Translate

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Hostess Twinkies die before bankruptcy Thank you Unions for such great acuity

MOURNING THE EMPTY CALORIE DESSERT: More than a week ago, one morning I decided that along with long hours of study and prep for several papers, I would share my gratitude to the fine Union members who have ruined what I hoped would be a legacy of splitting open Twinkies, licking the innards clean of their cream then devouring the cake; to say nothing of Ding Dongs and chocolate Cupcakes that will forever be absent from the bribery system of millions of dads--Remember: "Dad is great, he feeds us chocolate cake," (Bill Cosby). (Never mind how long it takes them to decompose in the landfill--they do just fine in human digestion.) But now, not only can we appreciate the efforts of the Union for their personal sacrifice on behalf of the economy but for bolstering the entrepreneurial spirit that is selling their former product for multiple times their value when they were picketing. Good job, guys. May you enjoy dreams of fruit pies and powdered donuts while standing in line for your unemployment check and food stamps.

The good news is that Little Debbie is going to grow gangbusters now as the only empty calorie fix for the 50's, 60's and 70's generations. 

Friday, October 26, 2012

2012 Presidential Election: Restoring American Standards in November

2012 Presidential Election is the opportunity to restore our standards: Bengazi the Ultimate Proof that Obama Standards Are Substandard for Americans


Frankly, I find Mr. Obama's behavior and treatment of the Bengahzi affair as heartless and offensive. I do not understand how a President--of all people--could blow off security for his own;  say the loss of dutiful patriotic Americans is "not optimal"; then lie over and over about what anyone who can read or see knows is a cover up of negligence and subsequent insensitivity. Obama seems beyond either remorse or empathy.  As Brett Baer said, "It is chilling." I would add sickening.

I understand the feelings of the wife of one of those lost in the attack who doesn't want her husband's untimely death politicized. I feel for her. I hope she understands that her loss represents a loss for all of us; The truth is, it was our loss. The situation exposes some serious misunderstandings between Obama and Americans. We want answers.  We want to do better. Find better. We want to remove the problems.  It cannot ever occur again, or we--not terrorists--will be our own worst enemy.

The problem is partly that we voted in someone who I think most who voted for him thought had an understanding of American social norms and mores. Calling your political foe "a murderer," and telling a group of elementary school children that he is "full of $%*&;!!" is beyond the pale. I can’t imagine what he is thinking: Any respectable person would set a better example.

I am confident that even if the majority of Americans do not know much about their own country's formation and Constitution, they DO understand common decency and care for human beings. 

There is still hope in the world. Good people abound. After a political drought, one of them, a rather unpretentious, but highly successful man, will take office in January.  I'm confident, expecting he will be imperfect, but caring, that we will be much safer and deaths of Americans will not be chillingly swept aside as "not optimal."

He will rise to the occasion. We must rise to the occasion too, and together we will be partners, imperfect, but looking for ways to make the world better because America is better.

Thus, I have a plea for Romney—and all future Presidents:  Expand your care, honesty, and drive to these areas, and we will do likewise:

1.       First, protect us by protesting the Constitution: Please do not make executive orders that legislate—no matter how tempting or how good the motive appears. Take your plea for good legislation directly to the people who will back you in Congress. You can honor this request first, by removing all of Obama’s Executive Orders and sending anything worthy (?) to Congress to address.

2.       Next, understand Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Opinions and make yourself very familiar with their rulings:  The Obamacare ruling is a good case in point and place to start. It DID NOT uphold most of the Act. Quite the Contrary, no part has authority to compel private citizens, states or businesses.  Most people don’t know this.  It is, however, upheld as a tax. The Constitution provides for that—and only that part that is a tax—as Roberts affirmed only that much. So, if you are going to do anything to that, make sure agencies and bureaucracies do not overstep their authority here, thinking that since Americans are widely ignorant of the outcome of that SCOTUS case, they will comply with unconstitutional actions. Do likewise for all other SCOTUS Opinions.

3.       Shrink bureaucracies!  Just shrink them. Get rid of unfair, unconstitutional, unyielding, and oppressive policies.

