The independent panel investigating the Benghazi, Libya security breach by well planned and armed insurgent militia which lead to the death of four people, including the US Ambassador to Libya concluded the obvious, failures of US security people and State Department officials.
While their conclusion are valid and correct, they're basically said in hindsight when at the time no one could have or would have foreseen the events of the attack and the militia. And while they put the blame squarely on the State Department they neglected to include Congress.
And that's the failure of the panel itself. It looked at the failures within the State Department and not in the context of the larger political arena which includes the appropriations provided to the State Department for embassy and other diplomatic facilities or compounds.
And that we know is the real fault. For the last few years Congress has reduced the requested appropriations for security at overseas locations where the State Department had to make hard choices for less US security in some countries and rely on foreign security forces.
And this is what failed. Not just the State Department, but Congress. And they failed big time. They share the blood on their hands the panel doesn't mention because they didn't look at the larger context of the events in Libya, just those by the State Department in the country.
It's easy to point at these failures by the State Department, that's the obvious, but it's harder to point at the failures of relative events over years, like Congress and appropriations, because it's political, and this panel wanted concrete results. But I have a question for the panel.
Exactly where does the State Department get the money they don't have to add security at overseas locations? They can't just spend money they don't have, only Congress can do that, and Congress hasn't done that.
Answer that and then you can call your conclusions conclusive than just focused.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Sorry Gun Activists, No
Sorry all you gun activists, you can't dismiss this shooting like the others this year, last year and in 2010 with the Tucson shooting by saying it was done by a "deranged" shooter, or mentally abnormal young man.
I don't care what or who the young man was to commit this horrible crime, he wouldn't have committed it without the guns his mother bought and kept in the house, including the assault rifle he used to kill all the people from his mother at home to the rest at the school.
There are a lot of people who have mild to moderate mental conditions who aren't dangerous, and this young man was not considered dangerous until he committed the act. You can't blame mental health on this shooting. To put it simply.
People, normal or not, can not shoot and kill people without guns. That's the simple fact and reality. And all the talk of mental conditions doesn't change the deaths of those children and the adults. A gun in the hands of a person did that.
So, any talk about the mental health or condition of the young man, while relevant to the state of his mind, is irrelevant to his actions of killing people. A gun did that. And that can't be denied or spun.
I don't care what or who the young man was to commit this horrible crime, he wouldn't have committed it without the guns his mother bought and kept in the house, including the assault rifle he used to kill all the people from his mother at home to the rest at the school.
There are a lot of people who have mild to moderate mental conditions who aren't dangerous, and this young man was not considered dangerous until he committed the act. You can't blame mental health on this shooting. To put it simply.
Without a gun, he doesn't shoot and kill anyone.
People, normal or not, can not shoot and kill people without guns. That's the simple fact and reality. And all the talk of mental conditions doesn't change the deaths of those children and the adults. A gun in the hands of a person did that.
So, any talk about the mental health or condition of the young man, while relevant to the state of his mind, is irrelevant to his actions of killing people. A gun did that. And that can't be denied or spun.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Speaker Boehner
Do you really think the House of Representatives with House Speak Boehner trying to keep his job with the extreme right Tea Party Republicans and the NRA will bring up any gun control legislation, let alone any meaningful legislation, next year?
If you do, then I'm sure someone has offered you, and you actually considered buying, a bridge in New York City or you took some from Nigeria up on their offer of their relative's hidden assest fund worth millions of dollars they're willing to share with you.
It will be interesting to watch the political and verbal dance Speaker Boehner will contort from his mouth as to why any gun legislation would be a violation of the Second Amendment rights of the American people to own guns.
I'm sure he'll find the words to make gun control advocates the cause of the mass shooting of late, the theater in Aurora, Colorado, the shopping mall in Clackamas, Oregon and now the elementary school in Connecticut.
Any bets we'll see any congressional action beyond our the Representatives and Senators standing in front of TV cameras touting how much they care about those killed and how we need to some laws but not ones which compromise legal, lawful gun owners' rights?
I'd love to see the Vegas odds. Well Mr. Boehner? As they say, the balls, or in this case the guns and bullets, are in your court.
If you do, then I'm sure someone has offered you, and you actually considered buying, a bridge in New York City or you took some from Nigeria up on their offer of their relative's hidden assest fund worth millions of dollars they're willing to share with you.
It will be interesting to watch the political and verbal dance Speaker Boehner will contort from his mouth as to why any gun legislation would be a violation of the Second Amendment rights of the American people to own guns.
I'm sure he'll find the words to make gun control advocates the cause of the mass shooting of late, the theater in Aurora, Colorado, the shopping mall in Clackamas, Oregon and now the elementary school in Connecticut.
Any bets we'll see any congressional action beyond our the Representatives and Senators standing in front of TV cameras touting how much they care about those killed and how we need to some laws but not ones which compromise legal, lawful gun owners' rights?
I'd love to see the Vegas odds. Well Mr. Boehner? As they say, the balls, or in this case the guns and bullets, are in your court.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
What If
If one shooter can wreck so much havoc in one shopping mall (Clackamas Mall in Portland, Oregon) and attract so many law enforcement officers and so much media attention, what would we do if a gang attacked a mall or several malls simultaneously?
What if a gang orchestrated an multiple point attack in one city? What would happen? We know there are enough guns, ammunition, body armor, etc. to pull it off, so what would we do and how would our law enforcement agency respond and the media present?
If one can do this much, what if several people had there, or others in other malls?
Consider what all the guns in the country could do in the hands of angry men, violent gangs or private militias who want to do something like this. Consider the consequences of what we have done to ourselves and this nation with guns.
What if...
What if a gang orchestrated an multiple point attack in one city? What would happen? We know there are enough guns, ammunition, body armor, etc. to pull it off, so what would we do and how would our law enforcement agency respond and the media present?
If one can do this much, what if several people had there, or others in other malls?
Consider what all the guns in the country could do in the hands of angry men, violent gangs or private militias who want to do something like this. Consider the consequences of what we have done to ourselves and this nation with guns.
What if...
Monday, December 10, 2012
Expressing a view
Listening to the news about the right to work bill that was passed by the Michigan legislature today, it makes me wonder if the extreme left should take a page from the extreme right view on expressing their view on being angry with politicians.
Really? Yes, really? And what, pray tell is that? Simple. They should express their view with their Second Amendment rights with those they disagree with about any particular bill or law. Yes, what's good for wingnuts is good for progressives.
So, maybe? Remember not just Republicans own guns and know how to use them. The difference is simply what or who is at the other end of the scope they're looking through. But yes, it's not smart and it's definitely illegal to actually do anything this way.
It's not our democracy, but neither were the republicans and the govenor who shot the workers' rights in Michigan. It only seems right now to fight against this, preferably through legal means if not political means, but the wingnuts don't seem to think extreme measures are inappropriate.
Really? Yes, really? And what, pray tell is that? Simple. They should express their view with their Second Amendment rights with those they disagree with about any particular bill or law. Yes, what's good for wingnuts is good for progressives.
So, maybe? Remember not just Republicans own guns and know how to use them. The difference is simply what or who is at the other end of the scope they're looking through. But yes, it's not smart and it's definitely illegal to actually do anything this way.
It's not our democracy, but neither were the republicans and the govenor who shot the workers' rights in Michigan. It only seems right now to fight against this, preferably through legal means if not political means, but the wingnuts don't seem to think extreme measures are inappropriate.
Friday, December 7, 2012
False Argument
People who argue there is both good and bad "fracking", the process to release natural gas deep in Shale deposits, forget to admit the flaw in their argument, all fracking is bad.
There is no "good" fracking as the chemicals they use are toxic to the enviroment and human health, the process causes geologic problems in the shale formations, such as spontaneous and frequent minor earthquakes, and the process to seal the wells from aquifers isn't guarranteed or permanent.
In short, any fracking is bad, and arguing there is good fracking only means it's good for the short period of the drilling and removal of the natual gas, but not for decades during and thereafter. And there's no assurances the chemical and gas won't leak into domestic aquifers as has already been proven.
So when someone, usually from the energy industry or someone getting checks from the energy industry talks about "good" fracking, stop listening after the word good, because there is no "good" in fracking except the profits by the energy companies and dividends to shareholders.
And if that's good, well, I have some property you can drill on, like your backyard. Ask them if it's so good, would they put a fracking operation in their backyard, or their childrens' backyard?
There is no "good" fracking as the chemicals they use are toxic to the enviroment and human health, the process causes geologic problems in the shale formations, such as spontaneous and frequent minor earthquakes, and the process to seal the wells from aquifers isn't guarranteed or permanent.
In short, any fracking is bad, and arguing there is good fracking only means it's good for the short period of the drilling and removal of the natual gas, but not for decades during and thereafter. And there's no assurances the chemical and gas won't leak into domestic aquifers as has already been proven.
So when someone, usually from the energy industry or someone getting checks from the energy industry talks about "good" fracking, stop listening after the word good, because there is no "good" in fracking except the profits by the energy companies and dividends to shareholders.
And if that's good, well, I have some property you can drill on, like your backyard. Ask them if it's so good, would they put a fracking operation in their backyard, or their childrens' backyard?
Monday, December 3, 2012
Bob Costas
Updated 12/7/12.--After reading the stories and watching the video of his statement, it's clear the media didn't get it. They didn't get it because he wasn't saying his words as quoting someone who said those words. As typical with stupid pundits they misidentified the source of the words, as they seem to do to make a point which isn't true, just dumb. But it doesn't change my view (below).
Original Post.--To the far right who are verbally attacking Bob Costas, a short reply.
Too many people, like me, like and respect him, respect his intelligence, his perspective and his words. We all occasionally don't make ourself clear with our words because our intent and meaning are far more complex than what we say.
So give him the time and space to clarify his thoughts and words. Otherwise, my response to you is simple.
Original Post.--To the far right who are verbally attacking Bob Costas, a short reply.
Don't fuck with Bob Costas!
Too many people, like me, like and respect him, respect his intelligence, his perspective and his words. We all occasionally don't make ourself clear with our words because our intent and meaning are far more complex than what we say.
So give him the time and space to clarify his thoughts and words. Otherwise, my response to you is simple.
Go Fuck Yourself!
Is that clear enough for you?
Saturday, December 1, 2012
A Start for Palestinians
The UN vote to allow Palestine to be a nonmember observer in the UN is a start. It's not what the US and Israel likes but it's what's most of the rest of the UN like with 130 votes for and 50 votes against or abstaining.
It's a start, not a big one and probably not that significant in time since President Abbas is not allowed in Gaza which is part of the territories the Palestinians occupy. Clearly it's more symbolic than real, for now.
The key is what happens in the future and where this will be important for the Palenstinians to gain statehood and become a nation. It will be a long road but now they have something to hang their international diplomatic hat on and present their case before the UN, again.
It's a start. Nothing more, and now it's up to them. And maybe a shift in the negotiations for the US between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That will take changes in the Palestinian leadership to coalesce around one government.
But more so it will take change in the leadership of Israel to forgive over 60 years of anger toward the Palestinian people and look to a peaceful two-state solution. The US will also have to change the overwhelming political, economic and military support we give Israel.
The political leaders and politicians here will have to change to moderate their unabashed political support for Israel and balance the common goals of all the nations in the Middle East, including the Palestinians.
That will have to be real support for the other nations and people in the Middle East than the political lip service we have long given them in the complete defense of Israel, even in the face of the 65 violations of UN resolutions by Israel.
But it's a start. The future rang, now the question is who will respond and what will happen.
It's a start, not a big one and probably not that significant in time since President Abbas is not allowed in Gaza which is part of the territories the Palestinians occupy. Clearly it's more symbolic than real, for now.
The key is what happens in the future and where this will be important for the Palenstinians to gain statehood and become a nation. It will be a long road but now they have something to hang their international diplomatic hat on and present their case before the UN, again.
It's a start. Nothing more, and now it's up to them. And maybe a shift in the negotiations for the US between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That will take changes in the Palestinian leadership to coalesce around one government.
But more so it will take change in the leadership of Israel to forgive over 60 years of anger toward the Palestinian people and look to a peaceful two-state solution. The US will also have to change the overwhelming political, economic and military support we give Israel.
The political leaders and politicians here will have to change to moderate their unabashed political support for Israel and balance the common goals of all the nations in the Middle East, including the Palestinians.
That will have to be real support for the other nations and people in the Middle East than the political lip service we have long given them in the complete defense of Israel, even in the face of the 65 violations of UN resolutions by Israel.
But it's a start. The future rang, now the question is who will respond and what will happen.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
What Haven't We Learned?
When it comes for the exit of the American military from Aghanistan why haven't we learned from Vietnam? Afghanistan isn't America. Afghanistan isn't our country. Afghanistan belongs to the Afghan government and people.
We can't keep thinking we'll be remembered there, like naming places, like establishing programs we think they'll continue when we know they won't, or like thinking all the American soldiers who died will be remembered there.
Do you think the Vietnanese people remember where American soldiers died? All the names of the names of the place the American military named? All the programs we left?
And we expect something different in Afghanistan and from the Afghan government and people?
Why don't we learn from our mistakes?
Occupation is occupation, and the occupied forgets the occuppier when they leave. It's history, and we haven't learned to keep repeating it.
We can't keep thinking we'll be remembered there, like naming places, like establishing programs we think they'll continue when we know they won't, or like thinking all the American soldiers who died will be remembered there.
Do you think the Vietnanese people remember where American soldiers died? All the names of the names of the place the American military named? All the programs we left?
And we expect something different in Afghanistan and from the Afghan government and people?
Why don't we learn from our mistakes?
Occupation is occupation, and the occupied forgets the occuppier when they leave. It's history, and we haven't learned to keep repeating it.
House Republicans
If the Republican members of the house feared the extreme right in this recent election, especially through the primary campaign, to agree with them only to find they have to move back to the center during the election campaign against their democratic opponent, there is something that can be done to increase the pressure on them.
A Republicans who have a moderate or center-right view of the political issues should run against the incumbent putting the incumbent smack in the middle between the far right and the center moderates, and make the incumbent try to dance around their views against both sides.
