DETROIT - IS THERE HOPE?

Recently, a Detroit newspaper printed an article where the Federal Government accused Detroit's Housing Department of squandering or mismanaging Federal HUD (Housing and Urban Development) funds. They want Detroit to pay them back 20+ million dollars. They accused Detroit's Housing Department of being incompetent and suggested that the people appointed by the Mayor of Detroit have no idea what they are doing.

May I suggest that this is exactly what the problem is in Detroit. Detroit mayors have given people jobs as political gratitude and not because they actually know how to perform that specific job. For this reason, nothing seems to work in Detroit and nothing seems to get done in Detroit.

New mayoral elections are just around the corner. Hendrix, a serious sort is running against Kilpatrick, a big kid that likes to have fun and has a proven history of fuckups as the mayor of Detroit.

Hendrix appears to have an edge BUT does he have what it takes to break the mold of incompetence that has plagued Detroit since Coleman Young was mayor. I don't really think so.

The Makinac Center, a conservative economic think tank, made some specific suggestions as to what it would take to turn Detroit around. One was to sell Belle Isle to an agency that can actually develop it, keep it clean and attract families again. Hendrix immediately dismissed the idea but hinted he may favor charging an admission fee - $1.00?

Hendrix is already showing that he is not able to make the hard, unpopular but fiscally sound decisions. Maybe that was just a ploy to get elected and he really does have the balls to do what is necessary. We shall see but I don't think he can get elected with again, promising high positions to his political supporters who are also totally incompetent to be placed in any position.

My money is on a State of Michigan receivership. The city will run out of money and the State will have to take over. Yes, cries of racism and dictatorship will ring out but how else is a parent suppose to teach a child how to behave and be responsible?


Janusz

BUSH THE DOCTOR

The FDA has been debating whether to approve the morning after pill called PLAN B for over-the-counter sale. This is a contraceptive that if taken the morning after unprotected sex, would prevent pregnancy.

The pill has passed all scientific and medical scrutiny and was deemed safe for use by women that found themselves in situations where the pill would be appropriate - it has been available in Europe for some time now.

The FDA, obviously pressured by Bush, postponed their decision indefinitely, basically blocking the pill from coming to the U.S. market. Bush feels that taking the pill is a form of abortion.

A leading scientist on the FDA commission voting on the pill issue, quit in disgust saying that politics and religion are entering the medical field and I agree.

I support making the FDA a private agency staffed with professionals who will use only scientific data to make decisions about the efficacy of medications and their appropriateness for public use.

Whether you are for or against CHOICE (the law of the land) you cannot in all intellectual honesty abide by a politician making medical and privacy decisions for you.

If you have unprotected sex and many of us no matter how careful, have - WE have the right to prevent any resulting pregnancy, IF THAT IS OUR DECISION and if a safe and effective means of doing that exists.

Would the religious zealots rather we wait for the pregnancy to proceed and then have an abortion? I guess I should not try to use logic because this whole situation is without logic - that is the problem.

The Republicans are all about LESS government and LESS intrusion into citizens' lives BUT NOT THIS REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. These are not true republicans but religious fanatics hell bent on forcing their views on all of us by controlling the way we live our lives.

Even normal republicans have got to be scared of Bush and his people.

My only hope is that Bush has fucked the country up so badly that the next Republican nominee for President will have to distance himself from Bush and drift more towards the center, where most Americans are. Democrats have to seek the same center if they want to regain power - being far Left or Right is not going to work anymore.

Janusz

DETROIT'S JAZZ FESTIVAL 2005

I attended the 26th Annual Detroit Jazz Festival this Saturday. We make this a must event during the long Labor Day weekend and have been doing so for many years.

This year was different in a number of ways. For the first time, we booked rooms at the RenCen instead of going home every night and coming back the next day.

Also for the first time, the Jazz Fest organizers decided to close off Woodward Avenue from Campus Martius to Hart Plaza and add stages at the Spirit of Detroit Statue and at Campus Martius.

The organizers also departed from the strictly jazz music menu to allow other forms of music which included some blues as well as some oldies.

The Detroit Jazz Festival was in danger of closing if they did not find new sponsors (Ford quit) and attract larger crowds. I think the crowds were noticeably larger this year, the weather was great, the music was great and the crowds were well behaved and enthusiastic.

