The following was written by my erudite friend, Bob Poris, in response to articles in some German newspapers dealing with the relationship between the United States (and thus President Obama) and the Middle East.
The newspapers cited were: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung; Berliner Zeitung; and the Suddeutsche Zeitung.
There is a lot of nonsense perpetrated by these newspapers.
Obama's speech to the Muslim world when he addressed them was not designed to do anything but promise he was open to dialogue after many years of their being ignored.
His waging of both wars has been more effective than his predecessors and he has ended one war and reduced our participation in the other by following the advice of the generals rather than a bunch of neocons and hawks. He has done more in three years to devastate al Qaeda by killing off their leaders and large numbers of radical Islamists than Bush did in eight years! He reopened the search for bin Laden and ordered the attack that killed him. He assisted in the removed of Gaddafi and has been wise enough not to interfere in Syria or other Arab nations since the Arab Spring.
He has increased the effectiveness of sanctions against Iran as WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN! He has sent badly-needed equipment including bombs and other devices to strengthen Israel's military. He stays in contact with Israel's leaders and military officers. Thus far President Obama has consistently stood up for Israel at the U.N. and has never withheld requests for arms or aid, in contrast to his predecessors!
Obama was wise to take the time to assess events in the Arab world created by the notorious anti-Islam film. HE DID NOT APOLOGIZE, NOR HAS HE SHOWN WEAKNESS WHILE WAITING FOR THE FACTS TO BE KNOWN. (ROMNEY SHOULD HAVE WAITED BUT HE DID NOT!) Obama's phone call to Egypt was obviously effective and things changed overnight. What should we have done, started a war? We have not changed our laws regarding freedom of speech or religion. It would be nice if the critics could come up with valid suggestions as to how we could change our laws without giving up the freedoms most of us value.
It is a fact that we do not "own" the dictators or kings of the Middle East. Some of these leaders are new to fair elections. Sometimes we do not like the results of these elections. We could not have saved Mubarack in Egypt! Due to the Arab Spring, the situation has changed in the Middle East. What has happened has been beyond our reach or control. Now we are trying to ensure the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt holds. It is very important that Israel does not have to divert troops, arms and money to secure the border with Egypt, especially when the Iran situation could blow up leading to multiple rocket attacks from Lebanon and Gaza.
The Middle East is extremely volatile and no one knows how individual Arab countries will eventually come to grips with the current reality. Then there are those who, for whatever reason, want to suggest that Obama snubbed Netanyahu. But that NEVER HAPPENED! The person who promoted that lie did no favor to either the U.S. or Israel. It would appear to be politically motivated. Our politics should not interfere with our foreign affairs. The same is true relative to Israel's politics. It is shameful that Mr. Adelson interferes in both countries! Romney's interference was also not warranted and led to increasing the problem rather than to a solution. Romney was not helpful during this crisis and it became quite clear that he is unprepared to handle our country's foreign affairs if he should be elected to the presidency.
I do not usually read the German newspapers, so I will not respond to them directly. I am glad the German government is generally on good terms with Israel. At this time we need to present a united front to the world, especially when war(s) threatens. For some reason, Romney has deviated from the long-term practice of keeping politics out of the country's foreign affairs when a crisis looms. To try to weaken the president for political gain is foolish at best and indicates that Romney cares less for the country than for his own political prospects. He also forgets or does not understand that his comments now will not be forgotten by foreign governments if he becomes president.
At the moment, Romney is considered a joke by Mr. Putin, by the British as a whole, and by the people in Poland. His has not been an auspicious start in gaining the confidence of the world's leadership.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Obama - our best hope
The central longing of presidential hero worship is to be led in some great adventure or act of national daring. Mailer's reverential portrait of Kennedy, for example, dwelled on the candidate's existential promise, by which the novelist meant (if he meant anything at all) that JFK would gratify our 'pioneer lust for the unexpected and the incalculable.'
Our need for the opposite is the reason I will vote to keep Barack Obama in the White House this fall. We have an existential option before us, all right: an amazingly reinvigorated G.O.P. that has launched itself on a passionate crusade for pure capitalism. It offers idealism and energy, it rages against government and regulation ... and it promises a huge serving of the unexpected and the incalculable.
