Eric Greitens, Republican, far Right Wing candidate for Missouri's next Governor (shudder) is starting to send out messages that he's very like Donald Trump. That is, not just wrong but misguided and downright scary. His latest TV ad got me both scared and even angry.
President Obama, the "worst President of (his) lifetime."
Forget that President Obama helped bring us back from the worst economic downturn in 8 years since the last Great Depression.
Forget that President Obama saw to the saving of General Motors which has since come roaring back, saving literally millions of jobs.
Forget that the stock market has gone to new highs during his Presidency. Forget that employment has gone WAY up during this same Presidency.
Forget that the deficit has shrunk, actually, factually shrunk during our current President's administrations.
Just call President Obama the worst President in your lifetime, completely forgetting the laws broken by Ronald Reagan and the nationally and internationally illegal war George W. Bush got us into in Iraq, by his choice and lies.
Then, also forget that the same George W. Bush totally and completely ignored his Daily Presidential Brief, warning him Osama bin Laden was planning and preparing an attack on our nation, resulting in over 3000 lives lost that fateful day, 9/11.
Forget, too--if you ever even knew it--that George W. Bush flew planeloads, literally planeloads of our own money, US cash, straight from the Federal Reserve into Iraq after he "liberated it", only to have it squandered because, yeah, that really happened.
So, yeah, if you forget and ignore all that and a lot more, I guess you could come to the rather bizarre, slanted and misguided conclusion that President Obama is the worst President of your lifetime.
It isn't President Obama and his work and his successes, his personal ones and his successes for our nation, that I find offensive.
It's Eric Greitens and his ads and lies and all like him and any who believe this scary nonsense.
Be afraid, people. Be very afraid when people like Donald Trump and Eric Greitens and heck, for that matter, Catherine Hanaway and others like them are all out there, successfully getting money from the wealthy and corporations, just so they can peddle their extremist, Right Wing fear and even, yes, lies.
A huge difference between what this Democratic National Convention, this week, in Philadelphia, the "City of Brotherly Love" did vs. the Republicans' convention in Cleveland. One evicted them. This one found them beds and places to go.
There doesn't seem to be a shortage, especially this election year, of very, again, scary Right Wing Republican candidates running for office both statewide and nationally. Here, absolutely, is yet one more.
If he isn't a former military pretty boy who wants to wear--and is--his scary, nationalistic patriotism on his sleeve, then I don't breath air. He makes vague promises of "change" in his ads and that he will help us "take America back" but makes no specific policy stands whatever in all the ads of his I've seen.
Check out this headline from Mr. "I'm Going To Do Things Differently":
What's scary is that, besides being obviously handsome which, unfortunately, can get people like him votes, he's also a Rhodes Scholar, so he's clearly bright, but also, as mentioned a million times, at least, a former Navy Seal. That's one Hell of a package for an opposing candidate to go up against.
How on Earth do you have a presidential candidate, on the last night of your big, once every four years political convention, go on for over an hour, promising the sun and the moon and the stars and balanced budgets and a wall between us and Mexico and equality to the LGBTQ community (who saw that coming?) and who knows what else and then, at the very end, once he's finally, finally finished, how is it you play "Can't Always Get What You Want" by the Rolling Stones?
The Republicans need to lose and lose big this Fall, in the elections, so they hopefully learn lessons and then "come down off the ledge", so to speak, and rejoin the rest of sane, mature, intelligent, educated, far less-emotional America.
It's not about their political party being wrong and ours being right, either.
This is about their calling for the opposing candidate to be killed, etc., etc. They've gone off a very dangerous and deep end.
And while Mr. Tomorrow is satire, there are extremely accurate, legitimate and even true descriptions of what has happened, what has actually taken place at this nearly insane and certainly irresponsible political convention.
No one has documented this city or area or region and people any more or better than you, sir. Thank you and kudos to you for your work, all these years. Terrific stuff.
For, I believe, all his working life, Roy has been photographing and documenting Kansas City, the metropolitan area and region, at least. Some of the best photos of and in the area were captured by him. It was only last Fall, Roy got on top of Union Station, for just a moment, just a shot and got what I believe most everyone in the area thinks is the best photo of the celebration there for our world champion Kansas City Royals. (Go to his Facebook page to see it, at least. It's also available for sale).
If you follow him on Facebook, you will frequently get some terrific Kansas City and local history as well as information on past trains and planes from the nation and world. It's interesting and fun, frequently.
So, again, happy birthday, Roy Inman and thank you for all the years you captured us and our city. We appreciate all you've done and all you've captured for us.