We had a great view from our room overlooking the Detroit River and Windsor, Canada. Our kids joined us Saturday night - so that made our stay there even better.

I hope the festival organizers have learned from this year and will apply the lessons learned to next year. The increased attendance, I hope, will attract many new sponsors and keep this Labor Day tradition going strong for many years to come.

Janusz

THE PRICE OF OIL AND GAS

THE PRICE OF OIL AND GASOLINE

(image placeholder)

The price of our gasoline has been rising recently and this was BEFORE Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast.

Americans were told that the price of crude oil is going up and that is why our gasoline prices are going up. We were not told why the price of oil was going up but we needed to blame someone. We also needed to have the prices brought back down. Where do we start?

Oil producing countries belong to a cartel called OPEC and this group basically can do what they want with the price as well as supply of oil in the world – it is their oil.

They are too smart to stick the world with outlandish prices and cause a worldwide depression. In a depression, no one will buy their oil because no one will have any money. So OPEC lets the market’s supply and demand rules govern the prices – they just make sure that they at least making a set minimum price per barrel and if not – they fiddle with the supply.

Anyway, China and India have entered a new phase. They are no longer just some poor country basically trying to exist. No, they have now joined the industrial nations and are becoming major players in the worldwide marketplace.

To be an industrial nation you need to be able to produce things and to produce things you need oil. Even if, like India, you provide services, you still need oil because your growing workforce needs oil / gasoline for their own use. So now, OPEC has more customers for its oil and these are HUGE customers.

If the supply of oil remains steady but the demand rises substantially, customers will be willing to bid the price higher just to insure a supply for their growing national economy. Is the situation becoming clearer?

Here in the United States, we have a voracious appetite for oil and gasoline – we always have. We also have not built any more oil refineries to keep up with the demand for gasoline. Why? - Interesting question. As we have learned – controlling supply can affect the price. Yes, a barrel of oil is costing more so refineries have to charge more but how much more.

One economist said that if oil is costing more and refineries raise their prices to cover that cost increase, their profits should basically remain the same. The fact is their profits have soared. This tells us that their increased prices cover much more than the increase per barrel of oil that they pay OPEC.

Gasoline stations work off the same principal. They are charged a specific amount per gallon. If that price goes up, they pass it along to the consumer. This does not explain why per gallon prices can jump $0.50 overnight. Example: a gasoline station purchases x gallons at $2.20 and charge $2.50. The next day the price is $3.00 per gallon even though the gasoline they are selling, they bought at $2.20. This is greed and they can get away with it because everyone else is doing it and we need gas at any price.

Hurricane Katrina exacerbated the already problematic situation by knocking out oil platforms, refineries and gasoline pump lines, in effect, blocking supply. If there is no supply, the station that has some left can charge whatever they want to.

Can our government do something? They can release oil reserves to fill the pipelines temporarily.

Can we increase refining capacity? Yes we can if our government offers some huge tax incentives for companies to invest in new refineries.

Can we produce more of our own oil? Yes we can if our legislators allow drilling in Alaska and in other off-shore areas that are off limits right now.

Can we make ourselves use less oil / gasoline? You have to ask yourself if you are prepared to drive a smaller car or carpool or build and use mass transit.


Janusz

DISASTER IN NEW ORLEANS!

DISASTER IN NEW ORLEANS

Yes, Hurricane Katrina caused quite a bit of damage to the Gulf Coast and especially to the city of New Orleans. Let’s take a closer look at New Orleans and see what, if anything could have been done to minimize the damage.

In 1969 I was a medic/lab technician stationed in Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi. Biloxi was in the eye of Hurricane Camille. I rode out the hurricane in the base hospital and then did search and rescue after so I have some hurricane experience.

New Orleans is a city that is below sea level, it always has been. The city is surrounded by levees that keep the Gulf of Mexico waters out as well as the waters of Lake Ponchatrain. These levees are old and designed to withstand a 3 intensity hurricane.

Hurricane Katrina was downgraded to a level 1 before it hit the city but still managed to do quite a bit of damage.

The real damage occurred after the hurricane came through – when the levee keeping Lake Ponchatrain out gave way. That breach flooded the city and surrounding areas and caused the real damage and is causing it as we speak.

