination to 2025) before the election process began the winner must get 2209 delegates: after all a “rule is a rule.“ The Obama camp wants to change this rule that will benefit him but wants to keep other rules that will not benefit the Senator. The DNC allowed an improperly designed nomination race to begin and punished Florida and Michigan with out modifying the rules of the game. So the game was never properly prepared in the first place and voters should not suffer for DNC incompetence. The Magic number should remain 2209 and Michigan and Florida should be fully seated if we are to stick to a “rule is a rule“.

The delegate finish line should remain 2209 and the Michigan delegates (Full vote for the Florida and Michigan Superdelegates and divide the the Michigan delegates 55% Clinton to 45% Obama ) and Florida should be fully seated if we are to stick to a “rule is a rule“. In Michigan Sen. Obama made a bold move by taking his name off of the ballot and he lost. Moreover, he was under no obligation to take his name off of the ballot making this process even that more difficult because it's harder now to divide the votes, so lets not reword these tactics that makes life more difficult than it had to be. In Florida, Republicans can not get away with disenfranchising our members by moving up the elections of Democrats for them in order to cause this problem. Remember Super Delegates, democrats, are mailing in their shoes as a sign that they might walk away from the party. While Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatens not to let this fight get to the convention Sen. Clinton supporters are not going to listen. Speaker Pelosi understands that at a convention Sen. Obama would be drowned out by the big states and the millions that voted for Sen. Clinton.

The convention is part of the nomination process but Speaker Pelosi wants to stop it; this move by the Speaker does not make political sense. Democrats are exited that the great numbers of voters signing up to vote in these primaries will fallow the Democrats into November. Many of the Democrats that signed up to vote did so motivated only to stop Sen. Obama from getting the nomination. These new sign-ups or voters, the DNC is counting on, will not necessarily tow the line come November during the general election: its more of a hope.

The Democratic leadership may learn a hard lesson November that perhaps running a candidate who won because of small state caucus victories is not enough to win the general election. Also, the new electoral collage strategy is too ambitious for the high stakes game Senator Obama is playing.

If Senator Obama wins, then great a victory for our party, but it does not look good

Rafael Buelna

Searchlight, Senator Harry Reid, NAFTA Super Highways

2008-05-29T00:29:00.000-07:00

Lou Dobbs would have loved to have been in Los Angeles Last Night. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid discussed his autobiography The Good Fight: Hard Lessons From Searchlight to Washington with filmmaker and activist Rob Reiner. At a Town Hall meeting in Los Angeles Senator Harry Reid spoke to an audience inside of the James Bridges Theater which is on the campus of UCLA. Since it’s not that often that I have a chance to meet a Senator of the United States, let alone the Senate Majority Leader, there was a pen and a notebook in my pocket at the ready. There I learned about a story of courage behind Sen. Reid and I felt very thankful to Mr. Reiner for hosting the event.

Searchlight is the name of the little town Senator Reid was raised in Nevada, which was a town in need of investment when he was a child but a town never impoverished of heart and soul. Placed at a crossroad, this little desert town of Searchlight Nevada is out between Lake Mohave and the Mojave National Preserve. It may not be much of a town to many but it’s where the Senator earned his Red Badge of Courage. It was what Sen. Reid had to say about NAFTA that, had Mr. Dobbs been there, would have caused his ears to perk up. Beside speaking about his past (a story from rags to power) Senator Reid also gave us a good look into his current Washington battles.

One thing I learned was that in regards to healthcare Sen. Reid feels that “had Americans gone with the plan that Hillary Clinton proposed years ago, Americans would be much better off today.“ It’s nice to hear this a few days before the Rules and Bylaws committee meets on Saturday May 31st . Another interesting thing I learned was that Senator Reid says that there are “no plans for a NAFTA super Highway.” I asked Sen. Reid if “there exists any plan to build a NAFTA Super Highway, yes or no?“ Senator Ried said he was against such trade agrements. When I was unsure of his response I followed through by asking “…what about a highway similar to a super highway or called by another name, in some other project?” and he said “no.” So, Mr. Dobbs if you have any other way of asking this question in any more of a straight forward way, I would really like to know. The Senator made it clear that there is no plan to build a highway that connects the Mexican border with Canada and that will carry goods efficiently from one trade partner to the other. There is no plan to slowly build a series of highways that will eventually connect in some form or another to form a “NAFTA Super Highway” by default. At least that’s what Senator Harry Reid said Last night.

Rafael Buelna

Bad Moon Rising (Anyone care?)

2008-05-23T21:29:00.000-07:00

CNN.COM gives a good over all review of the matter regarding Sen. Clinton and the word "assassination" so run over there and read their play by play. There is a few things a want to get off my mind about this sad event which mainstream media does not talk about and because "I see a bad moon rising."

