I sit here just days away from the end of the year, a time of the year full of celebrations and holidays and I cannot believe how sad and disgusted I am with today's NRA press conference and last night's radical right obstruction of government.
These 2 events are so clearly tied together. How have we come to the point in our society that a small fringe element can control and harm all of us. How can a tiny section of Washington be so powerful and rabid that their renegade behavior is in opposition to even their own party. And then, in both cases the victim is blamed. The Republican party now tries to claim that it will be the White House's fault if no agreement is reached and the NRA claims that had there been MORE guns the hands of the public, the many recent mass shootings would not have occurred.
Does any rational person believe that the solution to violent gun crime is to arm principals and teachers? Does anyone out there really think that we should put an armed guard in every school. Should every theater usher have a gun? How about every fast food cashier, there have been mass shootings in movie theaters and fast food joints.
Does anyone out there think that with our current deficit, raising taxes on those earning more than $1 million dollars a year is a bad thing? First $250,000 would not fly, then $400,000. Now the Republican party feels the need to protect those taking home more than an even cool million per year. Their argument that greater tax of these high earners will harm the economy is nonsense. Every single non-partisan unbiased look at the deficit agrees that a blend of higher taxes and lower spending is the only solution.
How long will Americans continue to tolerate such behaviors in the public or private sectors?
not enough said
Friday, December 21, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Please elect me President of the NRA.
I just joined the NRA. Seriously, I did. For $35 a year, I can receive all of their mail, read all their writings and most importantly vote in their (or should I say my) association's elections.
Rather than trying to fight with the NRA and change their positions from the outside, maybe a couple million Americans with common sense should join and at this year's annual meeting nominate our own slate and elect a board that will respond to the desires and interests of the new NRA majority. I'll be happy to be NRA President if that will help move the country towards sanity.
not enough said
I just joined the NRA. Seriously, I did. For $35 a year, I can receive all of their mail, read all their writings and most importantly vote in their (or should I say my) association's elections.
Rather than trying to fight with the NRA and change their positions from the outside, maybe a couple million Americans with common sense should join and at this year's annual meeting nominate our own slate and elect a board that will respond to the desires and interests of the new NRA majority. I'll be happy to be NRA President if that will help move the country towards sanity.
not enough said
Friday, December 14, 2012
After last months elections I thought enough had been said and that I could (at least for a while) retire what James would call my "rants". But today's shooting in CT reminds me that we cannot sit back and let the radical elements of society go unchecked and unchallenged.
There is no rational excuse to hide behind the 2nd Amendment for the un-infringed right to own military style semi-automatic pistols with large volume ammo clips.
But for the sake of argument, why not stop fighting the Constitutionality of gun control under the 2nd Amendment and work to change the Constitution. Why not just seek an amendment allowing for reasonable gun control. What rational and reasonable person would vote against such an amendment? Let the NRA and the radical right show their true colors. Put it to the people, isn't this what the radical right would claim they want? Yep, the country will split on this issue just like on so many others, but one has to hope that enough Americans are sick and tired of un-infringed gun ownership and will vote to see that events like today's shooting are stopped.
not enough said
There is no rational excuse to hide behind the 2nd Amendment for the un-infringed right to own military style semi-automatic pistols with large volume ammo clips.
But for the sake of argument, why not stop fighting the Constitutionality of gun control under the 2nd Amendment and work to change the Constitution. Why not just seek an amendment allowing for reasonable gun control. What rational and reasonable person would vote against such an amendment? Let the NRA and the radical right show their true colors. Put it to the people, isn't this what the radical right would claim they want? Yep, the country will split on this issue just like on so many others, but one has to hope that enough Americans are sick and tired of un-infringed gun ownership and will vote to see that events like today's shooting are stopped.
not enough said
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Today Mitt Romney described Obamacare as government intervention between a patient and their doctor. Now we have all fallen through the rabbit hole. Wouldn't the passage of anti-choice laws be intervention between a patient and a doctor and wouldn't Obamacare be giving all Americans a chance to actually have a patient/doctor relationship.
Romney must also have fallen through the rabbit hole. He used to be rabidly pro-choice (well, anyway he was when he wanted to get elected governor of a liberal state) and he was the creator of Romneycare in the same liberal state (again, only when in a liberal state and willing to acknowledge that Romney/Obamacare was better for all citizens AND cost effective.)
nuf said
Romney must also have fallen through the rabbit hole. He used to be rabidly pro-choice (well, anyway he was when he wanted to get elected governor of a liberal state) and he was the creator of Romneycare in the same liberal state (again, only when in a liberal state and willing to acknowledge that Romney/Obamacare was better for all citizens AND cost effective.)
nuf said
Friday, September 21, 2012
Yesterday, Linda McMahon said that she and her husband did not know who the creditors from her 1976 bankruptcy were and "could not find the documents". After a New London paper found the documents, she and her husband are "reaching out" to their creditors.
Linda, suddenly feels it is "the right thing to do" to pay her creditors in full, spending approximately $1 million dollars. Remember that Linda spent $55 MILLION of her own money in her last Senatorial run and will spend well over $10 MILLION in this run.
The $1 million in restitution is:
Less than 2% of her campaign expenses
Less than 1/4% of her net worth
Oh,and less than 15% of the $7 million she might save per year in the tax reductions she proposes if elected.
My response to Linda "liar liar pants on fire", you are not doing the right thing because it is right, you are doing it because it is expedient and you got busted.
nuf said
Linda, suddenly feels it is "the right thing to do" to pay her creditors in full, spending approximately $1 million dollars. Remember that Linda spent $55 MILLION of her own money in her last Senatorial run and will spend well over $10 MILLION in this run.
The $1 million in restitution is:
Less than 2% of her campaign expenses
Less than 1/4% of her net worth
Oh,and less than 15% of the $7 million she might save per year in the tax reductions she proposes if elected.
My response to Linda "liar liar pants on fire", you are not doing the right thing because it is right, you are doing it because it is expedient and you got busted.
nuf said
Monday, September 17, 2012
There you go again:
"There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them." Mitt Romney, Sept 16, 2012. Further "I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives".
Hey Mitt, I am one of the 47% who will certainly be voting for Obama. ,
1) You are absolutely correct, I am dependant on Government. For security, safety, taking care of those who need assistance. I am dependent on Government to provide society with stability, a legal and governmental system whose policies are balanced and protect all, even those in the minority.
2) You are wrong, I do not believe I am a victim, I don't know many Americans who think they are victims. In my experience, the most needy among us are the hardest workers striving to move away from government assistance.,
3) Every American is already entitled to health care, anyone can walk into an Emergency Room and be treated without fear of being turned away due to inability to pay. I think a better system would require everyone to participate, to the best of their abilities, in fairly paying for the health care system not just for their own personal health care. This is called insurance or Romneycare or Obamacare. Yes, I also believe that every person in the world is entitles to food. I won't even bother to justify this.
4) Fuck you Mitt. I take plenty of personal responsibility, PLEASE raise my taxes, please let me contribute more to society.
Mitt, too much said but thanks for being honest.
nuf said
Friday, September 7, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Tonight as I watch the Democratic convention I think of an editorial from Le Monde on Sept 12, 2011written by Jean-Marie Colombani "In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! "
Tonight as I watch the convention the first thing that comes to my mind is to say "I am Hispanic, I am Gay, I am a Woman, I am an African-American." I want to say it NOW in solidarity with these Americans, I want to say it before there is a chance that we have a tragic moment of Romney/Ryan taking power and hurting each and every one of these groups.
People and society matter. Obama's support of the "Dream Act" is compassionate, pragmatic and fair. Obama's architecture of the Affordable Health Care Act is compassionate, pragmatic and fair. Obama's position on marriage equality is compassionate, pragmatic and fair. Obama's support of a woman's right to choose is compassionate, pragmatic and fair. Clearly I don't need to address how Romney would handle each of these issues.
nuf said
Tonight as I watch the convention the first thing that comes to my mind is to say "I am Hispanic, I am Gay, I am a Woman, I am an African-American." I want to say it NOW in solidarity with these Americans, I want to say it before there is a chance that we have a tragic moment of Romney/Ryan taking power and hurting each and every one of these groups.
People and society matter. Obama's support of the "Dream Act" is compassionate, pragmatic and fair. Obama's architecture of the Affordable Health Care Act is compassionate, pragmatic and fair. Obama's position on marriage equality is compassionate, pragmatic and fair. Obama's support of a woman's right to choose is compassionate, pragmatic and fair. Clearly I don't need to address how Romney would handle each of these issues.
nuf said
Following my post of this morning I received the following reply:
"Nice rant but you didn't answer the question. Are you better off then 4 years ago? Is the country? Can't keep using gwb. He is long gone......",
I thought I had clearly answered the question, but did so again and here is my reply:
Yep, I am a hell of a lot better off.
1) The economy is better than GWB left it.
2) Society is better off ("Don't Ask-Don't Tell is gone, marriage equality is increasing).
3) International relations are improving; the US is no longer the laughing stock of the world; we are slowing extracting ourselves from the idiotic wars that GWB (oops there he is again) got us into).
4) Health care is available to ALL Americans.
You can say that these do not effect me but each and every one of them do. If everyone of us is better then so am I. This is the entire difference between the right and the left. The right only seems to care about themselves, the left believes that what benefits the least of society will benefit all of society.
nuf said
"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
This is the pathetic lament that the Republican party is now trying to con voters with. Forget the lies that they trot out and let's looks look at just one single answer.
