Read Nicholas Kristof's op-ed column in the NY Times today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/opinion/kristof-the-secret-weapon-all-of-us.html

nuf said

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

As the election nears, there will be more and more reasons to post with greater and greater frequency.

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

I have tried not to be snide or sarcastic, but once in a while...

I heard a Republican official on the news today bemoaning having to "cram 4 days of events into 3 days" due to the weather shortened convention. Isn't this like cramming 4 pounds of shit into a 3 pound sack?

nuf said

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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