One Citizen Speaking

ARE GOOGLE AND THE DNC PLAYING FAVORITES WITH THE 2020 ELECTION?

There was a time when the internet was a free and open collaboration of all who wished to participate. A time when Google’s mantra was “Don’t Be Evil.” It was all explained in Google’s August 18, 2004 Amendment Number Nine to the Form S-1 Registration Statement filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

DON’T BE EVIL Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served—as shareholders and in all other ways—by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company. Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating. We also display advertising, which we work hard to make relevant, and we label it clearly. This is similar to a well-run newspaper, where the advertisements are clear and the articles are not influenced by the advertisers’ payments. We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.  <Source>

As big money entered the arena in the collection and sale of information and advertising, the internet started to coalesce into a number of large platforms that offered freely available access in exchange for access to an individual’s information. Then something changed, it was no longer about free and open access, but about lock-ins to proprietary platforms that were producing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. Big business came to the internet and at some point in time in 2015 Google abandoned their “Don’t Be Evil” mantra in favor of “"Do the right thing" as its motto.

The question is, do the right thing for who?

Like all bureaucracies, be they in the government, commercial sector, or non-profits, the prime directive is preserve the organization, ensure increasing revenue or funding, preserve the current leadership, and enforce the hierarchy, and exclude troublemakers and those that challenge the will of the leadership or the orthodoxy. There is no doubt that corporations are influenced by the government: by legislation, by regulatory agencies, by government tax relief, grants, and contracts. Likewise, we find many former government agents, operatives, and government employees embedded in corporations where they are more likely to assist their friends “wink-wink” than not. All off-book with zero accountability.

So why am I concerned with the machinations at Google and the Democrat National Committee…

[OCS: Could Google, with a number of former Obama activists and operators on staff, alter the results of their search algorithm enough to impact a candidate?] Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million Representative Tulsi Gabbard, the long-shot presidential candidate from Hawaii, said in a federal lawsuit that Google infringed on her free speech when it briefly suspended her campaign’s advertising account after the first Democratic debate in June. The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in a federal court in Los Angeles, is believed to be the first time a presidential candidate has sued a major technology firm. In a twist that reflects Ms. Gabbard’s unorthodox political views, the claim that her speech was stifled by Google is similar to complaints made over the last year in Republican circles. Few Democrats have raised similar concerns around the world for a wide variety of issues, including their influence on political debate, their handling of consumer data, and the aggressive way they compete with smaller companies. <Source> For those wishing to read the lawsuit, it can be found here. [OCS: It appears that the Democrat National Committee may not  have learned anything when they attempted to screw over Bernie Sanders in favor of their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton.] Gabbard Victimized by DNC's Dubious Debate Criteria Tulsi Gabbard is on the verge of being excluded from the next Democratic presidential debate on the basis of criteria that appear increasingly absurd. Take, for instance, her poll standing in New Hampshire, which currently places Gabbard at 3.3% support, according to the RealClearPolitics average as of Aug. 20. One might suspect that such a figure would merit inclusion in the upcoming debates -- especially considering she’s ahead of several candidates who have already been granted entry, including Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Yang. But the Democratic National Committee has decreed that the polls constituting this average are not sufficiently “qualifying.” What makes a poll “qualifying” in the eyes of the DNC? The answer is conspicuously inscrutable. Months ago, party chieftains issued a list of “approved sponsoring organizations/institutions” for polls that satisfy their criteria for debate admittance. Not appearing on that list is the Boston Globe, which sponsored a Suffolk University poll published Aug. 6 that placed Gabbard at 3%. The DNC had proclaimed that for admittance to the September and October debates, candidates must secure polling results of 2% or more in four separate “approved” polls -- but a poll sponsored by the newspaper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire (the Globe recently surpassed the New Hampshire Union Leader there) does not count, per this cockamamie criteria. There has not been an officially qualifying poll in New Hampshire, Gabbard’s best state, in over a month. <Source>

It appears that the DNC has anointed Bernie “The Red” Sanders and Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren being the top two contenders – with the ultimate goal of having Elizabeth Warren and a strong Vice President face President Donald Trump. The wild card is Kamala Harris who apparently needs to be protected from an increasingly popular Tulsi Gabbard.

What will the social media platforms do in the lead-up to 2020?

From recent news stories, we have seen the social media unduly punish conservatives and those who are attacking progressive socialist democrats. So, can they be trusted not to put their greasy fingers on the scale and influence the election?