[...] We really have no idea what will happen should they [the G.O.P.] take over the machinery of the state in January 2013.
We know about the tax cuts they will enact, of course, and how those will defund operations in Washington. We can guess pretty accurately how social-insurance programs will be crippled, how federal services will be outsourced, and how oversight agencies will be sabotaged. But the right's holy war against every form of government involvement in the private sector---the Ayn Rand position that the G.O.P adopted after the financial crisis---this is something we haven't seen for a century or more. They tell us it's a way to 'take back America,' but there is no recent chapter of American history to which we might turn for guidance or comparison.
That's the path of boldness this year; an amped-up wrecking crew, turned loose on what remains of John Kenneth Galbraith's new industrial state. Freedom through devastation---it's something of a utopian program, offered, ironically enough, by the so-called conservatives.
I myself will decline to take that existential leap. We know now that Barack Obama is no Superman. He has been unimaginative and conventional. On his watch, the banks got bigger. The oceans continued to rise. The wars sputtered on. But at least he has been a conscientious administrator of the state. He is not flamboyantly corrupt, in the manner of Tom DeLay and his congressional cohort, or gleefully perverse, in the manner of the Bush Administration's Department of Labor. And that makes the choice easy for me, despite my disappointment: I will choose the safe over the venturesome, the maintenance crew over the wrecking crew. It doesn't make for a soaring slogan or an existential journey, but it's the best we can hope for this time around.
Science Proves the Existence of Heaven and Hell
The following involves a "bonus" question given on a University of Washington mid-term exam. One student's answer was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues via the Internet which is the reason we can enjoy it as well.
Bonus question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume of Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2) If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'it will be a cold day in Hell before I go out with you,' and take into account the fact that I went out with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.
The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct. ... leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting, 'Oh my God."
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY 'A.'
h/t to Art Woodstone
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Is your religious liberty at risk
We found what follows at Crooks and Liars. Please check out their website for more interesting and stimulating articles written on an adult level.
We hear a lot these days from fundamentalist Christians and Roman Catholic prelates as to how their religious liberty is at risk. It's hard to imagine how that can be the case if you don't have a Catholic or fundamentalist mindset. If you do have such a mindset, then you might think because other people might have access to birth control and you disbelieve in birth control, your religious liberty is at risk.
Welcome to the wacky world of 2012, where Up is Down, East is West and North is South.
A Unitarian minister by name of the Rev. Emily Heath has put together a questionaire which is very helpful for those who are feeling put upon and think that the atheists and liberals, et. al., have put their religious liberty at risk. The Rev. Heath says:
"I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it 'How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions.' Just pick 'A' or 'B' for each question."
1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to a religious service of their own choosing.
2. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.
3) My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to use birth control.
4) My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.
5) My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.
6) My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access [to] books, movies and websites that I do not like.
7) My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.
8) My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.
9) My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.
10) My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to reach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.
Scoring key:
If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one, little, constitutional concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.
If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Colonels in Mirrored Sunglasses by Greg Palast
Colonels in Mirrored Sunglasses
An Excerpt from Greg Palast's brand new book Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Elections in 9 Easy Steps Greg Palast with comics by Ted Rall, introduction by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Here are the facts, ma'am: In the 2008 election, no less than:
Now, instead of the communist lurking under your bed or the al-Qaeda sleeper cell next door, they’ve created a new monster to fear, to hunt, and to destroy: the Fraudulent Voter.
There aren’t any, of course. Or, to be accurate, so few you can literally count them on your fingers—about six in any year—not six million, half a dozen jerks convicted of voting illegally. In the whole country.
But in Rove’s echo chamber of fear, in the Voter-Fraud Hysteria Factory, these six become so threatening and dangerous that they will be used to take away the vote from six million. Tracking ballot-bending tricksters, figuring out how they game US elections and snatch the choice away from the electorate, that’s my job, my beat for more than a decade, for the Guardian newspaper and BBC television, and in 2008, for Rolling Stone.
