The TRUTH about the 'Lost' IRS Emails

The following is submitted in a sincere effort to ensure an understanding of the truth about the 'lost' IRS emails and all those mysteriously coincidental and unfortunate 'computer crashes.'

Surely, the arrogance, on the part of a mere private citizen, to impugn the veracity of the IRS is unforgivable; so I ask your forgiveness and indulgence in advance!

All sad (and I mean very sad) kidding aside, here is the singular and paramount FACT that seems to have eluded everyone (or has been simply ignored), and at which I continue to ponder in amazement. I enjoyed a rewarding career in Information Technology that spanned more than 30 years. During that tenure, I was intimately involved at almost every administrative and technical level with the installation and support of corporate email systems. PLEASE NOTE THIS, everyone: EMAIL RESIDES PERMANENTLY ON CORPORATE SERVERS AND SERVER FARMS - NOT ON INDIVIDUAL DESKTOP PCs! Desktop PCs, Laptops, etc. are used only to compose and submit email, not to permanently house email! Additionally, in every corporate or government IT environment I have ever observed, the servers noted are backed up locally and off-site with adequate levels of archival to prevent any loss of data in the event of a true hardware or software disaster. Depending on the nature of the corporation or agency, and the regulatory agencies involved (state & federal), there are legal requirements to maintain these backups and archives for several years (usually in a state where recovery capabilities can be easily demonstrated and effected, for audit purposes, whenever necessary). I've seen hundreds of individual desktop PCs crash during my tenure in corporate IT, and I can state, without equivocation, that not a single email (other than one in a state of composition at the moment of failure) was ever lost as a result of those crashes. It is time for someone to bring this critically relevant fact to the attention of the babbling, inept herd of jackasses currently running the IRS and this government. People of America, for God's sake, wake up, before it is too late!

Submitted with all due respect and no apologies to anyone.

Dick Keaton

Anti-Gay or Pro-Religious-Freedom?

Remember the story of this principled and courageous waiter? 

http://on.fb.me/1cnlmLJ

All of us (at least, almost all of us - thank God) would agree that this waiter's actions were morally upright and heroic.

Consider exactly what he did: he exercised what he considered a morally mandated obligation and God-given right (superseding all other man-made rules and legislation). He refused to provide service to persons whose behavior was judged, by him (and him alone at that moment in time), to be abhorrent and morally reprehensible. Can you explain what gave him the right to do what he did? After you've answered that question, explain to me how your answer does or does not apply to the debate over the pending legislation in Arizona, which has been seriously mislabeled by the media as the 'anti-gay' law.

I'm drawing no conclusions here; you are free to draw your own. I submit only this: Sometimes important, polarizing issues are not as black and white as they seem.

Critical thinking - it's what separates us from the rest of the animals.

Respectfully submitted, with no apologies,

Dick Keaton

Obamacare - the Simple Economics: How can it work?

Regarding 'The Affordable Care Act', or, as it is more commonly called, 'Obamacare.'

One fundamental and seemingly attractive and humane provision within this law is coverage for 'pre-existing' illnesses and conditions. While this is without question a noble idea, it is one which undeniably will involve significant expense. It is also generally accepted that the ultimate financial viability of 'Obamacare' depends in large part on the enrollment and premium payments of young, relatively heathy Americans. Not surprisingly, premium revenues from this 'young and healthy' contingent will be used to subsidize the expenses of medical care for the 'older and not so healthy' contingent.

When we consider this necessary condition for the fiscal practicality and success of 'Obamacare' in concert with the provision just noted, one elementary question must be asked: What will compel young, relatively healthy individuals to enroll in Obamacare at significant expense when they can legally (and judiciously) pay a small fine for non-enrollment, and subsequently enroll only when, and if, such illness strikes which then makes coverage desirable and financially prudent? Or, analogically, would any of us pay expensive auto insurance premiums, if we had the legal option to pay a much smaller fine instead, and then purchase coverage only after a financially burdensome accident?

How will this financial model ever work?

I've yet to see this question asked in its entirety, or answered directly and honestly.

Responsible comments are heartily solicited and welcome.