The Republican members (incumbents) fear the far right so much they're not paying attention to the center or moderates in their own party, which opens the door for the moderates to win primary elections because the people are tired of incumbents and because moderates support Americans for jobs, taxes, health insurance, etc., and even thinks the President, while a democrat, is a good President.
There is a great opportunity for the traditional conservative and moderate Republicans to return and win. The incumbents, if they keep going as they are now, will be very much hated for protecting the wealthy and corporations and being the block to our economic recovery.
So, please traditional Republicans, run again, and make the 2014 campaign and election worth something.
A Republicans who have a moderate or center-right view of the political issues should run against the incumbent putting the incumbent smack in the middle between the far right and the center moderates, and make the incumbent try to dance around their views against both sides.
The Republican members (incumbents) fear the far right so much they're not paying attention to the center or moderates in their own party, which opens the door for the moderates to win primary elections because the people are tired of incumbents and because moderates support Americans for jobs, taxes, health insurance, etc., and even thinks the President, while a democrat, is a good President.
There is a great opportunity for the traditional conservative and moderate Republicans to return and win. The incumbents, if they keep going as they are now, will be very much hated for protecting the wealthy and corporations and being the block to our economic recovery.
So, please traditional Republicans, run again, and make the 2014 campaign and election worth something.
Really Israel?
The Israeli government announced they achieved their goal with the recent 8 days of exchanging unguided, explosive (non-warhead) rockets from Gaza into Israel with latest US military precision guided, warhead missiles into Gaza, which was (from UK Guardian)
"Israel's political leadership claimed on Thursday that the eight-day military offensive in Gaza achieved its single goal of restoring calm to the south of the country, while acknowledging the durability of the ceasefire would be tested in the coming days and weeks.>
"We had one simple goal: to restore quiet to the border," said the deputy prime minister, Dan Meridor. "That limited goal was fully achieved." However, he added, it remained to be seen whether a lasting peace was in place."
Really? Why do I get the impression the war wasn't about the border or peace in Israel, but about killing Palenstinian when about 10 Palestinians were killed or injured for each Israeli killed or injured, including several Palestinian leaders who could only have been killed with precision guided missiles.
But in the end, this said it (from UK Guardian):
"I've really tried to understand the Israelis. I used to work on a farm inIsrael. I speak Hebrew. I watch their news. All the time they talk about fear. How they have to run to their bunkers to hide from the rockets. How their children can't sleep because of the sirens. This is not a good way for them to live," said Khoudry, who now scrapes a living growing his own produce.
We Palestinians don't talk about fear, we talk about death. Our rockets scare them; their rockets kill us. We have no bomb shelters, we have no sirens, we have nowhere we can take our children and keep them safe. They are scared. We are dying."
Somehow I get the impression the war wasn't about the border or peace in southern Israel. It was about killing Palestinians and some of their leaders. It was about overwhelming Gaza and the Palestinians with firepower to demostrate Israel's power to annihilate them if they so chose.
To date Israel has violated 65 UN resolutions about the Middle East, specifically the Palestinians and both Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians have not violated any UN resolution.
And yet the US and Britain veto any UN Security Council condemnation of Israel and condones Israel oppressive control of the borders with Gaza and the West Bank and the suppression of Palestinians to freely travel in or between those territories.
And the US considers the legitimately elected government of Hamas in Gaza and the group Hezbollah in the West Bank as terrorists organization and only diplomatically with Fatah, the elected government in the West Bank.
According the US government it's ok to give untold money to organizations helping Israel as the US government gives billions in economic and military aid in money, weapons, etc. to Israel, but it is illegal in the US to give money to any Palestinian organization, or the US says but often can't prove.
The US and Isreal are complicit in the plan to not just oppress Palestinians but to annihilate them where any talks of a homeland, the two state solution, isn't feasible and the oppression can continue. Neither the US or Israel want peace but continued war.
And we, the American people, accept it. Who's really to blame? Our government or ourselves for acquiescing our government's actions?
When will the US government recognize the full right of the Palestinian people to exist in peace in their homeland and strive to ensure that goal?
And when will the US government stop supporting Israel with weapons only used to kill Palestinians and when will it condemn Isreal for violating UN resolutions?
"Israel's political leadership claimed on Thursday that the eight-day military offensive in Gaza achieved its single goal of restoring calm to the south of the country, while acknowledging the durability of the ceasefire would be tested in the coming days and weeks.>
"We had one simple goal: to restore quiet to the border," said the deputy prime minister, Dan Meridor. "That limited goal was fully achieved." However, he added, it remained to be seen whether a lasting peace was in place."
Really? Why do I get the impression the war wasn't about the border or peace in Israel, but about killing Palenstinian when about 10 Palestinians were killed or injured for each Israeli killed or injured, including several Palestinian leaders who could only have been killed with precision guided missiles.
But in the end, this said it (from UK Guardian):
"I've really tried to understand the Israelis. I used to work on a farm inIsrael. I speak Hebrew. I watch their news. All the time they talk about fear. How they have to run to their bunkers to hide from the rockets. How their children can't sleep because of the sirens. This is not a good way for them to live," said Khoudry, who now scrapes a living growing his own produce.
We Palestinians don't talk about fear, we talk about death. Our rockets scare them; their rockets kill us. We have no bomb shelters, we have no sirens, we have nowhere we can take our children and keep them safe. They are scared. We are dying."
Somehow I get the impression the war wasn't about the border or peace in southern Israel. It was about killing Palestinians and some of their leaders. It was about overwhelming Gaza and the Palestinians with firepower to demostrate Israel's power to annihilate them if they so chose.
To date Israel has violated 65 UN resolutions about the Middle East, specifically the Palestinians and both Gaza and the West Bank. The Palestinians have not violated any UN resolution.
And yet the US and Britain veto any UN Security Council condemnation of Israel and condones Israel oppressive control of the borders with Gaza and the West Bank and the suppression of Palestinians to freely travel in or between those territories.
And the US considers the legitimately elected government of Hamas in Gaza and the group Hezbollah in the West Bank as terrorists organization and only diplomatically with Fatah, the elected government in the West Bank.
According the US government it's ok to give untold money to organizations helping Israel as the US government gives billions in economic and military aid in money, weapons, etc. to Israel, but it is illegal in the US to give money to any Palestinian organization, or the US says but often can't prove.
The US and Isreal are complicit in the plan to not just oppress Palestinians but to annihilate them where any talks of a homeland, the two state solution, isn't feasible and the oppression can continue. Neither the US or Israel want peace but continued war.
And we, the American people, accept it. Who's really to blame? Our government or ourselves for acquiescing our government's actions?
When will the US government recognize the full right of the Palestinian people to exist in peace in their homeland and strive to ensure that goal?
And when will the US government stop supporting Israel with weapons only used to kill Palestinians and when will it condemn Isreal for violating UN resolutions?
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Nothing's Changed
Apparently the Republicans and their leadership with House Speaker Boehner and Senate minority leader McConnell haven't changed after losing the election. They're using the same rhetoric they used before the elections now after the election.
What don't they understand the people want negotiation and compromise?
But let's be clear Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell, Social Security is off the table. The Affordable Care Act is off the table. Everything else, including the Defense Department budget is on the table. If you don't like it, then let's do what will happen.
How's that for a solution? How's that for negotiation and compromise? How's that selling your arrogance and obstinance? How's that for your Tea Party members?
What don't you understand the American people want the President and the Democrats not to get a bad deal. As they've said, "No deal is better than a bad deal.", and we'll take it to get the point across to the Republicans.
We're more than willing to let everything happen if it means increasing taxes on the wealthy. We'd also like higher taxes on corporations. We'd also like Social Security fixed with eliminating the limit on income.
We'd also like health insurance companies and healthcare costs reduced to help people with or needing health insurance. We'd like affordable health insurance. We'd like the budget balanced by making the DOD take a real cut to help reduce the deficit and debt.
And we want solutions. If you can't understand that, then maybe you will learn in 2014 when we get to decide your fate in the House and some in the Senate. That you understand, you job, you ass.
What don't they understand the people want negotiation and compromise?
But let's be clear Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell, Social Security is off the table. The Affordable Care Act is off the table. Everything else, including the Defense Department budget is on the table. If you don't like it, then let's do what will happen.
Let's not get a deal and go off the fiscal cliff.
How's that for a solution? How's that for negotiation and compromise? How's that selling your arrogance and obstinance? How's that for your Tea Party members?
What don't you understand the American people want the President and the Democrats not to get a bad deal. As they've said, "No deal is better than a bad deal.", and we'll take it to get the point across to the Republicans.
We're more than willing to let everything happen if it means increasing taxes on the wealthy. We'd also like higher taxes on corporations. We'd also like Social Security fixed with eliminating the limit on income.
We'd also like health insurance companies and healthcare costs reduced to help people with or needing health insurance. We'd like affordable health insurance. We'd like the budget balanced by making the DOD take a real cut to help reduce the deficit and debt.
And we want solutions. If you can't understand that, then maybe you will learn in 2014 when we get to decide your fate in the House and some in the Senate. That you understand, you job, you ass.
Monday, November 19, 2012
To Israel's Army
To the Army commanders and political leaders of Israel,
Your anger against the people of Gaza is with the 20,000 or so Hamas extremists, not the 1.7 million Palestinians who live in the Gaza terrority, so focus your forces on them. Innocent civilians are not your enemy, not the opposition fight force, and not the ones responsible for the rocket attacks on Israel.
Your anger and actions against innocent civilians is not war, it's criminal. I won't argue Hamas rockets have killed innocent Israelis and other people. I won't argue they are owed revenge for the acts against them.
But I will argue attacking innoncent Palestinians isn't the answer when you're killed and injuriing them as a ratio of 10 Palestinians to 1 Israeli. That's not war, that's a slaughter. That's not war, that's criminal as in war crimes against innoncent people.
If you want war, go fight the 20,000 or so Hamas extremists. But really do you have to do that? Why not peace? Why not an economically independent Gaza and Palestinians instead of the oppression you inflict on Gaza and Palestinians.
If you lived as they did, what would you do? Wouldn't you fight? Wouldn't you become an extremist? So what and why don't you understand? Israel has one of the best and most powerful military in the world. You don't need to pummel an enemy into the oblivion.
You need to use it to negotiate peace for the Israel and the Palestinian people. There will always be fighting in the Middle East, Israel is home to three religions, all of which have extremists thinking everyone else is the enemy.
But you, Israel can stand above it in the name of peace. If you tried. If you tried as hard as you fought, as hard as you want to defend Israel and Israelis, and as hard as the world knows you can, if you tried. So why don't you?
If you don't, then we know your fate is doomed to war, war with the Palestinians over lands and independence, war with your neighboring Muslim countries, and war with Iran. Is that what you want? Because if you do, then that's your fate.
But then also, while many in the US, especially our government and military, will support you because you have a rich and powerful lobby here, but the American people won't support you. You will be seen and known as the enemy of peace, the enemy of an oppressed Palestinian people, and the enemy of freedom.
That's what we stand for, independence and freedom. Not what you stand for, if you want war. Your future is in your hands, stand with the world or stand alone. Someday our government and military will have to walk away from you if you continue, if you want war.
Your anger against the people of Gaza is with the 20,000 or so Hamas extremists, not the 1.7 million Palestinians who live in the Gaza terrority, so focus your forces on them. Innocent civilians are not your enemy, not the opposition fight force, and not the ones responsible for the rocket attacks on Israel.
Your anger and actions against innocent civilians is not war, it's criminal. I won't argue Hamas rockets have killed innocent Israelis and other people. I won't argue they are owed revenge for the acts against them.
But I will argue attacking innoncent Palestinians isn't the answer when you're killed and injuriing them as a ratio of 10 Palestinians to 1 Israeli. That's not war, that's a slaughter. That's not war, that's criminal as in war crimes against innoncent people.
If you want war, go fight the 20,000 or so Hamas extremists. But really do you have to do that? Why not peace? Why not an economically independent Gaza and Palestinians instead of the oppression you inflict on Gaza and Palestinians.
If you lived as they did, what would you do? Wouldn't you fight? Wouldn't you become an extremist? So what and why don't you understand? Israel has one of the best and most powerful military in the world. You don't need to pummel an enemy into the oblivion.
You need to use it to negotiate peace for the Israel and the Palestinian people. There will always be fighting in the Middle East, Israel is home to three religions, all of which have extremists thinking everyone else is the enemy.
But you, Israel can stand above it in the name of peace. If you tried. If you tried as hard as you fought, as hard as you want to defend Israel and Israelis, and as hard as the world knows you can, if you tried. So why don't you?
If you don't, then we know your fate is doomed to war, war with the Palestinians over lands and independence, war with your neighboring Muslim countries, and war with Iran. Is that what you want? Because if you do, then that's your fate.
But then also, while many in the US, especially our government and military, will support you because you have a rich and powerful lobby here, but the American people won't support you. You will be seen and known as the enemy of peace, the enemy of an oppressed Palestinian people, and the enemy of freedom.
That's what we stand for, independence and freedom. Not what you stand for, if you want war. Your future is in your hands, stand with the world or stand alone. Someday our government and military will have to walk away from you if you continue, if you want war.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Let Me See
Let me see if I understand this correctly. The Affordable Care Act has provisions, demanded by the states, to let them set up health insurance exchanges in lieu of the proposal to establish a federal health insurance program for people who can't afford private health insurance.
The states had until this week to let the federal government know if they plan to set up these exchanges for their state, something they demanded to show it could be better done by the state, something to show states are more innovative and creative for their people, and something to show states care about their people.
Now many of those states with Republican governors are informing the federal government they won't set up these exchanges and will let the federal government do it for them, create, manage and operate the exchange for the people of their states.
Really? You wanted the control, demanded it, and then got it, and now you're abdicating your promise and responsibility to the people of your state? You don't care about them?
Or is that a political move to have the federal government, which you accused of trying to create a socialized, universal health insurance and healthcare system, like Medicare to help people and Medicaid the states so richly get federal funds, to have the exchanges in your state to make the same claim again?
