Sean Hannity has been exchanging video jibes with Russell Brand lately. What Sean doesn't understand about himself is that he's incapable of looking at a subject like the middle east objectively.
Yes, Sean. We understand you're defending the Israelis. We get it.
What we don't get is how you can justify a disproportional response of civilian deaths like it's somehow appropriate to kill so many people.
Sean, you effectively ignore the history of the region by saying that "Hamas started all this."
*sighs*
No Sean. Review your history and take a moment to digest what happened to the people of Palestine.
Do I have sympathy for Israel? I do. I do think Israel sometimes acts over the top and Hamas responds in kind. Neither side has been exceptionally great at establishing peace, but both sides are wonderful at pointing fingers at the other.
If Sean's goal is to be an adversary, then he needs to stop what he's doing and become a gladiator in some sort of death match if that's going to satisfy his blood lust that he has for this conflict.
One more thing Sean: you'll want to avoid having Russell on your show. Yes he may come across rather nutty, but the man has more facts than you.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
The Dangers of Russia
If you're not concerned - you should be.
Russia is poised to become the threat it once was. Vladamir is doing what's natural for Russian leaders: do whatever you want, screw the consequences.
It's dangerous territory and the world let him have a bit too much leash. Unfortunately for all of us, the repercussions of letting Vlad go out and about ... is now we have a nuclear player gone rogue.
It comes down to this: Russia wants the Ukraine for obvious reasons (um, oil - hello!) So Russia seizes a moment where the Ukraine was vulnerable and just slipped right in before anyone could react.
I know Republicans are blaming Obama - but they blame him for the sun rising each day, so it's moot to take their points seriously.
Who is to blame then?
I'm going out on a limb to say it's nobody's fault - as Vlad took it upon himself to act for the betterment of Russia.
I've studied 19th century European history. There's the David Hume reference to "The Balance of Power" by which you ensure everyone has equal dominance so that countries don't fight one another. The belief is that once these countries fight - it'll end in stalemate while both sides losing heavily in terms of people and having their economies ruined.
When there's a power vacuum as what has taken place in the Ukraine, it's not unheard of for another country to run in and put their flag on their capital.
The world is supposed to run on a system of checks and balances ... but if we're going to play the role of world cop - then exactly how to Republicans expect to FUND being a world cop?
It's laughable ...
Russia is poised to become the threat it once was. Vladamir is doing what's natural for Russian leaders: do whatever you want, screw the consequences.
It's dangerous territory and the world let him have a bit too much leash. Unfortunately for all of us, the repercussions of letting Vlad go out and about ... is now we have a nuclear player gone rogue.
It comes down to this: Russia wants the Ukraine for obvious reasons (um, oil - hello!) So Russia seizes a moment where the Ukraine was vulnerable and just slipped right in before anyone could react.
I know Republicans are blaming Obama - but they blame him for the sun rising each day, so it's moot to take their points seriously.
Who is to blame then?
I'm going out on a limb to say it's nobody's fault - as Vlad took it upon himself to act for the betterment of Russia.
I've studied 19th century European history. There's the David Hume reference to "The Balance of Power" by which you ensure everyone has equal dominance so that countries don't fight one another. The belief is that once these countries fight - it'll end in stalemate while both sides losing heavily in terms of people and having their economies ruined.
When there's a power vacuum as what has taken place in the Ukraine, it's not unheard of for another country to run in and put their flag on their capital.
The world is supposed to run on a system of checks and balances ... but if we're going to play the role of world cop - then exactly how to Republicans expect to FUND being a world cop?
It's laughable ...
Monday, July 21, 2014
Is it willful?
I'm consistently amazed at how folks view the world around them. When presented with factual content to the contrary, there almost appears to be a willful ignorance to maintain their own reality.
It's astounding how much bias has entered the foray anymore.
Literally: if we lived in the era where the roundness of the earth was still resolved and agreed upon ... how many folks would willfully stow their bias in the name of needing to be right?
What got me going?
Comments on FB - where folks were applauding Gov. Perry's option to send national guardsmen to the border to "protect" Texas.
Most of the comments blame Obama - okay.
But when Obama challenged the Republicans to pass comprehensive immigration reform, where are those commenters now? Still pining over what happened in Benghazi? Seriously folks ... c'mon.
Obama can only do so much when you have an ass dragging Congress who has completely lost touch with reality. Instead of being sensible, we've become divisive. Instead of being realistic, we've become obstinate. Instead of being reasonable, we've become accusatory.
I'm reminded of those completely idiotic beer commercials:
"Taste great!"
"Less Filling!"
"Taste great!"
"Less Filling!"
.... if the national conversation has been reduced to that of a 1970's alcoholic beverage commercial then the human race has all but lost. Enough with the bullshit.
It's astounding how much bias has entered the foray anymore.
Literally: if we lived in the era where the roundness of the earth was still resolved and agreed upon ... how many folks would willfully stow their bias in the name of needing to be right?
What got me going?
Comments on FB - where folks were applauding Gov. Perry's option to send national guardsmen to the border to "protect" Texas.
Most of the comments blame Obama - okay.
But when Obama challenged the Republicans to pass comprehensive immigration reform, where are those commenters now? Still pining over what happened in Benghazi? Seriously folks ... c'mon.
Obama can only do so much when you have an ass dragging Congress who has completely lost touch with reality. Instead of being sensible, we've become divisive. Instead of being realistic, we've become obstinate. Instead of being reasonable, we've become accusatory.
I'm reminded of those completely idiotic beer commercials:
"Taste great!"
"Less Filling!"
"Taste great!"
"Less Filling!"
.... if the national conversation has been reduced to that of a 1970's alcoholic beverage commercial then the human race has all but lost. Enough with the bullshit.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
How is this even possible?
Politician lies.
They bold face lie.
They are proven to be wrong.
They get re-elected as if they are the terminator.
They keep coming back no matter how bad they perished the scene before.
How is this even possible?
They bold face lie.
They are proven to be wrong.
They get re-elected as if they are the terminator.
They keep coming back no matter how bad they perished the scene before.
How is this even possible?
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
The science is still out on that ....
Unfortunately the earth is still flat if conservatives have their way.
*sighs*
Okay.
Science hasn't always been right. (There I said it.) In fact, science is based on a lot of theory because it's difficult to prove such things otherwise.
HOWEVER ...
Let's use some common sense about the basics as we know it.
If we stop embracing what science tells us - then we're only going to revert into a country that's lagging behind in science (oops, we are now.) To deny that "the science is out" basically eliminates nearly everything around us from manufacturing, to computers, to the internet, to the clothing we wear or the houses we live in. It negates your existence to view this entry. Period.
We are all products of innovations made as a result of science.
Think on that when you want to utter "the science is still out on that."
Can scientists disagree? Absolutely. It wouldn't be a peer-reviewed setting if other scientists didn't test and refute their findings based on scientific fact.
Read that again.
It's not faith-based fact.
It's scientific fact.
It's not based on money.
It's not based on capitalism.
It's not based on some political leaning.
It's a basis of fact conceived through scientific principles that man has relied on from the beginning.
When you have scientists - saying: "this (insert thing here) is happening," then it should be at least considered. At the very least the information should be examined and thoughtfully considered. Even if it cuts against what you have known, science tests our ability to rationalize the process and conclusions reached by someone else's study.
Good scientists keep an open mind at all times and don't shut doors.
Will there be dissenters? Yes.
Will there be disagreements? Yes.
Will there be conflicting opinions? Yes.
Can scientists be bought to say whatever they're paid to say? Yes.
Good scientists can dismiss the distractions and focus on the applicable science before them. Good scientists won't be swayed by political opinions, personal beliefs or peer pressure.
The problem with science is that it is as easily corruptible as journalism has become. With an infusion of politics - how can we expect scientists to remain professionally neutral when there's money, funding and careers at stake?