A.The Kennedy family sent a press release explaining that they take Hillary Clinton at her word on the matter of using the word "assassination."

B. On 5/23/2008 a statement from the Argus Leader is released. Executive Editor Randell Beck of the The Argus Leader’s issued the following statement today: "The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself."

C. Before the Editor of the Argus Leader or the Kennedy Family could respond, the Obama campaign was accusing Sen. Clinton of bringing into an election things that "have no place" in a party nomination process. This is a good example of the swift boating that the Obama campaign has run against Hillary Clinton. Before Sen. Obama had his facts correct he sent out his troops to attack an honorable party member and for no reason. So far the Obama campaign offers no apology for being trigger happy.

D. Roland Martin said on CNN that to bring up the word assassination was irresponsible because of the fact this election was "historical" because Sen. Obama was African-American. It did not matter to Roland Martin that this election also has a woman running that also makes this election historical. What is really disgusting is that to Roland Martin it matters little that Sen. Clinton could be assassinated or Sen. McCain. Roland Martin was just concerned with Sen. Obama and not with the fact that the Kennedy Family and the editor of the Argus Leader had already pointed out that people were misreading what Sen. Clinton had said.

Hillary Clinton is being accused of hoping or even secretly wanting Sen. Obama to be assassinated. According to some journalist, interviewed today on CNN around 3 pm PT, because Hillary Clinton wants to win the nomination she obviously hopes Sen. Obama is assassinated. The Argus Leader and the Kennedy family have already said that the context in which the Obama campaign read and understood Sen. Clintons remarks is unreasonable. In fact the Kennedy family agreed with the the editor of the Argu Leader.

The Obama campaign should remmember something very important: Whether or not CNN or FOX NEWS agree with supporters of Sen. Clinton, that the media failed to hold accountable the vapid sexism aimed a Sen. Clinton this nomination process, tearing at her character only digs the divide deeper and wider between the two camps.

While the real issue is a lack of creativeness in the approach to solving international problems that Sen. Obama, Clinton and McCain are spitting around these days Sen. Obama decides to attact the Character of his apponent. Also, why does Sen. Obama get to flip flop on the issue of using "preconditions" and meeting with rogue Foreign leaders?"

Rafael Buelna

Political Ennui

2008-05-20T15:17:00.000-07:00

The endorsement by Hamas is the last thing that Sen. Obama needed right now. This is one political hot potato flying through the media outlets right now. Much of the attention given to this issue is because of the recent reverse in Sen. Obama’s position on the subject of Hamas. The debate is about what an appropriate relationship looks and sounds like between a freely elected political party called Hamas or arakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya and the President of the United States. Hamas won the elections just ask ex-president Jimmy Carter. Nevertheless, this same group is considered a terrorist group and Sen. Obama has a long history of wanting to engage in direct negotiations without preconditions with this political party.

Sen. Obama has reversed his opinion, only recently, and has decided that Hamas must not only be “condemned” now but has also reinforced the idea that this political party is a “terrorist organization” and must comply with, you guessed it, preconditions. “…the use of military force if you need it, but to try and avoid that option if you can by engaging in robust diplomacy. That’s what Barack Obama is talking about,” Dodd told “FOX News Sunday.” So, according to Sen. Obama Iran, Cuba or Venezuela should not have to comply with preconditions but Hamas should be the exception. This last bit of information on Sen. Obama comes from an interview the senator had with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic according to Joe Klein who writes for TIME in a section called “In the Arena.” (May 26, 2008 issue page 23) To some folks including Joe Klein, this is more than a reversal of opinions it is a failure of leadership and a “sad abandonment of principles” on the part of Sen. Obama and Senator John McCain.

Speaking of abandoning principles and misconceptions Peter Beinart (senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations) titled his last work “The Trailblazers” (Time magazine May 26, 2008 page 35) and the article reveals his current state of ennui over the current popular perceptions of who the Clintons are and what they mean to our country. Read the article yourself because its well written and his thoughts describe the feeling of many voting Americans. Mr. Beinart wrote “If Bill Clinton weren’t the person they revile [Supporters of Sen. Obama], Barack couldn’t be the person they love.”

The ennui or sadness Mr. Beinart feels is more of a silent rage to many supporter of Sen. Clinton yet others are being very vocal. Only today Fox News interviewed a supporters of Sen. Clinton, that has threatened to either not vote or vote for John McCain. Another supporter, Cynthia Ruccia, co-founder of “Clinton Supporters Count, Too” says her group will campaign against Obama, vote for McCain if her candidate is shut out. This negative reaction to the nomination of Sen. Barack Obama is growing daily and what has the DNC worried is that rank and file Democrats are not listening to the calls of mainstream media and popular political web pages that the nomination process is over and Hillary should drop out or that it's now poinless to go on. The DNC nor Sen. Clinton can control the momentum that she has created. Sen. Clinton can call for a “healing” process to begin amongst party members but this sounds condescending to her supporters who consider this "healing process" to be more of a pacification process. In other words, get in line, hold your nose, vote Democrat or for Obama and Shut-Up is what many Clinton voters are hearing.

