Letters from Way Out There ...

I don't know how this happened,  but some people have the temerity to disagree with Lord Walter, Ruler of the (Left and Free) Universe!  Do you know what the penalty for that is?  Do you?

You get published,  right here.

KM reads a Federal Register

MS Responds to Alienation

Agreeable Arianna

KM's Manifesto

TK's AD in MN

Is Walter sick?

No easy injection executions,  or simple garrotting here.

Lord Walter likes blood on the guillotine stand and heads in the basket.  Yeeeeaaaaaaarrrrgh ...   (where have we heard that before?)

Kay Matusek found this notice in an obscure Federal Register, shortly after George W Bush demanded a ban on gay marriage:

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT

The government announced today that it is changing its emblem to a condom because it more clearly reflects the government's political stance.

A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.

In response to "Profoundly Alienated,"  Marcia Stewart says:

I am more than a little annoyed at Ralph Nader, and I see no apt comparison between you and him.  Keep on writing and do not run for pres.!!!

From Arianna Huffington:

Dear Walter,

Thank you for your email.  I agree with you.

All the Best,

Arianna

 -----Original Message-----
From: Walter L Battaglia

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 11:39 AM
To: Arianna Huffington
Subject: California issues: PROP 56/ 57/58

I am supporting PROP 56, and voting NO on 57/58.

I am very irritated that the only way I have joining with others for NO 57/58 is via Sen McClintock.  As a progressive, this is just too much for me.

My arguments on this are straightforward:  We've been hogtied by the supermajority rules,  so we should end them.  The Gov's propositions carry too much garbage with them,  and are really STARVE THE BEAST in disguise.  California won't go broke, if the elected reps take responsibility (and it is high time they did!).

I don't think people should vote out of fear,  or be enslaved to Wall St.

Where do you stand on this?

Take a look at  Arianna Online.

Kay Matusek,  one of the revolt leaders, wrote this manifesto:

In response to the Essays of WLB

You shouldn't give up a sense of humor. I do think we have to try to improve the world but it is also maybe not the end of the world if it is not done in a cataclysmic way; sometimes it is just touching one person at a time. Sometimes this is actually the best way.

I want to live long enough to see that little prick shoved out of office and I don't care who replaces him. It is an emotive response. I know no one is perfect. But "the Shrub" is more imperfect than others by a long, long shot. He is a Republican first, not a President. We need a President first who will be a Democrat second and I think most of the candidates will do this. It may be the "lesser of 2 evils" but it will be far less evil to have any Democrat.

We can also lobby the candidates to listen to the reasons Dean was so popular; people can change. Maybe some of these candidates will become more idealistic or stronger in their opinions. Then, again, maybe for the President to be really idealistic would render him/her totally ineffectual. There is always some politicking that happens in politics and it will never be perfect.

We did a lot and made some huge changes in the 60's & 70's even though we certainly were not represented by the best people in office (Raygun was gov & this is when Nixon went national/irrational). People can make a difference as long as a leader, be it the Administration, Congress, states, judiciary is force to listen on some level. I think some of the Democrats can be forced. I think Bush lives on another planet; I noticed he don speck eglish so good (like some gubenators even).

We actually have a lot going for us with the communication we have via the internet. While the fifth estate is consolidating & being bought out by big business, we do not have to rely on it in the same way we have relied on it in the past. (I personally haven't lived with a connected TV since 1961 and I can't say I think I've missed too much; especially in the last couple of years. I hear reality can be a bad thing!)

So I think there is some power in numbers but not if you abdicate your responsibility and refuse to vote. You also have to keep repeating yourself over and over so the officials may hear you and then be careful that you not become too enamored of your own rhetoric, even good rhetoric. We get caught up in ourselves & forget the greater picture that we will endure. We also need to take breaks. Do you remember The Committee in SF? How we could laugh at ourselves.

I also wonder where business thinks it is going. The way it operates is like racing towards doomsday. We have faced disaster in the past (depression/world war). We have looked like we were facing disaster in the past (the cold war) but we muddled through somehow. But business is actually actively headed for the sea like lemmings. Maybe we will have an even bigger depression then before but we will muddle through this also. At least when you have nothing they can't take it from you.

People will get by.

I have a "Far Side" cartoon with a dinosaur skeleton lying on a beach towel on a beach with a big sun umbrella and it say "Extinct and loving it". Take me to your tar pits but I will go still kicking and screaming and voting even if I only vote for the lesser of 2 evils. Certainly Clinton did a better job then I thought he would when I voted for him. He wasn't perfect, but god, what I would do to have him still be in office for another 4 years!