The Netherlands, a country below sea level, has existed precariously with the ocean for many, many years. They too have levees but they call then dykes. In 1953 a storm allowed waters to come over their dykes and 2,000 people died. After that disaster, they installed hydraulic dykes. These are dykes that can be lowered or raised, depending on the level of the sea water. In effect, they had a movable sea wall.

PBS and the Discovery Channel had reports on the New Orleans levees and what would happen when a really big hurricane hit and what needed to be done to avert disaster.

New Orleans never listened. When the levee collapsed, the mayor of the city was furious that no department came forward to fill the breach.

May I suggest that it was the incompetence of city leaders that caused the real damage to the city and its citizens? I would sue those responsible on the grounds that the natural disaster was compounded by human irresponsibility.


Janusz

Priestly Celibacy

Sunday, August 28, 2005

To:     The Detroit News
Re:     “Priestly celibacy a joy”, Letter, August 28.


In the August 28th letter, “Priestly celibacy a joy”, the letter writer states that Jesus was celibate and priests accept celibacy in imitation of Jesus.

Religious scholars admit that there is no proof that Jesus was celibate. Some even admit that Jesus could have been married, as was the custom in those days.

Celibacy was imposed on priests as a way to stop Church property from being bequeathed to the priest’s children. I suppose the Church could have stopped the practice by less drastic means.

MY FIRST WEDDING

I have been to many wedding in my time but this is the first one involving one of my children.

My daughter married a gentleman from Scotland this Friday in a beautiful ceremony and reception at the Belle Isle Yacht Club.

It was a colorful wedding with the groom and his men all attired in traditional Scottish kilts. My son and I were the only ones in tuxedos.

The ceremony was conducted by an official of the humanist group. As the name of the group suggests, members believe in the best of our human nature and what that nature can achieve. Their philosophy relies on facts or knowledge that can be substantiated. In other words they are not religious and do not invoke supernatural beings.

I thought the ceremony was quite touching with all the right words and sentiments expressed.

Marriages bring together families and in this case one family with basically Polish / Ukrainian roots and the other Scottish. We will celebrate the union once again in October but this time in Scotland - which I am really looking forward to.

The wedding was not a traditional Polish wedding but then again the couple was not exactly young. Both in their early 30s, the couple planned their own wedding according to their own wishes and it was quite impressive.

They are off to Hawaii for the honeymoon. When they get back - married life begins in earnest.

Janusz

PETER JENNINGS

Just a quick note on the passing of Peter Jennings, the long time anchor of ABC World News Tonight.

I basically grew up listening to the man every evening and continued till the day he had to leave because of lung cancer. I really thought he would come back and was surprised when they announced his death.

He really went fast after announcing he will begin chemotherapy in April 2005. I should have known it would be fast because usually they perform surgery first to remove affected nodules. Chemotherapy meant that they could no longer localize the cancer and had to use a shotgun method that never really works.

Peter Jennings was cool, calm and collective in his reporting even when a glimmer of emotion broke through the cracks. I respected his knowledge (highschool dropout), caring and his oh so professional delivery.

I guess at my age (58), I start noticing the passing of people I knew for a long time. People I became accustomed to and people that became a part of my daily life.

Oh well, time marches on and after all we are just players on a stage ...

Janusz

BACK IN TOWN

I have spent the last two weeks in Florida. First, attending the annual AACC (American Association of Clinical Chemists) Convention in Orlando and then taking my dealer from Poland (two couples) to visit the Florida Keys.

It was hotter than hell but I had a good time and learned some things along the way - some topics to discuss on this blog.

I visited the Keys many years ago when my kids were young but many things remained the same and I had no trouble finding my way.

It never ceases to amaze me how large and beautiful our country is. My European business partners were definitely amazed.

The Florida Everglades are a sight to behold. Taking an airboat ride through them is quite amazing even though I was totally soaked. My friends could not get enough of the alligators.

The glass-bottom boat ride to the reef was great but the women got sick when they did not pay attention to me when I said keep your eyes on the horizon every so often and not only at the glass bottom - oh well.

Key West is a great little town even though very commercial. You should experience the town and its history and myths at least once.

Janusz

BUSH AND JOHN ROBERTS

Bush is a smart boy. He picks a young, white guy with no history for the Supreme Court. The Democrats cannot object to him because he has no history, i.e. no judicial decisions that would indicate how he feels about certain subjects like abortion and civil rights. He does not have to answer direct questions posed by Senate Democrats like "Would you repeal Roe vs. Wade?" therefore he will be confirmed in no time.