The narrative isn't: "does climate change exist or not." The real narrative is: "how can we rely that our scientists are looking at the evidence without skewed lenses?"
It's perfectly okay to disagree on account of fact and evidence. I'm all over that. But I can prove to you that the earth is not flat because we have a curvature thing going on and we have some pictures from others that have (supposedly) been to space that can prove the earth is round.
If your science says the earth is still flat despite my evidence and if you're going to stand by that, then it's going to be impossible to agree. Further: it is flawed to rely on an outdated, proven otherwise belief. We are beyond that now. Why keep with the ... "I don't know, the science may still be out on that" bit?
Let's skip forward a bit to climate change.
It's completely naive to believe that human existence has not affected the earth.
- Species have died and have gone extinct because of us. 59 different species that once roamed the earth no longer do because of our interference in their existence.
- We have rerouted water supplies to suit our needs while changing the ecosystem that benefited from the original source water.
- We have plowed the earth to plant crops over existing land, plants and animals. We have disrupted our ecosystem for the basis of pro-profit farming and ranching.
- We have cities that cover fields of earth with tar and asphalt so that we can park our vehicles.
- We poison and pollute the water supplies by dumping our refuse into streams and lakes to "tolerable levels" because manufacturers and factories don't have any other place to dump their shit after.
- We exhausted our earth's resources so that we're afforded luxuries and other "necessities" we have in our lives. Our homes. Our cars. Our jobs.
We also live in a society that focuses on the capitalistic greed. When there is an obvious and apparent financial motivation involved, then that should be figured into someone's prevailing opinion. It's a belief process that has been woven into the politics and belief structure of our society. When that belief or an intervening bias that interferes with the scientific analysis, then that opinion is tainted and can't be considered reliable.
There's the grand conspiracy by climate change deniers that there's a huge financial windfall involved with the climate change movement. One tiny problem: there's no proof. None. If there's a conspiracy then show me the money. Except - there is money at stake when it comes to the deniers as they are protecting their corporate interests. They are afraid of the constraints and costs involved to protect the environment. They stand to lose a lot of money if controls are put in place to impede or stop their toxic output.
Now .... to be fair.....
I will fully admit that there's a lot of pressure to "own up to climate change."
Problem: it impedes scientific opinion when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction so that the pressure and influence forces just to get another voice to sign on.
*sighs*
So.
If we can truly admit that there's an overt bias on the right and intense peer pressure from the left, then we can remove the defective opinions and rely on what we know and what we see.
We affect change to animals on this planet: true.
We affect change on the our environment when we lay down roads, when we erect buildings and houses: also true.
We affect change to our water supply by the contaminants we pollute them with: again, true.
So when the argument is made that "the science is out that," I shake my head and close my eyes to the helpless perspective of those that want to sit in denial than consider the evidence seriously without their Mr. Money Bags Monopoly blinders on.
Create an argument rooted in fact and evidence so that it's reliable, then we can have an honest discussion on climate change.
Then maybe we can start working on dismantling that whole "the science is still out with that" bullshit.
*sighs*
Okay.
Science hasn't always been right. (There I said it.) In fact, science is based on a lot of theory because it's difficult to prove such things otherwise.
HOWEVER ...
Let's use some common sense about the basics as we know it.
If we stop embracing what science tells us - then we're only going to revert into a country that's lagging behind in science (oops, we are now.) To deny that "the science is out" basically eliminates nearly everything around us from manufacturing, to computers, to the internet, to the clothing we wear or the houses we live in. It negates your existence to view this entry. Period.
We are all products of innovations made as a result of science.
Think on that when you want to utter "the science is still out on that."
Can scientists disagree? Absolutely. It wouldn't be a peer-reviewed setting if other scientists didn't test and refute their findings based on scientific fact.
Read that again.
It's not faith-based fact.
It's scientific fact.
It's not based on money.
It's not based on capitalism.
It's not based on some political leaning.
It's a basis of fact conceived through scientific principles that man has relied on from the beginning.
When you have scientists - saying: "this (insert thing here) is happening," then it should be at least considered. At the very least the information should be examined and thoughtfully considered. Even if it cuts against what you have known, science tests our ability to rationalize the process and conclusions reached by someone else's study.
Good scientists keep an open mind at all times and don't shut doors.
Will there be dissenters? Yes.
Will there be disagreements? Yes.
Will there be conflicting opinions? Yes.
Can scientists be bought to say whatever they're paid to say? Yes.
Good scientists can dismiss the distractions and focus on the applicable science before them. Good scientists won't be swayed by political opinions, personal beliefs or peer pressure.
The problem with science is that it is as easily corruptible as journalism has become. With an infusion of politics - how can we expect scientists to remain professionally neutral when there's money, funding and careers at stake?
The narrative isn't: "does climate change exist or not." The real narrative is: "how can we rely that our scientists are looking at the evidence without skewed lenses?"
It's perfectly okay to disagree on account of fact and evidence. I'm all over that. But I can prove to you that the earth is not flat because we have a curvature thing going on and we have some pictures from others that have (supposedly) been to space that can prove the earth is round.
If your science says the earth is still flat despite my evidence and if you're going to stand by that, then it's going to be impossible to agree. Further: it is flawed to rely on an outdated, proven otherwise belief. We are beyond that now. Why keep with the ... "I don't know, the science may still be out on that" bit?
Let's skip forward a bit to climate change.
It's completely naive to believe that human existence has not affected the earth.
- Species have died and have gone extinct because of us. 59 different species that once roamed the earth no longer do because of our interference in their existence.
- We have rerouted water supplies to suit our needs while changing the ecosystem that benefited from the original source water.
- We have plowed the earth to plant crops over existing land, plants and animals. We have disrupted our ecosystem for the basis of pro-profit farming and ranching.
- We have cities that cover fields of earth with tar and asphalt so that we can park our vehicles.
- We poison and pollute the water supplies by dumping our refuse into streams and lakes to "tolerable levels" because manufacturers and factories don't have any other place to dump their shit after.
- We exhausted our earth's resources so that we're afforded luxuries and other "necessities" we have in our lives. Our homes. Our cars. Our jobs.
We also live in a society that focuses on the capitalistic greed. When there is an obvious and apparent financial motivation involved, then that should be figured into someone's prevailing opinion. It's a belief process that has been woven into the politics and belief structure of our society. When that belief or an intervening bias that interferes with the scientific analysis, then that opinion is tainted and can't be considered reliable.
There's the grand conspiracy by climate change deniers that there's a huge financial windfall involved with the climate change movement. One tiny problem: there's no proof. None. If there's a conspiracy then show me the money. Except - there is money at stake when it comes to the deniers as they are protecting their corporate interests. They are afraid of the constraints and costs involved to protect the environment. They stand to lose a lot of money if controls are put in place to impede or stop their toxic output.
Now .... to be fair.....
I will fully admit that there's a lot of pressure to "own up to climate change."
Problem: it impedes scientific opinion when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction so that the pressure and influence forces just to get another voice to sign on.
*sighs*
So.
If we can truly admit that there's an overt bias on the right and intense peer pressure from the left, then we can remove the defective opinions and rely on what we know and what we see.
We affect change to animals on this planet: true.
We affect change on the our environment when we lay down roads, when we erect buildings and houses: also true.
We affect change to our water supply by the contaminants we pollute them with: again, true.
So when the argument is made that "the science is out that," I shake my head and close my eyes to the helpless perspective of those that want to sit in denial than consider the evidence seriously without their Mr. Money Bags Monopoly blinders on.
Create an argument rooted in fact and evidence so that it's reliable, then we can have an honest discussion on climate change.
Then maybe we can start working on dismantling that whole "the science is still out with that" bullshit.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
The SCOTUS and Congressional debacle
The SCOTUS recently declared that it's okay for businesses to decide what kind of health care coverage to allow for their employees when it comes to contraceptives.