4.       Return to the states what is theirs:    Acknowledge their duty and sovereign right to govern the affairs of their own people in education, social issues, and all areas not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the Federal government. We will hold you to this one especially, since you have already promised it.

5.       Keep drinking all that milk, we need your backbone: Retract our position in the UN. You can start by making our soil off limits to the UN to inspect ANYTHING. They have no right or authority to decide anything about our affairs. We Americans like sovereignty and we expect you to protect it. We don’t want the UN taking anything from us. If we inspect our own voting polls, so be it. If we do not, so be it. Whatever we do, we will do it together as Americans. That goes for other intruders as well.

6.       Protect our free market system: Back off businesses and return government employees to private sector jobs. Of course free markets are integral to free societies;  We will hold you to this promise too.

The world holds much that is good. We have the opportunity to go forward, learning from the Benghazi debacle, and many poor decisions before it, so the loss of four trusting Americans' lives are not in vain. 

 

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Fact Check: Details of Bureau of Labor Statistics Own Data Contradicts Unemployment Numbers Released on Heels of Obama Debate Failure


 
(A note to the reader: if the tables in this article are too difficult to review, you can access the tables directly from the original source by clicking on the respecitve tables written in green.)

The old adage that numbers don’t lie definitely applies to the latest statistics released a day after President Obama miserably failed to detail successes in his administration over the past four years in his first Presidential debate with Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, Mark Twain's famous claim that, "There are only three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics," also applies. The labor statistics released claim that, while there was a net decrease in jobs available (by 30,000) from the previous month, August, the unemployment situation improved by .3%.  Strange math; but it is consistent with the month just preceeding it.  From July to August, the number of jobs created plummeted 40,000 (Table 1, line 2012). Yet, again, the unemployment statistic was said to have improved by .1% irrespective of the drop in jobs.  It is difficult to reconcile the percentage in decline of unemployment given the close relationship between the two conditions. 
I was curious what the pattern for the two conditions is for all the previous months. Perhaps this seemingly undo relationship is validated by a pattern previous to those. A careful study of the data is compelling. Indeed it is blaringly not the case that the just released data is coherent at all when studying the previous pattern. Take a look at all—any—other year or combination of months and the story becomes a conundrum.  The statistics make it both quite clear how the two work consistently and in direct harmony with each other while causing a clashing contradiction as to how the labor department has come up with their decrease in unemployment when the jobs are not there to support it.
For instance, if we look at 2011 in Table 1, we see that for the months of January through April there was a substantial number of jobs created, though from month to month a steady increase  in jobs slows considerably; 100,000 from January to February; 26,000 more from February to March; and, a fourth of that again from March to April.  Accordingly, Table 2 shows us the logical correlation of unemployment going down as the jobs went up.


Table 2
National Unemployment Rates, 2008 - 2012

Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
2012
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.3
8.1
7.8
2011
9.0
8.9
8.8
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.0
8.6
8.5
2010
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.8
9.4
2009
7.6
8.1
8.5
8.9
9.4
9.5
9.4
9.7
9.8
10.2
10.0
10.0
2008
4.9
4.8
5.1
5.0
5.5
5.6
5.8
6.2
6.2
6.6
6.8
7.2

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics


Again, looking at the reverse situation, from April, 2011 Jobs produced plummets by 200,000! From  April 2011 through to September the numbers are low and are indicative of corresponding increase in unemployment for that same period as shown on Table 2. This pattern is consistent for all previous years and is especially poignant for years 2008 through 2010 where numbers of jobs created were drastically in the negative. A situation that does not precede this one until going as far back as 2003. And those dismal numbers pale in comparison to the number of 2008-2010.  While the economy was shriveling, the unemployment rate for those same years, month to month show a direct and expected increase in the unemployment rate.

