Just the facts, sir....
Friday, August 31, 2012
So Many Conventions, So Little Time
I find I can't yet discuss this week's Republican Convention, but suspect I'll have plenty to say after the Democrat's Convention, when I can compare the two. But in the meantime, I feel that Jon Stewart, as always, managed to put it all into perspective.
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!
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Rachel Maddow reported today on a breaking story - well, Fox News
thought it was a breaking story, and her report says everything there is
to say about the current state of our country, Fox News, and those who
actually watch Fox News because they expect to be informed instead of watching it for the same reason I do: To get a good laugh.
Rachel's report on this earth shattering news - as broken by Fox - was on...could it have been the economy?
No.
A war?
No.
The payroll tax?
No.
None of the above. Rather, this awesome bit of Fox reporting concerned...the White House Christmas card sent by President Obama.
Yep, earth shattering news about a Christmas card - a no doubt satanical Christmas card, as you'll see if you go here, Rachel's video site. On the left you'll see various 'clip' pictures so use the scroll bar and go down to the clip shot that looks 'Christmassy' and is entitled, "Sarah Palin judges". Then sit back and enjoy. I'll be here when you're done.
Okay, you're done, right? Watched it, did you? And how did you feel?
Me, I was torn between laughter and shame - a strange combination by anyone's standards; unless you've found yourself taking that important final exam - naked.
Both Fox and Sarah Palin have provided me with much laughter in the last 2 years+ but at the same time: shame. The fact that Palin could command even a tenth of the attention she's garnered after her failing bid at a vice-presidency under McCain, is both staggering and shameful... And that Fox could lead any other news cast is equally both. But that's another story and another post.
No, this post is about anyone finding the White House Christmas card in ANY way offensive; let alone proof that President Obama isn't American/Christian/Human, blah-blah-blah, yeah, yeah, heard it all before. Hell, I'm surprised Fox News and the current crop of Republicans haven't tried to claim President Obama is an alien - as in from another planet since they have tried to claim that he's a human alien. *rolls eyes*
But damn it, doesn't everyone realize what fools we're making of ourselves? How the rest of the world is finding all this fodder for their laughter? How it drags America down?
Mrs. Palin, a woman who needs to take a lesson from the show "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader" (the lesson being that she isn't), felt the card (shown below in case you got lazy and didn't watch the video *g*) was odd and wondered why a dog appeared instead of illustrating American values like 'family, faith and freedom'.
And
as usual, Mrs. Palin (I refuse to use her ex-title since she was never
in office long enough to earn it) showed her ignorance by implying that
previous Presidents (read: REPUBLICAN) had given the nation stirring
cards reaffirming our CHRISTIAN faith, our love of FAMILY and our desire for FREEDOM.
So does that mean some of those past cards had the baby Jesus waving an American flag from his crib in the manger while flanked by his unwed Jewish mother and soon-to-be Jewish step-father, not to mention those three kings - from God knows where - because technically the bible doesn't say how many magi came, or even how they came, only that three gifts were bestowed upon the child - who, by the way, was about two by then - and there was no manger in sight because Matthew is quite clear about them walking into a house - so for all we know, the men could have been a mix of Jews and Arabs, which would have made for a very interesting White House Christmas Card and one I'd have loved seeing...but Fox would have had a cow... Wait, I'd have loved seeing that too....
But in reality, no Presidential Christmas cards have ever been as religious as Fox seem to believe or want. In fact, many weren't Christmas-themed at all or even seasonal; a fact that's been illustrated on many a news program since Fox made such a ridiculous ruckus about our current President's card - one they never made over, say, a Republican President's card. Like the ones below?
Now that I think about it, Clinton was going a risky route with the card above, what with the Christmas tree, not to mention all the
other trappings of a traditional Christmas set-up (including stockings
hung by the fireplace with care....) and he was an...ahem...Democrat.
What gets me is that apparently Fox doesn't realize that America is made up of millions of people, not all of whom are Christian, let alone who celebrate Christmas. They've evidently forgotten (on purpose, perhaps?) we're a country of many faiths, like Hebrew, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, to name a few. They also seem to forget that many Americans have no religion at all, and that's why we're called the "Melting Pot".
In spite of Fox and their narrow view, America is a colorful country where family can't be defined or legalized, a land where we have the right to our religious beliefs - which means we also have the right to NO religious beliefs, and we come in every shape, size, and color. We fall in love with opposite genders from our own - and the same genders as our own. And yes, we're all still Americans. Equal Americans.
