Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Thursday, January 20, 2022

Obamacare = Brosurance

If you’ve had boys, you know, they think they are invincible… usually right up until they have their first child. They also don’t think much of insurance. Who needs to waste money on that? They’re invincible, remember?!

Not to worry, Progress Now Colorado has a couple of ads designed to appeal to that demographic too!

Brosurance

 

Do you really think these ads are going to convince them to buy Obamacare? Calling it “Brosurance” was a good marketing move. But I doubt it’ll get them to write the check.

What’s “Brosurance” cost these days for a 20-something? Upwards of $100 per month depending on your exact age and home address. That’s alotta beer “Bro”! Besides… I’m invincible, remember?!

Where are we going as a society when the best way to hawk insurance is by telling our young people that they’ll have more drinking money? And suggesting that it is normal and acceptable to drink to a level of not remembering what you were doing?

I understand that shock value sells. But is this really the best we could do? And there’s not even a disclaimer in tiny print at the bottom warning that excessive drinking or binge drinking could lead to embarrassment, black outs, arrests, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, addiction, and even death. Hmmmm…

Wouldn’t it be better to show our young people what to aspire to? Maybe be responsible citizens who do the right thing? Is it really that far of a stretch?

And seriously, how much damage could there be falling off a keg (less than 3 feet tall) while you’re so inebriated that you don’t even know you’re up there? Get real, Bro!

Let me hear your thoughts on these ads…

Photo credit and more information about this ad campaign here.

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/13/13

Obamacare Leaves More Money for Alcohol

Here’s another “fun” ad released by Progress Now Colorado to promote Obamacare.

“Saving money on flu shots leaves us more money for fun shots.” They’re not talking about photography, basketball, or hockey.

One look at the ad and it’s clear the “fun shots” are alcohol and if the picture weren’t worth a 1000 words, they clarify it in writing with “Shotskis keep us happy.”

So, drinking alcohol = happy.

And flu shots = healthy. Got it.

Good message. If you want to be an attractive healthy young woman, keep drinking shots. Oh, and with Obamacare, you’ll save so much money, you can actually drink more! Is that really what we’re trying to convey here?

This ad is clearly targeting millennials. That’s the best they could come up with? Because the way to reach millennials is to tell them they’ll have more money for alcohol? What happens when they realize you’re lying?

Did anyone consider the statistics for drunk driving, rape, substance abuse, or addiction when they concocted this ad?

Let me hear your thoughts on this ad…

Photo credit and other information about this ad campaign can be found here.

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/13/13

What’s in a word? And who cares anyway?

This week, Obama, Sebelius, and Carney, introduced new meanings to words like “Let me make this clear! and “What he really meant was…” and “It’s the Republicans’ fault.”

This reminds me of my teenage years. Like “The dog ate my homework” and “You never said it was due today!” Only in those days, they were called lies. Plain and simple.

The president gave a speech this week in Boston on the day of a World Series game that the Boston Red Sox are playing in. With this president, it’s all about him. His propaganda had to be pushed on a city that had recently suffered a blow at the marathon and was feeling good about coming into a World Series game with an opportunity to win something they hadn’t won in over 80 years.

The speech from Boston talked about what a success the Obamacare roll-out was (insert cricket sounds here). Seriously? If by “success” he meant the roll-out of a website built to gather information and allow people to sign up for “affordable health care” where 90+% of the people attempting to sign onto it could do nothing, and I mean truly nothing! (Yes, actual use of the word with true meaning.) They filled in information for hours only to get an error message that their information would not be accepted. Many users stated that even when they entered their date of birth in the proper field it was rejected no matter how they entered it, and that there was no example format, i.e “Date of Birth: 01/01/50 or 01/01/1950”.

And yet the president still said, “many of the glitches had been worked out and many people were having no real issues.” Sure they have.

The president stated a few facts about people that signed up for health care and saved “lots of money” only to find out later that at the time he made the speech just under 50,000 people have “signed up.” Come to find out, “signed up” actually meant “registered” to use the site. Most people thought the president meant the folks were signed up for their healthcare. I have registered on many web sites for information without signing up for the product or services. There is a difference.