There are two significant facts that need mentioning. Note that with the exception of two random months, in all months previous to Mr. Obama taking office, jobs were created, either modestly or substantially, (since 2003).  It is not until after Mr. Obama takes office that the economy—as shown in both numbers of jobs created and the unemployment rate—tanks, and in a devastating way.  Additionally, the amount of consecutive years of, not just declining job growth, but actual job loss is significant. Not even in years 2002 and 2003 do was see such devastation.  What is the point? Mr. Obama did not inherit an economic mess.
The next significant fact comes from the last two months of jobs created. Both July and August numbers are preliminary, meaning they are not necessarily the factual numbers. (Don’t ask why July’s numbers are preliminary in September.)
This leads us back to last week’s jobs and unemployment numbers following on the heels of a miserable defense of his presidency in the first Presidential debate.  Now, take a look at Table 3, below.  Notice the job numbers for September 2012. (Don’t ask how they are able to chart October, November and December yet.)


The cliff is astounding. Telling as to the facts of the unemployment situation, the graph does indeed show explicitly that what was released to the public a day after the debate was, in fact, inconsistent with the data.
By now, it should be clear what these tables mean. Tables, by the way that are public: They are the government’s own data. 

One: The information as announced by the Federal Government a few days ago is not consistent with its own data.
Two: Given the data’s overwhelming pattern that says when jobs fall, unemployment rises, and when jobs increase unemployment declines, the current correlations as released a few days ago are not accurate.

Three: Table 3 (the graph below) shows clearly the data released on unemployment is not consistent with this chart showing a devistating economic downturn in September.
Four: Mr. Obama did not inherit a depression upon taking office. Indeed, he did not inherit anything of the sort. He created it. And, yes, in terms of building something, he did it all on his own.
End of debate.
 
         Table 3

 


 
.
 

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Term Limits: The Answer or the Problem with Leadership in America:

What is so bad about term limits anyway?

 

 

 

Sound reasoning or reasons?                                                                         

My guess is that most Americans are grateful for the 22nd Amendment that restricts the number of terms a President can serve to just two.  Indeed, many await the additional limitation to terms for Congress as well.  It sounds reasonable to prevent elected officials from becoming permanent fixtures of the government--"career politicians" as is so often coined.  At the time of its referendum, the amendment was brought by fear that a President--President Roosevelt to be precise--would assume greater power by becoming the habitual default president--more akin to our then enemies in Communist regimes where only one choice was present for election. 

But as with the majority of amendments to the Constitution, the 22nd Amendment has caused, or has the potential to cause, more damage than solutions given opportune circumstances.  A few heads might be tilted at this statement; perhaps there are some raised eye-brows.  After all, who, in America would want perpetual control of the government to fall into the hands of one,  as  was feared with FDR? Unfortunately, like other amendments, when that amendment was proposed, the people forgot who had the ultimate say in any elected official in US government. Not much has changed to fix the amnesia.
The Framers of the Constitution spoke to the concept of term limits in Convention discussions. In fact, they seriously considered it as another check to one branch having dominance over others. The check that won out was The People: In the end, it was far more important to the Framers--even critical--that ultimate say went to The People to determine the term length of any president. The Framers felt it unwise to reduce their power to an automatic default vote.
 
Let’s ask the obvious question:  Does term limits actually provide the solution to the problems associated with excessive terms; or even poor leadership--or even more, nefarious actions of a president? 

Table Tennis, Anyone?

Actually, no.  In truth, in any given term, one set of the population will dislike the actions of the President; then, in another term, another set will dislike the actions of a different president--all based upon their political persuasions.  Each side will argue that the other side doesn't know what they are doing. Each side will defiantly assert their intellectual superiority of conscious and policy over the other.  Which group has the right perspective?  Term limits only serves to stop those whom we disagree with ideologically, philosophically, and/or policy-wise because we see their view as nefarious to the central well being of our country and ourselves.  The effectiveness of term limits does not actually answer the question of who is a bad president and who is not. Term limits serves as reassurance that one party will not dominate (read: control) policy over another for more than eight years. Who has not felt confident that, if nothing else, the policies of Clinton, Bush (either one), Ford, Carter, and any president after F.D. Roosevelt  can only do another four years of damage?  One of the problems with this attitude is the "ping-pong" affect of bouncing from one party to another and back again, every eight years.  This is a symptom.
 