The Christmas card that comes from the White House should, in my humble opinion, represent the spirit of the season, a spirit that can be shared by people of all faiths - or none; namely the spirit of peace, caring, love and generosity. And I think this year's White House Christmas card does just that - and without hitting anyone over the head with the faith as practiced by our President (No, Fox News, it isn't voodooism *rolls eyes*) or Christmas as a whole. Rather, it's a gentle picture to warm the soul (although, a kitten playing with a roll of ribbon would have been nice too - and I know my own cat, Abby, would gladly have posed), while invoking the feeling of the season.
Of course, I assume that the holiday cards sent out by Fox News this year filled the void they felt Obama left with his card. You know, a card brimming with Christianity, Jesus, faith, sacrifice, doing unto others, abiding love, a cozy tree with gifts beneath its decorated boughs....
Or not:
Rachel's report on this earth shattering news - as broken by Fox - was on...could it have been the economy?
No.
A war?
No.
The payroll tax?
No.
None of the above. Rather, this awesome bit of Fox reporting concerned...the White House Christmas card sent by President Obama.
Yep, earth shattering news about a Christmas card - a no doubt satanical Christmas card, as you'll see if you go here, Rachel's video site. On the left you'll see various 'clip' pictures so use the scroll bar and go down to the clip shot that looks 'Christmassy' and is entitled, "Sarah Palin judges". Then sit back and enjoy. I'll be here when you're done.
Okay, you're done, right? Watched it, did you? And how did you feel?
Me, I was torn between laughter and shame - a strange combination by anyone's standards; unless you've found yourself taking that important final exam - naked.
Both Fox and Sarah Palin have provided me with much laughter in the last 2 years+ but at the same time: shame. The fact that Palin could command even a tenth of the attention she's garnered after her failing bid at a vice-presidency under McCain, is both staggering and shameful... And that Fox could lead any other news cast is equally both. But that's another story and another post.
No, this post is about anyone finding the White House Christmas card in ANY way offensive; let alone proof that President Obama isn't American/Christian/Human, blah-blah-blah, yeah, yeah, heard it all before. Hell, I'm surprised Fox News and the current crop of Republicans haven't tried to claim President Obama is an alien - as in from another planet since they have tried to claim that he's a human alien. *rolls eyes*
But damn it, doesn't everyone realize what fools we're making of ourselves? How the rest of the world is finding all this fodder for their laughter? How it drags America down?
Mrs. Palin, a woman who needs to take a lesson from the show "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader" (the lesson being that she isn't), felt the card (shown below in case you got lazy and didn't watch the video *g*) was odd and wondered why a dog appeared instead of illustrating American values like 'family, faith and freedom'.
So does that mean some of those past cards had the baby Jesus waving an American flag from his crib in the manger while flanked by his unwed Jewish mother and soon-to-be Jewish step-father, not to mention those three kings - from God knows where - because technically the bible doesn't say how many magi came, or even how they came, only that three gifts were bestowed upon the child - who, by the way, was about two by then - and there was no manger in sight because Matthew is quite clear about them walking into a house - so for all we know, the men could have been a mix of Jews and Arabs, which would have made for a very interesting White House Christmas Card and one I'd have loved seeing...but Fox would have had a cow... Wait, I'd have loved seeing that too....
But in reality, no Presidential Christmas cards have ever been as religious as Fox seem to believe or want. In fact, many weren't Christmas-themed at all or even seasonal; a fact that's been illustrated on many a news program since Fox made such a ridiculous ruckus about our current President's card - one they never made over, say, a Republican President's card. Like the ones below?
 |
| These
two are from Democrats, in case you failed to notice. Jacqueline
Kennedy loved the Red Room, hence the 'painting' that adorned one their
cards. |
What gets me is that apparently Fox doesn't realize that America is made up of millions of people, not all of whom are Christian, let alone who celebrate Christmas. They've evidently forgotten (on purpose, perhaps?) we're a country of many faiths, like Hebrew, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, to name a few. They also seem to forget that many Americans have no religion at all, and that's why we're called the "Melting Pot".
In spite of Fox and their narrow view, America is a colorful country where family can't be defined or legalized, a land where we have the right to our religious beliefs - which means we also have the right to NO religious beliefs, and we come in every shape, size, and color. We fall in love with opposite genders from our own - and the same genders as our own. And yes, we're all still Americans. Equal Americans.
