The ignorance of Christine O'Donnell has sparked what now amounts to a shameful, ridiculous national debate on the Separation of Church and State.
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/10/20/ac.odonnell.constitution.gaffe.cnn
In recent months religious conservatives have begun challenging the concept of Separation of Church and State, and even arguing that the US is a “fundamentally Christian nation,” despite over 200 years of jurisprudence and social discourse to the contrary. Its true- the vast majority of people in the US have been Christians, but it is NOT true that religion does, or is supposed to, play a role in our government.
It is really disingenuous to suggest this is an ongoing debate, and not the product of recent political movements. People trying hard to reverse the separation of church and state like to trick you into
thinking this way, but they'd have a LOT of books to burn to hide the
truth. Making it an issue by choice and denying the truth in no way
makes the mountain of evidence go away. The framers wanted religion to play no part in the government. The Framers in EVERY WAY, shape and form thought that there ought to be a
secular government. What they envisioned and brought to fruition
was a secular government where regardless of an individual's faith,
the government would respect all people's rights without special regard to any
religion.
People who make such arguments are just winding us up and wasting everyone's time. They know perfectly well they're in the wrong. The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't "appear" in the Constitution because the government wasn't made yet. It's a CONCEPT. In exactly the same way "freedom of the press" doesn't appear in the Constitution- it’s a CONCEPT created by the living document of the Constitution itself. We have these definitions TODAY because we've spent the last 200+ years defining what the First Amendment means. The argument that the "Separation of Church and state doesn't exist" in the Constitution is like saying there is no right to "privacy."
From Wikipedia: ( http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy )
-The Constitution does not specifically mention "a right to privacy." However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.-
The Constitution is a living document, which has been created and changed over time, and it’s constantly (and still) evolving. This also means it can be damaged, messed up, or even destroyed if the wrong people are allowed to mess with it. We must be vigilant. Stand up for the freedoms we have. Speak out against those who twist words, reality, and weak minds into thinking there isn’t (or ought not to be) a separation of church and state. Be aware that people who make this kind of argument are counting on people’s ignorance and YOUR silence, to make it easier for them to get their way. Don’t let them screw you, and all of us. Speak out. Be heard. Don’t let a lie go unchallenged.
One may make arguments against the Separation of Church and State (and privacy, for that matter), but unless you're willing to give up your rights to free speech, privacy, bear arms, practice (or not) your own religion, please stop bastardizing and disparaging our Constitution. Read it, learn how it was made, evolved over time, and get on the same page as the rest of us in the 21st Century. This is not a debatable issue amongst the literate. I'm fine with debating morons regarding new issues that have cropped up in recent politics. I’m fine with having to ask them to apply common sense, common morals, or the simple concept of justice of a six year old to current political events and issues- some people need the help. But if I have to go back 200 years to debate stuff decided long ago, accepted, and now taken for granted by EVERYONE, and in fact emulated by foreign countries as a paradigm for the development of their own laws, then you're beyond my help, and I won't waste any more time with you. Go back to middle school. People who need to pretend the US doesn’t have a Separation of Church and State are in serious need of education, morals, punishment, or ostracism.
Get out of my country if you can't support the Constitution that protects you.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
An observation
A Non-believer feels that we live live in an arbitrary and capricious universe devoid of higher meaning, justifying this view point by the fact that our universe lives by definite and incontrovertible laws. A Believer on the other hand feels that there is a higher meaning to our universe, and justifies this view point by believing that the universe is governed by an arbitrary and capricious deity that defies reason, or any kind of logical consistency.
Not sure that anything profound can be derived from this observation, but I find i an interesting study in contrasts and contradictions.
Not sure that anything profound can be derived from this observation, but I find i an interesting study in contrasts and contradictions.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Money is NOT Free Speech!
Look at all the FauxNews followers, parroting the charlatans of the right, saying the Supreme Court's decision to overturn 100 years of campaign finance law is a victory for the First Amendment. Never mind that the Amendment is supposed to protect PEOPLE. Never mind that Big Businesses certainly AREN'T motivated by the same desires as the vast majority of Americans. Never mind that all the members of said corporations have the same right to free speech as the rest of us. Never MIND that the Repugnican party itself spent the last... 20 years? Fighting against what they call "judicial activism" but now find this ruling acceptable. here's a quote from the RNC's 2008 platform:
"Judicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public. This must stop."
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/GovernmentReform.htm#9
After the story broke, Disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was immediately out shoveling the ridiculous argument that the ruling "leveled the playing field" for the middle class, because now anyone could get funding from any corporation to get elected. As if those people won't be beholden to such corporations. As if we didn't ALREADY have enough special interest money tainting our democracy.
Think of all the idiots right now trumpeting this as a way to reduce the power of special interests, when in fact, it frees them up completely.
In an opposing interview, former Common Cause President and current Democracy 21 President Fred Werthheimer pointed out:
"The Court reversed decisions from 1990, 2003, and 2007 without any changed circumstances to justify their abrupt reversals. The only change we've had is in the makeup of the court. And the Supreme Court is not supposed to issue deciisons based on who happens to be on the Supreme Court for the moment." [bold script is mine]
From the Common Cause Website:
"The Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision today that will enhance the ability of the deepest-pocketed special interests to influence elections and the U.S. Congress, said a pair of leading national campaign finance reform organizations, Common Cause and Public Campaign. The decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which overturned the ban on independent expenditures by corporations, paves the way for unlimited corporate and union spending in elections."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/35024513#35024513
And from teh Democracy 21 Website:
"Today's decision turns back the clock to the nineteenth century, eliminating a national policy to prevent the use of corporate wealth to corrupt government decisions - a policy that has been in existence for more than a century.
Members of Congress have passed and Presidents have signed numerous laws over the years to prevent "influence-buying" corruption of our government. These laws have consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Today, five Justices issued a decision that will empower "influence-buying" corruption.
