Thursday, December 30, 2010

Sorry, wheelchair lady, no meth or other drugs allowed to board this plane

One website described Rhonda Renee Simmons as having an "unusual contour around her buttocks." Smuggling or hiding drugs in your hip pocket will, indeed, cause a distraction on the airport scanner.

Was Simmons playing a game to see if she could get away concealing something illegal without detection? Maybe she got high before leaving home, and forgot she was going to the airport. When police were summoned by a TSA employee, they discovered that Simmons had a gram of meth on her person, hiding it out around the buttocks area.

Of course it's not her fault that she got caught. TSA violated her privacy and rights by scanning her body! Believe it or not the woman had a large circle of travelers who championed her indignation. In fact, according the media, complaints about airport scanners and pat downs are running rampant. There is probably a streaker out there complaining about getting body scanned.

"But what if that had been explosives in her pocket instead of meth?" I asked myself. " I have no problems with scanning," I answer myself.

I've given birth to three children, and I cared les who was in the delivery room looking at my daisy unfold, preparing to give birth. I wanted the pain to stop and the kid out of me. This has nothing to do with this story. I know. I added this to say that people sometimes complain too much.

Just think of how you're exposed to nurses and doctors when have physical exams, or rushed to the emergency room, have a heart attack in public. Was hiding your private parts your top priority before getting treatment?

For me, safety and precaution over-rides potential danger on an airplane. I can't jump out of when the plane is in flight even if I sensed danger. Simmons has been charged with felony: possession of a controlled substance. She has a January 12th court date.

In a prior television interview Simmons said the video of her on YouTube has made her life miserable. She is now recognized at airports. Simmons next showed up at the airport wearing a two-piece black bikini that looks like underwear, sitting in a wheel chair. There was no mention of her being disabled or paralyzed.

I think Simmons is enjoying the attention. She is trying to find a way to push her five minutes fame into 15 minutes or more. I don't know that for sure. I'm just saying.

Underhandedness in the House

Congressman Paul Ryan
"The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has laid out a series of changes it would like to make to the House rules, including replacing the current “pay-go” rules — which require all spending increases to be offset with spending cuts or tax increases — with a rule called “cut-go,” which requires that new spending programs — but not new tax cuts — be offset with spending cuts. The GOP has also proposed a new rule requiring that each piece of new legislation include a statement justifying the legislation’s constitutionality.That’s not all, however. 

"As National Journal reported today, 'a little-noticed detail in the new rules proposed by House GOP leaders would greatly increase the power of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee.' Indeed, under the proposed rules, if the House and Senate do not agree on a budget resolution (a distinct possibility with a divided Congress), Ryan will be able to unilaterally set spending levels that are binding on the House, and any attempt to lessen the impact of these cuts can be ruled out of order." Think Progress, December 30, 2010.

The proposed "rules" by the incoming House are bogus. Tea party Republicans are shoring up to legitimize their underhandedness to impede President Obama's agenda. This is a scheme to further enrich themselves and their donors. They are endeavouring to constitutionally empower themselves against the power of President Obama.

Tea partiers who screamed they want a smaller government may get their wish. Republicans see Social Security and Medicare as entitlements, and they plan to put them on the chopping block. I remember President Obama saying several months ago that he would see how serious Republicans are about decreasing the deficit when it's time to cut programs. The President told them in advance that they won't be able to sit on their hands and say "No!" Or as John Boehner screeched in a drunken stupor on the Senate floor: "Hell no!"

Of course tea party Republicans will swim upstream  to transfer their weaknesses and ineptness onto President Obama and Democrats.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Making unpopular decisions gains no praise among critics and the media

President Barack Obama
Nothing President Obama does is good enough. The media finds fault with him and pass its disagreements onto the public. When the president made public his decision about temporarily extending tax breaks for the rich, Ed Schultz of MSNBC lost it on TV. Agitated, he forcefully disagreed with his guests whose view was opposite to his. He said President Obama caved to Republicans.

I wondered if he listened to the same message that I heard.

President Obama said sternly, "I know there's some people in my own party, and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can't reach a compromise. But I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession."

I read some threads in online papers. Their sentiments were in line with Schultz. Lawrence O'Donnell, The Last Word, MSNBC, had a guest on his show--a Democratic senator--explaining who would suffer the most had the president not acted, working out a deal with Republicans, despite their animosity towards him. The senator said the poor and middle class would suffer the most, and IRS would find itself in a huge paper mess had the tax breaks expired.

The truth: Had President Obama not acted sensibly, extending the tax breaks, millions of unemployed Americans would suffer a greater fate than rich people. The economy would reel on its heels. The crew of newly unemployed would be up a creek without a paddle. This didn't concern Republicans, who had to repay lobbyists and big business for their financial support in November.

President Obama played the hand he had to play. Republicans held him and the unemployed hostage for their own gain. I agree with the President that the tax fight would have been long fought by Republicans. They broadcast that they are not going to bulge if the rich do not get the continued Bush tax break.

The media, for lack of a better description that show imagination, repeats the tripe: "President Obama appears weak." This is nothing new. These remarks were uttered when he was campaigning. Everybody in the media acted as though they had a seat at the negotiating table when the tax breaks were discussed. And because they were not there, they speculate and find fault.

As for President Obama appearing weak, I have found that intelligence looks like a shadowy figure in the presence of sound bites and unintelligible shouting. Some columnists and pundits have said Plain is more intelligent than President Obama.  People relate to her.  Go figure the comparison. I'll take President Obama any day of the week. I am not looking for a daddy or best friend in the White House. I want Obama to be presidential and make applicable decisions for the whole country.