"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
YES, GWB is gone and the extremist right does not control the executive and legislative branches of the government. (Unfortunately, the Bush legacy of the politicization and rabid right control of the Supreme Court will last indefinitely).
Now the real questions:
Will you be better off four years from now if extremists like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney were allowed to gain the power they are seeking?
Will you be better off with a third attempt at the failed policy of "trickle down economics"?
Will you be better off if the government takes control of your health care? The reality is that it is the Republican who want to tell you what medical care you may or may not get. They claim the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act is government intrusion, what the hell would they call banning all?
Will you be better off if Medicare is terminated and Social Security "privatized"?
Will you be better off if same sex marriage is banned.
I can think of no way in which we would be better off four years from now if President Obama is not reelected.
nuf said
This is the pathetic lament that the Republican party is now trying to con voters with. Forget the lies that they trot out and let's looks look at just one single answer.
"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
YES, GWB is gone and the extremist right does not control the executive and legislative branches of the government. (Unfortunately, the Bush legacy of the politicization and rabid right control of the Supreme Court will last indefinitely).
Now the real questions:
Will you be better off four years from now if extremists like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney were allowed to gain the power they are seeking?
Will you be better off with a third attempt at the failed policy of "trickle down economics"?
Will you be better off if the government takes control of your health care? The reality is that it is the Republican who want to tell you what medical care you may or may not get. They claim the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act is government intrusion, what the hell would they call banning all?
Will you be better off if Medicare is terminated and Social Security "privatized"?
Will you be better off if same sex marriage is banned.
I can think of no way in which we would be better off four years from now if President Obama is not reelected.
nuf said
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
At the Republican convention yesterday, Ann Romney said “You may not agree with Mitt’s positions on issues or his politics, But let me say this to every American who is thinking about who should be our next president: No one will work harder. No one will care more.”
Isn't that saying that he will "work harder" and "care more" to accomplish all those things you disagree with? What a selling point. Vote for the guy you disagree with because he is a hard worker.
Obviously Ann was pandering to female voters. But, just think about what she said, Mitt will work harder to ban abortion, Mitt will work harder to destroy President Obama's Affordable Health Care Act, Mitt will work harder to cut welfare, Mitt will work harder to LOWER taxes for the very wealthy. The truth is that a higher percentage of woman than men will need the protections of the Affordable Health Care Act. A higher percentage of women and children need welfare. A lower percentage of American women are in the highest tax bracket. And yes, a higher percentage of women than men will need access to abortions.
The Republicans can trot out all the women they want to claim Mitt will work hard, the problem is that they cannot trot out any one who can say that Mitt will work hard for women.
nuf said
Isn't that saying that he will "work harder" and "care more" to accomplish all those things you disagree with? What a selling point. Vote for the guy you disagree with because he is a hard worker.
Obviously Ann was pandering to female voters. But, just think about what she said, Mitt will work harder to ban abortion, Mitt will work harder to destroy President Obama's Affordable Health Care Act, Mitt will work harder to cut welfare, Mitt will work harder to LOWER taxes for the very wealthy. The truth is that a higher percentage of woman than men will need the protections of the Affordable Health Care Act. A higher percentage of women and children need welfare. A lower percentage of American women are in the highest tax bracket. And yes, a higher percentage of women than men will need access to abortions.
The Republicans can trot out all the women they want to claim Mitt will work hard, the problem is that they cannot trot out any one who can say that Mitt will work hard for women.
nuf said
Monday, August 27, 2012
As the election nears, there will be more and more reasons to post with greater and greater frequency.
The following link say it all:
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1247631.ece
nuf said
The following link say it all:
"Former Gov. Charlie Crist: Here's why I'm backing Barack Obama"
(yeah, Chist is a Florida Republican)
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article1247631.ece
nuf said
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Now it is official. Today, the Republican party approved a platform plank calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing all abortion, with no exceptions for rape, incest nor the heath of the mother.
Please tell your friends, female and male alike, how the Republican party would like to treat you, your wives, daughters, mothers, aunts......
nuf said
Please tell your friends, female and male alike, how the Republican party would like to treat you, your wives, daughters, mothers, aunts......
nuf said
I heard an interesting fact today regarding the Romney's campaign vetting of Ryan for the position of Vice President. They demanded, and got, 5 years of Ryan's tax returns as part of their vetting process.
Why does the public not deserve the same when vetting Romney for the position of President.
nuf said
Why does the public not deserve the same when vetting Romney for the position of President.
nuf said
Following Tod Akin's insane comments about rape and abortion last weekend, the Republican party again appears poised to put on its platform a position that bans all abortions, including those for victims of rape and incest.
On MSNBC today, RNC Chair Reince Priebus called it just "details" as to whether such victims should be allowed to have an abortion. I wonder if he would feel the same if it were a family member of his that needed an abortion. One would have to assume Priebus would suddenly support an abortion for such a family member who had a heath need or was the victim of a crime that caused a pregnancy.
Priebus also stated that he believed the majority of American women supported an absolute ban on abortion. He ended by saying that even if some women disagreed with the Republican platform position on a total ban on abortion, they would still vote for the Republican party as abortion was really not that large a part of the their decision making.
Remember, this is the party of Romney and Ryan.
nufsaid
Monday, August 20, 2012
While much of the free world focuses on and criticizes the prison sentence handed down on the members of Pussy Riot in Russia, a school system in Oklahoma has refused to give a straight A student her high school diploma because she used the word "hell" in a graduation speech. (As an aside I am writing this while watching "Hell's Kitchen" on TV, have they renamed this show for Oklahoma networks?) But seriously, am I the only one who sees a connection between the lack of free speech in Moscow and the increasing lack of free speech in the United States. This is where we are headed if the religious right has their agenda is forwarded. Seriously.
nuf said.
nuf said.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Last Thursday in an interview on NBC's "Rock Center" Ann Romney said “There’s going to be no more tax releases given. Mitt is honest. His integrity is just golden.” Cool Ann, thanks. Now that you have told us it all all okay, we can move on and just not ask anymore. (okay, I am holding up the sarcasm card now.)
nuf said
nuf said
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Let's make it short and sweet today. What can you say when Forbes.com uses the following words "So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?". Yeah that Forbes, as in Malcolm and Steve Forbes, as in the ultra conservative Forbes.
What more can the right say when the publishing world's bastion of the right blames GWB for the majority of the growth in government spending during the Obama Administration. "The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office." Again, their quote.
Read the entire article titled "Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?".
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
nuf said
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Today is the Primary in CT, but I'll stay off politics for one day.
A question, which I would be happy to hear thoughts on. I bought several stocks today for our portfolio and as I was buying McDonald's, it occurred to me that I will not buy tobacco companies, but that I own Exxon-Mobil; Pepsi; Coke; a coal mining stock; a natural gas producer involved in "fracking"; CCJ, a company whose sole business in in uranium ore; Mead Westvaco owner of the patent of the "flip top" cigarette package. And, in various indexes, I am sure I already a variety of tobacco companies.
I would love to buy MO (Altria aka Phillip Morris), great company (well, other than the cigarettes it sells), great growth, fat dividend and healthy (sorry for the poor metaphor) prospects for the future.
So, where is the line between what just should not be supported and what is the rationally excusable investment in a legal business? Is tobacco unique in that it is the only product sold that cannot be safely used? Are the consequences of eating McDonald's and drinking sugar filled sodas any less objectionable? Do we rule out every company that runs factories in Third World countries and pays less than a living wage? Should all energy companies be boycotted because of the pollution they cause?
As a rule "Socially Responsible Investing" avoids all companies involved in tobacco, alcohol, weapons, nuclear technology, gambling or that are not environmentally friendly. But, one could find a social grievance against every company traded on every stock market.
After writing this, I think I have resolved my personal choices in investing, and have a clearer understanding of what I will or will not buy but would still like to hear the thoughts of others.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Well, it seems like my post of just a couple days ago was prescient. Romney's announcement today of Paul Ryan is further proof of his willingness to grovel at the feet of the Tea Party. Even right wing extremist Newt Gingrich described Ryan's Medicare proposal as “right-wing social engineering.” Gingrich's full quote from May 2011 “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said. “I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”
This is the same Ryan who would end Medicare, privatize Social Security and eviscerate Federal spending while allowing the tax inequity to grow.
Only once question (for the moment). How has the right conned it base into believing that repeating the failures of the past will have a different outcome this time? Okay, one more question (for the moment). How has the right conned it base into believing that taxing the rich less and the Middle Class more is in the best interests of the country or in the best interests of the very middle class that is paying the most.
nuf said
Thursday, August 9, 2012
My father is in his 70s and for about 10 years has said that he fears that his generation would be the last in America to live better than their parents. I, and I think most Americans, would be happy to live as well as our parents. What terrifies me is that I fear mine is the last generation to live in a country and society with the morals and ethics that this country was founded on and which made it the success that it is. Social equality, fiscal fairness, civil rights, religious rights. These and so much more, are what made this country the land of opportunity and respect that my father talks about.
The "Tea Party" is willing to destroy anything and everything to make some bizarre point rather than working to solve some serious and real problems. Even worse, the just plain "radical right" is willing to pander to these ultra right wing zealots in order to win elections. Hopefully even the moderately right wing will not tolerate this and Obama will easily win reelection. (If he were like GWB, he could claim a victory by even 1 vote meant a broad mandate, but that is another discussion.)