Hobby Lobby declared that it was infringing on their religious beliefs to force them to provide money to insurance companies who will assist women who opt to receive contraception.
O.o
Paint me a skeptic, but this was more than just a infringement on contraception rights. It was a move to once again attempt to underhandedly move one's morals ahead of another's. According to SCOTUS, it's apparently okay for businesses to make that decision "because they're paying for it."
Bullshit.
First off: the pendulum that has afforded business and "Christian" organizations the rights they presently enjoy have swung incredibly off the map. The power and influence these two sides have in our daily lives has become tragically apparent. It's not what the founders believed in as they would argue that not only should there be a very strong line dividing church and state, they would also reject the idea that "businesses are people too."
The unfortunate rulings by the SCOTUS have impacted and interfered in the role capitalism and Christianity plays in today's society. They are seeking to become protectionists for systems that are corrupt, flawed, immoral and fundamentally wrong.
It's not the role of the SCOTUS or that of Congress or American government to have a direct relationship with corporations and businesses that are set out to change and redefine the role of capitalism in our society. Instead of saying: "we shouldn't be involved here," the SCOTUS has openly embraced the intervention into the way these systems operate in our society. I have no problem with them intervening as a matter of law, but ascribing rights to entities that can't vote seems contra-intuitive.
It's not the role of the SCOTUS to decide one's morality or bestow that right with the employers or organizations that decide that for others. The protections of this country guarantee a PERSON to decide how they should or shouldn't believe. It's an individual right that has been stripped from the dialogue and now placed with a bastardized protection scheme that has been misapplied despite it's original intent.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was designed as a protective cover for Native Americans to have a greater amount of religious freedom on their land. Since the Hobby Lobby ruling, experts now debate that the RFRA has exposed some deep flaws in how laws protect religion and the citizenry.
Just like Congress, the SCOTUS has become a hack for those that want to exploit the flawed laws that pass through Washington. Instead of being a disinterested, apolitical, unbiased entity that forges an independent mindset, SCOTUS has become a myopic polarizing gang seeking to further political causes (conservative and liberal alike) while providing outs like the RFRA and granting the rights to corporations just like they were citizens.
Think on that for a bit.
We are giving rights to entities by which do not exist. (Corporations)
We are also giving rights to entities that want no government intervention, but they have no problems influencing the electorate as they see fit. (Religious entities)
Those that decry "big government" are actively exploiting the loopholes that keep turning out bad law and bad rights that ultimately affect all of us.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds and yet no one cares anymore about being a lying sack of shit.
Our three tiered government has failed us. A system that was supposed to protect this country from making horrible laws and bad decisions has continually demonstrated (in recent times) that special interests, corporations and religious entities are the real "victims" here.
A society that prides itself with its incredibly fabled superiority could have such great promise if it weren't for the continual greed and infection of those that have no inclination to participate - much less improve upon the work established by our ancestors. Instead of doing what's best and right, we only seek to protect our own because that's what isolationists want.
Change has got to happen.
Change has got to be real and total.
End the hypocrisy and lies.
Become the source of change and an instrument of good.
Together, we can. The question becomes: will we?
Hobby Lobby declared that it was infringing on their religious beliefs to force them to provide money to insurance companies who will assist women who opt to receive contraception.
O.o
Paint me a skeptic, but this was more than just a infringement on contraception rights. It was a move to once again attempt to underhandedly move one's morals ahead of another's. According to SCOTUS, it's apparently okay for businesses to make that decision "because they're paying for it."
Bullshit.
First off: the pendulum that has afforded business and "Christian" organizations the rights they presently enjoy have swung incredibly off the map. The power and influence these two sides have in our daily lives has become tragically apparent. It's not what the founders believed in as they would argue that not only should there be a very strong line dividing church and state, they would also reject the idea that "businesses are people too."
The unfortunate rulings by the SCOTUS have impacted and interfered in the role capitalism and Christianity plays in today's society. They are seeking to become protectionists for systems that are corrupt, flawed, immoral and fundamentally wrong.
It's not the role of the SCOTUS or that of Congress or American government to have a direct relationship with corporations and businesses that are set out to change and redefine the role of capitalism in our society. Instead of saying: "we shouldn't be involved here," the SCOTUS has openly embraced the intervention into the way these systems operate in our society. I have no problem with them intervening as a matter of law, but ascribing rights to entities that can't vote seems contra-intuitive.
It's not the role of the SCOTUS to decide one's morality or bestow that right with the employers or organizations that decide that for others. The protections of this country guarantee a PERSON to decide how they should or shouldn't believe. It's an individual right that has been stripped from the dialogue and now placed with a bastardized protection scheme that has been misapplied despite it's original intent.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was designed as a protective cover for Native Americans to have a greater amount of religious freedom on their land. Since the Hobby Lobby ruling, experts now debate that the RFRA has exposed some deep flaws in how laws protect religion and the citizenry.
Just like Congress, the SCOTUS has become a hack for those that want to exploit the flawed laws that pass through Washington. Instead of being a disinterested, apolitical, unbiased entity that forges an independent mindset, SCOTUS has become a myopic polarizing gang seeking to further political causes (conservative and liberal alike) while providing outs like the RFRA and granting the rights to corporations just like they were citizens.
Think on that for a bit.
We are giving rights to entities by which do not exist. (Corporations)
We are also giving rights to entities that want no government intervention, but they have no problems influencing the electorate as they see fit. (Religious entities)
Those that decry "big government" are actively exploiting the loopholes that keep turning out bad law and bad rights that ultimately affect all of us.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds and yet no one cares anymore about being a lying sack of shit.
Our three tiered government has failed us. A system that was supposed to protect this country from making horrible laws and bad decisions has continually demonstrated (in recent times) that special interests, corporations and religious entities are the real "victims" here.
A society that prides itself with its incredibly fabled superiority could have such great promise if it weren't for the continual greed and infection of those that have no inclination to participate - much less improve upon the work established by our ancestors. Instead of doing what's best and right, we only seek to protect our own because that's what isolationists want.
Change has got to happen.
Change has got to be real and total.
End the hypocrisy and lies.
Become the source of change and an instrument of good.
Together, we can. The question becomes: will we?
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Fox News is craptastic .... issue #451,944
Leave it to Fox to try and prove a point, only to expose themselves in the process:
"Fox News Panel Slams #BringBackOurGirls Hashtag Activism."
In the article:
"But Fox News contributors got a laugh on "Fox News Sunday" in a conversation that began with Chris Wallace wondering if the hashtag could actually "make progress" or was rather simply a tool to make people "feel better about themselves."
It's about awareness you idiot.
Not everyone is "Benghazi" every minute of the day, Fox.
But to openly come out:
I do not know how adults stand there, facing a camera, and say, 'Bring back our girls.' Are these barbarians in the wilds of Nigeria supposed to check their Twitter accounts and say, 'Uh oh, Michelle Obama is very cross with us, we better change our behavior'?"
"It's trending! It’s trending on Twitter!" Brit Hume then exclaimed, which garnered a chuckle from the rest of the panel.
Not only is it disgraceful, it's tacky. Not only doesn't it paint your "news" organization has moronic, it paints it stupid and idiotic.
It's but another shining example why the folks at Fox can't be taken seriously and why they should have their media credential suspended. They are useless hacks in a society that's riddled with their hateful crap.
"Fox News Panel Slams #BringBackOurGirls Hashtag Activism."
In the article:
"But Fox News contributors got a laugh on "Fox News Sunday" in a conversation that began with Chris Wallace wondering if the hashtag could actually "make progress" or was rather simply a tool to make people "feel better about themselves."
It's about awareness you idiot.
Not everyone is "Benghazi" every minute of the day, Fox.
