NPR : The Ombudsman at National Public Radio

Welp, a member of NPR has released a statement in line with the Bill O'Reilly interview. Much to my supprise this statement actually does state that the interview was not conducted professionally. It was obvous from the begining that Terry Gross was "carrying Al Franken's water".

While he said Bill O'Reilly had intent to show he would be attacked by NPR, he stated that NPR always seems to do exactly what he says they will. It's kind of hard to say this is Mr. O'Reilly's fault. If he says something, and if it turns out to be true, is he wrong to say them?


Oh yah, and an update on the email I sent to the UFCW. Er, lack of update I should say. It's been over a week and I have not received ANY kind of response from them. Based off of this, I have to assume my belief is true. The grocery store's strikes are mainly over a change from paying $0 a year to $60 a year for health insurance... They are purposely trying to deceive the general public, and are purposely choosing not to inform people the actual stakes they're striking over. Being that the strikers are making statements to customers saying otherwise, I have to assume this is a pre-thought out ploy. The striking workers are telling the general public that they are being asked to sacrifice much more than they actually are, while the union is purposely not releasing actual numbers as to what it will cost. THE UNION IS TRYING TO DECIEVE YOU! THEY WILL NOT MAKE AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT BECAUSE IF THEY DID HONESTLY, YOU WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE STRIKE!!! IF THEY MADE AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND LIED, WORD WOULD GET OUT AND THEY WOULD BE RUINED! SO THEY ARE MAKING NO STATEMENTS AND TELLING THEIR WORKERS TO INDIVIDUALLY LIE TO CUSTOMERS! THIS WAY IN THE END NO TRAIL OF THIS DECIET CAN BE TRACED!!!

In responce to Michael Moore's new book, "Dude, where's my country?"

It's up above Washington, to the south east of Alaska. Please go there, now...

I've decided to try to get answers from the other side of my union protest argument (as outlined in previous blogs). I am sending an email to the UFCW to try to get some actual numbers on what the unions are claiming the strike is over. I will post whatever response I get here, even if it contains claims other than numbers that I disagree with, My letter is as follows:

To: UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers)
From: Bobby Thompson (bobby@torgo.org)
RE: Why haven't you reported costs?

I'll start this by saying in general I do not support the protest of the grocery stores in CA, as I've never like unions in general. I will also clarify that I am a normal working class employee. My salary is around [can?t post here, but it?s not very high] a year, and I pay over $1000 a year in medical insurance. I also currently owe over $10,000 in hospital bills (solely to the hospital, more to other medical organizations) due to the level of medical coverage I have.

At any rate, this was to inform you that I am an average low paid employee, and I pay for health care that isn't that great. I wanted to clarify that I am not in the upper class, and that I my feelings are not based off of an event that has left me with a bias. I learned about unions in my high school economics class, and from that point had decided I really don't like them...

I've been openly shopping at the grocery stores since this protest had started. To be honest I've actually been visiting the stores more frequently than I normally would.

I made a comment to one employee when I was smirked at while going into a store that led me to try to do a little research. I had indicated I paid for my health care and the response I got back was a "so do I". I also got a couple of other statements that I was able to pick up because I have very sharp hearing, but I don't think there's a point of repeating them here.

I have been searching around to try to find out some numbers. You see, the stores are stating that up until now your employees have gotten free health care coverage, and now they want to start charging (singles) $5 a month, which works out to $60 a year....

I have attempted to scan this website, along with several others and have noticed that in all of them only 2 numbers are ever quoted. The first is that 70,000 union members are now on strike, and that store profits have soared 91% in recent years. The numbers I'm looking for are quite simple...

How much to employees currently pay for health care coverage? Stores and news are quoting $0, but no where have I been able to find any number, percentage or value (average, lowball, highball) indicating what it is if it isn't 0.

The second is: How much more will these new increases the stores are asking for cost employees? Again, the only quoted number I've found anywhere is $5 a month. Neither your site, nor any other sites seem to quote just how much more the health insurance will cost if it's not $5.

I can only base my conclusions off of what I can find. And obviously based off of what I found, I have to doubt the reasons for this strike are much more than $60 a year. I do realize that the health insurance is not the only reason for the strike, but most of what I read indicates it is the central reason.

I have made an argument regarding this already on my web site. I will state that it isn't as polite as this email, but figured I would include it anyway. You can visit it at http://www.torgo.org/new.html


To recap this in a more concise manner, just to be sure there is nothing unclear:

Up until October 5th how much has the average union worker at a grocery store paid in medial insurance per month?
How much would the average grocery store employee pay per month in health care coverage if the unions where to agree on the current store proposals?

