Our nation and the world are struggling to avoid a complete collapse of our economies. We have a president that has done more in his brief time in office than any other president. We have leaders of the manufacturing and financial industries that continue to shamelessly lavish themselves with bonuses while their businesses have failed or are failing due to their mismanagement. We have a minority party, the GOP, whose leaders, both official and unofficial, are focused only on obstructing the efforts of our president and the majority in Congress. I'll be the first to admit that were shoes on other feet the Dems would probably do the same thing, however; now is not the time for tit-for-tat. Matter of fact, IT NEVER IS, when the participants are our elected officials.
Does their conduct give you hope that we can recover more than momentarily, if at all? I'm talking about more than our economy. I don't want to sound like the Moral Majority, which was anything but, however; the leadership of this country is rotten with greed. The crime rate of elected officials, at all levels, is higher than it is in the general population. The crime rate of business leaders is probably no better. Our business leaders are unethical - generally speaking they don't care if their employees are fairly compensated; they don't care if their employees workplace is safe; they don't care if their manufacturing process pollutes the environment and poisons their neighbors; they don't care if the product that they produce is of "adequate" quality, reliable and safe. Their only concern regarding their customer is that the customer thinks that the product is quality, reliable and safe. I spent more than 30 years working for a large consumer products corporation - PepsiCo. Managers at all levels became less ethical over those three decades. One of the last projects that I completed while working for the largest franchise of PepsiCo, The Pepsi Bottling Group, was to bring all of the companies bottling facilities in the U.S. in compliance with OSHA regulations regarding employee exposure to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an ingredient in most of Pepsi's products. The often antiquated equipment that is used to carbonate and package the beverage continually releases carbon dioxide into the workspace. Every one of the facilities in the U.S. was audited and every one of them continuously exceeded the legal limit. In a few plants the exposure level was almost 10 times the legal limit. The vice president of the engineering group I worked in opposed the project. Companies do the right thing only when they are obligated to do so by law and then only when the government actually enforces the law.
Leaders without ethics are not found only in our businesses. Our politicians are no better. Our major political parties - the Republicans and the Democrats - do not represent the People. They represent themselves. While they are not serving themselves directly they are serving their party leaders, the lobbyists and the PACs without which they would not have been nominated and could not remain in office. Each of us can think of at least a few politicians that have been caught violating the ethics of their office and/or the law. Illinois will soon have two ex-governors in prison at the same time. Our last vice president was recently indicted by the state of Texas for prisoner abuse in some privately owned prisons in Texas - prisons that he owns. And, one of previous attorney generals, Gonzales, has also been indicted by the state of Texas for attempting to stop the investigation of the prisoner abuse. Our previous president is a war criminal who knowingly violated our laws and our international treaties regarding the treatment of prisoners of war; he violated the privacy of American citizens through illegal wiretapping; he manipulated the federal courts and attorneys to protect himself from those who opposed such violations.
We complain that Islamic fanatics threaten our democracy, our safety and our religious freedom, but have you paid any attention to the lying, cheating, thieving, immoral, self-righteous Christian fanatics in the U.S. that want to control your government, dictate how you will live and eliminate other religions? How many religious leaders have been caught doing the very acts that they condemn. How many TV evangelists prey (not pray) on the weak, the poor and the sick to live richly on the millions of dollars that they steal from their followers by making promises that they cannot keep, by offering cures that they cannot deliver?
The worst sign of our decay is our own conduct. How many of us want something for nothing? How many of us will ignore the plight of another? How many of us think like conservative radio host Bill Cunningham, that "people are poor in America ... not because they lack money," but "because they lack values, morals, and ethics?" How many of us respect others and have raised our children to respect others? How many of us cheat on our taxes... not a lot but a little? How many of us drive through stop signs and rush through yellow/red traffic lights? We expect honestly from others when otherwise means a loss to ourselves but not the other way around. If while loading your purchases into your car you discover that the check-out clerk forgot to ring up a $6 item in your shopping cart do you take it back to the store? When was the last time you volunteered?
We have a lot to fix. The problem is not "them" it is "us." We have to change ourselves. We have to start respecting each other. We have to help each other. We have to take charge of our government. The worldwide economic collapse started in the U.S. We have more lawyers per capita and sue more often than any other country. The percentage of the U.S. population that is in prison is much higher than in any other country. We have more murders per capita than any other country. We have more crime per capita than any other country. We are one of the few nations in the world and the only Western nation that stills executes criminals - including minors, the mentally retarded and the mentally ill. The annual production of this nation is higher per capita than any other nation yet we do not have the highest standard of living, we do not have the lowest birth mortality rate, we do not have the highest performing schools. We have more doctors and hospitals per capita than any other nation but we are not the healthiest nation. We are the largest economy in the world but our infrastructure has decayed. We are the most powerful country in the world but we have too often abused that power to serve our national needs while rarely using it to stop genocide as in Sudan and Rwanda.
Can America be saved? What will you do?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Monday, March 09, 2009
Should We Rescue the Automakers?
Letting the automakers fail seems like the right thing to do. Why prop them up, artificially, if they can’t stand on their own. I keep thinking that they made the wrong cars, knowingly, and now they can only make big gas hogs when the world can only afford high mileage hybrids or electric. On the other hand, the American consumer wanted the crap that Detroit was making and these companies were financially successful until Wall Street crashed the market and the consumer quit buying.
So, Detroit is in trouble only because the consumer stopped buying cars. Is that Detroit’s fault? The consumer has stopped buying a lot of things and the companies that were making or selling those things are failing but not because those companies were poorly run. Any company with zero sales is bound to fail.
Now that Detroit is failing for lack of sales we are blaming the failure on overpaid CEOs, union labor and low MPG autos. While all of these may be issues none of them caused the companies to fail.
Obama is going to spend money to recover our economy. It will be costly to most of us but he is using this disaster as an opportunity to restore America to something better than it was before the crash. Since we are going to spend a lot of money, let’s spend it to do all the things that we couldn’t afford before the crash. We have long needed to change our energy resources – now is the time. Our bridges and roads are a disaster; our healthcare system is inefficient; our schools are decaying and inadequate. So, while we have to spend at least a trillion dollars to jump start the economy we will spend it so that we are better than before.
In that spirit, we should do something about the American auto industry. However, “I” am not qualified to decide what to do and how to do it. But, I’m convinced that if we spend money on the automakers they should be rebuilt into a 21st century automaker that builds and sells the cars we “should” be driving instead of the cars we “love” to drive. We just may be good enough to build a car that meets both of our needs.
So, Detroit is in trouble only because the consumer stopped buying cars. Is that Detroit’s fault? The consumer has stopped buying a lot of things and the companies that were making or selling those things are failing but not because those companies were poorly run. Any company with zero sales is bound to fail.
Now that Detroit is failing for lack of sales we are blaming the failure on overpaid CEOs, union labor and low MPG autos. While all of these may be issues none of them caused the companies to fail.
Obama is going to spend money to recover our economy. It will be costly to most of us but he is using this disaster as an opportunity to restore America to something better than it was before the crash. Since we are going to spend a lot of money, let’s spend it to do all the things that we couldn’t afford before the crash. We have long needed to change our energy resources – now is the time. Our bridges and roads are a disaster; our healthcare system is inefficient; our schools are decaying and inadequate. So, while we have to spend at least a trillion dollars to jump start the economy we will spend it so that we are better than before.
In that spirit, we should do something about the American auto industry. However, “I” am not qualified to decide what to do and how to do it. But, I’m convinced that if we spend money on the automakers they should be rebuilt into a 21st century automaker that builds and sells the cars we “should” be driving instead of the cars we “love” to drive. We just may be good enough to build a car that meets both of our needs.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine - Silence Rush Limbaugh
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced. The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with matters of public importance, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates. According to Steve Rendall of the progressive media criticism group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, “The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.”
Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. According to Fowler, Ronald Reagan’s White House staff opposed the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine. The staff is supposed to have told Reagan, “the only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks—every day they would savage Ronald Reagan—is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it!” Ronald Reagan supported the FCC decision and vetoed an effort by Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. George HW Bush prevented its reinstatement in 1991 when he promised Congress that he would veto such a bill.
The revocation of the Fairness Doctrine has had an effect opposite to that feared by Reagan’s staff. Reporting by broadcasters is typically biased. Fox presents the conservative viewpoint, opposes that liberal viewpoint and attacks liberal broadcasters for misrepresenting conservatives and their views. MSNB C presents the liberal viewpoint, opposes that conservative viewpoint and attacks conservative broadcasters for misrepresenting liberals and their views. Conservatives only watch or listen to conservative broadcasters like Fox. Liberals only watch or listen to liberal broadcasters like MSNBC. Their audiences don’t get an impartial view of any issue although I’m sure that both the conservatives and the liberals believe that the broadcasters that they tune into are accurate and unbiased. I’m sure that neither is totally correct.
Revocation of the Fairness Doctrine meant that stations could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present opposing views. Daniel Henninger wrote, in a Wall Street Journal editorial, "Ronald Reagan tore down this wall (the Fairness Doctrine) and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination." Before the Fairness Doctrine was revoked Rush Limbaugh (aka Rusty Sharpe and Jeff Christie) was a music radio DJ. After the revocation the Rush Limbaugh show was born.
The program gained in popularity and moved to stations with larger audiences eventually growing to over 650 radio stations nationwide. When the Republican Party won control of Congress in 1994, one of the first acts by many freshmen (calling themselves the "Dittohead Caucus") was to award Limbaugh the title of "honorary member of Congress" in recognition of his support of their efforts during this period.
(The preceding is from a Wikidpedia article on Rush Limbaugh.)
It’s an understatement to say that Rush Limbaugh is the conservative star of talk radio. In 2008, Limbaugh is reported to have signed an 8-year contract extension worth $400 million.
I agree that Rush Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he wants as long as he does not promote violence against any person or group. I do think that he and others like him come as close to that line as they can. He is vulgar and insulting and I believe that this is what appeals to his audience. During yesterday’s radio show and an attack on Obama’s healthcare reform plan Limbaugh stated, “Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Bill”; a suggestion that Kennedy won’t live long enough to see Obama’s healthcare bill become law. I’ve heard many excellent descriptions of Limbaugh but my favorite is by Alec Baldwin: “he will always be nothing more than a poorly educated, marginally talented buffoon who has developed a real talent for manipulating the G-spot of the neocon consciousness and massaging the hate gland of so many economically displaced white voters in America.” However, even Alec’s description misses what is most unacceptable about Rush; many of his tactics for promoting his ideology and his candidates are corruptions of our democracy. I don’t think that he is the only person guilty of such corruption but I do believe that he has more impact than anybody else and any such corruption is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
The Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. No broadcaster should be allowed to air his opinion without substantiating his claims and accusations or airing the rebuttal of his opponents. The revocation of the Fairness Doctrine is the only reason that broadcasters will carry the Rush Limbaugh and that is cause enough to reinstate the doctrine. Many of the shows on Fox television would not exist or would not exist in their current form if the Fairness Doctrine was reinstated. Other shows on other stations, liberal and conservative, would be affected along with the Rush Limbaugh Show. If you can’t defend what you say via a medium that reaches millions then you shouldn’t have the right to broadcast it.
The following, from Wikipedia, are reminders of what Rush has done and will continue to do until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated. The first citing is an example of an attempt to corrupt the democratic process during the 2008 primary elections. I consider these acts unconstitutional. I would permanently revoke any person’s or group’s access to the broadcast medium for the following or similar actions.
In an attempt to sow chaos and disunity among Democrats during a divisive primary battle, Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to vote for whoever was behind in the vote, an effort he dubbed "Operation Chaos". Limbaugh then began to advocate that his Republican listeners vote for Clinton, something the rules of the Texas primary permitted. According to a county volunteer, one voter declared "Rush Limbaugh sent me", another "I am voting for Hillary Clinton but I want to see the Democrats implode," and a great many others mentioning Limbaugh. In Ohio, Limbaugh similarly encouraged his listeners to re-register as Democrats and vote for Clinton. Although Ohio does not use an open primary, voters who change their registration must attest that they support the principles of the party to which they switch. About sixteen thousand Ohio Republicans switched parties for the election. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections announced that, at the urging of Democrat Sandy McNair, the cross-overs would be investigated. Later, the Ohio Attorney General's office stated that it would be hard to prosecute anyone for falsifying a change of registration, because of the difficulty of proving a voter's fraudulent intent. Limbaugh has said that "The dream end of this [of Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the Convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here."
On March 19, 2007 Limbaugh referred to a Los Angeles Times editorial by David Ehrenstein which claimed that Obama was filling the role of the magic negro, and that this explained his appeal to voters. Limbaugh then later played a song by Paul Shanklin, "Barack the Magic Negro," sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon. Limbaugh had previously referred to Obama as "Halfrican American", a term which he also applied to actress Halle Berry. Limbaugh cited the Ehrenstein editorial, and said that the point of the comment was to highlight "race-obsessed Democrats", who had questioned whether Obama was black enough.
On January 16, 2009 Limbaugh read a letter on his radio show that he had received a request from a national print outlet:... "If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." He responded, "I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." He explained that he didn't want "absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work." He continued, "what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here." He also remarked that Obama's status as the first black U.S. President was part of the reason why there was pressure to accept his policies. Limbaugh later stated that it is President Obama's policies that he wants to see fail, not the man himself. Speaking of Obama, Limbaugh said, "He's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me." On January 27, 2009, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) created an online petition to express outrage at Rush Limbaugh for his comment, "he wanted President Obama to fail". On January 29, 2009, he followed-up his commentary with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing concern about the Obama Administration's government intervention, proposing the "Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009". On February 28, 2009, in a speech to CPAC, broadcast live on CNN and FOX NEWS, he addressed the controversy for a national audience. Among other things, he said, "I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation."
On March 1, 2009 CBS's "Face the Nation" asked chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel: Who represented the Republican Party? He answered, it was Limbaugh. On March 2, 2009, Limbaugh responded to Rahm Emanuel. In remarks aired by CNN on March 1, 2009, Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said that Limbaugh, is "an entertainer". Steele later telephoned Limbaugh and apologized. Limbaugh stated he would not want to run the RNC in its "sad sack state". On March 4, 2009, Limbaugh challenged President Barack Obama to a debate on his radio program, offering to pay all of Obama's expenses: travel, food, lodging, and security.
On July 14, 2003, ESPN announced that Limbaugh would be joining ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown show as a weekly analyst when it premiered on September 7. Limbaugh would provide the "voice of the fan" and was supposed to spark debate on the show. On the September 28 episode of Countdown, Limbaugh commented about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb's role in his team's 0-2 start to the season, as well as the media's coverage of McNabb: “Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.” On October 1, 2003, Limbaugh resigned from ESPN.
In his first bestseller, Limbaugh explicitly describes himself as conservative, and is sharply critical of broadcasters in many media outlets for claiming to be objective. He has loudly criticized political centrists, independents, and even moderate conservatives, claiming they are responsible for Democrat Barack Obama's victory over Republican John McCain in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and inviting them to leave the Republican party altogether, while calling for the sincere and serious adoption of core conservative philosophies in order to ensure the survival of the Republican party.
Limbaugh is highly critical of environmentalism and climate science. Limbaugh has argued against the scientific opinion on climate change by stating that the alleged scientific consensus "is just a bunch of scientists organized around a political proposition. You can't have consensus in science... they think consensus is the way to sell it because, 'Oh, but all these wonderful people agree.’ Limbaugh has often used the term "environmentalist wacko" as a reference to left-leaning environmental advocates. As a rhetorical device, he has also used the term to refer to more mainstream climate scientists and other environmental scientists and advocates with whom he disagrees.