But to openly come out:
I do not know how adults stand there, facing a camera, and say, 'Bring back our girls.' Are these barbarians in the wilds of Nigeria supposed to check their Twitter accounts and say, 'Uh oh, Michelle Obama is very cross with us, we better change our behavior'?"
"It's trending! It’s trending on Twitter!" Brit Hume then exclaimed, which garnered a chuckle from the rest of the panel.
Not only is it disgraceful, it's tacky. Not only doesn't it paint your "news" organization has moronic, it paints it stupid and idiotic.
It's but another shining example why the folks at Fox can't be taken seriously and why they should have their media credential suspended. They are useless hacks in a society that's riddled with their hateful crap.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Defense of stupidity?
Some folks still don't understand the first amendment.
The whole Donald Sterling matter is pretty sad. It's another instance where a blatant racist can't really find fault in what he believes. The NBA did what they had to - because it was the right thing to do.
Free thinkers say their rights are being repressed.
Well that's fine and dandy, except their thinking is the problem.
If those folks can't see that, then they really need to get their lenses checked. There's a problem with being racist, homophobic and sexist. There's a problem having a fearful hatred of Muslims, Koreans and other cultures.
Apologies mean little if folks don't see the problem to begin with.
The whole Donald Sterling matter is pretty sad. It's another instance where a blatant racist can't really find fault in what he believes. The NBA did what they had to - because it was the right thing to do.
Free thinkers say their rights are being repressed.
Well that's fine and dandy, except their thinking is the problem.
If those folks can't see that, then they really need to get their lenses checked. There's a problem with being racist, homophobic and sexist. There's a problem having a fearful hatred of Muslims, Koreans and other cultures.
Apologies mean little if folks don't see the problem to begin with.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Guns don't kill people ....
There was a shooting in Los Angeles. Not really news, right?
Except the person shooting was a cop.
The victim in this case was an unarmed male who was trying to assist a neighbor who was recently stabbed.
The male was a production assistant for a TV show.
*sighs*
What's the first thing we hear about from the second amendment folks: "If he only had a gun to defend himself, then maybe this wouldn't have happened."
The problem is that we have a trained person. Who is authorized to use deadly force. Who makes these kind of decisions on a daily basis (especially when living in Los Angeles).
The officer got it wrong.
The result of that mistake is now the death of another human being.
My point?
Even the good guys who are trained to handle weapons, trained to make good decisions, trained to evaluate potentially harmful situations ... even those people get it wrong.
So while Johnny 6-pack and the loaded gun rack thinks he can safely evaluate situations, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Johnny has absolutely no more sense than the professionally trained law enforcement agent .... and yet we're all supposed to believe that by adding more guns to an equation - it's going to make it safer for everyone.
That's just crazy.
Except the person shooting was a cop.
The victim in this case was an unarmed male who was trying to assist a neighbor who was recently stabbed.
The male was a production assistant for a TV show.
*sighs*
What's the first thing we hear about from the second amendment folks: "If he only had a gun to defend himself, then maybe this wouldn't have happened."
The problem is that we have a trained person. Who is authorized to use deadly force. Who makes these kind of decisions on a daily basis (especially when living in Los Angeles).
The officer got it wrong.
The result of that mistake is now the death of another human being.
My point?
Even the good guys who are trained to handle weapons, trained to make good decisions, trained to evaluate potentially harmful situations ... even those people get it wrong.
So while Johnny 6-pack and the loaded gun rack thinks he can safely evaluate situations, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Johnny has absolutely no more sense than the professionally trained law enforcement agent .... and yet we're all supposed to believe that by adding more guns to an equation - it's going to make it safer for everyone.
That's just crazy.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
I didn't think it was possible ...
...but have we digressed as a society?
Today I read where the state of Georgia will now join Mississippi, North Carolina and Alabama to raise the confederate flag on their license plates.
We're stepping backwards folks, not moving forwards.
Texas rejected the plates on account that it could be offensive. At least this is one of those times when the folks of Texas were actually thinking straight.
It really sucks that people aren't understanding what progress means and how it compares to regression. When we allow such things like the confederate flag to waive freely, then those same folks should have no concerns when different cultures appear on a soft drink advertisement singing a national song.
It's beyond baffling how these folks can decry the existence race related issues - while projecting their own race-centric beliefs.
Today I read where the state of Georgia will now join Mississippi, North Carolina and Alabama to raise the confederate flag on their license plates.
We're stepping backwards folks, not moving forwards.
Texas rejected the plates on account that it could be offensive. At least this is one of those times when the folks of Texas were actually thinking straight.
It really sucks that people aren't understanding what progress means and how it compares to regression. When we allow such things like the confederate flag to waive freely, then those same folks should have no concerns when different cultures appear on a soft drink advertisement singing a national song.
It's beyond baffling how these folks can decry the existence race related issues - while projecting their own race-centric beliefs.
Obama has to go
Yep, I said it.
The big O - done. Gone. Go. Git.
That works if you're a little picture guy. The guy that wants their news catered and crafted. It's the kind of real meal you can expect from canned processed meat and starched, over preserved side-dishes.
Folks that want to decry the work Obama has done really elect to avoid looking at the big picture. For the last 6 years - there has been continual obstructionism.
Deny that if you want - but in no other period of our time has a Congress been so inept and putting self-preservation interests above the national interest.
It's disingenuous to blame Obama and conveniently ignore the role of Conservatives have played in this mess.
For folks blaming Obama - I ask: "how do we know that his policies would've failed when we have a Republican Party that's set out to stop anything he does before it even becomes law?"
It's why we have a broken health care system - because Republicans want to brand Obama with that boondoggle. Nevermind what's best for Americans - they were out to make sure it wasn't a Democrat that did it. Same thing now with immigration reform and with banking regulations which help us - while finally addressing the real problems.
It's become apparent that no one in Washington wants anything done. Obama's first moves to try and reconcile the parties made him look weak. And that was an irrecoverable error on his part.
So pardon my disgust the next time I drive by your anti-Obama sticker only to raise my hand in the form of an L and place it on my forehead. Because if you're really going to blame Obama - it's time to start bearing some of the responsibility for why things didn't materialize like they should've.
The big O - done. Gone. Go. Git.
That works if you're a little picture guy. The guy that wants their news catered and crafted. It's the kind of real meal you can expect from canned processed meat and starched, over preserved side-dishes.
Folks that want to decry the work Obama has done really elect to avoid looking at the big picture. For the last 6 years - there has been continual obstructionism.
Deny that if you want - but in no other period of our time has a Congress been so inept and putting self-preservation interests above the national interest.
It's disingenuous to blame Obama and conveniently ignore the role of Conservatives have played in this mess.
For folks blaming Obama - I ask: "how do we know that his policies would've failed when we have a Republican Party that's set out to stop anything he does before it even becomes law?"
It's why we have a broken health care system - because Republicans want to brand Obama with that boondoggle. Nevermind what's best for Americans - they were out to make sure it wasn't a Democrat that did it. Same thing now with immigration reform and with banking regulations which help us - while finally addressing the real problems.
It's become apparent that no one in Washington wants anything done. Obama's first moves to try and reconcile the parties made him look weak. And that was an irrecoverable error on his part.
So pardon my disgust the next time I drive by your anti-Obama sticker only to raise my hand in the form of an L and place it on my forehead. Because if you're really going to blame Obama - it's time to start bearing some of the responsibility for why things didn't materialize like they should've.
Saturday, February 08, 2014
Duck Duck ... goose
The controversy involving the members of Duck Dynasty is finally coming full circle.
After the uproar about the homophobic comments by Phil Robertson, AMC acquiesced and the Dynasty was reinstated.
...except...
Folks have been leaving the show ... wait for it ... because of Phil's racist and hate filled beliefs.
So if Sarah Palin, Fox and the other apologists are finally listening, the message is clear:
You're entitled to free speech ever bit as others are entitled to walk away from your flawed beliefs.