I thought I would at least try to let you clear this up, as I have not been able to find what your claimed costs would be.

I've been trying to do more research on the whole grocery store strike here in California. Most notably, exactly what the financial burdens on the employees are. Yesterday when going into a pavilions, when the strikers asked me "what would it take to get you not to shop here" I simply replied, "I pay for my health insurance". To which they supplied "so do we". As I continued to walk by I cough a "why do they keep saying [we don't pay for health insurance]" and a "well, we'll all go on welfare and see how they like it."

I'm now attempting to do research, because according to what I've read, seen on TV, and heard: The stores want to start charging employees $5 a month for health insurance. That's $60 a year. I will note at this point that I pay over $90 a month for my insurance, and the plan they have has significantly higher coverage than mine does.

Speaking with someone who used to be in a union at my work, he had indicated that employees told him that there was much more money at stake. Stating that the increase the stores wanted to impose would require employees to pay 100% of the health care benefits, not to mention other benefits...

Being that these two amounts are obviously worlds apart, I decided to do a little research and try to find numbers that represented how much the unions were saying these increases would cost. I started with a website which represents the unions: http://www.ufcw.com/. After searching though several of the pages on this site, and much more on other sites, one thing became obvious. The unions are NOT publicly saying just how much more this would cost their employees. The only numbers I've seen quoted by the unions are that the stores have had a 91% increase in profits recent years, and that 70,000 union members are on strike...

Needless to say, if you can't admit how much more the stores are asking, but the stores can, whom are we supposed to believe? If the only financial estimates are given by the stores at $5 a month, then I have to assume these values are correct. The unions don't even seem to be willing to make a rough estimate, even an undershot or overshot... Also, according to what the news and stores are saying, employees are not paying anything for health insurance, yet protesters claim they are. If the unions can't make a statement saying "we already pay $x a month for health insurance" or "x% of the total cost" then how is someone supposed to believe what you're saying? Seems like the unions are trying to make a huge claim about this, while they are not willing to back anything they say up with actual numbers.

So, at this point it's safe for me to say with certainty: Store employees are mainly protesting over a $60 a year increase in health insurance. Their health insurance, by the way, is one of the best available for hourly employees. My insurance costs me over $1000 a year, and it goes up significantly every year. Also, as a result of medical issues in accordance with my coverage, I owe over $10,000 in medical fees, for portions of medical treatments not covered by my insurance...


Bottom line: Don't support the unions. They are trying to use the public to their advantage, but when it boils down to it, they give absolutely no indication of just how much this will cost the employees. They are lying to the general public for a mere $60 a year... A value around 7% of what you pay normally every year...

DON'T SUPPORT UNIONS, THEY ARE OPENLY MISSLEADING YOU TO THEIR OWN ADVANTAGE! AND THEIR MEMBERS WILL OPENLY FLAT OUT LIE TO YOU IF YOU SAY ANYTHING TO THEM!!!!!!!!!!!

For thoes of you who don't know, the major grocery store chanes in California (probably elsewhere as well) began on strike. Vons is the main store short of employees, though all the other majors are effected as well... The reason for their protest is due to the supermarket chains wanting to decrease their benefits, most notibly health insurance.

I do understand this as being something important. However, I made an effort today to travel and shop at a few Vons stores today.

The bottom line as to why is simple. I do NOT like unions. I first learned about unions and what they stood for in my economics class in high school. From that point on I did not like the concept. One of my main reasons for disliking them (but certainly not the only reason) is the fact that they are manditory. If you get hired at a grocery store (under normal circumstances) that has a union. In order to keep your job you MUST join the union!

To me this alone is very unamerican. The idea of the union is to give employees more power, however in making them manditory, they can take away rights. I had decided long before I started working that when I did get a job, I would not work someplace that has a union. I really don't believe it is fair to require me to do this. It violates my freedom of choice, and my freedom of privacy. You also are required to give a portion of each paycheck (my guess would be a small portion, but I'm not fully sure) to the union. And when something like this comes along, the employee has no choice, when they're told to strike, they have to strike. I prefer the old theory of if you don't like what you're given, you leave and go somewhere else. If you want to get a handful of employees together to join you, then go for it. But let the choice be just that, a choice...