Clintons supporters upset with this election process and who are considering voting for McCain reason that abandoning the Democrats lets the Republicans clean up their own mess. The second reason I here or read about is that the Democratic party has lost face with many of its members.

What I am not sure about is when did Democrats turn into Reaganites?

A. So, congratulations Sen. Clinton on winning Kentucky and holding your own in Oregon.
B. Sorry, that members of our own party Swift Boated your campaign.
C. Congratulations Sen. Obama you won because “a rule is a rule.” This reminds me of winning a game of Eight-ball because your opponent knocked the eight ball into the pocket after the break.
D. If Obama wins the Oval Office, we have to help President Obama have a good four years so that he gets a second four years in office to continue the good work. What this means is that Senator Clinton will not have her chance at becoming President of the United States in four years.
E. Hillary Clinton promised New Yorkers that she would not run for President her first term in Office in order to “honor” her promise to get things done for their state.

I respected Sen. Clinton for making and keeping that promise but now I think she should have taken her chances then because honor has no place in politics: not this election season.

Rafael Buelna

Senator Obama on the attack

2008-05-16T10:47:00.000-07:00

Below is some math that might catch your attention and a commentary by Dick Bennett over at the American Research Group. The point is that their is an illusion flouting around within the left wing of U.S politics and it may be related to illusions of grandeur. Democrats are walking around with a since of intitalment to the White House (Clinton and Obama voters). This illusion or sense of intitlment may have come from the false belief that the next few months of politics is going to be as civil as the democratic primary race has been. Many nieve citizens feel that this last contest between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama has been "negative." That claim, that the nomination process was negative, was just a red herring stratagy used by the Obama campaign to win over votes. As much as one may want to win the Oval Office, Democrats should not be so sure of themselves.

For example, anyone that heard or saw President Bush speak before the Israeli parliament heard him say "...some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorist and radicals ..." Barack Obama took this speech as a direct attack against his campaign. Since the Democrats are sensitive to being “swift boated” Sen. Obama felt he had to strike out as fast as possible. The issue is over the CNN YouTube debate when Sen. Obama was asked about whether or not he would meet with terrorist. Sen. Obama answered "yes and without preconditions " but now the senator is distancing himself from his comments or changing course by replacing the word preconditions with preparation. To Sen. Obama it's a different approach because it copies president Ronald Reagan’s theory of a "Mirror [of] military strength with tough diplomacy..": Senator Obama said this today. Although Senator Obama sounds like Hillary Clinton now he sounded different back during the YouTube debates.

The question to Senator Obama during the YouTube debate was "...would you meet without preconditions." The Senator answered today by saying "no, direct talks without preconditions becomes the subject of the negotiations." Somehow, no direct talks, without preparations, means a step forward and is a suppose to be a big change of foreign policy. Sen. Obama found himself in front of a media circus today unable to describe the difference between Preconditions and Preparations. Sen. Obama did not have one idea about what would be included in "preparations." Maybe it means that a President Obama would prepare a thousand high school bands or send the New York Philharmonic to melt the cold hearts of our countries enemies or as Sen. Obama put it "rogue nations"

Senator Clinton called it naive to meet with our countries enemies during the YouTube CNN debate. Senator Obama answers by saying that he would present "my expectations to our enemies." But Bush tried this with North Korea recently and it did not work because our enemies did not meet with the preparations before the talks could take place. A tough but engaged policy is what Sen. Obama wants but tough against what or who and engaged to what level . Hamas did well in the elections and Sen. Obama said that we should not have supported the same democratic elections that ex-president Carter personally helped with. The U.S promotes democracy and this is one of our prerogative but Obama thinks it was a mistake to help the Palestinians. This suggests that we should not be supporting democratic freedom and also that when elections do not benefit the Senator, the Senator does not like elections.

By Rafael Buelna

Below is some math and comments by Dick Bennett

May 16, 2008 - Oregon Democratic Primary Preference
Oregon Democrats May 14-16
Clinton 45% Obama 50% Undecided 5%

Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 57% to 39% among men (48% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 51% to 44%.
Obama leads 51% to 44% among white voters (88% of likely Democratic primary voters). Clinton leads 50% to 46% among Hispanic voters (6% of likely Democratic primary voters).
Obama leads 55% to 38% among voters age 18 to 49 (49% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 52% to 45% among voters age 50 and older.
Clinton and Obama are tied at 49% each among voters saying they have returned their ballots (58% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads 52% to 40% among voters saying they will definitely return their ballots by May 20th.
20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