Limbaugh is sharply critical of feminism, saying that "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." He also popularized the term "feminazi", referring to radical feminists "to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur."
Limbaugh supports capital punishment, having said "the only thing cruel about the death penalty is last-minute stays."
On the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal, Limbaugh said, "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation... And we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day [referring to the U.S. Military service members]. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release?"
Limbaugh has asserted that African-Americans, in contrast with other minority groups, are "left behind" socially because they have been systematically trained from a young age to hate America through a widespread movement headed by figures such as Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Barack Obama.
Limbaugh utilizes props to introduce his monologues on various topics. On his radio show, news about the homeless has often been preceded with the Clarence "Frogman" Henry song "Ain't Got No Home." For a time, Dionne Warwick's song "I Know I'll Never Love This Way Again" preceded reports about people with AIDS. These later became "condom updates" preceded by Fifth Dimension's song, "Up, Up and Away." In 1989, on his Sacramento radio show, Limbaugh performed "caller abortions" where he would end a call suddenly to the sounds of a vacuum cleaner and a scream, after which he would deny there was ever a caller, explaining that the call had been "aborted".
Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. According to Fowler, Ronald Reagan’s White House staff opposed the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine. The staff is supposed to have told Reagan, “the only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks—every day they would savage Ronald Reagan—is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it!” Ronald Reagan supported the FCC decision and vetoed an effort by Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. George HW Bush prevented its reinstatement in 1991 when he promised Congress that he would veto such a bill.
The revocation of the Fairness Doctrine has had an effect opposite to that feared by Reagan’s staff. Reporting by broadcasters is typically biased. Fox presents the conservative viewpoint, opposes that liberal viewpoint and attacks liberal broadcasters for misrepresenting conservatives and their views. MSNB C presents the liberal viewpoint, opposes that conservative viewpoint and attacks conservative broadcasters for misrepresenting liberals and their views. Conservatives only watch or listen to conservative broadcasters like Fox. Liberals only watch or listen to liberal broadcasters like MSNBC. Their audiences don’t get an impartial view of any issue although I’m sure that both the conservatives and the liberals believe that the broadcasters that they tune into are accurate and unbiased. I’m sure that neither is totally correct.
Revocation of the Fairness Doctrine meant that stations could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present opposing views. Daniel Henninger wrote, in a Wall Street Journal editorial, "Ronald Reagan tore down this wall (the Fairness Doctrine) and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination." Before the Fairness Doctrine was revoked Rush Limbaugh (aka Rusty Sharpe and Jeff Christie) was a music radio DJ. After the revocation the Rush Limbaugh show was born.
The program gained in popularity and moved to stations with larger audiences eventually growing to over 650 radio stations nationwide. When the Republican Party won control of Congress in 1994, one of the first acts by many freshmen (calling themselves the "Dittohead Caucus") was to award Limbaugh the title of "honorary member of Congress" in recognition of his support of their efforts during this period.
(The preceding is from a Wikidpedia article on Rush Limbaugh.)
It’s an understatement to say that Rush Limbaugh is the conservative star of talk radio. In 2008, Limbaugh is reported to have signed an 8-year contract extension worth $400 million.
I agree that Rush Limbaugh has the right to say whatever he wants as long as he does not promote violence against any person or group. I do think that he and others like him come as close to that line as they can. He is vulgar and insulting and I believe that this is what appeals to his audience. During yesterday’s radio show and an attack on Obama’s healthcare reform plan Limbaugh stated, “Before it's all over, it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Bill”; a suggestion that Kennedy won’t live long enough to see Obama’s healthcare bill become law. I’ve heard many excellent descriptions of Limbaugh but my favorite is by Alec Baldwin: “he will always be nothing more than a poorly educated, marginally talented buffoon who has developed a real talent for manipulating the G-spot of the neocon consciousness and massaging the hate gland of so many economically displaced white voters in America.” However, even Alec’s description misses what is most unacceptable about Rush; many of his tactics for promoting his ideology and his candidates are corruptions of our democracy. I don’t think that he is the only person guilty of such corruption but I do believe that he has more impact than anybody else and any such corruption is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
The Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. No broadcaster should be allowed to air his opinion without substantiating his claims and accusations or airing the rebuttal of his opponents. The revocation of the Fairness Doctrine is the only reason that broadcasters will carry the Rush Limbaugh and that is cause enough to reinstate the doctrine. Many of the shows on Fox television would not exist or would not exist in their current form if the Fairness Doctrine was reinstated. Other shows on other stations, liberal and conservative, would be affected along with the Rush Limbaugh Show. If you can’t defend what you say via a medium that reaches millions then you shouldn’t have the right to broadcast it.
The following, from Wikipedia, are reminders of what Rush has done and will continue to do until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated. The first citing is an example of an attempt to corrupt the democratic process during the 2008 primary elections. I consider these acts unconstitutional. I would permanently revoke any person’s or group’s access to the broadcast medium for the following or similar actions.
In an attempt to sow chaos and disunity among Democrats during a divisive primary battle, Limbaugh encouraged his listeners to vote for whoever was behind in the vote, an effort he dubbed "Operation Chaos". Limbaugh then began to advocate that his Republican listeners vote for Clinton, something the rules of the Texas primary permitted. According to a county volunteer, one voter declared "Rush Limbaugh sent me", another "I am voting for Hillary Clinton but I want to see the Democrats implode," and a great many others mentioning Limbaugh. In Ohio, Limbaugh similarly encouraged his listeners to re-register as Democrats and vote for Clinton. Although Ohio does not use an open primary, voters who change their registration must attest that they support the principles of the party to which they switch. About sixteen thousand Ohio Republicans switched parties for the election. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections announced that, at the urging of Democrat Sandy McNair, the cross-overs would be investigated. Later, the Ohio Attorney General's office stated that it would be hard to prosecute anyone for falsifying a change of registration, because of the difficulty of proving a voter's fraudulent intent. Limbaugh has said that "The dream end of this [of Operation Chaos] is that this keeps up to the Convention, and that we have a recreation of Chicago 1968 with burning cars, protests, fire, and literal riots and all of that, that is the objective here."
On March 19, 2007 Limbaugh referred to a Los Angeles Times editorial by David Ehrenstein which claimed that Obama was filling the role of the magic negro, and that this explained his appeal to voters. Limbaugh then later played a song by Paul Shanklin, "Barack the Magic Negro," sung to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon. Limbaugh had previously referred to Obama as "Halfrican American", a term which he also applied to actress Halle Berry. Limbaugh cited the Ehrenstein editorial, and said that the point of the comment was to highlight "race-obsessed Democrats", who had questioned whether Obama was black enough.
On January 16, 2009 Limbaugh read a letter on his radio show that he had received a request from a national print outlet:... "If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." He responded, "I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." He explained that he didn't want "absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work." He continued, "what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here." He also remarked that Obama's status as the first black U.S. President was part of the reason why there was pressure to accept his policies. Limbaugh later stated that it is President Obama's policies that he wants to see fail, not the man himself. Speaking of Obama, Limbaugh said, "He's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me." On January 27, 2009, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) created an online petition to express outrage at Rush Limbaugh for his comment, "he wanted President Obama to fail". On January 29, 2009, he followed-up his commentary with an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal expressing concern about the Obama Administration's government intervention, proposing the "Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009". On February 28, 2009, in a speech to CPAC, broadcast live on CNN and FOX NEWS, he addressed the controversy for a national audience. Among other things, he said, "I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation."
On March 1, 2009 CBS's "Face the Nation" asked chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel: Who represented the Republican Party? He answered, it was Limbaugh. On March 2, 2009, Limbaugh responded to Rahm Emanuel. In remarks aired by CNN on March 1, 2009, Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said that Limbaugh, is "an entertainer". Steele later telephoned Limbaugh and apologized. Limbaugh stated he would not want to run the RNC in its "sad sack state". On March 4, 2009, Limbaugh challenged President Barack Obama to a debate on his radio program, offering to pay all of Obama's expenses: travel, food, lodging, and security.
On July 14, 2003, ESPN announced that Limbaugh would be joining ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown show as a weekly analyst when it premiered on September 7. Limbaugh would provide the "voice of the fan" and was supposed to spark debate on the show. On the September 28 episode of Countdown, Limbaugh commented about Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb's role in his team's 0-2 start to the season, as well as the media's coverage of McNabb: “Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.” On October 1, 2003, Limbaugh resigned from ESPN.
In his first bestseller, Limbaugh explicitly describes himself as conservative, and is sharply critical of broadcasters in many media outlets for claiming to be objective. He has loudly criticized political centrists, independents, and even moderate conservatives, claiming they are responsible for Democrat Barack Obama's victory over Republican John McCain in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and inviting them to leave the Republican party altogether, while calling for the sincere and serious adoption of core conservative philosophies in order to ensure the survival of the Republican party.
Limbaugh is highly critical of environmentalism and climate science. Limbaugh has argued against the scientific opinion on climate change by stating that the alleged scientific consensus "is just a bunch of scientists organized around a political proposition. You can't have consensus in science... they think consensus is the way to sell it because, 'Oh, but all these wonderful people agree.’ Limbaugh has often used the term "environmentalist wacko" as a reference to left-leaning environmental advocates. As a rhetorical device, he has also used the term to refer to more mainstream climate scientists and other environmental scientists and advocates with whom he disagrees.
Limbaugh is sharply critical of feminism, saying that "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." He also popularized the term "feminazi", referring to radical feminists "to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur."
Limbaugh supports capital punishment, having said "the only thing cruel about the death penalty is last-minute stays."
On the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal, Limbaugh said, "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation... And we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day [referring to the U.S. Military service members]. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release?"
Limbaugh has asserted that African-Americans, in contrast with other minority groups, are "left behind" socially because they have been systematically trained from a young age to hate America through a widespread movement headed by figures such as Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Barack Obama.
Limbaugh utilizes props to introduce his monologues on various topics. On his radio show, news about the homeless has often been preceded with the Clarence "Frogman" Henry song "Ain't Got No Home." For a time, Dionne Warwick's song "I Know I'll Never Love This Way Again" preceded reports about people with AIDS. These later became "condom updates" preceded by Fifth Dimension's song, "Up, Up and Away." In 1989, on his Sacramento radio show, Limbaugh performed "caller abortions" where he would end a call suddenly to the sounds of a vacuum cleaner and a scream, after which he would deny there was ever a caller, explaining that the call had been "aborted".
Monday, February 09, 2009
Doesn't the Customer Deserve Respect?
Does anybody else have the same problem that I do with doctors and lawyers who forget that we are the customer? Why is that? There are exceptions but more often than not they act like I've been granted an audience with the Pope. As long as I'm paying the bill they are an employee. They make no apologies for keeping me waiting for 45 minutes because they have packed their schedule so tight with appointments that they are inevitably late for appointments throughout most of the day.
I'm not asking for humility, however, I do deserve respect and fair treatment.
I'm not asking for humility, however, I do deserve respect and fair treatment.
Friday, February 06, 2009
What's wrong with Wall Street?
I don't believe that a single Wall Street manager who accepted a bonus after receiving bailout funds hesitated for even a moment before doing so. They have always been willing to do anything for money. They neither care who they take the money from nor the impact that it will have on them.
Some Compensation Experts are saying that the President went too far because the talented employees that have been earning a lot more than $500,000 will leave the struggling banks to take jobs at banks that do not need bailout funds. I hope that is a promise rather than an idle threat. After all, what good have they done where they are now - their bank failed!
The same experts also said that these managers will not be able to maintain their current lifestyle with only $500,000 per year. When millions of Americans are out of work and millions more soon will be... When millions of Americans have lost half of their retirement savings... When millions of Americans are losing their homes... because the Greedy Wall Street managers destroyed the economy after the government deregulated the banks, insurance companies and commodity trading... How can they complain that they can't live on $500,000 a year? Simple. They only care about themselves; nobody else matters. Really! It is that simple.
We have a name for people like that - Sociopath. The following is a brief description of a sociopath. Let's see how well it fits the conduct of the Wall Street managers who have just awarded themselves $18.4 billion of taxpayers money.
Some Compensation Experts are saying that the President went too far because the talented employees that have been earning a lot more than $500,000 will leave the struggling banks to take jobs at banks that do not need bailout funds. I hope that is a promise rather than an idle threat. After all, what good have they done where they are now - their bank failed!
The same experts also said that these managers will not be able to maintain their current lifestyle with only $500,000 per year. When millions of Americans are out of work and millions more soon will be... When millions of Americans have lost half of their retirement savings... When millions of Americans are losing their homes... because the Greedy Wall Street managers destroyed the economy after the government deregulated the banks, insurance companies and commodity trading... How can they complain that they can't live on $500,000 a year? Simple. They only care about themselves; nobody else matters. Really! It is that simple.
We have a name for people like that - Sociopath. The following is a brief description of a sociopath. Let's see how well it fits the conduct of the Wall Street managers who have just awarded themselves $18.4 billion of taxpayers money.
- Glibness and Superficial Charm
- They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible.
- Grandiose Sense of Self - Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
- Lack of Remorse and Shame - The end always justifies the means.
- Incapacity for Compassion
- Callousness/Lack of Empathy
- Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
- Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
I hope that they all leave Wall Street.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Bush's Greatest Regret
Recently Bush has been focusing his efforts on improving his reputation - creating a positive, albeit false, legacy. His efforts are no less unsuccessful than the whole of his presidency.
When asked what he considered his greatest regret Bush stated, "I regret that we did not find WMD (weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq." We have learned that Bush had no evidence of WMD before he invaded Iraq, yet, he convinced Americans and our allies that such evidence existed. Without WMD the war in Iraq is unjustified. He could have said that he regrets having started the unjustified war in Iraq that has, so far, resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqis and almost 5,000 American and allied soldiers but he didn't say that because he wanted the war in Iraq - his “gut feeling” told him that the war was necessary. However, without WMD he can’t prove that his “gut feeling” was correct! That is his ONLY regret. He doesn’t regret the massive loss of life. He doesn’t regret the destruction of Iraq. He doesn't regret America's loss of standing in the world. He ONLY regrets not being able to find WMD with which to justify the war that he was going to wage whether WMD existed or not.
Bush isn't a good man because he lacks compassion for others. Bush was not a good leader; he used his presidency to serve himself rather than the people. His legacy consists, in part, of an unjust war of his making, the deaths of more than 100,000 innocents, the destruction of Iraq and violations of our laws, our Constitution and our treaties. I say "in part" because the war in Iraq was only one of many disasterous products of his presidency.
When asked what he considered his greatest regret Bush stated, "I regret that we did not find WMD (weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq." We have learned that Bush had no evidence of WMD before he invaded Iraq, yet, he convinced Americans and our allies that such evidence existed. Without WMD the war in Iraq is unjustified. He could have said that he regrets having started the unjustified war in Iraq that has, so far, resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 Iraqis and almost 5,000 American and allied soldiers but he didn't say that because he wanted the war in Iraq - his “gut feeling” told him that the war was necessary. However, without WMD he can’t prove that his “gut feeling” was correct! That is his ONLY regret. He doesn’t regret the massive loss of life. He doesn’t regret the destruction of Iraq. He doesn't regret America's loss of standing in the world. He ONLY regrets not being able to find WMD with which to justify the war that he was going to wage whether WMD existed or not.
Bush isn't a good man because he lacks compassion for others. Bush was not a good leader; he used his presidency to serve himself rather than the people. His legacy consists, in part, of an unjust war of his making, the deaths of more than 100,000 innocents, the destruction of Iraq and violations of our laws, our Constitution and our treaties. I say "in part" because the war in Iraq was only one of many disasterous products of his presidency.