John Roberts is a devout Catholic and an admitted conservative. His wife is a lawyer and openly anti-choice and does pro bono work for anti-choice organizations. Chances are very good that he feels JUST like his wife does.

President Bush would not name a person to the Supreme Court unless he was sure that person would do his bidding and Roberts is his man. Bush knows about previous Republican appointees to the Supreme Court who turned out to vote with the liberals and he is not going to let that happen again. This man will ensure a conservative court for a good long time (he is only 50).

Why did previous Republican appointees did not turn out as conservative as republicans had envisioned? I think people that finally make it to the court can truly be themselves. They cannot be fired and do not owe anything to any individual or group. This freedom and the realization that their decisions will influence, for better or worst, this country and its people, makes some of them see certain issues in a different light; a light different from their pre-Supreme Court days.

I also feel that Supreme Court Judges, rely on their values learned through their upbringing and their own life experiences - age brings wisdom through experience. When you appoint someone that is young (50) and had very little experience in life (law school to law firm to judge), you have someone that really does not have much background to draw wisdom from and I think Bush picked Roberts for that very reason - he will vote conservative like a robot.

Roberts will be confirmed and he will do some damage BUT there is always hope that as the years go by and he sees the results of his decisions that he will gain some wisdom and vote using that wisdom.

On the other hand, Bush can pack the Court with religious zealots, overturn Roe vs. Wade and bring on the "Big Brother" era. It can happen.

Janusz

THE "FLAG" QUESTION YET AGAIN?

I am as patriotic as any American. I spent four (4) years in the military during the Vietnam War and many more years in the ready reserves after that BUT this question CHANGING OUR CONSTITUTION to make burning our flag a crime, has me baffled.

First, I do not see how with all the shit going on in this country and the world, that Congress has to take the time to focus on a NON ISSUE. That's right - a non issue. I defy you to explain to me why this is a burning (no pun intended) issue. The total drivel that is emanating from Congress about why this is an important issue is plain insulting to any one with half a brain cell.

Let me tell you why.

Our flag is a symbol. It is one of our greatest symbols. It speaks volumes about who we are, where we have been and where we are going. It has been tarnished somewhat by Bush and his antics, but as a symbol, it is HUGE.

The flag is also a piece of cloth and has been burned and mutilated by many opposed to the United States and what it stands for. It has also been (rarely) used by Americans to protest our government's actions.

Notice that I mentioned the word "rarely" when it comes to Americans burning our flag in protest. It is not something that happens often - we need to remember that when we argue that this is such a hot issue needing to be addressed immediately.

Anyway, we as Americans are guaranteed our freedom of expression by the First Amendment and that includes using our flag as a protest vehicle. That is why men and women have died under this same flag; to guarantee our freedoms for ourselves and for our children. Why then would we pass a law taking away that freedom. It makes no sense to me on a logical level but I can see how people would get carried away with emotion on this issue.

BUT to change OUR CONSTITUTION for an emotional reason is just plain stupid and makes us look like a bunch on uneducated, emotional twits.

Janusz

IRAQ REVISITED

It is now quite apparent and History will show, that the neo-conservative group's plan to bring about a new world order was adopted by President Bush years ago. What this means is that the attack on Iraq was part of this plan and all Bush had to do was invent reasons to justify the attack and he did. The recent "British Memo" basically confirms what many knew all along.

Was lying to the nation and sacrificing American and European lives justified. It is if you look at the BIG picture.

The Middle East was and is getting out of control. Religious terrorists want to change the world according to their plans. This entails making the Middle East a militant theocracy which will, eventually, destroy the godless West.

The neo-conservative group believes that to thwart the terrorist's plan, they have to remake the Middle East into something similar to the West; a democratic, progressive society.

To do that, they need to introduce democracy into the Middle East. Saddam and Iraq gave them the perfect opportunity and so they took it.

Was the war on Iraq inevitable? Many will argue that it would have happened sooner or later. Many point to positives that have already occurred because of the war. Look at Libya which now wants to be buddy-buddy because Bush scared the shit out of them. How about Lebanon and the expulsion of Syrian forces. Egypt is moving, ever so slightly, in the direction of an eventual democracy. Iran is holding elections that will probably put it closer to the West. Did our attack of Iraq speed up the process to democratization? I think you cannot ignore the impact it has had and will continue to have on the thinking of people in the Middle east.