As the election nears, it becomes more and more critical to do anything and everything to make sure that those few truly undecided voters see what the real difference is between "Liberals" and "Conservatives." These voters need to see what the left would do to protect and preserve the rights of all; they need to see that the left would work to stop the wealth gap from growing and to reduce the deficit with reasonable cuts and tax increases; they need to see that health care for ALL means just that, they need to see that taxation must be fair. They also must be shown the failure of Reagan and Bush's "trickle down economy", they must be shown how their civil rights and liberties would be trampled if Romney were elected, they must be shown how the paranoia and partisanship of the radical right will destroy everything this country has been built upon.
Sorry if this sounds melodramatic, but just look at what the right had done in the past 12 years since GWB was first inaugurated. First 8 years of Bush presidency and then 4 years of the right obstructing any meaningful governance. The most significant impact of these 12 years is the Bush Supreme Court legacy and I cannot imagine anything worse that could have been done.
nuf said.
The "Tea Party" is willing to destroy anything and everything to make some bizarre point rather than working to solve some serious and real problems. Even worse, the just plain "radical right" is willing to pander to these ultra right wing zealots in order to win elections. Hopefully even the moderately right wing will not tolerate this and Obama will easily win reelection. (If he were like GWB, he could claim a victory by even 1 vote meant a broad mandate, but that is another discussion.)
As the election nears, it becomes more and more critical to do anything and everything to make sure that those few truly undecided voters see what the real difference is between "Liberals" and "Conservatives." These voters need to see what the left would do to protect and preserve the rights of all; they need to see that the left would work to stop the wealth gap from growing and to reduce the deficit with reasonable cuts and tax increases; they need to see that health care for ALL means just that, they need to see that taxation must be fair. They also must be shown the failure of Reagan and Bush's "trickle down economy", they must be shown how their civil rights and liberties would be trampled if Romney were elected, they must be shown how the paranoia and partisanship of the radical right will destroy everything this country has been built upon.
Sorry if this sounds melodramatic, but just look at what the right had done in the past 12 years since GWB was first inaugurated. First 8 years of Bush presidency and then 4 years of the right obstructing any meaningful governance. The most significant impact of these 12 years is the Bush Supreme Court legacy and I cannot imagine anything worse that could have been done.
nuf said.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Just back from a month in China, so very many things to say.
I had a really depressing conversation a couple weeks ago in Beijing with a Brit. I was telling him about a 28 year old Chinese woman I had met in Shanghai. She was well educated, fluent in English, world traveled, described having an account that bypassed the Chinese internet "firewall" and told of having a facebook account, reading the BBC and NY Times every day. I asked where she thought China would be in 20 years. "More liberal and open I hope" was her reply. I asked what she and her friends would do to make this happen and she said "Nothing, there is nothing we can do but wait and see."
But back to my British friend in Beijing. When I told him this story, his immediate response was "Forget about that, what about the Americans?" I missed the connection until he continued. "The majority of Chinese have no idea what is going on in their own country. In America everyone can read and see what is going on. Right now, the US is the laughingstock of the world. Everyone outside the US wants to know how anyone could vote for the Republican Party in the upcoming election." He then went on to question right wing positions in human rights, women's rights, health care, international relations, tax policy, wealth disparity, gun control, and on and on. He was incredulous that the possible future President of the United States claimed to believe in creationism, that he was out of touch with reality in terms of wealth and taxes and that his foreign policy would harm not just the US but the entire world.
Why is it that a non-US citizen is better informed and more educated on US political and social issues than it seems many Americans are? How is it so painfully obvious to outsiders that the direction the Republican party would lead this country in is backwards, xenophobic and possibly lead to the permanent decline of this country.
more than enough said
I had a really depressing conversation a couple weeks ago in Beijing with a Brit. I was telling him about a 28 year old Chinese woman I had met in Shanghai. She was well educated, fluent in English, world traveled, described having an account that bypassed the Chinese internet "firewall" and told of having a facebook account, reading the BBC and NY Times every day. I asked where she thought China would be in 20 years. "More liberal and open I hope" was her reply. I asked what she and her friends would do to make this happen and she said "Nothing, there is nothing we can do but wait and see."
But back to my British friend in Beijing. When I told him this story, his immediate response was "Forget about that, what about the Americans?" I missed the connection until he continued. "The majority of Chinese have no idea what is going on in their own country. In America everyone can read and see what is going on. Right now, the US is the laughingstock of the world. Everyone outside the US wants to know how anyone could vote for the Republican Party in the upcoming election." He then went on to question right wing positions in human rights, women's rights, health care, international relations, tax policy, wealth disparity, gun control, and on and on. He was incredulous that the possible future President of the United States claimed to believe in creationism, that he was out of touch with reality in terms of wealth and taxes and that his foreign policy would harm not just the US but the entire world.
Why is it that a non-US citizen is better informed and more educated on US political and social issues than it seems many Americans are? How is it so painfully obvious to outsiders that the direction the Republican party would lead this country in is backwards, xenophobic and possibly lead to the permanent decline of this country.
more than enough said
Monday, June 25, 2012
More of the Bush legacy.....
Today, the Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5 to 3, along obvious political lines, to uphold the centerpiece of Arizona's draconian imigration policy.
One cannot say that the Arizona measure is unconstitutional, as the Court has now ruled in favor of it. One can however wonder, in light of many recent decisions, how different the court and country might look had Bush not been allowed to seat extremist Alito and Roberts.
nuf said
Today, the Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5 to 3, along obvious political lines, to uphold the centerpiece of Arizona's draconian imigration policy.
One cannot say that the Arizona measure is unconstitutional, as the Court has now ruled in favor of it. One can however wonder, in light of many recent decisions, how different the court and country might look had Bush not been allowed to seat extremist Alito and Roberts.
nuf said
Friday, June 22, 2012
I saw a cute catchy graphic on a right wing site that said "I am happy to pay taxes to support the needy - I am not happy to pay taxes to support the lazy." While this may sound like something we can all get behind, it really is a great way of looking at the difference between liberals and conservatives. Right wing conservatives feel empowered to decide for everyone who is needy versus who is lazy. Liberals are willing to accept that those who say they are in need really are needy. I am sure there are those that abuse the system, but I am also sure the vast majority of those receiving social support would love to move up the socioeconomic pecking order, I am sure the vast majority of those receiving social services would be willing to work incredibly hard to improve their situations. I am sure the vast majority of those on unemployment would love to be back in the work force.
Does anyone really believe that those receiving aid are lazy? Does anyone really believe that the vast majority of single mothers receiving WIC are not trapped and working incredibly long hours just to survive? Does anyone really believe that the vast majority of those needing an extension of unemployment benefits are not out looking for work and desperate to again be gainfully employed.
Perhaps rather than being lazy, the failure of many might come from a lack of education and social support. Maybe instead of cutting spending we increase spending on education, spend more on the welfare of women and children, spend more on providing heath care to all, in order to stop the cycle of dependence on society.
What just makes no sense to me is that we, as a society, are not willing to spend now to educate and elevate rather than spending a whole lot more in the future to permanently provide for those in need who will never be able to permanently change their situation.
Personally, "I am happy to pay more taxes to support the needy and to help all of society, nuf said."
Does anyone really believe that those receiving aid are lazy? Does anyone really believe that the vast majority of single mothers receiving WIC are not trapped and working incredibly long hours just to survive? Does anyone really believe that the vast majority of those needing an extension of unemployment benefits are not out looking for work and desperate to again be gainfully employed.
Perhaps rather than being lazy, the failure of many might come from a lack of education and social support. Maybe instead of cutting spending we increase spending on education, spend more on the welfare of women and children, spend more on providing heath care to all, in order to stop the cycle of dependence on society.
What just makes no sense to me is that we, as a society, are not willing to spend now to educate and elevate rather than spending a whole lot more in the future to permanently provide for those in need who will never be able to permanently change their situation.
Personally, "I am happy to pay more taxes to support the needy and to help all of society, nuf said."
Friday, June 15, 2012
Whether by design or not, President Obama's shift in immigration policy today may have served a more important purpose in the 2012 election.
His support of Gay Marriage and his move today to act compassionately towards illegal immigrants who arrived here as young children will clearly separate him from the presumptive Republican candidate.
While Obama may well lose some votes, the vast majority of those opposed to Gay Marriage and immigration reform would not have voted for him anyway. Many of those in favor of these (and other liberal causes) would already have voted for Obama. He may gain some votes and support from Hispanic and other immigrant groups, but possibly the more important result of his recent actions is shifting the debate from the economy and tax policy to social causes.
Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike, are all affected by the economy and one can see voters being swayed by the false rhetoric and fear mongering of the right and the Romney campaign. No one, however, can miss the clear difference between the liberal and compassionate policies of the Obama Presidency and the xenophobic, religious zealotry of the Romney camp.
nuf said
His support of Gay Marriage and his move today to act compassionately towards illegal immigrants who arrived here as young children will clearly separate him from the presumptive Republican candidate.
While Obama may well lose some votes, the vast majority of those opposed to Gay Marriage and immigration reform would not have voted for him anyway. Many of those in favor of these (and other liberal causes) would already have voted for Obama. He may gain some votes and support from Hispanic and other immigrant groups, but possibly the more important result of his recent actions is shifting the debate from the economy and tax policy to social causes.
Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike, are all affected by the economy and one can see voters being swayed by the false rhetoric and fear mongering of the right and the Romney campaign. No one, however, can miss the clear difference between the liberal and compassionate policies of the Obama Presidency and the xenophobic, religious zealotry of the Romney camp.
nuf said
Thursday, June 14, 2012
It was on Flag Day, June 14, 1954, just a year after being baptized a Presbyterian, President Eisenhower signed into law a bill adding the words "under god" to the Pledge of Allegiance". For almost 200 years, the country survived quite well without this addition, for almost 200 years, this country moved further and further towards "all people are created equal". Unfortunately, for quite some time we have been moving away from this premise. Clearly, the 5% of the population who are atheists are becoming more and more disenfranchised and isolated. Wanna believe in god, great, do it on your own time and in your church/temple/mosque/hogan/home, anywhere you choose that is private. Keep your religion out of government, public schools, and any other place that intrudes on others.
