Saturday, September 22, 2012
Together as one: Honoring Team USA at the White House
This is from the White House blog. Read the full story here.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Dear Candidate Romney
[The following was written by my good friend, Dianne W. She knows whereof she speaks and calls Mr. Romney (and his friends) to account!]
Then I came to the conclusion that you said what you said and meant what you said.
You claim you were quoted out of context - uh, there's a video - and that your comments were not elegantly stated? Were you wearing the wrong tuxedo when you said them?
As a member of the 47%, I'd like to share some thoughts and facts (those are things that are true) with you.
Go fuck yourself and the rich Daddy you rode in on!
I have worked since I was 13 years old.
I was raised by an alcoholic father and a clinically-depressed mother. My siblings and I were neglected and abused all of our childhood. But we went to school. We studied. We worked hard to get out. We got out.
I have paid taxes since my very first "real" job.
When I was promoted to EVP and board member of a large international firm I paid more in taxes than many people earn in a year. I never once cheated. I never once loop-holed. I had enough money to live comfortably. Why shouldn't I pay taxes?
When the once private firm where I had worked diligently for years was sold and sold again and then cut up into pieces and decimated by a firm similar to your Bain Capital, I lost my job. Hundreds of people lost their jobs.
The people who bought and sold us got very rich!
I sat in on board meetings where laws were laughed at and where intricate plans were made to get around regulations. I regret not trying to be a whistle-blower, but I had a child to care for. And the people who were taking the company apart scared me.
I was much younger then; they wouldn't scare me today. Today, I'm scared of dying from lack of proper healthcare. Today, I'm scared of losing my home.
After losing my job I started my own business.
Yes, I started it on my own but it was on a street that was built and maintained by city road crews. When I worked late I felt safe because there were police officers paid by the government. That's what President Obama meant when he said no one does it alone.
You tried to spin his comments into some of kind of political bullshit that would benefit your goal to reach the White House.
As a small-business owner, I paid my taxes. I insured myself and my workers. I treated them fairly and respected their talents and their humanity.
My healthcare insurance came to $1,500 per month and my disability insurance cost another $200 per month. These insurances came from the same insurance carrier that had "loved" me and cared about me for the 20 years I was a paying customer.
Then I got hurt! Then a chronic health issue that I had managed all of my life took a nasty turn. It was hard to work and I decided to apply for some of the benefits I had been sold.
Guess what, Mitt or Mitch? Insurance companies don't like keeping promises, especially if it costs them money. Four years later I am still fighting for full coverage!
I'm also still paying my bills and paying taxes.
I am not fodder for you and your richie rich pals to laugh at!
I am not a sound byte for your pathetic campaign!
Next we'll talk about how you really feel about the Palestinians and Israel. I'll be writing again, soon, Mitt. Have a nice day.
[From the Mother Jones website - and everywhere else in the universe:
Mitt said:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax.
My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
Dear Candidate Romney
I read what you are quoted as telling a group of $50,000 a plate donors about people like me (see bottom of post). I read it several times. I scoured the Internet looking for places where someone at the closed-door gathering might be offering a different recollection.Then I came to the conclusion that you said what you said and meant what you said.
You claim you were quoted out of context - uh, there's a video - and that your comments were not elegantly stated? Were you wearing the wrong tuxedo when you said them?
As a member of the 47%, I'd like to share some thoughts and facts (those are things that are true) with you.
Go fuck yourself and the rich Daddy you rode in on!
I have worked since I was 13 years old.
I was raised by an alcoholic father and a clinically-depressed mother. My siblings and I were neglected and abused all of our childhood. But we went to school. We studied. We worked hard to get out. We got out.
I have paid taxes since my very first "real" job.
When I was promoted to EVP and board member of a large international firm I paid more in taxes than many people earn in a year. I never once cheated. I never once loop-holed. I had enough money to live comfortably. Why shouldn't I pay taxes?
When the once private firm where I had worked diligently for years was sold and sold again and then cut up into pieces and decimated by a firm similar to your Bain Capital, I lost my job. Hundreds of people lost their jobs.
The people who bought and sold us got very rich!
I sat in on board meetings where laws were laughed at and where intricate plans were made to get around regulations. I regret not trying to be a whistle-blower, but I had a child to care for. And the people who were taking the company apart scared me.
I was much younger then; they wouldn't scare me today. Today, I'm scared of dying from lack of proper healthcare. Today, I'm scared of losing my home.
After losing my job I started my own business.
Yes, I started it on my own but it was on a street that was built and maintained by city road crews. When I worked late I felt safe because there were police officers paid by the government. That's what President Obama meant when he said no one does it alone.
You tried to spin his comments into some of kind of political bullshit that would benefit your goal to reach the White House.