The president said many have already saved or found out they will be saving thousands on their plans. Sadly, that’s because they are losing their plans and will pay the $95.00 penalty collected by the IRS through their refunds. What if they don’t get a refund? I guess they’ll just have to write a check.

Many of those who were able to use the site, find a plan, and sign up were greeted with a final screen that said something like: Congratulations you qualify for XYZ plan, please call this number 800-###-#### with the registration/confirmation number on the top of this page.

There are two problems here; in almost every case, the registration/confirmation area was blank and the 800 number provided went to a cupcake shop and deli in New York. Well, finally something I could sink my teeth into!

The president said this would be the most open and transparent administration in history. Yet, it seems to literally take an act of congress to get anyone from his cabinet or staff to come and testify. When they do, in half the cases, they plead the fifth. The other half of the time, they speak with disdain and in a condescending tone.

Queue up Kathleen Sibelius who was recently asked to testify in front of congress. At first she refused. But why? What was there to hide? Is there some kind of national security issue on the Obamacare web site? Isn’t she part of the most transparent and open administration ever?

When she finally did testify, simple questions like “who was responsible for testing the web site” were responded with “I am not sure of the exact person.” Apparently this means, I have no clue if it was even tested. When asked, “Did you know of the issues CGI had with the other projects it did?” she replied, “I am sure they met the bid requirements.” Let me translate that for you, that meant “NO!”

When asked point-blank about security of personal information Sebelius replied, “testing occurs regularly” yet she told the congressman she would get back to him on whether any end-to-end security test of the entire system has ever occurred. The congressman produced a department memo from her own department that stated there have been no such comprehensive security tests and that they were aware days before, because of the sites many issues, they were not even ready to test security.

Jay Carney (in the job that just can’t pay enough) started almost every sentence this week with “what the president meant was…” Apparently when the President says “let me be perfectly clear..” he means “let me use some words that Jay Carney will re-word later to say the things we think you will want to hear so you won’t know what’s going on and be mad at me!”

I will never understand why the president and his team won’t own up to anything. They released the website, period. If he would just say, “we released the site, it’s not quite ready, but we will work it out as you use it” that would go a long way.

But I guess it might be a little harder to be completely honest about some parts. Do you think it would fly if he just said, “I don’t know what all the fuss is about. As we moved forward with the Affordable Care Act we decided that substandard healthcare plans (in our opinion) would not be tolerated. We know what’s best for you. Shut up and pay the fee. Ummm tax. You are going to get this healthcare plan no matter what you say or do. So suck it up, be a good comrade, and, oh yeah, it’s the Republicans’ fault.”

Obamacare Ad Caters to “Hot to Trot”

Progress Now Colorado has released a new ad campaign aimed at millennials. There are 21 poster-type ads of with various content targeting specific demographics.

But some people are taking aim on a couple which they claim are “demeaning to women”. I’d take it a step further than that. It’s not just demeaning to women, it’s a downright scary assessment of what is considered acceptable and normal in today’s society.

Take this ad, for instance. Oh, where to start…

This is “Susie & Nate” and they are “Hot to Trot”. Good to know!

The lead-in line says “Let’s Get Physical”. Judging from her excitement about that package of birth control pills, I doubt they are going to the gym together.

The ad goes on to read “Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers.” (Oh, and that little disclaimer in small print at the bottom of the ad that you also should be concerned with STD’s!)

How is this ad demeaning to women? Didn’t the women’s movement want women to have control of their “reproductive rights” so that they could be free to engage in whatever recreational sexual activities they wanted to? It sounds like Susie has control of all her personal sexual choices (as long as Nate is cooperative).

The one I’m a little concerned for is Nate. Susie sounds a little predatory if you ask me. What if Nate “isn’t that kind of guy” or gets his heart broken? Nevermind that for now.

Actually, I am concerned for Susie too. Because if all Susie is concerned about having healthcare coverage for is birth control, then she’s wasting her money. You can get monthly birth control for significantly less than Obamacare, regardless of your age.