In the name of the Constitution, five Justices have substituted their pro-corporate policy views for the anti-corruption policy views of the representatives elected by citizens to establish our national policies under our constitutional system of government.
This decision will have a devastating impact on the ability of citizens to believe that their government is acting on their behalf, instead of advancing the interests of the nation's corporations at their expense. "
Fundamentally, in a government of the people- let's call it a democracy or a republic, all the people have a voice. Even the owners and stockholders of big businesses. But now, unless you have $5 or $10 to burn in every future election to make your voice heard, you won't have a voice at all.
My proposal? In the same way some feel we can "define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," so we should also "define political entity as those persons in possession of a birth certificate,
• An original U.S. birth certificate,
• An certification of birth issued by the Department of State,
• A U.S. hospital record of birth made at the time of birth,
• Institutional admission papers from a nursing home, skilled nursing care facility or other
institution
We need to get started people. It really is a serious blow to our freedoms...
Read more at:
http://www.commoncause.org
http://democracy21.org/
"Judicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public. This must stop."
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/GovernmentReform.htm#9
After the story broke, Disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was immediately out shoveling the ridiculous argument that the ruling "leveled the playing field" for the middle class, because now anyone could get funding from any corporation to get elected. As if those people won't be beholden to such corporations. As if we didn't ALREADY have enough special interest money tainting our democracy.
Think of all the idiots right now trumpeting this as a way to reduce the power of special interests, when in fact, it frees them up completely.
In an opposing interview, former Common Cause President and current Democracy 21 President Fred Werthheimer pointed out:
"The Court reversed decisions from 1990, 2003, and 2007 without any changed circumstances to justify their abrupt reversals. The only change we've had is in the makeup of the court. And the Supreme Court is not supposed to issue deciisons based on who happens to be on the Supreme Court for the moment." [bold script is mine]
From the Common Cause Website:
"The Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision today that will enhance the ability of the deepest-pocketed special interests to influence elections and the U.S. Congress, said a pair of leading national campaign finance reform organizations, Common Cause and Public Campaign. The decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, which overturned the ban on independent expenditures by corporations, paves the way for unlimited corporate and union spending in elections."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/35024513#35024513
And from teh Democracy 21 Website:
"Today's decision turns back the clock to the nineteenth century, eliminating a national policy to prevent the use of corporate wealth to corrupt government decisions - a policy that has been in existence for more than a century.
Members of Congress have passed and Presidents have signed numerous laws over the years to prevent "influence-buying" corruption of our government. These laws have consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Today, five Justices issued a decision that will empower "influence-buying" corruption.
In the name of the Constitution, five Justices have substituted their pro-corporate policy views for the anti-corruption policy views of the representatives elected by citizens to establish our national policies under our constitutional system of government.
This decision will have a devastating impact on the ability of citizens to believe that their government is acting on their behalf, instead of advancing the interests of the nation's corporations at their expense. "
Fundamentally, in a government of the people- let's call it a democracy or a republic, all the people have a voice. Even the owners and stockholders of big businesses. But now, unless you have $5 or $10 to burn in every future election to make your voice heard, you won't have a voice at all.
My proposal? In the same way some feel we can "define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," so we should also "define political entity as those persons in possession of a birth certificate,
• An original U.S. birth certificate,
• An certification of birth issued by the Department of State,
• A U.S. hospital record of birth made at the time of birth,
• Institutional admission papers from a nursing home, skilled nursing care facility or other
institution
We need to get started people. It really is a serious blow to our freedoms...
Read more at:
http://www.commoncause.org
http://democracy21.org/
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
America in Decline
The last great thing this country did, the pinnacle of American Achievement, was to put a human on the moon. That happened shortly after Nixon took office, and coasting on the inertia of Kennedy's vow at the beginning of the decade. Since Nixon took office this country has lurched rightward. Since the Conservatives took control of the narrative, declaring that we are a fundamentally right wing conservative nation, the United States has been in decline. We have not even had the will to rebuild on the World Trade Center site. Reactionary conservatism has ground this nation to a halt.
Now I speak of progressive values rather then liberal ones. We were always the forward looking nation. If we didn't always live up to our ideals (see: slavery) we believed that we could sort out our problems eventurally.
Since the reactionary take over of the discourse, we are told that everything is perfect now, nothing should ever change. Things were better in the hazy past when White Males controlled the government and minorities knew their place. Both parties have embraced this, and having ideals, having a desire to make things better gets you labeled a 'Marxist' or a 'fascist' by people who haven't the foggiest idea of what either term means (see: Glenn Beck)
When the Republicans took control of congress in 1994, Democrats took that as a signal that the only way they could be elected is to "govern from the center" (i.e. take a rightward shift), and this has been the operating mentality of the party ever since.
There is a place for conservatism in governance, but they should never, ever be allowed to run things. The job of the conservative faction is to slow down progress to a manageable level (progressives do have a tendency to get carried away with enthusiasm (see: The French Revolution)), but never ever be allowed to have enough power, as they have since 1968, to control things. As we have seen, the country has ground to a halt, immobilized by inertia, allergic to new ideas, and grinding into stagnation.
Now I speak of progressive values rather then liberal ones. We were always the forward looking nation. If we didn't always live up to our ideals (see: slavery) we believed that we could sort out our problems eventurally.
Since the reactionary take over of the discourse, we are told that everything is perfect now, nothing should ever change. Things were better in the hazy past when White Males controlled the government and minorities knew their place. Both parties have embraced this, and having ideals, having a desire to make things better gets you labeled a 'Marxist' or a 'fascist' by people who haven't the foggiest idea of what either term means (see: Glenn Beck)
When the Republicans took control of congress in 1994, Democrats took that as a signal that the only way they could be elected is to "govern from the center" (i.e. take a rightward shift), and this has been the operating mentality of the party ever since.