Bottom line…

Never before in the history of the United States has the mainstream media been so overtly hostile towards a President of the United States. And, never before has an administration attempted to rig and election or overthrow a duly elected President.

The only antidote to real or imagined voter manipulation is to exceed any opposition vote by an overwhelming margin and produce an incontrovertible mandate that affirms capitalism over socialism.

I am waiting for the Attorney General Barr’s report on the Obama Administration to shock the conscience of all Americans whether or not individuals are punished for their criminal actions.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

WHY SENIORS SHOULD BE WARY OF SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE

When it came to the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as Obamacare, the academic pointy-heads missed a few significant facts … 

*Academic personnel are almost always biased towards socialisms, class warfare, and managing adversity to accrete power rather than expanding the opportunities for more systemic participation. Politicians, particularly progressive politicians, are almost always part of the problem and contribute little to the solution. For the most part, Members of Congress no longer craft legislation, but use foundations, advocacy groups, and staff to craft the actual legislation which they then pass only in outline form; and then cede the creation and enforcement of administrative rules and regulations to the Executive Branch. They do not read those complicated 1000-page bills that are presented for their vote within days of the vote.  

* Medical personnel are not machines with infinite capacity, therefore it is impossible to add millions of insured individuals to any healthcare system without a corresponding increase in physicians, facilities, diagnostic devices, medical personnel, and durable medical equipment.  

* Waste, fraud, and abuse is designed into the medical delivery system by design on behalf of politically-connected special interests seeking monopolistic advantages, guaranteed profits, and few consequences for bad acts. It is a trivial off-the-shelf system that could be used to track medical services globally as simply as credit card purchases are tracked. Social security numbers still do not have a unique, check-digited structure and the Internal Revenue Service which processes millions of bogus or overlapping Social Security numbers still has no formal mechanism to flag those numbers for scrutiny when obtaining other federal services.

The end result of any cost-controlled or constrained system is always rooted in the three big claims outcomes: denial, delay, and death. The interim result is rationing.

Which brings us to the subject of today's blog, that the progressives, or statists as you will, have little or no regard for those who have little or no potential to contribute to the regulated activities of the state. In this instance, senior citizens who appear to consume goods and service, and disproportionate medical care at their end-of-life, and correspondingly contribute little to the benefit of the state.

Did this man want to systematically deny seniors advanced care based on a formula? You bet!