Even more concerning is the spotlight that this little ad puts on young women and sexual promiscuity. Women can choose to be sexually active or not. But this ad attempts to normalize casual sexual encounters.

If this ad depicted a committed relationship she wouldn’t be trying to get him between the sheets and she would already know whether or not he was “easy.” When you know someone and are in relationship with them, you talk about that serious step of getting physically intimate, not “worry about” how you’re going to make it happen.

What’s really demeaning to women are the scars left by casual encounters and failed relationships. Committed relationships built on mutual respect with genuine care and concern leave a lot less scars. I bet that would save billions in Obamacare psychotherapy costs.

What did you think about the ad? Do you think it’s demeaning to Susie or Nate or their entire generation? Let me hear your thoughts…

You can see the whole ad campaign including the ad shown above (photo credit) at: doyougotinsurance.com

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/13/13

The War on Women is Brewing Up Again!

Wake up, protect your freedoms, before they're gone.

In a recent column in a non-conservative blog, the columnist suggested that parents warn their daughters about some of the things they can be expected or pressured to at college when they get there. Among them, binge drinking. Sounds ok to me. I would warn my daughter that among the many things they do at college, one of them is to encourage the incoming females to party and fit in which almost always includes binge drinking.

No matter how hard we try to raise our kids right, peer pressure is tough to push back on. Parents who care to be involved in their kids’ lives and want them to be safe in their learning environment will always reach out with encouragement and, yes, sometimes warnings.

Your kids are your responsibility. This may be your daughter’s first time away from home. Maybe she hasn’t been in the big city or doesn’t understand what a real predator is, and not the movie kind.

You would think parents that care like this, that had the guts to have these frank conversations with their kids, would be hailed as heroes. But no, not by one columnist. Emily Yoffe’s Slate article about binge drinking and sexual assault came under attack by the left-wing male hating group at feministing.com.

A writer for the blog states the piece was nothing more than “a rape denialism manifesto” full of“plain old victim-blaming,” Another writer on Jezebel.com, accused Yoffe of “admonishing women for not doing enough to stop their own rapes.”

Isn’t that just like the left to jump all the way to the negative. No one is saying that the way a woman dresses or carries herself or how drunk she gets gives others license to rape or abuse her.

Amanda Hess from feministing.com says “We can prevent the most rapes on campus by putting our efforts toward finding and punishing those perpetrators, not by warning their huge number of potential victims to skip out on parties.”

Is she serious? Hey Amanda, we put away many murderers every year, and yet we continue to have many more murders committed every year. We put away many rapists a year, and yet many rapes are still committed every year. From what LSD-based logical thinking book did you pull your reasoning?

So, what you’re saying is, if we put more rapists away we will have less rapes because new rapists will never come a long? Unfortunately can’t actually accuse and catch a rapist until after a rape occurs.

No one is suggesting that you tell your daughters to stay home with a Kevlar suit and chastity belt on. We are simply suggesting they use a little self-control and discipline.

As one writer put it, if two people walk into the lions’ den and one has a dress on and one has a meat dress on (like Lady GaGa), the one with the meat dress is probably not going to leave alive.

If a really pretty woman, wearing skimpy clothing, goes into a bar full of sailors just in from a 6 month tour and decides to get rip-roaring drunk and play strip poker with them, can she realistically expect that nothing will happen? Can you ever put yourself in a situation that will most likely end badly? Yes, you can!

I know, that example is really far-fetched. But it’s ridiculous for a reason, because I believe Ms. Hess is being ridiculous.

There are lots of sick people around the world, and their on college campuses too. If trying to protect my daughters, your daughters, and others’ daughters by asking them to drink sensibly, don’t go places where they don’t have a safe way out, and to start their college experience off cautiously makes me a parent who is trying to take away my daughters “right of passage” or “right to go out and have fun by having a few too many” then so be it.

I am more than happy to be the wet blanket on my daughter’s fun. I’d rather have her back “un-raped” as a “non-alcoholic” than a mess from her “anything goes” college experience.