Yeah, you asked for control and then refused it when it was given, and now you can bitch and whine about the fact you don't have it? Do you really think the people of your state are that stupid not to see the sham of it?
Let me see, is the correct? You wanted it and then you didn't, you demanded it and then said you don't want it, and now you want to claim you the federal government is being big brother for something you asked them to do for you?
Really governors? I hope you're up for re-election in 2014 and those people you hate get to decide your fate and you decided their fate with health insurance. You won't be able to cry foul then.
The states had until this week to let the federal government know if they plan to set up these exchanges for their state, something they demanded to show it could be better done by the state, something to show states are more innovative and creative for their people, and something to show states care about their people.
Now many of those states with Republican governors are informing the federal government they won't set up these exchanges and will let the federal government do it for them, create, manage and operate the exchange for the people of their states.
Really? You wanted the control, demanded it, and then got it, and now you're abdicating your promise and responsibility to the people of your state? You don't care about them?
Or is that a political move to have the federal government, which you accused of trying to create a socialized, universal health insurance and healthcare system, like Medicare to help people and Medicaid the states so richly get federal funds, to have the exchanges in your state to make the same claim again?
Yeah, you asked for control and then refused it when it was given, and now you can bitch and whine about the fact you don't have it? Do you really think the people of your state are that stupid not to see the sham of it?
Let me see, is the correct? You wanted it and then you didn't, you demanded it and then said you don't want it, and now you want to claim you the federal government is being big brother for something you asked them to do for you?
Really governors? I hope you're up for re-election in 2014 and those people you hate get to decide your fate and you decided their fate with health insurance. You won't be able to cry foul then.
Twenty to One
Using the latest and most advanced weapons in the US and Israeli military, noting many of the weapon system and weapons used by Israel are provided by the US military with the approval of the Secretary of Defense and the President, Israel is inflicting casualties and damage on an order of magnitude and greater ratio, sometimes as much as twenty to one.
All the while Israel claims itself, and not Hamas which uses unguided, non-warhead, explosive rockets provided by Iran and perhaps Egypt, to be the innocent victim of the aggressive tactics of Hamas in Gaza, and against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Really Israel? It takes two sides to wage war, and there is no mistaking the complete military superiority of the Israel military against Hamas and Hezbollah. You can't claim self-defense when you are attacking Gaza, as you did in southern Lebanon, with such fire power and verocity to kill and injure innocent people at a twenty to one ratio.
You can't claim anything, and you can only accept blame for not just continuing this war but accelerating it in the name of the falsehood if self-defense. Both sides are wrong. Both sides are the agressors. Both sides destroy lives and property.
And both side don't have the right to claim anything except being the enemy of human rights. But more so you, Israel, have shown you have no limits when it comes to anyone you call your enemy when it's clear innocent Palestinians are not the enemy of Israel, only in your words.
You, Israel, have the power to cease this war and you haven't and won't because you want it to continue. You want to inflict massive damage and casualties to innocent Palestinians for no reason than hate. No reason than you can. No reason than you want.
That's the definition of a war monger, not a peace loving nation and people Israel is at its heart, in its soul, and with its spirit. I won't argue the extremist elements in Hamas and Hezbollah are equally guilty of crimes against innocent people, Israelis and others in Israel. I won't argue factions in Iran and Egypt are guilty of helping perpetuate their hate against Israel and Israelis.
But when will it end? When will you, Israel, decide twenty to one is enough and maybe one to one talks are better? Why do you keep perpetuating your fear of a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis and let the Palestinians live in peace in Gaza?
When will you let them be a fully independent territory controlling their own land, people, resources, etc., and develop into an economic independent state for Palestinians? Is a peaceful, economically independent Gaza a better neighbor?
Won't they cease the Hamas extremist themselves in the name of their own peace knowing the sheer military power of Israel can wipe them off the map? Why can't that be the future than perpetual war? It's in your hands, Israel, so why won't you pursue peace than war?
All the while Israel claims itself, and not Hamas which uses unguided, non-warhead, explosive rockets provided by Iran and perhaps Egypt, to be the innocent victim of the aggressive tactics of Hamas in Gaza, and against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.
Really Israel? It takes two sides to wage war, and there is no mistaking the complete military superiority of the Israel military against Hamas and Hezbollah. You can't claim self-defense when you are attacking Gaza, as you did in southern Lebanon, with such fire power and verocity to kill and injure innocent people at a twenty to one ratio.
You can't claim anything, and you can only accept blame for not just continuing this war but accelerating it in the name of the falsehood if self-defense. Both sides are wrong. Both sides are the agressors. Both sides destroy lives and property.
And both side don't have the right to claim anything except being the enemy of human rights. But more so you, Israel, have shown you have no limits when it comes to anyone you call your enemy when it's clear innocent Palestinians are not the enemy of Israel, only in your words.
You, Israel, have the power to cease this war and you haven't and won't because you want it to continue. You want to inflict massive damage and casualties to innocent Palestinians for no reason than hate. No reason than you can. No reason than you want.
That's the definition of a war monger, not a peace loving nation and people Israel is at its heart, in its soul, and with its spirit. I won't argue the extremist elements in Hamas and Hezbollah are equally guilty of crimes against innocent people, Israelis and others in Israel. I won't argue factions in Iran and Egypt are guilty of helping perpetuate their hate against Israel and Israelis.
But when will it end? When will you, Israel, decide twenty to one is enough and maybe one to one talks are better? Why do you keep perpetuating your fear of a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis and let the Palestinians live in peace in Gaza?
When will you let them be a fully independent territory controlling their own land, people, resources, etc., and develop into an economic independent state for Palestinians? Is a peaceful, economically independent Gaza a better neighbor?
Won't they cease the Hamas extremist themselves in the name of their own peace knowing the sheer military power of Israel can wipe them off the map? Why can't that be the future than perpetual war? It's in your hands, Israel, so why won't you pursue peace than war?
Thursday, November 15, 2012
To Senate Democrats
To the Democrats in the Senate, especially the leadership and Harry Reid. Please, really please, do the following at the beginning of the next session in accordance with the rules for the session.
One, either eliminate the filibuster or reduce the vote to override it to a simple majority.
Two, prohibit filibusters and especially holds on judicial and political appointments. All go through the committee(s) and then to the floor for a straight up or down vote without any Senator putting a hold on it or filibustering it.
Three, prohibit hold on bills and restrict them to just filibusters, see rule one.
Four, put the rules in writing and not just polite agreements Reid made with McConnell and then reniged.
Last, enforce rules one, two and three. You didn't do this last time, see rule four.
If you don't do these and you chicken out on real reform, you hamper getting anything done by the Democrats this new session and hamstring the President but mostly you hurt America and Americans.
It's that simple, think of us than yourself. Think of the country than yourself. Think about getting things done than playing politics.
One, either eliminate the filibuster or reduce the vote to override it to a simple majority.
Two, prohibit filibusters and especially holds on judicial and political appointments. All go through the committee(s) and then to the floor for a straight up or down vote without any Senator putting a hold on it or filibustering it.
Three, prohibit hold on bills and restrict them to just filibusters, see rule one.
Four, put the rules in writing and not just polite agreements Reid made with McConnell and then reniged.
Last, enforce rules one, two and three. You didn't do this last time, see rule four.
If you don't do these and you chicken out on real reform, you hamper getting anything done by the Democrats this new session and hamstring the President but mostly you hurt America and Americans.
It's that simple, think of us than yourself. Think of the country than yourself. Think about getting things done than playing politics.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
When I Don't Listen
Being 63 has allowed me to ignore people I don't think are worth listening to anymore and to not only listen but understand people I respect. The list of the former, people I don't listen to anymore, are Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Barbara Walters, and anyone of their generation as news journalist.
The list of the latter, people I do listen to, are Bill Moyers, Lawrence O'Donnell and Brian Williams, among others. But my point here is that Dan and Tom may be respected journalists but they don't say anything that others say better.
Both talk about their experience like it's our experience. It's not, and they don't represent what I know of the times I lived and experienced. They have a very foggy and fuzzy view of the past. And they simply espouse their opinion like we supposed to be awed by their words.
I'm not, so I don't listen. They're not worth my time.
The list of the latter, people I do listen to, are Bill Moyers, Lawrence O'Donnell and Brian Williams, among others. But my point here is that Dan and Tom may be respected journalists but they don't say anything that others say better.
Both talk about their experience like it's our experience. It's not, and they don't represent what I know of the times I lived and experienced. They have a very foggy and fuzzy view of the past. And they simply espouse their opinion like we supposed to be awed by their words.
I'm not, so I don't listen. They're not worth my time.
To Papa John
For what it's worth to you, but especially your employees.
Give employees all the hours they can and want to work. Pay them fair wages. And above all, give them good, affordable insurance. It's good business.
If you don't, think about that fact people won't like you and may decide to buy another brand of pizza because they are equally good pizza and the company takes better care of their employees. And yes, you will likely have to lay off employees, but they can get jobs at your competitor.
So that's the choice we get to make. And your choice if you want us as customers.
I'll pay the extra 14 cents per pizza.
Give employees all the hours they can and want to work. Pay them fair wages. And above all, give them good, affordable insurance. It's good business.
If you don't, think about that fact people won't like you and may decide to buy another brand of pizza because they are equally good pizza and the company takes better care of their employees. And yes, you will likely have to lay off employees, but they can get jobs at your competitor.
So that's the choice we get to make. And your choice if you want us as customers.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Why Do They
Why do the Republicans want to trash the economy, trash this nation, and especially trash the American people, the poor and middle class, simply to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy, the top 1-2% of this country?
Why to they insist the 98+% of Americans take cuts in their income while everything increases around them where many are already financially sinking and many more could and will financially sink over the coming years if nothing is done?
Why do they insist in making us pay the price when the wealthy and corporations are getting off paying little and in many cases, no taxes? Yeah, I'm one who thought Romney didn't release his tax returns because some years he little if any taxes.
No one argues the Republicans only lost 9 seats in the House and still have a 20+ seat majority to play with for legislation. But they should not forget that if they persist over the next two years of sticking with the ideology on taxes, we get to decide their fate again in the 2014 elections.
You can bet the President will campaign against the Republicans as the obstacle to progress on the economy, on this country and on the poor and middle class. And you can beat the Democrats will make the Republican intransigence the issue in the 2014 election.
You can bet the American people are taking notice and will remember who helped them and who not only didn't help them but wanted to hurt them. So, Republicans take note. Compromise or find yourself fired in two years.
The 2014 election won't be about social issues. It will be about personal economic and financial issues. Our issues. Our financial survival. And we are taking notes about who is our friend and who is our enemy.
Why to they insist the 98+% of Americans take cuts in their income while everything increases around them where many are already financially sinking and many more could and will financially sink over the coming years if nothing is done?
Why do they insist in making us pay the price when the wealthy and corporations are getting off paying little and in many cases, no taxes? Yeah, I'm one who thought Romney didn't release his tax returns because some years he little if any taxes.
No one argues the Republicans only lost 9 seats in the House and still have a 20+ seat majority to play with for legislation. But they should not forget that if they persist over the next two years of sticking with the ideology on taxes, we get to decide their fate again in the 2014 elections.
You can bet the President will campaign against the Republicans as the obstacle to progress on the economy, on this country and on the poor and middle class. And you can beat the Democrats will make the Republican intransigence the issue in the 2014 election.
You can bet the American people are taking notice and will remember who helped them and who not only didn't help them but wanted to hurt them. So, Republicans take note. Compromise or find yourself fired in two years.
The 2014 election won't be about social issues. It will be about personal economic and financial issues. Our issues. Our financial survival. And we are taking notes about who is our friend and who is our enemy.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Dear Republicans
The American people have spoken. It's time to stop bitching and start working. You were, along with the Democrats, elected to get things done in Congress. Do that and stop the political rhetoric. We heard too much of it during the campaign and we're tired of it.
So stop whining and bitching and start working with the Democrats and the President to solve America's problems for Americans, not just corporations and the wealthy, and yourself too, but all of us. You represent all of us, so do that!
If you don't, that's ok, we get to decide your fate in 2014.
So stop whining and bitching and start working with the Democrats and the President to solve America's problems for Americans, not just corporations and the wealthy, and yourself too, but all of us. You represent all of us, so do that!
If you don't, that's ok, we get to decide your fate in 2014.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Mr Boehner
Mr Boehner, After listening to the speech at your press conference just now, I can only say you are so full of (political) shit you need your own sewage treatment plant. I need a dairy farmer's hip boots to wade through all the political rhetoric to see it's all just political gas.
The truth is you don't plan to do anything different. You only plan to put a new coat of political paint over it to hide the smell. You don't think we don't remember the last two years of the most ineffective and unproductive House of Representatives in a generation?
We do, and dressing it up only reminds the listener about the tale of the emperor without any clothes. You're butt naked and politically intoleratant and ignorant of the American people. Yes, we will remember you in two years if nothing changes.
Being well tanned and well dressed doesn't change what we know and heard. You're just a politician in a cheap suit, lying like you think we'll believe you, that you're serious and honest. Yeah, right, like the last two years?
We're not stupid and we know political shit when he hear it. You can't hide the smell with your style. It's still political shit.
The truth is you don't plan to do anything different. You only plan to put a new coat of political paint over it to hide the smell. You don't think we don't remember the last two years of the most ineffective and unproductive House of Representatives in a generation?
We do, and dressing it up only reminds the listener about the tale of the emperor without any clothes. You're butt naked and politically intoleratant and ignorant of the American people. Yes, we will remember you in two years if nothing changes.
Being well tanned and well dressed doesn't change what we know and heard. You're just a politician in a cheap suit, lying like you think we'll believe you, that you're serious and honest. Yeah, right, like the last two years?
We're not stupid and we know political shit when he hear it. You can't hide the smell with your style. It's still political shit.
The 2012 Elections
With respect to the 2012 election and the upcoming Congressional session, it's a sorry state of affairs and our nation, and the people, the poor and middle class, are mere political fodder for the corporations, wealthy and Congress.
