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