There is a place for conservatism in governance, but they should never, ever be allowed to run things. The job of the conservative faction is to slow down progress to a manageable level (progressives do have a tendency to get carried away with enthusiasm (see: The French Revolution)), but never ever be allowed to have enough power, as they have since 1968, to control things. As we have seen, the country has ground to a halt, immobilized by inertia, allergic to new ideas, and grinding into stagnation.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
This man, he is my brother.
Al last, we have a president who understand the concept of "moral authority," and not just "might makes right."
President Obama, on the Afghanistan December 1, 2009:
Amen, my brother. Amen.
President Obama, on the Afghanistan December 1, 2009:
"And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend for the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are; that is the source, the moral source of America's authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions -- from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank -- that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades, a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.
What we have fought for, what we continue to fight for is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity."
Amen, my brother. Amen.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sarah Palin is Going Backasswards: An American Tragedy
Sarah Palin kicked off her ludicrous, disingenuous book tour taking pot shots at President Obama's economic recovery plan "Backassward." And what is her suggestion for economic recovery?
Palin says "cutting taxes and allowing our small businesses to keep more of what they're earning."
Talk about "Backasswards." Apparently Pagliacci Palin hopes ALL OF US FORGET that cities, towns, and states nationwide are already broke, and cutting services and job with chainsaws to stay barely solvent. They're closing fire houses, assistance programs, police patrols, and training.
We're in the BIGGEST RECESSION since the 1930's, after 8 years of Disgraced President Bush "cutting taxes and allowing our small businesses to keep more of what they're earning." Perhaps Pagliacci Palin needs a new punchline.
Palin says "cutting taxes and allowing our small businesses to keep more of what they're earning."
Talk about "Backasswards." Apparently Pagliacci Palin hopes ALL OF US FORGET that cities, towns, and states nationwide are already broke, and cutting services and job with chainsaws to stay barely solvent. They're closing fire houses, assistance programs, police patrols, and training.
We're in the BIGGEST RECESSION since the 1930's, after 8 years of Disgraced President Bush "cutting taxes and allowing our small businesses to keep more of what they're earning." Perhaps Pagliacci Palin needs a new punchline.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Credit where its Due.
Playing Devil's advocate for a second, one has to acknowledge that President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize would not have been possible, were it not for the atrocious policies and actions of Disgraced President Bush. Lets face it: after eight years of ignoring... well morals, ethics, and common sense, not to mention the existence of other peoples, any improvement in US Policy- such actually talking with diplomats- must be seen as a huge step forward.
Congrats, Mr. Prez. I just can't imagine what you're going to do for an encore...
Congrats, Mr. Prez. I just can't imagine what you're going to do for an encore...
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Boston Herald soils its already soiled reputaion
In yet another startlingly biased and misguided editorial, columnist Cal Thomas rails about disingenuous statements he alleges are made by the president, all the while peppering his column with his own, demonstrably disingenuous arguments.
Well, I'd read about as much as I could stomach when I had to close the paper, until I realized that not only were other people reading it, but that there was a way to comment back to Mr. Thomas- online.
So I posted the following response in the comments section:
*******
It's shocking to me that in an article about trust and disingenuous statements, Mr. Thomas makes so many disingenuous statements himself. Are "death panels" (which are solely the invention of opponents to health-care reform) the same thing as "providing counseling" to people who need it? They are not. The American Medical Association seems to think such counseling is good for people, so a specific benefit was to be included so people could get the counseling.
Is granting illegal immigrants health-care coverage the same as granting them emergency room care? It is not. Do Herald readers really want *anyone* bleeding to death on the doorstep of a hospital because they can't provide ID? So much for Americans being humanitarians.
Lastly, is Mr. Thomas *really* suggesting that the majority of Herald readers are too stupid to see these faults in his disingenuous arguments?
I'm afraid he is. But don't worry, Mr. Thomas, and Boston Herald; those of us who aren't that stupid will be ashamed not only of you, but *for* you.
*******
I know he may never read it, but I do hope someone will, and realize what a bogus opinion Mr Thomas has foisted upon his unsuspecting, and apparently naive, readership. I urge you all reading this to add comments in whatever local paper Mr. Thomas' op-ed piece appears, has he is, for reasons passing understanding, a syndicated columnist.
If we believe the president when he promises there will be no “death panels,” does he lose honesty points when instead the government sends doctors who “counsel” the elderly about their “end of life options”?- Cal Thomas, Boston Herald 09/15/2009Lets gloss over the fact that "death panels" were the invention of... let's just say a certain group of people who oppose health-care reform- I'll address it later.
What if the administration plans to bar illegal immigrants from purchasing health care coverage, but, as The New York Times [NYT] reported, continues to require hospitals to provide emergency treatment to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense? -Cal Thomas, Boston Herald 09/15/2009Apparently, despite the very humanitarian idea that hospitals must render emergency aid to whomever needs it, Mr. Thomas would rather all emergency patients have proof of citizenship before a nurse will let them through the door. You can read the whole disingenuous op-ed piece "No truth to set us free" here.
Well, I'd read about as much as I could stomach when I had to close the paper, until I realized that not only were other people reading it, but that there was a way to comment back to Mr. Thomas- online.
So I posted the following response in the comments section:
*******
It's shocking to me that in an article about trust and disingenuous statements, Mr. Thomas makes so many disingenuous statements himself. Are "death panels" (which are solely the invention of opponents to health-care reform) the same thing as "providing counseling" to people who need it? They are not. The American Medical Association seems to think such counseling is good for people, so a specific benefit was to be included so people could get the counseling.
Is granting illegal immigrants health-care coverage the same as granting them emergency room care? It is not. Do Herald readers really want *anyone* bleeding to death on the doorstep of a hospital because they can't provide ID? So much for Americans being humanitarians.
Lastly, is Mr. Thomas *really* suggesting that the majority of Herald readers are too stupid to see these faults in his disingenuous arguments?
I'm afraid he is. But don't worry, Mr. Thomas, and Boston Herald; those of us who aren't that stupid will be ashamed not only of you, but *for* you.
*******
I know he may never read it, but I do hope someone will, and realize what a bogus opinion Mr Thomas has foisted upon his unsuspecting, and apparently naive, readership. I urge you all reading this to add comments in whatever local paper Mr. Thomas' op-ed piece appears, has he is, for reasons passing understanding, a syndicated columnist.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
A New Kind of Ignorance?
Back in the late 1970's, when I was all of eight years old, or so, President Jimmy Carter addressed the nation to discuss the oil crisis, and, specifically, ways we could conserve. Among his suggestions was the idea that we should delay turning on our furnaces until it actually got cold, (Mid October?) and turning them off as early as possible in the spring.
To this day, our family practices these, because the president asked us to.
Today, President Obama will give a speech to almost all of our nation's school children, calling on them to work hard, and take responsibility for their own education. In the speech, he cites his own and Michelle Obama's struggles to get ahead, and an education.
He specifically names three students who, against tough odds and in a backdrop of difficult circumstances, have persevered through nothing less than willpower.
And he gives encouragement as well:
And all we've heard for days, is that Republicans have been decrying the speech. They've beens saying everything from "Obama is going to indoctrinate our children in his socialist agenda" to "Obama is abusing his authority in speaking to students."
So the President has posted his prepared remarks for all to read on the White House Website, and there are still people, and worse, schools, who don't want the president to make the speech, or don't think he should be allowed to speak to kids.
What, exactly, do Republicans have against an authority figure like the President urging kids to stay in school and take responsibility for their education? What, exactly, do they have against a presidential address at all? Presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan also made similar addresses in their time.
I think they have two objections:
To this day, our family practices these, because the president asked us to.
Today, President Obama will give a speech to almost all of our nation's school children, calling on them to work hard, and take responsibility for their own education. In the speech, he cites his own and Michelle Obama's struggles to get ahead, and an education.
"Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in."
He specifically names three students who, against tough odds and in a backdrop of difficult circumstances, have persevered through nothing less than willpower.
"Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren’t any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same. "
And he gives encouragement as well:
"Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide. "
And all we've heard for days, is that Republicans have been decrying the speech. They've beens saying everything from "Obama is going to indoctrinate our children in his socialist agenda" to "Obama is abusing his authority in speaking to students."
So the President has posted his prepared remarks for all to read on the White House Website, and there are still people, and worse, schools, who don't want the president to make the speech, or don't think he should be allowed to speak to kids.
What, exactly, do Republicans have against an authority figure like the President urging kids to stay in school and take responsibility for their education? What, exactly, do they have against a presidential address at all? Presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan also made similar addresses in their time.
I think they have two objections:
- They object to students actually studying, because if they do, they'll be far less likely to support the obviously morally bankrupt policies of the conservatives and
- They object to a black man speaking to their white kids about education.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Have you no sense of decency, sir?
I made the mistake of listening to a conservative AM Talk Radio show this morning, and was amazed and astounded by how evil these people are, and how stupid their audience is. I just don't know where to begin, but lets make a few quick observations:
1) Idiot Uneducated or Uninformed Repugnicans, instead of identifying themselves as "Republican," have begun calling themselves "Constitution Voters." This, despite the fact that "Constitution Voter" is how members of The ACLU refer to themselves. Let's leave off the obvious (I might even say howling) contradiction that most Repugnicans, and this caller in particular, supported the Patriot Act, which, in case some foolish repugnican is reading this, was the biggest curtailment of civil liberties since WWII.
2) Complaining about President Obama being given a "free ride" from the media is pretty shocking, considering that in his 8 catastrophic years in office, Disgraced President Dubya was never once asked, for example, why he couldn't pronounce "Nuclear." Or complete coherent sentences with any regularity.
3) Saying "the people aren't so stupid" as to "forgive or forget" President Obama's decisions/policies, overlooks the HUGE reality that the vast majority of thier listeners BOUGHT the fabrications of the Bush administration, such as WMD in Iraq, the institutionalizing of torture, the pardon of Scooter Libby, and the politically-motivated outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame.
4) Talking about President Obama not doing any "big things" since coming into office shows just how desperate these scumbags are to cover up both his accomplishments and Bush's catastrophic policies... So let's have a look in-depth, before too much tiome goes by, and people begin to forget the reality they live in.
In Four (4) months, President Obama has done the following "Big Things:
Ordered feasible withdrawal from Iraq
Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp
Ordered that the US stop using torture
Restored funding for stem cell research
Removed the "Global Gag Rule" regarding abortion in foreign establishments
Began an economic recovery plan despite Repugnican opposition that continues to work
These are all "Big Things."
And lest we forget the Crimes of Disgraced President George W Bush, here is a partial list:
Instituted Torture as a US Policy
Invaded Iraq under false pretenses- and lied to the American Public
Asked for and signed the Patriot Act, curtailing American Civil Liberties
Approved a law making it legal to not only arrest US citizens, but extradite them to Guantanamo, and hold them WITHOUT TRIAL INDEFINITELY, without charges
Stated he was, as president, ABOVE THE LAW, which even in saying is an impeachable offense...
Pardoned Scooter Libby, even after being told his administration knew Libby lied to Congress about his outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Apparently, these ridiculous pundits and not only overlook such crimes, but conveniently forget them. If I didn't have to go into work, you can bet I'd have called. It might even be worth going into work late for.
I've long been working on a theory that a person can't be Moral/Ethical, educated, informed and Republican all at the same time.
Discuss:
1) Idiot Uneducated or Uninformed Repugnicans, instead of identifying themselves as "Republican," have begun calling themselves "Constitution Voters." This, despite the fact that "Constitution Voter" is how members of The ACLU refer to themselves. Let's leave off the obvious (I might even say howling) contradiction that most Repugnicans, and this caller in particular, supported the Patriot Act, which, in case some foolish repugnican is reading this, was the biggest curtailment of civil liberties since WWII.