The disease is that we lack faith in our own ability to choose wisely either our President or policies based upon correct Constitutional principles. We acquiesce to the system do our job for us. Curtailing potential damage by a bad officeholder through controlling how long they can be in office is best resolved by VOTING, not by limiting our power to vote. So said the Founders. So the ping-pong symptom shows that, while we are hoping to curtail another's stupid choice for president  (that is obvious to us), the 22nd Amendment actually cuts short our own right to vote as well.  Put another way, and opposite of the Christian injunction, term limits means what we do to others we do to ourselves.  So, the first bad outcome of term limits is arguably the worst: that we are actually limiting our power to rule our government.  This symptom and disease is the common criticism of term limits. But our current circumstances demonstrate the disease of term limits in a much more sinister way. 

Throughout most of the over two hundred years of existence we have taken for granted the idea that the Constitution requires all officers at all levels throughout the entire country to promise by oath to defend and protect the Constitution that gives equity among us.  But what happens if someone decides, once in office, they are not inclined to observe and honor that oath?
 

A mad duck hunter is worse than a lame duck.

We are at the precipice of answering that question. Mr. Obama has already, and repeatedly stated he does not have any loyalty to the Constitution. Indeed, he has openly declared it is a defunct document of outdated ideals.  In this one way Mr. Obama has lived up to his words. In fact, at the Democratic National Convention, it was stated in their platform that the Democrats’ intention is to pragmatism. The political definition of pragmatism is the act of doing what is expedient according to the leader’s interests without obliging a pattern of rule of law. The unpolitically correct, but truthful word for that is fascism. Under these circumstances term limits are most destructive. 
Consider the condition of a “lame duck” term.  The term denotes the inability to make progress by leadership either in legislation, execution of the law, or any other legitimate governance. With a fascist leader, a second term creates the flip side of a “lame duck” term. For a fascist, term limits provides fodder for their objectives because they have four years to do whatever they will, despite the will of the people. They no longer have any reason to fear a negative response from the people since they will be automatically terminated. Caution goes to the wind as does any remote observance of Constitutional rule of law.  Term limits create an avenue for the fascist to reap as much mayhem to a free nation as their physical stamina and the pen will allow. 
 
With the exponential growth in violating constitutional checks and balances that Obama has produced by abusing Executive Orders to create rather than execute laws (as per both Art I, Sec 1 and Art II, Sec 3 of the Constitution); by publicly denouncing the Constitutional authority of Congress; by using bureaucracies as a personal way to bully, threaten, harass and otherwise cajole states and groups of individuals into doing Mr. Obama's desires, allowing him four more years is tantamount to a license to increase this parabola to an irreversible extent.  A leader—a president—who can do whatever he personally desires without answering to either the People or the Constitution can destroy every other liberty we believed we ever embraced quite rapidly. 
The greatest frustration by a free people of governance may be a "lame duck." But the greatest destruction to them is the political equivalence to a mad duck hunter with a rabid dog killing every bird in the pond. To prevent the mayhem that term limits can cause under this circumstance, the people must stop Mr. Obama's opportunity for a second term.  The idea that somehow term limits gives us some assurance that whatever a President does can be automatically stopped eventually is a highly dangerous assumption built upon ignorance  and no working knowledge of world history.

Will the People or Term Limits determine out future?

Even more, term limits for all federal offices, based upon the precipice before us, represents (with little imagination) what our country would look like without fear of retribution by the People. In such a situation,  given that there is no one presently stopping Mr. Obama from flagrant constitutional violations, (probably because they don't know for certain that what he is doing is one*), I seriously suspect that we would not recognize our country in four years. There is very little reason to hope of fully repairing and restoring the massive destruction associated with Obama's practice of constantly usurping power.
The Framers of the Constitution took wise consideration that the best and fullest of liberties should grant more power and say to the People, through various protective mechanisms, not less. Though there are also checks and balances to offset the possible irrational opinions of the People, the duty of the People to vote someone out of office short of their term limits is the surest and most protective device the People have in limiting terms and  the ultimate prevention of destructive circumstances beyond our control.
 