The Christmas card that comes from the White House should, in my humble opinion, represent the spirit of the season, a spirit that can be shared by people of all faiths - or none; namely the spirit of peace, caring, love and generosity. And I think this year's White House Christmas card does just that - and without hitting anyone over the head with the faith as practiced by our President (No, Fox News, it isn't voodooism *rolls eyes*) or Christmas as a whole. Rather, it's a gentle picture to warm the soul (although, a kitten playing with a roll of ribbon would have been nice too - and I know my own cat, Abby, would gladly have posed), while invoking the feeling of the season.
Of course, I assume that the holiday cards sent out by Fox News this year filled the void they felt Obama left with his card. You know, a card brimming with Christianity, Jesus, faith, sacrifice, doing unto others, abiding love, a cozy tree with gifts beneath its decorated boughs....
Or not:
I love the fact that Fox News sees viewers as...sheep. Duh.
Yep, Christ-like, that's Fox News.
And yes, those are the real cards sent out this year by Fox Business (on
the right) and Fox News (on the left).
Since
this post could be considered somewhat 'seasonal', I refuse to go into
the whole voting on the Payroll Tax now. Far too depressing to know that
an entire country will pay thanks to a bunch of idiots who didn't
bother to investigate those they voted for in 2010 - but I do wonder what Christmas will be like in 2012 - and will anyone complain about next year's card?
In the meantime: MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY CHANUKAH, HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE and starting on Monday, the 26th, HAPPY KWANZAA!
Oh, and HAPPY NEW YEAR TOO!
Friday, November 18, 2011
The "Game" of Politics
The run for the Republican Presidential Nomination has been one hell of a ride and it's far from over (unfortunately) but ride or not, everyone knows the GOP has only one goal: Find someone - apparently anyone - they believe can beat President Obama; something originally thought to be an easy task thanks to an economy in the tank and a high unemployment rate (because everyone knows that any president who goes into an election with high unemployment is going to be turned in for a new guy).
Unfortunately for the Republicans, their list of viable candidates was full of men and women who really only wanted to line their pockets, set up a future - and present - that ensured speaking engagements and book deals, and who really never believed they'd win the nomination. Well, okay, they probably got caught in their own temporary spotlight, but deep down, it was the greed driving them. The list also contained very few candidates who actually knew anything about this country and its history *rolls eyes at all the history gaffes since this whole thing started*, let alone foreign policy or Economics, which admittedly, is a kind of important for a President, you know? Hell, most of these guys and gals barely know their own state information let alone anything about the whole country. Most 'candidates', including the guy who's destined to be the nominee, turned out to be flip-floppers who changed their position on the issues every time they sniffed a change in the wind - or changed their underwear.
And in spite of a strong Republican base that was fast changing its mind about their 'representatives'; in spite of cries from the masses for "JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!", the candidates continue to concentrate on issues important only to a small, fringe element that's somehow taken over their party - issues the majority of Republicans have ranked so low on their "Important to me and mine" list as to be invisible. Unfortunately, the fringe element is backed by big money (and three men) so the Republicans (some of whom were real and true politicians - once upon a time) who threw their hats into the ring were forced to tow the new - and unwanted - line, which resulted in some of the so-called candidates having their 'hats' handed back to them - and some none too nicely, either. But since the title of this post is "The Game of Politics", I find that yes, I'm dying to know which reality game show have our intrepid 'candidates' been watching?
Which game are they playing?
OR
Well, whichever game it is, the fact remains that no matter what they try to do; no matter who steps up to the plate next to enjoy their five minutes (or two weeks) in the sun - the Republican Party will see Mitt Romney carrying the last torch blazing as he races first to the final pit stop: Tampa Bay, Florida.
Sorry guys, but that's the way it is. Mr. Flip-Flop himself will be the nominee at the convention.
"But what about the rest of our contestants, Bob?"
"Well, Jeff and Phil, our contestants will take home MILLIONS of tax-free dollars thanks to their Super-pacs (both transparent and non-transparent - look it up), not to mention book deals to keep their ghost writers happy for years!"
*wild applause*
"Herman? Yeah, we're talking about you. And Newt? Yep, you too. Oh, and Mrs. Palin? Hell yeah. Did you think we really fell for that bus crap? Er...wait. A whole bunch of folks did. *gulp* And what about 'The Trumpster'? A big WHOOPING yes!"
In conclusion, if we needed more proof that this country needs a complete overhaul of its campaign laws? Yeah, the current Republican race for the nomination provides more than enough, thank you very much.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
This is what you call "Small Government"????
One of the basic differences between our two primary parties; the Democrats and the Republicans, is how the Federal government should run. Republicans believe strongly in the sovereignty of the States and that the Federal Government should allow the states the right to decide just about everything for themselves, thus their call for a 'smaller' government. Democrats then obviously believe the opposite, meaning they believe that at least some issues are beyond State rights (like Civil Rights, voting rights for women, Roe v. Wade, to name a few examples) and the Federal government has to step in for the good of the nation; as in the "United" States" - meaning that all states are supposed to be united by our Constitution and follow it and any amendments, etc. This is undoubtedly a simplified explanation of one of the main differences, but you get the idea.
So. Would you be surprised to discover that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is trying to pass a new law regarding gun control? Probably not. But would you be surprised to discover that the law in question, HR 822 (I think that's the number) will actually TREAD on several state rights? Yep. The Grand Old Party, who try to protect state rights with their dying breaths are about to pass a law that will overrule several state laws regarding: Concealed weapon permits.
You see, the House would like folks who have concealed weapon permits to be allowed to cross state lines without worrying whether the state they're entering even permits concealed weapons. So, if this law passes, a state like, oh, say, Massachusetts, whose gun laws are very strict, would end up having no recourse should someone enter their state with a concealed weapon - an action that individual could not currently do.
Now what could be the problem with such a law, besides the fact that it would trample over the sovereignty of several states? Well, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out the answer, does it? Many states have very strict gun laws, while others - not so much. Some states already have their agreements with surrounding states regarding concealed weapons crossing borders - meaning they're okay with it. But other states - don't - and aren't okay with it.
Democrats are fighting this new law - using amendments like one that would allow states to "opt-out" of the it, should it ever pass, meaning their laws on concealed weapons would stand and no one could cross into their state with a CW. But I suspect their fight is for naught - but then, so is the law - since it won't go beyond the Senate; which means the House is once again spending time on ridiculous bills and laws instead of focusing on what the American public wants, namely jobs. And yes, our Congress and our President can create the needed jobs, via infrastructure, for starters, but no, job plans have been routinely struck down by the House while in the Senate, they've been blocked by filibusters, etc. Meanwhile, the House is busy with abortion laws that go nowhere and reaffirming mottos that need no reaffirming, etc. And of course, in the Senate, Republicans are continuing to say NO to everything by filibustering right and left. And even though Democrats have the majority, it doesn't count (thanks to rules that have been changed in the past and need undoing, btw). Good going, Congress! And good going, Republicans in the House who apparently feel that Big Government is good and State rights non-existent when they're trying to pass something that supports their wants and needs.
Feel free to go to the government site where bills from both the House and Senate are listed and discover what your elected officials are doing about them, for them, and to them. It's a real eye opener. Oh, and don't forget to check who initiated the bills, too.
And in case you missed the point of this post - let me spell it out:
There is NO such thing as SMALL government. EACH party has their own agendas and, when in control at the Federal level, will push those agendas even if they step on State rights and fly in the face of our Constitution. And never has that been more obvious than now.
So. Would you be surprised to discover that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is trying to pass a new law regarding gun control? Probably not. But would you be surprised to discover that the law in question, HR 822 (I think that's the number) will actually TREAD on several state rights? Yep. The Grand Old Party, who try to protect state rights with their dying breaths are about to pass a law that will overrule several state laws regarding: Concealed weapon permits.
You see, the House would like folks who have concealed weapon permits to be allowed to cross state lines without worrying whether the state they're entering even permits concealed weapons. So, if this law passes, a state like, oh, say, Massachusetts, whose gun laws are very strict, would end up having no recourse should someone enter their state with a concealed weapon - an action that individual could not currently do.
Now what could be the problem with such a law, besides the fact that it would trample over the sovereignty of several states? Well, it doesn't take much imagination to figure out the answer, does it? Many states have very strict gun laws, while others - not so much. Some states already have their agreements with surrounding states regarding concealed weapons crossing borders - meaning they're okay with it. But other states - don't - and aren't okay with it.
Democrats are fighting this new law - using amendments like one that would allow states to "opt-out" of the it, should it ever pass, meaning their laws on concealed weapons would stand and no one could cross into their state with a CW. But I suspect their fight is for naught - but then, so is the law - since it won't go beyond the Senate; which means the House is once again spending time on ridiculous bills and laws instead of focusing on what the American public wants, namely jobs. And yes, our Congress and our President can create the needed jobs, via infrastructure, for starters, but no, job plans have been routinely struck down by the House while in the Senate, they've been blocked by filibusters, etc. Meanwhile, the House is busy with abortion laws that go nowhere and reaffirming mottos that need no reaffirming, etc. And of course, in the Senate, Republicans are continuing to say NO to everything by filibustering right and left. And even though Democrats have the majority, it doesn't count (thanks to rules that have been changed in the past and need undoing, btw). Good going, Congress! And good going, Republicans in the House who apparently feel that Big Government is good and State rights non-existent when they're trying to pass something that supports their wants and needs.