A Surprise About Obama, Clinton, and Turnout

Conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama's primary victories are based on his ability to increase turnout.
A look at what happens when voter turnout increases in the primaries proves that this notion is wrong. In fact, Obama has had his greatest primary (and caucus) victories when turnouts have been low.
Obama received 66% of the primary vote in Georgia when 22.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Virginia, Obama received 64% of the primary vote when 21.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Mississippi, Obama received 61% of the primary vote when 24.4% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary.
Hillary Clinton received 67% of the primary vote in West Virginia when 30.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Pennsylvania, Clinton received 55% of the vote when 27.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Ohio, Clinton received 54% of the primary vote when 30.5% of all registered voters in the state voted in the primary.
There are exceptions (such as Arkansas, Tennessee, and Rhode Island), but Clinton, and not Obama, tends to win in the states where turnouts are higher. The relationship is strong enough that Democratic primary turnout can be predicted using Clinton's share of the vote.

--Dick Bennett

Reasons Superdelegates may want to come over sooner than later

2008-05-11T11:20:00.000-07:00

17 Reasons for Superdelegates to move over to Obama before the May 20th Oregon Primary.

1. Barack Obama is favored to win Oregon by 6 to 8 percent.
2. The contest between both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton has activated a record number of voters to the democratic process. Not since 1992 (or when Bill Clinton won) have we seen this number and energy in the democratic party heading into a Presidential election.
3. The Clinton family all agree that regardless of the outcome for this election the “Democrats will be united" to win the Oval Office and many other important seats.
Sen. Clinton pointed out that the recent poll results are indicating that white voters have been increasingly leaning towards her camp. Although true, stating the statistics has caused accusations of race baiting to surface within the party. To avoid any of this wild fire to spread any further, Sen. Clinton should step out of the race after the West Virginia primary but before Oregon.
4. Since the wishes of most voters who have supported Sen. Obama are that Sen. Clinton should drop out of this contest, it is wise to consider that it is these same voters or group that will accuse Sen. Clinton (Should Sen. Obama not win the Presidency) of wounding Sen. Obama irrevocably.
5. Should Sen. Obama not win the Presidency the party will need a leader to turn to. For that person to be Hillary Clinton she should consider stepping out of the race and make it clear to the party, her supporters, and those of Sen. Obama that it was to avoid any division within the party associated with race or gender.
6. Sen. Barack Obama would make a great President (this should have been the first reason)
7. Although Sen. Obama has negatives, those negatives are only vulnerable to voters that retain grudges stubbornly.
8. If Sen. Clinton drops out of this contest after West Virginia then she exits on a high note; always exit on a high note.
9. If Sen. Clinton were to win Oregon (on a fluke) the damage caused to Sen. Obama’s campaign would be too severe.
10. The progressive ideas that are at the heart of supporters of Sen. Clinton are not foreign to Sen. Obama.
11. A Republican president and a Republican controlled House and Senate has derailed our countries prime directive: to preserve itself by preserving its ethics.
12. Even if the only reason to enter Iraq in the first place was to arrest and hang Saddam Hussein, it’s time to leave. The exist strategy should have been to exit after Saddam Hussein was executed.
13. Not many of Sen. Clintons Supporters would blame her for stepping down.
14.The demographics indicate that the people that support Sen. Clinton are not as financially well off as those individuals that support Sen. Obama. So it is not very honorable to ask them to donate the little that they do have to help support a campaign that can not get past Oregon.
15. With some good old fashion TLC, the people of Florida and Michigan (or everyone else that will not participate in this process) will vote for Sen. Obama over John McCain.
16. He ran a good campaign and the "math" is on his side. The DNC through the RBC (rules and bylasws committee) will dilute the Florida and Michagan vote. That decision will sting Sen. Clinton supporters and add fuel to her momentum. The problem that the Democrats will face is how to redirect mommentum.

17. If Sen. Clinton finishes out the elections and on June 15th runs to embrace Sen. Obama there remains only four months to heal wounds. If Sen. Clinton drops out after Kuntucky then the extra time could make a big difference for the Democratic healing process or stratagy to take effect. Let me repeat, if Sen. Obama does not win Oregon the damage will be too severe to overcome the mommentum. Asking people to donate money to a campaign that can not win Oregon or this nomination is outragous and the issue may come back to hurt Sen, Clinton someday.

Rafael Buelna

A Victory Lap

2008-05-08T15:09:00.000-07:00

Sen. Obama has run his victory lap around Capital Hill today and has declared that on May 20th he will give his acceptance speech and thank the voters for their participation in the Democratic process to decide the party nominee. There is no doubt that Sen. Obama would make a great President, just as good as Sen. Clinton would. This is also an historic election because a woman and black man are running for the Oval Office for the 1st time. This is, however, also the first time a party candidate decides when the process should end. Instead of allowing the upcoming Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) meeting of the Democratic Party to decide on the Florida and Michigan issues on may 31st, Sen. Obama has decided that it is unnecessary to wait for the DNC to come up with a solution or at least his strategist have. In other words, since Senator Obama considers himself the winner the rules and bylaws committee does not have to meet; what for? The conflict here is with the party charter and its mandate to be as inclusive as possible and with Sen. Obama because he is disenfranchising the votes of people or voters, party members after May 20th who have yet to vote.