*(Until 2010, when Congress officially opened Session by reading the Constitution of the United States,  an old statistic showed that from term to term, less than 2% of Congress had read the Constitution all the way through.  This is not an admission that reading it once through equates to understanding it, however. But it is a start.)

Monday, July 23, 2012

Refections on Research: Studying Eastern Europe Since the 1989 Revolution


The Process of Research: Vetting Qualified Sources 

This piece was originally a progress report submitted to the Director of SURF (a Research Fellowship granted through the University of Houston Honors Department).  The goal of this research is to determine from legitimate sources--primary sources and secondary sources, utilizing accurately, primary sources--the current progress of societies and now individual nations in  comparison to their circumstances at the time of the fall of communism.  This reflection piece focuses on the actual process of vetting proper sources in research and is provided as a small peephole into the eventual culmination of the research that will be presented in Fall, 2012 at the University of Houston.


As a disclaimer: the purpose of this reflection is to illustrate proper evaluation and logic in finding good sources of research.  Thus, some facts mentioned here, which are not cited, will have proper citation in the actual research publication forthcoming.


Progress Report: Vetting Proper Sources

As an update on the progress of this research project, I thought it would be pertinent to review the process of vetting sources that I’ve been heavily engaged in for the last few weeks.  This process will continue until I have, hopefully, filled my composition notebook to satisfaction with the material needed for proper presentation of the research.

There is a plethora of publications on the subject of Eastern Europe since the fall of Communism.  I found hundreds online.  I went to the MD Anderson Library to sort through the most plausible sources for the focus of this project. The shelves were lined with commentary, reports, assessments and historical contents from The Fall forward.

After a few hours of sorting through Tables of Contents and Indexes, I narrowed the field to fourteen books that I brought home with me.  One main purpose of the books was to supplement and corroborate the many articles, and other publications written, some by the same leaders who worked for liberty—especially, but not exclusively, for religious liberty—prior to The Fall in 1989. Some of the same sources for Candles behind the Wall have been prolific writers in their own right since.

Some of the fourteen publications have been removed as good sources for this research.  Two circumstances have arisen to disqualify them. Some material, though interesting, well written, and valuable, turns out to be off topic to this research.  One book in this category is East to West Migration, by Helen Kopnina.  This book is part of a larger project that includes many books in the Research in Migration and Ethnic Relations Series, published by Ashgate, Utrecht University, Netherlands.  Upon glancing through the Table of Contents and the Index I thought this book would shed some insight into the struggles and triumphs associated with the reformation of national identities of Germany and the former Communist bloc. It turned out, instead, to be an evaluation of the effects of Russian diaspora—interesting and partly related, but not directly pertinent to this research


The other disqualification is for poor quality work that I believe is an unreliable or incredible source.  That sounds harsh. But not all information is of the same quality; and while a certain amount of information must be included in good, stable research, quantity certainly does not supplant quality.  One such book I disqualified is The Liberal Project and the Transformation of Democracy: The Case of East Central Europe, by Sabrina P. Ramet.   Ramet produces a classic example of the historiographer’s worst nightmare:  She overlays her own perspective to come up with an interpretation of history out of context with its era and other historical sources.  One of Ramet’s problems is that she is an American who produced this book as her Doctoral Dissertation at Texas A&M, remote from the actual scenes and scenarios she judges.   The facts as she bears them are in sharp contrast with a long standing history and sound reasoning found in many other works. 

For instance, Ramet has an entire chapter on the blight of women since the fall in a deterioration of opportunities, respect, and status.  In the chapter entitled, “The Fate of Women in Post 1989 Eastern Europe,” she states authoritatively,

There are confirmed reports of a tangible increase in domestic violence throughout this region in the years after 1989, which one observer attributes to ‘increased alcohol consumption…’ But this approach provides…an incomplete explanation of the rise in domestic violence since the collapse of communism.  A more complete explanation would also mention

·         The delegitimation of communist ideology and, with it, the communist claim that gender equality should enjoy a priority.