On Probation for Defending Themselves

Picture this… you’re away at college. Someone attempts to force their way into your apartment (you don’t realize it’s a convicted felon). You know this is not a good situation and holler to your roommate for help. He arrives, gun in hand. The intruder flees without a shot being fired.

Sounds like perfect use of the 2nd amendment, right? It was. The firearm was legally owned and licensed.

The hitch comes in with the University’s policy forbidding firearms on school property and campus housing.

Both students were place on probation and the weapon confiscated. The students were notified they may be expelled or suspended.

The school has since had a hearing and returned the weapon to the student with the requirement that the weapon be stored elsewhere to comply with the policy. There was no mention as to whether the probation was lifted.

These 2 young men lawfully defended themselves from an intruder intent on robbing and possibly harming them. He is a known felon, SIX TIMES! Had they not been armed, what would have happened? And would the University have been liable?

The University is now reviewing their firearms policy, but no change has been made to-date.

What do you think?

You can read more about the case here.

Photo Credit Gonzaga University

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/11/13

Hey Obama, we spent $168 million for what?

Speaking of American ingenuity… leave it to 3 young internet geeks to build an alternative to HealthCare.gov in just a few days… FOR FREE!!!

It may not have all the functionality that Healthcare.gov was supposed to have, but it has the basics that most Americans are looking for initially. You can check out their website for yourself at www.TheHealthSherpa.com.

You don’t have to disclose any personal information except for your zip code and ages of people to be covered. The website will give you a list of potential options to choose from and the information needed to contact the insurance company for coverage directly.

So… what did we spend that $168 million for?

Way to go guys… just one more example of how NON-business savvy this Administration is. It doesn’t seem like they ever pick the right person (or company) for the job. Unless the “right” person has all the “right” connections. But that doesn’t make them qualified, as evidenced by the Obamacare debacle.

You can read more about this story here.

Photo Credit TheHealthSherpa.com

Via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/12/13

How Secure is Your Healthcare Info?

Am I the only one who thinks it’s NOT a good idea for Obamacare Navigators to bypass background checks? These folks are going to have access to our Social Security number and a whole host of other very private information. Shouldn’t we AT LEAST know if they’ve been convicted of fraud or identity theft?

No, not really. At least that’s what Secretary Sebelius seems to think. She’ll leave it up to the states to decide if that additional measure of security is needed. Now I’m all for states’ rights! But if the federal government is going to force this overhaul onto every state, it would seem they would also put in the safety precautions to protect us while they’re doing it!

We’re barely a month into the new system and one woman has already reported that her account has been breached. Obamacare customer service told her that “there were three other people in three different states who were accessing [her] information” and had listed themselves on her healthcare.gov account!

I guess there’s no way to know from the story whether or not it really was a security issue or if it’s just further indication of a website malfunction (that would be a HUGE malfunction!) But either way… this is BAD!

You can read more about the lack of background checks here.

And more about the woman who’s account was hacked here.
 

Photo Credit Flickr IntelFreePress

Via the Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/12/13

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished?

He wasn’t always homeless, but he hit hard times and ended up that way. He’s getting government assistance (both housing and medical) to help him through this time.

Then he finds $850 on the street. Even though he really needed the money, he turned it over to police. No one claimed the money, so the police gave it back to him.

Unfortunately, he didn’t realize he needed to report that money (a commendation from the City Council) as income to the government. So what happens? He loses his benefits for 2 ½ months. No warning, no appeal.

But that’s the rules. If you have a lump sum payment, you have to report it. He was in the newspapers, not just locally, but across the nation, for his good deed. He couldn’t have hid the receipt of the money if he’d wanted to. But if you’re looking to judge a man by his character, wouldn’t the fact that he turned in the $850 in the first place be an indication that he was trying to do the right thing? He could have just kept the money when he found it. No one would have been the wiser. But he didn’t.

By the letter of the law, he disqualified himself. Were there extenuating circumstances? I haven’t seen the form he fills out, but if it said “income” or “lump sum payment” would it be reasonable to expect that he didn’t consider the “commendation” to be income or a payment? What do you think?

You can read more of the details about this story here.

