Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Republican Party today
You know, no one likes angry people.
And angry, old white people are just about the worst.
Note to Republicans: We wanted health care reform. We got it. Get over it and work with the rest of us--Americans, all--to fix more of our problems.
Hateful old goats.
Thanks and a hat tip to The Osterley Times for this "heads up."
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Betty Ford: One cool, smart, tough, beautiful person
Think about it: Republican First Lady Betty Ford--for the Equal Rights Amendment, a true announced feminist--and not afraid to say and live it--for women's abortion rights, went through and survived breast cancer and then went on to help other women deal with their own cancers, overcame prescription drug and alcohol addiction, started a clinic that bears her name to help others overcome their addictions and a whole lot more, after having national American politics and all it entails thrust upon her.
What a gal.
Betty Ford, we salute you.
If you didn't see any of the series on Betty Ford on PBS, you really missed something. There's a link to last evening's segment here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bettyford/act4.html
What a gal.
Betty Ford, we salute you.
If you didn't see any of the series on Betty Ford on PBS, you really missed something. There's a link to last evening's segment here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bettyford/act4.html
Unreasonable Right-wing responses
Keeping track of the Republicans, "Tea Baggers" and Right-wingers and their unreasonable, ugly and,in some cases, wildly illegal responses to the Health Care Reform Act:
From Politico and Yahoo! News:
"Reps. Louise Slaughter and Bart Stupak have received death threats."
"A tea party participant published what he thought was Rep. Thomas Perriello’s home address and urged disgruntled voters to “drop by” for a 'good face-to-face chat.'”
"Vandals broke windows at Slaughter’s office in New York and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s office in Arizona."
"And angry voters are planning to protest this weekend at the home of Steve Driehaus — who’s already seen a photograph of his children used in a newspaper ad published by reform opponents."
"The vitriolic health care debate has become personal — too personal, say House Democrats who voted for the bill and now find not just themselves but their families in the cross hairs of opponents."
"Slaughter, a Democrat who chairs the House Rules Committee, said a caller to her office last week vowed to send snipers to 'kill the children of the members who voted yes.' Her office reported the call to police, who were dispatched to provide protection for Slaughter’s grandchildren. She has also been in touch with the FBI and U.S. Postal Service inspectors, who intercepted a letter en route to her home in upstate New York."
--Rep. Bart Stupak's wife can't answer the phone at their home due to the obscenities that are being phoned to them.
--Representative "Driehaus faults Republicans for providing encouragement to the most extreme opponents of reform. Last week, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) warned that anti-abortion Democrats would suffer politically if they voted for the health care bill; he singled out Driehaus, saying he 'may be a dead man' and 'can’t go home to the west side of Cincinnati' because 'the Catholics will run him out of town.'"
--"Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) said he had to change his personal cell phone number after a Republican gave it out to health care opponents."
--"And Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Blue Dog Democrat from California, said he’s gotten physical threats over health care reform."
--"Law enforcement authorities are investigating the discovery of a cut propane gas line at the Virginia home of Rep. Thomas Perriello’s (D-Va.) brother, whose address was targeted by tea party activists angry at the congressman’s vote for the health care bill."
It's wildly irresponsible. It's dangerous. It's stupid. It's truly, literally despicable, stirring up these kinds of reactions to legislation the American people want and need.
It's important we're aware of what's going on. There has already been a lessening in the quantity of calls to some representatives, since Sunday, and hopefully this will all tamp down soon.
It seems the crazies have been on the loose.
At any Republican President's worst, especially when "W" invaded Iraq and took us to war with no cause, against our own and international law, did any Liberal, Democrat or anyone else rebel like this. We took our demonstrations, very peacefully, to the streets. We never threatened anyone.
And health care reform is nowhere near as bad for the country, in any way, as that invasion.
This insanity needs to stop now.
From Politico and Yahoo! News:
"Reps. Louise Slaughter and Bart Stupak have received death threats."
"A tea party participant published what he thought was Rep. Thomas Perriello’s home address and urged disgruntled voters to “drop by” for a 'good face-to-face chat.'”