As a small-business owner, I paid my taxes. I insured myself and my workers. I treated them fairly and respected their talents and their humanity.
My healthcare insurance came to $1,500 per month and my disability insurance cost another $200 per month. These insurances came from the same insurance carrier that had "loved" me and cared about me for the 20 years I was a paying customer.
Then I got hurt! Then a chronic health issue that I had managed all of my life took a nasty turn. It was hard to work and I decided to apply for some of the benefits I had been sold.
Guess what, Mitt or Mitch? Insurance companies don't like keeping promises, especially if it costs them money. Four years later I am still fighting for full coverage!
I'm also still paying my bills and paying taxes.
I am not fodder for you and your richie rich pals to laugh at!
I am not a sound byte for your pathetic campaign!
Next we'll talk about how you really feel about the Palestinians and Israel. I'll be writing again, soon, Mitt. Have a nice day.
[From the Mother Jones website - and everywhere else in the universe:
Mitt said:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...These are people who pay no income tax.
My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Sam Harris - On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God
In his latest article, "On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God," Sam Harris, with no apologies to anyone, defends freedom of speech. In these United States, we can disparage God, Allah, Buddha or any other imaginary deity. We can spout nasty things about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or any other religion. We can decry religious leaders whether they are popes, imams, priests, or other kinds of shamans.
Not only so, but it is the responsibility of our government to defend the right to free speech in our country and around the world. That is not to say we should tell other countries how to live or what to believe, but to tell them in no uncertain terms that we live with and believe in freedom of speech and no ideology or religion is so sacrosanct as to be exempt from criticism or ridicule.
Harris begins his article referencing the "Muslim hysteria and violence" in the Middle East which resulted from "an unwatchable Internet video titled 'Innocence of Muslims.'"
While not a follower of Mr. Romney, Harris mentions that Romney's critique of the Obama administration, while mainly a political maneuver gone wrong, had some value in principal and that our government "struck the same note of apology, disavowing the offending speech while claiming to protect free speech in principle."
To make matters worse, the government tried to shut up Pastor Terry Jones, the nutcase who burns Qur'ans for fun in Gainesville, Florida. The government went further asking that Google rid its servers of the video.
Such actions, says Harris, reflects "one of two psychological and diplomatic realities. Either our government is unwilling to address the problem at hand, or the problem is so vast and terrifying that we have decided to placate the barbarians at the gate."
Harris goes on to spell out what he calls "The contagion of moral cowardice ... wherein liberal journalists and pundits began to reconsider our most basic freedoms in light of the sadomasochistic fury known as 'religious sensitivity' among Muslims."
Some people think it's not religion that's the problem. The problem is a "history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate." That is "self-deception," says Harris. "Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses."
Nor, says Harris, are all religions the same. He references Mormonism which is not "just like every other religion." It is especially wacky and screwed up. "Mormonism is the product of the plagiarisms and confabulations of an obvious con man, Joseph Smith ... [] Given how much we know about Smith, it is harder to be a Mormon than it is to be a Christian. A firmer embrace of the preposterous is required---and the fact that Romney can manage it says something about him, just as if he were a Scientologist proposing to park his E-meter in the Oval Office."
The point, Harris, reminds us, is that we can say whatever we want about Mormonism and Joseph Smith. We will not be murdered or put in jail because of what we say. I would add that Romney's Mormonism is fair game and it's surprising that so many Christians are supporting him. Well, maybe it's not surprising at all for the fact is that for many Christians today their religion is merely a vehicle to gain political power.
Sadly, Harris is right when he says "The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance."
Unfortunately, the United States government, being largely co-opted by Christianist religionists is moving in the opposite direction. No one who disparages the Christian religion in any of its myriad incarnations could be elected to any political office in this country. Christian fanatics would protest en masse at his or her election headquarters. Millions of Americans believe that the founders of the United States were "evangelical" Christians who were about establishing a Christian nation "under God," even though that is light years away from the truth. They are easily offended by those who do not believe in their imaginary deity.
It has become evident in recent years that a substantial number of our citizens neither understand nor concern themselves about the right of free speech. In fact, when people on the street have been polled regarding the Bill of Rights, a majority express a dislike for the freedoms therein.
Finally, it has been said that freedom of speech is not absolute. One is not free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I accept that. But yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not equivalent to disparaging imaginary deities or religious figures.
So, just to be clear: I think Scientology is utterly stupid and L. Ron Hubbard was a deceitful, greedy, moron! I would say the same about Mormonism and Joseph Smith! Roman Catholicism and its hierarchy is likewise a perverse exercise in imaginary gods and magical rituals.
Please read Mr. Harris' entire article here.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Barack Obama, the Mideast and Mr. Romney
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)