Feel free to go to the government site where bills from both the House and Senate are listed and discover what your elected officials are doing about them, for them, and to them. It's a real eye opener. Oh, and don't forget to check who initiated the bills, too.
And in case you missed the point of this post - let me spell it out:
There is NO such thing as SMALL government. EACH party has their own agendas and, when in control at the Federal level, will push those agendas even if they step on State rights and fly in the face of our Constitution. And never has that been more obvious than now.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Is a Flat Tax the answer? And how smart can our candidates be?
I used to believe in a flat tax, thought it was the answer to everything until a buddy reminded me of classes taken in college, namely economic classes. Unfortunately, I kind of forgot about them and found myself carried away by all the politicians (yeah, Republicans) and their "It's So Easy Flat Tax" and "9-9-9" plans. Fortunately, I woke up, thanks to this last Friday and the Bill Maher show (don't stop reading even if you hate him, okay? LOL!). He happened to have, as a guest, one of my favorite comedians, Bill Engvall. Now yes, I know he's a rootin' tootin', gun-toting, hunting and fishing Republican from Texas - and I'm a bleeding heart liberal from California - but he's the kind of Republican I think is still open-minded and I could have a really good conversation with, you know? Anyway, it was Bill E. who said something that forced me to remember my Economics classes. He said that he was looking for a Presidential candidate who was a "businessman". Bill Maher immediately conntradicted him by saying something like, "No, our government isn't a business and, in fact, its job is to do what businesses can't and won't!"
I nodded emphatically in agreement with Maher but mentally - and okay - verbally chastised him (yes I talk to my television, don't you?) for not adding, "...so we don't need a businessman as our President, we need an ECONOMIST!"
And that's when I remembered why a flat tax doesn't - and can't - work unless you're truly running a communistic government (and I mean Communistic in the good way, not the way it was converted by Russia. Remember, a primary definition of communism is, as quoted from Webster's:
"A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed....")
Now, if you apply a kind of warped theory similar to above, in other words, if we were all totally equal in jobs, wages, income, etc. a flat tax would certainly work, but we're not, by any means, equal in those areas.
For instance:
Let's say we adopt Rick Perry's flat income tax of 20% across the board - here's what it would look like (I'm not accounting for SS deductions, SSD, State tax or any other deductions from a person's gross income, mostly because the Republican party wants to do away with those programs by privatizing them, thus no deductions. I'm not accounting for any state tax either because many states don't have one):
So - a single woman earning $26,000 a year would pay 20% of her gross income - or $5,200 a year. This would leave her with a net income of $20,800 to live off of. I think we can all agree that losing $5200 a year is a huge amount for someone making only $26,000, right? In many states, this single woman just moved to the poverty level with that net income!
BTW: in 2011, and not counting any deductions she's currently entitled to, she'd be in the 15% bracket.
Okay, now let's apply this same flat tax to a family of four who are also bringing in $26,000 a year. They'd also pay out the $5,200 to the government, thus leaving them with the same $20,800 - except that $20,800 now has to support FOUR people - and that can't be done. They'd actually drop below the poverty level in most - hell, probably all - states!
BTW: in 2011, and not counting any deductions the family is currently entitled to, they'd be in the 15% bracket as well.
Now let's take the pay of the average CEO of a major corporation which, according to Psychology Today, "...was paid $15 million in 2005." (Yes, we know it's more today, but we'll go with $15 million for this demo)
Okay, so based on that, let's apply the flat tax of 20%:
He'd pay three million in taxes, leaving him with twelve million - which is far from anyone's poverty level - even millionaires!
BTW: today, he, and anyone making over $350,000, would pay 35% - thanks to Bush, who lowered the rate from 39% (and which Obama is trying to get back up)
Now, do you really think the above flat 20% tax is fair or equitable? Can you see why our tax system is a graduated system and NOT a flat tax?
The loss of three million dollars to a man/woman/family making fifteen million is nothing compared to the family of four who loses five thousand-two hundred dollars from their meager twenty-six thousand a year! Both the family and the single woman would find themselves at or below poverty level for 2011 according to Wikipedia:
"The poverty level was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four."