"Vandals broke windows at Slaughter’s office in New York and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s office in Arizona."
"And angry voters are planning to protest this weekend at the home of Steve Driehaus — who’s already seen a photograph of his children used in a newspaper ad published by reform opponents."
"The vitriolic health care debate has become personal — too personal, say House Democrats who voted for the bill and now find not just themselves but their families in the cross hairs of opponents."
"Slaughter, a Democrat who chairs the House Rules Committee, said a caller to her office last week vowed to send snipers to 'kill the children of the members who voted yes.' Her office reported the call to police, who were dispatched to provide protection for Slaughter’s grandchildren. She has also been in touch with the FBI and U.S. Postal Service inspectors, who intercepted a letter en route to her home in upstate New York."
--Rep. Bart Stupak's wife can't answer the phone at their home due to the obscenities that are being phoned to them.
--Representative "Driehaus faults Republicans for providing encouragement to the most extreme opponents of reform. Last week, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) warned that anti-abortion Democrats would suffer politically if they voted for the health care bill; he singled out Driehaus, saying he 'may be a dead man' and 'can’t go home to the west side of Cincinnati' because 'the Catholics will run him out of town.'"
--"Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) said he had to change his personal cell phone number after a Republican gave it out to health care opponents."
--"And Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Blue Dog Democrat from California, said he’s gotten physical threats over health care reform."
--"Law enforcement authorities are investigating the discovery of a cut propane gas line at the Virginia home of Rep. Thomas Perriello’s (D-Va.) brother, whose address was targeted by tea party activists angry at the congressman’s vote for the health care bill."
It's wildly irresponsible. It's dangerous. It's stupid. It's truly, literally despicable, stirring up these kinds of reactions to legislation the American people want and need.
It's important we're aware of what's going on. There has already been a lessening in the quantity of calls to some representatives, since Sunday, and hopefully this will all tamp down soon.
It seems the crazies have been on the loose.
At any Republican President's worst, especially when "W" invaded Iraq and took us to war with no cause, against our own and international law, did any Liberal, Democrat or anyone else rebel like this. We took our demonstrations, very peacefully, to the streets. We never threatened anyone.
And health care reform is nowhere near as bad for the country, in any way, as that invasion.
This insanity needs to stop now.
5 Overblown Fears About Healthcare Reform
From US News and World Report and Yahoo! News, earlier today:
Rick Newman, On Monday March 22, 2010, 4:22 pm EDT
In Washington, everybody knows about unintended consequences: the outcomes you fail to anticipate when you change the way something works. But there's another phenomenon that works somewhat in reverse: Preregulatory paranoia, or the fear that new rules meant to make the system better will instead produce mayhem and disaster.
It will be a long time before we know whether the historic healthcare reform finally passed by Congress will make the system better or worse. But the rhetoric surrounding the yearlong ordeal has already set new standards for overwrought fearmongering. There's a long history of pre-emptive hyperbole in Washington, in which the combatants on each side of an issue paint a dismal scenario if things don't go their way. But the dire predictions almost never materialize. Businesses adjust. Lawyers find loopholes. Lobbyists get new rules watered down. Entrepreneurs come up with better ways to make money, regardless of constraints. And if the new rules really do fail, we have this little process called electoral politics to make sure the government responds to voters' concerns.
Still, the overheated claims and counterclaims about healthcare reform have produced widespread confusion about what the new legislation will actually do. Here are a few of the most overblown concerns:
The government will take over one sixth of the economy. That would be alarming if it were true. But government involvement in healthcare will increase gradually over time and remain modest, especially since there's no "public option" in the current plan that would set up a government-run insurer. If you have doubts, consider the attitude of professional investors, who would stand to lose a lot if the government took over healthcare. They don't exactly seem worried. Shares of health insurers like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Wellpoint, and Cigna--subject to the strongest new rules under reform--have outperformed the stock market over the past year. The pharmaceutical and hospital industries also are considered winners because there will be millions of new customers who suddenly have insurance that can pay for treatment. That led the entire stock market higher the day after reform passed. In fact, it's hard to identify any part of the private-sector healthcare industry that stands to lose under reform.