War Criminals Must Be Prosecuted
Obama and his appointees seem reluctant to investigate U.S. war crimes committed while George W. Bush was president. We should not treat our war criminals differently than we have treated war criminals from other countries. War crimes were committed; of that there is no question. We already know at least two of the people who committed these crimes. In the last few weeks President Bush and Vice President Cheney admitted on television that they ordered the use of torture in violation of U.S. law and multiple treaties. In spite of their claim, being President and Vice President does not put them above ANY U.S. law or treaty. They asked a Bush appointed Department of Justice lawyer if the types of torture that they wanted to use were legal as if that was enough to protect them from prosecution. If we let these crimes go unpunished we are as guilty they are.
This is not a party issue or liberal versus conservative or Christian versus non-Christian. Some of the people who support Bush and his use of torture will use the Iraq war, the defense of our nation and patriotism as justifications. Bush’s supporters will accuse me of being anti-war, weak on defense and/or unpatriotic. These, true or not, have nothing to do with my call for war crimes prosecution. These acts were criminal regardless of the context within which they were committed.
Torturing prisoners of war and “detainees” did not save any lives and it did not prevent other terrorist attacks on the U.S. Experts, including the FBI, have always maintained that torture does not yield valuable information and, in spite of such claims by Bush and Cheney, investigators say that none of the information obtained was helpful. What we know to be true is that torturing cost American and allied lives in the war in Iraq. It was a rallying call to all extremist Muslims to join the fight in Iraq. It inspired the enemy to begin beheading their captives, both military and civilian.
If we let our war criminals go unpunished we send a clear message to all future presidents that they are above the law and free to violate international treaties. If we let them go unpunished we will lose the respect of other nations and the right to expect them to honor our treaties.
I call for Obama to investigate all claims of war crime and to prosecute the criminals without prejudice or favor.
This is not a party issue or liberal versus conservative or Christian versus non-Christian. Some of the people who support Bush and his use of torture will use the Iraq war, the defense of our nation and patriotism as justifications. Bush’s supporters will accuse me of being anti-war, weak on defense and/or unpatriotic. These, true or not, have nothing to do with my call for war crimes prosecution. These acts were criminal regardless of the context within which they were committed.
Torturing prisoners of war and “detainees” did not save any lives and it did not prevent other terrorist attacks on the U.S. Experts, including the FBI, have always maintained that torture does not yield valuable information and, in spite of such claims by Bush and Cheney, investigators say that none of the information obtained was helpful. What we know to be true is that torturing cost American and allied lives in the war in Iraq. It was a rallying call to all extremist Muslims to join the fight in Iraq. It inspired the enemy to begin beheading their captives, both military and civilian.
If we let our war criminals go unpunished we send a clear message to all future presidents that they are above the law and free to violate international treaties. If we let them go unpunished we will lose the respect of other nations and the right to expect them to honor our treaties.
I call for Obama to investigate all claims of war crime and to prosecute the criminals without prejudice or favor.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Is The Latest Wall Street Scheme Justice Overdue?
Hedge Fund Superhero and past chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Bernard Madoff, has bilked his super rich investors out of approximately $52 billion. Many of those investors admit that they could never understand how Madoff's fund consistently paid such high returns but in spite of their concerns most of them still invested in the phony fund. W.C. Fields said, "you can't cheat an honest man" with excessive promises of profit. Mr. Madoff has certainly proved that you can cheat greedy men and it is high time that some of them paid for their greed instead of Main Street Americans. I find this act of Justice more than a little satisfying.
When AIG and some of the biggest banks failed, or were about to, Main Street bailed them out with no strings attached. Some of them continued to spend lavishly on themselves with that money and have as yet not used it as Treasury Secretary Paulson promised. Paulson demanded that the bail out money be given without conditions so the taxpayers can only hope that it will be spent properly. Greed is winning that one.
Now the automakers have come to Washington DC begging for a bail out. $15 billion won't be enough to save the poorly managed automakers; experts predict that it will take ten times that much or more. The Democrats want to give them the money to save two million workers from unemployment. The Republicans won't agree to giving them any money unless the union workers give up one-third of their wages and some of their retirement benefits; the Republicans think that union wages and benefits are the reasons why U.S. automakers can't compete with U.S.-based foreign automakers who employ only non-union workers.
I think the management of the U.S. automakers along with Congress, who backed off the gas mileage requirements, and American consumers who prefer big gas-guzzling SUVs are responsible for the failure of the U.S. automakers. It wasn't the union workers who decided that GM would sell a $72,000 Cadillac Escalade "Hybrid" that gets 19 miles per gallon of gasoline. It wasn't the union workers that designed cars of such poor quality that they are not as reliable as the cars produced in the U.S. by foreign automakers.
I don't think the union workers are responsible for the failure of the U.S. automakers although I do think they should contribute something to save the automakers. However, the GOP wants more than reasonable concessions for the union; they want to bust the automobile workers' union just like the GOP broke the textile workers' unions in the South in the 1930's.
I don't think Congress should bail out the automakers since I have no faith that their management would redirect their companies to manufacture competitive products. A bail out will only delay the inevitable failures and the massive unemployment that will follow. I'd rather see Congress investing in companies that are developing or have developed energy efficient automobiles and public projects to create effective mass transportation systems. The U.S. automakers only deserve to survive if they can do so on their own.
When AIG and some of the biggest banks failed, or were about to, Main Street bailed them out with no strings attached. Some of them continued to spend lavishly on themselves with that money and have as yet not used it as Treasury Secretary Paulson promised. Paulson demanded that the bail out money be given without conditions so the taxpayers can only hope that it will be spent properly. Greed is winning that one.
Now the automakers have come to Washington DC begging for a bail out. $15 billion won't be enough to save the poorly managed automakers; experts predict that it will take ten times that much or more. The Democrats want to give them the money to save two million workers from unemployment. The Republicans won't agree to giving them any money unless the union workers give up one-third of their wages and some of their retirement benefits; the Republicans think that union wages and benefits are the reasons why U.S. automakers can't compete with U.S.-based foreign automakers who employ only non-union workers.
I think the management of the U.S. automakers along with Congress, who backed off the gas mileage requirements, and American consumers who prefer big gas-guzzling SUVs are responsible for the failure of the U.S. automakers. It wasn't the union workers who decided that GM would sell a $72,000 Cadillac Escalade "Hybrid" that gets 19 miles per gallon of gasoline. It wasn't the union workers that designed cars of such poor quality that they are not as reliable as the cars produced in the U.S. by foreign automakers.
I don't think the union workers are responsible for the failure of the U.S. automakers although I do think they should contribute something to save the automakers. However, the GOP wants more than reasonable concessions for the union; they want to bust the automobile workers' union just like the GOP broke the textile workers' unions in the South in the 1930's.
I don't think Congress should bail out the automakers since I have no faith that their management would redirect their companies to manufacture competitive products. A bail out will only delay the inevitable failures and the massive unemployment that will follow. I'd rather see Congress investing in companies that are developing or have developed energy efficient automobiles and public projects to create effective mass transportation systems. The U.S. automakers only deserve to survive if they can do so on their own.
Monday, November 24, 2008
7 Random/Weird Facts About Me
Karen at TSSO suggested that her readers share 7 facts about themselves at their blog site. The following are my "facts"...
Instructions to readers of this post: Share 7 random/weird facts about yourself in a post on your blog site. Identify the person that tagged you and tag 7 random people at the end of your post and include links to their blogs. Let each person know they've been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
- I was tattooed in Sasebo, Japan.
- I once owned and operated a bar.
- I wanted to be Artist when I grew up but it requires talent.
- I have ADD.
- I'm a liberal but most of my friends are conservative.
- I'm taking Swahili lessons.
- Christmas is my least favorite holiday because it is ONLY commercial.
Instructions to readers of this post: Share 7 random/weird facts about yourself in a post on your blog site. Identify the person that tagged you and tag 7 random people at the end of your post and include links to their blogs. Let each person know they've been tagged by leaving a comment on their blog.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Separation of Church and State
The separation of church and state only bans the government from promoting or opposing any religion. For example, the government is not allowed to conduct prayer in a publicly funded school, however, the government is also prohibited from restricting a student’s right to pray in school as long as it is not disruptive to the educational process, i.e. the student could not stand and pray out loud during class. Public schools are not allowed to teach or promote religion, however, students may and often do form religious groups and hold meetings in the school, when and where such non-educational activities are held, and promote new membership.
Every citizen is allowed to take any matter important to them into consideration when deciding how to vote. It is the government that must govern only according to the Constitution. Our government is obligated to consider all citizens equally. Therefore, legislators cannot enact laws that would enforce the dogma of a religion since it would impose that dogma on citizens that hold to a different belief. Therefore, a religious wedding ceremony is outside the jurisdiction of the government. The constitution does not prohibit two people of the same sex from living together as a couple and consequently the government should guarantee all couples the right to do so. I believe in same-sex civil unions and that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as any married couple. However, religious organizations are allowed to limit the definition of marriage as their beliefs dictate, recognize only such marriages that are conforming and deny, if they choose, membership to persons that do not comply.
Elected officials are obligated to execute their jobs without religious bias. They must decide on such matters as abortion and marriage according to the Constitution without regard for their own personal religious beliefs. A juror must do the same thing when deliberating. The juror must limit the deliberation to the evidence presented in the trial, with respect only to the applicable laws and without regard for the juror’s personal opinion. Our politicians are obligated to govern in the same way.
I believe that many of our elected officials fail to perform constitutionally and obviously many of them actually make promises to religious groups in order to get their votes. Such conduct in my opinion is unconstitutional regardless of my own religious beliefs.
Every citizen is allowed to take any matter important to them into consideration when deciding how to vote. It is the government that must govern only according to the Constitution. Our government is obligated to consider all citizens equally. Therefore, legislators cannot enact laws that would enforce the dogma of a religion since it would impose that dogma on citizens that hold to a different belief. Therefore, a religious wedding ceremony is outside the jurisdiction of the government. The constitution does not prohibit two people of the same sex from living together as a couple and consequently the government should guarantee all couples the right to do so. I believe in same-sex civil unions and that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as any married couple. However, religious organizations are allowed to limit the definition of marriage as their beliefs dictate, recognize only such marriages that are conforming and deny, if they choose, membership to persons that do not comply.
Elected officials are obligated to execute their jobs without religious bias. They must decide on such matters as abortion and marriage according to the Constitution without regard for their own personal religious beliefs. A juror must do the same thing when deliberating. The juror must limit the deliberation to the evidence presented in the trial, with respect only to the applicable laws and without regard for the juror’s personal opinion. Our politicians are obligated to govern in the same way.
I believe that many of our elected officials fail to perform constitutionally and obviously many of them actually make promises to religious groups in order to get their votes. Such conduct in my opinion is unconstitutional regardless of my own religious beliefs.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Income Tax versus Income
Remember Ross Perot? He has a website http://perotcharts.com/home/ full of his Charts on all the issues.
It indicates that the bottom 50% of the taxpayers pays only 3.2% of the total Federal income taxes collected yet they earn 12.8% of the total income reported by all taxpayers. That doesn’t sound like an unfair burden on the bottom half.
But, Perot fails to mention that 32% of all taxpayers have a zero or negative tax liability and 90% of them are in the bottom 50% of wage earners.
Thus only 29.9 million of the 69.5 million taxpayers in the bottom 50% are paying 3.2% or $30 billion of the total federal taxes.
Therefore, the actual taxpayers in the bottom 50% are not paying at a rate of only 3.1%. They are actually paying at a rate of at least 7% which is about the same rate as 75% of the taxpayers are paying.
Another way that Perot might have looked at taxes is according to wealth. The bottom 50% of all taxpayers holds only 2.8% of the wealth of the country based on all assets while paying at least 3.2% of the total taxes. While the the top 10% of the taxpayers pay 68% of the taxes and hold 69.8% of the wealth. When compared to wealth the tax burden by income class seems more proportional. However, since less than 57% of the taxpayers in the bottom 50% are actually paying tax a disproportionate amount of the tax burden is still borne by the lower income wage earners.
I think a consumption tax on all purchases except necessities would be more appropriate than an income tax. It would encourage people to save more of their income and it might discourage the use of credit cards.
What do you think?
Thus only 29.9 million of the 69.5 million taxpayers in the bottom 50% are paying 3.2% or $30 billion of the total federal taxes.
Therefore, the actual taxpayers in the bottom 50% are not paying at a rate of only 3.1%. They are actually paying at a rate of at least 7% which is about the same rate as 75% of the taxpayers are paying.
Another way that Perot might have looked at taxes is according to wealth. The bottom 50% of all taxpayers holds only 2.8% of the wealth of the country based on all assets while paying at least 3.2% of the total taxes. While the the top 10% of the taxpayers pay 68% of the taxes and hold 69.8% of the wealth. When compared to wealth the tax burden by income class seems more proportional. However, since less than 57% of the taxpayers in the bottom 50% are actually paying tax a disproportionate amount of the tax burden is still borne by the lower income wage earners.
I think a consumption tax on all purchases except necessities would be more appropriate than an income tax. It would encourage people to save more of their income and it might discourage the use of credit cards.
What do you think?
Saturday, October 18, 2008
School Vouchers - Update
I am opposed to federal vouchers that allow some students to opt out of their neighborhood public school and attend a different public or private school. The system as proposed by GW Bush and operating in Washington, DC is offered only to children of low income families. The objective is to make a better educational environment available to children in failing public schools whose families cannot afford to move their children to better schools. The expectation is that these students will perform better if they attend better schools, which without exception are private schools (72% are parochial schools). My issue is that a disproportionate amount of federal funding is spent on the few students that use vouchers, which leaves far less money to support and improve the public schools. How can we justify abandoning the majority of public school students to underfunded schools so that a small percentage of students can attend private schools?
Although the expectation is that these students will receive a better education in a better school, the reality is that these students are not performing better than they did in their neighborhood school.
The federal government subsidizes the Washington, DC schools as they do all school systems. The subsidy is intended to improve the educational system, i.e. more and better teachers, more and better equipment. Washington, DC receives an educational subsidy of $74 million of which $18 million is earmarked for the voucher system. The Washington, DC school system serves 71,629 students in public schools (37% attend charter schools). Private schools in Washington, DC serve 17,562 students. A total of 1,903 students attend private schools using vouchers.
Students using vouchers are only 2.6% of the total of public school students yet the voucher system receives 24% of the federal funding to Washington, DC schools.
One parent of a voucher student, Breanna, said the prospect of turning her daughter over to a public school was frightening. "I didn't feel that was a good environment," Ms. Walton, a single mother of two, said. "But I couldn't afford to send her anywhere else." Breanna is now a 6-year-old first-grade student at the private Rock Creek International School, where the average class size is 12 and the student-teacher ratio is 7-to-1. She has as classmates the children of international corporate executives and foreign ambassadors. Breanna's curriculum is the International Baccalaureate program, and she is taught regularly in English, French, Spanish, and Arabic. Trips abroad - to Europe, Africa, South America, the Middle East - are part of the curriculum, and Breanna will participate. The school's facilities are bright, colorful, and clean, on a quiet, tree-lined street in Georgetown. According to Ms. Walton, it's a far cry from what awaited Breanna at her local public school.
Although most if not all parents would prefer that their children attend such a school. It is not and never will be available to all the Washington, DC school children. The "children that are left behind" in the public schools can only expect that their educational experience will worsen as more vouchers result in less funding of the public schools.
In my opinion the voucher system is the means by which the federal government diverts educational funding from the public school system to the private school system. Is the ultimate goal to privatize education?
In January GW Bush will be out of the White House. Congress does not plan to extend the voucher system. I hope the next president will focus on improving the public school system rather than abandoning it.