BTW: Wikipedia also posts a table showing the poverty threshold (which is not the same as the poverty level or the number of those who are considered 'poor') in the US:
Pretty clear why we can't have a flat tax, isn't it? Clear why Cain's 9-9-9 plan is even worse and less equitable then Perry's. Not to mention, both candidates have already backed off the 'no deductions', which makes a flat tax totally ridiculous since if you have a flat tax and deductions, then the tax is no longer flat for all.
Oh, and can you imagine what would happen to charities and tithing for Churches? Think how they depend on charitable contributions based on the fact that said contributions are DEDUCTIBLE! Sure, we'd love to think the rich would still make those contributions, but fact is - most wouldn't. They make them for a specific reason - to get MORE money back, so they're certainly not making those contributions for altruistic reasons! (Oddly enough, the poor would still make their charitable contributions since they don't itemize anyway and can't deduct them!)
This is why we need an Economist in the Oval Office - not to mention within the Senate and House of Representatives. And it's why you need to do more than watch Fox News, CNN or MSNBC. It's why you need to RESEARCH candidates and their qualifications. For instance, did you know that 92% of Herman Cain supporters think that the National Restaurant Association is an organization like the PTA??? They have NO idea it's a LOBBY for restaurant owners - one dedicated to the removal of organizations that oversee the cleanliness of restaurants, the food they purchase, and that make their life more difficult and cut their ability to make a higher profit! 92% do NOT know this because they haven't bothered to LEARN.
Which brings us to the other part of this post: How smart can our candidates be and still get elected? And again, I have Bill Engvall to thank for asking this question. On Friday, he stated that he was thinking of voting for Herman Cain because the man talked in a way Bill could understand. Cain represented, for Engvall, 'everyman' - or one who speaks plainly with no political mumbo jumbo.
Trouble is - that 'plain speak' is based on nothing substantial. There's no knowledge behind it and that's true for Perry and other candidates as well. They do NOT know American politics, history, foreign affairs, economics, etc.
Does anyone remember Adlai Stevenson? (If not, read up on him). This man lost not once, not twice, but three times in his bid for President of the United States (he won the Democratic nomination twice but lost the race to Dwight D Eisenhower, then ran in the Democratic primary against Kennedy and lost that). So why do I bring him up? Because historians will tell you that Stevenson lost due to the fact that he was ... yep, SMART.
In fact, he was too smart, too eloquent, too much of an intellectual and thus, actually scared most Americans. I find that idea abhorrent; that anyone would refuse to vote for someone because he was too intellectual - when in reality, that's what we need in our President! I also find it abhorrent that we'd support a man who is the opposite, whether deliberately so or because he/she really isn't smart enough to be President.
In my history classes, I came to truly appreciate Adlai Stevenson - in fact, he's responsible for my choosing to become a Democrat versus following our family into Republican-land. I still remember this quote, which actually made me cry because it said what I'd always felt:
"I think that one of our most important tasks is to convince others that there's nothing to fear in difference; that difference, in fact, is one of the healthiest and most invigorating of human characteristics without which life would become meaningless. Here lies the power of the liberal way: not in making the whole world Unitarian [Universalist], but in helping ourselves and others to see some of the possibilities inherent in viewpoints other than one's own; in encouraging the free interchange of ideas; in welcoming fresh approaches to the problems of life; in urging the fullest, most vigorous use of critical self-examination."
Could anything be more true or needed - especially today? More worthy of our attention and belief? I don't think so - not in a country where one group is trying so hard to segregate us; to steal our ability to vote; to take rights instead of protecting them.
Most historians believe Eisenhower won against Stevenson because Ike was not only a war hero, but a "Plain speaking man", a man 'of the people'. Even his name, "Ike" was easier to deal with than "Adlai" - but again, I believe that kind of thinking sells all of America short. Are we really that dumb that we need an Ike or a Herman or a Rick because they're obviously 'one of us' where a Barak or even a "Mitt" isn't? Are we so stupid that we NEED plain talk that says nothing but reveals a total lack of understanding of our nations needs? Do you really think that being asked about who the President of Uzbekistan (if you're running for President) is a 'gotcha' question? And if so, do you really believe that these are the words of a man who should be President based on his response to such a question: (actual transcript of Cain and Christian interviewer)
Sympathetic Interviewer: "Are you ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions that are coming from the media and others on foreign policy? Like, who’s the president of Uzbekistan?"
CAIN: "I’m ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions and they’re already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?"
I know how I'd answer Cain:
"No, Mr. Cain, I don't - but then - I'm not running for the highest office of the land and you are."
Get smart, America. This is your future and the future of your children and your children's children - and it's no time to be short-sighted or to adopt a policy of 'every man, woman and child for themselves' - because that's not who we are. Nor are we a 'small government' - the kind that's so small, it takes rights away from workers, literally makes it impossible for a large percentage of the 'state' or country to vote, takes contraception away from everyone, and defines for everyone what a marriage is and isn't or who we can or can not marry. That's not small government, folks, that's the most intrusive government possible.
I nodded emphatically in agreement with Maher but mentally - and okay - verbally chastised him (yes I talk to my television, don't you?) for not adding, "...so we don't need a businessman as our President, we need an ECONOMIST!"
And that's when I remembered why a flat tax doesn't - and can't - work unless you're truly running a communistic government (and I mean Communistic in the good way, not the way it was converted by Russia. Remember, a primary definition of communism is, as quoted from Webster's:
"A system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed....")
Now, if you apply a kind of warped theory similar to above, in other words, if we were all totally equal in jobs, wages, income, etc. a flat tax would certainly work, but we're not, by any means, equal in those areas.
For instance:
Let's say we adopt Rick Perry's flat income tax of 20% across the board - here's what it would look like (I'm not accounting for SS deductions, SSD, State tax or any other deductions from a person's gross income, mostly because the Republican party wants to do away with those programs by privatizing them, thus no deductions. I'm not accounting for any state tax either because many states don't have one):
So - a single woman earning $26,000 a year would pay 20% of her gross income - or $5,200 a year. This would leave her with a net income of $20,800 to live off of. I think we can all agree that losing $5200 a year is a huge amount for someone making only $26,000, right? In many states, this single woman just moved to the poverty level with that net income!
BTW: in 2011, and not counting any deductions she's currently entitled to, she'd be in the 15% bracket.
Okay, now let's apply this same flat tax to a family of four who are also bringing in $26,000 a year. They'd also pay out the $5,200 to the government, thus leaving them with the same $20,800 - except that $20,800 now has to support FOUR people - and that can't be done. They'd actually drop below the poverty level in most - hell, probably all - states!
BTW: in 2011, and not counting any deductions the family is currently entitled to, they'd be in the 15% bracket as well.
Now let's take the pay of the average CEO of a major corporation which, according to Psychology Today, "...was paid $15 million in 2005." (Yes, we know it's more today, but we'll go with $15 million for this demo)
Okay, so based on that, let's apply the flat tax of 20%:
He'd pay three million in taxes, leaving him with twelve million - which is far from anyone's poverty level - even millionaires!
BTW: today, he, and anyone making over $350,000, would pay 35% - thanks to Bush, who lowered the rate from 39% (and which Obama is trying to get back up)
Now, do you really think the above flat 20% tax is fair or equitable? Can you see why our tax system is a graduated system and NOT a flat tax?
The loss of three million dollars to a man/woman/family making fifteen million is nothing compared to the family of four who loses five thousand-two hundred dollars from their meager twenty-six thousand a year! Both the family and the single woman would find themselves at or below poverty level for 2011 according to Wikipedia:
"The poverty level was set at $22,350 (total yearly income) for a family of four."
BTW: Wikipedia also posts a table showing the poverty threshold (which is not the same as the poverty level or the number of those who are considered 'poor') in the US:
(HHS) figures for poverty in 2011[3]
| Persons in Family Unit | 48 Contiguous States and D.C. | Alaska | Hawaii | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | $10,890 | $13,600 | $12,544 | ||||
| 2 | $14,710 | $18,380 | $16,930 | ||||
| 3 | $18,530 | $23,160 | $21,320 | ||||
| 4 | $22,350 | $27,940 | $25,710 | ||||
| 5 | $26,170 | $32,720 | $30,100 | ||||
| 6 | $29,990 | $37,500 | $34,490 | ||||
| 7 | $33,810 | $42,280 | $38,880 | ||||
| 8 | $37,630 | $47,060 | $43,270 | ||||
| Each additional person adds | $3,820 | $4,780 | $4,390 |
Pretty clear why we can't have a flat tax, isn't it? Clear why Cain's 9-9-9 plan is even worse and less equitable then Perry's. Not to mention, both candidates have already backed off the 'no deductions', which makes a flat tax totally ridiculous since if you have a flat tax and deductions, then the tax is no longer flat for all.