The federal debt will explode. It might, but not because of healthcare reform. The Congressional Budget Office--which is probably the most reliable, nonpartisan number-crunching outfit in Washington--says the reforms will reduce government deficits by $143 billion through 2019, thanks to new taxes and fees and cost savings in government healthcare programs like Medicare. But opponents of the bill and powerful lobbying groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say otherwise, and they seem to have had a stronger influence on public opinion than CBO's methodical analysis. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, found that 55 percent of Americans mistakenly believe the CBO has said the healthcare legislation will add to the deficit. Only 15 percent know that CBO has said the opposite.
Doctors will revolt. Doctors don't like the current system, in which insurance companies call the shots. But instead of sweeping reform and more government involvement, they prefer gradual reform that puts more control in the hands of ... doctors. In one recent survey, nearly one third of physicians said they'd consider leaving medicine if reform passes, which it now has. Doctors worry that the new rules will cut into their incomes--which may happen, eventually. But it's implausible that thousand of doctors who have dedicated years to a complex profession will simply quit. What will they do? Become accountants? Open a Subway franchise? Besides, with millions of new patients seeking care, the demand for doctors will actually rise, not decline. And if cost controls discourage the docs who are in it to get rich, maybe that will help bring costs down for everybody else. Meanwhile, the American Medical Association and dozens of other physicians' lobbying groups will continue to look out for doctors' interests in Washington.
Businesses will suffer. The new rules will impose fees on businesses with more than 50 employees if their workers receive government subsidies to buy insurance in lieu of employer-provided coverage. Business groups complain that this could stunt economic growth and slow hiring. But businesses are more resourceful than that. It's true that many companies will have to absorb additional costs, which they do every year anyway when health insurance premiums go up. But well-run companies excel at solving problems. That's what makes them successful. Smart entrepreneurs salivate at the chance to outcompete bigger firms that can't manage challenges like this. And companies already pass on the rising costs of healthcare to their employees; there's no reason to expect that will change if they can't manage costs some other way. There's also an outside chance that the new insurance exchanges will make life easier for small businesses, as intended, by giving their workers a way to buy coverage at rates comparable to what big companies are able to negotiate.
Socalized medicine is on the way. In the Kaiser poll, 41 percent of respondents said they believe the new law would require people who already get insurance through their employer to change their coverage. But most people who already have health coverage won't have to change anything, unless they want to. The new rules will have the most direct impact on people who don't have coverage, or who don't get it through an employer. Those who fear the advent of "socialized medicine" mainly seem to worry that the current set of reforms is just Phase 1, to be followed by bigger changes that will replace doctors with bureaucrats and render individual patients even more powerless than they are now. This is supposed to happen despite the likelihood that the Democrats who supported reform will lose seats in the November elections, while Republicans who opposed reform will gain seats. It seems much more likely that after surviving the battles of the last year, the current for-profit healthcare industry will be with us for the foreseeable future.
________________________________________
We need facts right now and calm and patience and intelligence.
We decidedly don't need fear-mongering, demagoguery and patronization of absurdly emotional people and groups.
The fact is, this Health Care Reform Act, though not perfect, was and is a good idea.
Now let's move on and solve more of our nation's problems, as I said earlier.
Have a great day everyone.
Rick Newman, On Monday March 22, 2010, 4:22 pm EDT
In Washington, everybody knows about unintended consequences: the outcomes you fail to anticipate when you change the way something works. But there's another phenomenon that works somewhat in reverse: Preregulatory paranoia, or the fear that new rules meant to make the system better will instead produce mayhem and disaster.
It will be a long time before we know whether the historic healthcare reform finally passed by Congress will make the system better or worse. But the rhetoric surrounding the yearlong ordeal has already set new standards for overwrought fearmongering. There's a long history of pre-emptive hyperbole in Washington, in which the combatants on each side of an issue paint a dismal scenario if things don't go their way. But the dire predictions almost never materialize. Businesses adjust. Lawyers find loopholes. Lobbyists get new rules watered down. Entrepreneurs come up with better ways to make money, regardless of constraints. And if the new rules really do fail, we have this little process called electoral politics to make sure the government responds to voters' concerns.
Still, the overheated claims and counterclaims about healthcare reform have produced widespread confusion about what the new legislation will actually do. Here are a few of the most overblown concerns:
The government will take over one sixth of the economy. That would be alarming if it were true. But government involvement in healthcare will increase gradually over time and remain modest, especially since there's no "public option" in the current plan that would set up a government-run insurer. If you have doubts, consider the attitude of professional investors, who would stand to lose a lot if the government took over healthcare. They don't exactly seem worried. Shares of health insurers like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Wellpoint, and Cigna--subject to the strongest new rules under reform--have outperformed the stock market over the past year. The pharmaceutical and hospital industries also are considered winners because there will be millions of new customers who suddenly have insurance that can pay for treatment. That led the entire stock market higher the day after reform passed. In fact, it's hard to identify any part of the private-sector healthcare industry that stands to lose under reform.
The federal debt will explode. It might, but not because of healthcare reform. The Congressional Budget Office--which is probably the most reliable, nonpartisan number-crunching outfit in Washington--says the reforms will reduce government deficits by $143 billion through 2019, thanks to new taxes and fees and cost savings in government healthcare programs like Medicare. But opponents of the bill and powerful lobbying groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say otherwise, and they seem to have had a stronger influence on public opinion than CBO's methodical analysis. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, found that 55 percent of Americans mistakenly believe the CBO has said the healthcare legislation will add to the deficit. Only 15 percent know that CBO has said the opposite.
Doctors will revolt. Doctors don't like the current system, in which insurance companies call the shots. But instead of sweeping reform and more government involvement, they prefer gradual reform that puts more control in the hands of ... doctors. In one recent survey, nearly one third of physicians said they'd consider leaving medicine if reform passes, which it now has. Doctors worry that the new rules will cut into their incomes--which may happen, eventually. But it's implausible that thousand of doctors who have dedicated years to a complex profession will simply quit. What will they do? Become accountants? Open a Subway franchise? Besides, with millions of new patients seeking care, the demand for doctors will actually rise, not decline. And if cost controls discourage the docs who are in it to get rich, maybe that will help bring costs down for everybody else. Meanwhile, the American Medical Association and dozens of other physicians' lobbying groups will continue to look out for doctors' interests in Washington.
Businesses will suffer. The new rules will impose fees on businesses with more than 50 employees if their workers receive government subsidies to buy insurance in lieu of employer-provided coverage. Business groups complain that this could stunt economic growth and slow hiring. But businesses are more resourceful than that. It's true that many companies will have to absorb additional costs, which they do every year anyway when health insurance premiums go up. But well-run companies excel at solving problems. That's what makes them successful. Smart entrepreneurs salivate at the chance to outcompete bigger firms that can't manage challenges like this. And companies already pass on the rising costs of healthcare to their employees; there's no reason to expect that will change if they can't manage costs some other way. There's also an outside chance that the new insurance exchanges will make life easier for small businesses, as intended, by giving their workers a way to buy coverage at rates comparable to what big companies are able to negotiate.
Socalized medicine is on the way. In the Kaiser poll, 41 percent of respondents said they believe the new law would require people who already get insurance through their employer to change their coverage. But most people who already have health coverage won't have to change anything, unless they want to. The new rules will have the most direct impact on people who don't have coverage, or who don't get it through an employer. Those who fear the advent of "socialized medicine" mainly seem to worry that the current set of reforms is just Phase 1, to be followed by bigger changes that will replace doctors with bureaucrats and render individual patients even more powerless than they are now. This is supposed to happen despite the likelihood that the Democrats who supported reform will lose seats in the November elections, while Republicans who opposed reform will gain seats. It seems much more likely that after surviving the battles of the last year, the current for-profit healthcare industry will be with us for the foreseeable future.