Although the expectation is that these students will receive a better education in a better school, the reality is that these students are not performing better than they did in their neighborhood school.
The federal government subsidizes the Washington, DC schools as they do all school systems. The subsidy is intended to improve the educational system, i.e. more and better teachers, more and better equipment. Washington, DC receives an educational subsidy of $74 million of which $18 million is earmarked for the voucher system. The Washington, DC school system serves 71,629 students in public schools (37% attend charter schools). Private schools in Washington, DC serve 17,562 students. A total of 1,903 students attend private schools using vouchers.
Students using vouchers are only 2.6% of the total of public school students yet the voucher system receives 24% of the federal funding to Washington, DC schools.
One parent of a voucher student, Breanna, said the prospect of turning her daughter over to a public school was frightening. "I didn't feel that was a good environment," Ms. Walton, a single mother of two, said. "But I couldn't afford to send her anywhere else." Breanna is now a 6-year-old first-grade student at the private Rock Creek International School, where the average class size is 12 and the student-teacher ratio is 7-to-1. She has as classmates the children of international corporate executives and foreign ambassadors. Breanna's curriculum is the International Baccalaureate program, and she is taught regularly in English, French, Spanish, and Arabic. Trips abroad - to Europe, Africa, South America, the Middle East - are part of the curriculum, and Breanna will participate. The school's facilities are bright, colorful, and clean, on a quiet, tree-lined street in Georgetown. According to Ms. Walton, it's a far cry from what awaited Breanna at her local public school.
Although most if not all parents would prefer that their children attend such a school. It is not and never will be available to all the Washington, DC school children. The "children that are left behind" in the public schools can only expect that their educational experience will worsen as more vouchers result in less funding of the public schools.
In my opinion the voucher system is the means by which the federal government diverts educational funding from the public school system to the private school system. Is the ultimate goal to privatize education?
In January GW Bush will be out of the White House. Congress does not plan to extend the voucher system. I hope the next president will focus on improving the public school system rather than abandoning it.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Vote or shut up!
We all know one or more people who have decided to not vote for president. All of them that I know personally say they don't like McCain but they can't vote for Obama. That's throwing away one's greatest right and responsibility as a citizen of the United States of America. If we don't like the choices, voting is the only way to change the process that nominated the presidential candidates. If we don't vote we reduce the Power of the People.
Don't throw your hands up in disgust because none of the candidates suits you. Study the candidates - there is a difference - and cast a vote for the one that suits you the most or differs with you the least.
Voting for candidates is not your only responsibility. Make sure you know what your government is doing between elections. Let them know whether you support what they are doing. Don't piss and moan to your neighbor. Piss and moan to your representatives, your mayor, your governor.
If you don't like the party system that nominates political candidates, change it. Support legislators and legislation the will ultimately transfer the power back to the People and out of the hands of the political parties. If you like the party process but you don't like their choices, get involved in your party - don't just join, participate.
If you don't vote, don't complain and I don't want to hear a peep out of you after the election. If you opt out of the democractic process, if you don't express your opinion by voting then keep your opinion to yourself. It's only worth hearing if you will act on it.
Don't throw your hands up in disgust because none of the candidates suits you. Study the candidates - there is a difference - and cast a vote for the one that suits you the most or differs with you the least.
Voting for candidates is not your only responsibility. Make sure you know what your government is doing between elections. Let them know whether you support what they are doing. Don't piss and moan to your neighbor. Piss and moan to your representatives, your mayor, your governor.
If you don't like the party system that nominates political candidates, change it. Support legislators and legislation the will ultimately transfer the power back to the People and out of the hands of the political parties. If you like the party process but you don't like their choices, get involved in your party - don't just join, participate.
If you don't vote, don't complain and I don't want to hear a peep out of you after the election. If you opt out of the democractic process, if you don't express your opinion by voting then keep your opinion to yourself. It's only worth hearing if you will act on it.
Friday, September 19, 2008
GOP says Obama is not bipartisan
McCain's supporters call him a Maverick and say that a Maverick is what the voters need rather than a party man. They say that Obama has only crossed the aisle one time with a measure that was easily unanimous. They point out that McCain has voted with the Democrats and against his Republican party many times while Obama has always voted with the Democrats.
I suggest viewing the statistics differently. Anybody can be a Maverick but it only benefits the People when the aisle is crossed to vote the right way not just to be bipartisan. Obama only crossed the aisle to vote bipartisan one time because he had only one opportunity to do so AND cast the correct vote!
The majority of the GOP Senators and Representatives have been voting for their special interests or Bush's special interests but not in the best interest of the People. That's why the country is in such a mess: continuing to fight an unjust war only to avoid "losing"; a record high national debt; selling off America to other countries; violating the Constitution; violating international treaties; ignoring global environmental and energy issues. I'm thankful that Obama and the majority of the Democrats did not cross the aisle to vote with the GOP on their self-serving legislation.
I suggest viewing the statistics differently. Anybody can be a Maverick but it only benefits the People when the aisle is crossed to vote the right way not just to be bipartisan. Obama only crossed the aisle to vote bipartisan one time because he had only one opportunity to do so AND cast the correct vote!
The majority of the GOP Senators and Representatives have been voting for their special interests or Bush's special interests but not in the best interest of the People. That's why the country is in such a mess: continuing to fight an unjust war only to avoid "losing"; a record high national debt; selling off America to other countries; violating the Constitution; violating international treaties; ignoring global environmental and energy issues. I'm thankful that Obama and the majority of the Democrats did not cross the aisle to vote with the GOP on their self-serving legislation.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Palin and the RNC teleprompter
Although it seems unbelieveable that she would lie about such a small matter, Sarah Palin claims that the teleprompter failed during her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. On the road, she told an audience of Ohioans that she was looking at the Ohio delegation when the teleprompter failed so she just kept talking to Ohio and didn't use the script. That's odd because the news agencies reported that her speech matched almost word for word the script that they were given beforehand.
Why lie about the speech when the risk of getting caught is so high?
She still maintains that she didn't use the teleprompter but she did't make it up as she went either since it was essentially the same speech as the script.
She's lied about the Bridge to Nowhere, she's lied about the earmarks, she's lied about her acceptance speech. When does she tell the truth?
She claims that she didn't fire Alaska's Commission of Public Safety because he didn't take her hint and fire her ex-brother-in-law but before being asked to testify she told the committee (3 republicans and 2 democrats) investigating the possible ethics violation that she would not testify. Has she told the truth about this matter?
If you can't trust her to be honest about the little things can you trust to be honest about the big things later one?
Why lie about the speech when the risk of getting caught is so high?
She still maintains that she didn't use the teleprompter but she did't make it up as she went either since it was essentially the same speech as the script.
She's lied about the Bridge to Nowhere, she's lied about the earmarks, she's lied about her acceptance speech. When does she tell the truth?
She claims that she didn't fire Alaska's Commission of Public Safety because he didn't take her hint and fire her ex-brother-in-law but before being asked to testify she told the committee (3 republicans and 2 democrats) investigating the possible ethics violation that she would not testify. Has she told the truth about this matter?
If you can't trust her to be honest about the little things can you trust to be honest about the big things later one?
Social Security - Will you be needing it?
The current disasters in the financial market reminded me of my Social Security. With the election coming up its time to ask yourself whether you want to keep it.
Bush promised to privatize social security when he was running for election in 2000 and 2004. McCain supported privatization and bank deregulation. Obama opposed privatization and bank deregulation. Neither has changed their positions on these issues. Why are they issues?
If we had privatized social security all or part of your retirement benefits would have been invested in the stock market and managed privately. How have your private investments done in the last 4 years; in the last 8 years? If you lost money then add to that the cost of the wealthy fund manager’s salaries and bonuses for managing your privatized social security fund. Now add to that the current impact of the deregulation of banking especially mortgage banking. Many of the banks with which your retirement savings would have been invested are now being bought by you the taxpayer, being sold for pennies on the dollar or closed and forgotten, i.e. total loss. When the Dow lost 500 points yesterday imagine what would have happened to your privatized social security. It could now be worth as little as an Enron employee’s retirement – nothing. By the way, McCain's senior advisor Phil Gramm sponsored the deregulation that allowed Enron to rape the energy industry until they got caught cheating. Matter of fact that deregulation is still a law which the Democrats have not been able to overturn because McCain and his Republicans control the Senate and Bush will veto any measure to restore regulation of the commodity futures trading.
What you see happening to the stock market and investment banks would have happened to your privatized social security retirement if the Bush/McCain privatization act had been passed.
Bush and McCain said that privatization was the best way to save Social Security but there was another way. If we had increased the social security revenues by 0.54 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, which is equal to 3% of the federal budget (less than we spend in Iraq) Social Security would be funded at the current benefit levels into the 22nd century. That seems like a lot of money but it is only one-fourth as much as Bush’s tax cuts! Matter of fact it’s about equal to the tax cuts received by the taxpayers with incomes over $500,000 a year. Mind you now, I’m not talking about all their taxes, I’m only talking about the tax cut that little George Bush No. 43 gave them.
Well they needed that tax cut and Obama protected us from the latest attempt at privatization, so we still have our Social Security but it isn’t guaranteed beyond 2041. It’s hard to believe but Privatized Social Security was only projected to last until 2025. You weren’t worried about staying around until then were you?
So while you’re listening to the candidates telling you how they would fix this mess remember that only one of them got you here with deregulation and it could have been worse.
Your vote will count a lot this November. In part, it will determine whether you will have social security to go along with your huge retirement savings.
Bush promised to privatize social security when he was running for election in 2000 and 2004. McCain supported privatization and bank deregulation. Obama opposed privatization and bank deregulation. Neither has changed their positions on these issues. Why are they issues?
If we had privatized social security all or part of your retirement benefits would have been invested in the stock market and managed privately. How have your private investments done in the last 4 years; in the last 8 years? If you lost money then add to that the cost of the wealthy fund manager’s salaries and bonuses for managing your privatized social security fund. Now add to that the current impact of the deregulation of banking especially mortgage banking. Many of the banks with which your retirement savings would have been invested are now being bought by you the taxpayer, being sold for pennies on the dollar or closed and forgotten, i.e. total loss. When the Dow lost 500 points yesterday imagine what would have happened to your privatized social security. It could now be worth as little as an Enron employee’s retirement – nothing. By the way, McCain's senior advisor Phil Gramm sponsored the deregulation that allowed Enron to rape the energy industry until they got caught cheating. Matter of fact that deregulation is still a law which the Democrats have not been able to overturn because McCain and his Republicans control the Senate and Bush will veto any measure to restore regulation of the commodity futures trading.
What you see happening to the stock market and investment banks would have happened to your privatized social security retirement if the Bush/McCain privatization act had been passed.
Bush and McCain said that privatization was the best way to save Social Security but there was another way. If we had increased the social security revenues by 0.54 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, which is equal to 3% of the federal budget (less than we spend in Iraq) Social Security would be funded at the current benefit levels into the 22nd century. That seems like a lot of money but it is only one-fourth as much as Bush’s tax cuts! Matter of fact it’s about equal to the tax cuts received by the taxpayers with incomes over $500,000 a year. Mind you now, I’m not talking about all their taxes, I’m only talking about the tax cut that little George Bush No. 43 gave them.
Well they needed that tax cut and Obama protected us from the latest attempt at privatization, so we still have our Social Security but it isn’t guaranteed beyond 2041. It’s hard to believe but Privatized Social Security was only projected to last until 2025. You weren’t worried about staying around until then were you?
So while you’re listening to the candidates telling you how they would fix this mess remember that only one of them got you here with deregulation and it could have been worse.
Your vote will count a lot this November. In part, it will determine whether you will have social security to go along with your huge retirement savings.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Thoreau on the moose
The great American writer found nothing heroic in hunting the gentle creatures. Rather, he saw their killing as a great tragedy.
By Paul Theroux September 14, 2008
All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Henry David Thoreau wrote in "The Maine Woods," killing these big, gentle, myopic creatures is more "like going out by night to some woodside pasture and shooting your neighbor's horses."
Thoreau's descriptions of the moose he saw in Maine are inspired and fanciful. "They made me think of great frightened rabbits," he wrote, and he alluded to the moose's "branching and leafy horns -- a sort of fucus or lichen in bone."
In all his descriptions there is affection and awe. The killing of a moose is, in Thoreau's view, always a tragedy. He witnessed one being shot, and "nature looked sternly upon me on account of the murder of the moose." In another passage, Thoreau grudgingly acknowledges that moose are hunted by Indians out of necessity -- for their meat, for their hides, as part of Indian custom and tradition. This was in 1853.
American politicians seldom take notice of American writers, especially the boldest ones, such as Thoreau, whose every word is at odds with their groveling and grandstanding and their sanctimonious cant. Think of the average politician today and then reflect on how Thoreau had no time for organized religion, how he mocked clergymen and jeered at missionaries, warmongers and Bible-thumpers. He was a defender of John Brown and the rebellious spirit in American life, a proponent of human rights.
He hated the thought of the wilderness being opened to development; he wrote scathingly of lumberjacks and logging operations. He would have cheered the demonstrators outside the Republican National Convention in St Paul, Minn. He would have mocked the people inside. He would have denounced the prison at Guantanamo. He wrote against injustice; he despised politicians and hunters.
And yet hunting seems to define a certain species of American politician. It's nothing new. When Teddy Roosevelt left office, he traveled to Africa and -- in the role of evil twin to the biblical Noah -- hunted and killed two (and sometimes 18) of every species of animal that could be found from the Kenyan coast to the swamps of the southern Sudan: total bag, 512 creatures. In his account of the safari, "African Game Trails" (1910), he wrote, "The land teems with beasts of the chase, infinite in number ... ."
"Infinite" is credulous hyperbole -- many of those animals are now extinct or severely endangered. Take the bongo, a large African antelope -- nearly as large as a moose -- now almost gone because of hunters and poachers. In Uganda, where it roamed in sizable numbers when I lived there, it has been wiped out. Maurice Stans, the Nixon administration Commerce secretary and Watergate defendant, helped to eradicate this gentle animal when, in the 1960s, he sicced his dogs on them -- the conventional way to corner a bongo -- then presumably gestured to his gun bearer ("Here is your bunduki, bwana") and shot two of them as trophies. It was not an incidental act: Maurice Stans defined himself politically as a big-game hunter.
You would be forgiven for believing that the Menendez brothers gave Dick Cheney lessons in handling a shotgun -- still, he is by all accounts a keen hunter. But who knew that Justice Antonin Scalia also hunts ducks? Perhaps it is not odd that someone who advocates physical harm to humans would not shrink from blowing a small bird apart. Earlier this year, asked about torture, Scalia said: "It seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that." Cheney agrees, so it is no surprise that these men are hunting buddies, huddled in the same duck blind, torturing animals to death with buckshot.
A lot can be told from the animals that people choose to kill. The French shoot the most melodious larks and turn them into pate. Many English people are still indignant that restrictions have been placed on the hunting of foxes, bongo style, chasing them with dogs, which tear them to pieces.
There is hunting for sport, and hunting for the pot, and of course hunting for votes. The name of Teddy Roosevelt, the hunter, the moose skinner, was invoked just the other day at the Republican National Convention, in Fred Thompson's praise of Gov. Sarah Palin. This mother of five is now celebrated as a moose hunter and, more than that, moose skinner, moose eater and perhaps hanger of moose-head trophies. As Palin was delivering her acceptance speech, an immense photograph of Alaska was projected behind her on the giant screen where, in the foreground, a moose could be seen, placidly staring at its reflection in water. And on the following day, in the video that encapsulated her life, Palin was described as having risen early on cold mornings with her father to go moose hunting.