·         The increased activity on the part of traditional ecclesiastical institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church in Poland, Croatia, Slovenia, and Slovakia and the Orthodox Church in Russia, Romania, and Serbia, to the extent that they promote a traditional role for women in which women are urged to see themselves essentially as servants to their husbands and children.

·         The influx of neo-Protestant and New Age religions, many of them subscribing to extremely inegalitarian models of gender relations...[Ramet, 92]


Ramet makes several obvious and not so obvious mistakes in her clearly biased—if not inflammatory—assessment.

First, she notes the disdain for communism as a lack of appreciation for communism and then concluding that such an attitude results in crime. She does not substantiate her unrelated claims.  It is true and documented that there are problems with domestic abuse, human trafficking and mafia-like crimes and corruption.  It is also true that religious activity has increased. But to link the two as tandem rather than parallel situations is faulty analysis. The author also fails to recognize documented religious activity for scores of years prior to the fall that, in books such as Candles behind the Wall and others, record the severe sacrifices for liberty leaders of these and other churches have made in hope of eventual freedom to worship as one chooses.

What Ramet sees as a burden, the people of the region see as opportunity. For instance, Ramet does not acknowledge documentation that says women worked under communism, not because of a sense of women’s liberation, but of necessity: The family would not survive without the mother’s additional employment. Thus the mother could not be with her children even if she wanted to.  She also doesn’t mention the reason, as explained in the Communist Manifesto and the words of Marx, why women should be considered equal workers, which has nothing to do with the individual and innate value of a woman. Nor does she acknowledge that we may not be privy to accurate statistics on crime prior to the fall because that information was restricted. There were many such passages as the one cited above in Ramet’s work.  Again, she often makes claims, but then does not follow with substantiation of those.

Suffice to say, the book fails to gain merit as a serious source of evaluation of the circumstances of Eastern Europe.  Unfortunately, there are pockets of information and outside sources she includes that have merit. But because of her poor historiography, they become moot. 

On the other hand, there are authors such as Timothy Garton Ash, author of nine substantive works and countless articles and essays.  His credentials include writing for The Guardian and New York Book Review.  His definition of himself, I think is quasi-historian-reporter of politics.  His definition of the latter term is “the history of the present.”  His works come not only by way of gilded credentials but excellent and thorough research that substantiates his conclusions—when he gives them.  He summed up nicely one of the best credentials of all for a researcher/academic in his latest work, Facts Are Subversive. In the Preface he explains

To be there – in the very place, at the very time, with your notebook open –is an unattainable dream for most historians...Imagine being able to see, hear, touch and smell things as they were in Paris in July 1789. If have an advantage over the regular newspaper correspondents…it is that I may have more time to gather evidence on just one story or question. In Serbia, for example I was able to cross examine numerous witnesses of the fall of Milosevic…During the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, I was a witness to the drama as it unfolded. [Garton Ash, xvii]
 

Nothing replaces a primary source document in value to the researcher. 


I suspect that a good portion—perhaps half the books I’ve chosen will not be appropriate for the project. Nor do I expect the research to be as I expected. Clearly, it has already changed from my initial expectations.   I have no doubt that there will be information I am surprised by, perhaps hoped would be otherwise, but nonetheless use because it is well documented and substantiated, and therefore valuable.  It is more important to be accurate, balanced and well documented in a smaller amount of material than taint the research with bias, confusion and previous poor research.—So, on with the vetting and the progress of the research.


Works Cited

Garton Ash, Timothy, Facts are Subversive. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2009. Print.

Ramet, Sabrina P., The Liberal Project and the Transformation of Democracy: The Case of East    Central Europe. College Station TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2007. Print.

References
Von der Heydt, Barbara, Candles behind the Wall.  Grand Rapids:  Wm B. Eerdmans, 1993. Print

Monday, July 16, 2012

No Full Moon: But Political Election Cycles Lead Many to Witness Abbott & Castello-like Antics

Even without a full moon, politics, especially in a frenzied election cycle, can bring out some odd characters, conversations and thought processes.  To add, there is plenty of jostling for position, esteem and political clout-collecting, especially in politically rocky times.  Roller derby style acts by "activists" seeking their day in the sun abound. In a nutshell--literally--politics does freaky things to people; such as, having Abbot and Costello-like conversations. You know the kind, "Who's on first, What's on second, I Don’t know is on third," and "Why is in the outfield."  Politicians have no more monopoly on strange antics than they do on awkward speeches.