Can we win in Iraq? I don't think so. The country was artificially created by the British. The Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis were not meant to live in the same country. Only a dictator could accomplish that as Saddam did. Look what happened to Yugoslavia when Tito died - it split up along ethnic lines.

Should we create three (3) separate countries? That would be hard and impractical to do. One radical idea is to finally create a KURDISTAN. These people have been around since the beginning of time and have never had a country of their own. With a new Kurd country in existence, the parts of Iraq occupied by the Sunnis and the Shiites should be split and attached to IRAN and JORDAN along religious lines.

Hey, I know it is radical but the way things look now, we will continue to lose American lives and billions of dollars on a daily basis ad infinitum - so think radical.

Janusz

THE CONFUSED DEMOCRATS

Recently I have been reading reports how the Democratic Party has been hiring a lot of consultants to tell them how to win back voters and therefore political power in Washington, D.C.

It was kind of pitiful to hear how they are thinking of maybe changing their stance on certain issues like abortion / anti-choice, so called values issues, religion, etc. For the democrats to even entertain changing their political philosophy means that they think ALL the voters went over to the Republicans.

May I remind the Democratic leadership, whoever the hell they may be at this time, that 50% of American voters voted AGAINST Bush and the Republicans. This was NO landslide by any stretch of the imagination. They do not have to panic and make really, really stupid decisions.

The Democrats have to understand that some of the voters that went with Bush will always vote for someone like Bush. These are the right wing religious fundamentalists that will always go backwards and they actually do prefer to live in the dark ages. They are scared of change and progress and any new thinking. Leave these people alone - they are doomed to vote Republican forever.

The Iraq war was the crucial question facing voters in the Bush / Kerry election. Kerry did not make a convincing enough argument for himself and Bush one. These voters vote on issues and therefore they vote either way - they are not committed to any one party. These are the voters you need to go after.

The passage of time revealed that indeed Bush was lying about basically everything. He had an agenda and he was going to stick to it no matter what he had to do. More on his agenda in a future blog - his agenda may actually have some merit to it no matter how conniving.

Anyway, the war in Iraq is going badly. There is no end in sight. Americans are dying on a daily basis. Iraq cannot sustain a unified political system. The country is basically split into three parts and there is no trust between them. A civil war is a given once the Americans leave. What do we do. Do we leave like in Vietnam and let the Communists take over?

In Iraq a civil war will bring in all the supporting powers; Sunni, Shia and Kurds (who supports them?). Could even start a larger war. So here is the Democrat's chance - come up with an answer / strategy that the voters will buy. Have a plan that brings our troops home in as short a time as possible.

Don't waste your time with this "VALUES" horse-shit. All Americans have basic values. The question is really about "RELIGION". Even Bush has been seen backtracking on this religion question. He knows it can bite him on his ass. People are not stupid and they can see when these religious zealots are starting to become absurd and more importantly, a danger to the rest of us.

The Democrats should stick to their basic religious philosophy: religion is a private matter, religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution and our Constitution dictates a strict separation between Church and State. This means oppose church based anything in the government.

Big issues like abortion / choice and gay marriage are not value or moral issues, they are RELIGION again. The law of the land is to give women a CHOICE about whether to have an abortion or not. Again, law of the land! If your religion prohibits abortion - DON'T DO IT! Otherwise, it is no one's business what people decide about their own lives. The Democrats should maintain their pro-choice stance and not waiver at all or they will lose the voters they have.

Gay marriage is again about RELIGION. We are very close to proving the fact that being gay is a biological / genetic predisposition and therefore NOT A PERSONAL CHOICE. As a heterosexual male, I have always found it down right ignorant to imagine a hetero male could EVER chose a homosexual lifestyle. Only total morons would think that.

Gays are people and American citizens and deserve all the rights of American citizens and the Democrats should continue to support strongly that position - or they will lose the voters they have.