Take a deep breath and keep thinking. Keep disseminating your ideas as ANY & ALL ideas that are not in agreement with Bush are good ideas. Remember we also need to fight Hatch's senate bill that will allow the gubenator from becoming the pres. I sure hope he will not be back.

It is in the fight and it is worth it to keep fighting. There is NO chance to win if there is no attempt.

Tom Kalbrener sends this note:

Walt, this [article] is from my brother in MN who knows Andy Driscoll.  I believe it to be dead on the issues and thought you should see it.

The Risks Of Insular Reasoning

Commentary

By Andy Driscoll

Feb. 27, 2004

Alan Greenspan's suggestion before Congress Wednesday is among the year's most cynical and callous. The Fed's insular world is producing pap that only insiders can possibly believe has merit.

Not only is reducing Social Security benefits the worst thing this government could do to seniors, especially given the flaps over health care in the last months. Just the reverse should take place.

We're about 50 years past time when the upper income limits on Social Security contributions should have been removed, and nothing could be better for the system than to keep withholding SS from paychecks all year long, no matter what the earnings. This would make SS solvent and viable overnight. Then you can talk about raising both the payouts and the retirement age in phases (except for health care benefits which should come from a reformed Medicare system).

What's the deal?

Enriching the rich yet again. Every year when an employee's income reaches a limit ($87,900 for 2004), Social Security contributions cease being withheld from paychecks. That happens mostly for upper income types whose pay-in reaches that limit sometime in March, perhaps earlier -- while the working stiffs keep paying all year long, and most never reach this limit. This reduces the wealthy earner's percentage  to less than one-quarter of 1% or less of annual income, while the rest of us just keep forking over the full 7.5% all year long (small business owners pay 15%).

No wonder the average Joe and Jane don't foresee they'll ever see a dime of their "participation."

The other major issue lying out there -- that no one seems to be raising enough of a ruckus over -- is the huge Medicare premiums paid out by Social Security recipients once they reach full retirement (65 yrs, 4 months this year).

The premiums -- no matter the benefit level -- reduce a retiree's income by $60 a month.

And for what ?

 

For the worst coverage a citizen can have next to having no coverage at all.

This is criminal neglect.

God help the retiree whose Social Security check is meticulously budgeted every month for food, rent or mortgage, transportation, and, yes, health care coverage -- either co-pays or the whole enchilada -- only to be hit with Medicare premiums at full retirement.

Start figuring in the unfunded and underfunded pension systems at most of the country's corporations (if they're still around), and as such, has either disappeard or is unavailable by retirement time -- if they haven't been laid off or fired "for cause" before then.

And no one, but no one, is doing a damned thing about it.

Ironically, only government pensions seem to be holding their own -- in that institution no one wants to trust to manage anything, certainly not money.

Comes now the federal government's chief economic guru to say that future seniors better get used to receiving less and less from their Social Security after paying in more and more for a longer period of time.

Why would the Fed want risk the costs of putting more people into the streets when all living costs keep rising, real incomes are dropping and work opportunities disappearing?   is policy blindness personified.

It's policy blindness.  And that's how bad it's become, and another consequence of how idiotically majorities of citizens -- seniors and working families in the main -- have voted since the Reagan era -- against their own long term interests for what they imagine is the only gratification they'll ever know -- either in useless tax cuts on a per capita basis or in sucked dry quarterly dividends from self-destructive companies poorly managed and skimming billions off stockholders and customers in the process.

Someone (us) will have to "be responsible" for paying a far greater chunk of their income for the millions of unemployed (and unemployable), un-housed, uneducated, unfed, and unhealthy to come -- for not having distributed the pain of contributing a fair share to society's stability for the last 30 years.

Can you say Rome?

Andy Driscoll is a St. Paul writer and student of government.

andy@driscollgroup.com

835 Linwood Ave.

St. Paul, MN 55105

651-293-9039

Fax: (same, call ahead)

Cell: 651-492-2221

Someone is at it again, worrying that Walter is real sick:

Dear Walter,

How sad I am that you cannot band together with Howard Dean and support the Democratic nominee.  Like Dr. Dean, I believe the country will have more pain and many future years of agony should we allow W. Bush to appoint judges and carry on his policies for America any longer.

I am sorry too that Nader is the pride filled person you agree he is and may bring about this continuing Bush rape of the American working people.   I will stay with Dr. Dean and support the nominee. Hope you are well.

Last update: 11/13/2007

© Copyright California Expert Software 2007

All rights reserved.