Moose hunting is now seen as a possible Republican vote-getter, especially as the moose hunter in question is a slightly built and bespectacled mother of five. This casting against type presumably has the same effect on the public imagination as the revelation that defensive tackle Roosevelt Grier found relaxation in needlepoint.
I have no strong views on hunting, only the usual disgust when I see a creature senselessly slaughtered at no risk to the hunter. Thoreau called the moose "a fabulous animal," and in a book Palin probably has not read, he remarked on how moose sometimes weigh 1,000 pounds and how they "can step over a five-foot gate in their ordinary walk.
"While people cheered, Palin was lauded for knowing how to "field-dress" a moose. Thoreau, who watched such an operation, wrote, "Joe [his Penobscot guide] now proceeded to skin the moose with a pocket knife, while I looked on, and a tragical business it was; to see that still warm and palpitating body pierced with a knife, to see the warm milk stream from the rent udder, and the ghastly naked red carcass appearing from within its seemly robe." I read that and somehow am not provoked to cheer.
In one of the great passages, in the chapter "Chesuncook," Thoreau writes how the moose and the pine tree are linked in his mind. "A pine cut down, a dead pine, is no more a pine than a dead human carcass is a man." He continues, "Every creature is better alive than dead, men and moose and pine trees, and he who understands it aright will rather preserve life than destroy it."
Paul Theroux is the author of many books, including "The Great Railway Bazaar," "The Mosquito Coast" and, most recently, "Ghost Train to the Eastern Star."
By Paul Theroux September 14, 2008
All this talk about moose hunting! It is as though, because of the animal's enormous size and imposing antlers, bringing one down is a heroic feat of marksmanship. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Henry David Thoreau wrote in "The Maine Woods," killing these big, gentle, myopic creatures is more "like going out by night to some woodside pasture and shooting your neighbor's horses."
Thoreau's descriptions of the moose he saw in Maine are inspired and fanciful. "They made me think of great frightened rabbits," he wrote, and he alluded to the moose's "branching and leafy horns -- a sort of fucus or lichen in bone."
In all his descriptions there is affection and awe. The killing of a moose is, in Thoreau's view, always a tragedy. He witnessed one being shot, and "nature looked sternly upon me on account of the murder of the moose." In another passage, Thoreau grudgingly acknowledges that moose are hunted by Indians out of necessity -- for their meat, for their hides, as part of Indian custom and tradition. This was in 1853.
American politicians seldom take notice of American writers, especially the boldest ones, such as Thoreau, whose every word is at odds with their groveling and grandstanding and their sanctimonious cant. Think of the average politician today and then reflect on how Thoreau had no time for organized religion, how he mocked clergymen and jeered at missionaries, warmongers and Bible-thumpers. He was a defender of John Brown and the rebellious spirit in American life, a proponent of human rights.
He hated the thought of the wilderness being opened to development; he wrote scathingly of lumberjacks and logging operations. He would have cheered the demonstrators outside the Republican National Convention in St Paul, Minn. He would have mocked the people inside. He would have denounced the prison at Guantanamo. He wrote against injustice; he despised politicians and hunters.
And yet hunting seems to define a certain species of American politician. It's nothing new. When Teddy Roosevelt left office, he traveled to Africa and -- in the role of evil twin to the biblical Noah -- hunted and killed two (and sometimes 18) of every species of animal that could be found from the Kenyan coast to the swamps of the southern Sudan: total bag, 512 creatures. In his account of the safari, "African Game Trails" (1910), he wrote, "The land teems with beasts of the chase, infinite in number ... ."
"Infinite" is credulous hyperbole -- many of those animals are now extinct or severely endangered. Take the bongo, a large African antelope -- nearly as large as a moose -- now almost gone because of hunters and poachers. In Uganda, where it roamed in sizable numbers when I lived there, it has been wiped out. Maurice Stans, the Nixon administration Commerce secretary and Watergate defendant, helped to eradicate this gentle animal when, in the 1960s, he sicced his dogs on them -- the conventional way to corner a bongo -- then presumably gestured to his gun bearer ("Here is your bunduki, bwana") and shot two of them as trophies. It was not an incidental act: Maurice Stans defined himself politically as a big-game hunter.
You would be forgiven for believing that the Menendez brothers gave Dick Cheney lessons in handling a shotgun -- still, he is by all accounts a keen hunter. But who knew that Justice Antonin Scalia also hunts ducks? Perhaps it is not odd that someone who advocates physical harm to humans would not shrink from blowing a small bird apart. Earlier this year, asked about torture, Scalia said: "It seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say you couldn't, I don't know, stick something under the fingernail, smack him in the face. It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that." Cheney agrees, so it is no surprise that these men are hunting buddies, huddled in the same duck blind, torturing animals to death with buckshot.
A lot can be told from the animals that people choose to kill. The French shoot the most melodious larks and turn them into pate. Many English people are still indignant that restrictions have been placed on the hunting of foxes, bongo style, chasing them with dogs, which tear them to pieces.
There is hunting for sport, and hunting for the pot, and of course hunting for votes. The name of Teddy Roosevelt, the hunter, the moose skinner, was invoked just the other day at the Republican National Convention, in Fred Thompson's praise of Gov. Sarah Palin. This mother of five is now celebrated as a moose hunter and, more than that, moose skinner, moose eater and perhaps hanger of moose-head trophies. As Palin was delivering her acceptance speech, an immense photograph of Alaska was projected behind her on the giant screen where, in the foreground, a moose could be seen, placidly staring at its reflection in water. And on the following day, in the video that encapsulated her life, Palin was described as having risen early on cold mornings with her father to go moose hunting.
Moose hunting is now seen as a possible Republican vote-getter, especially as the moose hunter in question is a slightly built and bespectacled mother of five. This casting against type presumably has the same effect on the public imagination as the revelation that defensive tackle Roosevelt Grier found relaxation in needlepoint.
I have no strong views on hunting, only the usual disgust when I see a creature senselessly slaughtered at no risk to the hunter. Thoreau called the moose "a fabulous animal," and in a book Palin probably has not read, he remarked on how moose sometimes weigh 1,000 pounds and how they "can step over a five-foot gate in their ordinary walk.
"While people cheered, Palin was lauded for knowing how to "field-dress" a moose. Thoreau, who watched such an operation, wrote, "Joe [his Penobscot guide] now proceeded to skin the moose with a pocket knife, while I looked on, and a tragical business it was; to see that still warm and palpitating body pierced with a knife, to see the warm milk stream from the rent udder, and the ghastly naked red carcass appearing from within its seemly robe." I read that and somehow am not provoked to cheer.
In one of the great passages, in the chapter "Chesuncook," Thoreau writes how the moose and the pine tree are linked in his mind. "A pine cut down, a dead pine, is no more a pine than a dead human carcass is a man." He continues, "Every creature is better alive than dead, men and moose and pine trees, and he who understands it aright will rather preserve life than destroy it."
Paul Theroux is the author of many books, including "The Great Railway Bazaar," "The Mosquito Coast" and, most recently, "Ghost Train to the Eastern Star."
Censoring Library Books - Palin like Bush
I can't find the part of the U.S. Constitution that empowers GW Bush and Sarah Palin to censor books in a library. I'm sure, very sure, that I will not find it. Yet, they both feel empowered to censor.
GW Bush has been censoring books for years. The order was issued by the Office of the Inspector General in the Justice Department. The Justice Department took this action to keep prisons from becoming:
“… recruiting grounds for militant Islamic and other religious groups. The Justice Department defended its effort, which it calls the Standardized Chapel Library Project, as a way of barring access to materials that could, in its words, “discriminate, disparage, advocate violence or radicalize. Christian books were not purged.
Sarah Palin has acknowledged that in 1996, while she was the mayor, she asked the librarian how books could be removed from the library. Later, Palin said it was only a rhetorical question but at that same time Palin's church was pushing for the removal of a book titled "Pastor I am Gay" from local bookstores. According to coverage in the local newspaper, the Frontiersman, Palin asked the librarian at a meeting "if she would object to censorship even if people were circling the library in protest about a book." The librarian is reported to have replied, "I will fight anyone who tries to indicate what books can go on the library shelves." Later the same week, Palin fired the librarian, claiming she was not "loyal" to the new administration and had supported Palin's opponent in the election. The good news is that the townspeople came to the support of the librarian and Palin rehired her.
Bush and Palin as with so many of their Evangelical brothers and sisters disregard our First Amendment right to Religious Freedom. They believe that the United States of America was founded by Christians for Christians and given the chance to do so, they both act according to that belief when governing.
Such people will not protect our individual rights and should never hold public office.
GW Bush has been censoring books for years. The order was issued by the Office of the Inspector General in the Justice Department. The Justice Department took this action to keep prisons from becoming:
“… recruiting grounds for militant Islamic and other religious groups. The Justice Department defended its effort, which it calls the Standardized Chapel Library Project, as a way of barring access to materials that could, in its words, “discriminate, disparage, advocate violence or radicalize. Christian books were not purged.
Sarah Palin has acknowledged that in 1996, while she was the mayor, she asked the librarian how books could be removed from the library. Later, Palin said it was only a rhetorical question but at that same time Palin's church was pushing for the removal of a book titled "Pastor I am Gay" from local bookstores. According to coverage in the local newspaper, the Frontiersman, Palin asked the librarian at a meeting "if she would object to censorship even if people were circling the library in protest about a book." The librarian is reported to have replied, "I will fight anyone who tries to indicate what books can go on the library shelves." Later the same week, Palin fired the librarian, claiming she was not "loyal" to the new administration and had supported Palin's opponent in the election. The good news is that the townspeople came to the support of the librarian and Palin rehired her.
Bush and Palin as with so many of their Evangelical brothers and sisters disregard our First Amendment right to Religious Freedom. They believe that the United States of America was founded by Christians for Christians and given the chance to do so, they both act according to that belief when governing.
Such people will not protect our individual rights and should never hold public office.
Palin says that Global Warming is not Man-made
"In an interview for the September issue of the conservative magazine Newsmax, Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, said she does not believe climate change is caused by human behavior.
“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made,” Palin said in the interview, which was posted online Friday."
Yet, in May, 2008, Larry Hartig, Alaska's Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation included the following quotation in a presentation on the impact of the warming climate on Alaska.
“Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades. Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong arctic warming. These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming.”
Larry Hartig, appointed by Sarah Palin, is the Chairman of the Executive Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change whose Climate Change Mitigation Advisory Group is analyzing options for mitigating greenhouse gases in Alaska that contribure to climate change.
Why does Sarah Palin claim that global warming is not man-made while her own administration is trying to identify options for mitigating greenhouse gases which are without question MAN-MADE?
What motive does Palin have for lying about the real cause of global warming?
“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made,” Palin said in the interview, which was posted online Friday."
Yet, in May, 2008, Larry Hartig, Alaska's Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation included the following quotation in a presentation on the impact of the warming climate on Alaska.
“Arctic average temperature has risen at almost twice the rate as the rest of the world in the past few decades. Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong arctic warming. These changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of the environmental and societal significance of global warming.”
Larry Hartig, appointed by Sarah Palin, is the Chairman of the Executive Sub-Cabinet on Climate Change whose Climate Change Mitigation Advisory Group is analyzing options for mitigating greenhouse gases in Alaska that contribure to climate change.
Why does Sarah Palin claim that global warming is not man-made while her own administration is trying to identify options for mitigating greenhouse gases which are without question MAN-MADE?
What motive does Palin have for lying about the real cause of global warming?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The News Media is failing to provide relevant information!
I am upset that TV news shows are not providing relevant information to the voters regarding the qualifications of the candidates and their positions on the major issues. Instead they give us a one hour show about Sarah Palin’s life. If she gets elected there will be plenty of time to run the biography with a video of her shooting the winning shot in a high school basketball game. The news media is a willing participant in turning the race for the White House into a personality contest.
I’d like to see the major networks do a detailed impact analysis of each candidate's economic plan. We hear that Obama will raise our taxes and that McCain will not according to McCain’s campaign committee. And from Obama’s campaign committee we hear that Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans while McCain will cut taxes only for the richest 5% of Americans. Why doesn’t CNN have both plans analyzed on air – do what Perot did, get out the flip chart and the Excel spreadsheets and show us the impact. Do the same thing with their healthcare plans. Do the same thing with their energy programs. We told that McCain will give the oil industry $29 billion - what does McCain expect them to do with it and how might that effect the taxpayers and the price of gasoline? Analyze their plans for education and every other thing they are promising to do better than their oponent.
Why instead do we have to listen to a biography of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama and John McCain?
I’d like to see the major networks do a detailed impact analysis of each candidate's economic plan. We hear that Obama will raise our taxes and that McCain will not according to McCain’s campaign committee. And from Obama’s campaign committee we hear that Obama will cut taxes for 95% of Americans while McCain will cut taxes only for the richest 5% of Americans. Why doesn’t CNN have both plans analyzed on air – do what Perot did, get out the flip chart and the Excel spreadsheets and show us the impact. Do the same thing with their healthcare plans. Do the same thing with their energy programs. We told that McCain will give the oil industry $29 billion - what does McCain expect them to do with it and how might that effect the taxpayers and the price of gasoline? Analyze their plans for education and every other thing they are promising to do better than their oponent.
Why instead do we have to listen to a biography of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama and John McCain?
Alaska is a Disaster - what is Gov. Sarah Palin doing?
Note that contacts for confirming all the statements in the following article are provided at the end of the article. As always, check everything YOURSELF. For example, when Charles Gibson interviewed Sarah Palin he asked her what the Bush Doctrine is, her answer was incorrect. A Palin supporter who blogs for the LA Times stated that Gibson was wrong since there have been muliple definitions and Gibson only used one definition. The blogger failed to mention that Gibson told Palin, after she guessed wrong, that he was using the definition that existed in September 2002 prior to the Iraq War. In either case Palin guessed and guessed wrong instead of asking Gibson what the Bush Doctrine meant. A candidate's supporters tell lies when the truth will not suffice.
Alaska is a disaster
by Rob Rosenfeld
9/08
Rob Rosenfeld has a Masters Degree in International and Sustainable Development and has lived in Homer, Alaska since 1995, working
primarily with rural communities. He is a long time advocate for human
rights and fair distribution of government resources and opportunities. robrosey@xyz.com
After 11 years working in rural Alaska , I feel obligated to share my observations regarding the Third World living conditions facing more than 200 rural Native communities, and the State of Alaska 's lack of attention to the many inequities they suffer.
While Governor Palin claims "exemplary leadership" and attempts to become Vice President of the United States , the truth is rural Alaska is a disaster in multiple areas: human health, lack of infrastructure, the environment, and the economy are equal to that of Third World countries. Sarah Palin is a single issue governor who fails to effectively address these critical needs.
Alaska has the highest rates of homelessness per capita in the US , overflowing sewage lagoons in dozens of communities, and no running water in more than 150 villages – that’s 25% of the population without running water.
Governor Palin has demonstrated how out of touch she is20with Alaska while she continues to ignore the needs of the homeless, fails to recognize Third World living conditions in her home state, and ignores climate change victims, polluted waters, village health hazards and unattended military contaminate sites.
Alaska is a barometer for climate change. Access to some remote communities has been cut off, villages are flooding, landfill contents and overflowing sewage lagoons are contaminating communities, and several villages are being forced to pack up and move. Governor Palin says she doesn't believe climate change is caused by humans. Regardless of the cause, she remains unresponsive to the needs of climate change refugees and victims in Alaska .
More than 200 landfills in rural Alaska lack liners to prevent seepage and dozens of sewage lagoons receive annual discharge permits to discharge untreated and untested sewage into Alaska ’s salmon bearing rivers.