The question then is what is the rules and bylaws committee for if not to decide on questions regarding issues or questions that come up during an election?

By announcing that May 20th Sen. Obama would declare himself the winner he has in effect turned the State of Oregon into the last Battleground State. If Sen. Obama loses Oregon then he would look a little foolish announcing victory on a day he’s lost an important state. The DNC can not allow Sen. Obama to supersede its authority and prematurely declare victory without their consent otherwise like Barry Bonds* Sen. Obama will have an asterisks by his name. It would be wise for Sen. Obama to overturn Sen. Clinton in the next contests or expect to face Sen. Clinton's momentum going into Oregon on May 20th and announce victory on a lost day. The DNC has announced that on May 31st the RBC would meet, so, who is in charge?

Rafael Buelna

Good luck Democrats!

A List for Superdelegates (regarding Sen. Clinton)

2008-05-07T15:42:00.000-07:00

1. Hillary Clinton has won the states that it takes to win a Presidential Election. Her election strategy is a proper strategy if it is important to count every vote and win the White House.
2. Sen. Clinton has negatives that are already known and expected while Sen. Obama has negatives yet to be tested.
3. The voters did not give the Superdelegates any cover to come out and support Hillary Clinton. This is a phrase that many political strategist are using to explain that the Superdelegates wanted Obama to lose North Carolina in order to justify their vote based on the belief that Sen. Obama is not capable of winning the General Election. The problem is that Sen. Obama did not give the Superdelegates any cover either by losing Indiana after suggesting that the state was a “tie-breaker.”
4. If it is a negative that Hillary Clinton did not win-over the black vote in North Carolina then it is a negative that Obama is hemorrhaging white votes.
5. It is a positive that Sen. Clinton has the support of middle-class America which are the same votes the GOP is after.
6. It is a negative that many Clinton voters do not want to support Sen. Obama in the event he wins the party nomination. This is not an issue that Sen. Clinton can control but can only help quell a little.
7. The Superdelegates are concerned about the tensions growing within Florida and Michigan voters. If Sen. Obama and Clinton were playing a board game then I would agree with not counting the votes of the individuals that came out to vote in both states. Since we are talking about people it is imprudent to fail and take into consideration that people may choose to punish the party out of spite and use their vote for revenge or not vote at all. Sen. Clinton may implore her supporters for unity but there is no assurance that they will forgive as easily as she can; remember Reagan Democrats are fiscally and security oriented.
8. Giving Hillary Clinton the nomination means the party takes less of a risk of losing any base support as suggested by the recent exit polls which points out that Obama supporters are willing to vote for Hillary more so than Clinton voters are williong to vote for Sen. Obama.
9. West Virginia (is this not cover?) If Hillary Clinton wins West Virginia then the Superdelegates have the cover they need to justify their vote for supporting Sen. Clinton based on their belief that Senator Obama can not win the general election considering his hemorrhaging of Reagan Democrats, white males, voters earning under 50k a year, women, independents, swing voters, etc.
10. Obama bases his appeal to the Superdelegates on the hope that he can win Florida, Colorado, Ohio and Michigan for an Electoral College victory, but he lost all four states.
11. It is very difficult to ask the people from Florida and Michigan for their support after not wanting their votes to count in the first place. Florida, Ohio or Michigan have to turn "blue" for the Democrats to win the White House, and that's our goal.
12. It is horrible to say that Hillary Clinton is “waiting for something horrible to happen to Barack Obama” which is what strategist are suggesting about Sen. Clinton. Sen. Clinton wants to win just like Sen. Obama, and does not want something horrible to happen to him anymore than he wants something horrible to happen to her. The only thing Hillary Clinton needs to happen is for the DNC to do the right thing and count the popular votes of Florida and Michigan and seat the delegates.
13. The idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket is not possible, according to many Obama supporters, while Hillary voters seem to enjoy this idea.
14. Hillary Clinton has a record of working across party lines and Sen. Obama does not.
15. If Hillary wins the upcoming primaries, it is ridiculous to deny the momentum she would have created. Too abruptly stop and then ask the voters to reactivate in support of the "real nominee" or Sen. Obama is a bit naive.

The magic number is somewhere above 270 which is part of the Electoral College process. Hillary Clinton will deliver. Sen. Obama can win but it is uncertain as to how much he can get done becaause of his short record on the Capital Hill.