It's not a "message problem" the GOP and conservatives have ... it's a "belief problem."
After the uproar about the homophobic comments by Phil Robertson, AMC acquiesced and the Dynasty was reinstated.
...except...
Folks have been leaving the show ... wait for it ... because of Phil's racist and hate filled beliefs.
So if Sarah Palin, Fox and the other apologists are finally listening, the message is clear:
You're entitled to free speech ever bit as others are entitled to walk away from your flawed beliefs.
It's not a "message problem" the GOP and conservatives have ... it's a "belief problem."
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
12 years later
As we mourn another year of the tragedy that took place in New York City, a larger question remains unanswered:
We have learned that we can be very bitter and have revenge.
We have learned that we still believe we're the center of the universe and that we're better than anyone.
We have learned that it's better to hate than to educate.
We have learned that when it comes to revenge, we have no qualms destroying other countries in retaliation.
Harsh?
Absolutely.
The problem is - we haven't learned one thing from our history.
What have we learned?
We have learned that we can be very bitter and have revenge.
We have learned that we still believe we're the center of the universe and that we're better than anyone.
We have learned that it's better to hate than to educate.
We have learned that when it comes to revenge, we have no qualms destroying other countries in retaliation.
Harsh?
Absolutely.
The problem is - we haven't learned one thing from our history.
What we should have learned.
We have a responsibility to other cultures and countries across the marble we all live on.
We should respect one another and thoroughly learn those who disagree with us so that we can better understand their complaints against us.
We have the ability to destroy thousands of lives ... but we don't need to.
We have the ability to look in the mirror.
We have the ability to learn from our mistakes.
We have the ability to learn more about those that have grievances against us.
Contrary to what you may believe, I still deeply feel the loss our nation went through on 9/11. It was senseless. It was tragic. It made me angry. It made me question a lot about myself. It made me reconsider how I view our foreign policy and the aftermath that would soon follow in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For when it was all said and done, our vengeance was taken out on a middle eastern country whose leader we had long since despised. It was a convenient target even though the mission was horribly contrived and concocted. We got our "blood thirst" temporarily satiated in the countless slaughter of Iraq's own population. When you consider the loss of their lives - significantly pales in comparison to the loss of our nation's families on 9/11 ... if you can wrap your mind around that notion, then you're beginning to realize that we are equally burdened by our revenge spurt that happened over the last decade.
I was not in favor of our actions in Iraq, but I was in favor of going after the guy that did it - who was in Afghanistan then moved to Pakistan. I was in favor of putting an end to the regime in Libya and I am not a fan of the despot in Syria. Civil wars are always going to be the bane of the world around us. I'm not one of these folks that believes we need to be interfering in the plight of every conflict that happens. It's deeply tragic what's happening when a nation gases and neutralizes their citizens by way of chemical warfare. It's abominable. It's atrocious.
Just because we can do something about it - doesn't mean we always should. I'm not sure where the line is. As much as I'd want to put a stop to all the senseless crap in the world - I know we simply can't. It's impossible.
What we can do is start improving the way we view the world around us. We can educate ourselves about other cultures, we can teach compassion and sympathy. We can set a new example of how citizens are supposed to behave - like adults - rather than petulant children who simply aren't getting their way. Pitching a fit isn't going to resolve anything in the world.
We can stop the war drum beating, the inflaming "journalism" and eliminate the dazzling political punditry that seeks to divide us from the world than unite us. The United Nations was founded on the principle that we can mutually meet to resolve our differences ... but as long as there are those out there that continually berate the actions of the U.N. without fully understanding the scope and cause of the organization - then the world will continue to be in peril and conflict.
We need clarity when it comes to our resolve ... but we need to be open, understanding and educated participants of the world to make that happen.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Paula Dean
I think it would be really hard to find ANYONE who has NEVER used a racial remark. She was being honest - as all of us should.
Where I think the difference is ... is when a racial remark is uttered - that we then go: "oh - that's wrong" ... not because you're going to get fired, released or cancelled ... but because we shouldn't be using offensive inflaming language in the first place.
If you want the 1st Amendment to protect your speech - it does ... and if you think that it protects your bias - then you're right. You're protected. Just realize though: just because the law protects your bias, doesn't make your bias morally and civilly right.
You can't claim to be moral - and yet think having a bias is acceptable.
Where I think the difference is ... is when a racial remark is uttered - that we then go: "oh - that's wrong" ... not because you're going to get fired, released or cancelled ... but because we shouldn't be using offensive inflaming language in the first place.
If you want the 1st Amendment to protect your speech - it does ... and if you think that it protects your bias - then you're right. You're protected. Just realize though: just because the law protects your bias, doesn't make your bias morally and civilly right.
You can't claim to be moral - and yet think having a bias is acceptable.
Monday, April 29, 2013
If it's all about accountability - then where is it?
I find an inherent flaw in the Conservative mindset which posits:
"We need people to be more responsible for themselves."
Whether we're talking about food stamps, welfare, even unemployment ... conservatives love to throw out the notion that we should all be personally responsible for the things we do and the things we involve ourselves in.
Where's the personal responsibility come out morally when we balance life and health against profit? It seems incredibly immoral to protect profits over one that seeks health assistance because they are needing help.
Where's the personal responsibility when it comes to gas prices? Crippling economies just for profit? How is that just?
Where's the personal responsibility for registering your gun? We have to register our children when they're born. We register our cars that we drive. We register the jobs we work at. We register the homes we live in. We register our LIVES every time one of us turns 18 years old. The notion of registration isn't a new one - and if you're that damn afraid of the government having knowledge of the firearms in your house - then put yourselves in the shoes of the officer who knocks on your door - unknowing of the danger he may be confronting. Where's your personal responsibility then?
Where's the personal responsibility when BP incidents or West Texas "accidents" happen? Oh - we'll cap those ... so - while people lose their homes, their lives, their families - as long as it doesn't hurt my stock portfolio - I'm tickled pink. So a person who steals from a bank or a liquor store or a convenience store ... because they have no money otherwise - needs to exert more personal responsibility than the companies and corporations that commit egregious acts of negligence to the point where people die ... and they don't need to spend time with ol' sparky? But the common criminal does?
Where exactly IS personal responsibility then - I ask you?
When you hide behind the personal responsibility argument - then your credibility and ability to navigate becomes extremely limited. Especially if you hold the belief that the items I just listed should somehow be exempt.
"We need people to be more responsible for themselves."
Whether we're talking about food stamps, welfare, even unemployment ... conservatives love to throw out the notion that we should all be personally responsible for the things we do and the things we involve ourselves in.
Where's the personal responsibility come out morally when we balance life and health against profit? It seems incredibly immoral to protect profits over one that seeks health assistance because they are needing help.
Where's the personal responsibility when it comes to gas prices? Crippling economies just for profit? How is that just?
Where's the personal responsibility for registering your gun? We have to register our children when they're born. We register our cars that we drive. We register the jobs we work at. We register the homes we live in. We register our LIVES every time one of us turns 18 years old. The notion of registration isn't a new one - and if you're that damn afraid of the government having knowledge of the firearms in your house - then put yourselves in the shoes of the officer who knocks on your door - unknowing of the danger he may be confronting. Where's your personal responsibility then?
Where's the personal responsibility when BP incidents or West Texas "accidents" happen? Oh - we'll cap those ... so - while people lose their homes, their lives, their families - as long as it doesn't hurt my stock portfolio - I'm tickled pink. So a person who steals from a bank or a liquor store or a convenience store ... because they have no money otherwise - needs to exert more personal responsibility than the companies and corporations that commit egregious acts of negligence to the point where people die ... and they don't need to spend time with ol' sparky? But the common criminal does?
Where exactly IS personal responsibility then - I ask you?