The question is how much they'll do what's right for us or just worry about the next election and where the money is coming from to ensure they don't get left out. And the President is already a lame duck one to the Republicans in Congress.
We've already lost before it's begun.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
What Didn't Happen
Mitt,
Saying what you would have done over the last four years instead of what President Obama did isn't proof of what would have happened if you had been president, only what you would hope would have happened, which we know didn't happen and wouldn't happen because it simply just your imagination, not reality.
Having been a CEO isn't being the president. Having been a governor isn't being the president. Neither have anything to do with being president, so saying so isn't just a false statement, it's a lie, pure and simple. You can say all you want, nothing you say has any truth or relevance to being president.
You didn't have to work with the republicans in House, who vowed to do nothing for this president but everything for their social agenda. You didn't have to work with the republicans in the Senate who filibusters everything and left the democrats effectively useless to accomplish very much.
But the President did succeed with the reality he faced, something you can say you would be better but can't prove it. That's all you have to sell yourself, words, just words, which you seem to change every day, even within the same day. And we're expected not to notice?
Do you really think we, the voters, are that deaf, that short-minded, and that stupid? You must think so because you keep talking like we are in your mind. You sell us "Change", but almost all your advisors were in the George Bush administration. And that's change? Going back?
Oh, I see, just change from the present, not necessarily good or better change, just old change. Now I see your plan, to deceive us into thinking going backward is going forward, and promising the same things Bush promised.
And how did that turn out? And it's why you don't really care enough about us to be honest? Truthful?
You can save your breath, we know the answer.
Saying what you would have done over the last four years instead of what President Obama did isn't proof of what would have happened if you had been president, only what you would hope would have happened, which we know didn't happen and wouldn't happen because it simply just your imagination, not reality.
Having been a CEO isn't being the president. Having been a governor isn't being the president. Neither have anything to do with being president, so saying so isn't just a false statement, it's a lie, pure and simple. You can say all you want, nothing you say has any truth or relevance to being president.
You didn't have to work with the republicans in House, who vowed to do nothing for this president but everything for their social agenda. You didn't have to work with the republicans in the Senate who filibusters everything and left the democrats effectively useless to accomplish very much.
But the President did succeed with the reality he faced, something you can say you would be better but can't prove it. That's all you have to sell yourself, words, just words, which you seem to change every day, even within the same day. And we're expected not to notice?
Do you really think we, the voters, are that deaf, that short-minded, and that stupid? You must think so because you keep talking like we are in your mind. You sell us "Change", but almost all your advisors were in the George Bush administration. And that's change? Going back?
Oh, I see, just change from the present, not necessarily good or better change, just old change. Now I see your plan, to deceive us into thinking going backward is going forward, and promising the same things Bush promised.
And how did that turn out? And it's why you don't really care enough about us to be honest? Truthful?
You can save your breath, we know the answer.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Staten Island
No one argues the problems with the cleanup on Staten Island, the people and place needs the same recovery effort than everywhere in the New York City area, especially since it was the most devasted area from Hurricane Sandy.
That said, let's be honest about it. The folks on Staten Island are just beginning to see how all the people of New Orleans were treated during and after Hurricane Katrina by the George Bush admistration, and the area is still trying to recover, all these years later.
So, yes, you'll get help to cleanup and rebuild because of President Obama. But you don't have the right to yell and demand so quickly. If you want to yell and demand, where were you for the people of New Orleans? Where were you in the fall of 2005?
Did you yell and demand then? No? And you want us to yell and demand for you? We will because you're worth it, but next time, how about standing up for people elsewhere you are in the same proverbial boat as you?
Try losing your home and property, not for awhile, even a year while it's rebuilt and you rebuild your life, but for years, a few years, and even more 7 years now. That's what many from New Orleans still face. And where are you?
You want to yell and demand? Fine, we'll join you. But then return the favor for others.
That said, let's be honest about it. The folks on Staten Island are just beginning to see how all the people of New Orleans were treated during and after Hurricane Katrina by the George Bush admistration, and the area is still trying to recover, all these years later.
So, yes, you'll get help to cleanup and rebuild because of President Obama. But you don't have the right to yell and demand so quickly. If you want to yell and demand, where were you for the people of New Orleans? Where were you in the fall of 2005?
Did you yell and demand then? No? And you want us to yell and demand for you? We will because you're worth it, but next time, how about standing up for people elsewhere you are in the same proverbial boat as you?
Try losing your home and property, not for awhile, even a year while it's rebuilt and you rebuild your life, but for years, a few years, and even more 7 years now. That's what many from New Orleans still face. And where are you?
You want to yell and demand? Fine, we'll join you. But then return the favor for others.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
If Romney Wins
Update.--Well this post is kinda' obsolete now (11/9/12), but still it was worth the thought.
Reading David Brooks' column in the NY Times today I have to say if Romney should win Senator Harry Reid should do what Senator Mitch McConnell did when Obama was elected president, when he said in early 2009 his goal "was to make the president a one-term president."
The Democrats in the Senate should take a pledge not to go along with anything Romney says or wants, simply make Romney move to the center-left than stay in the right-extreme right stance his backers will accept and expect of him.
The Republicans know the Democrats always cave on issues to appease than fight, and if Romney wins they should do what the Republicans did in Obama's first term, stand on principle and refuse to negotiate, compromise and agree.
In short, stand and fight. Every time during Obama's first term the Republicans agreed to a compromise with the Democrats and the President, and then reniged to vote for it and move the goal posts for a new compromise, until the compromise was almost all conservative and little liberal in value.
The Democrats buckled and caved everytime and the Republicans knew they would. So if Romney wins, you can bet they'll do it again, but this time the Democrats should just stand there and say no. I would not want to hear Senator Reid announce a compromise which hurts Amercians and America.
And I know he will. He's not strong enough to stand up to the Republicans. He appeases them every time. It's time the Democrats in the Senate replace him as the majority leader to get someone tougher. Senator Reid is a great backroom negotiator but a bad leader.
This is where they will have their chance, their only chance, to make Romney be a one-term president and show he was all talk and no substance, the same thing the Republicans accuse the President Obama of being when they refused to negotiate and compromise.
If Romney wins the Democrats should simply decide not to make this president look good, and make the Republican learn the lesson, "What goes around, comes around.", right back to haunt them with their own deeds.
If Romney wins I'd prefer to see another do nothing Congress than a Romney one.
Reading David Brooks' column in the NY Times today I have to say if Romney should win Senator Harry Reid should do what Senator Mitch McConnell did when Obama was elected president, when he said in early 2009 his goal "was to make the president a one-term president."
The Democrats in the Senate should take a pledge not to go along with anything Romney says or wants, simply make Romney move to the center-left than stay in the right-extreme right stance his backers will accept and expect of him.
The Republicans know the Democrats always cave on issues to appease than fight, and if Romney wins they should do what the Republicans did in Obama's first term, stand on principle and refuse to negotiate, compromise and agree.
In short, stand and fight. Every time during Obama's first term the Republicans agreed to a compromise with the Democrats and the President, and then reniged to vote for it and move the goal posts for a new compromise, until the compromise was almost all conservative and little liberal in value.
The Democrats buckled and caved everytime and the Republicans knew they would. So if Romney wins, you can bet they'll do it again, but this time the Democrats should just stand there and say no. I would not want to hear Senator Reid announce a compromise which hurts Amercians and America.
And I know he will. He's not strong enough to stand up to the Republicans. He appeases them every time. It's time the Democrats in the Senate replace him as the majority leader to get someone tougher. Senator Reid is a great backroom negotiator but a bad leader.
This is where they will have their chance, their only chance, to make Romney be a one-term president and show he was all talk and no substance, the same thing the Republicans accuse the President Obama of being when they refused to negotiate and compromise.
If Romney wins the Democrats should simply decide not to make this president look good, and make the Republican learn the lesson, "What goes around, comes around.", right back to haunt them with their own deeds.
If Romney wins I'd prefer to see another do nothing Congress than a Romney one.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Can Someone Explain
Can someone explain why people reblog posts, such as articles, essays, journal entries, etc., and not add anything to their reblog? Why? If you don't have a comment, even "This is cool.", or, "This sucks.", why reblog it?
You have a Tumblr account for a reason, to express yourself, not someone else. So why not say what you want or mean so we know who you are and what you believe. Just reblogging doesn't say anything about you.
Anyway, it escapes me and I just scroll on by and often don't come back unless they have something of their own to say.
You have a Tumblr account for a reason, to express yourself, not someone else. So why not say what you want or mean so we know who you are and what you believe. Just reblogging doesn't say anything about you.
Anyway, it escapes me and I just scroll on by and often don't come back unless they have something of their own to say.
Being Outspoken
The problem with people who are outspoken and willing to say something for the lack of anything significant let alone important to say is that they often, and some usually, speak before thinking and so their words, their intent and the meaning is lost in the obvious stupidity of the statement.
We all know someone like this. The problem is that they rarely know they're doing this and they rarely apologize beyond explaining what they meant to say but didn't. The truth is that the spoke what they thought, only they weren't thinking at the time.
And we know Mitt Romney seems to have a habit of this in this election campaign, others aren't far behind. Roseanne Barr is a good example of a recent comment or tweet she had to step back with an explantion, but she didn't think to stop talking first, but simply said what was in her mind.
And just as often these people think their comments aren't hurtful or harmful because, "it's who they are.", meaning honest, straight-forward people, except of course discriminating against classes or groups of people who in their mind don't count anyway.
Anyway, I think it's funny we make a storm out of their comment when they were oblivious to the effect and impact of it and then simply make an excuse and forget. They are the human and verbal version of the fire and forget missile.
Except we don't. And they never understand.
We all know someone like this. The problem is that they rarely know they're doing this and they rarely apologize beyond explaining what they meant to say but didn't. The truth is that the spoke what they thought, only they weren't thinking at the time.
And we know Mitt Romney seems to have a habit of this in this election campaign, others aren't far behind. Roseanne Barr is a good example of a recent comment or tweet she had to step back with an explantion, but she didn't think to stop talking first, but simply said what was in her mind.
And just as often these people think their comments aren't hurtful or harmful because, "it's who they are.", meaning honest, straight-forward people, except of course discriminating against classes or groups of people who in their mind don't count anyway.
Anyway, I think it's funny we make a storm out of their comment when they were oblivious to the effect and impact of it and then simply make an excuse and forget. They are the human and verbal version of the fire and forget missile.
Except we don't. And they never understand.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Romney & Lies
If Mitt Romney will say anything, tell a complete, unsubstantiated lie, to anyone for their vote; if he'll say anything to pander to his audience; if he's willing to scare people with his lies, what would you expect him to say to you if he is the President?
Romney didn't make the truth a victim of the campaign, he long buried it alongside the road in his campaign long ago. Romney wouldn't know the truth because he even denies his past lies and denies he's ever told a lie. He is blatantly blind to his own words.
If he'll lie to you now, would you trust if as president?
Romney didn't make the truth a victim of the campaign, he long buried it alongside the road in his campaign long ago. Romney wouldn't know the truth because he even denies his past lies and denies he's ever told a lie. He is blatantly blind to his own words.
If he'll lie to you now, would you trust if as president?
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Abortion
Do the republicans really believe if they ban, even outlaw, abortion, there will be no more abortions? Do they really think women won't stop considering abortion as an option about her health and her life, especially if she was a victim of rape or incest?
Do they really think a woman will happily bring a pregnancy to birth if she survived a rape or incest? Do they really think a woman will continue her pregnancy if her doctors tell her life is at risk or she will not survive to birth?
Do they really think a woman will change her mind to have an abortion for whatever reasons because a man says she should continue her pregancy? Are they really that naive and stupid? Really?
Do they really think woman can't decide for themselves about their reproductive health, their body and their life? Because that's what it's about, them and no one else, and especially republicans. They have no place in a woman's decision about her pregnancy.
It's not about the definition of life. It's not about a fetus. It's not about God and the Bible. It's about women. And it's the old question, if men were the ones who got pregnant, would be accept the same fate if women controlled them?
The answers are clear and obvious, but not to republicans, who can't see past their own arrogance.
Do they really think a woman will happily bring a pregnancy to birth if she survived a rape or incest? Do they really think a woman will continue her pregnancy if her doctors tell her life is at risk or she will not survive to birth?
Do they really think a woman will change her mind to have an abortion for whatever reasons because a man says she should continue her pregancy? Are they really that naive and stupid? Really?
Do they really think woman can't decide for themselves about their reproductive health, their body and their life? Because that's what it's about, them and no one else, and especially republicans. They have no place in a woman's decision about her pregnancy.
It's not about the definition of life. It's not about a fetus. It's not about God and the Bible. It's about women. And it's the old question, if men were the ones who got pregnant, would be accept the same fate if women controlled them?
The answers are clear and obvious, but not to republicans, who can't see past their own arrogance.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Why Romney?
Why do I get the impression that Mitt Romney wants so much to be the President, but that he has no idea what being the President means and what the President does?
Why does he make me Romney thinks being the President is like being the CEO of Bain Capital?
Why does he remind me of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, just empty political people who are filled with whatever those around him feed him to know and say?
Why does he remind me of a talking windup doll you record your message and it repeats what you recorded?
Why does he make me wonder if he ever had a thought of his own?
If Romney never read any of he briefing reports on foreign affairs and policy and never listened to any of his campaign advisors on foreign affairs and policy, why do we think he'll be a good President with other nations?
Does Romney really think if he were elected President and he sat down with the Democrats they would actually listen to what he wanted them to do? Does he actually think he's their boss?
If George Bush only read one page summaries for briefing papers and Mitt Romney doesn't read any of them, do we really think he'd be a better President than Bush?
If we have so many unanswerable questions about Romney, why do we think he's worth being our President? We bet the nation with Bush and looked what happend.
Why does he make me Romney thinks being the President is like being the CEO of Bain Capital?
Why does he remind me of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, just empty political people who are filled with whatever those around him feed him to know and say?
Why does he remind me of a talking windup doll you record your message and it repeats what you recorded?
Why does he make me wonder if he ever had a thought of his own?