Ezekiel “E-Z Kill” Emanuel

A doctor and medical ethicist argues life after 75 is not worth living Ezekiel Emanuel questions “whether our consumption is worth our contribution” in old age.    In October 2014, Ezekiel Emanuel published an essay in the Atlantic called “Why I Hope to Die at 75.” Because Emanuel is a medical doctor and chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s department of medical ethics and health policy, as well as a chief architect of Obamacare, the article stirred enormous controversy. Emanuel vowed to refuse not only heroic medical interventions once he turned 75, but also antibiotics and vaccinations. His argument: older Americans live too long in a diminished state, raising the question of, as he put it, “whether our consumption is worth our contribution.” [OCS: In a socialist state, your worth is proportional to your ability to provide for the collective. If you offer no meaningful contribution, your are considered a drag on society and an unnecessary consumer of finite natural resources. One of the basic tenets of population control, eugenics, and euthanasia. All couched in terms of “quality of life.”] Emanuel, now 62, talked with me about the social implications of longevity research and why he isn’t a fan of extending life spans. I was particularly curious to get his reaction to several promising new anti-aging drugs. Q: It’s five years since you published the essay. Any second thoughts as you near the deadline? A: Not really! [Laughing] Q: You announced that you wouldn’t take any measures to prolong your life after 75. Isn’t that an extreme position? A: First of all, it’s not an extreme position. I’m not going to die at 75. I’m not committing suicide. I’m not asking for euthanasia. I’m going to stop taking medications with the sole justification that the medication or intervention is to prolong my life. [OCS: Emanuel has a right to his opinion, but when it is codified into a law; that requires further examination.  Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) was to be a “scientific” method of managing the costs of healthcare, mostly by developing formulas and protocols involving who would receive care under Obamacare. If you are curious to see how Obamacare incentivizes hospitals to spend less on seniors, you may wish to read: TITLE III—IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF HEALTH CARE; Subtitle A—Transforming the Health Care Delivery System; PART I—LINKING PAYMENT TO QUALITY OUTCOMES UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM; SEC. 3001. HOSPITAL VALUE-BASED PURCHASING PROGRAM. It all boils down to how the government should reimburse insurers while mandating the their limited resources be used to treatments that will be cost effective and do the most good for the most people. If you really want to scare yourself silly or make yourself sick, check out a cost effectiveness formula that uses a metric called the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, has already laid the intellectual groundwork for overt rationing in a 2009 Lancet article, “Principles For Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.” Dr. Emanuel proposes rationing based on a combination of factors including patient age, expected “quality adjusted life years,” and the patient’s “instrumental value” to “society.” Given that the government would be making (and paying for) these rationing decisions, value to “society” will become “value as determined by the government.” One can just imagine a number of technocrats determining that some elderly individuals are not worth anything … and giving them the “other” blue pill.] Q. But it’s called “Why I hope to die …” "The world will exist fine if you happen to die. Great people, maybe even people greater than you, like Newton and Shakespeare and Euler—they died." A. As you probably know better than everyone else, it’s editors that choose titles and not authors. I often get, from the people who want to dismiss me, “You know, my Aunt Nellie, she was clear as a bell at 94, and blah-blah-blah …” But as I said in the article, there are outliers. There are not that many people who continue to be active and engaged and actually creative past 75. It’s a very small number. Q: You suggest that one effect of our obsession with longevity is that it diverts attention from the health and well-being of children. A: Lots of presidents and lots of politicians say, “Children are our most valuable resource.” But we as a country don’t behave like that. We don’t invest in children the way we invest in adults, especially older adults. One of the statistics I like to point out is if you look at the federal budget, $7 goes to people over 65 for every dollar for people under 18. Q: What’s wrong with simply enjoying an extended life? A: These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. Q: Are the anti-aging drugs in development just a bid for immortality by the back door? A: Certainly. You listen to these people and their lingo is not “We’re just trying to get rid of problems.” Right? It’s “We want to live longer.” I notice that almost all of these https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/health/who-needs-health-examinationsthings—not all of them, but many of them—are based out in California, because God forbid the world should continue to exist and I’m not part of it! The world will exist fine if you happen to die. Great people, maybe even people greater than you, like Newton and Shakespeare and Euler—they died. And guess what? The world’s still there. Q: What message do you think it sends when iconic innovators in Silicon Valley—people like Peter Thiel and Larry Ellison—are clearly fascinated by life extension and … A: No, no—they’re fascinated by their life extension! This idea that they’re fascinated with life extension [in general]? Naw, they’re fascinated by their life extension. They find it hard to even contemplate the idea that they are going to die and the world is going to be fine without them. Q: Is it really a problem if one of these drugs like metformin shows a modest life-extending effect? A: I think it would be, especially if what ends up happening is it adds a few years of life. Then the question is: What are the downsides of that? There may be a cognitive downside, maybe a little more mental confusion. It’s very funny—every time I talk to people, it’s like, “Oh, yeah, definitely quality of life over quantity of life.” But when push comes to shove, it’s really quantity of life. “I might be a little more confused, but I’ll take that extra year!”  Read more at: <Source>

Bottom line...

Inform yourself, inform your family, friends, co-workers that when they vote for progressive socialist democrats and their single-payer healthcare system, they deny you a chance to enjoy what little time you may have left after a life of suffering and hard work. They deny those late-in-life parents an opportunity to see their grandchildren prosper and have children. They are playing God with your life for the benefit of the state.

Talk about the opioid crisis? You will find that this is little more than a political talking point. The progressive socialist democrats, especially those interested in population control, eugenics, and de-industrialization, love this opportunity to help the planet heal. And, this is nothing compared to the coming opioid crisis where the government mandates pain relief pills for those who are denied hip and knee replacements to return these individuals to an active but “non-productive” (by government standards” life.

You do not see Americans going to Canada, Britain, and Cuba for quality healthcare delivered in optimum conditions. But those are the systems that progressive socialist democrats are trying to emulate. For those who point to Switzerland or the Scandinavian countries, remember America has the largest, most diverse population on the face of the Earth. We are an exceptional nation and one that has done more for society than all of the other counties combined.

Try to emigrate to Australia if you are obese or have a medical issue…

The Migration Health Requirement 3.3 The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) suggests that there are a number of reasons behind the need for a Health Requirement. These are to: * protect the Australian community from public health and safety risks; * contain public expenditure on health care and community services; and * safeguard the access of Australian citizens to health care and community services that are in short supply. <Source>

Fortunately, we can avoid that fate by avoiding voting for progressive socialist democrats and anyone who proposes a single-payer health system or revitalization of Obamacare.

We are so screwed.

-- steve