I have other issues as well, one being my support for corperate structures and giving them control. I do belive it's important that I express the fact that I am not wealthy, not even close. I scrape by from paycheck to paycheck, I have a few large debts that I'm trying to get paid off little by little, and I do struggle quite often, many times needing help from family. One of my newer large bills are due to medical reasons, I had major surgeries due to a serious infection after a total hip replacement surgery on my right hip. This infection nearly left me for dead. When I went into the hospital (I was barely able to call 911 before loosing conceousness), the doctors told my mother that I was going to die. They stuck me in a room saying there was nothing they could do.

Welp, as you guessed I made it. But I am paying for it now, and it's not cheep. I do have insurance, but the remainder adds up to quite a bit.

At any rate, I do not have anything against the employees, I simply do not like the union for which they are serving. Which is why I'm trying to shop at many Vons stores. This is my protest against unions... Only real difference is mine 100% only my own choice. And for thoes of you who may say the current employees are striking by their own choice: Then why didn't they start before the union told them to???

Well, a tiny bit of time has passed since I've written the below statement. If you are not aware Rush did come out and say he was in fact addicted to pain killers. Again, I'm not that supprised, as his actions the past several days lead me to believe this was so...

At any rate back on my main comments about Rush, specifically his comments about McNabb. Several more articles sighting studies, some of which Scientific, indicate that he in fact was correct in his statements. The truth is, if you in fact looks at the stats, you end up in the same place: Rush was right about McNabb...

"Race, Football and Television: Examining the Black Quarterback Effect."

Rush, by the Numbers

IN DEFENSE OF RUSH: The media need to call it both ways

A bum 'bigotry' rap on Limbaugh

Rush and race

I was just doing a peruse of reviews on Amazon.com for "Who's Looking Out for You?" and noticed most of the book reviews were rather ridiculous attempts to make O'Reilly sound bad.

The most obvious choice of overtone seems to be the NPR interview of Bill O'Reilly. The interview was supposed to be about the book, but it became terribly obvious that Terry Gross had no intention of discussing the book. The entire interview ALL she does is bring up accusation, after accusation in an attempt to make him look bad or catch him on a slip of the tongue. As it stands, however, O'Reilly handled the entire interview excellently...

One of the only real claims the Liberals seem to use against him was that they claimed that Bill O'Reilly had said he won a Peabody award. The only problem is, this is an incredible misquote. He had stated the show he worked for had won one, and he was mistaken. He later corrected this statement saying that it was a Polk award. About the only thing the true story behind this shows is that he's human, and makes mistakes. If you feel you've never made a misspoke in your life, you should to get over yourself.

I've seen statement stating that O'Reilly was wacko on the Fresh Air show. I'd be willing to bet if any of you were to sit in front of someone repeatedly saying you did things unfairly, especially knowing that this interview would be broadcast throughout the country, you would probably fallen apart.

If you compare the transcripts from Al Franken's interview about his book, and O'Reilly's, you would see a huge difference. She even admitted this herself. How in the world can you justify attacking someone who wrote a book intended to help people, and praise someone who wrote a book intended to attack people? To say O'Reilly couldn't handle an interview with a "Respected Journalist" is utter nonsense. If you don't see what is really happening here, then I will be praying for you.

The bottom line is that Liberals, for such a long time, have been one sided in anything they do. And it's so obvious when something like this comes out. Al Franken wrote a book, which libels people, and presents lies as fact, and the Liberals stat this book is "Satire". Even though the overtone of the book is to make you believe it is factually accurate. If a Conservative were to do a book similar to Al Franken's, Liberals would be coming out in droves to say the book is full of "Hate Speech".

It is almost amusing when you factually examine both sides, just how one sided the Liberals feel. A recent poll shows a majority of American?s believes Liberals primarily control the media. Yet the media in general (aka, Liberals) say this is not true. I heard Allen Colmes the other night (from Hanity and Colmes on FoxNews) say "Well if you add up the total of the people who feel it's Conservative and the people who feel it's Just right, that total exceeds the total for who feels it's liberal". This would be like saying "If you add up the totals from the California recall, 48% of the vote went to Schwartzeneggar, and 52% went to Other candidates, so this means Schwartzeneggar didn't win." With over 130 different candidates, this statement is ridiculous. But this type tactic coming from the liberal media doesn't surprise me...

In my opinion Liberals are distinctly one sided. They believe their views are much more important than that of the majority. The biggest recent example being that over 70% felt the 10 Commandments monument that was left in the premises of an Alabama court should be left there. Currently that monument is removed. Liberals believe their rights exceed the rights of everyone who doesn't agree with them. What is most scary is the number of people who don't see what's happening...

