And he turns out to be a RINO

It did not take him long. He claimed he was going to be the 41st vote against the healthcare reform debate. And they made sure (Dems, that is) that he would not cast that vote. But they had nothing to fear.

Turns out, he is a RINO. Of course, you know who I am talking about - Senator Scott Brown. He is obviously looking for his re-election in 2 years. And of course all the union and special interest negative ads. He announces that he is going to vote FOR the 2,000 page monstrosity called 'financial services reform'. Really, Scott!

This is a big let down. Well, he can count on at least one vote he is not going to have next time around.

Gates Gate - a year hence

Gates gate - the fracas about arresting Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge, MA by a white police officer. They took almost a year to complete their investigation - like there was much to investigate. And the report is an example of the hollow-ness of the Cambridge elite.

We have become a nation of wusses. According to the investigating committee - "there were missed opportunities on both sides". Apparently, the police have the burden of explaining what they are doing. Well, a police officer responding to a 911 call about a burglary should "arrest" the burglar - he can check the credentials after that and read the miranda rights.

Media portrays this as a teachable moment about 'race relations'. Really. In 2009, in a nation (predominantly white) that elected its first black President, in a state with its first black Governor, in a(n elite) city with a black mayor, a routine arrest some how has racial overtones. Come on, isn't there any limit to this nonsense.

Law abiding - only some of the time

Most Americans consider themselves Law abiding citizens. But that is really not the case. There is one law they routinely break - the Speed Limit.

100% of everyone I know, speeds. It does not seem to enter into anyone's conscience that the speed limit is part of the local law and statutes. Speeding clearly violates the local law.

And there is a real consequence of this brazen violation of the law - too many accidents and at times, innocent lives lost.

I have written about this before. Most people, decent people, routinely make fun of speed limits and driving within those limits. I do not quite understand how trivial it is for some of them.

You can not be a law abiding citizen if you choose which laws you want to abide by.

We live in a democracy. And the laws are made on our behalf by the representatives we elect. If we do not like the law, use the political process to change the law. But not break the law.

Shipping & Handling

What exactly does 'Shipping & Handling' constitute? Shipping is quite understandable - cost of shipping via UPS or FedEx or even USPS. But what exactly is 'Handling'? What do they 'handle'?

When majority of the businesses were brick and mortar and you wanted something packed and shipped to your home, I can understand the 'handling' aspect of it - since it is not their usual thing to do. But how are 'Online retailers - e-tailers' justified in charging its customer 'handling'?

Would you pay Dell a separate 'handling' cost to put that computer of yours in a box and send it to you from Texas? Of course not. That is Dell's business model and the 'handling' is factored into the price.

Amazon offers the ultimate - Free Saver Shipping. If you are not in a rush, your item is shipped to you for free.

Contrast this with some really outrageous e-tailers: ProFlowers (or any of the flower delivery companies for that matter), L.L.Bean. Their merchandise is already higher priced than a department store. And you end up 'shipping & handling' on top of their exorbitant prices. This is a total rip-off.

Quite frankly, your grocery store flowers are more fresh and better than anything you can order online with these guys. And L.L.Bean's merchandise is also mostly 'Made in China' stuff that you can buy anywhere else. And to have to pay 'handling' for a vendor whose business model is mail-order - is simply unacceptable in today's world.

Red Pill, Blue Pill

Over this summer, our President used the red pill, blue pill analogy to bolster his healthcare plan.

I have personally been involved in evaluating these considerations for my own health a few years ago. In fact, I had three choices.

Faced with highly active Crohn's disease, ended up in the hospital with bloody diarrhea 4 times in 6 weeks. My doctor who was treating me for years wanted to perform yet another resection - which may have worked.

I sought a second opinion. And this doctor wanted to treat me just with steroids - the blue pill, would cost just pennies per daily dose and the insurance does not have to pay any of it, as these are fairly cheap.

Frustrated with those options, I sought yet another opinion. And this doctor thought I was too young to resect away my intestine or treat with steroids. He decided to put me on Remicade - the red pill, costs upwards of $5,000 every 8 weeks and administered at the hospital or physician's office.

In all of this, my insurance company did not get between me and my doctors. And the improvement in the quality of life has been incredible.

Under state-run healthcare like the British system, NICE (the agency that sets these thresholds) would have denied this treatment option since it exceeded their arbitrary $20,000 limit for six months.


And now, anyone with basic understanding of how market works knows that, if the blue pill can do everything that the red pill does at a lower cost, there never will be a red pill.


If there is anything that red pill does the blue pill does not, there are probably patients out there who need it, regardless of the cost.


When you paint with such broad strokes as the President and the democrats are doing, the individuals such as me get the stick. The reason the nation is animated over this subject is because when individual rights are threatened for collectivist dogmas, are we still a free country and free people?

Why we are in Afghanistan

We are in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9-11 attacks and at that time was in Afghanistan with all operational leadership and its training camps. And the then President and commander-in-chief, George W Bush, has vowed solemnly to go after those who caused us harm. And he was not un-serious.

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

By all accounts we mounted an effective campaign. None of the "experts" imagined such a swift campaign. We drove both Taliban and Al-qaeda into Pakistan, but out of the civilized parts of Afghanistan (yes, they ended up in some of the caves).

And then president Bush did something else that the "experts" claimed must be done. We outsourced the war efforts to our allies in the NATO. And the situation gotten worse since then. This was the most tragic error.

Contrast this with President Bush's Iraq campaign - the so called "Bush's War". Although we had difficult times, we stayed the course. And through Gen. Petraeus's surge, we came through an otherwise difficult situation. But President Bush did not weaver in his commitment to the people of Iraq and to our troops. By the end of his term in office, he has successfully concluded the campaign - sure, we still have some troops, but the campaign is largely over and Iraqis are firmly in control. But if President Bush had listened to the "experts" - who are mostly his detractors, like he did in the Afghan campaign, Iraq would be in the same mess that we find now in Afghanistan.

Now, we have the most un-serious President in a lifetime. He finds it more important to pitch for Olympics than talk to his General. He wants to tackle "texting while driving" as opposed to war. He is singularly unfit to be the commander-in-chief.

Oh, wait. He just was awarded the Noble Peace prize. He joins the company of the most un-serious Americans before him - Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

Drunk Driving

Found out that a co-worker was killed in a head-on collision by a drunk driver over this weekend.

I drink. I drive. But never together in that order - because I know why I drink and that would not go well with the driving part. And for that reason, I limit my drinking to one of 2 places: at home (I do not have to drive at all) or at a restaurant with my family, when I have someone who could drive me home, safely.

May be I am a bit anti-social. I stay out of all after-work drink parties co-workers arrange, primarily because I would have to drive after that and would not want to drink - that would defeat the purpose of the whole party to begin with.

Why this much is not clear to vast majority of the folks out there is a mystery to me. A lot of folks that I know do this as well as speeding - I guess it is the culture.

Ironic that in a liberal state such as Massachusetts, there are no harsh penalties for drunk driving - if it all enforced by the cops. This is not the first such tragedy in the state. Nor is it likely to be the last.

By the way, that drunk driver (in the case of my co-worker) was also high on drugs - survived. And he will live on and drink and drive to kill a few more innocent folks. What a travesty?