“The Week” decided to send me a free preview issue. Undoubtedly they hope I’ll take them up on the offer of becoming a subscriber. Oh, I don’t mind; “The Week” is going to offer up fresh fodder for the blog. Take for example: I was wondering why Verizon was suddenly declaring a “they had received no payment” back in March. The same month that I had to go into the local Phones Plus to get a new $10.00 phone. The battery suddenly died in my old phone, that was why. So, abruptly the lady at the counter decides to (without recognizing that “no” means “no”) deduct a $7.99 “insurance plan” from my bank account, which she says will reduce my phone bill to $25.00. Problem is, the next bill that shows up? Verizon is billing me an approximate $145.00. No explanation for all of that is provided. They do declare that “no payment was received” on the April statement, even though my bank account shows that they had received the requested payment. So, a declaration of $88.00 in approximate dollars is due between two payments. But why am I being billed an extra $57.00? No answer. Well, with my next payment, I send off a copy of the bank declaration, and a forty some odd payment for the month of April. By the end of April, I receive a “confirmation” of two payments received, and a demand for a seventy-four odd dollar payment. I put a forty-four odd dollar payment in with the bill, and a note to read in part: If Verizon can not offer an explanation for this insistence of over-billing myself as a customer; then they can shut off the phone services and I’ll seek out a different provider. Well, here in this free issue of “The Week,” Verizon is among many telecom companies who wants to overturn “Net Neutrality.” Uh, by first gouging their customers in preparation for doing so, I take it. Considering what I had already described on my two recent phone bills; Verizon that wants to price gouge their customers wireless accounts; then they would also have price gouged net using customers and businesses. Thanks, “The Week.” Sarcasm fully intended, because I think some of these guys in the news media business, simply do not have a clue. Incidentally, nothing actually stops any telecom company from competing and investing in new technology. They already have a wide customer base now, to make that a guarantee. Let’s just call it what it is, pure and simple greed.

Next up is a highlight on the “presidential up and comer,” Senator Marco Rubio. You really want to know something, if you pay close attention to the backdrop behind Rubio’s candidacy, you would not find anything “charismatic” about this “golden haired” Senator. One commentary given about him, is his decision to pander toward a specifically religious crowd. He will, so the “charismatic” Senator intones, “Protect all life.” Seriously? No government intervention can prevent a miscarriage, still birth, premature delivery that leads to an infant’s death, severe to fatal birth defects. The latter by the way, is also defined by the dictionary as, an abortion. We are not so medically advanced as a society, that the government can replace “God” in a womb to grave preservation of life. — reference Isaiah. Then you have this particular argument that recently came out on Facebook via various news feeds. The anti-aborticidists who argue that “children conceived in rape” have the right to life. More accurately, rape is a perversion and by extension, a hatred of God. The Ten Commandments includes: For I the Lord Your God, am an impassioned God. Visiting the sins of the fathers unto the children, even unto the third, and unto the fourth generation, of those who hate Me. But I will bless unto the thousandth generation, those who love Me and keep My commandments. There are plenty of instances throughout the bible, in which “the sins of the fathers” are duly visited upon the next generation. That should tell you quite readily, someone hasn’t bothered reading their bibles more thoroughly. It also tells you quite bluntly, that Senator Rubio’s “promise” would in one sense, go against God’s edicts.

Then there is the next problem of state to state, which “The Week” did take pains to notice, how the Republican controlled state legislatures like to directly target the poor. Which pits Senator Rubio against God’s edicts in another sense: you can hardly “protect all life,” if you are hard at work screwing over the disabled, the poor, and the elderly. Clearly, #GOPnotprolife. There is that commandment (clearly explained in the bible) about making no false promises before the Lord Your God. If Kansas can tell poor people, that they should never waste their money on spas (spendy!), or shell fish (?), or on cruise line travel (wow!); I don’t guess someone bothered informing the GOP how the poor people aren’t likely to go there with that, anyway. But it doesn’t help Senator Rubio, in his pandering to specifically religious crowds, how he will protect all life. That doesn’t look like a clear “protection of anyone’s life,” from here. So it should come as no surprise, that he doesn’t have a very high poll number, in competition with Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What I had to wryly note about the editorials surrounding the Rubio candidacy, how quickly the people offering an opinion, kept slip-sliding away from a too close examination of potential Rubio failures. Or active GOP hostility toward the bulk of their constituents. The added baggage of active GOP alienation of the very people, they should be courting for votes instead. Wants to see Marco Rubio as the charismatic individual likely to change the minds of millennials. Uh, Senator Rubio like the vast bulk of extremist GOP, is already out of touch with the average American. Just as he is also out of touch, with any concrete understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Including: What “The Week” hasn’t mentioned so far, but very recently appeared under a “Citizens United for a Separation of Church and State” page feed: The Church of Satan is going against Missouri’s anti-aborticide laws. Regarding the unconstitutionality of such laws. Just as they have gone head to head with Hobby Lobby, concerning that business’ “right” to declare a religious argument, in how the corporate HQ deals with its employee’s health interests. It just might be, that it is highly embarrassing topic to mention for a media outlet, that presumably wants to stay credible. Incidentally, I sent “The Week” a note informing them of my blog url, and my two e-books now on amazon. Unlike paid journalists at oh,; I am not going to mince words or take political sides.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: