What's happening in America now, regarding the supposed "voter fraud protective laws" no longer qualifies as "oh, it's just politics" any longer, imho. Criminal, yes; immoral? Most definitely. Unconstitutional? Oh yeah, but Politics? NO.
How can we continue to stand by and allow people to steal an election by attacking our right to vote? And come on
- surely even Republicans (the ones who must still exist somewhere?)
have noticed how this effort in certain states coincides with
battleground states for this year's election? And I have to believe not
all Republicans have their heads so buried in the past, so afraid of the
future, that they too are angry at their state's tactics, ie; purging
voters, changing laws on everything from ID's "now required" - to
taking away early voting (or lessening the amount of time for early
voting), to doing away with longer hours on voting day - and even
closing polls in rural areas, thus forcing the residents to find some
way to get to a larger city in order to vote.
Please tell me people are paying attention and doing something about it?
The
media (sans Fox) reports about the new and ever-changing voter laws -
but then show us how Obama still leads in the polls. Hello? WAKE UP,
News People! Obama could lead by 50 points but if people aren't allowed
to cast their votes, he LOSES. I want to see what people in the effected states are doing for their fellow voters who may be left out in the cold.
Sure,
some states are fighting the new laws, but right now, with only a
little over a month until voting day, the citizens of the battered swing
states don't know what they'll be able to do and what they won't. So
what's happening ON THE GROUND? Are people forming groups to tackle
transportation for those who can't drive but now have to travel further
to vote? Are funds being pooled to help citizens pay for newly required
ID's and/or the $ required to get a birth certificate (if one even
exists)? Are employers (who know they've got men and women
working two or three other jobs, thus dependent on the early voting and
extended hours that are disappearing), going to offer to pay their
employees on voting day so they can actually VOTE? And if not, are funds
being collected in those swing states to help reimburse what will be
lost (and can ill-afford being lost) in wages because these people now
have to go stand in very long lines all day to vote?
Are any
capitol buildings being surrounded to STOP these laws? Are people out in
the streets, or in their own capitol buildings to protest, and if any
of the above is happening in a large way (as opposed to the one or two
'single' stories we've been told about), I'd like to hear it - and if
not - WHY THE HELL NOT?
Shouldn't we all fight protect this
right, for EVERYONE, even if they're going to vote for the opposite
party? Shouldn't Mitt Romney, for whom all this is being done, take a
stand AGAINST it? At every speech, in every swing state, shouldn't he
stand up and be counted as an American who is SICK of this crap? Oh,
wait, then he'd actually have to 'take' a stand on something and then
he'd have to reverse it the next day. Sorry, got a bit snarky there.
Senator
John McCain may have lost the election in '08 to Obama, but I remember
how he reacted at stump speeches when audience members maligned Obama
(not on issues) by declaring how they wouldn't vote for him because he, "wasn't an American, was a Muslim and a terrorist and evil....".
McCain was truly shocked that the whole tactic of making America
believe he might not be American had taken such a WRONG and destructive
turn and reacted immediately by telling people that none of that was
true. Unfortunately, that McCain no longer exists. *shakes head
sadly* Instead, we have a very bitter man who now sings to the tune of
the Tea Party and seems to have lost all his principles in the process.
But oh, how I wish the older, smarter, wiser McCain was still out there
right now, because that McCain would have stood up against this voter crap.
The newest news now is out of North Carolina, where a group called The Voter Integrity Project (a Tea Party group - duh), want
30,000 voters purged because they claim they're dead. And if they're
dead, someone could steal their identity in order to vote. *looks
puzzled*
Yeah, because isn't that why people steal identities? To VOTE?
Sure. Right.
NOT.
Of course, I realize the number of
voter fraud acts in North Carolina, where a dead's person identity was
stolen so they could vote, must be huge. Right? Or not so much.
According to North Carolina, they've had exactly... ZERO voter fraud.
As in NONE.
And
yet, that group still believes there must
be a lot of dishonest people in North Carolina; so heinously dishonest,
they'd steal a dead person's identity to vote (as in vote
for Obama, of course), so they're sending out letters to folks telling
them they may not be able to vote because they're...dead. D.E.D.
According to TRMS, at least one person who received one of those letters turned out to be, you know, like, alive. She responded that she's been voting since '67 - and btw: also just happens to be black, a senior, and oh yes, a registered Democrat.
Surprise!
But is this possible purging in North Carolina really going to cause a problem?
YES.
Early voting has already begun (and absentee voting) and people are
very confused - and it's only going to get worse the closer we get to
November 6th - not to mention the fact that North Carolina is a
swing state for the '12 election - gosh.
But you know what really gets my goat? That while the story's being reported, the implication
isn't; that being that the only way a black President could have been
elected in the first place - was voter fraud (and early voting. And
extended voting hours). In other words: Democrats are thieves and
dishonest to the point that we'd cheat to get a black man into the Oval
Office! And because we're cheats, obviously there's a need to shorten
early voting; shorten voting hours; disband voting polls in rural areas;
and require new ID's in places they've never been required before. I
guess doing all that will also stop us thieving Democrats
from...thieving votes? As opposed to suppressing the rights of
minorities, the poor, the elderly, the disabled and students. As opposed
to making it nearly impossible for people who would and have, voted for
Obama - to vote this year.
Because we Democrats are terrible people and thieves.
It doesn't even seem to matter that it's been proven over and over again that voter fraud anywhere
in the US is basically non-existent (so maybe we Democrats aren't such
voting thieves after all?). But then, this isn't really about politics,
is it? No, I suspect it goes beyond mere party affiliation. This whole
voter fraud crap may go to the heart of a disturbing change in our
country, a change that scares the HELL out of me and should probably
scare all of us, no matter what party we've chosen.
I think - pray - hope,
that deep down, every person, Republican, Democrat, Independent,
Libertarian, Green or whatever, knows that if the 30,000 people in North
Carolina were all white and registered Republicans, no one would
consider purging them.
But whether they do or not - this voter suppression is likely to work. And I don't say that because I plan to vote
for President Obama, either. I say it because the very idea that a man
may become our leader not because of the number of people who voted - but because of the number of people who could not vote. That's not only scary, it's horrific.
So
where does all this voter crap leave us come November? Will some folks
in those critical swing states, most of whom are minorities, students,
the elderly, the disabled and the very poor, even know if they'll
be eligible to vote? Will they need that new ID they not only can't
afford - but also have no way of getting? Will their voting place be
closed, forcing them to travel; something they're also unable to do?
Will the early voting they've depended on for years (because they have
to work two or three jobs just to survive), end? Will the extra hours
they've also depended on for the same reason, still exist? And if they do make it to their polling place,
A) how long will they have to wait in line because of shortened days and hours, and
B) will they discover they've been purged? Or,
C) will they discover they have the wrong ID, because a week prior, their state pulled another fast one?
And how much of impact would all of the above have this year? Well, in 2008, Obama won North Carolina by 13,692 votes:
Obama: 2,123,390 votes or 49.9%
McCain: 2,109,698 votes or 49.5%
So if 30,000 people are purged - or even half that number - North Carolina goes to Romney.
Feel
free to play this game yourself with the current states considered
'swing' states for 2012, all of which Obama WON in '08. They're below,
in the color representing its historical voting record in the last 10 Presidential elections.
Red=Republican, Blue=Democrat. (If a state has one letter in a
different color, it means they've mostly voted the primary color but
have strayed a couple of times but only Iowa has an historical 50/50
split):
Colorado
Florida
Iowa
North Carolina
New Hampshire
Nevada
Ohio
Virginia
Wisconsin
Just based on the above, you can see how voting changes could change the election.
BTW: There 14 states that have already enacted laws limiting voting rights and those 14 control 171 Electoral College votes for this Presidential election - or 63% of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
BTW, Part 2: Most experts consider 12 states to be 'swing' or critical, as opposed to the 9 above - and they are, with their electoral votes:
Pennsylvania 20, Georgia 16, Oregon 7, Arizona 11, and New Mexico 5
Of the 12, five have already passed vote-limiting laws and are considering doing yet more, with pending legislature in two other key states.
NOTE:
I'm not sure why Wisconsin doesn't make most swing state lists, unless
they think the choice of Paul Ryan was enough to give that state to
Romney?
So, now does the above information scare you? Does knowing that someone may become our leader not because the number of People who voted - but because of the number of People who weren't allowed to vote, chill you to your bones?
In closing, here's an article about the right to vote that says it all for me.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Romney's Most Secret Tape that wasn't....
Okay,
so a tape of a May fundraising appearance by Romney at the Boca Raton
home of private equity manager Marc Leder was leaked. Do I think it was
right to leak it? NO. Am I glad it was? Admittedly, YES.
*looks shamefaced*
Besides the fact that any presidential candidate who speaks in front of his contributors and expects complete privacy could be labeled a fool - and yes, that goes for Obama too, should the same thing happen - and I'm sure that's in the works as I type, *g* I'm glad it was released because this may be the first time Mr. Romney was RIGHT (well, at least partially) about anything.
At a fundraiser of very wealthy folks, he stated the following:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
Oh, and one of my favorite parts:
"My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Yep, he's right. Partially. Now, I can't speak for the other 46%, but I'm definitely one of the free-loaders since I'm the recipient of two "Entitlement Programs":
1) Medicare and,
2) Federal Social Security Disability
And yep, I'm going to vote for Obama. So that's me - one of the 47% of freeloaders that Romney can NEVER convince that I should "...take personal responsibility and care for [my life]."
(btw: Romney is sticking to his guns regarding the above remarks, stating that the only difference he'd have made had the appearance been 'public', is that he'd have stated it all more...I forget what word he used...maybe it was 'elegantly'? Or how about "intelligently"? *G* Oh, and at the bottom of this post is the video from YouTube, in case you've been vacationing in a cave and missed it.)
So I'm a freeloader, taking advantage of MY government entitlements. Yep, that's me. Is it you too? Are you 'taking advantage' of American Entitlement Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Food stamps? How 'bout Unemployment?
If the answer is yes, shame on you, but welcome to the 'freeloader' club! *G*
Of course, if I turned down the SSD, well, I do have a 2001 Explorer and could live in it *nods* because working is simply not possible - not to mention we have a little 'job' problem, you know? So a fat, 61 year-old disabled female with PTSS and Chronic Anxiety/Panic Disorder, well, employers aren't exactly jumping at the chance to hire me, you know? Even if there were jobs out there. And if I turned down Medicare, well, who the hell needs blood pressure medicine, Thyroid medicine, anxiety medication and about five others anyway, other than to live. *shrugs*
But hey, I guess one could say that Obama's 47% are useless people anyway (damn freeloaders!) so if they die, where's the loss?
Sound a bit dramatic? Sure. But you know what? It's also true because about half this country believe (even as they withdraw their SS money from the bank; money put there by the government) "Entitlement" programs are bad and any one on them are, as Romney stated so eloquently, "Freeloaders" - thus, obviously, lazy.
Okay, Mitt, you got me there.
I'm definitely lazy. Always have been, even when working 14 hours a day in order to manage a multi-million dollar segment of the company I worked for where I had five (5) school bus yards employing over 400 employees; all in order to provide school bus transportation for - and to - eleven (11) school districts/private schools/educational programs, etc.
Lazy while every minute of every day, I had a pager, a cell, and sometimes even a two-way radio by my bed at night and weekends, and when I took a vacation/sick day. Lazy when I drove all over Orange County to visit our customers and schools; inspecting and talking to my drivers, principals, teachers and parents. Lazy while doing all that and caring for a mother who, at the time, was, yep, taking advantage of her Entitlement Programs (SSD and Medicare) which, being so grand, permitted one (1) caregiver three x a week for four (4) hours each day (but for which I paid a 75% of the caregiver's wage while the insurance picked up the other 25%).
Yep, freeloaders.
Bet you have a similar story - you freeloader, you!
But here's the real problem I see with even calling these 'programs' - entitlements: Not only does America not understand them - but neither does the media (Conservative OR Liberal). You see, these programs are not entitlement programs for the simple reason that we didn't ask for them. WE didn't campaign for them, write our congressmen/women to get them nor did we even think of them. If we had, maybe the word 'entitlement' could be ... somewhat ... appropriate. But we didn't.
The word 'entitlement' itself conjures up terrible things in most people's minds, with so many Americans viewing entitlements as 'bad' things; programs for the lazy. We think only lazy people are on 'welfare' and even lazier people collecting food stamps. But in reality? *shakes head*
YES, all programs are open to fraud and misuse - all programs. But that doesn't make the programs themselves bad, it just means we need to improve how we manage them.
But back to the facts of why Social Security, etc. aren't entitlements *G*.
Okay, so, Crash of '29. Mr. & Mrs. John Doe, innocent of any wrong doing, watched their future and retirement crash with the stock market - leaving them with zip. They had nothing left, yet had done nothing wrong (btw: sound familiar?). The 'nothing' wasn't due to poor habits, lack of saving or planning, or lack of taking, as Romney evidently believes: "...personal responsibility and care for their lives."
No, Mr. & Mrs. John Doe had done everything right - and yet, had nothing left because of bankers, stock manipulators, gamblers and the lack of any kind of meaningful regulations set up to govern the stock market, let alone the bankers (hello? Again, anything sound familiar yet? Like...for instance...2008???). Then, along comes Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, in the middle of the Great Depression, brought to life a simple idea based on the premise that Government is supposed to help its citizens, not just govern them.
BTW: Yes, I'm simplifying now, okay? Just go with it.
He, with others, believed it was the job of the government to help provide a 'safety net' for just such an occurence as the crash of '29. Thousands and thousands of good, hardworking Americans lost their jobs, savings, homes; everything that was dear to them because the market crashed. They suffered horribly, with many dying (no, everything wasn't The Waltons, folks!). Soup kitchens were often the only food available - and when they ran out of food, the doors were closed until the next day - so if you were in line, you and yours went hungry - again.
This was the reality of the Great Depression and why - in the simplest of terms - the entire Social Security package came to be. Originally, it was called the "Economic Security Act" (link is to our government page on the history of SS, as in the actual facts versus what you may find at many websites purporting to be 'factual'). I think that was a much better title, by the way, because 'Economic Security Act' actually has its meaning in the name; namely offering economic security when American citizens lose it. It was not and never will be, an entitlement program, but again, a safety net.
I wish to the heavens the media would start using that term and not 'entitlement' - thus educating people instead of misleading them.
Yes, we pay into it, but what everyone forgets is that the government takes up most of the slack. What we pay is nothing compared to what the government adds to the pot and the interest that pot gathers. Some economic experts have stated that if, when you turned 65, retired, and began to collect your Social Security, you'd run out of the money you put in before you turned 68! And yes, such a program must be mandated or it can't work. It's like mandated car insurance (or hello? HEALTH insurance mandates?), something Americans seem incapable of wrapping their heads around; a concept that only if we ALL participate in such things can they actually work.
At the transportation company I worked for, they never got it either when it came to, for instance, medical insurance. And when I say 'they', I mean the owner (it was privately held for most of the years I worked for them). My boss, one of the regional VP's, understood, but could never get it into the owner's head that if all employees don't have the medical insurance, the rates would continue to go up because the only emloyees who took it were those who NEEDED it and thus USED it - and that brought our rating down (or do they consider a bad rating as one that goes up? Oh, well, you get what I mean). And of course, when only sick people use it, the insurance does goes up - and every year, which meant we were constantly changing insurance companies. Sound familiar?
BUT, you see, if every employee could take the insurance (meaning if it was cheaper and easier to afford), our company's rating would have gone up and thus, the costs of the insurance would be lower - because the majority of users wouldn't actually, you know, use it (but it would be there if they needed it). When it was decided that automobile insurance would be mandatory - it wasn't greed (exactly *G*) - it was common sense and explains why I can actually afford it now. When you have a program that protects - it can't work unless everyone belongs, hence Social Security was mandated (and btw: that's why Obama put the health mandate into his Health Reform Act). If everyone doesn't get the insurance, the rates can't be kept down AND the idea of 'competitive' rates go right out the window.
Yes, I realize I've greatly oversimplified this whole discussion, but for my feeble brain, simpler is better. Hello? Old person here.
But to sum it up - we don't have 'entitlement' programs - we have the gift of safety nets - something most of us should be very grateful for, especially today. And they're something we should fight to protect because these safety nets are in danger. Grave danger (channeling Kaffee from A Few Good Men). *G* And that's why I'm glad the tape was released. And the above is how you make a long story...longer.
*looks shamefaced*
Besides the fact that any presidential candidate who speaks in front of his contributors and expects complete privacy could be labeled a fool - and yes, that goes for Obama too, should the same thing happen - and I'm sure that's in the works as I type, *g* I'm glad it was released because this may be the first time Mr. Romney was RIGHT (well, at least partially) about anything.
At a fundraiser of very wealthy folks, he stated the following:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
Oh, and one of my favorite parts:
"My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Yep, he's right. Partially. Now, I can't speak for the other 46%, but I'm definitely one of the free-loaders since I'm the recipient of two "Entitlement Programs":
1) Medicare and,
2) Federal Social Security Disability
And yep, I'm going to vote for Obama. So that's me - one of the 47% of freeloaders that Romney can NEVER convince that I should "...take personal responsibility and care for [my life]."
(btw: Romney is sticking to his guns regarding the above remarks, stating that the only difference he'd have made had the appearance been 'public', is that he'd have stated it all more...I forget what word he used...maybe it was 'elegantly'? Or how about "intelligently"? *G* Oh, and at the bottom of this post is the video from YouTube, in case you've been vacationing in a cave and missed it.)
So I'm a freeloader, taking advantage of MY government entitlements. Yep, that's me. Is it you too? Are you 'taking advantage' of American Entitlement Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Food stamps? How 'bout Unemployment?
If the answer is yes, shame on you, but welcome to the 'freeloader' club! *G*
Of course, if I turned down the SSD, well, I do have a 2001 Explorer and could live in it *nods* because working is simply not possible - not to mention we have a little 'job' problem, you know? So a fat, 61 year-old disabled female with PTSS and Chronic Anxiety/Panic Disorder, well, employers aren't exactly jumping at the chance to hire me, you know? Even if there were jobs out there. And if I turned down Medicare, well, who the hell needs blood pressure medicine, Thyroid medicine, anxiety medication and about five others anyway, other than to live. *shrugs*
But hey, I guess one could say that Obama's 47% are useless people anyway (damn freeloaders!) so if they die, where's the loss?
Sound a bit dramatic? Sure. But you know what? It's also true because about half this country believe (even as they withdraw their SS money from the bank; money put there by the government) "Entitlement" programs are bad and any one on them are, as Romney stated so eloquently, "Freeloaders" - thus, obviously, lazy.
Okay, Mitt, you got me there.
I'm definitely lazy. Always have been, even when working 14 hours a day in order to manage a multi-million dollar segment of the company I worked for where I had five (5) school bus yards employing over 400 employees; all in order to provide school bus transportation for - and to - eleven (11) school districts/private schools/educational programs, etc.
Lazy while every minute of every day, I had a pager, a cell, and sometimes even a two-way radio by my bed at night and weekends, and when I took a vacation/sick day. Lazy when I drove all over Orange County to visit our customers and schools; inspecting and talking to my drivers, principals, teachers and parents. Lazy while doing all that and caring for a mother who, at the time, was, yep, taking advantage of her Entitlement Programs (SSD and Medicare) which, being so grand, permitted one (1) caregiver three x a week for four (4) hours each day (but for which I paid a 75% of the caregiver's wage while the insurance picked up the other 25%).
Yep, freeloaders.
Bet you have a similar story - you freeloader, you!
But here's the real problem I see with even calling these 'programs' - entitlements: Not only does America not understand them - but neither does the media (Conservative OR Liberal). You see, these programs are not entitlement programs for the simple reason that we didn't ask for them. WE didn't campaign for them, write our congressmen/women to get them nor did we even think of them. If we had, maybe the word 'entitlement' could be ... somewhat ... appropriate. But we didn't.
The word 'entitlement' itself conjures up terrible things in most people's minds, with so many Americans viewing entitlements as 'bad' things; programs for the lazy. We think only lazy people are on 'welfare' and even lazier people collecting food stamps. But in reality? *shakes head*
YES, all programs are open to fraud and misuse - all programs. But that doesn't make the programs themselves bad, it just means we need to improve how we manage them.
But back to the facts of why Social Security, etc. aren't entitlements *G*.
Okay, so, Crash of '29. Mr. & Mrs. John Doe, innocent of any wrong doing, watched their future and retirement crash with the stock market - leaving them with zip. They had nothing left, yet had done nothing wrong (btw: sound familiar?). The 'nothing' wasn't due to poor habits, lack of saving or planning, or lack of taking, as Romney evidently believes: "...personal responsibility and care for their lives."
No, Mr. & Mrs. John Doe had done everything right - and yet, had nothing left because of bankers, stock manipulators, gamblers and the lack of any kind of meaningful regulations set up to govern the stock market, let alone the bankers (hello? Again, anything sound familiar yet? Like...for instance...2008???). Then, along comes Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, in the middle of the Great Depression, brought to life a simple idea based on the premise that Government is supposed to help its citizens, not just govern them.
BTW: Yes, I'm simplifying now, okay? Just go with it.
He, with others, believed it was the job of the government to help provide a 'safety net' for just such an occurence as the crash of '29. Thousands and thousands of good, hardworking Americans lost their jobs, savings, homes; everything that was dear to them because the market crashed. They suffered horribly, with many dying (no, everything wasn't The Waltons, folks!). Soup kitchens were often the only food available - and when they ran out of food, the doors were closed until the next day - so if you were in line, you and yours went hungry - again.
This was the reality of the Great Depression and why - in the simplest of terms - the entire Social Security package came to be. Originally, it was called the "Economic Security Act" (link is to our government page on the history of SS, as in the actual facts versus what you may find at many websites purporting to be 'factual'). I think that was a much better title, by the way, because 'Economic Security Act' actually has its meaning in the name; namely offering economic security when American citizens lose it. It was not and never will be, an entitlement program, but again, a safety net.
I wish to the heavens the media would start using that term and not 'entitlement' - thus educating people instead of misleading them.
Yes, we pay into it, but what everyone forgets is that the government takes up most of the slack. What we pay is nothing compared to what the government adds to the pot and the interest that pot gathers. Some economic experts have stated that if, when you turned 65, retired, and began to collect your Social Security, you'd run out of the money you put in before you turned 68! And yes, such a program must be mandated or it can't work. It's like mandated car insurance (or hello? HEALTH insurance mandates?), something Americans seem incapable of wrapping their heads around; a concept that only if we ALL participate in such things can they actually work.
At the transportation company I worked for, they never got it either when it came to, for instance, medical insurance. And when I say 'they', I mean the owner (it was privately held for most of the years I worked for them). My boss, one of the regional VP's, understood, but could never get it into the owner's head that if all employees don't have the medical insurance, the rates would continue to go up because the only emloyees who took it were those who NEEDED it and thus USED it - and that brought our rating down (or do they consider a bad rating as one that goes up? Oh, well, you get what I mean). And of course, when only sick people use it, the insurance does goes up - and every year, which meant we were constantly changing insurance companies. Sound familiar?
BUT, you see, if every employee could take the insurance (meaning if it was cheaper and easier to afford), our company's rating would have gone up and thus, the costs of the insurance would be lower - because the majority of users wouldn't actually, you know, use it (but it would be there if they needed it). When it was decided that automobile insurance would be mandatory - it wasn't greed (exactly *G*) - it was common sense and explains why I can actually afford it now. When you have a program that protects - it can't work unless everyone belongs, hence Social Security was mandated (and btw: that's why Obama put the health mandate into his Health Reform Act). If everyone doesn't get the insurance, the rates can't be kept down AND the idea of 'competitive' rates go right out the window.
Yes, I realize I've greatly oversimplified this whole discussion, but for my feeble brain, simpler is better. Hello? Old person here.
But to sum it up - we don't have 'entitlement' programs - we have the gift of safety nets - something most of us should be very grateful for, especially today. And they're something we should fight to protect because these safety nets are in danger. Grave danger (channeling Kaffee from A Few Good Men). *G* And that's why I'm glad the tape was released. And the above is how you make a long story...longer.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
America Abroad Under Attack, and yet...
...why isn't anyone asking how Mitt Romney seems to have known more than he should, let alone EARLIER than he should, and thus, as usual in his campaign, spoke EARLIER than he should, which, in this case, turned out to come before he knew EVERYTHING he should have known?
And why, when just yesterday, everyone (including Republicans who, at their kindest, called his remarks, "ill-advised") felt Romney's speech was bad, but today, it's as if the Republicans had all been gathered together and reminded that Romney was their - hello? - candidate (maybe they used a Vulcan mind-meld?), so now they're backpedaling like nobody's business and *shakes head in disbelief* supporting his remarks?
Here's another question: why isn't anyone calling Romney on how he knew what he did? The media seems so focused on the fact that he chastised the American Embassy for, GOD FORBID, apologizing, that they seem to have missed the fact that he spoke in direct opposition to what was actually happening. Sure, they keep reminding folks that the American Embassy made their apologetic remarks before the attacks, but they're missing the connection; the connection that Romney had to know the film was going to hit, that it would cause an upheaval - and - that the Embassy would try to quell the natural anger the so-called 'film' would invoke by apologizing for it, thus allowing him to ride in on his white horse and say, in effect, "We never apologize! We're Americans!" - at the same time our Embassy was under attack and our Ambassador - dead.
Even worse? In spite of people having actually died and our embassies abroad still in danger, the whole thing has become fodder for a FUCKING campaign - with people actually taking sides regarding Romney's "ill-advised" speech! As if there could be sides to take????
Good GOD, people, this is not the time for this kind of claptrap. We need to shut up and let the professionals try to save the situation. I mean, really, whatever happened to HONOR?
And how hard is it to understand this situation?
In a nutshell: An anti-Islam film was released which was, to say the very least, insulting, so an embassy on the firing line quickly attempted to quell any violence by trying to explain said film (I won't dignify it by calling it a 'documentary') did not reflect American beliefs regarding Mohammed or the Islamic religion. Unfortunately, it was too late, but they tried - and we're still trying - and why? Because America does apologize when we get it wrong or someone else gets it wrong in our name. We're not arrogant dictators who never need to say they're sorry and we're certainly not the prime rulers of the world (although some would think and want us to be just that) and equal to, or above, God.
See, it's okay to apologize, especially under the circumstances faced by our Embassy personnel in Benghazi and other cities and countries in the Middle East.
Prayers and love to the family of Ambassador Chris Stevens and to the families of the three embassy staffers who also perished yesterday. Here's hoping no more lives are lost, that this situation is successfully and peacefully ended....
And why, when just yesterday, everyone (including Republicans who, at their kindest, called his remarks, "ill-advised") felt Romney's speech was bad, but today, it's as if the Republicans had all been gathered together and reminded that Romney was their - hello? - candidate (maybe they used a Vulcan mind-meld?), so now they're backpedaling like nobody's business and *shakes head in disbelief* supporting his remarks?
Here's another question: why isn't anyone calling Romney on how he knew what he did? The media seems so focused on the fact that he chastised the American Embassy for, GOD FORBID, apologizing, that they seem to have missed the fact that he spoke in direct opposition to what was actually happening. Sure, they keep reminding folks that the American Embassy made their apologetic remarks before the attacks, but they're missing the connection; the connection that Romney had to know the film was going to hit, that it would cause an upheaval - and - that the Embassy would try to quell the natural anger the so-called 'film' would invoke by apologizing for it, thus allowing him to ride in on his white horse and say, in effect, "We never apologize! We're Americans!" - at the same time our Embassy was under attack and our Ambassador - dead.
Even worse? In spite of people having actually died and our embassies abroad still in danger, the whole thing has become fodder for a FUCKING campaign - with people actually taking sides regarding Romney's "ill-advised" speech! As if there could be sides to take????
Good GOD, people, this is not the time for this kind of claptrap. We need to shut up and let the professionals try to save the situation. I mean, really, whatever happened to HONOR?
And how hard is it to understand this situation?
In a nutshell: An anti-Islam film was released which was, to say the very least, insulting, so an embassy on the firing line quickly attempted to quell any violence by trying to explain said film (I won't dignify it by calling it a 'documentary') did not reflect American beliefs regarding Mohammed or the Islamic religion. Unfortunately, it was too late, but they tried - and we're still trying - and why? Because America does apologize when we get it wrong or someone else gets it wrong in our name. We're not arrogant dictators who never need to say they're sorry and we're certainly not the prime rulers of the world (although some would think and want us to be just that) and equal to, or above, God.
See, it's okay to apologize, especially under the circumstances faced by our Embassy personnel in Benghazi and other cities and countries in the Middle East.
Prayers and love to the family of Ambassador Chris Stevens and to the families of the three embassy staffers who also perished yesterday. Here's hoping no more lives are lost, that this situation is successfully and peacefully ended....
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
9/11 Thoughts
I got up this morning, naturally cognizant of the day. I planned to read
my LJ flist, because remembering where we were eleven years ago today is
important to retell so I wanted to see what my friends had to say. But for some reason, I didn't want to rewrite what
I'd been doing yet again. Instead, I dropped back down, cuddled with my cat, Abby, and
thought instead of the changes to this country since 9/11 - and the number turned out to be staggering
to me. It was all pretty heavy thinking for a woman who hadn't even had her Instant Breakfast yet.
One thing that sticks in my head in the days - and years - following 9/11, were the amount of public reassurances that Al-Qaeda had failed in their attempt to ruin us financially - which was the reason often given for 9/11 (as well as, of course, creating 'terror' in our minds; to paralyze us with the additional attack on the Pentagon and the failed attempt to crash into the Capitol Building). We were constantly assured there would be no lasting effects to our economy; that slamming into the Twin Towers and Pentagon wouldn't ruin us by causing monetary devastation.
I'm thinking now - they were all wrong - or just plain lying. How could such an immediate and yes, intimate attack not hurt us in more ways than we could count? Many people were saying things like, 'We suffered such an attack once before, at Pearl Harbor, and we survived', but in all reality, for most Americans, Pearl Harbor was 'far away' and, according to my mother, who was 15 at the time, the first response by Americans older than 25 was "Where's Pearl Harbor?"
No one needed to ask where New York was.
And of course, as we'd later learn, the fatalities exceeded the attack on Pearl Harbor as well.
We were definitely shaken to the core, scared and scarred, but supposedly rallied and marched on. Only...now I wonder if we did?
Today, eleven years later, I think Al-Qaeda; the men who planned the attack, carried it out, died for it, might have accomplished more than even they could have dreamed. I think the financial hit was larger than we'll ever truly be told - although economist around the world have made their opinions known; opinions the US has shrugged off, and that bothers me. I think we did change and the damage went beyond what could be considered 'normal', if that makes sense?
The attack on Pearl Harbor offered us an immediate outlet for our fear and rage; we went to war. But 9/11? Sure, our government said we were at war, with terrorism, but in reality, the 'bad guys' this time weren't visible even though they had a name: Al-Qaeda. But unlike our 'foes' in previous 'wars', these men and women were shrouded in mystery and lived lives we couldn't begin to fathom - nor did we try. Maybe that's why the change to America seemed less obvious; why it took more time to occur and why, as it was happening, it was far less noticeable.
With almost 3,000 losses - and the numbers growing each year,
thanks to the toxic air the First Responders, residents and workers of New York had to breathe for almost an entire year - changes for those affected should have been expected, but I think now we were woefully unprepared in every way. I wonder if the pre-9/11 America would have taken NINE YEARS to pass a health and compensation act to aid the First Responders, public and survivors who took in all that bad air? Would the Pre-9/11 America have, at any time, refused healthcare to the point that a law even needed to be passed? Would pre-9/11 America have lied about the air quality for almost a year?
We've always been good at keeping national secrets (sometimes, not so much), but this didn't have anything to do with National Security - this was about our HEALTH. How many Americans even know our government told the EPA to lie about the air quality to New Yorkers? Reassured them it was okay even though the air didn't reach pre-9/11 quality until June of '02 (and even that date is debatable)!
I also started to think of the changes to the mind-set of Americans and found myself --- oddly disappointed. Which is weird. Somehow, in retrospect (which is always easy after the facts, right?), maybe we should have opened our arms to the world instead of closing in on ourselves? It seems as if we're a more suspicious people now - of everyone including each other. And that hatred, which has grown and expanded over the years - that's what really scares me. Sure, no war occurs without some hate, I realize that. I'm hardly naive. But this hatred - due possibly to the fact that our enemy this time was so hard to find - found another outlet. We aimed inward; at immigrants, minorities, at any one who was different from what we perceived as a weird kind of normal; a normal we built into something we convinced ourselves had been lost, when in reality this 'normal' never really existed.
This sounds as if everything that's changed since 9/11 is because of 9/11 - but yeah, I think it's possible. I know it's a very complex issue, with more layers than an onion, and there's certainly no single answer to explain where we are today - but I truly think 9/11 was a kind of catalyst.
So many people's lives changed radically in the last eleven years - and while one would argue that's normal, I found when comparing the changes experienced by myself and so many others - to the fifty years that occurred before 9/11 (my fifty years) - yeah, there may be some basis for my thinking. And is there any arguing with the fact that we've been in not one, but two wars, one lasting ten years, the other, still going after ten years? A war we're not even fighting in what could be considered a normal manner?
Today, so many things we took for granted before 9/11 - are now not only in question, but in danger. Civil Rights, the Right to Choose, Women's Rights, agencies created years ago to help preserve our air, environment, education, even our parks, are all in danger now. Values that can't possibly be defined, let alone legislated, are now considered to be requisites for even being an American. Is 9/11 responsible? Yes, in a way, I believe it is. We were rattled to such a degree, we climbed back into our shells and buried our heads in the sand as we conjured up a utopian vision of what our lives used to be. We made up a danger to our religion and yes, even to the 'white' race. We targeted those who were visible and handy because the real danger was too far away and unfathomable.
The American Dream was attacked on 9/11, but today, some are trying to tell us what, precisely, that Dream was and should be, and that it was lost, but we can get it back. Today, in what I assume is an effort to retrieve that perceived American Dream, we seem to have slipped back to the ten years following WWII. Life was, however briefly, pretty typical. Men came back from the war, many took advantage of GI loans to buy the 'new', modern, sleek homes made possible by all the technological advances forced by a world war. They married, settled down, and had their 2.5 kids. Others used their GI status to take advantage of college opportunities interrupted by the war. The suburbs took on a whole new meaning as communities rose rapidly. Church on Sunday, work on Monday, putter around the new house on Saturday. Families eating around the dining room table while looking out on a 'neighborhood' street, possibly a cul-de-sac. Across the street, Mr. Fleming was mowing his lawn while his wife put the finishing touches on dinner and the small ones watched their new television. Next door, the Cochrans were barbecuing. Life was good.
But today, that life seems to have been the only way we lived before 9/11. The war years, the dismal and dangerous 30's, the immoral Roaring 20's; all quietly disappeared from the collective memories of so many. As did the eye-opening, sometimes violent, 60's and 70's. Two decades (almost) that changed this country forever - or so we who fought for those changes - thought. Anyone remember the late 60's and early 70's? The marches, speeches, violence, protests, upheaval? Or the result?
Women fighting for respect and equality in the workplace; minorities fighting to share in the American Dream; marches and protests to stop a war we'd come to realize was wrong, and college students getting involved. Bras were burned - and so were flags, but the results? TV shows where blacks and Latinos actually starred and shows where gays weren't comic relief, their gender preference never mentioned but demonstrated by a stereotypical swish, but instead, were just men; brothers, sons, etc.
Today, those years are being challenged and I'm beginning to believe 9/11 may have a lot to do with it. The fears that day generated seem to have stayed with us, under the skin, festering almost unnoticed until a man with a foreign name and dark skin took up residence in the White House. Suddenly, those fears had a face and a name. The terror exploded outward even as the people experiencing it cloaked them in political rhetoric about 'returning to the traditional Family Values of America' - as if one man in the Oval Office could have stolen those values in three and a half years. Values that should never be defined or legislated anyway; values that are not only personal but as varied as America herself. And the American Family? To try to define it in an effort to assuage our fears, to limit it in order to feel safe - is wrong. Family is everything and can be any grouping of individuals - who may or may not be related by blood or marriage. Family has no limits - or limitations, nor should it. And by defining it, narrowing it, we can't retrieve what we lost on September 11, 2001. By once again restricting rights and creating divisions among Americans, that day will not be erased. Nor should it be.
I'm not sure what the answer is - but I know that trying to go backward, to limit who and what this country stands for - is not the way. We must honor and remember the dead, we must care for those who suffer today, and we must embrace our differences, love them, cherish them, for those differences created the best of this country.
Maybe that's the way to commemorate 9/11. Go forward, not back. Love, not hate. Broaden our beliefs instead of narrowing them and stop trying to define that which can never be defined.
One thing that sticks in my head in the days - and years - following 9/11, were the amount of public reassurances that Al-Qaeda had failed in their attempt to ruin us financially - which was the reason often given for 9/11 (as well as, of course, creating 'terror' in our minds; to paralyze us with the additional attack on the Pentagon and the failed attempt to crash into the Capitol Building). We were constantly assured there would be no lasting effects to our economy; that slamming into the Twin Towers and Pentagon wouldn't ruin us by causing monetary devastation.
I'm thinking now - they were all wrong - or just plain lying. How could such an immediate and yes, intimate attack not hurt us in more ways than we could count? Many people were saying things like, 'We suffered such an attack once before, at Pearl Harbor, and we survived', but in all reality, for most Americans, Pearl Harbor was 'far away' and, according to my mother, who was 15 at the time, the first response by Americans older than 25 was "Where's Pearl Harbor?"
No one needed to ask where New York was.
And of course, as we'd later learn, the fatalities exceeded the attack on Pearl Harbor as well.
We were definitely shaken to the core, scared and scarred, but supposedly rallied and marched on. Only...now I wonder if we did?
Today, eleven years later, I think Al-Qaeda; the men who planned the attack, carried it out, died for it, might have accomplished more than even they could have dreamed. I think the financial hit was larger than we'll ever truly be told - although economist around the world have made their opinions known; opinions the US has shrugged off, and that bothers me. I think we did change and the damage went beyond what could be considered 'normal', if that makes sense?
The attack on Pearl Harbor offered us an immediate outlet for our fear and rage; we went to war. But 9/11? Sure, our government said we were at war, with terrorism, but in reality, the 'bad guys' this time weren't visible even though they had a name: Al-Qaeda. But unlike our 'foes' in previous 'wars', these men and women were shrouded in mystery and lived lives we couldn't begin to fathom - nor did we try. Maybe that's why the change to America seemed less obvious; why it took more time to occur and why, as it was happening, it was far less noticeable.
With almost 3,000 losses - and the numbers growing each year,
thanks to the toxic air the First Responders, residents and workers of New York had to breathe for almost an entire year - changes for those affected should have been expected, but I think now we were woefully unprepared in every way. I wonder if the pre-9/11 America would have taken NINE YEARS to pass a health and compensation act to aid the First Responders, public and survivors who took in all that bad air? Would the Pre-9/11 America have, at any time, refused healthcare to the point that a law even needed to be passed? Would pre-9/11 America have lied about the air quality for almost a year?
We've always been good at keeping national secrets (sometimes, not so much), but this didn't have anything to do with National Security - this was about our HEALTH. How many Americans even know our government told the EPA to lie about the air quality to New Yorkers? Reassured them it was okay even though the air didn't reach pre-9/11 quality until June of '02 (and even that date is debatable)!
I also started to think of the changes to the mind-set of Americans and found myself --- oddly disappointed. Which is weird. Somehow, in retrospect (which is always easy after the facts, right?), maybe we should have opened our arms to the world instead of closing in on ourselves? It seems as if we're a more suspicious people now - of everyone including each other. And that hatred, which has grown and expanded over the years - that's what really scares me. Sure, no war occurs without some hate, I realize that. I'm hardly naive. But this hatred - due possibly to the fact that our enemy this time was so hard to find - found another outlet. We aimed inward; at immigrants, minorities, at any one who was different from what we perceived as a weird kind of normal; a normal we built into something we convinced ourselves had been lost, when in reality this 'normal' never really existed.
This sounds as if everything that's changed since 9/11 is because of 9/11 - but yeah, I think it's possible. I know it's a very complex issue, with more layers than an onion, and there's certainly no single answer to explain where we are today - but I truly think 9/11 was a kind of catalyst.
So many people's lives changed radically in the last eleven years - and while one would argue that's normal, I found when comparing the changes experienced by myself and so many others - to the fifty years that occurred before 9/11 (my fifty years) - yeah, there may be some basis for my thinking. And is there any arguing with the fact that we've been in not one, but two wars, one lasting ten years, the other, still going after ten years? A war we're not even fighting in what could be considered a normal manner?
Today, so many things we took for granted before 9/11 - are now not only in question, but in danger. Civil Rights, the Right to Choose, Women's Rights, agencies created years ago to help preserve our air, environment, education, even our parks, are all in danger now. Values that can't possibly be defined, let alone legislated, are now considered to be requisites for even being an American. Is 9/11 responsible? Yes, in a way, I believe it is. We were rattled to such a degree, we climbed back into our shells and buried our heads in the sand as we conjured up a utopian vision of what our lives used to be. We made up a danger to our religion and yes, even to the 'white' race. We targeted those who were visible and handy because the real danger was too far away and unfathomable.
The American Dream was attacked on 9/11, but today, some are trying to tell us what, precisely, that Dream was and should be, and that it was lost, but we can get it back. Today, in what I assume is an effort to retrieve that perceived American Dream, we seem to have slipped back to the ten years following WWII. Life was, however briefly, pretty typical. Men came back from the war, many took advantage of GI loans to buy the 'new', modern, sleek homes made possible by all the technological advances forced by a world war. They married, settled down, and had their 2.5 kids. Others used their GI status to take advantage of college opportunities interrupted by the war. The suburbs took on a whole new meaning as communities rose rapidly. Church on Sunday, work on Monday, putter around the new house on Saturday. Families eating around the dining room table while looking out on a 'neighborhood' street, possibly a cul-de-sac. Across the street, Mr. Fleming was mowing his lawn while his wife put the finishing touches on dinner and the small ones watched their new television. Next door, the Cochrans were barbecuing. Life was good.
But today, that life seems to have been the only way we lived before 9/11. The war years, the dismal and dangerous 30's, the immoral Roaring 20's; all quietly disappeared from the collective memories of so many. As did the eye-opening, sometimes violent, 60's and 70's. Two decades (almost) that changed this country forever - or so we who fought for those changes - thought. Anyone remember the late 60's and early 70's? The marches, speeches, violence, protests, upheaval? Or the result?
Women fighting for respect and equality in the workplace; minorities fighting to share in the American Dream; marches and protests to stop a war we'd come to realize was wrong, and college students getting involved. Bras were burned - and so were flags, but the results? TV shows where blacks and Latinos actually starred and shows where gays weren't comic relief, their gender preference never mentioned but demonstrated by a stereotypical swish, but instead, were just men; brothers, sons, etc.
Today, those years are being challenged and I'm beginning to believe 9/11 may have a lot to do with it. The fears that day generated seem to have stayed with us, under the skin, festering almost unnoticed until a man with a foreign name and dark skin took up residence in the White House. Suddenly, those fears had a face and a name. The terror exploded outward even as the people experiencing it cloaked them in political rhetoric about 'returning to the traditional Family Values of America' - as if one man in the Oval Office could have stolen those values in three and a half years. Values that should never be defined or legislated anyway; values that are not only personal but as varied as America herself. And the American Family? To try to define it in an effort to assuage our fears, to limit it in order to feel safe - is wrong. Family is everything and can be any grouping of individuals - who may or may not be related by blood or marriage. Family has no limits - or limitations, nor should it. And by defining it, narrowing it, we can't retrieve what we lost on September 11, 2001. By once again restricting rights and creating divisions among Americans, that day will not be erased. Nor should it be.
I'm not sure what the answer is - but I know that trying to go backward, to limit who and what this country stands for - is not the way. We must honor and remember the dead, we must care for those who suffer today, and we must embrace our differences, love them, cherish them, for those differences created the best of this country.
Maybe that's the way to commemorate 9/11. Go forward, not back. Love, not hate. Broaden our beliefs instead of narrowing them and stop trying to define that which can never be defined.
Friday, August 31, 2012
So Many Conventions, So Little Time
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Romney wins Michigan
and is probably finally sighing with relief. But this isn't about him, but rather, Rick Santorum.
Dear Rick,
You're in bad need of a history lesson - many of them, in fact. You also need someone who is an expert on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. For instance, in tonight's speech (concession speech, although you'd never know it), and granted, without a prompter, you said:
"...and the men and women who signed the Declaration of Independence...."
Er...hello? With or without a prompter, this is not mistake material. This is as ingrained as saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
No women signed the Declaration of Independence.
OTOH, since you have difficulty understanding the concept of separation of Church and State, I'm not surprised you messed up regarding the signers. Rick, even off the cuff, a fifth grader wouldn't have made that mistake.
Oh, wait, since you think President Obama is a snob because he believes kids should go to college (not that the President actually said that, per se - you kind of messed up there too because you don't know how to listen, or maybe because this is politics and even 'good Christians' lie like rugs while campaigning?), so I'm assuming that having an education and knowing small details, like the fact that no women signed our Declaration of Independence, would make you a snob.
MSNBC is praising your speech in spite of all the errors andlies misconceptions because they think you have "...heart..." and you don't need a teleprompter, but you'll receive no praise from me for any of the above. You may live by your convictions, but unfortunately, you also want me and everyone else to as well. So heartfelt speech or not, I don't want a theocrat as President. I don't want your beliefs foisted onto me and I sure as heck don't want your lack of education in the Oval Office.
Guess I'm a snob too.
Oh, and Rick, we do NOT live in a THEO-cracy - we live in a DEMO-cracy - and for good reason. It's why our Constitution and its Bill of Rights is so adamant regarding the separation of Church and State and why that's the first item mentioned in the First Amendment - it was that important to them. In fact, let me give you the exact words - and don't worry, we'll protect your status as 'uneducated' and 'un-snobbish':
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I urge you, Rick, to read the full Constitution and Bill of Rights - you'll find it right here at the website for the U.S. Senate. In fact, I urge everyone to take some time and read it - all of it. And Rick? Why don't you double-check the signers of the Declaration of Independence while you're at it, okay? And as long as you're doing that - go ahead and read it as well. Be a snob for a few minutes - I won't tell.
Dear Rick,
You're in bad need of a history lesson - many of them, in fact. You also need someone who is an expert on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. For instance, in tonight's speech (concession speech, although you'd never know it), and granted, without a prompter, you said:
"...and the men and women who signed the Declaration of Independence...."
Er...hello? With or without a prompter, this is not mistake material. This is as ingrained as saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
No women signed the Declaration of Independence.
OTOH, since you have difficulty understanding the concept of separation of Church and State, I'm not surprised you messed up regarding the signers. Rick, even off the cuff, a fifth grader wouldn't have made that mistake.
Oh, wait, since you think President Obama is a snob because he believes kids should go to college (not that the President actually said that, per se - you kind of messed up there too because you don't know how to listen, or maybe because this is politics and even 'good Christians' lie like rugs while campaigning?), so I'm assuming that having an education and knowing small details, like the fact that no women signed our Declaration of Independence, would make you a snob.
MSNBC is praising your speech in spite of all the errors and
Guess I'm a snob too.
Oh, and Rick, we do NOT live in a THEO-cracy - we live in a DEMO-cracy - and for good reason. It's why our Constitution and its Bill of Rights is so adamant regarding the separation of Church and State and why that's the first item mentioned in the First Amendment - it was that important to them. In fact, let me give you the exact words - and don't worry, we'll protect your status as 'uneducated' and 'un-snobbish':
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I urge you, Rick, to read the full Constitution and Bill of Rights - you'll find it right here at the website for the U.S. Senate. In fact, I urge everyone to take some time and read it - all of it. And Rick? Why don't you double-check the signers of the Declaration of Independence while you're at it, okay? And as long as you're doing that - go ahead and read it as well. Be a snob for a few minutes - I won't tell.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Job Creators vs. Job Destroyers!
(+ will denotes a footnote but I don't want to make you work too
hard, so all footnotes will follow the + immediately - you can thank me later)
Oh, how I feel for those poor Job Creators, forced to close
plants and layoff workers - and all because of the despicable Job Destroyers.
I
only wish I could do something for them, like destroy the Destroyers? No, that
wouldn't work because the Job Creators say the Job Destroyers is actually the
Big Bad Government (henceforth referred to as BBG) - you know, the one that
took over about three years ago? Yeah, that one. The Job Creators say it's the
regulations and government agencies (can we spell E.P.A.???) strangling
them and that it would only get worse if, for instance, the BBG were to end the
Bush Tax Cuts for the very wealthy.
But I know a secret, a deep, dark one. I know there's
another group in partnership with the
BBG and they're - hold onto your seats - the
American Worker (henceforth referred to as the AW).
Did I hear a thud? Thought so. But sorry, you read that
correctly: the Job Destroyers are also the weak, whiny… and pampered +AW.
+They were once called *thinks hard*… oh, yes, the "Middle
Class". Unfortunately, since there are so few jobs now, this "Middle
Class" has all but disappeared.
So…the AW is also responsible for the Job Creators plight. Yeah,
yeah, I hear your question ringing in my ears:
"How on Earth could
the AW's also be part of the dreaded Job Destroyers?"
Hello? What part of …weak, whiny and pampered…. didn't you
understand?
Okay, I'll give you a break, maybe you had a hard day not collecting unemployment because it
ran out and you still haven't found a job. But only this once. Apparently - and
I say 'apparently' because there's no actual proof - the AW's turned lazy in
the last twenty years - give or take ten - not to mention down right demanding,
entitled and feeble. For God's sake, they can't even work a straight eight hour, without breaks,
shift anymore!
*fondly remembers the "worked 12 hours straight!" days…*
The AW had the unmitigated gall to demand (as impossible as
it may seem) employers provide something called a 'break' - and not just one, but like, every few hours - lasting ten to fifteen minutes - each!
*thud*
AW, frailty be thy name.
But there's more.
I can barely type this, it's so absolutely unreasonable.
*sucks it up*
Evidently, AW's also
believed they were entitled to something called a 'lunch break' - an actual freaking time-out in order to eat - and God forbid they should eat at
their desks or work stations - oh, no, they demanded a special place to eat
(and dubbed it the 'lunch room', which was really quite clever for such lazy
layabouts).
*looks horrified*
And if the above wasn't enough (it sure as hell should have
been), the AW felt entitled (and where the Hell
did all this 'entitlement' crap come from, anyway?) to a 'safe work place'.
*snorts*
Suddenly the work place became all about the silly need to
have safe air to breathe; regulations and upgraded equipment to protect them from
losing a measly arm or leg; ergonomic chairs (ergonomic??? *rolls eyes*); heating
and air conditioning; non-smoking areas; medical and pension plans *starts
sweating* - and so on and so on and so on...
Oh, and I can't forget the 'more money' part. At some point, those pussies felt entitled
(there's that word again *pfft*) to a fair day's wage for a fair day's work and equal pay for equal work - no matter
the skin color (to do otherwise became something called '+d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n' .
+Being unable to 'discriminate' based on
color nearly caused the South to rise again!
They also decided that if the
cost of living rose, their wages should rise accordingly.
Idiots.
But that's not all! The AW suddenly felt entitled to raises
based on ability, loyalty, and longevity. Go figure. I mean, really? Just because they're still
working for the same company for twenty years, they should get a raise?
Come on!
Come on!
Of course, they didn't get all these unreasonable
demands by themselves - or even by asking (they tried, mind you, but unreasonable is unreasonable, right? Right),
no, they discovered that if they banded together (they even gave it a name - 'union' as in, "let's unite, we have strength in numbers!"), they had power.
Eventually, the AW joined forces with the BBG (in case I
missed typing it earlier, Bad is because it's Big) after convincing the BBG
that some workers were still being taken advantage of - unfortunately, this
'partnership' created a cascade effect that resulted in a flurry of laws and
regulations (for instance: if a dumb worker cuts his hand off because the
company didn't fix his machine, instead of being fired, like in the 'good old
days', the worker would now receive something called "Worker's
Compensation"). The AW was also given holidays and vacation days and sick
days - all paid, and this made the AW +happy - finally.