Alaska has the highest amount of military contaminant sites in the US with more than 500 sites that require extensive resources to assess, monitor and remediate. Alaska also has the highest rates of cancer per capita in the United States . Governor Palin is silent on this issue and is solely focused on the natural gas pipeline and oil drilling in protected and fragile places.
While Palin asserts that20resource extraction can be done responsibly, North Slope oil extraction has resulted in hundreds of spills and leaks monthly. On her watch, polluters have not been brought to justice and environmental regulations have been relaxed by her controversial appointee to head the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Larry Hartig, Palin’s pick for Commissioner, was the lead lawyer defending Red Dog Mine (owned by Teck Cominco) which is rated as the worst mine in the country for discharging contaminants into the environment. Red Dog Mine is number one on the national Toxic Release Inventory.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has continued to undermine the integrity of the Clean Water Act by ignoring the anti-degradation act, mixing zone laws and making discharge exemptions for oil companies allowing daily oil sludge discharge into the Cook Inlet resulting in
millions of tons of contaminants in Alaska ’s pristine waters.
Palin sued the federal government for trying to protect the polar bear population and, contrary to her rhetoric, she did accept federal dollars for the Bridge to Nowhere.
Alaska has the highest gas prices in the country, exceeding more then $9 per gallon in some villages. Alaska also the highest unemployment in rates in the country as more than 150 villages face 50 to 80 percent rates of unemployment.
Palin does not pay attention to any of the above realities as she fixates on the oil industry and has even created a Renewable Energy Fund that allows for natural gas extraction and coal bed methane; both of which are far from renewable resources and cause considerable environmental degradation.
Beyond the pretty face of Governor Palin rests an unaware, out of touch, rape and pillage resource extractor who is doing the bidding for the leading oil companies in the world while trying to open new areas for oil development.
_________________________________ ______________________________________________
Contacts to confirm information:
Janet Levin, Anchorage Homeless Coalition: Homeless facts - 907-272-0235 ()
Gershon Cohen Ph.D- Department of Environmental Conservation Facts - 907-766-3005
Bob Shavelson, Inlet Keeper 907- 235-4068 - 907-299-3277 (sludge discharge validation in the Cook Inlet and Dept. of Environmental Conservation laws being relaxed)
Unemployment rates: Department of Commerce in Alaska / Anchorage
Sewage / Solid issues / Climate Change: Joe Sarcone / EPA Alaska and Alaska Village Safe Water (907) 271-1316 or 907-677-8705
Discharge Permits: Tim Wingerter - Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation / Fairbanks or Anchorage
Pam Miller, Northern Center for the Environment in Fairbanks- Validation on 100's spills and leaks per month
Pam Miller (different than above) - Alaska Community Action on Toxics - Cancer rates and military site validation and information on Red Dog Mine (907)222-7714
Brian Hir sch Ph.D - Energy issues on renewable energy fund 907-299-0268 or 907-235-7164
Deborah Williams - Alaska Climate Change Solutions - 907- 929-9370 or 907-223-1518
(Polar Bear issues, Climate Change emergencies, flooding, villages having to move and village access facts and information
Alaska is a disaster
by Rob Rosenfeld
9/08
Rob Rosenfeld has a Masters Degree in International and Sustainable Development and has lived in Homer, Alaska since 1995, working
primarily with rural communities. He is a long time advocate for human
rights and fair distribution of government resources and opportunities. robrosey@xyz.com
After 11 years working in rural Alaska , I feel obligated to share my observations regarding the Third World living conditions facing more than 200 rural Native communities, and the State of Alaska 's lack of attention to the many inequities they suffer.
While Governor Palin claims "exemplary leadership" and attempts to become Vice President of the United States , the truth is rural Alaska is a disaster in multiple areas: human health, lack of infrastructure, the environment, and the economy are equal to that of Third World countries. Sarah Palin is a single issue governor who fails to effectively address these critical needs.
Alaska has the highest rates of homelessness per capita in the US , overflowing sewage lagoons in dozens of communities, and no running water in more than 150 villages – that’s 25% of the population without running water.
Governor Palin has demonstrated how out of touch she is20with Alaska while she continues to ignore the needs of the homeless, fails to recognize Third World living conditions in her home state, and ignores climate change victims, polluted waters, village health hazards and unattended military contaminate sites.
Alaska is a barometer for climate change. Access to some remote communities has been cut off, villages are flooding, landfill contents and overflowing sewage lagoons are contaminating communities, and several villages are being forced to pack up and move. Governor Palin says she doesn't believe climate change is caused by humans. Regardless of the cause, she remains unresponsive to the needs of climate change refugees and victims in Alaska .
More than 200 landfills in rural Alaska lack liners to prevent seepage and dozens of sewage lagoons receive annual discharge permits to discharge untreated and untested sewage into Alaska ’s salmon bearing rivers.
Alaska has the highest amount of military contaminant sites in the US with more than 500 sites that require extensive resources to assess, monitor and remediate. Alaska also has the highest rates of cancer per capita in the United States . Governor Palin is silent on this issue and is solely focused on the natural gas pipeline and oil drilling in protected and fragile places.
While Palin asserts that20resource extraction can be done responsibly, North Slope oil extraction has resulted in hundreds of spills and leaks monthly. On her watch, polluters have not been brought to justice and environmental regulations have been relaxed by her controversial appointee to head the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Larry Hartig, Palin’s pick for Commissioner, was the lead lawyer defending Red Dog Mine (owned by Teck Cominco) which is rated as the worst mine in the country for discharging contaminants into the environment. Red Dog Mine is number one on the national Toxic Release Inventory.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has continued to undermine the integrity of the Clean Water Act by ignoring the anti-degradation act, mixing zone laws and making discharge exemptions for oil companies allowing daily oil sludge discharge into the Cook Inlet resulting in
millions of tons of contaminants in Alaska ’s pristine waters.
Palin sued the federal government for trying to protect the polar bear population and, contrary to her rhetoric, she did accept federal dollars for the Bridge to Nowhere.
Alaska has the highest gas prices in the country, exceeding more then $9 per gallon in some villages. Alaska also the highest unemployment in rates in the country as more than 150 villages face 50 to 80 percent rates of unemployment.
Palin does not pay attention to any of the above realities as she fixates on the oil industry and has even created a Renewable Energy Fund that allows for natural gas extraction and coal bed methane; both of which are far from renewable resources and cause considerable environmental degradation.
Beyond the pretty face of Governor Palin rests an unaware, out of touch, rape and pillage resource extractor who is doing the bidding for the leading oil companies in the world while trying to open new areas for oil development.
_________________________________ ______________________________________________
Contacts to confirm information:
Janet Levin, Anchorage Homeless Coalition: Homeless facts - 907-272-0235 ()
Gershon Cohen Ph.D- Department of Environmental Conservation Facts - 907-766-3005
Bob Shavelson, Inlet Keeper 907- 235-4068 - 907-299-3277 (sludge discharge validation in the Cook Inlet and Dept. of Environmental Conservation laws being relaxed)
Unemployment rates: Department of Commerce in Alaska / Anchorage
Sewage / Solid issues / Climate Change: Joe Sarcone / EPA Alaska and Alaska Village Safe Water (907) 271-1316 or 907-677-8705
Discharge Permits: Tim Wingerter - Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation / Fairbanks or Anchorage
Pam Miller, Northern Center for the Environment in Fairbanks- Validation on 100's spills and leaks per month
Pam Miller (different than above) - Alaska Community Action on Toxics - Cancer rates and military site validation and information on Red Dog Mine (907)222-7714
Brian Hir sch Ph.D - Energy issues on renewable energy fund 907-299-0268 or 907-235-7164
Deborah Williams - Alaska Climate Change Solutions - 907- 929-9370 or 907-223-1518
(Polar Bear issues, Climate Change emergencies, flooding, villages having to move and village access facts and information
Women Against Sarah Palin
I hope everybody is studying the candidates through responsible resources rather than listening to the hype from the candidates, their parties and the political pundits. Responsible resources are indeed harder to find than the BS.
The following blog contains some posts that are well worth reading. These posts are only part of the evidence that Sarah Palin's opinions are not shared by a majority of American women. Being a wife, mother and hockey mom are experiences that are common to many American women but they do not qualify her to be vice president or president nor do they define her position on the issues that she and John McCain will be dealing with if they are elected.
I don't think that either campaign committee wants to address issues only and the news media, which could and should focus only on the candidates' historical position on the issues, fails to do so. Make sure that you study each of them well. Please pick the candidate that you believe will represent all Americans equally and obey our Constitution.
Here's the blog: Women Against Sarah Palin
The following site is what I think comes closest to representing Women For Sarah Palin. Let me know if you know of a better pro Sarah Palin site.
The following blog contains some posts that are well worth reading. These posts are only part of the evidence that Sarah Palin's opinions are not shared by a majority of American women. Being a wife, mother and hockey mom are experiences that are common to many American women but they do not qualify her to be vice president or president nor do they define her position on the issues that she and John McCain will be dealing with if they are elected.
I don't think that either campaign committee wants to address issues only and the news media, which could and should focus only on the candidates' historical position on the issues, fails to do so. Make sure that you study each of them well. Please pick the candidate that you believe will represent all Americans equally and obey our Constitution.
Here's the blog: Women Against Sarah Palin
The following site is what I think comes closest to representing Women For Sarah Palin. Let me know if you know of a better pro Sarah Palin site.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Troop reduction postponed to help McCain and Bush
Gen. Petraeus has recommended to the Joint Chiefs a delay of the large scale shift of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, which he had predicted for this autumn. Troop reduction in Iraq will be delayed until Bush has left office in January. Bush and McCain take credit for the troop surge that has reduced the violence in Iraq and although neither feels that the US can pull out completely at this point they both characterize the was as won.
Bush wants to leave office having achieved victory or at least the appearance of victory. McCain claims that his role in the surge proves that he is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief and that Obama is not qualified because he opposed the troop surge. Victory or the appearance of victory in Iraq, especially due to the troop surge, is critically important to McCain campaign.
Experts feel that a troop reduction at this time and perhaps at any time in the next several years will result in a resumption of violence and a collapse of the Iraqi government. If this were to happen before the November election, McCain could lose the election because of it. If this were to happen before Bush leaves office then his already disasterous presidency would also be remembered for having never caught Bin Laden and losing the war in Iraq. If Bush can leave office while the war appears to be won, the next president will bear the responsibility for the outcome of the war.
A similar manipulation was carried out at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency. George Bush, #41, GW's daddy, struck an aggreement with the Iranians to release the US Embassy hostages only after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president. A petty act to be sure, yet not one that cost American lives.
On the other hand, keeping our troops in Iraq has and will continue to cost American lives. Having inadequate troops in Afghanistan also costs American lives. But, Bush is willing to pay that price with the lives of others so that he can claim a victory no matter how brief. And, McCain and the GOP are willing to sacrafice American lives so that they have a chance of winning the presidency. Just a chance. Just a few lives.
Finally, remember that we only invaded Iraq to destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Remember that weapons of mass destruction did not exist. Remember that Bush and the CIP intentionally lied to the American public and the world when they told us that the weapons existed.
Ask yourself if it is important to continue fighting and dying in an unjust war just to be able to say we won. Then cast your vote wisely on November 4th.
Bush wants to leave office having achieved victory or at least the appearance of victory. McCain claims that his role in the surge proves that he is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief and that Obama is not qualified because he opposed the troop surge. Victory or the appearance of victory in Iraq, especially due to the troop surge, is critically important to McCain campaign.
Experts feel that a troop reduction at this time and perhaps at any time in the next several years will result in a resumption of violence and a collapse of the Iraqi government. If this were to happen before the November election, McCain could lose the election because of it. If this were to happen before Bush leaves office then his already disasterous presidency would also be remembered for having never caught Bin Laden and losing the war in Iraq. If Bush can leave office while the war appears to be won, the next president will bear the responsibility for the outcome of the war.
A similar manipulation was carried out at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency. George Bush, #41, GW's daddy, struck an aggreement with the Iranians to release the US Embassy hostages only after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president. A petty act to be sure, yet not one that cost American lives.
On the other hand, keeping our troops in Iraq has and will continue to cost American lives. Having inadequate troops in Afghanistan also costs American lives. But, Bush is willing to pay that price with the lives of others so that he can claim a victory no matter how brief. And, McCain and the GOP are willing to sacrafice American lives so that they have a chance of winning the presidency. Just a chance. Just a few lives.
Finally, remember that we only invaded Iraq to destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Remember that weapons of mass destruction did not exist. Remember that Bush and the CIP intentionally lied to the American public and the world when they told us that the weapons existed.
Ask yourself if it is important to continue fighting and dying in an unjust war just to be able to say we won. Then cast your vote wisely on November 4th.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
School Funding and the Separation of Church and State
I found and old but interesting article about the subject of “separation of church and state”. The churches that demanded a constitutional separation of church and state now lead the effort to eliminate it. It’s all a matter of whether it is perceived as a benefit or not. I can understand why parochial schools would like to have their students’ allotment of the funding for the public schools that the parochial school students do not attend. But, I see two reasons why the educational vouchers will have a destruction effect on the public school system.
1. Vouchers were created by GW Bush to subsidize the education of students whose parents choose to transport them into a different school district or to a private school. The voucher is not enough to pay for the transportation of a student to a different school nor is it enough to pay the tuition of a private school. Therefore, most, if not all, of the students that will move to a better school district or to a private school are those whose parents can afford to move their children with or without the voucher. The school that loses the student and the funding associated with their voucher will find it increasingly harder to achieve competitive performance and the students left behind will suffer for it.
2. If the parents of school-aged children can withdraw their child’s share of the school’s funding to do with as they see fit, including home schooling. Then does the taxpayer who has no school-aged children have the right to withhold his share of the school’s funding? Why should the childless taxpayer be obligated to support a school which taxpaying parents will not support?
Schools and the education of our children are a benefit to the entire community rather than only to the students and the parents of the students. Imagine the future condition of our communities and society if we did not provide free public education to all students regardless of economic class. The English realized the need for this a couple hundred years ago when they created what became the public school. But, Bush and his elitist kind do not, in my honest opinion, care about the education of the economic underclass. They don’t care at all about the economic underclass as long as there is more than enough of them to fulfill labor needs. Labor rates, like the price of oil, can be and is manipulated to maximize the cost of oil and minimize the cost of labor. This is not done for the benefit of the masses. It is done only for the benefit of the economic upper class. McCain recently taught us who the upper class is; they earn more than $5,000,000 per year.
1. Vouchers were created by GW Bush to subsidize the education of students whose parents choose to transport them into a different school district or to a private school. The voucher is not enough to pay for the transportation of a student to a different school nor is it enough to pay the tuition of a private school. Therefore, most, if not all, of the students that will move to a better school district or to a private school are those whose parents can afford to move their children with or without the voucher. The school that loses the student and the funding associated with their voucher will find it increasingly harder to achieve competitive performance and the students left behind will suffer for it.
2. If the parents of school-aged children can withdraw their child’s share of the school’s funding to do with as they see fit, including home schooling. Then does the taxpayer who has no school-aged children have the right to withhold his share of the school’s funding? Why should the childless taxpayer be obligated to support a school which taxpaying parents will not support?
Schools and the education of our children are a benefit to the entire community rather than only to the students and the parents of the students. Imagine the future condition of our communities and society if we did not provide free public education to all students regardless of economic class. The English realized the need for this a couple hundred years ago when they created what became the public school. But, Bush and his elitist kind do not, in my honest opinion, care about the education of the economic underclass. They don’t care at all about the economic underclass as long as there is more than enough of them to fulfill labor needs. Labor rates, like the price of oil, can be and is manipulated to maximize the cost of oil and minimize the cost of labor. This is not done for the benefit of the masses. It is done only for the benefit of the economic upper class. McCain recently taught us who the upper class is; they earn more than $5,000,000 per year.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Peace Corps Update
It has been a few months since I last posted. I have been busy and just got out of the habit of making the rounds of my favorite blogs on a daily basis.