Allegiance should be pledged to the spirit of the country and what the constitution offered to all, not to a piece of cloth nor to a set of religious beliefs. What made this country great is the right of every individual to speak freely, even with speech that is offensive to the government or others. What made this country great is the right of every individual, whether in the majority or minority, to stand behind their principles, protected from persecution. This includes protecting the religious beliefs of all. The closer the country moves to the right and radical religious intrusion in to government the further it moves from the intent of the founding fathers and the further it moves from tolerance, humanity and basic civility and human rights.
Pledging allegiance to the flag is symbolic, one does not literally pledge allegiance to a physical flag, one pledges allegiance to what the flag stands for.
Happy flag day, think about the meaning behind the flag, not the meaning of a few pieces of cloth and some thread.
nuf said
Allegiance should be pledged to the spirit of the country and what the constitution offered to all, not to a piece of cloth nor to a set of religious beliefs. What made this country great is the right of every individual to speak freely, even with speech that is offensive to the government or others. What made this country great is the right of every individual, whether in the majority or minority, to stand behind their principles, protected from persecution. This includes protecting the religious beliefs of all. The closer the country moves to the right and radical religious intrusion in to government the further it moves from the intent of the founding fathers and the further it moves from tolerance, humanity and basic civility and human rights.
Pledging allegiance to the flag is symbolic, one does not literally pledge allegiance to a physical flag, one pledges allegiance to what the flag stands for.
Happy flag day, think about the meaning behind the flag, not the meaning of a few pieces of cloth and some thread.
nuf said
Sunday, June 10, 2012
What do Texas and Florida have in common? (not just that they each had a dumbass governor named Bush)
They each have laws allowing private citizens to choose to go into a situation armed, act in a threatening manner, create a conflict, claim fear and then kill without any legal responsibility.
In a trial underway in Houston, defendant Paul Rodriguez claims that it was within his rights to go to his neighbor's house carrying a gun because he did not like the volume of music at the neighbors party. Rodriquez then spent 22 minutes videotaping his confrontation and calling 911. Twenty two minutes, the length of an entire episode of the Simpsons. Twenty two minutes, the length of time it takes an out of shape senior citizen to walk over a mile. Twenty two minutes is a hell of a long time and not once in that time did Rodriguez turn around and go home. He escalated the matter and shot 3, killing one man. Now his defense team is using the Texas equivalent of "Stand Your Ground".
This is where the right seems to want to take the country - jump all over the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and claim the right to shoot one another rather than just walking away.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2012/06/texas_trial_evokes_trayvon_mar.html
nuf said and just plain enough
They each have laws allowing private citizens to choose to go into a situation armed, act in a threatening manner, create a conflict, claim fear and then kill without any legal responsibility.
In a trial underway in Houston, defendant Paul Rodriguez claims that it was within his rights to go to his neighbor's house carrying a gun because he did not like the volume of music at the neighbors party. Rodriquez then spent 22 minutes videotaping his confrontation and calling 911. Twenty two minutes, the length of an entire episode of the Simpsons. Twenty two minutes, the length of time it takes an out of shape senior citizen to walk over a mile. Twenty two minutes is a hell of a long time and not once in that time did Rodriguez turn around and go home. He escalated the matter and shot 3, killing one man. Now his defense team is using the Texas equivalent of "Stand Your Ground".
This is where the right seems to want to take the country - jump all over the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution and claim the right to shoot one another rather than just walking away.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2012/06/texas_trial_evokes_trayvon_mar.html
nuf said and just plain enough
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
I am going to China this month and I am amazed at the number of people who feel the need to point out to me their views of the Chinese government. Lets make it simple, I have absolutely no delusions about the Human Rights abuses of the Chinese Government, I have no delusions about the environmental destruction going on in China, I have no delusions about the propaganda of the Chinese Government nor about their control of the media. Basically, I think I have a very realistic view of what is going on. That does not mean I cannot love the people and the country.
Why are the same people here who are so concerned about the Chinese, not as concerned about what the US Government would look like if the Republicans controlled the White House, Senate and House of Representatives? Consider how GWB's Supreme Court has devastated Human Rights, environmental protections, allowed Super Pac propaganda to go unchecked, slashed the Constitutional protections against search and government intrusion. (Sound like their complaints about the Chinese Government?) Where would Romney and a Tea Party Congress take us?
nuf said
Why are the same people here who are so concerned about the Chinese, not as concerned about what the US Government would look like if the Republicans controlled the White House, Senate and House of Representatives? Consider how GWB's Supreme Court has devastated Human Rights, environmental protections, allowed Super Pac propaganda to go unchecked, slashed the Constitutional protections against search and government intrusion. (Sound like their complaints about the Chinese Government?) Where would Romney and a Tea Party Congress take us?
nuf said
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Interestingly, the Republican party today addressed my earlier post about raising taxes and cutting spending. (damn, I did not know my rants were so well followed). In reply to the administration's proposed budget, the Republican version of raising taxes on the very, very, top tier of earners was that it would be "class warfare."
I would have though the ever growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else was the real "class warfare."
nuf said
I would have though the ever growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else was the real "class warfare."
nuf said
All too human irrationality.
I wish the current Greek financial crisis were not a small scale proxy for the current United States fiscal mess. Unfortunately it is just that. Too much government spending and too little revenue from the tax structure. In both cases the solution is cuts in spending combined with higher taxes. In the US this has been the recommendation of bi-partisan commissions and apolitical economic experts.
Following significant austerity measures, required of Greece in exchange for European loans, the population of Greece tossed out the politicians supporting austerity. But in a classic "not in my back yard" move, the Greek populace then immediately took over $900 million out of Greek banks. Clearly, this implies that the public knows that killing the austerity package will harm the Greek economy and devalue its currency (while still part of the Euro zone, the implication of the cash withdrawals is that Greeks believe that Greece will extricate itself from the zone and return to the Drachma. Following this logic, they believe that the Drachma will then decrease in value with a commensurate increase in the value of the Euros being held.) Basically, individual Greeks will serve their own wallets ahead of long term solutions to their countries financial problems.
Hopefully the politicians in Washington will take measures to help the US economy and the population will not just continue to elect politicians willing to say anything to get elected (think "tea party").
nuf said
I wish the current Greek financial crisis were not a small scale proxy for the current United States fiscal mess. Unfortunately it is just that. Too much government spending and too little revenue from the tax structure. In both cases the solution is cuts in spending combined with higher taxes. In the US this has been the recommendation of bi-partisan commissions and apolitical economic experts.
Following significant austerity measures, required of Greece in exchange for European loans, the population of Greece tossed out the politicians supporting austerity. But in a classic "not in my back yard" move, the Greek populace then immediately took over $900 million out of Greek banks. Clearly, this implies that the public knows that killing the austerity package will harm the Greek economy and devalue its currency (while still part of the Euro zone, the implication of the cash withdrawals is that Greeks believe that Greece will extricate itself from the zone and return to the Drachma. Following this logic, they believe that the Drachma will then decrease in value with a commensurate increase in the value of the Euros being held.) Basically, individual Greeks will serve their own wallets ahead of long term solutions to their countries financial problems.
Hopefully the politicians in Washington will take measures to help the US economy and the population will not just continue to elect politicians willing to say anything to get elected (think "tea party").
nuf said
Thursday, May 10, 2012
And one more thing.
In May of 2009, 3 years ago, former Vice-President Cheney came out (just wait a second, he did not really come out, he just came out in favor of gay marriage.) Funny how having a lesbian daughter will make even the most reactionary right wing wacko look at things from a different perspective.
I bet if one of Cheney's daughters needed an abortion he would suddenly rethink that issue too. If one of his family members were shot in an absurd case of "stand your ground" he might rethink gun laws. If one of his family were killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, he might not have been so quick to escalate multiple misguided wars. If Cheney could not afford all of the amazing health care he has received, he might think nationalized care was not such a bad idea. With a net worth of just under $100 million, yup $100 million, Cheney could care less about the rest of the population, his family will never go hungry so I can't imagine what might help him see the light there, but who knows.
Sorry to be going back into the vaults of the Bush era, but it is interesting that one of the most rabid zealots of the radical right wing is liberal on an issue when it came into his home. Maybe that is what the religious right needs, just a tiny reality check and dose of personal experience outside of their cloistered parochial lives.
nuf said
Now Romney takes a stand.
Following President Obama endorsement of same sex marriage, Mitt Romney, on Tuesday in Denver, made his feelings clear " I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I don't favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name." Further, Romney supports a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.
Obama - equality for all
Romney -bigotry, bias and second class (oh wait, no civil unions either so make it third class) citizenship for some
The choice is clear.
nuf said
Following President Obama endorsement of same sex marriage, Mitt Romney, on Tuesday in Denver, made his feelings clear " I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I don't favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name." Further, Romney supports a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.
Obama - equality for all
Romney -bigotry, bias and second class (oh wait, no civil unions either so make it third class) citizenship for some
The choice is clear.
nuf said
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Now Obama takes a stand?
First, lets be clear, President Obama's new acceptance of the rights of all Americans to marry is the correct course.