And if you feel inclined to offer help to this man, here’s a Unite Way link for that too.

Photo Credit Flickr Spike55151

 

via The Real Side With Joe Messina 11/11/13

Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation?

Was the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) recent publication a clerical error or political statement?

The latest release of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) designated pedophilia as a “sexual orientation”! After a serious uproar, the APA says it was an error and should read “sexual interest.” I guess that’s a significant improvement.

“Orientation” implies there would be a complementary “orientation” where young children are “oriented” toward older partners

The DSM-5 technically defines pedophilia as “a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.”

These manuals are written by teams of people. They are reviewed and revised repeatedly to ensure accuracy. And they know the importance of each word placed.

They say they’re changing the online version of the DSM-5 immediately and will change the printed edition in the next revision. With these printed editions floating around, is the damage already done?

What do you think? Was it truly a clerical error or a political statement?

You can read more about it here.

Photo Credit Flickr RonnTan

 

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina ~11/6/13

Ho’s Deserve Healthcare Too!

Well now, was this an unintended consequence of Obamacare, or something they took into account as a “public service”?

The linked article refers to “sex workers” as a broad category, but for this example, let’s just focus in on prostitutes.

Prostitution is ILLEGAL. It’s doubtful that a “working girl” is reporting her income and paying appropriate taxes from her illicit job.

So what does that mean in terms of Obamacare? Well, you’re not required to report your employment. And if you don’t have a W-2 (right, like “johns” are really give going to send her a 1099 or W-2) then you must be unemployed and therefore eligible for a subsidy. Great! Now we’re subsidizing prostitution!

I guess that’s a good thing. At least they’ll be able to stay healthy while they continue to break the law.

Now, just take it one step further and think of all the other criminals we’ll be subsidizing healthcare for: drug dealers, thieves, etc. Don’t you feel good about making sure all these folks have the healthcare they’re entitled to?

You can read more about this story here.

Photo Credit Flickr antjeverena

 

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina ~11/5/13

You will eat your government lunch or go hungry

Don’t send sack lunches with your child to school unless you have a doctor’s note.

So now, parents can’t even decide what their own child should be having for lunch? Does the government (because public schools are government entities) think parents are just too stupid to figure that sort of thing out now?

And what happens, as in this parent’s case, if the child is a picky eater and won’t eat the school lunch? I guess he’ll just have to learn to eat it or go hungry. I’m sure that’s much better than having a sack lunch made by Mom… NOT!

Talk about government overreach. If you don’t stand up now and start fighting back, then get used to it. There will be more to come.

See the actual letter and details by clicking here.

Photo credit My2CrazyCurls.com

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/5/13 or 11/6/13

Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers are a Sham!

New York City’s new Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to provide “city sponsored” space to help open more Planned Parenthood clinics because so much of NYC is underserved. Forget the fact that 41% o NYC pregnancies end in abortion. Apparently, that’s not enough for Mayor de Blasio.

As if that weren’t bad enough, he also wants to eliminate pro-life pregnancy centers. Why? Because they’re “shams.” He’s planning on introducing legislation to wipe them out, or at least make it harder for them to operate.

Do you think the new Mayor has ever been inside a pro-life center and talked to them to actually SEE what they do firsthand? It’s doubtful considering the fact that he calls them a “sham” and says they do not offer “legitimate healthcare.” So pre and post-abortion counseling is not considered “legitimate healthcare?” Isn’t the mental health and well-being of a woman also a form of healthcare?

Planned Parenthood is quick to provide abortive options, but do they also offer grief counseling to women who may need it afterward? Many women suffer from depression and other post-partum issues. Crisis pregnancy centers offer these services. And while they may not offer abortions, they do explain ALL the options so a woman can make the best choice herself.

Mayor de Blasio’s stance on this issue is frightening. Even more frightening is the fact that he was just elected with a 73% vote! He openly says he’s a “democrat socialist.” He violated travel bans to communist countries when it was illegal. He honeymooned, illegally, in Cuba and supported communist causes in Nicaragua. This is who NYC residents relate to and chose to represent them and their ideals.