O?Reilly has also been labeled as a racist. This label for him has no base on reality. A few months back, there was an ?All White Prom? that kids from a public school were holding at a location outside of the school. However, any of the students could attend if they met one qualification: They had to be white!

O?Reilly made a huge deal about this stating it was wrong. He covered the story very closely, and was really the only member of the media to make a big deal about it. The statement O?Reilly is a racist doesn?t hold up very well in light of this. The only place people base this statement is his ?I believe gangster rap is bad for children.? Regardless of the color of the rapper, his belief in this holds true? So to use this to claim he is a racist is completely biased.

------

I may as well include this as well. It?s regarding Rush Limbaugh?s statement on ESPN. The statement has claimed to be a racist statement. His statement was simple: ?I believe the liberal media has given McNabb more credit than is due, because they want to see a black quarterback succeed.?

For starters, he did not say McNabb isn?t a good quarterback because he was black. He believed he wasn?t that great of a quarterback. To say this alone is racist isn?t very fair. Anybody who follows any sports believes there are athletes who get more credit than they?re due. If Rush?s statement makes him a racist that would mean anybody who dislikes an athlete who happens to be a minority is racist.

Now, I don?t follow football, so I can?t say weather this person is good or not. I do however, follow hockey. More specifically I follow my favorite team, the Mighty Ducks. In my opinion any player who is on any team other than the Might Ducks are not good hockey players. I think most people who follow a team in a sport can say something similar to this. But what about being more specific. A lot of people who follow sports have specific people in that sport that they do not think are any good, or at least not as good as they?re cracked up to be?

Basically what this means is, if Rush?s view of McNabb not being all he?s cracked up to be, then if you dislike a player and you are white and that player isn?t, then the bottom line under this definition is that you are in fact racist. So to say Rush is a racist means that if you?re white, you simply cannot dislike any player if they are black.

Call me a racist, but I think this statement is wrong. I do not like nor dislike players based on their color, in my opinion when it comes to ability, color does not matter?

So if you can agree with the last sentence, then we?re on the same page. Now comes the second part of his statement?

He stated the liberal media is giving him extra credit because THEY want a black athlete to do better. Now, this is an opinion, however it can be verified to some degree. The easiest way would be to compare another player with stats similar to McNabb, but who isn?t black. If this player is rated to be as good as McNabb, or at least close to as good, then the statement would be untrue. If in fact the white athlete was rated significantly lower than McNabb, especially if he had achieved more than McNabb, then there?s a much better chance for the statement to be true. Now, even if this could be proven, it is possible that McNabb has been given a higher rating for a reason other than color. However, it is not unreasonable to believe the liberal media is doing this for a specific reason. And to say THEY might be doing it based on the fact that he is black, basically is saying that the media is doing it because THEY are racist. The statement does not infer that Rush is racist, it simply infers he believes other?s are? Reversely or otherwise?

So if we could do this comparison then his statement may in fact be true. The only problem is can we do this comparison? Can we do it in a scientific manner, with detailed research, and by someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to sports? The answer is, yes we can. It?s been done, read here: http://slate.msn.com//id/2089193/

Keep in mind that my statement about Rush here has nothing to do with my opinion on his current situation with drugs. My opinions on this are actually different. As you can guess about this statement, I do like Rush. But with the current situation, I am believing there may be some truth to it, mainly due to Rush?s behavior since this came out. I?m not one sided and blind to things that make people I like look bad. I try to be realistic, and in this situation that means I do need to question weather this is true or not?

Well, as of today FF XI Beta testing is over. I actually mailed my HD back in yesterday, as I havn't been actively playing it much since I started the Socom 2 beta test. Socom 2 is looking like a very nice improvement over the original...

I also got a semi-exciting email about the FF XI beta. Apparently not only will I get a free Hard Drive, but I will also be getting the final version of FF XI free as well!

Welp, times a wastin, I've got to get going from work here soon. I have to go & vote for Arnold for Govener...

I ran across this in a news story, and thought it was neat:

Download Classic Arcade Game ROMs at StarROMs

You can finally buy arcade ROMs (for emulators like MAME/MacMAME) legally. You get 15 free credits when you sign up, and it appears the credits are reasonably priced, when you realize you are actually buying an arcade game...

They currently only have a handful of games, but it is a start!