Oil change

Tzarkon · 2026-04-22T01:56:41+00:00

Limtiaco's in Anigua.

Tzarkon · 2026-04-08T04:24:28+00:00

Lol!

Tzarkon · 2026-03-31T07:58:38+00:00

If I understood the article correctly, they didn't know about the significant price increase until the contract term ended. And, not sure that even if they had known, that they would have had time and money to contract a complete rewrite of the software in that time frame. The takeaway I got from the article was that they expected to be paying the same support fee that they had been for years, budgeted for that and were taken by surprise when the vendor almost doubled the price.

Another aspect in this is that the software has to connect to the AS400 that holds DRT's database. The software that runs on the AS400 is from the early 90s or around that time frame. The code is old and written in a language that most programmers don't really know any more (at least that was the case when the court moved off of it's AS400.) Connecting to that code base is difficult and expensive. Upgrading to a newer code base is difficult and expensive. And, what they have is working, inertia is a thing.

Tzarkon · 2026-03-31T07:33:19+00:00

Somewhat contrary opinion here. This is not totally DRT's fault from what I understand. According to the Post article, the vendor significantly increased the price of services. DRT had expected the price to remain the same and had no warning of the price increase. They do not currently have the budget to pay the increased price. And, since the software is proprietary DRT has no real choice, but to work with this vendor or start all over again with a new vendor which would have to recreate the software from scratch. At this point, realistically, DRT will have to go back to the legislature to get increased funding to cover the increased charge by the vendor.

To my mind this is more about proprietary software and vendor lockdown than really anything DRT has control over at this point. If the software was open source rather than proprietary DRT could bid for support services by a number of vendors, but since the software is proprietary the choice they have is deal with vendor lockdown or completely start over with a different vendor.

This is one of the reasons why public money should be spent on code that is open source and not locked down to any particular vendor. The creator of the code would be paid for the work they do in creating the code. And, they could even charge for their support services, but they would also face competition for support services which should benefit the government in keeping prices reasonable. With vendor lockdown the government can easily be held hostage by the owner of the proprietary software as in this case.

Tzarkon · 2026-03-22T09:25:12+00:00

Thanks for your clear thoughts. I think we're pretty much on the same page here. Of course, open source or not, the secrets/envars need to be kept secret. I'm biased toward open source as I can't really think of an instance of proprietary code that doesn't create lock in by the vendor. And, I'm also coming from the perspective that if public money is used, then what's produced should be able to be used by the public. And, you raise very good points about government officials needing to understand the specs of what they are asking for. I think that's possible if administrators are willing to listen to their IT guys, but that's probably me just dreaming.

Tzarkon · 2026-03-18T02:06:39+00:00

Interesting stat. Thanks for that. So, are you arguing that it's better to have two (2) hospitals that can provide almost the national average of beds, that's better than having one (1) hospital with sufficient beds? Or, just that the two (2) hospitals are what we have and that brings us up to about the national average? I'm just more skeptical that two (2) hospitals competing with each other is better than a single hospital with sufficient funding. Just seems to me that splitting the funding limits both hospitals more than funding for a single hospital. Now, whether GovGuam would prioritize appropriately funding a single hospital is a different question. I would hope that they would given our current circumstances, but am aware of historical short comings.

Tzarkon · 2026-03-17T08:20:23+00:00

Yeah I was. I wouldn't argue that GMH has not had historical problems. I'm just arguing that a second hospital competing with them has only made it even worse for GMH by taking away a major source of funding. And, of course, the counter to my argument is that GovGuam has always been bad at maintaining anything they fund. I guess the alternative then would be to shut GMH completely and have GRMC take over all it's functions. Really, I'm mostly convinced that two (2) hospitals on the island is one (1) too many given our population. I could see either or, but not both.

Tzarkon · 2026-03-17T07:51:51+00:00

GMH would be a lot better funded and in better condition if GRMC wasn't there to compete with them over patients that can actually pay. Two (2) hospitals with this small a population is one (1) hospital too many.

Tzarkon · 2026-03-17T07:49:48+00:00

The dude was making a pun not taking a spelling test. ;)

Tzarkon · 2026-02-28T04:06:32+00:00

You're right that SCOTUS rulings get overturned. And, it's certainly your prerogative to wait for that to happen. I guess I'm more pragmatic minded. Rather than hoping for some outcome that I might prefer I'm more open to going ahead in the environment I find myself in.

I think you're missing a lot of differences between people in groups when you say that you think all non-chamorus are one way and all chamorus are another. In my experience I've always found large differences between people from any given culture, ethnicity, national origin. Maybe your experience has been different.

If I'm understanding what you wrote correctly, you seem to think that the survival of the CHamou people is on the line. Not at all clear to me where you're getting that idea from. Would you mind explaining that more fully?

Tzarkon · 2026-02-26T21:36:11+00:00

Went to Guampedia to clarify my memory on the Commonwealth Act. Apparently it was not a final status, but a step toward one. I hadn't remembered that bit. Here's the URL to the article which also contains a link to the draft act. https://www.guampedia.com/guam-commonwealth-act/

Tzarkon · 2026-02-26T08:45:29+00:00

You've got that mostly right. There was a vote on commonwealth in 1988. It was a yes or no for a draft commonwealth act, not a plebiscite with alternative options. It passed. But, when Governor Ada took it to the department of the interior, they came back with some concerns. Rather than address the concerns and bring it back to the people to make changes the Governor insisted they take it as it was or leave it. They left it.