2) Complaining about President Obama being given a "free ride" from the media is pretty shocking, considering that in his 8 catastrophic years in office, Disgraced President Dubya was never once asked, for example, why he couldn't pronounce "Nuclear." Or complete coherent sentences with any regularity.
3) Saying "the people aren't so stupid" as to "forgive or forget" President Obama's decisions/policies, overlooks the HUGE reality that the vast majority of thier listeners BOUGHT the fabrications of the Bush administration, such as WMD in Iraq, the institutionalizing of torture, the pardon of Scooter Libby, and the politically-motivated outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame.
4) Talking about President Obama not doing any "big things" since coming into office shows just how desperate these scumbags are to cover up both his accomplishments and Bush's catastrophic policies... So let's have a look in-depth, before too much tiome goes by, and people begin to forget the reality they live in.
In Four (4) months, President Obama has done the following "Big Things:
Ordered feasible withdrawal from Iraq
Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp
Ordered that the US stop using torture
Restored funding for stem cell research
Removed the "Global Gag Rule" regarding abortion in foreign establishments
Began an economic recovery plan despite Repugnican opposition that continues to work
These are all "Big Things."
And lest we forget the Crimes of Disgraced President George W Bush, here is a partial list:
Instituted Torture as a US Policy
Invaded Iraq under false pretenses- and lied to the American Public
Asked for and signed the Patriot Act, curtailing American Civil Liberties
Approved a law making it legal to not only arrest US citizens, but extradite them to Guantanamo, and hold them WITHOUT TRIAL INDEFINITELY, without charges
Stated he was, as president, ABOVE THE LAW, which even in saying is an impeachable offense...
Pardoned Scooter Libby, even after being told his administration knew Libby lied to Congress about his outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Apparently, these ridiculous pundits and not only overlook such crimes, but conveniently forget them. If I didn't have to go into work, you can bet I'd have called. It might even be worth going into work late for.
I've long been working on a theory that a person can't be Moral/Ethical, educated, informed and Republican all at the same time.
Discuss:
Monday, July 27, 2009
Goodbye, Sarah Palin. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Having lost lost her election bid, and seen the outgoing administration make asses of themselves by admitting the war they created was, in so many words, all a sham, the illustrious disgrace Sarah Palin not only faded quickly into obscurity, she abandoned her job as governor with more than a year left to her term.
Reasons cited for the departure included not wanting to put taxpayers through the continued circus of the investigations into her breaches of ethics codes, to save the taxpayers the money going into them, and safeguard the "successful administration" she's put together so it can continue to travel its "positive road to an incredible future."
Sarah Palin, who in her final speech speech said "Remember, I promised to steadfastly and doggedly guard the interests of this great state like that grizzly guards her cubs? As a mother naturally guards her own? And I will keep that vow wherever that road may lead..." also had an admonition to "the media:"
"You represent what could and should be a respected and honest profession, that could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy," she said. "Democracy depends on you, and that is why our troops are willing to die for you. So how about in honor of the American soldier you quit making things up?"
Sarah Palin, who said:
I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
"I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing ... any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that." --Sarah Palin, after an Alaska legislative report found she had broken the state's ethics law and abused her power in the Troopergate scandal, conference call with Alaska reporters, Oct. 12, 2008
"Well, it certainly does because our -- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia ... We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state." --Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric how Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008
"I have not, and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you." --Sarah Palin, after being asked if she had never met a foreign head of state, despite the fact that every vice president in the last 32 years had met a foreign head of state prior to taking office, ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008
"Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." --Sarah Palin, misstating the actual amount of energy produced by Alaska, which is only 3.5 percent, Sept. 11, 2008
"You'll be there to defend the innocents from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans." --Sarah Palin, linking the Iraq war the 9/11 attacks while addressing U.S. soldiers shipping off to Iraq, Fairbanks, Alaska, Sept. 11, 2008
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending soldiers out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." --Sarah Pailn, on the Iraq war, speaking to students at the Wasilla Assembly of God, June 2008
Sarah Palin is accusing the media of making stuff up? The same one who willfully lied repeatedly in her atrocious speech to the 2008 RNC? Who first promised to cooperate with investigations into her ethical misconduct, but who later refused when they started actually, you know, finding evidence?
We won't forget you, Mrs. Palin. And good riddance to you.
Thanks to:
About dot com Political Humor
CNN News Online
The Huffington Post
The LA Times
The Right is WRONG on MySpace
Reasons cited for the departure included not wanting to put taxpayers through the continued circus of the investigations into her breaches of ethics codes, to save the taxpayers the money going into them, and safeguard the "successful administration" she's put together so it can continue to travel its "positive road to an incredible future."
Sarah Palin, who in her final speech speech said "Remember, I promised to steadfastly and doggedly guard the interests of this great state like that grizzly guards her cubs? As a mother naturally guards her own? And I will keep that vow wherever that road may lead..." also had an admonition to "the media:"
"You represent what could and should be a respected and honest profession, that could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy," she said. "Democracy depends on you, and that is why our troops are willing to die for you. So how about in honor of the American soldier you quit making things up?"
Sarah Palin, who said:
I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
"I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing ... any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that." --Sarah Palin, after an Alaska legislative report found she had broken the state's ethics law and abused her power in the Troopergate scandal, conference call with Alaska reporters, Oct. 12, 2008
"Well, it certainly does because our -- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia ... We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state." --Sarah Palin, asked by Katie Couric how Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, CBS News interview, Sept. 24, 2008
"I have not, and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you." --Sarah Palin, after being asked if she had never met a foreign head of state, despite the fact that every vice president in the last 32 years had met a foreign head of state prior to taking office, ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008
"Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." --Sarah Palin, misstating the actual amount of energy produced by Alaska, which is only 3.5 percent, Sept. 11, 2008
"You'll be there to defend the innocents from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans." --Sarah Palin, linking the Iraq war the 9/11 attacks while addressing U.S. soldiers shipping off to Iraq, Fairbanks, Alaska, Sept. 11, 2008
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending soldiers out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." --Sarah Pailn, on the Iraq war, speaking to students at the Wasilla Assembly of God, June 2008
Sarah Palin is accusing the media of making stuff up? The same one who willfully lied repeatedly in her atrocious speech to the 2008 RNC? Who first promised to cooperate with investigations into her ethical misconduct, but who later refused when they started actually, you know, finding evidence?