I started covering the election games in November 2000 when I got my hands on two computer disks from the office of Secretary of State Katherine Harris of Florida. My team cracked the computer codes and found the names of ninety-one thousand criminals—felons—Harris listed to purge from voter rolls. We went through Harris’s list name by name. We didn't find felons. But most were guilty of VWB: Voting While Black. “Purging” is one way to get rid of legal voters. There are eight more tricks, and I’ll take you through each in turn. It was bad in 2000. It was worse in 2004 and 2008. But in 2012, it will be much worse. And in 2016, worse than in 2012.
Chapter Two:
"Why Obama is Likely to Lose in 2012"
"Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012" is the title of a column Karl Rove wrote in the Wall Street Journal in June 2011. It’s not Rove’s prediction: this is his plan to make sure Obama will lose. That's fine with me—if Rove prefers vanilla to chocolate, hey, it's a free country. But how Rove plans to take Obama down is contained in the subhead, and it gives me the chills...
... Read the rest in Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps
An Excerpt from Greg Palast's brand new book Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Elections in 9 Easy Steps Greg Palast with comics by Ted Rall, introduction by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Chapter One: Colonels in Mirrored Sunglasses
Here are the facts, ma'am: In the 2008 election, no less than:
- 767,023 provisional ballots were cast and not counted;
- 1,451,116 ballots were "spoiled," not counted;
- 488,136 absentee ballots were mailed in, but not counted.
- 2,383,587 would-be voters had their registrations rejected;
- 491,952 voters already registered were wrongly purged from the rolls; and
- 320,000 properly registered voters were simply turned away from the polls when they tried to vote, mostly for not having IDs acceptable to a poll worker.
Rove is not complaining, he’s boasting about his own accomplishments. But for strategist Rove, six million isn’t enough. Through several front organizations and affiliates, Rove and his comrades have launched a campaign making brilliant use of the tactics originating from the Red Scare and the War on Terror.“We are beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are, you know, colonels in mirrored sunglasses.”
Now, instead of the communist lurking under your bed or the al-Qaeda sleeper cell next door, they’ve created a new monster to fear, to hunt, and to destroy: the Fraudulent Voter.
There aren’t any, of course. Or, to be accurate, so few you can literally count them on your fingers—about six in any year—not six million, half a dozen jerks convicted of voting illegally. In the whole country.
But in Rove’s echo chamber of fear, in the Voter-Fraud Hysteria Factory, these six become so threatening and dangerous that they will be used to take away the vote from six million. Tracking ballot-bending tricksters, figuring out how they game US elections and snatch the choice away from the electorate, that’s my job, my beat for more than a decade, for the Guardian newspaper and BBC television, and in 2008, for Rolling Stone.I started covering the election games in November 2000 when I got my hands on two computer disks from the office of Secretary of State Katherine Harris of Florida. My team cracked the computer codes and found the names of ninety-one thousand criminals—felons—Harris listed to purge from voter rolls. We went through Harris’s list name by name. We didn't find felons. But most were guilty of VWB: Voting While Black. “Purging” is one way to get rid of legal voters. There are eight more tricks, and I’ll take you through each in turn. It was bad in 2000. It was worse in 2004 and 2008. But in 2012, it will be much worse. And in 2016, worse than in 2012.
Chapter Two:"Why Obama is Likely to Lose in 2012"
"Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012" is the title of a column Karl Rove wrote in the Wall Street Journal in June 2011. It’s not Rove’s prediction: this is his plan to make sure Obama will lose. That's fine with me—if Rove prefers vanilla to chocolate, hey, it's a free country. But how Rove plans to take Obama down is contained in the subhead, and it gives me the chills...
... Read the rest in Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
There it is!!! Republicans just don't get it!
The New Civil Rights Movement explains:
One hundred and eighteen years ago, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation which set aside the first Monday in September as a day to celebrate the laborers among us. Labor Day was made a legal holiday "in all states, territories and the District of Columbia."
This from the U.S. Department of Labor (A department many of our Republican nogoodniks wish to delete from the government):
"Created by the nation's labor movement and dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers, Labor Day is an annual yearly tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country."