What the Democrats MUST change is their socialist / communist position on finance. Americas are moderate when it comes to spending money ( I am conservative) and they do not like or want their money thrown about trying to solve social ills. Be like Bill Clinton was - a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

If the Democrats keep disintegrating, this country will need a third party. It may be high time for one anyway. Howard Dean may not be the answer the Democrats need right now. Keep looking maybe you will find another Bill Clinton.

Janusz

INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

In Kansas, the so called "hayseed state" by teachers and scientists, the State Board of Education is discussing the introduction of a concept called "intelligent design" to take the place of "creationism" in the battle of religion against the teaching of evolution.

Creationism has lost a lot of ground since the "Monkey Trial". It is not science but a religious belief based on the first book of the Bible - Genesis.

Finally people realized that "evolution" is not a theory but a proven fact with more evidenced discovered every day. The "theory" part comes into place when the discussion turns to how evolution took place or more importantly, how it all started. Darwin suggested "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest".

The religious right, desperate to keep God in evolution, has proposed the theory of intelligent design and is pushing to have that theory taught along side evolution in our public schools.

The intelligent design theory maintains that nature in general is just too complicated to have arisen through evolution. This especially applies to living creatures. They propose a deliberate and intelligent design and therefore an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! They do not say GOD but hey, we all know what they mean.

There is a simply fascinating article titled "Unintelligent Design" by Jim Holt in the New York Times Magazine that details many of the arguments against intelligent design.

I personally believe that until the time when we absolutely know who and how the world and everything in it came to be, we cannot discount a higher intelligence (God) having something to do with it. The point is that whether God had something to do with evolution or not, you cannot deny that we (humans) have evolved from earlier beings.

Jim Holt, in his Times Magazine article takes on intelligent design by pointing out how many things in nature, including ourselves, are not designed well. In fact, some things are downright stupid - male nipples.

He points out that 99 percent of the species that have ever existed on this earth are now extinct. That means they have died out because they were too flawed to survive in our environment.

Some scientists maintain that God was just involved in the very beginning - providing the spark that created the first cell - after that evolution took place without the guidance of God.

Hey, you can come up with all sorts of scenarios BUT they would all be just speculations - theories. Jim Holt reminds us that Pope John Paul II said that evolution has been "proven true" and that "truth cannot contradict truth" and he was no slouch when it came to Christian theology.

So why are some people so totally clueless? You tell me.

Janusz

BUSH: U.S. MISTAKE POST WWII

I was downright shocked when I first read that Bush admitted, out loud, that the U.S. made a huge mistake after WWII by allowing Stalin to enslave millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe for over 50 years.

In case you don't remember, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill met Joseph Stalin of the USSR in Yalta, Crimea on the Black Sea. Stalin demanded Europe after the war and basically Roosevelt and Churchill gave it to him. The meeting was called the "sell-out at Yalta".

Historians have argued why this happened. Some say the Allies just wanted peace at any cost, some say they were scared of Stalin's military might and some say Stalin just lied and the Allies were too gullible. Many think Roosevelt felt that the about to be formed United Nations would control Stalin. Boy, was he wrong! Anyway, no U.S. president has ever mentioned the royal screw-up until Bush.

Maybe Bush is the only president that actually had a reason to mention the decision that led to "one of the greatest wrongs of history" - wow!

Bush has actually two reasons to mention this historic blunder. One, he wants to let Putin know that the U.S. will not stand idly by as Russia tries to retain control over its former USSR member countries - like Georgia. Bush is basically saying, we will not make the same mistake Roosevelt did in Yalta.

Bush is also justifying his invasion of Iraq and his policy to bring freedom to the Middle East. Roosevelt agreed to sell millions into Communist slavery just to keep stability in the world after WWII. Bush's rationale is, in his own words, "We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny and sacrificing freedom, in the vain pursuit of stability".

I have to admire President Bush and his handlers, for having the balls to bring up unpleasant history, even if only to serve their political purpose.

It is time to allow facts of history to come to the surface and not just smile and gloss over them.
The USSR made a deal with Hitler to invade Poland and who knows what else. Once Hitler turned on the USSR, Stalin joined the Allies. Does that make him a friend oe ally or just a smart guy doing what he has to do to win. Putin had the audacity to say that the USSR liberated Europe after WWII. Now that is total bullshit that needed to be addressed by all countries - but they remained silent.

People in China are protesting because Japan denies they did anything "bad" during WWII. The Germans are the only ones that know the fucked up really bad in starting WWII.