As an extra, added bonus this year, I know you are aware the President and Royals are giving you an extra special gift, too.
I saw this today from the New York Times. Given the presidential election currently proceeding, it's interesting to see how we've developed and changed--at least somewhat--and where our past leaders and current policies came from.
Choosing a vice-presidential nominee has never been easy, but once upon a time the candidate at the top of the ticket didn’t have to sweat it, as it wasn’t his decision.
In the latter half of the 1800s, the power to pick a running mate often belonged to the party bosses who ran the local political machines. They helped determine turnout, which helped decide elections. Their strategy centered on geographic balance.
One of the their last great convention victories came on this day in 1944, when they replaced on the ticket President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s vice president, Henry A. Wallace, with Harry S. Truman, a Missouri senator.
Truman wasn’t the top choice of likely Democratic voters. A Gallup poll that July found that 65 percent preferred Wallace, and Truman came in eighth place, with just 2 percent.
Roosevelt didn’t want him either. The three-term president said that if he were a delegate, he would back Wallace, whom conservative party bosses opposed. Roosevelt’s wishes were ignored, and when a delegate tried to enter the vice president’s name for the nomination, the day’s proceedings were quickly adjourned.
The decision was momentous, as Roosevelt died less than three months into his fourth term and Truman ascended to the presidency. Today, it’s customary for a convention to honor the presidential nominee’s choice for vice president.
Voter ID laws are famously, provenly expensive for governments, wasteful, unnecessary and discriminate against minorities, most notably Blacks and Hispanics but also the poor and elderly. Voter ID laws are created to take away the votes, disenfranchise Americans. Voter ID laws are decidedly un-American.
Finally, he ends this ad with the claim that he will "...protect the voting rights of our troops fighting abroad..."
Since when was that an issue? For whom is that a problem? Who is attacking American soldiers' voting rights? Who's doing that? No one I know. Not one person, not one group. I don't know where this is coming from.
It needs to be said. It needs to be clear. This guy, given this ad, is just either empty or out and out dangerous. Disenfranchising Americans, for one, to begin, is just un-American.
He's dangerous the way Catherine Hanaway is dangerous and the word needs to get out.
Who knows what else he's for but just this one, brief ad shows he's dangerous and should be avoided at all cost.
Every time a candidate for national political office promises he's going to rebuild our military, as Trump just did, I want to scream.
Suddenly, according to Mitch McConnell, they're "Clinton Democrats."
I love this.
Every time Mitch McConnell comes out to speak--twice tonight--he's booed.
I love 'em.
Republican, just now, on Hillary Clinton, says she would be a continuation of the status quo.
The first woman president. Ever. In the history of our nation.
Now Chris Christy tells us Hillary is for Syrians, not Americans, not America.
That convention hall isn't full.
Nowhere near it.
Compare, in a week, to the Democratic convention.
Trump's oldest son has made fun of Harvard and Wharton schools and students and "fancy colleges" just now.
And not just once but twice.
"Everyone can prosper, together."
--Donald Trump's oldest son, tonight at the RNC Convention.
They just need to be given a million dollars to start their career like his father.
Donald Trump's oldest son says his father wants us to have the same opportunities his own children had.
I'm hoping he has all our mailing addresses to send the checks.
What you don't know about this Republican National Convention tonight if you've only watched TV, possibly, is that there were fights in the hall, among the Republicans, by different people, fighting for their states' votes, protesting the results of the vote and how their states votes were recorded.
Donald Trump's oldest son, Donald Trump, Jr., says a President Trump (shudder) will see to it all advance, not just the "crony elites at the top of the heap."
Really. He has to stop. He's killing me.
That this evening's theme for the Republican National Convention is "Make America Work Again" is, once again, rich.
It's been the Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate, in Washington, that have, since 2008, since President Obama was first elected, that have blocked an jobs and/or infrastructure bills for the nation. Americans need the jobs, our infrastructure, heaven knows, needs the updating and improvements and the economy, then to now has needed the boost.
But not one, not one jobs bill from this Republican Congress.
Finally, at long last, someone on TV news mentions that the convention is grossly under-attended and the convention center largely under-filled.
And the ones that are there are in deep disarray.
People are being shot and killed in our city, our cities, our state, our region and the nation in small and large numbers, daily yet we still have candidates of all stripes, saying they're fighting for "gun rights."
How many more gun rights do we need?
Isn't it clear it's "gun rights" that are getting all these people killed?