One of the characteristics of the oligarchy that has ruled our country for so many years, is hostility toward the labor movement and our workers. The Christian Republican Party carries on this tradition. It's the wealthy who deserve praise on Labor Day, don't you know?
So, Eric Cantor, even though of the Jewish persuasion, remains a Very Important Representative of the Christian Republican Party. Cantor, to commemorate this Labor Day, said:
"Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success."
The New Civil Rights Movement calls Cantor's statement "a shocking moment of tone-deafness and hostility to the accomplishments of unions and the working class. [...] a Labor Day message in support of corporations and management..."
Cantor, like most Republicans, just doesn't get it! And there it is!!!
There it is!!!
Musings on Labor Day - 2012
The man representing the privileged class, from which comes the oligarchy who run this country, claims to be able to empathize with the middle-class, the poor, the sick and the elderly.
How does he do that? Well, here's one example. A few days ago, while touring the areas damaged by Hurricane Isaac, he responded to one woman's plea for help by telling her to go home and call 211!
And here's another. From an article in the Huffington Post:
"Romney took a midmorning boat ride, pulling up to a dock to fuel up his 29-foot Sea Ray and pick up a jet ski that had been in for repairs.
"In his Labor Day statement, Romney said, 'For far too many Americans, today is another day of worrying when their next paycheck will come.'"
He failed to say how he would address the problem. As usual.
With Republicans, it's all smoke and mirrors!
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Ryan, Rubio, et. al. If they can't be trusted in small things...
In a rational world where there is a difference between fact and fiction, between what is true and what is false, we would expect that those persons who wish to represent us in our government and make the laws under which we live would be heartily motivated to tell the truth, to lay before us the facts of their lives and their beliefs.
This is, of course, not a rational world, but a kind of surreal landscape which is covered in a foggy blend of superstition, corruption, desperation, and greed. It is a world in which just about anything goes if it serves one's purpose of getting what one wants.
In recent weeks, I have read several articles which tried to explain away the lies politicians tell with philosophical statements such as, "Well, every politician shades the truth," and "It's not so bad because it doesn't impact national security," or "He's just trying to make a point."
Such rationalizations are, of course, poppycock. And we, the people, wonder if a politico cannot be trusted in the small things, the easy things, how in the world can we trust him or her in matters that impact our nation and the world?
Paul Ryan we know to be an outright liar as he proved so dramatically in his speech at the Republican National Convention. When the corporate media get on his case for "shading the truth," or "not being entirely correct," we know Ryan's lies were obvious and easily falsifiable.
What bothers me even more than those lies, however, which he delivered in a blatant attempt to portray President Obama as a bumbling idiot, is the lie he told about his running marathons.
Just last week, when he sat for an interview, he was asked about running a marathon. When people who are basically trustworthy are asked such a question, they come out with the truth. And runners know exactly to the second the time in which they completed a race. I know because I'm married to a runner; she's run two marathons and many more races of different lengths. She would no more forget her marathon times than she would forget her birthday.
So Ryan lied. Maybe it's his nature. Maybe he is what they call a congenital liar. He said, "I had a two hour and fifty-something marathon. I hurt a disc in my back, so I don't run marathons anymore."
A runner would not have said "two hour and fifty-something." And it is inconceivable to me that Ryan forgot his actual time, that it was two hours and fifty two minutes and seven seconds, or whatever!
Note also the implication that he had run other marathons. "...so I don't run marathons anymore."
Why would he say that? Did he think nobody would check it out? Is he not only a congenital liar but kind of stupid?
Evidently Runner's World asked about his "marathons." And, as the Huffington Post reports, "the Ryan campaign confirmed to Runner's World that he has only run one marathon, the 1990 Grandma's Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota, which he finished in just over 4 hours"
But the Huffington Post is wrong to say this is merely "stretching the truth." This is out-and-out lying about not only his marathon time but the number of marathons he has run, which is one!
Ryan was chosen by Romney to be his vice-presidential running mate. Another man supposedly in contention for that spot is the Republican senator from south Florida, Marco Rubio.
Marco also has trouble with the truth. Maybe it's a disease of all vice-presidential contenders. Consider Sarah Palin. Liar is too good a name for her. She gave lying a bad name!
In Miami, the Cubans who think of themselves as real patriots, as tough people, as immigrants who came to this country under extremely difficult conditions and were able to make something of themselves, are those Cuban exiles who were tossed off or driven off or fled the island when Fidel Castro took over. Their lives were at stake. These people dare not go back to Cuba.
When Marco first came on the scene, he told a story which made it look like his family was part and parcel with the Cubans driven out of Cuba by Castro. This was a central part of Rubio's story. He wanted to identify himself with the political exiles; that has a poignant and dramatic ring to it.
But it was a lie. A big lie. Rubio's parents came to this country in 1956, two and half years before Castro came to power! They were not exiles, they were immigrants! The dictator, Batista (supported by the U.S.) was in power in Cuba.
There's more to the story that has to do with Rubio's grandfather who came to this country legally in 1956 but he didn't find the American dream so he went back to Cuba after Castro took over but wasn't happy there, either. Grandpa came back to Florida but was caught at the airport and ended up being deported. He did not "deport." For five years he lived as an "illegal alien" in the U.S. until he was able to stay here legally.
It's a fascinating tale. But the point is Rubio embellished the tale to make himself look good in the eyes of those who might vote for him and it worked for he was elected Senator.
So maybe that's the key. These politicians lie because they know it works. Until it doesn't. Then they tell more lies. Nobody checks and they go on their merry way tearing our country apart.
Ultimately, though, the question must be answered relative to any politician, Republican or Democrat (but I do believe that in the course of this campaign the Republicans have the longer noses): If they can't be trusted in the small things, can we trust them with our lives?
[Note: The information regarding Rubio came from democracynow.org; an interview with Amy Goodman and Manuel Roig-Franzia. Roig-Franzia is the author of The Rise of Rubio.]
Friday, August 31, 2012
Gore Vidal and the State of the Union
It is fascinating to read his words. Certain phrases come to mind, and though they may be desperately trite, they still resonate: "What goes around, comes around." Or "those who forget history are destined to repeat it."
In his book, Imperial America, [2004] Vidal recalls his "State of the Union" from 1972. "Looking back at past states of the union," he writes, "it is remarkable how things tend to stay the same. Race-gender wars are always on our overcrowded back burners. There is also--always--a horrendous foreign enemy at hand ready to blow us up in the night out of hatred for our Goodness and rosy plumpness. ...
"In the decades since this state of the union, the United States has more people, per capita, locked away in prisons than any other country while the sick economy of '72 is long forgotten as worse problems--and deficits--beset us. For one thing, we no longer live in a nation, but in a Homeland. In 1972: roughly 80 percent of police work in the United States has to do with the regulation of our private morals.'"
Private morals, Vidal says, has to do with "what we smoke, eat, put in our veins--not to mention trying to regulate with whom and how we have sex, with whom and how we gamble. As a result our police are among the most corrupt in the Western world."
Vidal says "All drugs should be legalized and sold at cost to anyone with a prescription."
Prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it doesn't work with drugs. Because of "the busy lunatics who rule over us, we are permanently the United States of Amnesia. We learn nothing because we remember nothing."
But even worse, "From the Drug Enforcement Agency to the FBI, we are afflicted with all sorts of secret police, busily spying on us." [The amount of spying on U.S. citizens by the government has grown exponentially since Vidal wrote this in 2004!].
"Now (2004) that we have ceased to be a nation under law, but a homeland where the withered Bill of Rights, like a dead trumpet vine, clings to our pseudo Roman columns, Homeland Security appears to be uniting our secret police into a single sort of Gestapo with dossiers on everyone to prevent us, somehow or other, from being terrorized by various implacable Second and Third World enemies. Where is no known Al Qaeda sort of threat, we create one, as in Iraq, whose leader, Saddam Hussein, had no connection with 9-11 or any other proven terrorism against the United States, making it necessary for a president to invent the lawless as well as evil (to use his Bible-based language) doctrine of preemptive war based on a sort of hunch that maybe one day some country might attack us so, meanwhile, as he and his business associates covet their oil, we go to war, leveling their cities to be rebuilt by other business associates. ..."