You can read more about this story here.

Photo Credit Flickr HBIMediaLibrary

 

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/7/13

White Male Club Still Exists in Military

According to a military training manual, the “White Male Club” still exists, complete with privileges and advantages that the other sex and races don’t have.

Not only does it still exist, but white people, especially white males, are in denial about it and continually make excuses for the upper hand that they’ve been dealt. Never mind the fact that they may have actually worked hard and earned whatever achievements they have .

I wish I could tell you that this is simply someone’s opinion, but it’s actually based on excerpts taken from a 637-page training manual created by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) and currently in use on military installations all over the U.S. The manual was sent to a reporter from an instructor in the United States Air Force, so we know for a fact that it’s in use there.

Take a look at the linked article. There are numerous quoted excerpts that will blow your mind. As a white male I’m wondering, when do I get my privilege and advantage?

 

Photo credit MS Office ClipArt

 

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/7/13

A dead man walks into the Social Security office…

So… a dead man walks into the Social Security office to prove he’s alive and should still be receiving benefits. It’s not as easy as you’d think it would be.

They KNOW they’re fraudulently paying $130 million to dead people that they shouldn’t be paying. But the reverse is also happening.

According to the Social Security Administration, at least 750 very alive people each month are accidentally entered into the “Death Master File.” Getting out of the “dead file” is apparently much harder than getting into it.

Now, doesn’t that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy about the Federal government handling your healthcare?

You can read more about this story here.

Photo Credit MS Office ClipArt.

 

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/6/13

Youth Indoctrination or Neo-Nazi Parent?

Do you feel like your child’s teacher is being biased with a political lesson? Be prepared for name calling, cyber-stalking, and other forms of intimidation if you have the gall to question it.

One parent challenged the teacher’s lesson as being “non objective” and “pre-loaded with incorrect premises.” The principal responded, “I take great offense to what you said.” Oh boy!

The parent felt like the questions should have been neutral but were leading.

The teacher said the lesson is about “non-fiction reading skills”, not politics.

Take a look at the questions and let me know if you think they are about “non-fiction reading skills.” Was the parent right on or did he overreact?

Article used in the assignment from the New York Times.

Assignment questions (and photo credit) posted by the parent on Scribd.

Read more about the story here and here.

 

Via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/6/13

Concealed Carry Mom Banned from School Campus

Does this mom have a history of violence? Did she threaten a teacher or the principal? Nope. She’s an Army veteran. Did she have a dishonorable discharge? Nope. Based on the story, none of those things happened.

So why is she being banned from school grounds? Simply because she posted a photo of her concealed weapons permit on her personal Facebook page. Does that mean ALL parents with concealed weapons permits are now going to banned from elementary school grounds?

Last I checked, owning a concealed weapons permit was legal. Not only is it legal, but you have to pass various safety and background checks to obtain one! So what, exactly, did this woman do to be barred from her child’s school?

Read more about her story here.

Photo Credit Flickr LINUZ90

 

Via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/6/13

Zombie Voters

More than 200 dead people have shown up to the polls in New York county elections. Investigators say it isn’t significant enough to warrant fraud, so it is simply human error. Nothing to see here people, move along. Not to worry, of the 6000 registered DEAD voters, only 270 cast their ballot.

Just think, how many people have died for our right to vote? Each of our votes should count and not be watered down by dead voters or clerical errors (as they claim them to be). There are ways to clean the system up, we just need to do it!

You can read more about it here.

Photo credit Flicker PostBear

 

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/5/13

Belgium Considers Euthanasia for Children

In Belgium, euthanasia is legal for people over the age of 18 and now they’re considering extending that same “right” to children!

I don’t even know where to go with this one. But the simple fact that they’re even TALKING about allowing children to decide to end their life is appalling.

And, as if that weren’t enough, they’re also talking about extending the “right to die” to adults with early dementia. Because somoene who’s not in their right mind is able to make a sound decision about whether to continue to live or die? I don’t think so.

You can read more about it here.