________________________________________
We need facts right now and calm and patience and intelligence.
We decidedly don't need fear-mongering, demagoguery and patronization of absurdly emotional people and groups.
The fact is, this Health Care Reform Act, though not perfect, was and is a good idea.
Now let's move on and solve more of our nation's problems, as I said earlier.
Have a great day everyone.
Emotionalism in politics: One of America's biggest problems
After reading the news this week, and watching the Sunday morning news programs, it occurred to me, once again, that we have far too much emotion and emotionalism in our politics today in America, it's getting worse--much more so--and that we need to rid ourselves of it.
Proof:
No. 1--Last Saturday, protesters in Washington, outside Congress, yelled "nigger" at Representative John Lewis, a highly respected--and elderly, if that means anything, African-American leader from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's;
No. 2--A man was arrested--and later released-- for having spat on our own House of Representative Congressman Emanuel Cleaver at this same rally.
What good purpose could that have possibly served?
No. 3--On ABC"s program "This Week", Karl Rove continually and repeatedly rudely interrupted Presidential Adviser David Plouffe when answering questions directed at Mr. Plouffe, when Mr. Plouffe did no such thing to Mr. Rove. He ran right over Mr. Plouffe's answers and discussions, allowing for little reply to any questions directed specifically at him (Mr. Plouffe);
No. 4--Routinely, on American news programs, especially and specifically the Fox Network "News", people will shout over one another (e.g., Bill O'Reilly) or turn to tears, for effect, while reporting the "news" (e.g., Glenn Beck), etc., apparently so their shows have more impact;
No. 5--If we can't discuss the salient points of an issue, we yell names: Representative Barney Frank was referred to as a "homo"--as though that has anything to do with anything--during that same demonstration in Washington last Saturday;
No. 6--One Mike Vanderboegh of the "Alabama Constitutional Militia" "...put out a call on Friday for modern 'Sons of Liberty' to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide"--because that's a good idea, right?--"in opposition to health care reform." Windows ended up broken in Wichita, Kansas, Tucson, Arizona, Rochester, New York and several other places.
These are just a few recent examples, too. This isn't nearly everything I could list as examples.
It is my contention that all of these above episodes are mighty indicators of what is going wrong in American media, American political discussions and so, finally and sadly, negatively, in our government.
We have stopped calmly reasoning with one another and we merely shout at one another.
We need William F. Buckley, his reasoning and his speaking style, back again. (Even if he was wrong, at least part of the time).
We don't want discourse from one another any longer, it seems. All we want is for the "other side" to come over to our "correct" way of thinking, so we just shout at one another. And worse.
Frankly, I think the Fox Network seems to lead the way in this by only espousing one viewpoint--the Conservative one--and by allowing commentary to get emotional and vitriolic. We end up with no patience for PBS discussions where a Conservative and a Liberal or a Democrat and a Republican and other political groups calmly, cooly and logically lay out their points and the data that supports them.
So the electorate knows little, rarely, of hard statistics and facts that should rule the commentary and discussions.
Our sincerity, however mistaken, rules the day through emotional rants.
Again, as I've said before, this is no way to run a country.
And we seem to be getting worse.
A lot worse.
Quickly.
Proof:
No. 1--Last Saturday, protesters in Washington, outside Congress, yelled "nigger" at Representative John Lewis, a highly respected--and elderly, if that means anything, African-American leader from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's;
No. 2--A man was arrested--and later released-- for having spat on our own House of Representative Congressman Emanuel Cleaver at this same rally.
What good purpose could that have possibly served?
