Monthly Archives: July 2014

Gaza: Hamas has more tunnels than expected.

Thus far possibly only half the tunnels have been discovered. Israel likely has at least this much more tunnel-closing work yet to do in Gaza.

“More than 60 access shafts leading to 28 tunnels have been uncovered since Israel’s ground operation — dubbed Operation Protective Edge — began on July 8.
‘We’ve been busy with the tunnels for a long time — in the last year we have discovered four in our territory,’ Ya’alon said. ‘This [could have been] dealt with diplomatically or militarily — now it’s being done militarily with a lot of success.’
IDF officials initially expected that most of the tunnels would be destroyed within days, but once on the ground learned there were more than intelligence sources knew. And on Tuesday, a U.S. intelligence source revealed that American satellite imagery had suggested that as many as 60 tunnels might have been built underneath Gaza.
Should Hamas or Islamic Jihad succeed in emerging undiscovered from one of these tunnels, there could be carnage on a massive scale.”

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“Obstructionist” now means “Right-winger,” “Right”

For those of you who are not in the writing business, Roget’s Thesaurus is the most-used dictionary-like book where we writers look for different words that mean the same or similar meanings. It is used constantly by probably almost every English language writer in the world. Now Roget’s is online and is provided in essence by writing applications such as Microsoft Word.

That Roget’s now considers “right-wing” and “right” to have meaning similar to “obstructionist” and “reactionary,” and its opposite meaning to be carried by the words “liberal,” “left-wing” and “progressive” is outrageous beyond words.

Below is from National Review today:


Thesaurus Synonyms for ‘Obstructionist’ Include ‘Right-winger,’ ‘Rightist,’ ‘Tory’
By Andrew Johnson
July 24, 2014 4:41 PM

Apparently only conservatives and others on the right can be obstructionists, according to Roget’s Thesaurus.

A search for synonyms of “obstructionist” on, which cites Roget’s, reveals that the source considers several words related to conservative and right-leaning political stances to fit the definition of a “person who is cautious, moderate; an opponent of change.” Under antonyms, it lists left-leaning words.

Included in the list of obstructionist synonyms are “right-winger,” “right,” and “rightist” and ”Tory,” the British conservative party.

Other synonyms listed for obstructionst are “traditionalist,” “conserver,” “conventionalist,” “unprogressive,” and “redneck.”

In its section for antonyms for obstructionist, “left-winger,” “liberal,” and “progressive” are listed.

This is the second time in recent weeks that a reference book has equated a negative quality with conservatism. Earlier this month, the Daily Caller found that both the Oxford English and Merriam-Webster dictionaries included “right-wing” and “conservatism,” respectively, in their definitions of “bigotry.”

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

Obamacare Subsidies Cancelled, Elk Triplets?

The Obamacare cancellation of the subsidies political situation is so confused!

And now flights are being cancelled into Tel Aviv! I sure hope Israel is able to end the rocket launchers and collapse the tunnels pretty soon and with as few Palestinain casualties as possible!

Did you happen to see just minutes ago Carl Rove on Fox trying to explain a NYT piece today that, even with Obama being blamed for all these disasters, the world falling apart due to his inactions, IRS criminality, FBI, Benghazi, etc., etc., there has been ZERO swing- “wave” he called it- by the American public toward Republicans. In a current poll asking, “If elections were held today, would you vote for the Republican or the Democrat?”, the result was exactly split 42% to 42%.

I keep going back to that week-ago Watters World hour-long special on O’Reilly where half the interviewed people couldn’t answer simplest questions like, “Who was the first president of the United States?” or “Who is Vice President of the United States?” A huge percentage of Americans are just out of it, unconcerned, not aware, numb regarding politics or even the currently most sensational happenings.
We think that everyone is aware like we are, and feels about politics like we feel, but we are VERY VERY WRONG in that! We who are aware and care about it are a small minority- the majority of Americans are NOT AWARE like we are, and DO NOT CARE about politics like we do.

Millions of people will be hurt very seriously as they lose these large health insurance premium subsidies. But how will all these millions of numb and out-of-it people feel about that? They don’t understand ANYTHING about it, anything that’s happening. They only know Obama and the Democrats gave them the gift. And now it has been taken away by someone not Obama, but by someone else.

And the someone else who took it away from them, damaged them severely, they will easily be led to believe was us Republicans.

The mainline networks blanketing Americans with their liberal propaganda is a huge and close to insurmountable obstacle to defeating Democrats in 2014 and 2016!

Quote from the following link: “From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers’ contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers’ average contribution to the premium was $1543, and in 2009 it was $3515. For employers, their contribution was $4247 in 1999 and $9860 in 2009.”