We won't forget you, Mrs. Palin. And good riddance to you.
Thanks to:
About dot com Political Humor
CNN News Online
The Huffington Post
The LA Times
The Right is WRONG on MySpace
Friday, May 8, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Preparing for the next fight.
The easy part is done. Maine has passed a bill legalizing same sex marriage. The next step is to fight the inevitable challanges against the bill from fundementalist groups who have successfully challenged Maine's attempts to pass Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Rights bills in the past. The good news of course is that there are plenty of legal precedents established that support the legality of gay marriage. State Supreme courts in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Connecticut for example have already ruled in favor of same sex marriage. If you live in Maine I'd also suggest a preemptive letter writing campaign supporting the new law. You may want to give Governor Baldacci a call to and let him know he's done the right thing. I'm sure he's getting a flood of hate calls, and he needs encouragement.
Also let me share some thoughts about religion and gay marriage. First off, nobodies going to force Catholics, Baptists and Pentecostal congregations to do same sex marriages if they don't want to. But let me point out to any and all sects that oppose same sex marriage, that their opposition is based on their personal interrpertation of the Bible, and thier own personal prejudices. Not every religion chooses to interpert the Bibile in such a fashion. There are plenty of religious sects, such as the Unitarians and the UCC that believe that same sex marriage is just fine. To oppose this law is to say that only certain interrpertations of the Bible are allowed, and that infringes on the religious liberties of others. Get that. There is NO WAY this law infringes on the religous liberties of opponents of same sex marriage. But to invalidate it would in fact infinge upon the liberties of those religous sexts that believe that same sex marriage is fine, and that I think is the best way to frame the debate.
If you wish to support the cause of civil liberties in Maine, I would strongly suggest making a donation to Equality Maine and help fight against bigotry.
Also let me share some thoughts about religion and gay marriage. First off, nobodies going to force Catholics, Baptists and Pentecostal congregations to do same sex marriages if they don't want to. But let me point out to any and all sects that oppose same sex marriage, that their opposition is based on their personal interrpertation of the Bible, and thier own personal prejudices. Not every religion chooses to interpert the Bibile in such a fashion. There are plenty of religious sects, such as the Unitarians and the UCC that believe that same sex marriage is just fine. To oppose this law is to say that only certain interrpertations of the Bible are allowed, and that infringes on the religious liberties of others. Get that. There is NO WAY this law infringes on the religous liberties of opponents of same sex marriage. But to invalidate it would in fact infinge upon the liberties of those religous sexts that believe that same sex marriage is fine, and that I think is the best way to frame the debate.
If you wish to support the cause of civil liberties in Maine, I would strongly suggest making a donation to Equality Maine and help fight against bigotry.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Let Freedom Ring!
The Governor of Maine, John Baldacci, has signed a law legalizing gay marriage in that state. See an article here. I think this is great news, and look forward to the time when all of us, all our brothers and sisters, can have the same societal rights and protections granted by marriage.
Let freedom ring!
Let freedom ring!
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
How Politicos give Government a bad name
Two completely insane things are happening in Massachusetts politics and law right now.
The first is that several Attorneys General (including ours) are meeting with the poor CraigsList people to demand they stop allowing advertising for their "Erotic Services." This, in the wake a sensational local story of a handsome, soon-to-be-married Med Student who allegedly got some income and kicks from beating and robbing prostitutes and providers of "erotic massage" he contacted through Craigslist.
I find it shocking that anyone, but particularly someone as educated as our state AG must be, thinks that anyone can curtail an illegal activity through limiting the advertising of something that is completely legal. The illegal part can't be fixed through cutting the adds. As an example... I could easily offer sexual services to clients who contacted me for COMPUTER REPAIR, once we had met. ("Now that I've defragged your hard drive... I do offer a range of other services that involve my own hard drive...") I could also, very easily, be bound, beaten, and robbed by someone who had met me through my add for COMPUTER REPAIR. ("Thanks for coming to fix my hard drive. Stick 'em up!")
The problem isn't the add, the problem is (a) the prostitution and (b) the robbing, neither of which can be explicitly advertised on Craigslist. You really think these underground cultures and economies won't adapt to whatever situation arises from these meetings? You honestly think, for example, that a prositute won't simply start posting adds in the COMPUTER REPAIR sections offering, among other "services," "I'll defrag your hard drive!"
Craigslist specifically created the "Erotic Services" sections because of adds like this. People who really wanted to have thier computer fixed were having to slog through scores of tongue in cheek (among other places) adds in order to find techs to fix a PC. To say nothing of the people looking for erotic services or prostitutes to beat and rob having to take the chance that they might, in fact, have contracted a 45 year old computer geek with a tool bag and a thumb drive, instead an 18 year old blonde with an oral fixation.
Dude. This is a joke, and the salary these AGs are drawing while they worked on this idea and attended these meetings should be returned. There's no way the kind of action the AG's are looking for will in any way curtail the illegal activities they are seeking to curtail. They're just wasting everyone's time and money.
And what else? Right now, the Massachusetts DORSP Department of Revenue (and Screwing People), or DOR, for short, is suing a local Mass retailer. The case has now risen to the state supreme court. At issue is the state's contention that, since the retailer has stores in Mass, its should ALSO have charged Mass Taxes on Mass residents who made purchases from the retailer's "Tax Free New Hampshire" locations.