BUT for a President who has spent almost 4 years practicing his own version of diplomacy, never quite taking a hard or difficult line, is this the right time to risk his re-election for a cause that is clearly destined to succeed in the near future? The risk of alienating the middle (he ain't getting the votes from the right anyway) is really of concern.
Wouldn't it be a Pyrrhic victory if Obama takes this stance now and looses the election only to have a rabid anti-marriage equality president get 4 years to destroy the progress that has been made in the past several years? Lets not kid ourselves, if nothing else, the presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney had been consistent about his opposition to GLBT marriage.
Bottom line, tell your friends, get out the vote, donate to the DNC, make sure to do everything you can to support the re-election of President Obama.
nuf said
First, lets be clear, President Obama's new acceptance of the rights of all Americans to marry is the correct course.
BUT for a President who has spent almost 4 years practicing his own version of diplomacy, never quite taking a hard or difficult line, is this the right time to risk his re-election for a cause that is clearly destined to succeed in the near future? The risk of alienating the middle (he ain't getting the votes from the right anyway) is really of concern.
Wouldn't it be a Pyrrhic victory if Obama takes this stance now and looses the election only to have a rabid anti-marriage equality president get 4 years to destroy the progress that has been made in the past several years? Lets not kid ourselves, if nothing else, the presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney had been consistent about his opposition to GLBT marriage.
Bottom line, tell your friends, get out the vote, donate to the DNC, make sure to do everything you can to support the re-election of President Obama.
nuf said
Monday, April 30, 2012
In 2011 the core inflation rate in the United States was 3%. I just got the annual renewal for our HMO and it had an increase of over 16% from last year. As of July 1, we will be paying $2,964 per MONTH or over $35,500 per year for a policy with no dental, no eye care and high deductible/co-pays.
What percentage of the premium goes to non-medical expenses (advertising, business overhead, billing, accounting, profit, etc)? It is hard to imagine, as inefficient as the Government may be, that a national health plan could not be set up to provide better care at a lower cost.
Lucy and I directly pay 100% of our health care costs so it is easy to see exactly what the costs are and to feel the burden. Perhaps if everyone who received health care benefits as part of an employment package were paid more and then forced to write a monthly check for health insurance premiums, there would be a whole lot more support for universal heath care. The anti-heath care arguments of "government intrusion" and "rationed care" etc are ridiculous and grossly destructive to the fiscal health of the country. The United States cannot afford to devote greater and greater percentages of its economy on health care.
Just saying.
What percentage of the premium goes to non-medical expenses (advertising, business overhead, billing, accounting, profit, etc)? It is hard to imagine, as inefficient as the Government may be, that a national health plan could not be set up to provide better care at a lower cost.
Lucy and I directly pay 100% of our health care costs so it is easy to see exactly what the costs are and to feel the burden. Perhaps if everyone who received health care benefits as part of an employment package were paid more and then forced to write a monthly check for health insurance premiums, there would be a whole lot more support for universal heath care. The anti-heath care arguments of "government intrusion" and "rationed care" etc are ridiculous and grossly destructive to the fiscal health of the country. The United States cannot afford to devote greater and greater percentages of its economy on health care.
Just saying.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Mitt, Mitt, Mitt
I am sick and tired of Romney's pathetic sycophancy to the Tea Party, but he may have reached a new low. Repeatedly using “we don’t know what’s causing climate change” as an excuse to do nothing to reduce global warming is both idiotic and dangerous. According to Romney:
"My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.." Oct. 6, 2011"
and
In an interview with New Hampshire Union Leader, "One, I believe what I said before, I think it's getting warmer. Two, I believe we contribute to it. And three, I don't know by how much -- a lot or a little. And I am not willing to adopt multi-trillion dollar programs to reduce greenhouse gases in America. They don't
I am sick and tired of Romney's pathetic sycophancy to the Tea Party, but he may have reached a new low. Repeatedly using “we don’t know what’s causing climate change” as an excuse to do nothing to reduce global warming is both idiotic and dangerous. According to Romney:
"My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.." Oct. 6, 2011"
and
call it America warming, they call it global warming."
Romney repeats this position in campaign speech after campaign speech.
Hey Mitt, how can you say that you don't know how much we contribute? The US is less than 5% of the world population yet puts out over 18% of global CO2 emissions. Why don't we start by cleaning up our own act before worrying about what others are doing. It is called leading by example.
nuf said
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Which Mitt Romney is running for President - Who cares?
Which Romney do we believe? The pro choice Romney of the past or rabid anti choice Romney of 2012. The pro-universal heath care Governor Romney or the anti health care candidate Romney. The gun control moderate Romney or the newly minted NRA fanatic Romney.
It really makes no difference, if you are a liberal, you better be worried that he now really believes his campaign hype. If you are conservative you better be worried that his campaign hype is a load of crap just to get your vote. And, whether you are a liberal or a conservative, a Democrat, a Republican or an independent, do you really want a President whose politics seem to be defined by expedience and a narcissistic desire to get elected?
nuf said
Which Romney do we believe? The pro choice Romney of the past or rabid anti choice Romney of 2012. The pro-universal heath care Governor Romney or the anti health care candidate Romney. The gun control moderate Romney or the newly minted NRA fanatic Romney.
It really makes no difference, if you are a liberal, you better be worried that he now really believes his campaign hype. If you are conservative you better be worried that his campaign hype is a load of crap just to get your vote. And, whether you are a liberal or a conservative, a Democrat, a Republican or an independent, do you really want a President whose politics seem to be defined by expedience and a narcissistic desire to get elected?
nuf said
Friday, April 13, 2012
Mitt Romney, yet another flip/flop/flip/flop/flip/flop
As much of the country at least tries to think about "Stand Your Ground" laws, today in St. Louis, Mitt Romney addressed the annual convention of the NRA and told the Association that he was their guardian angel. This is the same Romney who in 1994 said "I don't line up with the NRA." Then in 2006 he became a lifetime member. Now that he desperately needs (he is that desperate) the conservative vote, he feels the call to "stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen and those seeking to protect their homes...."
Sorry if this is mixing the politics of the presidential campaign with the madness of Florida, and 24 others states', "self defense" laws. Perhaps with regards to "gun rights" less radical laws and more reasonable thinking would return some sense of civility to the political discourse and reduce the number of firearms fatalities in this country. Let's not forget that the NRA was one of the primary original backers of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws.
On a side note, at the NRA convention, Newt Gingrich, who addressed the convention after Romney, said that the United Nations should adopt a treaty "to extend the right to bear arms to every person on the planet." Once can only
nuf said
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Just paid my taxes. It ain't fair. It really ain't fair. Seriously unfair.
I (legally) don't pay a fair share of my taxes. I am fortunate enough to have much of my income come from qualified dividends and long term gains.
When Bill Clinton took office capital gains and dividends were taxed at 28%. In 1997, he lowered it to 20% in a deal with the Republicans to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program. "W" then cut if further to 15%.
"Trickle down" economics failed under Reagan, if failed horribly under "W", which is why Obama inherited the economy he did. And now, Ryan and Romney would lower taxes on the wealthy even further while at the same time slashing social programs for those who most need them. If Mitt had to pay 20% or 25% on his "carry income", long term gains, and qualified dividends, would it really effect him, his investments or those he is trickling down on? Nope, his investments would not change, he might pocket just a little less at the end of the year, but the same number of jobs would be created AND the additional tax he paid would sustain the government and help society as a whole. Wanna call it socialism, go ahead, I would prefer to call it pragmatism. Guess what Mitt, we go down, you are coming with us.
Anyone who tells you that investments will not be made or that capital will flee the country if "capitalists"have their gains taxed at a higher rate is just plain wrong.
Nuf said.
I (legally) don't pay a fair share of my taxes. I am fortunate enough to have much of my income come from qualified dividends and long term gains.
When Bill Clinton took office capital gains and dividends were taxed at 28%. In 1997, he lowered it to 20% in a deal with the Republicans to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program. "W" then cut if further to 15%.
"Trickle down" economics failed under Reagan, if failed horribly under "W", which is why Obama inherited the economy he did. And now, Ryan and Romney would lower taxes on the wealthy even further while at the same time slashing social programs for those who most need them. If Mitt had to pay 20% or 25% on his "carry income", long term gains, and qualified dividends, would it really effect him, his investments or those he is trickling down on? Nope, his investments would not change, he might pocket just a little less at the end of the year, but the same number of jobs would be created AND the additional tax he paid would sustain the government and help society as a whole. Wanna call it socialism, go ahead, I would prefer to call it pragmatism. Guess what Mitt, we go down, you are coming with us.
Anyone who tells you that investments will not be made or that capital will flee the country if "capitalists"have their gains taxed at a higher rate is just plain wrong.
Nuf said.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
God I Love Smart Women!
A recent survey showed that the more educated a woman is, the more likely she is to vote for Obama over Romney. College educated white women favor Obama 66% to 33% for Romney. Only non-college educated women favor Romney. Maybe this is the real reason Santorum bashes getting a college education?
nuf said
A recent survey showed that the more educated a woman is, the more likely she is to vote for Obama over Romney. College educated white women favor Obama 66% to 33% for Romney. Only non-college educated women favor Romney. Maybe this is the real reason Santorum bashes getting a college education?
nuf said
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
What must it feel like to be black, male and 18?