I just had one of those conversations with a “Facebook friend." This friend--a networking acquaintance--invited me to his "event" on Patcnews page. I went there but could not find out anything about it. I checked the latest YouTube video he posted; but the link was just a black screen. I inquired of  a guy name Mark, who invited me to the "event," for some information. My mistake. I should have learned from Castello.  After sending me the same link over and over with the same results, he asked if I could get on air; and asked if I wanted the call-in number. "The call in number to what?" I thought.  I said, that was not a problem since I’ve been doing my own show for some time. (We were talking about YouTube but suddenly we were on to Blogtalkradio). The conversation digressed rapidly from there. He accused me of lying; said I was not the owner of Patcnews [really?]; said my show had never been on Patcnews [that would be an affirmative]; he was the owner, LLC; said he knew Sean Hannity personally...Yada, yada.
It went like this:

Me: Hi Mark,
Thanks for the invite to the Patcnews. What is the purpose of this page event? Thanks.
Me: OK, point [is] to post news we find applicable to patriotic conservatives? Then, July 18th is not really an "event" day? But this is ongoing, eh?
Mark: Yep Since the March 18, 2010 BP Spill that will always be with me
Me: Gotcha. But the link only shows a blank screen that doesn't load. Is there another link?
Mark: Yes Youtube
Me: I loaded the video that was posted today, and it says it is playing. It is neither buffering nor playing. Just sits with a black screen.
play now;
Me: Yeap that is one of four I've attempted to play. Nothing. Inputed Patcnews manually in the Youtube browser--page called Patcnews Channel comes up but none of the videos will load. Just black space while it says it is playing. Is there any chance your channel has been blackballed/censored?
Mark: Sheryl can [you]  get on the Air Live ????   Would you like the Call in Number ????
Me: I'm assuming it is playing for you or you wouldn't keep encouraging me to try again. Nothing still. Please clear your cache and see if a fresh load plays, k?
Call in number is good. Is this an online show?
Mark: Yes Blog Talk Radio. Patcnews
Me: And yes, considering I have my own radio show, I can get on the air live. ;-) Ok. [is] the name the same on btr?
Mark: Yes. Where is your youtube Channel ???  I do all my Viedos (sic.) myself
Me: Allfiredupradio...also on www.allfiredupmedia.com under Foundation of a Nation
All Fired Up! Sharing Truth, Igniting America!   ‘allfiredupmedia.com. Join us for daily talk shows focusing on Conservative Issues’
Mark: All Fried UP.  This is Not good. I'm been on this before.*
Me: K. I searched Patcnews and Patcnews Channel and got a lot of most popular podcasts under other shows. ???
Mark: Not the Truth
Me: All fired Up not good? Huh? Not the truth?
Mark: All Fired up Not My Network Patcnews.   All Fired up Not My Network Patcnews. Look I have a Facebook page For My Broadcast
[Mark deleted a link here, which was the Facebook page for his YouTube page.]
Me: Hmmm. that is true, I didn't say I was. I just said I could get on air-been doing it for some time. Did not mean to imply I was part of Patcnews.  I can't even find Patcnews....yet. lol.
Mark: That is a Lie You where never Part of Patcnews.  I'm The Owner LLC FCC I'm good friends with Sean Hannity. your Block now Sheryly (sic.) 

Oh boy.  I can't even blame this on a full moon.
As they say on Facebook, “Rolling on the floor, laughing out loud”—with Abbot and Costello.

*www.allfiredupmedia.com is a radio network of all conservative programming featuring: Military Monday, Betty Killbride; Words Matter, Mary Weeks; Conservative Connection, James Robbins (Sr. Editor of Washington Times); Foundation of a Nation, Sheryl Devereaux.  Beatrice Wilson is Sr. Producer and Founder.