When you hide behind the personal responsibility argument - then your credibility and ability to navigate becomes extremely limited. Especially if you hold the belief that the items I just listed should somehow be exempt.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
The Message Problem ....
Republicans continue to scratch their heads in trying to figure out what happened last November. While the finger-pointing continued for several months ... they finally decided that they needed to look at themselves to figure out what went wrong.
Their conclusion?
It's a message problem.
Good, they finally realized ... wait - What?
Let me see if I get this straight. They think that they lost track of how to convey their message to the American people. They believed that Obama and the Democrats have a better reach, can articulate their message better and sold the American people on the Path we're on. The Republicans look to themselves as failing to deliver the message to the American people that would've swayed them to their side.
But there's a problem with that analysis ...
... it's not a message problem.
... it's a belief problem.
If you took a long line and called it the spectrum of politics, the Republicans are in full retreat to their side of the spectrum. Democrats have shifted more central and that's why a lot of libertarians and many progressive conservatives swung to the left this past election.
A message problem is: "you're confused with what I'm telling you, let me try to put it a different way."
A belief problem is: "you're not thinking along the same lines I am."
And Republicans are notoriously blind and deaf to that notion.
Take health care reform as your example. The majority of Americans want it. Majority - which means not just the Democrats or the left-leaners ... this also includes a lot of conservatives - the majority. Republicans have battered the process - not because they LISTENED to what their constituency said ... it's because they LISTENED to those who are lining their coffers handsomely.
The Republicans have become the advocate for big corporations - and they don't blink an eye at that or try to deny it ... they KNOW that's who they are advocates for because the majority of Americans are signing on with the Democrats. If you took campaign finance reform - and did away with rich corporate donations - I'm doubtful the Republicans could muster anything beyond a bake sale...
So how did this shift happen? Reagan won in the 1980's because he continually reached to the center ... and that won him two terms. It's the same basic formula that Obama has used ... and if the Democrats were smart (not saying they are - but if they were) - then they will keep working the formula they will inherit.
As for Republicans - my only advice is this: start listening to the American people and start paying less attention to those holding the bling at the end of the line. Remember who you represent - and who the founding fathers told you to represent. Corporations is not a word in the Constitution, nor is the word "business" or "capitalism." You guys keep waiving the Constitution like it's a flag - but you fail to administer your own responsibilities to our fabled document.
I dream of a day when our representatives start representing the people that pull the levers every election cycle. I realize it's a pipe dream - but you have to start somewhere, right?
Their conclusion?
It's a message problem.
Good, they finally realized ... wait - What?
Let me see if I get this straight. They think that they lost track of how to convey their message to the American people. They believed that Obama and the Democrats have a better reach, can articulate their message better and sold the American people on the Path we're on. The Republicans look to themselves as failing to deliver the message to the American people that would've swayed them to their side.
But there's a problem with that analysis ...
... it's not a message problem.
... it's a belief problem.
If you took a long line and called it the spectrum of politics, the Republicans are in full retreat to their side of the spectrum. Democrats have shifted more central and that's why a lot of libertarians and many progressive conservatives swung to the left this past election.
A message problem is: "you're confused with what I'm telling you, let me try to put it a different way."
A belief problem is: "you're not thinking along the same lines I am."
And Republicans are notoriously blind and deaf to that notion.
Take health care reform as your example. The majority of Americans want it. Majority - which means not just the Democrats or the left-leaners ... this also includes a lot of conservatives - the majority. Republicans have battered the process - not because they LISTENED to what their constituency said ... it's because they LISTENED to those who are lining their coffers handsomely.
The Republicans have become the advocate for big corporations - and they don't blink an eye at that or try to deny it ... they KNOW that's who they are advocates for because the majority of Americans are signing on with the Democrats. If you took campaign finance reform - and did away with rich corporate donations - I'm doubtful the Republicans could muster anything beyond a bake sale...
So how did this shift happen? Reagan won in the 1980's because he continually reached to the center ... and that won him two terms. It's the same basic formula that Obama has used ... and if the Democrats were smart (not saying they are - but if they were) - then they will keep working the formula they will inherit.
As for Republicans - my only advice is this: start listening to the American people and start paying less attention to those holding the bling at the end of the line. Remember who you represent - and who the founding fathers told you to represent. Corporations is not a word in the Constitution, nor is the word "business" or "capitalism." You guys keep waiving the Constitution like it's a flag - but you fail to administer your own responsibilities to our fabled document.
I dream of a day when our representatives start representing the people that pull the levers every election cycle. I realize it's a pipe dream - but you have to start somewhere, right?
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Do you really know why?
I've been amazed watching and listening to folks who come out against President Obama and his policies. These are folks that are so dead-set in what they believe that they swear to high heaven that he's evil incarnate. These folks focus on the man, not the policy. They focus on other things, not what he has done and what he has been doing. That's why I opine that these folks really don't know why they are against the President except they are told to be against him.
The birther incident: The allegation that the President was born in another country and the tremendous (and quite elaborate) conspiracy cover-up that happened to right the record ... has to be the most insane waste of time and effort ever created by man. Folks - we're talking about official records. Official records that are nearly impossible to forge without covering up about a thousand steps in the process. Obama and Hawaii officials released his birth certificate ... no that wasn't enough. The birthers all jumped up and down pounding tables like some errant child. Okay - Obama and Hawaii officials released the long form ... but the birthers still finding resolve within their extremely baseless case ... started saying the birth certificate was fake ... yada yada yada ....
FACT: The state of Hawaii has certified that the birth certificate they have in their possession is the true and accurate copy of the President's birth certificate. Our United States are founded on the common principles and acceptance of said records when someone moves from one state to another. If this weren't the case, every state would have folks that couldn't leave -- because if their records couldn't be authenticated then they wouldn't be allowed to relocate. States must observe the official nature of the records contained within - or else run the risk of watching the system fall completely apart.
Obama wants to take away my health care: The scare tactics of the right went unverified. Because there is no evidence that Obama wanted to take anyone's health care away from them. If anything - he wants to make it easier for folks to get health care and to make it more affordable for EVERYONE. It's a very simple process ... one that tries to work with the health insurance lobby ... but the basic reality is that health care costs have soared in the last decade while coverage has shrunk. Someone is benefiting from this ... and the media decides to ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room. Republicans decry that Obama is trying to make the United States into a socialist country ... and these folks have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
FACT: The Affordable Care Act ensures that folks can get help - who need help. Yes it's going to cost ... but that's nothing new since we're already dolling out billions (if not more) in premiums every year as a nation. At least under ACA the money is going where it's supposed to go in the first place ... between patient and doctor. If folks can't wrap their mind around why the health insurance lobby wants to stop Obama ... and can recognize the the lobby has a vested interest ... then these folks shouldn't be allowed to vote. Seriously - if you're blinded at the lights and mirrors the lobbyists are shining on you - you have no business pulling a lever in November. There is no defense against that.
Quit blaming Bush - he's had three years to fix this...: When folks say things like this - I just shake my head because they absolutely acknowledge that there was a problem to begin with. The country was already heading downhill at the time of election. The housing market popped, markets scrammed and oil prices began their climb. Folks were laid off, companies relocated overseas, and businesses were still receiving hand over fist in subsidies and other tax breaks. Any plan Obama or McCain had leading into the 2008 election became null and void. There - I said it.
FACT: The simple reality is Obama inherited something very ugly from his predecessor. He did stave off a larger, deeper recession as many experts believe. Obama warned all of us that this was going to take a long while - and it has. No one likes the fact that the recession hit and hit all of us ... but markets have continued to rebound, unemployment hasn't continued it's downward slope and the GDP is coming back. Recessions take awhile to correct ... and while the Republicans are seizing the opportunity to make this into a political issue - they themselves are partly to blame.