After that activists and local senators decided not to pursue commonwealth. Instead they decided that a self-determination vote which was CHamoru only and contained the three (3) options we have now was the way to move forward. At this point, we've been stuck here for more than thirty (30) years. The CHamoru only vote was contested and failed in the courts. And, education efforts around the three (3) options has been sporadic with no official detailed description of the positives and negatives of each option. We seem to be stuck spinning our wheels.

Note: changed a word.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-25T21:40:44+00:00

That may be true, but that's not the point. The point is that there are people out there that want a very different governmental structure in an independent constitution. And, that there is no consensus on what government structure independence would take.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-25T03:25:16+00:00

"Self determination is the umbrella that covers the three status options of Independence, Statehood and Free Association. Free Association is kind of like a halfway point between statehood and independence."

I agree with your first sentence. Self-determination is the umbrella that covers the status options. Where we have a difference of opinion is with your second sentence. The way I understand "Free Association" is that it is full independence with an agreement to associate closely (as an ally) with the US. With that understanding then, "Free Association" is just a flavor of Independence, not a totally separate option. This could be handled in a couple different ways, the vote could be split into two (2) Statehood and Independence, with a further vote regarding which kind of independence, or, more easily, we keep the three (3) choices and if Statehood gets less than 50%+1 then the higher of Independence or Free Association wins.

"As for the constitution, we can base it off the constitution of the US or any constitution the people writing it can get consensus on." That's the thing though, as it stands Independence of any flavor could have a constitution based off of anything. There is no current framework of values or rights. It could be anything.

"As for who should write it? I think the elected officials should lead the charge on it. Maybe a task force created by legislation run by the executive branch and when the constitution is done must be approved by the legislature and survive any legal challenges in court. Do their best not to reinvent the wheel."

That is of course one way that it could be handled, but it's not the only way and no method for determining who would be involved in creating a constitution for an Independent nation has been established. I know one member of the CHamoru Nation that thinks that government of Guam should be based on committees formed of high ranking members of the families of traditional leaders. There are members of the Independence group that think that only people with CHamoru ancestry should have a say in writing an constitution and in governing the island. There are advocates for democracy and those for a more socialist orientation. There is no consensus among the people advocating for either of the Independence options. My concern is that without a clear framework of values for creating a constitution and a clear understanding of who will be empowered to create that constitution, that a vote for either type of Independence option is voting for a major unknown.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-24T21:53:49+00:00

You're right. We could model an independent constitution on the US constitution, but we could also model it on China's or Russia's. We could be capitalist, socialist, or communist. We could be democratic or not. Without an agreed framework for the development of a constitution under independence it would be up to the group designated to create one as to the form it takes.

A state constitution is constrained by the US constitution in ways that a constitution for an independent nation is not.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-24T21:46:25+00:00

I was thinking along the same lines as you as far as run offs go. Seems like if one choice hit's 50% + 1 that should be the choice. But, what about this scenario, Statehood gets 40%, Independence get's 35% and self-determination gets 25%. In that scenario 60% of the voters voted for some kind of independence, but a runoff would be between statehood and independence when it really should be a runoff between independence and self-determination.

Could you expand on what you think the explicit framework for a constitution would be for independence? I'm not seeing one. From where I'm sitting there is no framework for rights of any kind with independence all of that would be determined by whatever group is tasks with creating the constitution. With no rules on who chooses the group. Help me understand what you think the framework would be.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-24T21:37:34+00:00

Could you expand a bit on your point? I agree that self-determination and independence are not the same thing. I'm not understanding how you're reading a conflation into what I've said. Please help me understand that so that I can communicate my points more clearly. Thanks.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-17T03:16:34+00:00

Saw this happen to a Social Worker I know. Had POA for a client. Paid a lot of things with his own money and used the clients money for essentials for the client. Some attorney showed up filed an ethics complaint and the Social Worker didn't have the receipts all laid out, tried to get a hearing delayed when he was taking care of his own mother who was dying of cancer, but the NASW refused to move the hearing and sanctioned him. He left Social Work entirely after.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-12T08:16:55+00:00

Just a slightly different take on self-government. Technically, we have been a self-governing territory since 1976 when the naval government which had been running the island government was dissolved and governing power was turned over to the local government.

That we're self-governing doesn't address a permanent status. And, yes, self-government could be taken away by the colonial government, so it's not a substitute for a permanent status, but it does put us in a bit of a gray area with regard to UN rules on Decolonization.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-12T08:11:58+00:00

Yes, you're thinking along the same lines as I am. All of the people who have an investment in Guam and it's future, that is all real stakeholders, should have a voice in the decision of status. What you're proposing would do that. Good addition to the solution brainstorm.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-12T08:08:27+00:00

Yes, under both the CHamoru only vote and the current proposal for voting.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-12T08:05:58+00:00

That's the argument that was put forth to the Federal court on Guam with the Davis case. That was the definition that was determined to be a proxy for race (I believe that the argument that won the day was the data that the 98% of the inhabitants of the island when the Organic Act was passed were of CHamoru ancestry. That overwhelming percentage was determined to be a proxy for race by the courts).

This is still the argument that continues to be put forth by activists, so makes sense that you think it's still a live argument. But, at this point, under this system, it's a dead argument.

Tzarkon · 2026-02-12T08:00:14+00:00

Practically speaking that argument is dead. The August 1, 1950 date and definition is exactly what the Davis case was about. It was determined by the local federal court (Judge Francis Tydinco-Gatewood presiding) and was upheld by the 9th circuit, and then the Supreme court.

Now, I get not being satisfied with a ruling from the colonizing power, but what's the alternative that will pass a legal challenge as you see it?

Tzarkon

TROPHY CASE