Photo credit MS Office ClipArt

 

via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/5/13

PETA Uses Drones to Spy on Hunters

PETA launches a drone program to spy on hunters in Massachusetts. Hunting is LEGAL in MA. Nevertheless, they want people to use the drones to watch hunters for illegal activity. Apparently the Game Wardens aren’t doing their job.

Is it legal for people to fly drones over private hunting property? Is it legal for them to harass hunters? Can anyone else see where this could go horribly wrong?

If you’re a hunter and spot a PETA drone covering your activities, I want to hear about it. Submit a photo.

Read more about this story here.

And for those of you who just “have to have one”, here’s the link to PETA along with credit for the photo so that you know what one looks like.

Via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 11/4/13

Is There Free Speech in Middle School?

An 8th grade student recently decided to distribute flyers at her local California middle school informing fellow students that male students who identify as females are now allowed to use the girls’ restroom because of the new law AB1266.

She was stopped by a security guard and told to report to the principal’s office. That’s never a good sign!

The principal told her that it was against the law to distribute the flyers. He also told her that her church should be ashamed for telling her to do that. What?

First, she clearly admitted that it was her idea based on what she heard at church.

Second, did that principal just endorse of a religion (in fact ANY religion other than hers)?

He’s an educator shaping young minds, and he took that opportunity to beat up on her religious beliefs and her church. Coming from an authority figure to a young teenager, that sounds pretty intimidating. What kind of lasting impact with that exchange have on that young lady?

Legally, she did have a right to circulate the flyers. From the accounts, there was no hate speech or opinion on the flyer. Simply the facts about the new law that had been enacted.

The principal has since learned the error of his ways and has allowed her to continue the distribution. Hopefully there was an apology somewhere in there for the way he handled the incident.

I hope she isn’t one to cave to intimidation and that she’s learned about the value of both exercising and protecting the 1st Amendment which protected her in this case.

Read more about the story here.

Photo credit MS Office ClipArt

 

via The RealSide with Joe Messina 11/1/13

What’s In a Word? And Who Cares Anyway?

 This week, Obama, Sebelius, and Carney, introduced new meanings to words like “Let me make this clear! and “What he really meant was…” and “It’s the Republicans’ fault.”

This reminds me of my teenage years. Like “The dog ate my homework” and “You never said it was due today!” Only in those days, they were called lies. Plain and simple.

The president gave a speech this week in Boston on the day of a World Series game that the Boston Red Sox are playing in. With this president, it’s all about him. His propaganda had to be pushed on a city that had recently suffered a blow at the marathon and was feeling good about coming into a World Series game with an opportunity to win something they hadn’t won in over 80 years.

The speech from Boston talked about what a success the Obamacare roll-out was (insert cricket sounds here). Seriously? If by “success” he meant the roll-out of a website built to gather information and allow people to sign up for “affordable health care” where 90+% of the people attempting to sign onto it could do nothing, and I mean truly nothing! (Yes, actual use of the word with true meaning.) They filled in information for hours only to get an error message that their information would not be accepted. Many users stated that even when they entered their date of birth in the proper field it was rejected no matter how they entered it, and that there was no example format, i.e “Date of Birth: 01/01/50 or 01/01/1950”.

And yet the president still said, “many of the glitches had been worked out and many people were having no real issues.” Sure they have.

The president stated a few facts about people that signed up for health care and saved “lots of money” only to find out later that at the time he made the speech just under 50,000 people have “signed up.” Come to find out, “signed up” actually meant “registered” to use the site. Most people thought the president meant the folks were signed up for their healthcare. I have registered on many web sites for information without signing up for the product or services. There is a difference.

The president said many have already saved or found out they will be saving thousands on their plans. Sadly, that’s because they are losing their plans and will pay the $95.00 penalty collected by the IRS through their refunds. What if they don’t get a refund? I guess they’ll just have to write a check.

Many of those who were able to use the site, find a plan, and sign up were greeted with a final screen that said something like: Congratulations you qualify for XYZ plan, please call this number 800-###-#### with the registration/confirmation number on the top of this page.