It's all Obama's fault: This has to be the largest falsehood put out in the PAC commercials and media. They don't report on the numerous times Obama shunned his party to reach across the aisle to the Republicans who did nothing but slap it away. The Republicans had their own plan - wrench everything up and just wait ... folks won't remember that they stalled on key segments of Obama's plan so that they could then blame him for "failing America."
FACT: When most of the Republican Governors that were awarded stimulus money that would've gone to pay for jobs in their state ... they denied it. When the Republicans could've latched onto the single largest health care reform act in this country's history - they balked, derided and showed nothing but discontempt for something that could HELP millions of Americans ... but gosh - not at the expense of the health insurance lobby. Capitalism trumps morality ... and when the Republicans want to rail Obama for failing this country - they shouldn't look too far away from the mirror.
Bottom line: I challenge folks to come out what exactly they are against when it comes to this President. He has maintained the same tax breaks on the upper 1% which hardly any of us know ... and he wants to do more for middle and lower America who have been hit really hard thanks to the Bush legacy. Make your list and allow me to ask you questions regarding it. Because you may find that you have been sucked into protoplasm of the Republican message machine which controls a heavily flawed bias. Journalism as we once knew it - is dead ... and has been dead. Both sides - Democrat and Republican latch on to their friendly reporters who then pen glowing recommendations of their fabled leader. It's a problem when there's no credibility in the press anymore ... and when the supremes awarded unlimited power to corporations to channel money in to campaigns then tilted balance of the political system made it impossible for the common man to have his voice heard ... much less his views tainted, slanted and biased.
The birther incident: The allegation that the President was born in another country and the tremendous (and quite elaborate) conspiracy cover-up that happened to right the record ... has to be the most insane waste of time and effort ever created by man. Folks - we're talking about official records. Official records that are nearly impossible to forge without covering up about a thousand steps in the process. Obama and Hawaii officials released his birth certificate ... no that wasn't enough. The birthers all jumped up and down pounding tables like some errant child. Okay - Obama and Hawaii officials released the long form ... but the birthers still finding resolve within their extremely baseless case ... started saying the birth certificate was fake ... yada yada yada ....
FACT: The state of Hawaii has certified that the birth certificate they have in their possession is the true and accurate copy of the President's birth certificate. Our United States are founded on the common principles and acceptance of said records when someone moves from one state to another. If this weren't the case, every state would have folks that couldn't leave -- because if their records couldn't be authenticated then they wouldn't be allowed to relocate. States must observe the official nature of the records contained within - or else run the risk of watching the system fall completely apart.
Obama wants to take away my health care: The scare tactics of the right went unverified. Because there is no evidence that Obama wanted to take anyone's health care away from them. If anything - he wants to make it easier for folks to get health care and to make it more affordable for EVERYONE. It's a very simple process ... one that tries to work with the health insurance lobby ... but the basic reality is that health care costs have soared in the last decade while coverage has shrunk. Someone is benefiting from this ... and the media decides to ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room. Republicans decry that Obama is trying to make the United States into a socialist country ... and these folks have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
FACT: The Affordable Care Act ensures that folks can get help - who need help. Yes it's going to cost ... but that's nothing new since we're already dolling out billions (if not more) in premiums every year as a nation. At least under ACA the money is going where it's supposed to go in the first place ... between patient and doctor. If folks can't wrap their mind around why the health insurance lobby wants to stop Obama ... and can recognize the the lobby has a vested interest ... then these folks shouldn't be allowed to vote. Seriously - if you're blinded at the lights and mirrors the lobbyists are shining on you - you have no business pulling a lever in November. There is no defense against that.
Quit blaming Bush - he's had three years to fix this...: When folks say things like this - I just shake my head because they absolutely acknowledge that there was a problem to begin with. The country was already heading downhill at the time of election. The housing market popped, markets scrammed and oil prices began their climb. Folks were laid off, companies relocated overseas, and businesses were still receiving hand over fist in subsidies and other tax breaks. Any plan Obama or McCain had leading into the 2008 election became null and void. There - I said it.
FACT: The simple reality is Obama inherited something very ugly from his predecessor. He did stave off a larger, deeper recession as many experts believe. Obama warned all of us that this was going to take a long while - and it has. No one likes the fact that the recession hit and hit all of us ... but markets have continued to rebound, unemployment hasn't continued it's downward slope and the GDP is coming back. Recessions take awhile to correct ... and while the Republicans are seizing the opportunity to make this into a political issue - they themselves are partly to blame.
It's all Obama's fault: This has to be the largest falsehood put out in the PAC commercials and media. They don't report on the numerous times Obama shunned his party to reach across the aisle to the Republicans who did nothing but slap it away. The Republicans had their own plan - wrench everything up and just wait ... folks won't remember that they stalled on key segments of Obama's plan so that they could then blame him for "failing America."
FACT: When most of the Republican Governors that were awarded stimulus money that would've gone to pay for jobs in their state ... they denied it. When the Republicans could've latched onto the single largest health care reform act in this country's history - they balked, derided and showed nothing but discontempt for something that could HELP millions of Americans ... but gosh - not at the expense of the health insurance lobby. Capitalism trumps morality ... and when the Republicans want to rail Obama for failing this country - they shouldn't look too far away from the mirror.
Bottom line: I challenge folks to come out what exactly they are against when it comes to this President. He has maintained the same tax breaks on the upper 1% which hardly any of us know ... and he wants to do more for middle and lower America who have been hit really hard thanks to the Bush legacy. Make your list and allow me to ask you questions regarding it. Because you may find that you have been sucked into protoplasm of the Republican message machine which controls a heavily flawed bias. Journalism as we once knew it - is dead ... and has been dead. Both sides - Democrat and Republican latch on to their friendly reporters who then pen glowing recommendations of their fabled leader. It's a problem when there's no credibility in the press anymore ... and when the supremes awarded unlimited power to corporations to channel money in to campaigns then tilted balance of the political system made it impossible for the common man to have his voice heard ... much less his views tainted, slanted and biased.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Ryan Card....
So Romney picks Ryan ... as much as it is a concidence, their initials R&R seem to match how America would be if the Republicans win in November: rail roaded...
What stands out about the Ryan pick is that it does nothing to bring independents or Democrats to the Republican side of the ballot come November. In fact, Obama has been handed Florida ... in one fell swoop.
Appealing to the Tea Party fan base is one thing, but extending beyond your core beliefs to dabble into the extremes of your party isn't a winning strategy either.
Let's face it.
Mitt has had many problems of late ... as he continues to lead a gaffe-filled campaign into the "home stretch." But let's give an analysis of how his campaign is shaping up:
- His foreign policy is nothing short of a disaster. Gaffes in Britain, Israel and our allies in Europe only make him look weaker when it comes to how he'll handle world affairs.
- His own skeletons he's very very protective of. His tax returns continue to hobble him - even though he probably could release them and watch the dust fade away ... he has guarded them - and has increased their importance by not releasing them. Now there's more questions as to "what's he hiding" ... that may or may not amount to anything ... but it's very telling.
- He can't try to invoke privilege when it comes to his finances since he's using his business practices as his credentials for running the country. It doesn't work on a one way street Mitt ....
- The war on women, I feel is going to have a profound amount of pain this election for the Republicans. They have done a lot to alienate and invade on women's rights - from abortion and health to equal pay (which Republicans fought so strongly on.)
- Even though Mitt may have his heritage somewhere in his Hispanic lineage, he has no plan strong enough to withstand the smell test when it comes to immigration reform.
- Yes Ryan puts some more credibility in the economy and government spending ... but this doesn't poll well with independents and democrats.
So as far as I can tell - a Ryan pick is a wasted one. He should've picked someone more moderate to bring in independents and snag a few democrats along the way. That pick would've been Ron Paul ... not Paul Ryan. Which is fine by me because this is good news for Obama and the Democrats. The more red-meat out there, the more Obama can lean into the middle ground and draw in the center while holding onto his base.