I am still in the process of joining the Peace Corps. A couple of weeks ago the NY regional office of the Peace Corps nominated me for an assignment in sub-Saharan Africa that would begin in February 2009. I would be teaching math to secondary school students. There are about 50 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Peace Corps serves in about one-half of them.
I just completed all the medical evaluations with my personal doctors. Medical is the last area to be evaluated. The next step is for the Peace Corps office in Washington, DC to either invite me or say "no thanks". I'm told that they could wait until the last minute to make that decision.
I'm hoping, first, that they approve me and, second, that they tell me soon what country I will be serving in so that I will have a few months to begin learning the language of the people that I will serve. I also hope that it is a language that is taught by Rosetta Stone or Berlitz. I've checked each of them; they teach a couple of the African languages but not all of them.
I also plan to prepare for the teaching assignment by volunteering at my local high school as a tutor or teacher's aide in the math department. I haven't been in a math class in more than 30 years. I'm sure that most of it will come back easily but not all of it, and tutoring will be more helpful to me than just studying with books. The course(s) I will be teaching range from General Math to Calculus.
The waiting is going to be painful. I've never been good at waiting to do something after I decide to do it. Once the decision is made I like to start yesterday. However, the Peace Corps, like the government, doesn't work like that - not even close. So, when something else happens - anything else - I'll post another update.
I am still in the process of joining the Peace Corps. A couple of weeks ago the NY regional office of the Peace Corps nominated me for an assignment in sub-Saharan Africa that would begin in February 2009. I would be teaching math to secondary school students. There are about 50 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and the Peace Corps serves in about one-half of them.
I just completed all the medical evaluations with my personal doctors. Medical is the last area to be evaluated. The next step is for the Peace Corps office in Washington, DC to either invite me or say "no thanks". I'm told that they could wait until the last minute to make that decision.
I'm hoping, first, that they approve me and, second, that they tell me soon what country I will be serving in so that I will have a few months to begin learning the language of the people that I will serve. I also hope that it is a language that is taught by Rosetta Stone or Berlitz. I've checked each of them; they teach a couple of the African languages but not all of them.
I also plan to prepare for the teaching assignment by volunteering at my local high school as a tutor or teacher's aide in the math department. I haven't been in a math class in more than 30 years. I'm sure that most of it will come back easily but not all of it, and tutoring will be more helpful to me than just studying with books. The course(s) I will be teaching range from General Math to Calculus.
The waiting is going to be painful. I've never been good at waiting to do something after I decide to do it. Once the decision is made I like to start yesterday. However, the Peace Corps, like the government, doesn't work like that - not even close. So, when something else happens - anything else - I'll post another update.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Peace Corps
I've finally done it!. I have applied to the Peace Corps. I won't know for at least one month whether they will accept me. Most people respond positively to the news; a few think this is further proof that I need a full-time caretaker. I met with my medical doctor yesterday and asked him if he thought that I would be able to handle the challenge. I was glad but surprised that he approved so positively without any qualifiers. I was expecting him to say yes but only if I first lost enough weight to get back inside the normal weight range for my height.
I didn't specify a preferred location so I have no idea where they will send me if they accept me. I won't leave before this fall and perhaps not until next year.
I'm really looking forward to this opportunity to make a meaningful contribution.
I didn't specify a preferred location so I have no idea where they will send me if they accept me. I won't leave before this fall and perhaps not until next year.
I'm really looking forward to this opportunity to make a meaningful contribution.
Monday, March 03, 2008
More B.S. (Ben Stein) on Religion versus Science
I think this will be the first time that I have disagreed with a post at The Sword's Still Out a great blog by a wonderful person and friend. In a recent post she states "I think I'm in love with Ben Stein." I have often enjoyed Ben Stein's unique sense of humor but I generally disagree with his advice. I think Ben checks the breeze for the popular opinion before he wades in with his editorial pen.
This video is nothing more than marketing hype to drum up business for Ben's "movie" that condemns science educators that oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. He dares you to see his movie like so many e-mails dare you to forward them to 5, 10 or more friends and loved ones unless you don't believe in God! Ben's argument reminds me of how Bush and other supporters of continuing the war in Iraq condemn anybody that disagrees with them as non-Patriotic. When you lack the facts to defend and promote your opinion then attack the authority and credibility of your opponents. Follow the link to the Ben's video and judge for yourself.
Generally speaking science educators don't have an issue with scientific challenges of Darwin's Theory, after all, it is only a theory based on scientific study not a LAW. However, these science educators do disagree with teaching faith-based beliefs as scientific theory.
Creation or Intelligent Design (the code name for Creation disguised as scientific theory) is not the belief of all faiths. There are many different beliefs regarding the creation of the universe. If the Christian definition of Creation should be taught in schools should the schools teach all the faith-based Creation models? Not all Christians believe in a literal translation of the Book of Genesis and its description of the creation of the universe. How could educators decide which Christian concept of Creation to teach when Christian religions cannot agree on one concept?
I believe that every religious organization has the right to establish its own faith-based beliefs regarding the supernatural realm and the creation and purpose of the universe and mankind. I don't believe that any faith-based beliefs should be taught in schools as scientific theory.
I welcome Ben to dispute all the scientific theories regarding the creation of the universe and the evolution of species with the same scientific processes used to establish these theories. I also welcome him to present his faith-based beliefs regarding the creation of the universe and the evolution of species in the proper context - religion rather than science - and as long as he will recognize the right of all other religions to hold and profess their beliefs no matter how contrary they may be to Ben's beliefs.
This video is nothing more than marketing hype to drum up business for Ben's "movie" that condemns science educators that oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. He dares you to see his movie like so many e-mails dare you to forward them to 5, 10 or more friends and loved ones unless you don't believe in God! Ben's argument reminds me of how Bush and other supporters of continuing the war in Iraq condemn anybody that disagrees with them as non-Patriotic. When you lack the facts to defend and promote your opinion then attack the authority and credibility of your opponents. Follow the link to the Ben's video and judge for yourself.
Generally speaking science educators don't have an issue with scientific challenges of Darwin's Theory, after all, it is only a theory based on scientific study not a LAW. However, these science educators do disagree with teaching faith-based beliefs as scientific theory.
Creation or Intelligent Design (the code name for Creation disguised as scientific theory) is not the belief of all faiths. There are many different beliefs regarding the creation of the universe. If the Christian definition of Creation should be taught in schools should the schools teach all the faith-based Creation models? Not all Christians believe in a literal translation of the Book of Genesis and its description of the creation of the universe. How could educators decide which Christian concept of Creation to teach when Christian religions cannot agree on one concept?
I believe that every religious organization has the right to establish its own faith-based beliefs regarding the supernatural realm and the creation and purpose of the universe and mankind. I don't believe that any faith-based beliefs should be taught in schools as scientific theory.
I welcome Ben to dispute all the scientific theories regarding the creation of the universe and the evolution of species with the same scientific processes used to establish these theories. I also welcome him to present his faith-based beliefs regarding the creation of the universe and the evolution of species in the proper context - religion rather than science - and as long as he will recognize the right of all other religions to hold and profess their beliefs no matter how contrary they may be to Ben's beliefs.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Illegal Aliens - A Solution
My wonderful sister-in-law, Sandy, recently forwarded to me an e-mail that compared today's illegal immigrant to the legal immigrants of the early 20th Century. She immediately sent a second e-mail in which she expressed her hope that I was not offended by the first e-mail.
I don't have a problem with the sentiments expressed in Sandy's first e-mail, however, I wrote the following to Sandy to point out that the issue with illegal aliens is not their failure to immediately integrate into the US Culture.
There are, however, a number of issues with illegal aliens
* They entered and stay in the country illegally
* Children born to illegal aliens while in the US are automatically US citizens
* Many illegal aliens do not pay taxes
* 30% of the US prison inmates are illegal aliens
* They can use public education and social programs
* They are willing to work for less money than US citizens
* Many US companies employ illegal aliens because they will work for less and they are unprotected
* Many US consumers employ contractors that use illegal alien labor or patronize businesses that employ illegal alien labor because it costs less
Legal immigrants during the early 20th century did not immediately integrate into the US culture. These immigrants weren’t welcomed to the US by the existing working class citizens. It took a few generations for some to assimilate via the melting pot while many others have yet to integrate (China towns in New York City and San Francisco). It was business that wanted the cheap immigrant labor to offset the cost of increased unionization.
We should be at odds with the companies and contractors and consumers that employ illegal aliens. The illegal alien is only a pawn but nonetheless illegal.
To solve this problem we must begin to punish everybody that employs an illegal alien including the homeowner that hires an illegal day laborer to mow grass, rake leaves or shovel snow. The punishment must far outweigh the financial benefit of employing illegal aliens. The penalty for employing illegal aliens should be significant fines for first time violators and imprisonment for repeat offenders.
The rights of the US citizen are not being stolen by illegal aliens, they are being sold by greedy employers and consumers.
I don't have a problem with the sentiments expressed in Sandy's first e-mail, however, I wrote the following to Sandy to point out that the issue with illegal aliens is not their failure to immediately integrate into the US Culture.
There are, however, a number of issues with illegal aliens
* They entered and stay in the country illegally
* Children born to illegal aliens while in the US are automatically US citizens
* Many illegal aliens do not pay taxes
* 30% of the US prison inmates are illegal aliens
* They can use public education and social programs
* They are willing to work for less money than US citizens
* Many US companies employ illegal aliens because they will work for less and they are unprotected
* Many US consumers employ contractors that use illegal alien labor or patronize businesses that employ illegal alien labor because it costs less
Legal immigrants during the early 20th century did not immediately integrate into the US culture. These immigrants weren’t welcomed to the US by the existing working class citizens. It took a few generations for some to assimilate via the melting pot while many others have yet to integrate (China towns in New York City and San Francisco). It was business that wanted the cheap immigrant labor to offset the cost of increased unionization.
We should be at odds with the companies and contractors and consumers that employ illegal aliens. The illegal alien is only a pawn but nonetheless illegal.
To solve this problem we must begin to punish everybody that employs an illegal alien including the homeowner that hires an illegal day laborer to mow grass, rake leaves or shovel snow. The punishment must far outweigh the financial benefit of employing illegal aliens. The penalty for employing illegal aliens should be significant fines for first time violators and imprisonment for repeat offenders.
The rights of the US citizen are not being stolen by illegal aliens, they are being sold by greedy employers and consumers.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Give the Government back to the People
We have all been gullible about the government and the real objectives behind their acts. I used to think that people like you and me got into high office and THEN they were told the truth and the justification for what was being done secretly or for a purpose other than told to the People. Now I think that is not true. People like you and I don't get anywhere near the high offices of the government and we never will. Our personal egos and drive for power are not like those who ascend to the top of the government. And, it’s probably equally true that most of the people that possess the ego and drive needed to get them in to high office, today, are the type of people that we don’t want in office.
By the time today’s politician gets to a position of power, if not from the beginning, they have a different view on right and wrong on the national and international level. I really believe that they feel separate from the People who they believe can't understand the issues and priorities. At that point, like parents treat children, they see a need to lie to the People to get their cooperation because a full explanation will just confuse the “children”.
This has proven to be a disaster. We have screwed many countries since the Second World War for the purpose of benefiting our Industrial Complex; more trade and insured access to natural resources in other countries especially 3rd world countries and our so-called political enemies.
I used to disagree with strict time limits in political office but I now see it as the only way to put the control of the government back into the hands of the People. Eliminate the career politician. A qualified congressman doesn’t have to have 20, 30 or more years of experience. These people got to where they are not because the voters knew the candidates. The people vote for the candidates selected (not elected) by the political parties – by existing long term politicians that are working for the benefit of their party NOT the people. If you doubt that just look at how well aligned voting is with party agenda. These people don’t ask what their constituents want; they ask what their party wants.
If we restrict politicians to 6-8 years of service at the state level and 6-8 years of service at the federal level, there will soon be no politicians that owe the party and the lobbyist for their office. The elected wouldn’t be in office long enough to make their stay financially beneficial. The power of the party would dissolve because they would not control the elected. Lobbyist would no longer be able to control Congress since the Lobbyist’s power comes from controlling the party and strict term limits will reduce the power of the party.
It doesn’t take a congressman with 30 years of experience to vote the way the majority of the constituents want. The more time in the party and in office, the less likely the congressman is to vote for the People rather than the Party’s agenda.
If we filled Congress with the people that we know and would elect, then Congress would be filled with voters that would oppose continuing the war in Iraq, matter of fact our Congress would not have put us into Iraq and they would oppose immigration reform that would create a low income alien working class that would be underpaid, unprotected by workplace regulations and supported in-part by taxpayers dollars rather than the profits of their employers. How many tax cuts for the rich would your selections to Congress vote for?
By the time today’s politician gets to a position of power, if not from the beginning, they have a different view on right and wrong on the national and international level. I really believe that they feel separate from the People who they believe can't understand the issues and priorities. At that point, like parents treat children, they see a need to lie to the People to get their cooperation because a full explanation will just confuse the “children”.
This has proven to be a disaster. We have screwed many countries since the Second World War for the purpose of benefiting our Industrial Complex; more trade and insured access to natural resources in other countries especially 3rd world countries and our so-called political enemies.
I used to disagree with strict time limits in political office but I now see it as the only way to put the control of the government back into the hands of the People. Eliminate the career politician. A qualified congressman doesn’t have to have 20, 30 or more years of experience. These people got to where they are not because the voters knew the candidates. The people vote for the candidates selected (not elected) by the political parties – by existing long term politicians that are working for the benefit of their party NOT the people. If you doubt that just look at how well aligned voting is with party agenda. These people don’t ask what their constituents want; they ask what their party wants.
If we restrict politicians to 6-8 years of service at the state level and 6-8 years of service at the federal level, there will soon be no politicians that owe the party and the lobbyist for their office. The elected wouldn’t be in office long enough to make their stay financially beneficial. The power of the party would dissolve because they would not control the elected. Lobbyist would no longer be able to control Congress since the Lobbyist’s power comes from controlling the party and strict term limits will reduce the power of the party.
It doesn’t take a congressman with 30 years of experience to vote the way the majority of the constituents want. The more time in the party and in office, the less likely the congressman is to vote for the People rather than the Party’s agenda.
If we filled Congress with the people that we know and would elect, then Congress would be filled with voters that would oppose continuing the war in Iraq, matter of fact our Congress would not have put us into Iraq and they would oppose immigration reform that would create a low income alien working class that would be underpaid, unprotected by workplace regulations and supported in-part by taxpayers dollars rather than the profits of their employers. How many tax cuts for the rich would your selections to Congress vote for?
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Why Some Christians don't believe in the Separation of Church and State
When Evangelical Christians distort the facts so that they can violate the constitutional guarantee of “separation of church and state”, they make the strongest argument for “separation of church and state”. The following are two current examples of such distortions.
The Navy decided not to renew the enlistment contract of one of its Chaplains. Two of the reasons given by the Navy were (1) the Chaplain wore his military uniform while holding a public political protest and (2) the Chaplain repeatedly proselytized at multi-denominational services. Military personnel are allowed to participate in political protests but must not do so while wearing their military uniform. When speaking to a multi-denominational group Chaplains are expected to refrain from proselytizing. Chaplains are expected to provide non-denominational spiritual support to all military personnel regardless of their own personal religious beliefs and those of the military personnel they advise.