If Romney never read any of he briefing reports on foreign affairs and policy and never listened to any of his campaign advisors on foreign affairs and policy, why do we think he'll be a good President with other nations?
Does Romney really think if he were elected President and he sat down with the Democrats they would actually listen to what he wanted them to do? Does he actually think he's their boss?
If George Bush only read one page summaries for briefing papers and Mitt Romney doesn't read any of them, do we really think he'd be a better President than Bush?
If we have so many unanswerable questions about Romney, why do we think he's worth being our President? We bet the nation with Bush and looked what happend.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
The Perfect Job
The perfect job for a bully? The CEO of Bain Capital.
If you watched the two presidential debates, and read about Romney's career, without a doubt by todays standards in school districts, he'd be a bully. Not a leader but a gang leader who doesn't just imitidate and threaten but acts on his aggression toward people.
He doesn't really care about or for people, but especially minorites, women, the elderly, the poor, and so on down the list of people who aren't in his small circle of people he calls friends. It's in the "47%" remark he made behind closed doors to big money donors.
It's in the first debate where he bullied Jim Lehrer and the President, and in the second debate where he tried to bully Candy Crowley and the President and was flustered and frustrated when Ms. Crowley controlled the debate as moderator and the President went on the offensive.
That's what bullies do, cower in the face of strong opposition, and it's what he did. While being a CEO of a private equity firm which buys and sells companiesd may be the perfect job for Romney, it's not the job for a president.
If you watched the two presidential debates, and read about Romney's career, without a doubt by todays standards in school districts, he'd be a bully. Not a leader but a gang leader who doesn't just imitidate and threaten but acts on his aggression toward people.
He doesn't really care about or for people, but especially minorites, women, the elderly, the poor, and so on down the list of people who aren't in his small circle of people he calls friends. It's in the "47%" remark he made behind closed doors to big money donors.
It's in the first debate where he bullied Jim Lehrer and the President, and in the second debate where he tried to bully Candy Crowley and the President and was flustered and frustrated when Ms. Crowley controlled the debate as moderator and the President went on the offensive.
That's what bullies do, cower in the face of strong opposition, and it's what he did. While being a CEO of a private equity firm which buys and sells companiesd may be the perfect job for Romney, it's not the job for a president.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Why
One, why do I get the feeling from Mitt Romney's speeches, his demeanor, his attitude, etc., that he actually thinks if he were president, his sheer presence as president will make people respond to his commands, nations will do whatever he asks, and Congress will bow to him and pass any bill he wants?
Why, or is he just simply so arrogant he doesn't see he's arrogant and everyone else sees it and doesn't give a fuck about him?
Does he really think the President of China will cower at his presence? Will fold and do what he wants when he says he'll be "tough" on China?
Does he really think the President of Syria will leave simply because he demands it? And will cower in the fear of the US military attacking his country?
Why does he think that his presence is power? And he will is command? Is that why he's never been in a job where he wasn't the boss?
Two, why does he think we don't have a memory of what he has said, and when he says something which conflicts, even contradicts, and he is called out, he simply denies or ignores it?
Why, or is he so arrogant he believes people will believe anything he says at the moment with no memory of his past statements?
Anyway, just some obvious observations about an arrogant, perpetual liar, a candidate for President.
Why, or is he just simply so arrogant he doesn't see he's arrogant and everyone else sees it and doesn't give a fuck about him?
Does he really think the President of China will cower at his presence? Will fold and do what he wants when he says he'll be "tough" on China?
Does he really think the President of Syria will leave simply because he demands it? And will cower in the fear of the US military attacking his country?
Why does he think that his presence is power? And he will is command? Is that why he's never been in a job where he wasn't the boss?
Two, why does he think we don't have a memory of what he has said, and when he says something which conflicts, even contradicts, and he is called out, he simply denies or ignores it?
Why, or is he so arrogant he believes people will believe anything he says at the moment with no memory of his past statements?
Anyway, just some obvious observations about an arrogant, perpetual liar, a candidate for President.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Hindsight
One advantage a presidential candidate has against an incumbent is hindsight. It's very easy for any candidate to explain a situation and criticize the President, and then say, "I would have done it differently." That's because no one can disprove or refute your statement.
All the while the President has a record. The truth is that whatever the candidate says in these situations is a lie, because they don't really know what they would have done given the situation, conditions, facts and views presented to them at the time a decision needed to be made.
They don't really know, but it's always easy to say something in hindsight. Something we should all remember when we hear a presidental candidate say, "I would have done it differently?" They don't know anymore than we do or would.
All the while the President has a record. The truth is that whatever the candidate says in these situations is a lie, because they don't really know what they would have done given the situation, conditions, facts and views presented to them at the time a decision needed to be made.
They don't really know, but it's always easy to say something in hindsight. Something we should all remember when we hear a presidental candidate say, "I would have done it differently?" They don't know anymore than we do or would.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
First Debate
Well, I listened to the first presidential debate, had the TV on in the living room and the sound in the office, so I didn't have to watch it and could judge by their words. Well, in the end it was pretty much a waste of time, too much said and totally jumbled and confusing.
I won't argue I was mad the President didn't attack Romney on his stance and his lies and changes during the debate, but now I think the President, while taking the high road and not attacking, did better than we thought, mostly because it's clear Romney was the bully.
But I think two things show it best. First this cartoon. There wasn't much Romney said that wasn't factually true or true to his campaign to date.
And second this graph (click to enlarge), see Daily Kos article.
In the end, Romney gained very little and Obama gained where it mattered, among independents. Romney clearly moved to the center just for the debate to get independents, and they clearly saw it for what it was, political pandering.
Now the President knows what Romney will do and can counter it during the next two debates, but more importantly, Romney doesn't know what the President will do or say. The President sacrificed a few pawns but won bigger pieces and is set to win more, and all Romney can do is continue to bully and whine.
For that are the two true and certain things we learned about Romney, he's a bully and a whiner.
I won't argue I was mad the President didn't attack Romney on his stance and his lies and changes during the debate, but now I think the President, while taking the high road and not attacking, did better than we thought, mostly because it's clear Romney was the bully.
And second this graph (click to enlarge), see Daily Kos article.
In the end, Romney gained very little and Obama gained where it mattered, among independents. Romney clearly moved to the center just for the debate to get independents, and they clearly saw it for what it was, political pandering.
Now the President knows what Romney will do and can counter it during the next two debates, but more importantly, Romney doesn't know what the President will do or say. The President sacrificed a few pawns but won bigger pieces and is set to win more, and all Romney can do is continue to bully and whine.
For that are the two true and certain things we learned about Romney, he's a bully and a whiner.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Mr Romney
To Mitt Romney and all of your campaign staff and political surrogates:
After you performance and arrogance to the moderator, the audience and especially the President last night at the debate and today on the news shows, I put it in very simple terms so you will easily understand my feeling, to say what I think you.
After you performance and arrogance to the moderator, the audience and especially the President last night at the debate and today on the news shows, I put it in very simple terms so you will easily understand my feeling, to say what I think you.
Go Fuck Youself!
You're a Fucking Liar!
You're a Fucking Liar!
And don't expect my money for your campaign, I sent it to the Obama campaign.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
A Simple Truth
The simple truth behind Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan isn't that they hate the 47% and 30% of Americans, respectively from their speeches, it's that they hate 99% of Americans. These two people have been in the top 1-2% for decades, so it's their perspective of other people like all the rest of us.
The simple truth behind these guys is that they hate Americans, the very folks which made their fortunes for them. The very people they're trying to con into believing them they care about us, they want to help us, and they want to make our country better.
Really? Or just for the 1% who you know or are your friends? Like we're expected to believe you? What's the words? Yeah right.
The simple truth behind these guys is that they hate Americans, the very folks which made their fortunes for them. The very people they're trying to con into believing them they care about us, they want to help us, and they want to make our country better.
Really? Or just for the 1% who you know or are your friends? Like we're expected to believe you? What's the words? Yeah right.
Monday, October 1, 2012
It Would Be Funny
Wouldn't it be funny if all, ok almost all, of the tea-party members of the House of Representatives lost their re-election campaigns? Just think about it. They would have had shorter life than a one-hit band from the 1960's. Do you remember them?
Maybe it's time we vote them out after they got caught raiding the political and financial cookie jar to enrich their own lives and career? Remember, it's why they're representatives, to represent you, not wealthy people, not corporations, not themselves. Only you.
Maybe it's time to give them a reality check. It's our Congress.
Maybe it's time we vote them out after they got caught raiding the political and financial cookie jar to enrich their own lives and career? Remember, it's why they're representatives, to represent you, not wealthy people, not corporations, not themselves. Only you.
Maybe it's time to give them a reality check. It's our Congress.
Think About It
Just because you don't think President Obama hasn't done enough, I'm one of them, and you want to vote for Romney to vote against the President, before you vote think about what a Romney presidency would be like.
Think about who Romney is and what he believes, not what he says, and then think about what kind of people he would put into positions in his administration. If you can't figure that out, think about who Reagan and GW Bush put into positions.
Think about Bush's "compassionate conservatism", how did that turn out? And you think Romney would be anything close? And you think he really believes in and support the poor, the working and middle class, the elderly, children, women, and so on down the list?
Remember the old adage, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."? Well, consider that's a political campaign facade, a sham on the voters for their real agenda. If you don't like President Obama, don't vote for him, but don't vote for Romney unless you know he's better.
Sometimes a no vote is enough. Voting for the other person is worse.
Think about who Romney is and what he believes, not what he says, and then think about what kind of people he would put into positions in his administration. If you can't figure that out, think about who Reagan and GW Bush put into positions.
Think about Bush's "compassionate conservatism", how did that turn out? And you think Romney would be anything close? And you think he really believes in and support the poor, the working and middle class, the elderly, children, women, and so on down the list?
Remember the old adage, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."? Well, consider that's a political campaign facade, a sham on the voters for their real agenda. If you don't like President Obama, don't vote for him, but don't vote for Romney unless you know he's better.
Sometimes a no vote is enough. Voting for the other person is worse.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Do You Really Believe
Reading the story about Mitt Romney's speech before the Clinton Global Initiative, and while leaving a number of questions asked in the story, sounded very reasonable and decent for the Republican candidate for president.
But I have to ask, with Romney's demostrated and proven history of lying for convenience, meaning saying whatever an audience wants to hear and then either denying it if it contradicted any previous statement or expressed view on an issue or simply denying he even said it, can and do you really believe him now?
Do you believe what he said in the speech? He knew it was an important speech and he knew he had to appeal to the audience for the series of speeches, so why wouldn't he just say what they wanted to hear and he looks somewhat presidential?
Why would anyone really believe his words when he's lied more often than not in the past? Why would you believe anything he says?
His goal is to win the campaign at any cost, even his own credibility. He'll say anything to anyone if it convinces them to vote for him. He's lied about President Obama. He's lied about what President Obama has done?
He's lied to blame the President for everything from an inept Congress to a failing economy. He's lied about the truth to the President's record. And then he's lied when confronted with the evidence and information which contradicts his statements and when it shows he lied.
But the real question is if you believe him, it's do you trust him to be president?
But I have to ask, with Romney's demostrated and proven history of lying for convenience, meaning saying whatever an audience wants to hear and then either denying it if it contradicted any previous statement or expressed view on an issue or simply denying he even said it, can and do you really believe him now?
Do you believe what he said in the speech? He knew it was an important speech and he knew he had to appeal to the audience for the series of speeches, so why wouldn't he just say what they wanted to hear and he looks somewhat presidential?
Why would anyone really believe his words when he's lied more often than not in the past? Why would you believe anything he says?
His goal is to win the campaign at any cost, even his own credibility. He'll say anything to anyone if it convinces them to vote for him. He's lied about President Obama. He's lied about what President Obama has done?
He's lied to blame the President for everything from an inept Congress to a failing economy. He's lied about the truth to the President's record. And then he's lied when confronted with the evidence and information which contradicts his statements and when it shows he lied.
But the real question is if you believe him, it's do you trust him to be president?
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Money & Congress
Looking at Congress these past years with the intensive lobbying efforts, fundraising work and outright buying representatives and now with the unlimited campaign donations and superpac's, there's one simple observation anyone with a modicum of common sense sees and knows, but members of Congress seems to deny or ignore.
Money hasn't met a politician it doesn't like.
It doesn't matter who's hand is holding the money, they'll still take it.
It doesn't matter how they want them to vote, they'll vote what they tell them.
It doesn't matter what they want them to say, they'll say it.
It doesn't matter which side of an issue they want them to stand, they'll stand there.
It doesn't matter about what the American people want, they'll defy public opinion.
It doesn't matter what their constituents want, they'll defy them too.
Nothing else matter, just what instructions come with the money. They'll shake the hand with the money and say, "Thank you.", and follow the instructions to the letter.
The only thing that matter to members of Congress anymore is money, it doesn't matter who or what the money represents, as once in their hands, it's who and what they represent, and not the American people.
It doesn't matter who's hand is holding the money, they'll still take it.
It doesn't matter how they want them to vote, they'll vote what they tell them.
It doesn't matter what they want them to say, they'll say it.
It doesn't matter which side of an issue they want them to stand, they'll stand there.
It doesn't matter about what the American people want, they'll defy public opinion.
It doesn't matter what their constituents want, they'll defy them too.
Nothing else matter, just what instructions come with the money. They'll shake the hand with the money and say, "Thank you.", and follow the instructions to the letter.
The only thing that matter to members of Congress anymore is money, it doesn't matter who or what the money represents, as once in their hands, it's who and what they represent, and not the American people.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Times Then & Now
Somethings, as they say, never change.
And so politics, power and war are those things. This is the union leader Eugene Debs' famous 1918 "Canton, Ohio" speech read by actor Mark Ruffalo. It landed Eugene Debs in prison for 10 years. Freedom of Speech, as we have seen throughout our history, is relative to who's in power.
Where were the voices over the war in Iraq? Who decided that war and who fought the battles? And why were the voices in asking questions silenced over the same reasons Eugene Debs was silenced?