That's right- a New Hampshire retail store was supposed to charge Mass taxes to Mass residents who went to NH for tax free purchases.
The following issues immediately come to mind:
1) How exactly does the Mass DOR enforce a tax in NH?
2) Aren't there enough things for retailers to worry about, without them having to police customers?
3) Does that mean a company with stores in both states can charge no tax on NH residents who buy in Mass? What about stores based in states with higher tax rates, like New York?
No, this whole thing is a ludicrous exercise in grandstanding. The Mass SJC will have to concede that whoever owns the overall company, a brick-and-mortar retail store is bound by the laws in the state in which it resides. To force a company to collect different taxes on different customers is an insane idea. The SJC will also have to concede that people have a right to drive 100 miles to buy in "Tax-Free New Hampshire" and that this is just the way things sometimes work in a free society. NH faces different issues than Massachusetts, and they tackle them differently, apparently, than the Mass state legislature. That's the way things are.
I'd also like to point out that if, somehow, the SJC and our AG figure out a legal way to impose Mass law in other states, I'd demand they then apply that logic, and that legal setup, to Gay Marriage in California, and Mass Educational Standardards in Kentucky. Nevada should enforce its prostitution and gambling laws in Indianna and Utah. And California should export its Auto Emission Standards to all states, as well. After all, many people from all over the country sometimes drive there.
Because that's what we're talking about here.
The first is that several Attorneys General (including ours) are meeting with the poor CraigsList people to demand they stop allowing advertising for their "Erotic Services." This, in the wake a sensational local story of a handsome, soon-to-be-married Med Student who allegedly got some income and kicks from beating and robbing prostitutes and providers of "erotic massage" he contacted through Craigslist.
I find it shocking that anyone, but particularly someone as educated as our state AG must be, thinks that anyone can curtail an illegal activity through limiting the advertising of something that is completely legal. The illegal part can't be fixed through cutting the adds. As an example... I could easily offer sexual services to clients who contacted me for COMPUTER REPAIR, once we had met. ("Now that I've defragged your hard drive... I do offer a range of other services that involve my own hard drive...") I could also, very easily, be bound, beaten, and robbed by someone who had met me through my add for COMPUTER REPAIR. ("Thanks for coming to fix my hard drive. Stick 'em up!")
The problem isn't the add, the problem is (a) the prostitution and (b) the robbing, neither of which can be explicitly advertised on Craigslist. You really think these underground cultures and economies won't adapt to whatever situation arises from these meetings? You honestly think, for example, that a prositute won't simply start posting adds in the COMPUTER REPAIR sections offering, among other "services," "I'll defrag your hard drive!"
Craigslist specifically created the "Erotic Services" sections because of adds like this. People who really wanted to have thier computer fixed were having to slog through scores of tongue in cheek (among other places) adds in order to find techs to fix a PC. To say nothing of the people looking for erotic services or prostitutes to beat and rob having to take the chance that they might, in fact, have contracted a 45 year old computer geek with a tool bag and a thumb drive, instead an 18 year old blonde with an oral fixation.
Dude. This is a joke, and the salary these AGs are drawing while they worked on this idea and attended these meetings should be returned. There's no way the kind of action the AG's are looking for will in any way curtail the illegal activities they are seeking to curtail. They're just wasting everyone's time and money.
And what else? Right now, the Massachusetts DORSP Department of Revenue (and Screwing People), or DOR, for short, is suing a local Mass retailer. The case has now risen to the state supreme court. At issue is the state's contention that, since the retailer has stores in Mass, its should ALSO have charged Mass Taxes on Mass residents who made purchases from the retailer's "Tax Free New Hampshire" locations.
That's right- a New Hampshire retail store was supposed to charge Mass taxes to Mass residents who went to NH for tax free purchases.
The following issues immediately come to mind:
1) How exactly does the Mass DOR enforce a tax in NH?
2) Aren't there enough things for retailers to worry about, without them having to police customers?
3) Does that mean a company with stores in both states can charge no tax on NH residents who buy in Mass? What about stores based in states with higher tax rates, like New York?
No, this whole thing is a ludicrous exercise in grandstanding. The Mass SJC will have to concede that whoever owns the overall company, a brick-and-mortar retail store is bound by the laws in the state in which it resides. To force a company to collect different taxes on different customers is an insane idea. The SJC will also have to concede that people have a right to drive 100 miles to buy in "Tax-Free New Hampshire" and that this is just the way things sometimes work in a free society. NH faces different issues than Massachusetts, and they tackle them differently, apparently, than the Mass state legislature. That's the way things are.
I'd also like to point out that if, somehow, the SJC and our AG figure out a legal way to impose Mass law in other states, I'd demand they then apply that logic, and that legal setup, to Gay Marriage in California, and Mass Educational Standardards in Kentucky. Nevada should enforce its prostitution and gambling laws in Indianna and Utah. And California should export its Auto Emission Standards to all states, as well. After all, many people from all over the country sometimes drive there.
Because that's what we're talking about here.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Back from my trip to North Carolina and D.C.
Some thoughts on the Washington Metro System. The fare system can be a bit confusing to the uninitiated. Unlike some systems like New York and Boston were a ride is the same price no matter were you are going to, the DC metro charges you according to how far you've traveled. You price will also vary depending on the time of day your board and exit. This can introduce a lot of variables into the system. If you plan to make more then three stops during the course of a single day and don't want to do a lot of math, you're probably better off buying a day pass for the relatively modest price of $7.80.
On the positive side, trains are frequent even in off peak times, so you're not stuck waiting around on a platform for too long, and the trains pretty much travel to where you want.
On the positive side, trains are frequent even in off peak times, so you're not stuck waiting around on a platform for too long, and the trains pretty much travel to where you want.
Maine has caught TEH GAY!!!!!!!
Maine State senate approves Gay Marriage I was afraid we were going ot let Vermont and Massachussetts show us up. In your face New Hampshire!!!!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
I'm sorry... what?!