+What ever you do, do not tell the American Worker that American companies pay for fewer
holidays than any other nation…remember, loose lips sink ships - or whatever….
Now here's where our story really turns ugly. You see, all
those benefits (ie: entitlements)
began to wreak havoc upon the All Mighty Bottom Line (henceforth referred to as
the AMBL) for the Job Creators (what, you thought Job Creators were in it just
to create jobs? Silly fool).
*rolls eyes again - but more for dramatic effect than
anything else*
Now, when you wreak
havoc on the AMBL, you mess with the Job Creators profits and that means you're
messing with…
*looks around to make sure there are no AW spies while
lowering voice*
…their bonuses. This is not good. This is bad. For Private or
public companies, profits are the Golden Snitch of the business world (sorry, I
couldn't resist the HP reference) and Rule #1 is: Never mess with a Job
Creators AMBL. Ever.
Then, something magical happened. The Job Creators heard of
wondrous countries, countries across the big sea (and some even on the same
continent as America)
where workers still knew their place, knew nothing about unionizing, and better
yet, were starving and thus willing to work for pennies - literally. Oh, how
joy spread throughout the land
of Job Creators! Where
once tax breaks (and State perks) were enough to remain in their own country;
to continue manufacturing American products actually made in America,
they could now sniff the promise of huge increases to their AMBL and bonuses in these other countries - so they
slowly began to close plants and relocate them to the magical lands without
unions or BBGs. God was good and blessed them with profits and bonuses beyond their wildest dreams.
The Good Old Days were new again, Hallelujah and Praise the
Lord!
No more minimum wage (well, to be precise, the Job Creators
found they could, indeed, pay only a
minimum wage to these starving people); no more worries about safe work
environments or safety goggles (CEO's really hate those, they know they look
dumb in them when they're forced to appear as if they care by practicing MBWA.
Look it up, you lazy ass); or insurance, or compensation for injuries. They
could do anything they wanted to the workers, ask anything, fire anyone 'just because' (oh, man, how they'd
missed that one!), refuse to hire
someone 'just because', and thank you
GOD, no more breaks, lunch rooms, overtime, time and a half, and no more having
to circumvent regulations to avoid actually labeling a worker
"full-fucking-time" so they wouldn't have to pay overtime or
time-and-a-half!
Oh, Glory Days, you have come again!
Don't want women? Great. Want child labor? Okey dokey. No
blacks? Cool. Don't like that worker's religion? No problem - just take a leaf
from what the Donald calls his hair and say the two best words in the world for
a Job Creator: "+You're fired!"
+Yes, it does seem odd
that Job Creators love the idea of using those two words indiscriminately.
*scratches head in puzzlement*
So now the Job Creators are happy-happy.
But the AW, not so much. And the AW's are so stupid, they
actually started listening to the Job Creators and started thinking that only the BBG was to blame for all their
woes. Why? Because Government was BIG and that's BAD. Because the stupid BBG
wanted to protect the wages, hours, health, pensions, and environment of the AW.
Like, hello? Since when is that the job of the BBG? Their job is to start wars, decorate the White House for Christmas, give speeches, sit in long meetings with really good sandwiches, and, every now and then, vote on something. Or not. Oh, and look really good in a tux.
Like, hello? Since when is that the job of the BBG? Their job is to start wars, decorate the White House for Christmas, give speeches, sit in long meetings with really good sandwiches, and, every now and then, vote on something. Or not. Oh, and look really good in a tux.
Now, the States start worrying. See, the businesses brought
them profits (both over the table and under, if you know what I mean and I
think you do) and suddenly, those plants were gone. Oh, some companies left
behind their 'corporate' offices, but that's all. In 2010, though, a miracle
happened. All the AW's who now believed the BBG was totally to blame for their woes,
listened to new gubernatorial candidates promise them jobs, blame the BBG for
their lives - and then they voted these new candidates (who really love the color
red, btw) into office.
These new governors had many new ideas on how to turn the
BBG into the Big Good Government (they called it the Small Good Government, but
that was just a ruse, and a clever one too) and
how to make their States fit for the Job Creators again.
For one thing, they started with laws that would, eventually, destroy the unions. This would kill two birds with one stroke of the pen. First - the unions and the ability to bargain would be taken from the AW (btw, the AW were slow to catch on at first to this one, but when they did, whoa Nellie! Hell hath no fury like a thwarted AW!!!) and thus, businesses would feel comfortable about their AMBL and bonuses if they came back, see? And second, well, it turns out the union members really liked the BBG and had voted him…er…it into office back in '08 and by breaking the unions, the new governors figured they wouldn't be able to 'gather' and vote, let alone use union money and contribute to his…er…it's re-election campaign.
For one thing, they started with laws that would, eventually, destroy the unions. This would kill two birds with one stroke of the pen. First - the unions and the ability to bargain would be taken from the AW (btw, the AW were slow to catch on at first to this one, but when they did, whoa Nellie! Hell hath no fury like a thwarted AW!!!) and thus, businesses would feel comfortable about their AMBL and bonuses if they came back, see? And second, well, it turns out the union members really liked the BBG and had voted him…er…it into office back in '08 and by breaking the unions, the new governors figured they wouldn't be able to 'gather' and vote, let alone use union money and contribute to his…er…it's re-election campaign.
Then the new representatives in Washington, also newly voted
into office in '10, and yes, very fond of the color red, started to work their
magic by saying - over and over and over and over again, that the Bush Tax Cuts
for the rich were good and actually created jobs! It didn't really matter that
this wasn't true because even though the AW's were fooled at first by the whole
union thing, they evidently didn't learn from their mistakes and started buying
into something called "A Class War" which is code for the rich and
means: "Let us keep our GOD DAMN money, you assholes, and by the way, we
want MORE MORE MORE!"
Then folks started talking about tax reform and maybe how a
flat tax for everyone would be more fair - no loopholes - just a nice, simple
flat tax. This caused the new governors and the new guys in Congress to jump up
and down because they knew one simple, fundamental fact that apparently, the
AW's didn't. And what they knew was this (and for the purposes of 'this', we'll
use a flat tax number of, say, ten percent):
Ten percent for a man making $500,000 a year is not the same as for a man making, say,
$23,000 a year.
That's right. These new men (and maybe a couple of new
women) understand the ten percent would not have the same impact for each man.
*goes to blackboard, picks up chalk*
Example:
Man A: Gross
income=$500,000.00 and under the new flat tax, will pay (or have deducted):
$50,000 and be left with a net income of $450,000. If he has it deducted
monthly…
*does quick math and starts writing….*
Man A makes $41,667
a month - $4,667 tax deduction=monthly income of $37,500. That's a MONTH, folks.
Man B: Gross
income=$23,000 and under new flat tax, will pay (or have deducted): $2,300 and
be left with a net income of $20,700. If he has it deducted monthly…
*does quick math again and starts writing….*
Man B makes $1,917
a month - $230.00 tax deduction=monthly income of $1,686. That's a MONTH, folks.
Man A might have
to eat out one or two times a month less, but Man B just moved into the poverty level.
The impact is not the same.
All things are not equal or relative when it comes to income tax rates.
The difference between one man eating less at Morton's
Steakhouse or buying a slightly cheaper wine is not the same as a man moved
down to poverty level. That's a fact. And that's why those new guys (and
they're older compatriots) are so happy about the idea. They know this. They know this.
Now you do too.
So how do we feel about the Job Creators now, eh?
So how do we feel about the Job Creators now, eh?
Next time: "What is
the job of the Federal Government?"
And coming up: "Religion and Government - good bedfellows or
bad?"
Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)