Hillary Clinton does not want her supporters to abandon Sen. Obama if the Superdelegates decide he is the best candidate to win the White House. Earlier today she said “If you voted for either one of us then you did not vote for ending the war in Iraq, Healthcare…”

Rafael Buelna

Tie-Breaker (This article is worth reading)

2008-05-06T22:21:00.000-07:00

I did not write the following post but I think it's worth reading so I posted part of it here for you to think about.

In April, Barack Obama called Indiana a ‘tie-breaker’ for the Democratic nominating process: "You know, Sen. Clinton is more favored in Pennsylvania and I'm right now a little more favored in North Carolina, so Indiana right now may end up being the tiebreaker. So we want to work very hard in Indiana."
At the time, Senator Obama’s comments seemed to be part of an elaborate plan to lower expectations for the Indiana contest. After all, roughly 20% of Indiana Democratic primary voters have been exposed to Senator Obama for years because they live within the Chicago media market. He’s never lost a state that borders his home-state of Illinois.
The fact that Indiana was an open primary - Republicans and independents can vote in the Democratic contest - also augured well for Senator Obama. He has regularly argued that he should be nominated because he “appeal[s] to Republicans and Independents in a way that none of the other nominees can."
Throw in the fact that Senator Obama outspent the Clinton campaign by a 2 to 1 margin on Indiana television and Indiana seems to be more of a lean-Obama state than a toss-up.
So Hillary’s victory in Indiana - fought out against the backdrop of an ailing economy - is all the more incredible. We started out behind in both the public and internal polls.

READ FULL ARTICLE

Judgment calls, Obama, Clinton The Party

2008-04-30T16:26:00.000-07:00

In 2002 Senator Obama had no plans to run for President and did not think President Bush had made a good case for going to war with Iraq. In 2004 Senator Obama in an interview with the New York Times declined to criticize the Democratic Party's presidential and vice presidential nominees, Sen. John F. Kerry and then-Sen. John Edwards, for supporting the 2002 war resolution. "But I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Obama said, according to the Times. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

What is interesting is that Sen. Obama was uncertain about what he would have done different two years after Sen. Clinton supported the 2002 war resolution. As a Democrat I supported the Kerry/Edwards ticket regardless of the fact that both Kerry and Edwards had supported the resolution, most Democrats did. Senator Clinton, like Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards, was simply supporting the party just like Senator Obama was doing in 2004 when he answers “I don’t know.”

The point here is that Sen. Obama has used this issue to his advantage in more than one instance. First Senator Obama is against the War in Iraq by 2002 but supported Sen. Kerry in 2004 who committed the same sin he accuses Sen. Clinton of committing two years earlier. By 2008 Sen. Obama is no longer willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Senator Clinton regarding making the proper “judgment calls” but is willing to do so for the Democratic party as a whole. In other words if Sen. Clinton had bad judgment problems back in 2002 then so did the whole Democratic party and its leadership at the time. If the case is that the entire Democratic party (except 22 members) had issues making proper judgment calls then maybe every member of the Democratic party should jump ship.

Michael Moore was very vocally against the war by 2004 and was also not privy to Senate intelligence reports. So my Question to Mr. Moore is what would he have done different back in 2004 because Sen. Obama did not “know?”

A win is a WIN!

2008-04-23T13:17:00.000-07:00

When going up against the GOP it's a good thing to have a candidate like Hillary Clinton who can be outspent 3 - to - 1 and still come out ahead in Keystone states!

Should Senator Clinton Quit?

2008-03-04T15:01:00.000-08:00

"Nuts!"

General A.C. McAuliffe.

And Who Are You? Y tú quién eres?

2008-03-03T13:30:00.000-08:00

" Y tú quién eres? A recent email asked me to answer this question, it means, "and who are you? I'm just another person writing on the net. If you are still interested, however:

Press the Titile and read a short part of my family time line. The essay discribs an uncle (great uncle) who first had my name.

The Picture is of General Rafael Buelna who fought in favor of the Mexican Revolution.

Confusing Fairytales

2008-02-28T09:28:00.000-08:00

CNN decides to look a little closer at the story about Bill Clinton and the accusation that The Clinton campaign was running the“southern Republican Strategy,”according to Roland S. Martin, against Barack Obama . Joe Johns is a CNN correspondent based in the network's Washington, D.C., bureau and points out how confusion over this issue got the better of voters

Press the Title to read the article

The Media and Objectivity

2008-02-26T20:14:00.000-08:00

CNN spent all day analyzing how wrong everyone is that see or sense an imbalance.

Press the Title to read the post

Voters, McCain, Latinos

2008-02-26T18:13:00.000-08:00

During a general election the Latino vote may not hold for Obama. Obama has said that he would sit down and talk to the new leader of Cuba and that turned off many Cuban-Americans. But it is not only the Cuban-American Latinos that may not be there for Obama.

