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

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."

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

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

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

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