Kaiser (somehow is the main group keeping track of these numbers across all Americans) says as of this month:

Single Family
Average cost of Healthcare in the United States $5,615 $15,745
Average annual deductible $1,120 $2,075
Average cost to employee enrolled in company plan $1,225 $4,316

I can’t believe those numbers! For families, in 2009 workers paid $300/month plus nearly $200/month in deductibles, plus employers paid over $800/month, total health care cost being paid per worker is $1,300 per month!

The important issue that’s not being discussed is that our health care cost must be reduced. No other countries pay our high cost and many of them have better care than we have. My pet peeve is the astronomical malpractice awards by courts which drives doctors’ and hospitals’ insurance premiums to astronomical amounts. A large part of what we pay to doctors and hospitals is just those premiums. We recently dealt with a situation where a nursing home resident needing to go to a clinic for a 15-minute test could be driven by either, 1) a friend for no cost, or 2) by the home’s medically-equipped and -attended van at cost of over $1,000, almost entirely because of the home’s bus’s liability insurance and precautions.

Raining lightly here today. This morning when Teegray went out and barked at a cow some distance away, three small heads rose up out of nearer grass, and three calves got up and hurried over toward another cow, likely their mother. Triplet elk calves? Very unusual!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

Dear David, Democrats like you and me…, from Bill Clinton

My advocacy of internet freedom has apparently produced an extraordinary result: I received a Democratic National Committee fundraising letter signed by Bill Clinton! Bill says to me, “David, Democrats like you and I must contribute to protect us from losing the Senate to the foolish Republicans.”

My guess is that my support of internet freedom got me on some liberal mailing list, as such support is more by liberals than by conservatives, who want NSA and FBI to be able to be able to read our emails for defense purposes.

Sorry, you fellow conservatives, but I strongly oppose government surveillance of our emails except in court-approved cases clearly related to threats to the U.S.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics, Privacy/Secrecy

Internet Neutrality

Internet Neutrality

By Dave Bunting, The Shopper

The principle of net neutrality “guarantees a level playing field in which Internet users- you and me- do not have to pay Internet service providers more for better access to online content, and content generators do not have to pay additional fees to ensure users can access their websites or apps.” Content generators include big ones like Google, FaceBook and Netflix, but also small ones like this Highway Shopper newspaper.

In other words, Internet neutrality means that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.

On May 15, the FCC voted to move forward with their 99-page proposed rules for “net neutrality,” the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally. However, their proposal violates net neutrality. It would allow Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon or AT&T to charge more to websites like Facebook and Twitter for faster service, and to provide different speeds to the websites.

Their proposal is now open for public comment until Oct. 15.


Internet service providers like Verizon and AT&T, who carry the basic “backbone” internet traffic, want to be able to charge some users more. Their request for this privilege is the reason the FCC is considering changing the rules.

Back in 2010, the FCC issued an Open Internet Order, which promoted net neutrality. It prohibited Internet service providers from blocking content and prioritizing certain kinds of traffic. Consumer rights advocates criticized the rules as too weak because they did not cover mobile web providers. Telecommunications companies, though, countered that the rules were too strong.

Currently, internet service providers are legally classified as “information services,” and the law says that for the protection of consumers “information services” cannot have discrimination or price regulations. This means that, as long as the services are “information services,” the FCC has no authority to regulate those services- it can’t regulate the services but neither can it regulate internet service providers like Verizon to prevent them from discriminating among their customers, charging some customers more than others.

In January of this year, the DC Court of Appeals agreed with Verizon and said that the FCC can’t stop Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against websites or any other Internet traffic unless the Internet is reclassified as a “public utility” instead of “information services.” But the court also said the FCC does have some authority to implement net neutrality rules so far as it promotes broadband deployment across the country.

The FCC took that small window of opportunity and worked on the new proposal that they proposed on May 15.

Though it leaves internet services as “information services,” it allows internet service providers including Verizon and AT&T to discriminate among their customers, charging some more than others, and giving some faster or slower speeds than others. Their proposal is not internet neutrality.

Nearly all internet users, including me and presumably including you, and many content providers oppose this proposal. Consumers have already submitted hundreds of thousands of complaints to the FCC. A group of 150 companies, including Amazon, Google and Netflix, sent a letter to the FCC in May pressing the commission to ban paid prioritization for services. The proposal “could legalize discrimination, harming innovation and punishing US consumers with a broadband experience that’s worse than they already have,” a Netflix spokesperson said on May 15.

You can file a response with the FCC by going to the FCC’s e-filing website and click ”submit a filing.”

This article is  based on facts from many sources,
but primarily depends on facts from
and includes some excerpts from
The FCC’s Net Neutrality Proposal Explained,”
a May 21, 2014 article by Leticia Miranda in The Nation
Thank you for your research, Leticia and The Nation!


Leave a Comment

Filed under Internet