All open military religious services shall be inclusive and respectful of all religious beliefs. Chaplains are allowed to encourage personnel to develop spiritually but they are expected to not recommend any one belief over another. A chaplain that can not comply with the regulations is not suitable for being a military chaplain and should instead evangelize as a civilian.
The chaplain who was released at the end of his contract has complained that the Navy tried to prevent him from praying publicly in the name of Jesus. Multiple religious action groups have come to the support of the chaplain. This story has received a lot of coverage in the media and the internet. The statements made by the chaplain and his supporters intentionally misrepresent the military’s reasons for releasing the chaplain.
In another example of distorting the truth, Evangelical Christians are hotly opposing a bill recently approved by the House which expands the definition of a Hate Crime and provides support to non-Federal jurisdictions in their prosecution of a Hate Crime only if an act of violence was committed. The Christian opponents are claiming that the writers of the bill will use it to prosecute Churches if they speak out against homosexuality. In reality, the opponents of the expanded Hate Crime bill want to exclude any law that would protect the rights of a homosexual. For that matter, they want to exclude any law that protects the rights of any person that acts or speaks in a manner that the Christians deem to be immoral. They can’t however make that charge directly because it would not be acceptable to the majority of Americans.
Why do these religious groups misrepresent the facts? They are, in my opinion, trying to change our laws by misrepresenting the Constitution and redefining, for their benefit, the definition of Separation of Church and State. They do not respect other religious beliefs and they intend to redefine our Constitution and our Laws such that it supports and complies only with their interpretation of the Christian Bible. In my opinion the proponents of Separation of Church and State are defending our Constitution not the other way around.
The Evangelical Christians’ objective is a Christian-based Government, Christian-based Laws and the abolishment of “Separation of Church and State”. If they were to succeed, federal, state and local legislators would have to enact laws to enforce Born Again Christian beliefs. Christian prayer would be required at all public functions while all non-Christian religions would be silenced. Laws would be created to enforce Christian morality. The mere existence of other religious groups would not be protected by the law. Schools would no longer teach evolution. Science education would be rewritten to comply with Creation as defined in the Christian Bible. All published writings would have to be approved by the Christian Leadership. Satanic books like the Harry Potter series of children books would no longer be legal. Christian censorship would control the content of television and the movies.
In short order, the United States of America would become a religious state where Evangelical Christianity would be the only legal religion and its beliefs would be the basis of all civil and criminal laws.
The Evangelical Christians exaggerate and misrepresent our current laws because Truth will not benefit their cause. They do not want you to know their true objective. It’s like politics, if you can’t win the constituent’s vote with the truth about your ideas and your performance, then lie about your opponent’s ideas and performance. They encourage us to believe that their opponents are trying to limit our freedoms while they would do more to limit freedom than any threat that America has had to endure.
The Navy decided not to renew the enlistment contract of one of its Chaplains. Two of the reasons given by the Navy were (1) the Chaplain wore his military uniform while holding a public political protest and (2) the Chaplain repeatedly proselytized at multi-denominational services. Military personnel are allowed to participate in political protests but must not do so while wearing their military uniform. When speaking to a multi-denominational group Chaplains are expected to refrain from proselytizing. Chaplains are expected to provide non-denominational spiritual support to all military personnel regardless of their own personal religious beliefs and those of the military personnel they advise.
All open military religious services shall be inclusive and respectful of all religious beliefs. Chaplains are allowed to encourage personnel to develop spiritually but they are expected to not recommend any one belief over another. A chaplain that can not comply with the regulations is not suitable for being a military chaplain and should instead evangelize as a civilian.
The chaplain who was released at the end of his contract has complained that the Navy tried to prevent him from praying publicly in the name of Jesus. Multiple religious action groups have come to the support of the chaplain. This story has received a lot of coverage in the media and the internet. The statements made by the chaplain and his supporters intentionally misrepresent the military’s reasons for releasing the chaplain.
In another example of distorting the truth, Evangelical Christians are hotly opposing a bill recently approved by the House which expands the definition of a Hate Crime and provides support to non-Federal jurisdictions in their prosecution of a Hate Crime only if an act of violence was committed. The Christian opponents are claiming that the writers of the bill will use it to prosecute Churches if they speak out against homosexuality. In reality, the opponents of the expanded Hate Crime bill want to exclude any law that would protect the rights of a homosexual. For that matter, they want to exclude any law that protects the rights of any person that acts or speaks in a manner that the Christians deem to be immoral. They can’t however make that charge directly because it would not be acceptable to the majority of Americans.
Why do these religious groups misrepresent the facts? They are, in my opinion, trying to change our laws by misrepresenting the Constitution and redefining, for their benefit, the definition of Separation of Church and State. They do not respect other religious beliefs and they intend to redefine our Constitution and our Laws such that it supports and complies only with their interpretation of the Christian Bible. In my opinion the proponents of Separation of Church and State are defending our Constitution not the other way around.
The Evangelical Christians’ objective is a Christian-based Government, Christian-based Laws and the abolishment of “Separation of Church and State”. If they were to succeed, federal, state and local legislators would have to enact laws to enforce Born Again Christian beliefs. Christian prayer would be required at all public functions while all non-Christian religions would be silenced. Laws would be created to enforce Christian morality. The mere existence of other religious groups would not be protected by the law. Schools would no longer teach evolution. Science education would be rewritten to comply with Creation as defined in the Christian Bible. All published writings would have to be approved by the Christian Leadership. Satanic books like the Harry Potter series of children books would no longer be legal. Christian censorship would control the content of television and the movies.
In short order, the United States of America would become a religious state where Evangelical Christianity would be the only legal religion and its beliefs would be the basis of all civil and criminal laws.
The Evangelical Christians exaggerate and misrepresent our current laws because Truth will not benefit their cause. They do not want you to know their true objective. It’s like politics, if you can’t win the constituent’s vote with the truth about your ideas and your performance, then lie about your opponent’s ideas and performance. They encourage us to believe that their opponents are trying to limit our freedoms while they would do more to limit freedom than any threat that America has had to endure.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
No longer the Land of the Free
It started when Bush was given the presidency by the Supreme Court, my feeling that the United States of America is not the Land of the Free. The Bush Administration has demonstrated repeatedly that it will do as it pleases regardless of our Constitution and our Laws. Two Republican-appointed federal appeals court judges, in a 2-1 decision, ordered a lower court to dismiss a case brought by plaintiffs that challenged the legality of the wiretapping program. The appeals court did not address the lower court ruling that the spying program was unconstitutional, rather it ruled only that the plaintiffs could not sue since they lacked proof that they were targets of the wiretapping. The Administration claims it is protecting State Secrecy by not revealing their targets thus preventing the plaintiffs from obtaining proof if any exists.
Our Constitution established checks and balances to ensure that no branch of the government could get away with abuses. Bush ignores the check that would protect against illegal wiretapping. The check is the "special surveillance court". Bush has authorized his agencies to wiretap without a warrant from the special surveillance court. Bush's own very conservative Attorney General resigned because he would not sanction the wiretapping. A US District court ruled that secret wiretapping is unconstitutional. But Bush continues to wiretap without oversight while using his appointed judges to prevent us from challenging his conduct in court.
This is what happens all the time in other countries but, "Thank God", I used to say, "that I live in America where this will never happen." Well, live and learn. It also happens here.
Bush abuses human rights. Bush violates our Constitution. Bush started and continues the war in Iraq for the benefit of the Military-Industrial Complex. The war costs us $200 million every day and may exceed a total cost of $1 trillion. Who do you think is being paid that money? How interested are they in seeing the war end sooner than later? I'm pretty sure that they are not anxious to see the war and their hugh profits come to a halt.
Bush stole the presidency and has gone on to rape America. Who thinks otherwise?
Our Constitution established checks and balances to ensure that no branch of the government could get away with abuses. Bush ignores the check that would protect against illegal wiretapping. The check is the "special surveillance court". Bush has authorized his agencies to wiretap without a warrant from the special surveillance court. Bush's own very conservative Attorney General resigned because he would not sanction the wiretapping. A US District court ruled that secret wiretapping is unconstitutional. But Bush continues to wiretap without oversight while using his appointed judges to prevent us from challenging his conduct in court.
This is what happens all the time in other countries but, "Thank God", I used to say, "that I live in America where this will never happen." Well, live and learn. It also happens here.
Bush abuses human rights. Bush violates our Constitution. Bush started and continues the war in Iraq for the benefit of the Military-Industrial Complex. The war costs us $200 million every day and may exceed a total cost of $1 trillion. Who do you think is being paid that money? How interested are they in seeing the war end sooner than later? I'm pretty sure that they are not anxious to see the war and their hugh profits come to a halt.
Bush stole the presidency and has gone on to rape America. Who thinks otherwise?
Friday, July 06, 2007
On Second Thought...
After my post "First Do Unto Yourself The Worst You Would Do Unto Others" I started having second thoughts about the position I took. I was thinking about removing the post until I heard that a group of radical Muslim students in Pakistan, who have by force taken control of a mosque and innocent bystanders, are probably using young school children as human shields. My previous post stays where it is. What are these beings that they would put young children in harms way to protect themselves and further their cause?
Many children have been killed in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. With the exception of the crimes committed by both sides, children were never used in such a way by a civilized people. There is a difference between an accident and intent. Some will say the child is dead either way but I don't agree that it is the same. As we have seen before these people have absolutely no respect for the lives of others. It's fine with me that they martyr themselves for their cause but they should not delay the inevitable at the cost of innocent lives.
They are evil. Bring on the Kevorkian Express.
Many children have been killed in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. With the exception of the crimes committed by both sides, children were never used in such a way by a civilized people. There is a difference between an accident and intent. Some will say the child is dead either way but I don't agree that it is the same. As we have seen before these people have absolutely no respect for the lives of others. It's fine with me that they martyr themselves for their cause but they should not delay the inevitable at the cost of innocent lives.
They are evil. Bring on the Kevorkian Express.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
First Do Unto Yourself The Worst You Would Do Unto Others
I've never believed in Capital Punishment. There are several reasons why we should not execute people. The best reason is that our legal system occasionally convicts an innocent person. That is reason enough. Proponents of Capital Punishment argue that it is an effective deterrent. If that was true Texas would not continue to lead the nation in executions.
However, recently I'm tempted to suggest that Capital Punishment is justifiable for a certain group of beings. These are terrorists that are hell bent on killing to further their political or so-called religious agenda. If death is the reward they seek I think it’s high time that we accommodate their wish. Our staying on high moral ground only benefits the terrorist. Our current punishment is not a deterrent. Turn the other cheek to this enemy and he will cut your throat in both directions.
There will be no negotiated settlement, no win-win agreement, with these terrorists. The terrorists’ objective is our destruction. We are not fighting over a piece of this world. We are defending our existence in this world.
The Muslim terrorist is not the only enemy of mankind that is unwilling to share this world with others. For instance, when the Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, the Hutu’s objective was more than the political control of Rwanda and not just reclaiming the property that had once been theirs. The objective of the Hutus was the complete destruction of the Tutsis. They intended to kill every Tutsi man, woman and child even though many of them were neighbors, relatives and in-laws. The Hutus would not be satisfied with sharing; there would be no win-win agreement.
I hate to use the term Evil but I can not think of a more appropriate descriptor for these terrorists. The inhabitants of this world don’t have to be of one mind but to coexist peacefully they must have mutual respect. People should be proud of whom they are yet not think they are above other people. I am proud to be an American but I do not believe that I am better than those who are not American. Pride is fine. Arrogance and disrespecting others is not.
Evil is what I call people who wish to destroy other ideas and the people that believe in them. I also believe that evil people will not be reformed. Could Hitler have been reformed? Could those who carried out Hitler’s wishes have been reformed? No. I do not believe that people with the capacity to slaughter innocents can peacefully share this world with others. A Hutu that is willing to kill his neighbors in exchange for a farm of his own will not, in my opinion, be reformed.
There is no room is this world for people that won’t share this world with others. There is no place in this world for ideologies that exclude all others. Such people and ideologies are non-negotiating and beyond reform.
A few years ago following some senseless slaughter of innocents I thought of a solution I called the “Kevorkian Express”. Every person in the world would have to answer one question, “Do you want to kill anybody else in this world?” If their answer is yes, they would die. They would not be killed by others. They would in a sense have killed themselves by expressing a desire to kill another. The Kevorkian Express turns evil upon itself. You can think of it as a minor modification of the Golden Rule. First do unto yourself the worst you would do unto others.
I’m not suggesting that others should be killed or I too would be eliminated by the Kevorkian Express. Rather, I am merely suggesting that each of us should first treat ourselves just as we would mistreat another.
There should be no court of appeal for Evil and there should be no court of appeal for terrorists. Catch them. Give them a ticket to the Kevorkian Express. No arraignment, no trial, no appeal, no probation, no parole, no pardon. Let them answer the Question.
However, recently I'm tempted to suggest that Capital Punishment is justifiable for a certain group of beings. These are terrorists that are hell bent on killing to further their political or so-called religious agenda. If death is the reward they seek I think it’s high time that we accommodate their wish. Our staying on high moral ground only benefits the terrorist. Our current punishment is not a deterrent. Turn the other cheek to this enemy and he will cut your throat in both directions.
There will be no negotiated settlement, no win-win agreement, with these terrorists. The terrorists’ objective is our destruction. We are not fighting over a piece of this world. We are defending our existence in this world.
The Muslim terrorist is not the only enemy of mankind that is unwilling to share this world with others. For instance, when the Hutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, the Hutu’s objective was more than the political control of Rwanda and not just reclaiming the property that had once been theirs. The objective of the Hutus was the complete destruction of the Tutsis. They intended to kill every Tutsi man, woman and child even though many of them were neighbors, relatives and in-laws. The Hutus would not be satisfied with sharing; there would be no win-win agreement.
I hate to use the term Evil but I can not think of a more appropriate descriptor for these terrorists. The inhabitants of this world don’t have to be of one mind but to coexist peacefully they must have mutual respect. People should be proud of whom they are yet not think they are above other people. I am proud to be an American but I do not believe that I am better than those who are not American. Pride is fine. Arrogance and disrespecting others is not.
Evil is what I call people who wish to destroy other ideas and the people that believe in them. I also believe that evil people will not be reformed. Could Hitler have been reformed? Could those who carried out Hitler’s wishes have been reformed? No. I do not believe that people with the capacity to slaughter innocents can peacefully share this world with others. A Hutu that is willing to kill his neighbors in exchange for a farm of his own will not, in my opinion, be reformed.
There is no room is this world for people that won’t share this world with others. There is no place in this world for ideologies that exclude all others. Such people and ideologies are non-negotiating and beyond reform.
A few years ago following some senseless slaughter of innocents I thought of a solution I called the “Kevorkian Express”. Every person in the world would have to answer one question, “Do you want to kill anybody else in this world?” If their answer is yes, they would die. They would not be killed by others. They would in a sense have killed themselves by expressing a desire to kill another. The Kevorkian Express turns evil upon itself. You can think of it as a minor modification of the Golden Rule. First do unto yourself the worst you would do unto others.
I’m not suggesting that others should be killed or I too would be eliminated by the Kevorkian Express. Rather, I am merely suggesting that each of us should first treat ourselves just as we would mistreat another.
There should be no court of appeal for Evil and there should be no court of appeal for terrorists. Catch them. Give them a ticket to the Kevorkian Express. No arraignment, no trial, no appeal, no probation, no parole, no pardon. Let them answer the Question.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Happiness
"The happiest people don't HAVE the best of everything. They just MAKE the best of everything they have."
I have to keep working on this one!
How are you doing?
I have to keep working on this one!
How are you doing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)