.jobs -- can't we make it easier for us job-seekers?

Anyone else think it's too hard to apply for jobs online?  Hey, guess what -- a smart idea:  usa.jobs!  (& other .jobs domains) 

I've been wondering -- why can't you post your resume & the computers link it to real jobs?  Why must we humans constantly fill out applications w/our name, address, phone #!??!! 

.jobs doesn't fix that, but it makes a domain where companies can list their jobs easier, they say. 
(Good until the 'match my resume automatically' app is around.)

Anger pops up -- thank you, CHP

Well, I got a ticket for speeding 76mph coming over the Bay Bridge at 11pm.  I had worked a training shift from 3pm-11pm and was tired.  Everyone was driving really slow.  I was getting pissed at all those slow-ass drivers.
Prior to that, I was looking at the cars on the road with this sense of acceptance and peace, and I realized that the 'flow' of all those cards will be a symbolic thing to appreciate for this years 1950-2025, because we are quick approaching the end of the oil era and it's very likely that some aspect of the Freeway Society will end.  Frankly, while I like being able to get to point B really fast, I think the Earth would be better off if we went back to sustainable animal-power.  Plus it's just so much healthier for humans AND animals, generally.

Anyway, then I got my ticket, and I had to work all night the next few nights (incl right now).  I posted a rant on Facebook about my ticket, and started a minor flame-battle with a friend who said, "Well, you did it so accept the consequences" and so I launched out some anger at him.  Called him condescending & so on -- not that I've never been condescending, right?

And then I had a visit at Kaiser...  Ah, Kaiser.  Where to start?  My name was spelled rigth on the card but not in their system.  No one could change that!  Then I had a physical there, my first visit, where the doctor just asked me questions & didn't actually check my body for anything at all, despite my being 40 and not having had a physical for ~ 3-4 years b/c I didn't have medical insurance.  He did take notes from asking me questions, and they did charge me $50 for an office visit.  $50?  Ouch!  And I did get referred to an opthamologist for glaucoma, so it was a success -- sorta.
So I saw the opthamologist yesterday, and he was shocked at my condition.  He referred me to their main consultant (in 2 weeks) b/c my glaucoma is rare & only in one eye.  And then we discussed (~ 5 yrs ago) when I lost vision for a day, and he said I might've had a stroke.  So that's another trippy thing to digest.
Last Kaiser issue -- I bougth the glaucoma drops and they charged me $290.  I said, "Whoa, that's a lot."  Not sure what my insurance is getting me here!!  Then I went to member services to change my name in their system, and asked 'in passing' why that was so much $?  The rep said it was a mistake & they should've charged me $35.  Wow!  So we went back together (she accompanied me), and the pharmacy said they couldn't charge me $35 and gave me a bill for $290 and said it would get worked out in billing.  Oh boy...  So I took the meds & left.
New eye drops have a side effect in 15% of the patients -- change eye color to red, discolor the surrounding skin, lengthen the eyelash.  Not really a big deal if I was having it in both eyes, but ...  Anyway, it's interesting.  The docs think this is almost a negligible side-effect.  He said, "you'll have to take this for life... Or you could go blind."  What a lame way to get someone to get someone to take a drug!
Meanwhile, there are no 'new age' or holistic suggestions for dealing with glaucoma.  I looked online & found some stuff, but they offer nothing.  Actualy, they completely are lacking in knowledge on holistic treatments.  Is this really 2011?!?!?
Do only non-medical people realize that the 'pharmaceutical solution" actually sucks?  The solution is eye-drops for life?!??  That sucks!

(And I've been watching Sicko again, where Michael Moore completely nails the issue, which is that medical care should be part of being a citizen and not based on privatized medical insurance companies giving you services with strict limitations to protect their profit margins.)

So maybe that's why anger keeps popping up for me lately? 
All this stuff, and that I'm not taking the risks I need to take to do my filmmaking stuff...  Gotta step it up!

Then again, bad stuff does help me come up with creative stuff!  That dang ticket inspired "freedomfromstupidlaws.com" idea.  HA

WikiLeaks -- what freedom of Press & Speech looks like

Have you read WikiLeaks yourself? 
We have the rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press
-- but we need to use them or we might lose them! 

Take a look -- http://wikileaks.org/

See anything interesting? 
Tell me about it!

CNN bias & US News Media bias

I tried to post this comment to a Blog on Andersen Cooper on CNN asking whether Andersen Cooper is biased.  http://www.allthingsandersoncooper.com/2006/07/bias.html
The comment would not get accepted (blogger error?).  Reposting my comment here.  Thank you blog!

I watch CNN a lot. It is biased. I consider it conservative with rare left-wingers and frequent right-wing 'plants'. I listen to a lot of left-wing media (Democracy Now, Counterspin, Beneath the Surface) and various 'middle ground' media like KQED.
What's so interesting for me about US media is the 'self-branding' is all backwards. Generally media that describes itself as 'Left-Wing' or progressive is actually 'middle', like Green 960 or other similar self-proclaimed Progressive or Liberal media.

Or CNN, which has a huge pro-corporate pro-war bias, but says it is fair & balanced -- yet it never is called to account on those topics. CNN was eager to embed journalists with US military and provides skewed war statistics (only reporting US dead, not reporting US military violations of international law).

Fox News claims to be Conservative, but it is neo-fascistic and controlled by Right-wing thinktanks.

Democracy Now and other sources are truly left-wing 'progressive', from my POV. Trying to get access to truly 'radical' left-wing media is next to impossible in the USA, and probably would be called terrorist or inciting to revolt, so very little of that media makes it to the airwaves (except wrapped in hiphop songs & some metal & punk songs).

Last issue --> has anyone ever heard a news story on CNN discussing GM food co's (Monsanto & similar) terrorizing the rest of the world to force other countries to take GM foods? How about stories on gas co's and futures companies manipulating oil & gas prices? Where are the stories calling into question why Bush called Venezuela and Argentina part of the 'Axis of Evil' (b/c they were anti-capitalist and pro-social welfare)? How about stories about the World Bank enforcing austerity on foreign countries and forcing the poorest groups into abject poverty? How about the 9/11 coverup around the Pentagon attack (missile vs plane), or the ongoing violations of international law re: drone assassination strikes against so-called terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- attacks which are killing many civilians when no 'war' has been declared (and these acts are not terrorism?)?

How about some stories calling into question the unconstitutional use of Blackwater (aka XE Corp) and the US use of mercenaries (so-called 'contractors') to fight in secret foreign and domestic disputes?

Another point -- WikiLeaks. The supposed un-biased media in the USA has not addressed the actual leaks (which are historical in significance) but instead choose to focus on alleged charges of sexual misconduct by the CEO by women who continued dating him for weeks after the events occurred. What about the actual leaks? Why aren't those mainstream media stories? How can the US media get away with not reporting perhaps the most significant news in US History -- which also calls into question the practice of classifying information from the public for no reason other than to obscure the public's knowledge with no risk to US security.
Lastly, where are the stories about Guantanamo and Iraqi torture centers which the President and Congress so far are unable to shut down because the US military has begun acting independently?
THIS is the real issue here. Andersen is completely biased, from my POV, every time he says "Iraqi insurgents", or reports on stories from the US perspective without acknowledging his pro-corporate/pro-financial/pro-US govt biases. Does CNN mention that the USA has never shown the evidence claimed by Bush Jr when Al Queda supposedly attacked the World Trade Center, or that Al Queda was an organization funded by Bush Sr with more than $2 billion,, or that Bush paid to fly the Bin Ladens out of the USA days after 9/11? How hard is it to see these gaps as a clearly blatant bias?