There are two problems here; in almost every case, the registration/confirmation area was blank and the 800 number provided went to a cupcake shop and deli in New York. Well, finally something I could sink my teeth into!

The president said this would be the most open and transparent administration in history. Yet, it seems to literally take an act of congress to get anyone from his cabinet or staff to come and testify. When they do, in half the cases, they plead the fifth. The other half of the time, they speak with disdain and in a condescending tone.

Queue up Kathleen Sibelius who was recently asked to testify in front of congress. At first she refused. But why? What was there to hide? Is there some kind of national security issue on the Obamacare web site? Isn’t she part of the most transparent and open administration ever?

When she finally did testify, simple questions like “who was responsible for testing the web site” were responded with “I am not sure of the exact person.” Apparently this means, I have no clue if it was even tested. When asked, “Did you know of the issues CGI had with the other projects it did?” she replied, “I am sure they met the bid requirements.” Let me translate that for you, that meant “NO!”

When asked point-blank about security of personal information Sebelius replied, “testing occurs regularly” yet she told the congressman she would get back to him on whether any end-to-end security test of the entire system has ever occurred. The congressman produced a department memo from her own department that stated there have been no such comprehensive security tests and that they were aware days before, because of the sites many issues, they were not even ready to test security.

Jay Carney (in the job that just can’t pay enough) started almost every sentence this week with “what the president meant was…” Apparently when the President says “let me be perfectly clear..” he means “let me use some words that Jay Carney will re-word later to say the things we think you will want to hear so you won’t know what’s going on and be mad at me!”

I will never understand why the president and his team won’t own up to anything. They released the website, period. If he would just say, “we released the site, it’s not quite ready, but we will work it out as you use it” that would go a long way.

But I guess it might be a little harder to be completely honest about some parts. Do you think it would fly if he just said, “I don’t know what all the fuss is about. As we moved forward with the Affordable Care Act we decided that substandard healthcare plans (in our opinion) would not be tolerated. We know what’s best for you. Shut up and pay the fee. Ummm tax. You are going to get this healthcare plan no matter what you say or do. So suck it up, be a good comrade, and, oh yeah, it’s the Republicans’ fault.”

Target Bans the Box

Target is dropping the criminal background question from it’s job applications. It’s great that they want to give people a 2nd chance, but shouldn’t they at least know who they’re hiring? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not someone with a violent criminal or sex offender conviction staffing the dressing rooms. Just because the question is on the application doesn’t mean that there is discrimination. But a company does need to manage it’s liability risks, and it can’t do that without complete information.

As a small business owner, I’ve hired people with a criminal past. They listed it on the application and we had an open discussion about it and the expectations of the job. Each time, they turned out to be wonderful employees. It isn’t the past as much as who they choose to be now. But an employer needs to have the full picture to make an educated decision for the safety of his other employees and patrons.

It’s just common sense if you ask me. What do you think?

You can read more about this story here.

California just made a similar move. Click here to read more about that.

And they aren’t the only ones! Several other states, counties, and cities have done something similar. See more information about the Ban the Box Movement.

Photo Credit Flicker Justin Scott Campbell

 

Via The Real Side Radio Show with Joe Messina 10/31/13

Obama Says He Doesn’t Know

When something goes right in the government Obama is well aware of it, ready to hold a press conference, and often even taking credit for it.

But if something’s going wrong, he knows nothing about it. He’s the captain of our ship. If he doesn’t know, he better find out pretty quick. Real leaders trust their people and can get answers quickly. Why can’t he? Maybe he can, and he just won’t do it.

Obamacare, Benghazi, IRS scandal, NSA. How can he know nothing about these issues that are so important to the American people? And why are we still waiting for information months later?

The American people deserve answers and this Administration’s refusal and/or delays to come before Congress just are a symptom of the real problem. If President Obama wanted to be transparent, he could compel the appointees to testify or easily remove them if they refused. But he doesn’t. So either he’s covering for them, or they’re doing what he told them to do. Either way, it’s not good.

What do you think?

You can read more about the issues here.

 

Photo credit Flickr SS&SS

Via the Real Side Radio Show With Joe Messina 10/30/13