Press the Title to read the full post

Florida and Michigan to hold a secod Pimary

2008-02-22T10:47:00.000-08:00

Ok Florida and Michigan Lets do it again.

Lets have a second vote. Hillary Clinton Or Barack Obama

Press to Vote Here

So, If your From Florida or Michigan Don't Forget to Vote.

If people are truthful we can get a real result, so, please be a voter from Florida or Michigan!

Independents will abandon Barack Obama says CNN

2008-02-21T13:43:00.000-08:00

So, Barack Obama has election results blotted by votes that were cast by independents that will not be there for him in the race for the White House. Lou Dobbs will make sure of that if the issue “illegal immigration” climes the charts of importants to the U.S voter.

Press the title to read the full post

A License For Illegal Immigrants

2008-02-21T08:10:00.000-08:00

This Article discribes a Problem For Barack Obama During a Presidential Race

Press the title to read

Mac has endorsed Hillary Clinton

2008-02-14T22:22:00.000-08:00

A Parody of a Mac Ad. Hillary is the Mac that is ready to work, creative and out of the box while McCain needs time to shake the weight off of his back.

I created the Animation and Music press the title to watch it and PLEASE take my poll: Just press the Title of this post please.

Thank You

2008-02-12T20:42:00.000-08:00

I have A Few Questions

2008-02-12T16:51:00.000-08:00

Please take a few moments and help me by answering some questions. I created some polls with questions regarding the presidential elections.

Please press the title to participate.

From Super Tuesday to March Madness.

2008-02-11T22:13:00.000-08:00

Unless one of the democratic party candidates is mathematically beyond the reach of the nomination by March 4th or April 22, Howard Dean, The Head of the DNC, has said the two nominees will have to come together and carve out some agreement.

Press the title to read the full post

Update, CNN John King has confirmed this post

Michael Moore answers Barack Obama on Larry King Live

2008-02-07T13:33:00.000-08:00

Appearing on the Larry King live program, Mr. Moore noted that he had a problem voting for Hillary during the primary because of her Senatorial record on Iraq. Mr. Moore, however, is at odds with both candidates on the Iraq issue. Mr. Moore wants the troops brought home immediately while Senator Obama favors an “Over-the-Horizon” approach:

To read the full article press the Title

What Will Michael Moore Say on Larry King LiveToday?

2008-02-06T17:41:00.000-08:00

Press the title to read

Hillary and Barack animated Gif

2008-02-05T07:11:00.000-08:00

I created an animated gif for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Supporters. I didn't think I'd get much response to my little contest so I made a gif animation for everyone

Press the Title to take a look.

CONTEST. The prize is an Animated Gif

2008-01-29T15:15:00.000-08:00

Go to Hate, Politics and Moving Forward for rules and Details

Together! or not?

2008-01-15T07:45:00.000-08:00

What happened this past week? Why did race become a problem for Democrats to discuss? Why did it take so long before the Candidates called a truce? Press the title to read the article.

Change? What is it?

2008-01-07T14:43:00.000-08:00

This is a Question, not an attack.

That's just the truth folks

press the title to view the Question.

Election 2008

2008-01-02T20:26:00.000-08:00

For the sake of argument lets say that all three contenders, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are all more than qualified to be President of The United States. After all, it is not polite to belittle any service to our country a candidate has performed.

To read the rest Press the Title above

Update: Kerry endorced Obama -- Does that make a differeance? -- The Polotical junkies of CNN did not seem to think so nor the ones at FOX.

YouTube and Election 2008

2007-12-12T15:50:00.000-08:00

This is the Article that started it all folks! Check the records yourself. Before CNN announced any plan for a "YouTube" debate this article hit the digital highway back on April 2, 2007.

Can I call it or what folks!

press the title to read the article

Immigration and Election 2008

2007-12-02T14:55:00.000-08:00

This is an image from the animation I submitted to the CNN Repulican dabate. to read the artical press the Tile

Party Punk Pegs

2007-10-22T16:49:00.000-07:00

Party Punk Pegs Jump Around!

Blocks were my favorite toy to play with, so, when I had a chance to play with them again I decided to share just what my typical playtime with blocks looked like. The music came from a 2001 album named Gorillaz and the titled of the song is "Punk." This group falls under many genre's but I looked under alternative music using iTunes. I hope you enjoy the next 59 seconds as much as I enjoyed animating them.

Iraq: A war or a bumper sticker?

2007-09-04T11:12:00.000-07:00

Analyzing a statement made by Democratic Candidate John Edwards about the current war in Iraq.

Press the Title to read the Article

How to Avoid a Sexual Harassment moment

2007-06-25T14:59:00.000-07:00

Avoid Sexual Harassment in the Office. Take a little time from your busy day and watch a video created to instruct workers of the modern work space on how to behave.