Last Wednesday I was on my way to LGA for a flight to Chicago. When I got off of the Grand Central Parkway (while NOT on airport property) I came around a corner to find a NYC cop standing in the middle of the road. He pointed me over to the side, I know I had not done anything wrong, but was not sure. Opened my window and the first thing the cop said was "Don't worry, you did nothing wrong, we are just doing spot checks, show me your ID.) HUH, WHOA, WHAT THE FUCK!! I had a flight to catch and fighting every instinct I had to say "NO, you may not see my ID," I coughed it up.
I'm middle aged, relatively non-descript white guy and I was too afraid of the results to stand up for what I know are my rights. How do you think a young, poor (or filthy rich for that matter) black man would feel and react?
What is the big deal of a policeman asking for my ID? Seems pretty clear to me. Every little erosion of the constitutional protections we once enjoyed hurt us all.
nuf said.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
As the Supreme Court hears arguments regarding Health Care, I began thinking about an acquaintance from the flea market. He and his wife are struggling antique dealers with no heath insurance. He's a rabid "Conservative" who thinks that Obama is the worst and that Obama's policy's are completely intrusive. Last fall his wife had a minor heart attack, went to the ER, spent a couple weeks in the hospital, with specialists etc. Fortunately she is fine. in receiving care, she ran up a 5 figure plus bill. But who paid for her care? They didn't, we did. Jimmy's (an alias) attitude is "Hey, they have to take care of us, when she got sick the ER had to take her and the hospital can't get anything from us because we have nothing." Yes, this is as close to an exact quote as I can recall. I asked if he still thought that the new medical insurance laws were bad and his response was simple. "The government can't tell ME what I have to do." ay yi yi.
Okay, now let's look at the facts. Whether or not they were insured, his wife would have had the heart attack. Whether or not they were insured, the same care would have been given. Whether or not they were insured, the bill would have been about same for the care given. (In fact, more than likely it would have been lower becuase their insurance company would have had a contract for services with the hospital). The only difference is that in 20 years they have not contributed a dime to health insurance and we all paid their bill. That is how insurance works, you contribute and if you need, you are covered. What my acquaintance did was get coverage after the fact with no contribution.
On the steps of the Supreme Court today, Santorum railed at the very thought of the Government telling anyone what to do. Hey Rick, every single day in hundreds of ways, the Government tells us what to do. On the Federal level, it tells us who must register for the Selective Service, it tell us what drugs are safe and legal, it tells us what standards of safety must be maintained by airlines, and on and on. On the State level, government tells us that we have to have the elevators in tall buildings inspected, it tells us we cannot operate a motor vehicle without insurance, again and on and on.
This is what Government is for, to protect and provide for the best interest of all. Every American (both legal and undocumented) already has heath coverage in that no hospital can refuse to care for a patient in need. Why not try to better the system and make sure every American participates by paying a share of the costs of this care. Why not see that young adults are able to stay on their parents policies while transitioning into being productive members of society. Why not insure that a pre-existing condition does not disqualify anyone from receiving coverage. These are all successes of the Health Care laws passed under Barak Obama.
Dear Tea Party and friends, cut the political crap. Start caring more about the people and less about winning the Republican nomination.
Nuf said.
Okay, now let's look at the facts. Whether or not they were insured, his wife would have had the heart attack. Whether or not they were insured, the same care would have been given. Whether or not they were insured, the bill would have been about same for the care given. (In fact, more than likely it would have been lower becuase their insurance company would have had a contract for services with the hospital). The only difference is that in 20 years they have not contributed a dime to health insurance and we all paid their bill. That is how insurance works, you contribute and if you need, you are covered. What my acquaintance did was get coverage after the fact with no contribution.
On the steps of the Supreme Court today, Santorum railed at the very thought of the Government telling anyone what to do. Hey Rick, every single day in hundreds of ways, the Government tells us what to do. On the Federal level, it tells us who must register for the Selective Service, it tell us what drugs are safe and legal, it tells us what standards of safety must be maintained by airlines, and on and on. On the State level, government tells us that we have to have the elevators in tall buildings inspected, it tells us we cannot operate a motor vehicle without insurance, again and on and on.
This is what Government is for, to protect and provide for the best interest of all. Every American (both legal and undocumented) already has heath coverage in that no hospital can refuse to care for a patient in need. Why not try to better the system and make sure every American participates by paying a share of the costs of this care. Why not see that young adults are able to stay on their parents policies while transitioning into being productive members of society. Why not insure that a pre-existing condition does not disqualify anyone from receiving coverage. These are all successes of the Health Care laws passed under Barak Obama.
Dear Tea Party and friends, cut the political crap. Start caring more about the people and less about winning the Republican nomination.
Nuf said.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Using all census date through 2000, the web site http://howmanyofme.com figures that in the United States there are:
7 people named Joe Blow
743 Ronald McDonald
221 John Doe but only 17 Jane Doe
48 Peter Piper
78 Betty Crocker
4 Karl Marx
1 Barack Obama
"1 or fewer" people named Rick Santorum
"1 or fewer" people named Mitt Romney
Do we get to choose? I'll take the "or fewer"
Nuf said
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Following my post yesterday, I was sent the following quote:
“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right” - Abraham Lincoln.
While a brilliant line by an incredibly gifted orator, Lincoln's quote completely misses the point. (Or perhaps exemplifies the point perfectly.)
Whether or not there is some higher being that is "always right" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is in 2011 there are a very small handful of predominantly, middle aged white men in places like Rome, St. Lake City and Tehran, who feel that they and they alone each know what this "right" is and that they and they alone know how this "right" should be accepted by the 7 billion inhabitants of the world. Again, these are just men, human beings, mere mortals, who feel empowered to speak the "right" for a presumed higher being.
More troublesome, is that there are (currently) just 4 middle aged+- white men in the Republican party, competing to be the most powerful person in the world and each of the 4 feel a special connection to this knowledge of "right." The "right" that each of these believe has done harm to millions and the election of any one of these 4 to the most powerful position in the world could only bring devastation to millions around the world. One's personal belief system is a wonderful thing, but history has shown over and over that zealotry and forced conversion to a belief system will fail each and every time. This country was made great by its protection of the rights of others and by the people's tolerance of other's rights. This history is collapsing under the weight of the current era of right wing extremism whose fire is fanned by self serving politicians willing to say and do anything to get elected.
nuf said
Friday, March 9, 2012
A couple thousand years ago, the population of the earth was roughly 200 million. There was a nice guy, okay a really really nice guy, who was a paradigm of selflessness and kindness. His teachings were inspirational and a variety of fan clubs were formed to honor his life.
Unfortunately for the past 2000 years these fan clubs have fought war after war against each other and killed millions just because they were not a member of the right club. Roughly 500 years ago an inquisition began that lasted over 300 years with the sole goal of forcing the beliefs of one fan club on the disbelievers. As recently as 60 years ago, 6 MILLION human beings were exterminated because one crazy zealot and his supporters did not think theirs was the right fan club.
Today, zealots around the world try to push their club upon third world countries and the less educated. In India, China and Africa, the beliefs of these fan clubs cause untold misery upon women by refusing to support health care initiatives that would better the lives of these women.
And now, all of the Republican Presidential candidates claim to be guided by one or more of these fan clubs. They claim that they support each other's fan clubs and believe that while their fan club is the "right" one, the other fan clubs are kind of, sort of okay. They pronounce that this country and its population should be guided by the belief of the fan clubs that follow a 2,000 year old nice man. Thanks, but I think the Constitution separates the operation and decisions of government from the beliefs of fan clubs.
Nuf said.
Unfortunately for the past 2000 years these fan clubs have fought war after war against each other and killed millions just because they were not a member of the right club. Roughly 500 years ago an inquisition began that lasted over 300 years with the sole goal of forcing the beliefs of one fan club on the disbelievers. As recently as 60 years ago, 6 MILLION human beings were exterminated because one crazy zealot and his supporters did not think theirs was the right fan club.
Today, zealots around the world try to push their club upon third world countries and the less educated. In India, China and Africa, the beliefs of these fan clubs cause untold misery upon women by refusing to support health care initiatives that would better the lives of these women.
And now, all of the Republican Presidential candidates claim to be guided by one or more of these fan clubs. They claim that they support each other's fan clubs and believe that while their fan club is the "right" one, the other fan clubs are kind of, sort of okay. They pronounce that this country and its population should be guided by the belief of the fan clubs that follow a 2,000 year old nice man. Thanks, but I think the Constitution separates the operation and decisions of government from the beliefs of fan clubs.
Nuf said.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Barack Obama is NOT the first Black President, he is the first President who happens to be black.
While he would not be the first President with belief in christianity, god forbid (tongue firmly in cheek) Rick Santorum were elected President, he would however be the first christian President. Santorum's decisions and choices would not be based on the constitution nor the best interests of the country and its citizens. His actions would be based on religious zealotry and biases. Is this what the country needs or wants?
nuf said
While he would not be the first President with belief in christianity, god forbid (tongue firmly in cheek) Rick Santorum were elected President, he would however be the first christian President. Santorum's decisions and choices would not be based on the constitution nor the best interests of the country and its citizens. His actions would be based on religious zealotry and biases. Is this what the country needs or wants?
nuf said
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Obama, wrong energy message.
In Presidents Obama's address to the nation yesterday, Feb 25, 2012, he focused entirely on energy strategy and only after pitching developing more energy sources did he (barely) mention improving efficiency. He then harped on removing tax breaks to oil companies. Nowhere in his address did he mention just plain reducing use. While he says there is "no silver bullet" to bring down oil prices, history has shown over and over that there is in fact a powerful silver bullet. Cut use and demand will go down, cut demand and prices will go down. This does NOT mean harming the economy or our quality of living, it means turning off unnecessary lights, not making unnecessary trips, not buying plastic bottles of water, etc. It simply means thinking before acting in ways that use energy and deciding whether the action is immediately necessary, could be delayed and or is not really necessary at all. With gas at $4.00 a gallon, the uproar and political speechifying is deafening. Each one could lower our own effective fuel cost to $3.60 by driving 10% fewer miles. Funny part is that if everyone drove 10% less, prices would fall - then, would everyone go back to driving more?