According to one of the panelists just now on PBS, Melania Trump doesn't want Donald to be president, either.
Suddenly I like her. ___________________________
Good God. Tom Cotton.
If there's a bigger, more empty demagogue, I don't know them. ___________________________
Tom Cotton, a nearly bleached white boy from Arkansas, saying we're all born equal.
If he were any less informed someone would have to tell him how to breathe.
"No enemy the American military can't defeat....."
Well, except Vietnam.
For the Republicans, at this political party convention of theirs, to bemoan the shootings in our nation of late when they and their blinding support of guns and the NRA and their constant blocking of required background checks for mental stability and criminal history all got us to where we are is nearly maddening.
Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, bitching about not enough jobs in America. Not one Republican in Congress all the way back to 2008, ever wrote, proposed or tried to pass a jobs/infrastructure bill for those jobs, improved infrastructure and a rejuvenated economy.
Then he goes on to say "Donald Trump will kill Obama trade."
He wants more jobs but then he wants to kill "Obama trade"?
What the hell is Obama trade?
What is that old fool rambling about?
"Thank you to the Cleveland Police Department for protecting us!"
---Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani
But we are not honoring your request to deny open carry of weapons at our convention!
How rich is that, for Republicans, now, to claim Hillary is a liar?
Compared to Donald Trump?
"Donald Trump loves all people!"
Yeah, just not Muslims. Or Mexicans. Or gays. Or women. Or the poor. Or the disabled or physically-challenged.
If the Republicans didn't want the power and the White House back again, they would be embarrassed. Embarrassed by this candidate Donald Trump. And they would know they should be.
I hope the Democratic Party doesn't miss out on the opportunity to hear from an underwear model and their opinion on this campaign for the leader of the nation for at least the next 4 years. _________________________
6. A summary of the evidence on guns and violent death
This book chapter summarizes the scientific literature on the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths. (bolding and italics added for emphasis).
This is the first chapter in the book and provides and up-to-date and readable summary of the literature on the relationship between guns and death. It also adds to the literature by using the National Violent Death Reporting System data to show where (home or away) the shootings occurred. Suicides for all age groups and homicides for children and aging adults most often occurred in their own home.
Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearms and violence death in the United States. In: Webster DW, Vernick JS, eds. Reducing Gun Violence in America. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
This article examines homicide rates of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) from 1996 to 2010. Differences in rates of homicides of LEOs across states are best explained not by differences in crime, but by differences in household gun ownership. In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states.
This article was cited by President Obama in a speech to a police association. This article will hopefully bring police further into the camp of those pushing for sensible gun laws.
Swedler DI, Simmons MM, Dominici F, Hemenway D. Firearm prevalence and homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105:2042-48.
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997).
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide. Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.
So Kansans elected and then re-elected the Right Wing, Republican, uber-conservative, "trickle down economics" demagoguing numbskull that was and still is Sam Brownback as governor and we all know how that's gone.
Deficits, slashed school spending, robbing children of state funding for programs, lowered state debt rating, etc., etc.
It's not gone well, to say the least.
And with all that, it seemed they were learning, finally, at long last. Kansans had and have a large disapproval rating of Mr. Brownback, albeit far too late. So you'd think they'd be learning, right?
Well, turns out you'd be wrong. This broke in the last 24 hours.
It was interesting, period, no surprise, being on PBS as it was, but one part, especially, struck me.
One part told of how, in Canada, there had been a huge ice storm that struck a city. A doctor used that event to study the effects of stress on pregnant women and their offspring.
The results were fascinating.
The children born after this event were stunted mentally and even physically and by clear, even measurable degrees. It seems the children were slower to gain speech as infants and not as developed in later years when it came to sports, etc.
It's pretty stunning what this means, at least in part.
While we're all human and lots of us put stress on ourselves and/or others, it shows that people with less means, the poor, are quite possibly if not likely to be exposed to this stress and so, hold them back again, mentally and physically.
I've known people, even friends who made fun of people "inbreeding" and their conclusion that was why they were stupid or poor or both or whatever.
With this not completely surprising scientific revelation, it seems clear there's even more "nobless oblige" or responsibility of the moneyed or gifted people to help others than people might want to admit or recognize. That being "your brother's keeper" becomes even more real and actual.
So when people or, worse yet, whole political parties say or claim that people really can "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" or that we're all equal so none deserve any more help than another, not only are they not being very "Christian", it's also patently untrue, as this science shows.
We have more obligation than ever to be "our brother's keeper" on this planet, in this life, in spite of widely held beliefs otherwise.