Right now, I am giving President Bush a thumbs up for what he did and I agree that it is smart foreign policy.

Janusz

BUSH'S JUDGES

The Democrats are preventing President Bush's nominees for Federal Judgeships from getting confirmed - oh my!

Are we so stupid that we have forgotten how the Republicans blocked President Clinton's nominees for judicial openings? Or are we selectively stupid - only if it hurts OUR nominees.

My suggestion is real simple - Republicans should allow some Clinton nominees in and Democrats should allow some Bush nominees (actually the Democrats have allowed many Bush nominees already).

Allow the Democrats to question, filibuster and try to block appointment of Republican nominees who's knuckles drag on the ground.

Janusz

DRUNK DRIVING!

Recently, we had a horrific accident in Farmington Hills, a community in the Metro Detroit area.

A really drunk man (0.45% alcohol) in a very large SUV hit a mother taking her two sons to the dentist; she was making a left turn, he was going 75mph, he did not even hit his breaks. All were killed.

In Michigan, we do not seem to punish drunk driving in such a way that people would think twice before they got behind the wheel of a car after drinking.

I am no angel, in my younger years I did drive after drinking. I am thankful for never hurting any innocent people. Now with age and hopefully a little more wisdom, I feel our laws need to change.

In the recent case, the man should be charged with second degree murder not driving under the influence. He should spend most of the time left in his life behind bars - period.

More importantly, Michigan laws should be much stricter for early offenders in the hope of teaching them never to drink and drive.

First offence, take their license away for a few months. Have them pay a hefty fine and have them visit a counselor. Second offence, take their license away for a few years, huge fine, time behind bars, alcoholism treatment. Third offence, throw the book at them.

I have seen strict laws work in Europe where people take taxis to parties and take the designated driver policy VERY seriously. It can work here.

Janusz

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER?

Recently, a city within the metro Detroit area, Troy, had to deal with a dilemma involving the National Day of Prayer. This day was designated by Congress sometime in the 1950s as a special day set aside for all Americans to pray for the United States.

In the city of Troy, a VERY diverse community, a Christian group asked the City Council for permission to hold a prayer meeting at the Veteran's Plaza. The same group has been supposedly doing this for the last 10 years.

This year, a interfaith group of Hindus, Muslims and other non-Christians asked to join the group in celebrating the NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER observance.

The Christian group said no. They were not going to pray to someone else's stinkin God.

The City Council thought about it and decided to let the Christians have their way - by a slight majority. Many letters to the editor were written and the NEWS even wrote an editorial which I feel did not go far enough in addressing the real issue.

Our Constitution specifically mandates a separation of Church and State; government will not endorse any specific religion - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".

The Troy City Council, by allowing ONLY the Christians to have a special session on PUBLIC PROPERTY, basically endorsed THAT religion as special and lumped all other religions into an interfaith group. To me, that is ENDORSING a specific religion over others by giving that religion preferential treatment and therefore in violation of the U.S. Constitution. I assumed the Troy City Council knew better but I was wrong.

Even if the Council did not know any better they should have respected the DIVERSITY of the Troy population; the people that vote for them.

Obviously, the Christians have no sense of NATIONAL as in we are all Americans. They are arrogant and plain stupid. They don't even follow what Jesus has taught. Jesus rebuked a Pharisee as a hypocrite for praying in public so others could see him. Jesus said you should pray to the Father in secret...".

So why do these so called Christians demand to pray on public property and in public? Can't they pray in their homes, their Churches, in the park, etc. Does their God hear their prayers only when they are said on public property?

These so called Christians want power. They want to tell us what is right and what is wrong, how we should behave, what clothes we should wear, what TV shows we can watch and what music we can listen to. Is this a free country or what!

Remember that our Founding Fathers foresaw this very danger of a theocracy (government by religion like Iran) and that is why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. Do not let these so called Christians defile our Constitution.

Janusz

BUSH'S SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN

President Bush had a very long press conference recently where he again pushed his plan for allowing private retirement savings accounts within the Social Security System. In a nut shell, a wage earner can elect to divert part of his Social Security wage deduction into a private fund that the wage earner could control, i.e. invest in his choice of investment products.