Even worse - The Republicans who claim there is no global warming, who think it is as American as apple pie and our "god given right" to drive Hummers and use all the energy we can pull out of the earth. Drilling as fast and furiously in the Arctic Wilderness and the Gulf of Mexico is no solution.
Feel free to comment "don't like" if the following bothers you. Gas should be $10 or more a gallon, that is what it has been in most of the world for years. If gas were in that range, maybe we would be forced to actually fix some problems rather than just delaying the fix.
nuf said
Friday, February 24, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
I am not Henny Penny (At least I don't think I am.)
Look at the fiscal crisis Greece is in. Look at the tax and spending structure of its system. Does it look familiar? The solution in Greece, or the proposed solution in Greece, as mandated by the IMF and Central Bank is massive cuts in public spending combined with massive tax increases. No cutting and tax increase = not loans to avert a default. Guess what happens if Greece defaults?
The only difference between the US and Greece is that there is no IMF or Central Bank large enough to help the US out of a crisis.
In 2011 two different bi-partisan commissions found that the only solution to the US deficit was BOTH tax increases and spending cuts. Again, these bi-partisan commissions recommend cuts in public spending combined with tax increases. The only difference now between the US and Greece's is that in Greece, the spending cuts/tax increases are huge. Huge to the point of public turmoil. Fix the problem now with moderate solutions or wait until it reaches a crisis and then need to take crisis measures.
Could the US default on its loans, yes-no-sort of. Actual default, probably not, ability to pay easily, probably not. This leaves "sort of." Paying the debt by printing more money means inflation. Paying the debt by borrowing ever greater amounts would require higher interest rates and obviously more interest, again, inflation.
How about having enough on hand through reasonable tax increases and spending cuts to pay the interest due and pay down the debt. That seems to be the only solution recommended by reasonable economists and policy makers. Enough of the trickle down economics and the "we can't tax those capitalists who create jobs" nonsense. Enough of the "I'm for spending cuts....except in my district"nonsense.
Nuf said.
Look at the fiscal crisis Greece is in. Look at the tax and spending structure of its system. Does it look familiar? The solution in Greece, or the proposed solution in Greece, as mandated by the IMF and Central Bank is massive cuts in public spending combined with massive tax increases. No cutting and tax increase = not loans to avert a default. Guess what happens if Greece defaults?
The only difference between the US and Greece is that there is no IMF or Central Bank large enough to help the US out of a crisis.
In 2011 two different bi-partisan commissions found that the only solution to the US deficit was BOTH tax increases and spending cuts. Again, these bi-partisan commissions recommend cuts in public spending combined with tax increases. The only difference now between the US and Greece's is that in Greece, the spending cuts/tax increases are huge. Huge to the point of public turmoil. Fix the problem now with moderate solutions or wait until it reaches a crisis and then need to take crisis measures.
Could the US default on its loans, yes-no-sort of. Actual default, probably not, ability to pay easily, probably not. This leaves "sort of." Paying the debt by printing more money means inflation. Paying the debt by borrowing ever greater amounts would require higher interest rates and obviously more interest, again, inflation.
How about having enough on hand through reasonable tax increases and spending cuts to pay the interest due and pay down the debt. That seems to be the only solution recommended by reasonable economists and policy makers. Enough of the trickle down economics and the "we can't tax those capitalists who create jobs" nonsense. Enough of the "I'm for spending cuts....except in my district"nonsense.
Nuf said.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Okay Obama, your turn.
Yes, go to the National Prayer Breakfast and speak as "citizen" Obama, just don't pray and preach as "President" Obama. This country is supposed to lead the world in the separation of church and state, the minute you use your position as President to tie the country to religious positions you harm this separation.
With regards to your speech:
1) Please stop the "ChirstianJewishMuslim we are all the same" crap. Decisions on foreign aid, atrocities in Africa and human trafficking should not be based on religion, they should be based on right and wrong. Simple empirical human actions of doing the right thing. You really should not need a religion to tell you that human trafficking is wrong and that working to stop atrocities in Africa is the right thing to do. If you did not have "the biblical call" would you act differently?
2) You describe "God's command to "love thy neighbor as thyself"" as being "found in every major religion.... from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato." Similar sentiment can be found in communist doctrine, atheism and probably voodoo and devil worship. But again, this has nothing to do with your position as president nor should it have anything to do with the decisions you make as President.
3) It is not our obligation to help other because some zealot 2000 years ago said (and YOU paraphrase) “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required" any more than it is our obligation to help those who need help because in 1875 Karl Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Funny how Marx, the most anti-religious of communists, sounds just like a biblical prophet. It is our obligation to help those who need help because they need help and it is the right and human thing to do.
4) The Billy Graham that you fawn over in your speech is the same Billy Graham who blamed AIDS on gods judgement (well, before he retracted that statement,) the same Graham who is opposed to gay marriage, assisted suicide and anything else that might actually sound like good old christian compassion and non-judgmental feelings. Who died and made Graham the arbiter of every one's moral compass? Oh wait, he would tell you jesus did and he (Graham) get his info directly from the big guy himself. How can you speak so highly of a man who, using his religious beliefs, harmed so very many. I strongly defend Grahams right to his religious beliefs, but I sure as hell don't have to respect him for them.
I won't live long enough to see a President or even Presidential candidate admit to being an Agnostic, let alone an Atheist. I don't think I will even live long enough to see the day when a President will leave his personal religious biases at the door, but that does not mean I cannot also speak up about how I feel.
nuf said is probably inaccurate, too much said
Yes, go to the National Prayer Breakfast and speak as "citizen" Obama, just don't pray and preach as "President" Obama. This country is supposed to lead the world in the separation of church and state, the minute you use your position as President to tie the country to religious positions you harm this separation.
With regards to your speech:
1) Please stop the "ChirstianJewishMuslim we are all the same" crap. Decisions on foreign aid, atrocities in Africa and human trafficking should not be based on religion, they should be based on right and wrong. Simple empirical human actions of doing the right thing. You really should not need a religion to tell you that human trafficking is wrong and that working to stop atrocities in Africa is the right thing to do. If you did not have "the biblical call" would you act differently?
2) You describe "God's command to "love thy neighbor as thyself"" as being "found in every major religion.... from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato." Similar sentiment can be found in communist doctrine, atheism and probably voodoo and devil worship. But again, this has nothing to do with your position as president nor should it have anything to do with the decisions you make as President.
3) It is not our obligation to help other because some zealot 2000 years ago said (and YOU paraphrase) “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required" any more than it is our obligation to help those who need help because in 1875 Karl Marx said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Funny how Marx, the most anti-religious of communists, sounds just like a biblical prophet. It is our obligation to help those who need help because they need help and it is the right and human thing to do.
4) The Billy Graham that you fawn over in your speech is the same Billy Graham who blamed AIDS on gods judgement (well, before he retracted that statement,) the same Graham who is opposed to gay marriage, assisted suicide and anything else that might actually sound like good old christian compassion and non-judgmental feelings. Who died and made Graham the arbiter of every one's moral compass? Oh wait, he would tell you jesus did and he (Graham) get his info directly from the big guy himself. How can you speak so highly of a man who, using his religious beliefs, harmed so very many. I strongly defend Grahams right to his religious beliefs, but I sure as hell don't have to respect him for them.
I won't live long enough to see a President or even Presidential candidate admit to being an Agnostic, let alone an Atheist. I don't think I will even live long enough to see the day when a President will leave his personal religious biases at the door, but that does not mean I cannot also speak up about how I feel.
nuf said is probably inaccurate, too much said
More on (or should I say moron) Komen issue.
Wednesday, I wrote to each of Komen's key sponsors and as many of Komen's local affiliates as I could find. Each and every affiliate replied that it either had a "waiver" or was in opposition to the parent organization's position and was working to change the policy.
Today I received a reply from Jessica M. Graham, APR | VP, Communications & Community Relations Belk, jessica_graham@Belk.com . Ms Graham's is the first and only reply I have received that does not even bother to address the issue. Below is Belk's position (or lack thereof) and my reply to Graham. Please email her and let her know how you feel, please pass her email along and have your friends and family let Belk know how they feel.
Nuf said.
On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Jessica Graham wrote:
Thank you for your note and your commitment to women's health. Belk is deeply committed to supporting programs and efforts that benefit breast cancer research, awareness, early detection and treatment. Breast cancer research and awareness are key focus areas of our corporate community relations program, and we have supported a number of non-profit organizations recognized for their leadership and effectiveness in supporting this vital cause, including the Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, among others. In addition, our stores and associates are engaged in ongoing grassroots efforts to raise awareness throughout our 16-state market area. We will honor our existing commitments, including a pledge to Susan G. Komen. Belk will continue to fight breast cancer and to keep the health and wellbeing of our customers, associates and neighbors at the forefront of our efforts.
