Write Your Representatives to Keep Student Loan Rates Low

Dear Representative Murphy


I'm writing to ask you to think of a clever way to keep student college loan rates low.

It is not at all surprising that Republicans are suggesting "raiding a slush fund," this "slush fund" being money set aside for preventative medical care for women and children.  Please remind me why we're not supposed to believe that you Republicans are waging a war against women, when your leaders like Boehner want to fund student loans by defunding medical care.

Why aren't you funding student loans by defunding subsidies to industries making obscene profits, like much of the oil & gas companies and factory farms?

Middle class and poor college students need cheap college loans.  It frequently looks like the Republicans want a permanently  uneducated underclass without health care.  Remember, while you have won your district in the past, many of the people you are supposed to be representing are not Republicans.



*****

Dear Representative Boehner



I'm writing to ask you to think of a clever way to keep student college loan rates low.

It is not at all surprising that you have suggested "raiding a slush fund," this "slush fund" being money set aside for preventative medical care for women and children.  Please remind me why we're not supposed to believe that you Republicans are waging a war against women, when people like you want to fund student loans by defunding medical care.

Why aren't you funding student loans by defunding subsidies to industries making obscene profits, like much of the oil & gas companies and factory farms?

Middle class and poor college students need cheap college loans.  It frequently looks like the Republicans want a permanently  uneducated underclass without health care.  Remember, while you have won your district in the past, many of the people you are supposed to be representing are not Republicans.

Which "We" Are You Talking About?

Commentator Charles M. Blow wrote an interesting essay called "We Are Not Stupid," in which he wonders how people can follow Romney.

The answer, sadly, is that some Americans are profoundly stupid when it comes to voting.  In 2008, one set of "we" voted for McCain even after his team chose Palin.  A larger set of "we" (including me) voted for Obama.

This year, a surprising number of "we" came out for Santorum, one of the most stunningly out-of-touch presidential candidates in recent memory.  Many more still support Romney, despite not having done anything for the people since helping to set up state-wide health care in Massachusetts when he was governor there.  I think at that point in time, he was trying to out-Kennedy Ted Kennedy, a rich man with at least a few clues about government supporting people in need.  Now, like most other Republicans, Romney wants to reduce the debt on the backs of the workers (especially government workers) while giving the rich a pass on tax increases.

Some of "we" seem completely incapable of figuring out that an America constantly at war, with an ever-widening gulf between poor and rich, consistently vote against their own self-interest by voting for Republicans who are only interested in helping the rich and not the whole country.

Politicians, religious leaders and business leaders have been flim-flamming Americans for generations.  Sometimes, they're just after our money or our support, but the politicians are also after our vote.  We have to carefully evaluate where the politicians come from, and how they've evolved over time.  While Obama has made mistakes, I have more trust in him, particularly after getting an initial health care bill passed through an incredibly hostile Congress, than I do for any Republican candidate.

Tenth Anniversary Blog: Increasingly Aggravated by Google

April 2012 marks 10 years of my erratic blogging, 17 1/2 years of being active on the Web, 24 years of being a USENET participant, and 28 1/2 years of having an E-mail address.

WHEW!

For over 10 years, Google was the best search site.  It still is, but its other features are increasingly hard to use.

There I was, trying to give feedback about a company on Google places.  I was logged into my Google account, I wrote up my comment, and this odd little box popped up:

     Set your appearance to start rating

With little graphics the type of which you'd see on early '80s video games.

My options were "Get started" or "Cancel your rating."

On the one hand, I really wanted to rate a local business.

On the other hand, I really have no interest in "Getting started" with some sort of bizarre little Google Places account.

On of the options should have been "Rate."  

Google always likes to say "Do no evil" or "Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful."

I believed that for a long time, but I'm not so sure these days.  Increasingly, Google seems to only look for ways to monetize every bit of information anyone many be willing to share without listening to any user feedback.

Maybe I'm just an old computer user and tired.  I don't object to change.  And I understand that companies need to make money.  I've had Google ads on my sites for many years, and that basically pays for my ISP account.  But once I'm logged into one Google account, Google should not demand for me to create another account just to rate a local business.  I can see where people might want the option to create another account for such ratings, but it should not be required.