Why haven't those in power be held accountable for an unjust war based on lies and fought with our money, as war for oil and profit?
Where are the results of the promises when it was sold? And where are those who gave those promises?
Then and now, same story, same reasons, and same people renewed.
This reading was part of a reading of Voices of a People's History of the United States (Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove) at All Saints Church in Pasadena, CA on Feb 1, 2007.
And so politics, power and war are those things. This is the union leader Eugene Debs' famous 1918 "Canton, Ohio" speech read by actor Mark Ruffalo. It landed Eugene Debs in prison for 10 years. Freedom of Speech, as we have seen throughout our history, is relative to who's in power.
Where were the voices over the war in Iraq? Who decided that war and who fought the battles? And why were the voices in asking questions silenced over the same reasons Eugene Debs was silenced?
Why haven't those in power be held accountable for an unjust war based on lies and fought with our money, as war for oil and profit?
Where are the results of the promises when it was sold? And where are those who gave those promises?
Then and now, same story, same reasons, and same people renewed.
This reading was part of a reading of Voices of a People's History of the United States (Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove) at All Saints Church in Pasadena, CA on Feb 1, 2007.
Easy to Find
I read the story of the crew from the History Channel TV show "Shark Wranglers" catch and tag great white sharks with instruments and GPS transmitters which people can track in real-time on their Website. Ok, for TV viewers to see them catch, tag and release large sharks but what about the sharks?
If anyone now can track the shark on the Website, who's to say a group won't track, capture and kill the shark for food or a commercial sport fishing company track and offer a wealthy person the opportunity to reel in a large shark for the trophy?
In putting the tag on the shark so anyone can locate it, then it literally puts a live target on the shark, a bounty anyone with a boat and gear to hunt and catch. The shark's life is now profit for a company or group and a prize for someone.
They note it's in the interest of science but environmentalists warn it's also in the interest of shark hunters. And the shark is now the easy to find victim. Where's the common sense? Where's the understanding for the shark to leave them alone?
Sorry, to me, this is stupid. Studying them is great. Tagging them is acceptable, but only if the scientist are the ones who can track it. To give the location to everyone may sound cool, and even help with education of sharks, but not to the shark.
Any bets the shark is caught and the tracking equipment left in the ocean with the spoilage?
If anyone now can track the shark on the Website, who's to say a group won't track, capture and kill the shark for food or a commercial sport fishing company track and offer a wealthy person the opportunity to reel in a large shark for the trophy?
In putting the tag on the shark so anyone can locate it, then it literally puts a live target on the shark, a bounty anyone with a boat and gear to hunt and catch. The shark's life is now profit for a company or group and a prize for someone.
They note it's in the interest of science but environmentalists warn it's also in the interest of shark hunters. And the shark is now the easy to find victim. Where's the common sense? Where's the understanding for the shark to leave them alone?
Sorry, to me, this is stupid. Studying them is great. Tagging them is acceptable, but only if the scientist are the ones who can track it. To give the location to everyone may sound cool, and even help with education of sharks, but not to the shark.
Any bets the shark is caught and the tracking equipment left in the ocean with the spoilage?
Monday, September 24, 2012
Punting
Remember when Romney criticized the President for "punting issues down the field"? Remember, the Middle East, and the other issues? Well, it seems the he does it too, despite the fact he says he's the President, if elected of course, who'll decide and act.
Well, not so fast there Mr. Romney. Didn't you talk about your plan to save Medicate and Social Security? In the plan to "save" Medicare you propose a bunch of changes to lower cost for everyone, which we know won't, but hey it's your idea, you forgot to tell folks the changes won't start until 2023.
Yeah, the changes wouldn't start for 10 years, long after you'd be out of office if you were elected to two terms. You just not only punting the issue down the field, you kicked out of the stadium, over the parking lot and into the next decade.
And you think we should believe anything you say about solving problems? The government and its programs for American isn't a company you just bought for Bain Capital. It's our government, our programs. We hired you and uou work for us, remember?
Next time you criticize the President for punting issues down the field, rewind your memory first before you open your mouth, and at least don't do what you criticize the President for doing, but then why do we expect you won't punt the issue and talk anyway?
Because that's all you know what to do and all you have, lies.
Well, not so fast there Mr. Romney. Didn't you talk about your plan to save Medicate and Social Security? In the plan to "save" Medicare you propose a bunch of changes to lower cost for everyone, which we know won't, but hey it's your idea, you forgot to tell folks the changes won't start until 2023.
Yeah, the changes wouldn't start for 10 years, long after you'd be out of office if you were elected to two terms. You just not only punting the issue down the field, you kicked out of the stadium, over the parking lot and into the next decade.
And you think we should believe anything you say about solving problems? The government and its programs for American isn't a company you just bought for Bain Capital. It's our government, our programs. We hired you and uou work for us, remember?
Next time you criticize the President for punting issues down the field, rewind your memory first before you open your mouth, and at least don't do what you criticize the President for doing, but then why do we expect you won't punt the issue and talk anyway?
Because that's all you know what to do and all you have, lies.
The Real Republicans
We now know how the Republicans think about jobs, veterans and the economy. Like we didn't already? Yes, we did but now the proof is in the bill, or the bill that failed in the Senate. And that's the tale of the real Republicans.
Senator Patty Murray sponsored the Veteran Jobs Corps Act to provide up to $1 billion over the next five year without increasing the annual deficit or the national debt, meaning it was revenue neutral. The bill would provide jobs and training for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans after the leave the service.
And the bill had a majority support in the Senate, 58 yes and 40 no, but the bill didn't pass because some of the Senators who actually wrote some of the provisions in the bill decided to filibuster the bill and the majority leader in the Senate couldn't get the necessary 60 votes to override the filibuster.
So there's what the Republicans think of veterans and jobs, a big fat, fucking no. No way. Natta. A minority won the day because of the rules and the majority lost. The American people lost. Veterans lost. We lost.
And that's what the Republicans want, no jobs, no help for veterans and tank this economy to blame the President. Sorry, Republicans, your vote is on this bill against the rest of us, along with your big fucking anti-Obama and anti-American sentiments and views.
Now we have a smoking gun for your arrogance and lies.
Senator Patty Murray sponsored the Veteran Jobs Corps Act to provide up to $1 billion over the next five year without increasing the annual deficit or the national debt, meaning it was revenue neutral. The bill would provide jobs and training for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans after the leave the service.
And the bill had a majority support in the Senate, 58 yes and 40 no, but the bill didn't pass because some of the Senators who actually wrote some of the provisions in the bill decided to filibuster the bill and the majority leader in the Senate couldn't get the necessary 60 votes to override the filibuster.
So there's what the Republicans think of veterans and jobs, a big fat, fucking no. No way. Natta. A minority won the day because of the rules and the majority lost. The American people lost. Veterans lost. We lost.
And that's what the Republicans want, no jobs, no help for veterans and tank this economy to blame the President. Sorry, Republicans, your vote is on this bill against the rest of us, along with your big fucking anti-Obama and anti-American sentiments and views.
Now we have a smoking gun for your arrogance and lies.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Books
Here's a thought some people forget. Closing libraries because you think they spread bad ideas or wrong values won't close the hearts and minds of people, the people who love reading, love books and love libraries.
Burning books because you want to destroy the public face of something doesn't burn the memories of them in the hearts and minds of people who love reading, love books and love places where books can be found and borrowed or bought.
Banning books because you don't want other to know about them let alone read them doesn't change the interest of others to read them and take the words into their heart and mind, people who love reading, who love books and who love where books are found to be read.
A book is just what it is, a book. What matters is the content, and that can't be closed, burned or banned no matter how hard you try and even creates more interest to read the books, especially those burned and more so those banned.
It's about the content of the book that matters, not the book itself, or do you not know about Ray Bradbury's book, "Fahrenheit 451"? Maybe you should, except if you burned or banned it. But then just ask someone who reads, they'll loan you their copy.
Burning books because you want to destroy the public face of something doesn't burn the memories of them in the hearts and minds of people who love reading, love books and love places where books can be found and borrowed or bought.
Banning books because you don't want other to know about them let alone read them doesn't change the interest of others to read them and take the words into their heart and mind, people who love reading, who love books and who love where books are found to be read.
A book is just what it is, a book. What matters is the content, and that can't be closed, burned or banned no matter how hard you try and even creates more interest to read the books, especially those burned and more so those banned.
It's about the content of the book that matters, not the book itself, or do you not know about Ray Bradbury's book, "Fahrenheit 451"? Maybe you should, except if you burned or banned it. But then just ask someone who reads, they'll loan you their copy.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
No Chris
I was listening to the MSNBC coverage of the Republican National Convention (RNC) between innings of a baseball game and Chris Matthews was trying to make a point about Mitt Romeny's religion (Mormon) and why it doesn't matter. He said we all inherit our religion from our parents, "It's given..."
Sorry Chris, it's not given, it's a choice when we get old enough to choose for ourselves if we're smart enough to learn other religions and seek to find the one which fits our thinking and beliefs. It's not given. My parent were protestants, and while they weren't particularly true, faithful followers, we still went to church and often Bible study.
But when we reached the age of 12, they let us decide if we still wanted to go to church beyond the few holidays a year when attendence is expected. Of the three of us kids, only my sister kept going and later became an evangical Christian. My brother found parties and alcohol to be better than God.
And I decided nothing until I was in my late teens I read Alan Watt's book, "The Watercourse Way", and have ever since been, although more lazy than not, a follower of Taoism. Not my parent's religion. Sorry Chris, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried, so stop talking as if you know more than the rest of us. You don't. You're just guessing.
And yes, I'll keep my Taoism thank you. It's better than Mormonism any day of the week, even holidays.
Sorry Chris, it's not given, it's a choice when we get old enough to choose for ourselves if we're smart enough to learn other religions and seek to find the one which fits our thinking and beliefs. It's not given. My parent were protestants, and while they weren't particularly true, faithful followers, we still went to church and often Bible study.
But when we reached the age of 12, they let us decide if we still wanted to go to church beyond the few holidays a year when attendence is expected. Of the three of us kids, only my sister kept going and later became an evangical Christian. My brother found parties and alcohol to be better than God.
And I decided nothing until I was in my late teens I read Alan Watt's book, "The Watercourse Way", and have ever since been, although more lazy than not, a follower of Taoism. Not my parent's religion. Sorry Chris, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried, so stop talking as if you know more than the rest of us. You don't. You're just guessing.
And yes, I'll keep my Taoism thank you. It's better than Mormonism any day of the week, even holidays.
Friday, August 24, 2012
A Thought
Here's a thought for consideration. Every white person in this country should be required to carry an official copy of their birth certificate at all times and when asked by any law enforcement officer, any government official and any non-white person they have to show they were born in this country, and if they can't, then they are arrested as an illegal alien.
Or have we all forgotten we are all immigrants to this country. Even Native Americans came there from somewhere else, but then they were the first. What if they were smart enough to have a Ellis Island to screen us to ensure we were all good people? How many of us would have been allowed into this country?
Or have we all forgotten we are all immigrants to this country. Even Native Americans came there from somewhere else, but then they were the first. What if they were smart enough to have a Ellis Island to screen us to ensure we were all good people? How many of us would have been allowed into this country?
No, Mitt
Mitt, giving 10% of your income to the Mormon Church is not giving the money to charity, it's giving it to the Mormon Church. Charity is helping people, not an established religion become rich(er) and restrict their work to just Mormons. Charities don't discriminate, religions and churches do. That's what your money supports, discrimination by a church.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
A Choice
We have with the 2012 presidential election a choice, one more divergent than we've had in many elections. We have the choice between the sitting president who weighs the full range of choices, hears all the voices for reason, and then decides. Someone who then explains his choice with reasons.
And we have a presidential candidate who simply cites rhetoric and says, "Trust me." Does he explain anything? Has he explained his religion in his life, his decision and would be in his role as president? Has he explained his financial wealth and income and his income taxes?
Has he told us who's backing his campaign and why he has private, secret meetings with wealthy donors out of the public eye and media? Has he told us who's all in his campaign staff and everyone he's listening to for advice? Has he full explained his position besides rhetoric and attacking Obama?
In short, we have a choice between a President who listen, thinks, decides and then explains and we have a candidate who simply says, "Trust me." Like all those companies Bain Capitol bought and sold and all those employees who lost their jobs, their health insurance and their pensions?
It's our choice, choose wisely. Rememer George W. Bush's "Compassionate conservatism", where did it go with the tax cuts, annual deficit, national debt, two wars and more so the economy and jobs? Did he say, "Trust me"? And how did that choice go for us?
And we have a presidential candidate who simply cites rhetoric and says, "Trust me." Does he explain anything? Has he explained his religion in his life, his decision and would be in his role as president? Has he explained his financial wealth and income and his income taxes?
Has he told us who's backing his campaign and why he has private, secret meetings with wealthy donors out of the public eye and media? Has he told us who's all in his campaign staff and everyone he's listening to for advice? Has he full explained his position besides rhetoric and attacking Obama?
In short, we have a choice between a President who listen, thinks, decides and then explains and we have a candidate who simply says, "Trust me." Like all those companies Bain Capitol bought and sold and all those employees who lost their jobs, their health insurance and their pensions?
It's our choice, choose wisely. Rememer George W. Bush's "Compassionate conservatism", where did it go with the tax cuts, annual deficit, national debt, two wars and more so the economy and jobs? Did he say, "Trust me"? And how did that choice go for us?
News Bits
Every Sunday I buy three newspapers, the Tacoma News Tribune, Seattle Times and the New York Times. They don't sell other Sunday papers on Sunday anywhere anymore, but I'd love to read the old Seattle PI and the Washington Post. Yes, it's the age of on-line and download newspapers, and yes I subscribe to the New York Times download edition (great for daily paper).
But I really like print. I love to take over the table, get the endless pot of coffee, some snacks and feast on reading every page. Ok, scanning every page, reading the headlines and the opening paragraphs for the gist of the article, and then more if it's interesting. it all makes for a good Sunday morning.