Press the Title to view the show. (Pressing this link means you are ready for a joke. If you are not ready for a joke, do not, press this link!)

Thank You is spam?

2007-06-24T11:52:00.000-07:00

Extra, Extra The Pot called the Kettle “black!”

SPAM is the great meat or food that helped win World War II but “spam” (all lower case) is the difference between bad mail, junk, unwanted mail and the mail a person wishes or wants to open and give time and attention to. Recently, it's been pointed out to me, that an animation I created titled “Thank You” was marked as “spam.” I did not email this animation to one person. What I did do was post it on a YouTube channel titled “rafaelsanimation” about a month or two after giving out three copies: one to an aunt on Christmas, another to the mother whose sons are currently serving our armed forces and one last copy to a personal friend. Thank You was created as a dedication to everyone that has sacrificed body and soul for the great experiment our forebears titled the United Stated of America taking place on the North American continent since 1776.

Every country honors its soldiers and being a citizen of this country is no different. If CNN or FOX or the BBC or ABC or CBS or NBC etc can create and broadcast dedications honoring our troops (or their troops in the case of the BBC) while advertising then so can anyone else. These businesses advertise and make plenty of money at what they do, yet, are not considered “spam.” If “Thank You” is spam then so is anything the above businesses or all media create. A dedication made by an individual for the sake of honoring friends that have passed away (who loved their country) and everyone that is currently and has served our country, in one way or another, should not be considered spam. I am taking this “a little bit personally” because this is a blog, a blog is an e-journal, and so it’s my prerogative.

Long live the spirit of our nation: Liberty, Justice and the Pursuit of Happiness. This is very different than the pursuit of Empire.

Rafael Buelna

Press Title to see animation

Gesture Drawing Series 2

2007-06-21T12:01:00.000-07:00

Series #2 Picture of Gesture Drawing I framed. A gesture drawing is an exercise in learning movement. By Rafael Buelna

Other Pictures posted at Rafaelsanimation where I post art work.

New Art Work

2007-06-19T16:58:00.000-07:00

A few of my gesture drawings have been framed. I posted other pictures as well. Press The link.

There are other drawings on the way but they are currently being framed and unavailable until after the show.

Mind of Puppet

2007-06-16T02:01:00.000-07:00

Calm Down it was just a "JOKE!"

Press Title to see animation

Iraq: a war or a bumper sticker

2007-06-04T17:33:00.000-07:00

When is a war a “bumper sticker” and when is a war just a war?

This article discusses the differences between a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq.

Press the title to read this article

Massacre in Chinatown

2007-05-24T17:03:00.000-07:00

Art work by Rafael Buelna

Copy rights:

Red Frog

Paying the Gangsta Tax

2007-05-24T16:53:00.000-07:00

Art work by Rafael Buelna

The Socratic Circle

2007-05-24T16:49:00.000-07:00

Image by Rafael Buelna

Double Sided

2007-05-24T16:44:00.000-07:00

Mr. Kyle Purcell wanted to express his thoughts regarding Don Imus in his essay titled Double Sided. press the title to read

Art work by Rafael Buelna

Stem Cells Help Paralyzed Rats Walk

2007-04-26T11:38:00.000-07:00

Dr. Douglas Kerr, a neurologist at Johns Hopkins University explains the steps being made to one day help people enjoy life a little better. The article first appearded June 20, 2006

Press the title to read the full artilcle.

Fifty Dollar Contest! $50.00

2007-04-20T10:24:00.000-07:00

The contest is currently closed. Last chance to enter is 5/20/2007. Prize is Fifty dollars $50.00 and winning essay will be posted on Memorial Day 5/28/2007

The purpose of the following contest is for the satisfaction of sharing ideas and to get a $50.00 prize.

I need somebodies help, please!

There was a person that once said "Hell is the place where nothing new originates." The second quote, I hope someone can help me out with is, "We are all Gods in embryo." If anybody knows where these to quotes came from or who wrote or said them I would appreciate the information.

Posting:

Please send your essay entry to www.essaytwoquotes@yahoo.com and leave an email address with contact information. I will send verification that I received the essay and post it (your essay under the pseudonyms you/author provide) for others to comment at
http://twoquotescontest.blogspot.com/

contest rules at: http://www.twoquotescontest.blogspot.com/

The Winning essay will be posted under the heading "A Tale of Two Quotes: Winning Essay"

Rafael Buelna 4/20/2007

Art, Don Imus and The Market

2007-04-16T01:14:00.000-07:00

By Rafael Buelna

The Rutgers team couch and the players have accepted the apology of Mr. Don Imus and his wife is asking for the hate mail, people are sending the team members, to be rerouted to their home instead of being sent to the team players...

To read the full article press or click the above title or the link below.

http://www.hateandpolitics.blogspot.com/

Rafael Buelna April 15, 2007