The real problem I can see ... is how well Biden is going to do against Ryan in the debates... If there's a soft spot in the Dem ticket ... it would be the bottom half.
What stands out about the Ryan pick is that it does nothing to bring independents or Democrats to the Republican side of the ballot come November. In fact, Obama has been handed Florida ... in one fell swoop.
Appealing to the Tea Party fan base is one thing, but extending beyond your core beliefs to dabble into the extremes of your party isn't a winning strategy either.
Let's face it.
Mitt has had many problems of late ... as he continues to lead a gaffe-filled campaign into the "home stretch." But let's give an analysis of how his campaign is shaping up:
- His foreign policy is nothing short of a disaster. Gaffes in Britain, Israel and our allies in Europe only make him look weaker when it comes to how he'll handle world affairs.
- His own skeletons he's very very protective of. His tax returns continue to hobble him - even though he probably could release them and watch the dust fade away ... he has guarded them - and has increased their importance by not releasing them. Now there's more questions as to "what's he hiding" ... that may or may not amount to anything ... but it's very telling.
- He can't try to invoke privilege when it comes to his finances since he's using his business practices as his credentials for running the country. It doesn't work on a one way street Mitt ....
- The war on women, I feel is going to have a profound amount of pain this election for the Republicans. They have done a lot to alienate and invade on women's rights - from abortion and health to equal pay (which Republicans fought so strongly on.)
- Even though Mitt may have his heritage somewhere in his Hispanic lineage, he has no plan strong enough to withstand the smell test when it comes to immigration reform.
- Yes Ryan puts some more credibility in the economy and government spending ... but this doesn't poll well with independents and democrats.
So as far as I can tell - a Ryan pick is a wasted one. He should've picked someone more moderate to bring in independents and snag a few democrats along the way. That pick would've been Ron Paul ... not Paul Ryan. Which is fine by me because this is good news for Obama and the Democrats. The more red-meat out there, the more Obama can lean into the middle ground and draw in the center while holding onto his base.
The real problem I can see ... is how well Biden is going to do against Ryan in the debates... If there's a soft spot in the Dem ticket ... it would be the bottom half.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Jesus Loves Chicken....
I just don't buy into the whole: "Jesus would want me to hate people, so
I'm ordering a chicken sandwich in show of my support..."
Monday, July 09, 2012
The Bartender - Taxation .... fraud
(seen this before - but good for laughs another time around...)
But in that analogy - it's the 10th man that keeps promising to pay the bartender - but never does. He keeps benefiting from the beer he drinks, but the comes to pay up the 10th man is full of excuses ... "the Swiss have my money," "I have stockholders to answer to," "the big spill wasn't really my fault, but I'll give you a $20 for it and we can call it good", "I really don't think it's fair that I should be limited to three yachts this year because last year I could buy four," "I'm G.E. and have lost so much money - I shouldn't have to pay my bar bill."
According to your analogy every time the bartender comes with the bill - the 10th man dashes out the door because he feels like he's paid his fair share ... even though his dad, his grand dad and great grand dad all paid the bartender promptly each and every time. It's a legacy every generation has embraced to make the tavern a better place for the next generation.
Problem is - the tavern has been subject to the promises of a lot of people who are in the same class like the 10th man. Each time the bartender threatens to raise the price of their drinks - they keep threatening to leave and go to the Swiss bar or the Cayman Island bar. So the bartender keeps accruing debt so that at least he has some people coming in. Because he knows the 10th man has money - he offers incentives (even though he can't afford them) "free meals," "half-priced shots," "free ride on the buckin' bronco" ... but like where we are today - eventually no one will lend the bartender any more money because he's tapped out. Finished. Dried up.
All of the 10th men out there - have ALREADY taken their money, their capital and their jobs out of the country. We've been hemorrhaging for decades now ... because the 99% of us believed that if you give the 10th men their tax breaks, incentives, tax subsidies - the jobs will come.
They haven't.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the 35% tax rate on the rich is the LOWEST rate since we were in high school. When we were born - 1969/70's ... the tax rate was 70%. When there isn't enough revenue - we borrow - and that's why we have the deficit that SOARED in the 80's and where we are today. It's the rate Republicans are fighting for today.
Ever since Reagan did his little trickle-down economic trick ... tax revenue dropped, the country had to borrow and the deficit soared. Companies did invest in American jobs because tariffs and other trade embargoes were in place to ensure that the jobs stayed home. When the Great Big Outsourcing began - the jobs left - and companies were STILL rewarded with lower tax rates.
If history teaches us anything - we should be investing at home first. We already have a man running for the Presidency that has embraced the ideal of taking your money elsewhere ... and I hate to disagree with you but that sends the wrong message to the country.
The fact we can have this discussion, the fact you can choose your career, own a car, own a home, freely leave the country on vacation, move, buy 10 flat screen TV's along with the sledgehammer to smash them up, send your children to wherever you want ... all makes it about freedom ... not socialism.
But I do agree with you on something though. A beer summit would do wonders to resolve this ... the more trashed everyone is - the less painful it feels like some days.
Cheers!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. It's not so much people mind helping out, but when you have a government that spends $1 Trillion more than it takes in, it is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. Get that in check and I am with you.
But in that analogy - it's the 10th man that keeps promising to pay the bartender - but never does. He keeps benefiting from the beer he drinks, but the comes to pay up the 10th man is full of excuses ... "the Swiss have my money," "I have stockholders to answer to," "the big spill wasn't really my fault, but I'll give you a $20 for it and we can call it good", "I really don't think it's fair that I should be limited to three yachts this year because last year I could buy four," "I'm G.E. and have lost so much money - I shouldn't have to pay my bar bill."
According to your analogy every time the bartender comes with the bill - the 10th man dashes out the door because he feels like he's paid his fair share ... even though his dad, his grand dad and great grand dad all paid the bartender promptly each and every time. It's a legacy every generation has embraced to make the tavern a better place for the next generation.
Problem is - the tavern has been subject to the promises of a lot of people who are in the same class like the 10th man. Each time the bartender threatens to raise the price of their drinks - they keep threatening to leave and go to the Swiss bar or the Cayman Island bar. So the bartender keeps accruing debt so that at least he has some people coming in. Because he knows the 10th man has money - he offers incentives (even though he can't afford them) "free meals," "half-priced shots," "free ride on the buckin' bronco" ... but like where we are today - eventually no one will lend the bartender any more money because he's tapped out. Finished. Dried up.
All of the 10th men out there - have ALREADY taken their money, their capital and their jobs out of the country. We've been hemorrhaging for decades now ... because the 99% of us believed that if you give the 10th men their tax breaks, incentives, tax subsidies - the jobs will come.
They haven't.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the 35% tax rate on the rich is the LOWEST rate since we were in high school. When we were born - 1969/70's ... the tax rate was 70%. When there isn't enough revenue - we borrow - and that's why we have the deficit that SOARED in the 80's and where we are today. It's the rate Republicans are fighting for today.
Ever since Reagan did his little trickle-down economic trick ... tax revenue dropped, the country had to borrow and the deficit soared. Companies did invest in American jobs because tariffs and other trade embargoes were in place to ensure that the jobs stayed home. When the Great Big Outsourcing began - the jobs left - and companies were STILL rewarded with lower tax rates.
If history teaches us anything - we should be investing at home first. We already have a man running for the Presidency that has embraced the ideal of taking your money elsewhere ... and I hate to disagree with you but that sends the wrong message to the country.
The fact we can have this discussion, the fact you can choose your career, own a car, own a home, freely leave the country on vacation, move, buy 10 flat screen TV's along with the sledgehammer to smash them up, send your children to wherever you want ... all makes it about freedom ... not socialism.
But I do agree with you on something though. A beer summit would do wonders to resolve this ... the more trashed everyone is - the less painful it feels like some days.
Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