Respectfully submitted,
Dick Keaton

Obamacare and the blindly assumed relationship that doesn't really exist: Health Insurance = Health Care

Supporters of Obamacare proudly tell us that an estimated 30-50 million more people will be insured as of January 1, 2014; yet, according to all available data, there is no corresponding increase in the number of doctors, hospitals, or other medical care providers of any kind on the horizon. So, the obvious question is: who will treat these millions of newly insured Americans, who, by design, will be comprised of ill, poverty stricken, and previously not insurable people? Thus is exposed the most overlooked and incontrovertible issue in this entire 'Affordable' Care Act quagmire: a government mandated document proving you have medical 'insurance' does not guarantee, or even imply, that you will ever receive better medical 'care.' When the smoke finally clears and we examine the ashes, we will be able to deduce this: the Obama administration will have succeeded in establishing the most gloriously noble and gloriously expensive and gloriously pointless swampland of government bureaucracy in the last several decades.

Submitted with all due respect and no apologies,

Dick Keaton

In the Wake of the George Zimmerman Verdict

I posted the following on facebook after the Zimmerman verdict. I think it warrants a spot on this blog.

These were my comments a few minutes ago to a friend who lamented the acquittal of George Zimmerman, and advocated (although in jest), going 'Karazy' blowing him (Zimmerman) away and then using the 'stand my ground' defense. This person is a parent of a teenager, and I think that close identity with the Martin family added to the pain and fueled the comment. I was compelled to respond as follows. Responsible comments are welcome.

Apologies in advance for my comments, but I am compelled. I'm the father of 2 young men, and the grandfather of 3. It's a horrible tragedy whenever any 17 year old young man is killed in an act that most of us believe could have been avoided (possibly by either of the young men involved). The facts are this: none of us knows what happened that night. Our best (and probably only) chance at justice on this earth is trial by jury. That took place, and Zimmerman was acquitted. When we let our own personal agenda and theories about what happened (and what should happen) override the determination of the court, and then propose that the kind of violence you've suggested (even in jest) would be justified, we accomplish nothing but the proliferation of unrest, ideological conflict, and potentially, violence. That serves no one. If George Zimmerman is indeed a murderer, he will be subject to the judgment of a much higher court.

Respectfully,
Dick Keaton

The following added, July 15, 2013 - Dick Keaton

Shortly after I posted the above appeal for rational and critical thinking (that was truly my intent), two friends weighed in with their own observations. One of these leans considerably left and one considerably right; so, not surprisingly, they represented opposing perspectives regarding the actual occurrences of the tragic night in question, the proper roles of the media, the interpretation of Florida law, the moral responsibilities of all involved, and finally, the ultimate legal disposition of the defendant, George Zimmerman. I read their exchange with interest, and the hope that my posted appeal would give some pause for objective reflection and reasoned discussion. I was soon disappointed. Their exchange quickly deteriorated into the same kind of inane verbal jousting we have all been forced to observe since the beginning of this entire, tragic process. Each of these self-ordained litigants assumed the customary and non-productive tactic of proclaiming the other to be of 'less than average intelligence.' The chance for anything useful to result from their discussion was lost.

So, to end the banter before things became more heated, and potentially ugly and just plain stupid, I posted the following.

I implore all who read this. Please, do not engage in pointless 'Facebook' wars of clever, riveting aphorisms here! No one will win, and nothing productive or useful will result. Since I initiated this with my comment, I'd like to finish it with another observation and comment.

My heart breaks for Trayvon Martin and his family. It also breaks for the thousands of inter-city youths, black and white, who are killed every year in acts even more violent and senseless, and about which we never hear, because their tragedies don't provide polarizing, emotion-inducing, red hot news stories.

Regarding the Zimmerman trial.

1.  We weren't there the night of the shooting; so, in spite of what we think happened, or what we think should have happened, we DO NOT KNOW what happened.
2.  We weren't in the court room to hear the hundreds of hours of testimony from both sides; so for us to accurately judge the efficacy of either side's case is realistically impossible.
3.  We weren't sequestered in the deliberation room with the jury; so, for us to accurately judge the quality of their analysis of the testimony and evidence, and the logical validity of their decision, is also realistically impossible.