Anyway, there were two articles of note in the New York Times, one which I'll address directly and one indirectly. First, the article by James Gleick, "Auto Correct Ths!", about how we rely on autocorrection of grammar but mostly spelling to not just help us but save us from our own stupidity.
There is a very simple solution which I do all the time. First, I turn off all automatic checks in all my applications for anything, spelling, grammar, html code, etc. I see what I type and then reread and edit or run checks to correct the errors. It's why there are typos in my posts. Sometimes I catch them while typing, some while editing and some later when reading them after they're posted.
This requires me to think more than just type and hope. I also keep my Oxford American-English dictionary application open on my desktop as well as a print edition of the same dictionary by the desk to access when I write. The app is part of Mac's software for Mac's. I also have the Oxford American-English dictionary app on my iPhone and iPad.
Dictionaries are useful, especially if you actually use them.
Second is the article by Matthew Hutson, "Still Puritan After All These Years." Well, if there is anything I've learned about psychological or sociological studies reported or used in articles, it's not to accept those done by university professors on college students. Why?
We're not college students anymore.
As adults we are far different than we were in college, if we went to college. Doing psychological research studies on college students is a captive and biased audience and population base for studies. They're not normal people from anyone older than 25 years old.
And so any results don't apply beyond being interesting, and any article citing those studies isn't worth much more than interesting and totally useless for the general population. I read the article for their conclusion then ignore those conclusions for the same reasons, just a biased study to prove a point.
And what's more is that all too often the study is a small, very focused study where they or the writers extrapolate big conclusions about all of us. Really? In implying conclusions from the results they forget the rule about assuming too much. And in this article, they simply stated the obvious which they didn't need to cite the study.
Anyway, that's my reading for this Sunday.
But I really like print. I love to take over the table, get the endless pot of coffee, some snacks and feast on reading every page. Ok, scanning every page, reading the headlines and the opening paragraphs for the gist of the article, and then more if it's interesting. it all makes for a good Sunday morning.
Anyway, there were two articles of note in the New York Times, one which I'll address directly and one indirectly. First, the article by James Gleick, "Auto Correct Ths!", about how we rely on autocorrection of grammar but mostly spelling to not just help us but save us from our own stupidity.
There is a very simple solution which I do all the time. First, I turn off all automatic checks in all my applications for anything, spelling, grammar, html code, etc. I see what I type and then reread and edit or run checks to correct the errors. It's why there are typos in my posts. Sometimes I catch them while typing, some while editing and some later when reading them after they're posted.
This requires me to think more than just type and hope. I also keep my Oxford American-English dictionary application open on my desktop as well as a print edition of the same dictionary by the desk to access when I write. The app is part of Mac's software for Mac's. I also have the Oxford American-English dictionary app on my iPhone and iPad.
Second is the article by Matthew Hutson, "Still Puritan After All These Years." Well, if there is anything I've learned about psychological or sociological studies reported or used in articles, it's not to accept those done by university professors on college students. Why?
As adults we are far different than we were in college, if we went to college. Doing psychological research studies on college students is a captive and biased audience and population base for studies. They're not normal people from anyone older than 25 years old.
And so any results don't apply beyond being interesting, and any article citing those studies isn't worth much more than interesting and totally useless for the general population. I read the article for their conclusion then ignore those conclusions for the same reasons, just a biased study to prove a point.
And what's more is that all too often the study is a small, very focused study where they or the writers extrapolate big conclusions about all of us. Really? In implying conclusions from the results they forget the rule about assuming too much. And in this article, they simply stated the obvious which they didn't need to cite the study.
Anyway, that's my reading for this Sunday.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Dear MSNBC
Would the hosts of some of the news, opinion and anaysis shows on MSNBC, specifically Ed Schulz, Lawrence O'Donnell and Chris Matthews please stop interrupting your guests and let them speak. If they're off topic or talking too much, then fine, kindly interrupt them to bring them back to the conversation, but you frequently interrupt them for no reason.
And this is why I often turn the channel, or more so, just turn the TV off. I don't want to hear bickering on MSNBC's shows. I want good debate and discussion and occasionally good conversation, such as is found on Martin Bashir and Racheal Maddow show, often with guest host such as Ezra Klein and Michael Eric Dyson, and consistently found on the two weekend shows with Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry.
That's my bitch with ya'll tonight. After watching Michael Eric Dyson sub for Ed Schulz and Ezra Klein sub for Racheal Maddow, I turned off Lawrence O'Donnell when he did his usual loud interruption of his guests to make his point without listening to their point let alone let them finish. And for that I have stopped watching his show.
If you want to rant, save it for your time, not your guests. Otherwise, you've lost this viewer.
And this is why I often turn the channel, or more so, just turn the TV off. I don't want to hear bickering on MSNBC's shows. I want good debate and discussion and occasionally good conversation, such as is found on Martin Bashir and Racheal Maddow show, often with guest host such as Ezra Klein and Michael Eric Dyson, and consistently found on the two weekend shows with Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry.
That's my bitch with ya'll tonight. After watching Michael Eric Dyson sub for Ed Schulz and Ezra Klein sub for Racheal Maddow, I turned off Lawrence O'Donnell when he did his usual loud interruption of his guests to make his point without listening to their point let alone let them finish. And for that I have stopped watching his show.
If you want to rant, save it for your time, not your guests. Otherwise, you've lost this viewer.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Dear Speed TV
I hope you understand that watching qualifying for Formula One is far more interesting than NASCAR qualifying. I like both but watching Sprint Cup car drive around Pocono Raceway does not compare to watching a Formula One car drive around Montreal Ciruit Gilles Villenue.
The decision not to switch to the qualifying at Montreal for the last runners at Pocono is really dumb and stupid for the viewers like me who want to see the whole qualfying sessons at Montreal than Pocono. And the decision to tape delay qualifying for the missed time is even dumber and more stupid as you can track the qualifying in real-time on Formula One's Website from your computer, tablet or smart phone.
And by the time they showed queue three qualifying for the top ten spots, the Formula One Website had already posted the final starting positions for the grid for Sunday's race. Kinda' takes the surprise out of it, ya think? And do your fans a favor, put a sock in Sam Posey. No one likes his hype anymore.
The decision not to switch to the qualifying at Montreal for the last runners at Pocono is really dumb and stupid for the viewers like me who want to see the whole qualfying sessons at Montreal than Pocono. And the decision to tape delay qualifying for the missed time is even dumber and more stupid as you can track the qualifying in real-time on Formula One's Website from your computer, tablet or smart phone.
And by the time they showed queue three qualifying for the top ten spots, the Formula One Website had already posted the final starting positions for the grid for Sunday's race. Kinda' takes the surprise out of it, ya think? And do your fans a favor, put a sock in Sam Posey. No one likes his hype anymore.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Romney
Does it occur to you that Mitt Romney is conducting his presidential campaign as if he was taking over a company for Bain Capital? He's using a take no prisoners approach, attack and condemn anyone opposing him, tell everyone whatever they want to hear while not meaning any of it, and do whatever it take to win.
That's his campaign strategy and tactics and not just winning the campaign is the goal but bludgeoning the President into oblivion, like he bludgeoned companies into bankruptcy and employees into unemployment without any retirement or health insurance. His approach is leave no one alive, leave them on the floor of this economy and in their lives, bankrupt.
And that's his plan, just lie. Tell whatever it takes to win votes. The facts and the truth are victims left long ago and never spoken again. That's his style, smile, lie and chuckle if caught telling a lie or contradicting himself. Self-denial of history is his trademark response.
Don't believe it? Well, consider he's never full disclosed his financial records to know how much money he has and earns and where all his money is located. We know much of it is offshore, but after that we don't know how it's invested to earn the income he receives from those investments.
We know he's Mormon, but has he ever spoken seriously about his faith and about his practice of mormonism? We know he has served as a teacher and elder of some stature in the chruch. He hasn't confirmed he contributes the percentage of his income required by the church to the church.
What's he afraid of discussing his faith and mormonism? Don't we know why? He's afraid of the backlash he'll admit he's a true believer of the Mormon faith (religion or cult is your choice). He's afraid to admit his own private and personal faith while he attacks President Obama on his faith.
This is a guy who'll lie to you while keeping a straight face. He only cares about Mormons and rich people, and the latter is optional because they're only there to write the checks for the promises he's made if he becomes president to repay them several times over with tax cuts and taxpayers money in subsidies and contracts.
He sees the government as the bank account of a company to raid, steal and distribute to his the wealthy friends and to the corporations. Just as he did for any company he bought when he worked for Bain Capital, to enrich the company, his friends and more over himself. Rob from the public to help the rich.
That's his plan and do and say whatever it takes. And you think he'd make a good president? With that record? Who would believe or trust him as president?
That's his campaign strategy and tactics and not just winning the campaign is the goal but bludgeoning the President into oblivion, like he bludgeoned companies into bankruptcy and employees into unemployment without any retirement or health insurance. His approach is leave no one alive, leave them on the floor of this economy and in their lives, bankrupt.
And that's his plan, just lie. Tell whatever it takes to win votes. The facts and the truth are victims left long ago and never spoken again. That's his style, smile, lie and chuckle if caught telling a lie or contradicting himself. Self-denial of history is his trademark response.
Don't believe it? Well, consider he's never full disclosed his financial records to know how much money he has and earns and where all his money is located. We know much of it is offshore, but after that we don't know how it's invested to earn the income he receives from those investments.
We know he's Mormon, but has he ever spoken seriously about his faith and about his practice of mormonism? We know he has served as a teacher and elder of some stature in the chruch. He hasn't confirmed he contributes the percentage of his income required by the church to the church.
What's he afraid of discussing his faith and mormonism? Don't we know why? He's afraid of the backlash he'll admit he's a true believer of the Mormon faith (religion or cult is your choice). He's afraid to admit his own private and personal faith while he attacks President Obama on his faith.
This is a guy who'll lie to you while keeping a straight face. He only cares about Mormons and rich people, and the latter is optional because they're only there to write the checks for the promises he's made if he becomes president to repay them several times over with tax cuts and taxpayers money in subsidies and contracts.
He sees the government as the bank account of a company to raid, steal and distribute to his the wealthy friends and to the corporations. Just as he did for any company he bought when he worked for Bain Capital, to enrich the company, his friends and more over himself. Rob from the public to help the rich.
That's his plan and do and say whatever it takes. And you think he'd make a good president? With that record? Who would believe or trust him as president?
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Mormonism & Lying
Listening to Mitt Romney so far in the Republican primary campaign and reading or listening to all the stories on his record and past statements and interviews, one would get the impression one of the central tenants in Mormonism is lying. Mitt Romney is a perpetual liar, who says anything to anyone to get what he wants, and in this case, to get their vote.
He obviously learned his lessons in his youth and used the tactic at Bain Capital when his job was to takeover companies, shred the employees to the unemployment roles, steal any financial holdings in the company and then sell the remants to a buyer for a huge profit. To do that you have to lie to everyone about everything and then pretend you didn't lie.
Makes you think if you've ever been approached by youths talking about their faith, trying to sell you to join them, the Mormon Church teaches it as a way of life. And we're seeing what it yields in their politicians, Mitt Romney, liar extraordinaire.
He obviously learned his lessons in his youth and used the tactic at Bain Capital when his job was to takeover companies, shred the employees to the unemployment roles, steal any financial holdings in the company and then sell the remants to a buyer for a huge profit. To do that you have to lie to everyone about everything and then pretend you didn't lie.
Makes you think if you've ever been approached by youths talking about their faith, trying to sell you to join them, the Mormon Church teaches it as a way of life. And we're seeing what it yields in their politicians, Mitt Romney, liar extraordinaire.
Monday, April 16, 2012
A Bad Joke
A Democrat and a Republican walk into a bar. The bartender asks what they're drinking and when the bartender returns with their drink the Republican says, "Put it on my tab.", to which the bartender replies, "Hell, your credit card bounced and you haven't paid your tab from the 8 year party of the last Republican who was here." The bartender then turns to the Democrat who points at the Republican and says, "He's buying."
Monday, April 2, 2012
Not What They Say
It's not so much what candidates say that tells us they values and views on the issues. It's what going in their ears. It's the advisors around them and with them who are telling them what they want the candidate to hear or say or what they want the candidate to do.
It's them who we should be focused on than the words coming out their mouth, because it's variation of the old adage, political garbage in only gets political garbage out. They're only repeating what they hear in a way that sounds original to them so you believe it's their ideas, values and views.
And it's not when it comes to some candidates, those who are mental, and even morally, play dough, meaning they don't have many real thoughts or ideas and are more than willing to absorb them from those around them. Their own real views and values haven't seen the light of day in a long time.
It's what they know to hide. It's what they fear the public will not vote for them if they knew. It's what they will use when they get elected, but only after they pay back all the voices they heard in their ears making agreements and giving promises, but money giving money with strings attached.
So, we should ignore what's ahead of them, the words they speak, but pay attention to what's behind them, the voices speaking in their ears. They are the real candidate.
It's them who we should be focused on than the words coming out their mouth, because it's variation of the old adage, political garbage in only gets political garbage out. They're only repeating what they hear in a way that sounds original to them so you believe it's their ideas, values and views.
And it's not when it comes to some candidates, those who are mental, and even morally, play dough, meaning they don't have many real thoughts or ideas and are more than willing to absorb them from those around them. Their own real views and values haven't seen the light of day in a long time.
It's what they know to hide. It's what they fear the public will not vote for them if they knew. It's what they will use when they get elected, but only after they pay back all the voices they heard in their ears making agreements and giving promises, but money giving money with strings attached.
So, we should ignore what's ahead of them, the words they speak, but pay attention to what's behind them, the voices speaking in their ears. They are the real candidate.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Why Two
You know the TV ads offering a cheap appliance, gadget, bags, etc., with a lifetime guarrantee, lowering the price several times and then saying, "For this price, we'll not only give you this product, we'll give you two." So, exactly why do you need two of something that has a lifetime guarrantee?
Wait, I know why, it doesn't last more than year, if that long, because either it breaks or you break it being so flimsy it's ridiculous and the second is there for the guarranteed lifetime replacement, which you bought. And if you send it back for a refund, exactly how long do you think it will take for the amount to be credited to your credit card account?