Oh, and can you imagine what would happen to charities and tithing for Churches? Think how they depend on charitable contributions based on the fact that said contributions are DEDUCTIBLE! Sure, we'd love to think the rich would still make those contributions, but fact is - most wouldn't. They make them for a specific reason - to get MORE money back, so they're certainly not making those contributions for altruistic reasons! (Oddly enough, the poor would still make their charitable contributions since they don't itemize anyway and can't deduct them!)
This is why we need an Economist in the Oval Office - not to mention within the Senate and House of Representatives. And it's why you need to do more than watch Fox News, CNN or MSNBC. It's why you need to RESEARCH candidates and their qualifications. For instance, did you know that 92% of Herman Cain supporters think that the National Restaurant Association is an organization like the PTA??? They have NO idea it's a LOBBY for restaurant owners - one dedicated to the removal of organizations that oversee the cleanliness of restaurants, the food they purchase, and that make their life more difficult and cut their ability to make a higher profit! 92% do NOT know this because they haven't bothered to LEARN.
Which brings us to the other part of this post: How smart can our candidates be and still get elected? And again, I have Bill Engvall to thank for asking this question. On Friday, he stated that he was thinking of voting for Herman Cain because the man talked in a way Bill could understand. Cain represented, for Engvall, 'everyman' - or one who speaks plainly with no political mumbo jumbo.
Trouble is - that 'plain speak' is based on nothing substantial. There's no knowledge behind it and that's true for Perry and other candidates as well. They do NOT know American politics, history, foreign affairs, economics, etc.
Does anyone remember Adlai Stevenson? (If not, read up on him). This man lost not once, not twice, but three times in his bid for President of the United States (he won the Democratic nomination twice but lost the race to Dwight D Eisenhower, then ran in the Democratic primary against Kennedy and lost that). So why do I bring him up? Because historians will tell you that Stevenson lost due to the fact that he was ... yep, SMART.
In fact, he was too smart, too eloquent, too much of an intellectual and thus, actually scared most Americans. I find that idea abhorrent; that anyone would refuse to vote for someone because he was too intellectual - when in reality, that's what we need in our President! I also find it abhorrent that we'd support a man who is the opposite, whether deliberately so or because he/she really isn't smart enough to be President.
In my history classes, I came to truly appreciate Adlai Stevenson - in fact, he's responsible for my choosing to become a Democrat versus following our family into Republican-land. I still remember this quote, which actually made me cry because it said what I'd always felt:
"I think that one of our most important tasks is to convince others that there's nothing to fear in difference; that difference, in fact, is one of the healthiest and most invigorating of human characteristics without which life would become meaningless. Here lies the power of the liberal way: not in making the whole world Unitarian [Universalist], but in helping ourselves and others to see some of the possibilities inherent in viewpoints other than one's own; in encouraging the free interchange of ideas; in welcoming fresh approaches to the problems of life; in urging the fullest, most vigorous use of critical self-examination."
Could anything be more true or needed - especially today? More worthy of our attention and belief? I don't think so - not in a country where one group is trying so hard to segregate us; to steal our ability to vote; to take rights instead of protecting them.
Most historians believe Eisenhower won against Stevenson because Ike was not only a war hero, but a "Plain speaking man", a man 'of the people'. Even his name, "Ike" was easier to deal with than "Adlai" - but again, I believe that kind of thinking sells all of America short. Are we really that dumb that we need an Ike or a Herman or a Rick because they're obviously 'one of us' where a Barak or even a "Mitt" isn't? Are we so stupid that we NEED plain talk that says nothing but reveals a total lack of understanding of our nations needs? Do you really think that being asked about who the President of Uzbekistan (if you're running for President) is a 'gotcha' question? And if so, do you really believe that these are the words of a man who should be President based on his response to such a question: (actual transcript of Cain and Christian interviewer)
Sympathetic Interviewer: "Are you ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions that are coming from the media and others on foreign policy? Like, who’s the president of Uzbekistan?"
CAIN: "I’m ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions and they’re already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?"
I know how I'd answer Cain:
"No, Mr. Cain, I don't - but then - I'm not running for the highest office of the land and you are."
Get smart, America. This is your future and the future of your children and your children's children - and it's no time to be short-sighted or to adopt a policy of 'every man, woman and child for themselves' - because that's not who we are. Nor are we a 'small government' - the kind that's so small, it takes rights away from workers, literally makes it impossible for a large percentage of the 'state' or country to vote, takes contraception away from everyone, and defines for everyone what a marriage is and isn't or who we can or can not marry. That's not small government, folks, that's the most intrusive government possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)