Vidal, in his 1972 state of the union, explains that he strikes "a few mildly optimistic notes. 'We should', he says, 'have a national health service, something every civilized country in the world has. Also, improved public transportation (trains!). Also, schools which do more than teach conformity. Also, a cleaning of the air, of the water, of the earth before we all die of poisons set looses by a society based on greed.'" ...
Mr. Vidal goes on to mention something I believe to be of utmost importance. The question may be moot as the Supremes have let the horse out of the barn and it may be impossible to catch it and put it back in the stall where it belongs. I'm talking about campaign finance.
Vidal asked and answered an important question: "What to do? I proposed that no candidate for any office be allowed to buy space on television or in any newspaper or other medium: 'This will stop cold the present system, where presidents and congressmen are bought by corporations and even by foreign countries."
Oh, if he could see us now!
Furthermore, said Vidal, "'I would also propose a four-week election period as opposed to the current four-year marathon. Four weeks is more than enough time to present the issues."
In 1972, Mr.Vidal noted that the people who listened to his state of the union had generally a strong hatred for the government. Not much has changed since then. From one end of the country to the other, people told him "We hate this system that we are trapped in, but we don't know who trapped us or how. We don't even know what our cage looks like because we have never seen it from the outside. Now, thirty-one years later, audiences still want to know who will let them out of the Enron-Pentagon prison with its socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor."
Just change a few words. Make it the "Wall Street-Pentagon prison" or the "Corporate-Pentagon prison." Remember the Citizens United decision by the so-called "conservatives" on the U.S. Supreme Court and Romney's words to the folks working in the trenches: "Corporations are people, too."
Most everything Vidal wrote in 1972 remains valid today! Which is damn frightening because it means we're spinning our wheels. Actually, when you consider the Republicans who want to be in charge of the world, we've somehow slipped back into the 16th century, economically, religiously, sexually, politically. It's not a pretty sight.
[Gore Vidal died a few weeks ago at the age of 86. We will miss him in many ways, but perhaps most for his razor-sharp wit and political insight. May he RIP!]
Obama to Eastwood - This chair's taken!
What a great sense of humor has our president. This photo was tweeted by the Obama campaign after Eastwood's incoherent speech.
Ten Commandments of Republican Party
This was sent to me by a friend. I do not know the name of the author.
The Ten Commandments - Republican Style
I. Thou shalt talk about Christian principles, but not live by them.
II. Thou shalt attack opponents personally when you can't win on policies.
III. Thou shalt call yourself pro-life, but support the death penalty.
IV. Thou shalt call yourself pro-life, but put guns in the hands of school children.
V. Thou shalt give lip-service to democracy while taking away civil liberties.
VI. Profit is the Lord Thy God; thou shalt not put the people's interest above those of
your corporate contributors.
VII. Thou shalt make sure fetuses have health coverage, but leave children and babies behind.
VIII. Thou shalt bear false witness against your opponents and liberals and demonize them.
IX. Thou shalt run on a moderate platform and then enact right-wing policies as soon as possible after being elected.
X. Thou shalt call the media liberal so that people forget the media are owned by corporations with a conservative fiscal agenda.
Notes on the RNC - A rat's nest of lies!
The RNC was a rat's nest of lies. The Republican National Convention was built on these lies, and the Republicans did it all themselves with no help from the feds! Even the building in which they met was built with government money, and if buildings could laugh, it would have laughed so hard tears would have run down it's glass cheeks as the Republicans proudly praised self-reliance and hard work and thanked God for unfettered capitalism.
It gets even more surreal. The Repubs brought in two small business folks to speak about how they built their businesses from the ground up with no help from the government, thank you very much. This, thought the Repubs, would show those damn socialistic Democrats what this country is all about!
Not really. One of them was Sher Valenzuela who owns an upholstery business. She did not build it herself! She built it with the help of the government. Her business has received at least $17 million in government contracts and loans.