Anyway, I just love the sales pitch, "For the price of one of this really great product, you get a liftetime guarrantee. But wait, if you call now, we'll match it with a second product for free." With a 50% divorce rate in this country, you'd think we're selling marriage the same way, "Wait, if your first marriage doesn't work, we'll give you a second one for a low price and no alimony."
Maybe it's time we stopped falling for twofer offers. And we'll discuss the the extra large size for the price of a medium one later.
Wait, I know why, it doesn't last more than year, if that long, because either it breaks or you break it being so flimsy it's ridiculous and the second is there for the guarranteed lifetime replacement, which you bought. And if you send it back for a refund, exactly how long do you think it will take for the amount to be credited to your credit card account?
Anyway, I just love the sales pitch, "For the price of one of this really great product, you get a liftetime guarrantee. But wait, if you call now, we'll match it with a second product for free." With a 50% divorce rate in this country, you'd think we're selling marriage the same way, "Wait, if your first marriage doesn't work, we'll give you a second one for a low price and no alimony."
Maybe it's time we stopped falling for twofer offers. And we'll discuss the the extra large size for the price of a medium one later.
Reasons to change the Station
Like everyone I only listen to a few radio stations, now mostly over the Internet (Radium is a cool app for this), dedending on the time of the day and the day of the week. I listen to the NPR station in Seattle (KUOW) on Saturday mornings and afternoons into the evening, and occasionally during the week for the news and a few talks shows, mostly Fresh Air on WHYY on their second station, but not much else.
I also listen to our local NPR station (KPLU) on Saturday and Sunday nights for the Blues show 6PM to midnight, really great stuff. After that I only listen when I want music or sound and not something in my iTunes library, meaning the BBC London and VOA English for news or KMTT (alternative) and KIng FM (classic) for music. All in all on average 2-3 hours a day.
But one thing which will always and quickly get me to change the station. Yes, you guessed it, pledge drives. I really hate them because you can be a member, especially paying your dues without being prompted over the air or call at the beginning of the drive, and you still have to listen to their drivel, yes drivel, about pledging to help support the station.
I won't argue I really like NPR. I think they should be funded more from federal monies in and for the public interest. They provide programs you won't get let alone hear on commercial stations, from the news to the talk shows, but mostly shows like Car Talk, Wait, Wait..., and an icon show, A Prairie Home Companion. That's worth my money.
I don't watch PBS stations anymore mostly because the management the Seattle station drove it into the financial ground which took years to get on the road back but they still air a lot of shows which leaves you wandering who's running the station. The Seattle-Tacoma area has two PBS stations which combined don't make one decent one, long past the time they should have merged.
That said, I just don't like the pledge drives, so when it starts for the week or so, I simply switch stations for the week or move to the programs on the Internet. There isn't any national shows the stations air you can't get the live stream or the replay from the show's Website. It's the new world of radio, you don't have to actually listen to a station, just the show.
So I don't have to listen to the drivel about money, the quality of the programming, and the benefits to your family for just the small donation of your membership. I get it and I get the need, I just don't want to listen to it or hear it repeated ad naseum, to which I'll start listening again when the pledge drive is over.
I also listen to our local NPR station (KPLU) on Saturday and Sunday nights for the Blues show 6PM to midnight, really great stuff. After that I only listen when I want music or sound and not something in my iTunes library, meaning the BBC London and VOA English for news or KMTT (alternative) and KIng FM (classic) for music. All in all on average 2-3 hours a day.
But one thing which will always and quickly get me to change the station. Yes, you guessed it, pledge drives. I really hate them because you can be a member, especially paying your dues without being prompted over the air or call at the beginning of the drive, and you still have to listen to their drivel, yes drivel, about pledging to help support the station.
I won't argue I really like NPR. I think they should be funded more from federal monies in and for the public interest. They provide programs you won't get let alone hear on commercial stations, from the news to the talk shows, but mostly shows like Car Talk, Wait, Wait..., and an icon show, A Prairie Home Companion. That's worth my money.
I don't watch PBS stations anymore mostly because the management the Seattle station drove it into the financial ground which took years to get on the road back but they still air a lot of shows which leaves you wandering who's running the station. The Seattle-Tacoma area has two PBS stations which combined don't make one decent one, long past the time they should have merged.
That said, I just don't like the pledge drives, so when it starts for the week or so, I simply switch stations for the week or move to the programs on the Internet. There isn't any national shows the stations air you can't get the live stream or the replay from the show's Website. It's the new world of radio, you don't have to actually listen to a station, just the show.
So I don't have to listen to the drivel about money, the quality of the programming, and the benefits to your family for just the small donation of your membership. I get it and I get the need, I just don't want to listen to it or hear it repeated ad naseum, to which I'll start listening again when the pledge drive is over.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Channel Switching Words
I watch the news a few hours a day, usually one of the cable networks, mostly MSNBC because I can't stand Fox News and CNN is becoming a joke of repetitiveness, meaning if you miss something, don't worry it will be back again in 30-60 minutes. And even MSNBC is becoming a lot like CNN except it's the different hosts repeating the same story with a different spin and guests.
So that said, these are stories when announced at the beginning of the show, like "Tonight....", or during the news show, like "Next...", with words which I immediately switch channels or turn off the TV.
Trayvon Martin - I'm sorry for the young man and justice needs to be served but the news isn't it.
Tim Tebow - I don't like any over-hyped quarter back who professes their faith so obviously.
Republican primary campaign and the name of any candidate - I'm full of the campaign crap and the candidates' lies and bs.
Anything Al Sharpton - I just don't like his ego and his outrage without rhythm or reason, just being loud and prominent.
Anything Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw - They are so full of themselves and their icon status in journalism.
The Affordable Healthcare Act - The Supreme Court will decide in mid-late June, so until then it's much ado about nothing.
I'll add more words or names as they happen.
And to MSNBC I only consistently watch your shows between 5 and 8 PM Pacific Time, meaning Ed Schulz, Rachael Madow and Lawrence O'Donnell, and sometimes I skip the first or last one when I hear the opening about the stories. I don't understand why the cable news networks forget viewers other than those addicted to news and their shows.
At least Racheal Maddow is worth lisening to the stories, her views and the guests on her show. Most days, because some days she gets a bit too much. But at least is eloquent and informative besides being smart and intelligent, a rarity for many news show hosts, and seems to have a lot of fun. That's worth the time.
So that said, these are stories when announced at the beginning of the show, like "Tonight....", or during the news show, like "Next...", with words which I immediately switch channels or turn off the TV.
Trayvon Martin - I'm sorry for the young man and justice needs to be served but the news isn't it.
Tim Tebow - I don't like any over-hyped quarter back who professes their faith so obviously.
Republican primary campaign and the name of any candidate - I'm full of the campaign crap and the candidates' lies and bs.
Anything Al Sharpton - I just don't like his ego and his outrage without rhythm or reason, just being loud and prominent.
Anything Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw - They are so full of themselves and their icon status in journalism.
The Affordable Healthcare Act - The Supreme Court will decide in mid-late June, so until then it's much ado about nothing.
I'll add more words or names as they happen.
And to MSNBC I only consistently watch your shows between 5 and 8 PM Pacific Time, meaning Ed Schulz, Rachael Madow and Lawrence O'Donnell, and sometimes I skip the first or last one when I hear the opening about the stories. I don't understand why the cable news networks forget viewers other than those addicted to news and their shows.
At least Racheal Maddow is worth lisening to the stories, her views and the guests on her show. Most days, because some days she gets a bit too much. But at least is eloquent and informative besides being smart and intelligent, a rarity for many news show hosts, and seems to have a lot of fun. That's worth the time.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Rape is Rape
Much against what the members of the Virginia legislature think of their bill for a specific type of ultrasound before having an abortion, even against the woman's rights and decision and against the doctor's recommendation, rape as defined by federal law is still rape, the forced penetration of a woman's vagina against her wishes.
That is exactly what that bill will do, sanction the state to demand a doctor commit rape of a woman prior to an abortion. This violates the hypocratic oath doctors swear to uphold. This violates the woman. This violates the law. Plain and simple. It's rape, no less if it was done by a rapist.
Those supporting this bill are defacto rapists trying to legalize rape for their own views and beliefs. And the governor agrees with them, calling it fair and proper. Would any of them, especially the governor, still believe it if their daughter wanted an abortion and she had to experience that test?
The conservative and religious extremist want small government except in the bedroom and a woman's body. There they want total control of what happens between two people and with a woman's reproductive healthcare. They want this over all people and over all women. Everywhere and all the time.
That's not small government, it's what Rick Santorum criticizes the Democrats and the President for being, Nazis. He wants that control as much as Hitler wanted it in Germany in the 1930's. Mr. Santorium has said as much about the opponents but maybe he should be looking out a window instead of looking in a mirror.
He's talking about himself. He's deciding for everyone who they should be and what they should do. Not really should so much as must be and must do. He's Hitler reincarnated as a religious zealot disguised as a presidential candidate and he's preaching to his faith, his party of followers, who like the early followers of Hitler, drank the cool-aid and believed the message as gospel.
And his gospel is his version of the Bible and Christianity. He's even called followers of non-Catholic dominations as heretics, against his view of God, Jesus and the Bible. Change the book and you have Nazism. You have someone who wants to be in total control of Americans, deciding what's right, his right and everything else as wrong, evil and illegal.
And those in the Virginia legislature aren't much different, just in Virginia. But all said and done, it's still rape and rape is still rape. And conspiracy to commit rape disguised as this law is also rape. No less invasive and no less a crime.
That is exactly what that bill will do, sanction the state to demand a doctor commit rape of a woman prior to an abortion. This violates the hypocratic oath doctors swear to uphold. This violates the woman. This violates the law. Plain and simple. It's rape, no less if it was done by a rapist.
Those supporting this bill are defacto rapists trying to legalize rape for their own views and beliefs. And the governor agrees with them, calling it fair and proper. Would any of them, especially the governor, still believe it if their daughter wanted an abortion and she had to experience that test?
The conservative and religious extremist want small government except in the bedroom and a woman's body. There they want total control of what happens between two people and with a woman's reproductive healthcare. They want this over all people and over all women. Everywhere and all the time.
That's not small government, it's what Rick Santorum criticizes the Democrats and the President for being, Nazis. He wants that control as much as Hitler wanted it in Germany in the 1930's. Mr. Santorium has said as much about the opponents but maybe he should be looking out a window instead of looking in a mirror.
He's talking about himself. He's deciding for everyone who they should be and what they should do. Not really should so much as must be and must do. He's Hitler reincarnated as a religious zealot disguised as a presidential candidate and he's preaching to his faith, his party of followers, who like the early followers of Hitler, drank the cool-aid and believed the message as gospel.
And his gospel is his version of the Bible and Christianity. He's even called followers of non-Catholic dominations as heretics, against his view of God, Jesus and the Bible. Change the book and you have Nazism. You have someone who wants to be in total control of Americans, deciding what's right, his right and everything else as wrong, evil and illegal.
And those in the Virginia legislature aren't much different, just in Virginia. But all said and done, it's still rape and rape is still rape. And conspiracy to commit rape disguised as this law is also rape. No less invasive and no less a crime.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Just a Thought
I read several on-line or print newspapers several days a week and from today's newspapers I saw some imaginary dots. But they're only just a thought.
One would get the impression Obama is letting the military take over our government. Why? Consider the following facts.
The director and senior staff of the National Security Agency (NSA) are generals in the military. Not retired, but uniformed active duty.
The Department of Defense's (DOD's) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) nows conducts 80% of the covert surveillence and operations, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) the remaining 20%. This has been a slowly evolving changes since 2001 when the CIA did the almost all that work.
The CIA operates the DOD drones under DOD orders and DIA informatioin.
The CIA director is the former Secretary of Defense (CIA director now the Secretary of Defense).
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is a retired General. Three of the five directors are from the military.
The Joint Chief of Staff is one of Obama's senior advisors among the other active or retired miltiary as senior advisors.
All the contractors working for the DNI and DIA operate for the DOD.
The miltiary now controls the NSA, DNI, DIA and much of the CIA besides the DOD itself. This means the majority of voices the president is hearing are the military.
Makes you wonder if they ever decide to think Americans are the enemy too could or would the President ever stop them? Could we the people? Would Congress?
And if they decide to take over the one job left between them and total control of the US government and people?
One would get the impression Obama is letting the military take over our government. Why? Consider the following facts.
The director and senior staff of the National Security Agency (NSA) are generals in the military. Not retired, but uniformed active duty.
The Department of Defense's (DOD's) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) nows conducts 80% of the covert surveillence and operations, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) the remaining 20%. This has been a slowly evolving changes since 2001 when the CIA did the almost all that work.
The CIA operates the DOD drones under DOD orders and DIA informatioin.
The CIA director is the former Secretary of Defense (CIA director now the Secretary of Defense).
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is a retired General. Three of the five directors are from the military.
The Joint Chief of Staff is one of Obama's senior advisors among the other active or retired miltiary as senior advisors.
All the contractors working for the DNI and DIA operate for the DOD.
The miltiary now controls the NSA, DNI, DIA and much of the CIA besides the DOD itself. This means the majority of voices the president is hearing are the military.
Makes you wonder if they ever decide to think Americans are the enemy too could or would the President ever stop them? Could we the people? Would Congress?
And if they decide to take over the one job left between them and total control of the US government and people?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Opinion Ping Pong
After moving my news and opinion blog here from my main blog, I've moved it back to the main blog at wsrphoto. I may still add essays here on occasion, when is anyone's guess, but I'll try to remember to stop by here occasionally and post something.
The reason for this is that this blog doesn't get the traffic my main blog gets (yes, on the bottom are the Google analytics notice), not that I want to encourage folks to go there and read my often dumbfounding opinions (ok, I'm a progressive liberal with some moderate, conservative and libertarian opinions on some issues), it's just easier for them.
Anyway, that's it for here now. As they say, "I'll keep you posted. Like here."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