When we formulate our own positions on important issues, like this, based on emotional reactions, and the out-of-context snippets supplied by our news media of choice, we do ourselves and all involved a grave disservice.

I urge all of us to remember, the real tragedy here is Trayvon Martin's death, not George Zimmerman's acquittal. More pointless, hate-infused rhetoric will not change that, and it certainly will not ease anyone's pain.

God bless Trayvon and his family, and God bless all the young people in our country who continue to suffer similar and horrible tragedies every single hour of every single day.

Respectfully, and with a continued hope for critical thinking. It's what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Dick Keaton

The Gay Lobby's 'March to the Sea'

All that remains is to burn Atlanta to the ground with dancing pink flames!

Say Hallelujah! President Barack Obama continues to pave the way for the progressive and enlightened United States of America.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/obama-welcomes-boy-scouts-decision-but-says-leadership-should-be-open-to-gays-too/politics/2013/05/24/67472

God bless you, President Obama (wait, invoking God might subject the 'non-Godly' to narrow minded, reprehensible discrimination, so let me rephrase that); bless you President Obama for providing the consummate example of progressive tolerance – something we Americans should expect from our president – the avowed and recognized leader of the free world. Forgive me, but I cannot find words to express my sense of American pride at the fine example you have provided. Since you and I are both fathers, I readily identify with your position and your decision that removing all remnants of backwards thinking sexual discrimination will lay the groundwork for the progressive re-tooling of our great, but somewhat outdated American culture. You are a visionary of inestimable proportions.  

All heartless discrimination against any American, based on his or her sexual preference, or declared sexual identity must be eliminated – this in the higher pursuit of progress and tolerance, no matter what the consequences.

Since you will decree it un-American, if not criminal, to discriminate against anyone, in any situation, on the basis of his or her sexuality, let me present just a small preview of the glorious and necessary picture, for the great unwashed, of your new, enlightened, progressive America.

Of course, the simple socio-cultural issue of public restrooms will need to be addressed. Here are some preliminary thoughts: Either the nation-wide implementation of unisex bathrooms, or the construction of entirely new sets of bathrooms in all public establishments – not sure of the number, but at least one additional for gay men, one for gay women, and who knows how many for the several varieties of trans-gendered people. I mean, it only makes sense.

I think budget constraints and practical logistics will dictate that the unisex bathroom is the best solution (you know, what with 'Sequestration' and all); and since you don't mind if my prepubescent, adolescent, or teenage sons share bathrooms with middle aged gay men (the undeniable outcome of your passionate, presidential plea for openly gay Boy Scout leaders), I'm sure you will agree that your daughters will feel equally comfortable sharing public restroom facilities with middle aged heterosexual men. What could possibly demonstrate more profoundly your complete ideological allegiance to the new and better, sexually enlightened America! And more importantly, how could anyone, even those right wing, Christian, gay-hating bigots, perceive any possible problems with this plan?

Submitted with all due respect and absolutely no apologies to anyone.

Dick Keaton

Tolerance anyone?

So it now appears that if you are gay, you are automatically and unequivocally wonderful; but if you are a Christian, you are automatically and unequivocally a hate mongering, homophobic beast. Further, if you are courageous enough to publicly announce your gayness, you are not only wonderful, you are heroic - likened to a national hero, and warranting a personal phone call from the President of the United States of America (I'm sure he has nothing more pressing on his agenda). Conversely, if you are so backwards and principled that you are mandated by your religious and moral conviction to maintain and publicize your Christian point of view regarding gay life, you are not only vilified as a homophobic Neanderthal, countless members of the illuminated, progressive, tolerant left will immediately demand your persecution and resignation. Considering this, it seems to me that making your Christian beliefs public demands a hell of a lot more courage than 'coming out' as a gay man in this age of cultural enlightenment.

You can read the following and make your own call. I ask only this: show me in the following where any 'hate' is advocated by the Christian, and show me where any tolerance is demonstrated by the left.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/29/ESPN-apologizes-Broussard?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



Respectfully,

Dick Keaton (Christian)