Jessica M. Graham, APR | Vice President, Communications & Community Relations jessica_graham@Belk.com
T: 704.426.8333 | F: 704.357.0585 | C: 704.668.5342 | Jessica_Graham@belk.com
Belk, Inc. | 2801 W. Tyvola Road Charlotte, NC 28217 | belk.com
My reply:
Dear Ms Graham,
Yours is the first and only response I have received that ignores the issue. Funny how Komen's politicization of this matter has received incredible and sustained notice in the world and Belk seem either to be ignorant of this or supporting their radical stance. Either is unacceptable. I will post your email and my response on my facebook page. Hopefully if many who TRULY believe in freedom and the "wellbeing" (sic) of women contact you, perhaps Belk will realize that politicization of heath care is unacceptable and that their support of this politicization is likewise unacceptable.
David
David Pollack Vintage Posters
david@dpvintageposters.com
www.dpvintageposters.com
(860)210-9822
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Newt, even his friends don't like him.
In the last few days Bob Dole calls Gingrich a “a one-man-band who rarely took advice” and whose ideas were mostly “off the wall" and Mike Huckabee has condemned the use of his words in a Newt ad saying "Any use of an out of context quote from the Republican Presidential primary 4 years ago in a political ad to advocate for the election or defeat of another candidate is not authorized, approved or known in advance by me. "
nuf said
In the last few days Bob Dole calls Gingrich a “a one-man-band who rarely took advice” and whose ideas were mostly “off the wall" and Mike Huckabee has condemned the use of his words in a Newt ad saying "Any use of an out of context quote from the Republican Presidential primary 4 years ago in a political ad to advocate for the election or defeat of another candidate is not authorized, approved or known in advance by me. "
nuf said
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
WOW, WOWIE, WOW WOW!
After watching the President present his state of the Union, I watched the "Republican Response" by Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana.
Listening carefully or reading the text of this response, one might think Daniels' speech was either a condemnation of his own party or an endorsement of Obama, his goals and his agenda.
Huff Post Mitch Daniels Response To State Of The Union: Text
For instance:
"The President did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight."
"Decades ago, for instance, we could afford to send millionaires pension checks and pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us. Now, we can't, so the dollars we have should be devoted to those who need them most."
"we also must work, in ways we Republicans have not always practiced, to bring Americans together."
"A second view, which I admit some Republicans also seem to hold, is that we Americans are no longer up to the job of self-government."
Yes, these are small snippets of his response, but the entirety is clear, other than petty partisanship and negativity, Daniels has nothing to offer or suggest to solve the problems this country faces.
Just complaining that you do not like the way the President suggests solving a problem is not sufficient.
Just bashing the slow economic recovery is ridiculous, especially when Republican divisiveness has constrained the growth.
Just complaining that the government might take away your rights by by setting energy policy controlling the use of incandescent bulbs is nothing more than silly scare tactics.
nuf said
After watching the President present his state of the Union, I watched the "Republican Response" by Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana.
Listening carefully or reading the text of this response, one might think Daniels' speech was either a condemnation of his own party or an endorsement of Obama, his goals and his agenda.
Huff Post Mitch Daniels Response To State Of The Union: Text
For instance:
"The President did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight."
"Decades ago, for instance, we could afford to send millionaires pension checks and pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us. Now, we can't, so the dollars we have should be devoted to those who need them most."
"we also must work, in ways we Republicans have not always practiced, to bring Americans together."
"A second view, which I admit some Republicans also seem to hold, is that we Americans are no longer up to the job of self-government."
Yes, these are small snippets of his response, but the entirety is clear, other than petty partisanship and negativity, Daniels has nothing to offer or suggest to solve the problems this country faces.
Just complaining that you do not like the way the President suggests solving a problem is not sufficient.
Just bashing the slow economic recovery is ridiculous, especially when Republican divisiveness has constrained the growth.
Just complaining that the government might take away your rights by by setting energy policy controlling the use of incandescent bulbs is nothing more than silly scare tactics.
nuf said
A change of format.
I just set up a blog "NufSaid" which is viewable at http://
I just set up a blog "NufSaid" which is viewable at http://
Hey, I don't even have to write anything today. Just cut and paste 2 headlines from the NY Times.
"Romney’s Tax Returns Show $21.6 Million Income in ’10"
(for which he paid an effective taxe rate of 13.9%)
and
"Romney Sidesteps Immigration Talk in Florida"
(only days after he took a tough stance against illegal immigration in South Carolina)
Can anyone say "selfserving"?
nuf said
"Romney’s Tax Returns Show $21.6 Million Income in ’10"
(for which he paid an effective taxe rate of 13.9%)
and
"Romney Sidesteps Immigration Talk in Florida"
(only days after he took a tough stance against illegal immigration in South Carolina)
Can anyone say "selfserving"?
nuf said
Monday, January 23, 2012
There are more Republican debates on TV than there are reruns of the Big Bang Theory. Tonight's comedy includes:
Rick Santorum thinks the Taliban want to use Cuba as a base to attack the US.
Newt thinks we should use "all available recources" to remove Castro "like Reagan and Thatcher did with the Soviet Union"
Ron Paul thinks blockading the Straight of Hormuz is an act of war on the part of the United States. (and that a response from Iran would therefor in essence be a legitimate response.)
and as usual, Mitt, well Mitt thinks whatever he thinks he should think at that moment.
nuf said
Rick Santorum thinks the Taliban want to use Cuba as a base to attack the US.
Newt thinks we should use "all available recources" to remove Castro "like Reagan and Thatcher did with the Soviet Union"
Ron Paul thinks blockading the Straight of Hormuz is an act of war on the part of the United States. (and that a response from Iran would therefor in essence be a legitimate response.)
and as usual, Mitt, well Mitt thinks whatever he thinks he should think at that moment.
nuf said
In 1997 the House of Representatives had a Republican majority, therefore a Republican Speaker. It was in this 105th House that, for the first time in its history, that the Speaker was reprimanded and ordered to pay a $300,000 penalty for ethical wrongdoing. The vote was 395 to 28, with 189 Republicans voting AGAINST their own party member.
It was only 1 month earlier that this same Speaker admitted that he had discredited the House and broken its rules.
Yes, Newt, who is now claims to be champion of ethics, was that Speaker.
So, the short list:
1) Newt has a long history of multiple affairs and spouses.
2) Newt is the ONLY Speaker so dishonored.
3) Newt has a long history of abusing his position to aid his donors and supporters (just think of his millions on income from Freddie Mac for "providing historical perspective.")
How does Newt's past elevate him to being the model of ethical behavior?
(As an aside, one of Newt's strongest supporters during the ethics debate in 1997 was (now) convicted felon former Republican House Speaker Tom Delay. Maybe if Newt wins the nomination, he can bring in the Texas vote by making De Lay his running mate.)
nuf said
It was only 1 month earlier that this same Speaker admitted that he had discredited the House and broken its rules.
Yes, Newt, who is now claims to be champion of ethics, was that Speaker.
So, the short list:
1) Newt has a long history of multiple affairs and spouses.
2) Newt is the ONLY Speaker so dishonored.
3) Newt has a long history of abusing his position to aid his donors and supporters (just think of his millions on income from Freddie Mac for "providing historical perspective.")
How does Newt's past elevate him to being the model of ethical behavior?
(As an aside, one of Newt's strongest supporters during the ethics debate in 1997 was (now) convicted felon former Republican House Speaker Tom Delay. Maybe if Newt wins the nomination, he can bring in the Texas vote by making De Lay his running mate.)
nuf said
Saturday, January 21, 2012
As Newt heads towards a primary victory in SC, I have a question for my female friends (both on FB and off.) Which of you would want to be the third wife of a man you are having an affair with while he is married to his 2nd wife. Would you trust him?
I guess love is blind, I hope voters are not.
Nuf said.
I guess love is blind, I hope voters are not.
Nuf said.
Friday, January 20, 2012
On CNN this morning,the Chairman of the Republican National Committee claimed we need a change from Obama because he (Obama) did not fulfill his promise to "Bring back jobs and fix the deficit." Wait, whoa, slow down, hang on.
Doesn't this acknowledge that Obama was left the poor ecomony and deficit mess by 8 years of "W"? And the Repbulican party want to have a change back to more of the same "W" policies?
nuf said
Doesn't this acknowledge that Obama was left the poor ecomony and deficit mess by 8 years of "W"? And the Repbulican party want to have a change back to more of the same "W" policies?
nuf said
I am watching the Republican debate in Charleston and I think I'll leave the candidates to speak for themselves (you can't make this shit up):
Newt " I'm a rebel"
Mitt won't release his 2010 tax returns because "I want to beat Obama." Huh? Does that mean if he does release his returns he believes he can't beat Obama?
Santorum can't release his tax returns because "I do my own taxes and they are on my computer at home and I am not at home." Ay yi yi.
Mitt 'What I have, I earned" Mitt, it ain't pulling yourself up by the bootstraps when your daddy was the CEO of American Motors, Governor of Michigan and onetime candidate for President of the US.
Ron Paul - Hell, I have no clue what this guy is even saying. Ask him what he ate for breakfast and he will tell you about a movie he watched in 1951.
They go on and on, I can't.
nuf said
Newt " I'm a rebel"
Mitt won't release his 2010 tax returns because "I want to beat Obama." Huh? Does that mean if he does release his returns he believes he can't beat Obama?
Santorum can't release his tax returns because "I do my own taxes and they are on my computer at home and I am not at home." Ay yi yi.
Mitt 'What I have, I earned" Mitt, it ain't pulling yourself up by the bootstraps when your daddy was the CEO of American Motors, Governor of Michigan and onetime candidate for President of the US.
Ron Paul - Hell, I have no clue what this guy is even saying. Ask him what he ate for breakfast and he will tell you about a movie he watched in 1951.
They go on and on, I can't.
nuf said
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)