The other, Phil Archuletta, spoke in some kind of 1984 speak. Words and concepts were turned on their respective heads. He was supposed to tell the assembled wingnuts that he had put together his business all by his little self. But that's not what he said. It turns out that Archuletta has received all kinds of government aid to built his sign business. Not only so, but he went on to bitch that he hadn't received enough moolah from the government!
And then last evening we saw an empty head talking to an empty chair which actually turned out to be wonderfully symbolic of the Republican leadership and the Republican faithful, especially the teapot crackpots!
Clint Eastwood, an actor of some note, spoke about how Obama had failed to live up to his promises or maybe he was pissed because the empty chair in which he thought Obama sat had someone failed his elderly, failing body and mind. It was bizarre. An empty head talking to an empty chair! But the audience clapped anyway. "Make my day," they sang. At that point, they'd take anything they could. Even ol' Clint.
We've all read and re-read Ryan's speech. Lies. More lies. And yet more lies. All debunked, and Ryan knows it. Which makes him an even worse person. He's a lying hypocrite of the highest order. Or lowest. He told the same old stories as to how Obama "raided" Medicare of $716 billion (a lie) and how Obama did not care to keep open a GM plant in Janesville (a lie - it closed under the Bush administration), and how the stimulus failed (a big lie). Ryan also complained that Obama had created our huge deficit, but the deficit was pretty much the result of programs for which Ryan voted: Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which Bush didn't even have in the budget!), tax cuts for the rich, drug benefits which benefitted mostly the drug companies...
And we can't forget that champion of the cause of Jesus, the Baptist preacher, Mike Huckabee. We can't forget him because he gives Jesus a bad name. He's one of the biggest liars in the Republican tent.
Huckabee prides himself on his "evangelical" righteousness - believing all the right things. He made a statement almost as bizarre as Eastwood's rant: "Of the four people on the two tickets," he said, "the only self-professed evangelical is Barack Obama, and he supports changing the definition of marriage, believes that human life is disposable and expendable at any time in the womb or even beyond the womb, and tells people of faith that they must bow their knees to the god of government and violate their faith and conscience in order to comply with what he calls health care."
Well, frankly, Huckabee is full of unadulterated doo-doo! Obama has never, so far as I know, identified himself as an "evangelical." He's just a Christian without a need for further labels and he tries to live his faith which is far more than can be said for Huckabee! Obama does not, by any stretch of the imagination, believe that "human life is disposable and expendable," nor does he believe people must "bow their knees to the god of government."
This is the kind of crap that is preached from evangelical pulpits and Republican camp meetings in Alaska and Arizona and in most southern states every Sunday morning and it's all lies. So much for loving Jesus!
And finally Romney. He complained about Obama's failures, too, and how Obama had not created enough jobs. But Romney, he said, knows how to create jobs. Do you think it is possible that the group assembled was unaware of the fact that Romney is a job-killer? Do you think even the teapot crackpots are unaware that Romney's so-called business experience will run this country to ruin; that if you think things are bad now, you should remember where George Bush left us and multiply by a factor of eight!
Bain Capital was not about creating jobs. Bain Capital could have cared less about creating jobs. Bain Capital was about making money - for Bain Capital and for its investors. What happened most often was that Bain Capital took over failing companies, ran up the debt, bankrupted the companies and then fired everyone. Bain and Romney made hundreds of millions of dollar destroying jobs!
I've saved the worst for last because Paul Ryan is perhaps the most despicable of Republican liars. Joan Walsh, in an article for Salon, noted that Ryan, even though reprimanded by come Catholic bishops for his budget which tries to "save" the rich on the backs of the poor, said this:
"The greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves."
But, as Ms. Walsh points out, "Ryans budget decimates programs for 'those who cannot defend or care for themselves.'"
The RNC - a rat's nest of lies! The GOP - a rat's nest of lies. The Republican Party, in its current incarnation, is probably one of the greatest arguments for the non-existence of a just god.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Rush Limbaugh - How to get rid of poor Democrats in New Orleans
Rush Limbaugh is a very sick puppy!
Thanks for this to Media Matters for America.
Thanks for this to Media Matters for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)