Is this for real? Or is it some belated April Fool's joke?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/
Anyone? Beuller? Anyone?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/
Anyone? Beuller? Anyone?
Monday, April 27, 2009
Come again, Lamar?
You all should add this word to your online dictionary and personal word lists:
"Repugnican."
I use Repugnican to refer to Republicans because the things they do, say, and espouse are so repugnant to... well, everyone who can read. I'm currently working on a essay of sorts, that can be summed up like this:
"One cannot be educated, moral/ethical, rational, and republican, all at the same time." The vast majority of Repugnicans are either uneducated outright, or hugely misinformed. The very top ones, of course, are immoral (Rush Limbaugh) and irrational (Sean Hannity, Bill O'Riley). But this will have to wait for some further writing. The topic at hand today is the misinformed, and slightly irrational Lamar Alexander.
In a shocking series of events destined to be forgotten by the bulk of the voting public, assuming any of them noticed in the first place, the Repugnican Party has once again changed course and message in an obvious bid to screw America and line the pockets of their patrons.
This weekend, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) gave the Repugnican Radio address, calling for "100 new nuclear power plants during the next twenty years" while simultaneously dismissing "subsidies for renewable energy from the sun, the wind and the earth." Apparently, we're all supposed to forget that the Repugnicans pretended real hard during the last election to care about "Renewable energy." Even that was quickly co-opted to (what is NOW referred to as) "finding more American energy" in the form of off-shore drilling and drilling in Alaska. Remember the thousands of uninformed, ignorant, and vacant-eyed Republican sheep chanting "Drill baby drill?"
Well that's not good enough, now. Now they want nuclear power plants- 100 of them- all over the country. The whole reason we *don't* have Nuke plants all over the country is because we're so afraid of what happens when the got wrong. Three Mile Island? Chernobyl? Anyone?
And let's not also forget the whole idea of not even *trying* to improve renewable energy, like Solar and Wind. heaven forbid we should get started *now* on building that future, what with nuclear so simple, easy, inexpensive, and perfectly safe. You, dear reader, have at some point been in a bind. You've run out of money, or gas, or food in the fridge. And what one thing do you think we have all learned from being in that bind? We plan ahead. We take steps now to prevent it form happening again.
We save some money.
We buy a jerry jug and keep it in the garage.
We buy some extra groceries.
We start on a solution NOW so we have something in place the next time a crisis hits.
But Repugnicans don't want us to do that. They, like the big American Auto makers for the last 40 years, don't want to look ahead. They don't want us to take steps to improve things now. They just want to make their money, and to hell with the rest of us. Our children can deal with a lack of oil. Our children can worry about gas prices. Our children can worry about polution from coal and expanded drilling tomorrow.
Our children can cope with 100 new possible nuclear melt downs. Because all that matters right now is big bucks for big lobbies.
In three and a half years, the Repugnicans will once again be willing to say "we're all for renewable energy... let's have some!" And as soon as that election is over, they'll do just as they have always done- just what they're doing now: toss all that rhetoric to the wind and screw us out of any real solutions.
They're calling us all dumb. You gonna stand for that?
"Repugnican."
I use Repugnican to refer to Republicans because the things they do, say, and espouse are so repugnant to... well, everyone who can read. I'm currently working on a essay of sorts, that can be summed up like this:
"One cannot be educated, moral/ethical, rational, and republican, all at the same time." The vast majority of Repugnicans are either uneducated outright, or hugely misinformed. The very top ones, of course, are immoral (Rush Limbaugh) and irrational (Sean Hannity, Bill O'Riley). But this will have to wait for some further writing. The topic at hand today is the misinformed, and slightly irrational Lamar Alexander.
In a shocking series of events destined to be forgotten by the bulk of the voting public, assuming any of them noticed in the first place, the Repugnican Party has once again changed course and message in an obvious bid to screw America and line the pockets of their patrons.
This weekend, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) gave the Repugnican Radio address, calling for "100 new nuclear power plants during the next twenty years" while simultaneously dismissing "subsidies for renewable energy from the sun, the wind and the earth." Apparently, we're all supposed to forget that the Repugnicans pretended real hard during the last election to care about "Renewable energy." Even that was quickly co-opted to (what is NOW referred to as) "finding more American energy" in the form of off-shore drilling and drilling in Alaska. Remember the thousands of uninformed, ignorant, and vacant-eyed Republican sheep chanting "Drill baby drill?"
Well that's not good enough, now. Now they want nuclear power plants- 100 of them- all over the country. The whole reason we *don't* have Nuke plants all over the country is because we're so afraid of what happens when the got wrong. Three Mile Island? Chernobyl? Anyone?
And let's not also forget the whole idea of not even *trying* to improve renewable energy, like Solar and Wind. heaven forbid we should get started *now* on building that future, what with nuclear so simple, easy, inexpensive, and perfectly safe. You, dear reader, have at some point been in a bind. You've run out of money, or gas, or food in the fridge. And what one thing do you think we have all learned from being in that bind? We plan ahead. We take steps now to prevent it form happening again.
We save some money.
We buy a jerry jug and keep it in the garage.
We buy some extra groceries.
We start on a solution NOW so we have something in place the next time a crisis hits.
But Repugnicans don't want us to do that. They, like the big American Auto makers for the last 40 years, don't want to look ahead. They don't want us to take steps to improve things now. They just want to make their money, and to hell with the rest of us. Our children can deal with a lack of oil. Our children can worry about gas prices. Our children can worry about polution from coal and expanded drilling tomorrow.
Our children can cope with 100 new possible nuclear melt downs. Because all that matters right now is big bucks for big lobbies.
In three and a half years, the Repugnicans will once again be willing to say "we're all for renewable energy... let's have some!" And as soon as that election is over, they'll do just as they have always done- just what they're doing now: toss all that rhetoric to the wind and screw us out of any real solutions.
They're calling us all dumb. You gonna stand for that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)