What would the Bush plan do for the Social Security System. Bush says the system is in trouble. How would his proposal get the Social Security System out of trouble. Well, by his own admission, it would do nothing to save the SS System. In fact, it would actually hurt it by diverting funds out of the system. So why is he pushing it? I can only speculate because no one has come up with a valid reason.

If we look at the Chile plan which included private retirement accounts, we now know that the system failed because the workers opting for the plan did not realize the great amount of retirement money that would go to plan brokers as commissions. The UK had a similar experience. So is that what Bush wants - make Wall Street billions in commissions? Maybe.

Workers today can join a 401(k) plan at work which takes pre-tax money and invests it according to the worker's wishes. Workers can also contribute to IRA (Individual Retirement Accounts) if they have no pension plans at work. The money contributed to these IRA accounts can then be deducted from one's taxes. Even if you have a 401(k) at work, you still can contribute to an IRA account. You cannot deduct the contribution from your taxes but the interest that investment makes is tax free until you start using it at retirement.

With these retirement options, why is Bush pushing another option; one that can hurt the Social Security System for millions of retirees.

Our Social Security System means one thing to our workers: a guaranteed retirement plan. They can count on that money when they retire come hell or high water. It is automatic. It is not a lot but it comes every month.

This plan cannot just go on forever. Adjustments have to be made. Retirees are healthier and living longer therefore collecting benefits longer. As baby boomers retire, there will be less younger workers to support the retirees. What this means is that more money will be going out than coming in. Once that starts happening it is only a matter of time before the money runs out.

One thing to remember; Social Security is NOT in any imminent danger of collapse. Economists say we can keep going without any changes till about the year 2052. That is a long time from now.

Adjustments made today can extend that trouble free period much longer. One adjustment has already been implemented - raising the retirement age. Since we are healthier and live longer, this makes a lot of sense.

Another adjustment is to raise the cap on wages that can be taxed. Right now the limit is $90,000. Why not increase that gradually to say $120,000 or more. I would not increase the actual tax rate since I feel it is high enough right now.

Bush is starting to favor a plan where SS benefits will be determined based on a person's wealth - the richer, the less SS benefits you are going to get. Well I think that is a bunch of bullshit. A person pays into the system all his or her life only to see their contributions go to someone else? No way. I want what is rightfully mine and that is not greed, it is fairness.

I urge all voters to contact their elected representatives to tell them to make sure Bush does not tamper with the Social Security System. His motives are very suspect. He needs money for his IRAQ war and he is willing to do basically anything to get it.

Janusz

Blaming the "UNINSURED"

My local Sunday paper contained more columns by people blaming the medically uninsured for all our healthcare problems.

I agree that these so called uninsured do use the emergency room (very expensive) for all their aches and pains and leave without paying. The hospitals / clinics are forced by law to offer treatment, even at no charge.

Patients with health insurance are billed excessively just to cover the costs of treating the uninsured. Insurance premiums just keep going up and up.

So who are these dastardly uninsured that are causing all these problems in our health care system?

Well, we know that they are too wealthy to apply for MEDICAID and too young to be on MEDICARE. They obviously do not receive health insurance from their employer and obviously do not purchase health insurance on their own.

A recent study by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan found that out of 1.1 million uninsured in Michigan, 176,000 lived in households with an income of over $75,000 and 187,000 live in households with annual incomes over $50,000.

Many of the uninsured are 19-25 year olds that are no longer covered by their parent's health policies but cannot afford to buy their own coverage and feel that they are young and healthy enough not to need any health coverage (which age group has the most accidents).

I feel one reason why the uninsured do not purchase health insurance is that the only insurance policies available are VERY EXPENSIVE. This is because our State government has some stupid law that forced insurance companies to offer only policies that covered basically everything thus expensive!

An uninsured person would be more apt to purchase a insurance policy if it was affordable and offered options from basic coverage to super deluxe. Also policies for healthy 19-25 year olds that reflected the fact that they ARE young and healthy and were cheap, cheap.

Even with affordable, smart policies some if not more of the uninsured would still say, hey, I can get health care for free by just going to the ER.

Well, here is where we need some balls - MAKE HEALTH COVERAGE MANDATORY. Yes, just like you need auto insurance to get a license plate, you will need health insurance to see a doctor or you will be directed to a special clinic where you will be treated and then arrested - or something -don't have that part quite figured out yet.

Janusz