No. 3--On ABC"s program "This Week", Karl Rove continually and repeatedly rudely interrupted Presidential Adviser David Plouffe when answering questions directed at Mr. Plouffe, when Mr. Plouffe did no such thing to Mr. Rove. He ran right over Mr. Plouffe's answers and discussions, allowing for little reply to any questions directed specifically at him (Mr. Plouffe);
No. 4--Routinely, on American news programs, especially and specifically the Fox Network "News", people will shout over one another (e.g., Bill O'Reilly) or turn to tears, for effect, while reporting the "news" (e.g., Glenn Beck), etc., apparently so their shows have more impact;
No. 5--If we can't discuss the salient points of an issue, we yell names: Representative Barney Frank was referred to as a "homo"--as though that has anything to do with anything--during that same demonstration in Washington last Saturday;
No. 6--One Mike Vanderboegh of the "Alabama Constitutional Militia" "...put out a call on Friday for modern 'Sons of Liberty' to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide"--because that's a good idea, right?--"in opposition to health care reform." Windows ended up broken in Wichita, Kansas, Tucson, Arizona, Rochester, New York and several other places.
These are just a few recent examples, too. This isn't nearly everything I could list as examples.
It is my contention that all of these above episodes are mighty indicators of what is going wrong in American media, American political discussions and so, finally and sadly, negatively, in our government.
We have stopped calmly reasoning with one another and we merely shout at one another.
We need William F. Buckley, his reasoning and his speaking style, back again. (Even if he was wrong, at least part of the time).
We don't want discourse from one another any longer, it seems. All we want is for the "other side" to come over to our "correct" way of thinking, so we just shout at one another. And worse.
Frankly, I think the Fox Network seems to lead the way in this by only espousing one viewpoint--the Conservative one--and by allowing commentary to get emotional and vitriolic. We end up with no patience for PBS discussions where a Conservative and a Liberal or a Democrat and a Republican and other political groups calmly, cooly and logically lay out their points and the data that supports them.
So the electorate knows little, rarely, of hard statistics and facts that should rule the commentary and discussions.
Our sincerity, however mistaken, rules the day through emotional rants.
Again, as I've said before, this is no way to run a country.
And we seem to be getting worse.
A lot worse.
Quickly.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Bad news for Republicans
Breaking news from The Huffington Post:
"Only hours after the president signed health care reform legislation into law on Tuesday, the immediate political benefits for the Democratic Party are already coming into focus."
"According to a Gallup/USA Today poll conducted the day after health care legislation passed the House of Representatives, 49 percent of the respondents think the passage of reform is a 'good thing,' compared to the 40 percent who think it is bad."
So there you have it, for all the Republicans, "Tea Baggers", Glenn Beck, Rush "Porkulus" Limbaugh and anyone and everyone else who has railed or is railing about the new Health Care Reform Act that the President signed into law today, in spite of what you think about it, the American people were for it, are for it and think it's a good idea.
The fact is, our health care system is badly broken and it needed fixing.
It would have been nice if we had a better fix than this but so it goes. At least we got this much repair.
Now, go away. Take your defeat, be quiet, be good little boys and girls, get with and behind America and behave yourselves.
We have other problems to fix, too.
"Only hours after the president signed health care reform legislation into law on Tuesday, the immediate political benefits for the Democratic Party are already coming into focus."
"According to a Gallup/USA Today poll conducted the day after health care legislation passed the House of Representatives, 49 percent of the respondents think the passage of reform is a 'good thing,' compared to the 40 percent who think it is bad."
So there you have it, for all the Republicans, "Tea Baggers", Glenn Beck, Rush "Porkulus" Limbaugh and anyone and everyone else who has railed or is railing about the new Health Care Reform Act that the President signed into law today, in spite of what you think about it, the American people were for it, are for it and think it's a good idea.
The fact is, our health care system is badly broken and it needed fixing.
It would have been nice if we had a better fix than this but so it goes. At least we got this much repair.
Now, go away. Take your defeat, be quiet, be good little boys and girls, get with and behind America and behave yourselves.
We have other problems to fix, too.
The end of representative government in America
According to The Huffington Post , "A Texas company recently took out a political ad in several local newspapers, making it one of the first corporations to do so in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court ruling that lifted restrictions on corporate political spending."
"The Texas Tribune reports that the company, KDR Development, paid for an ad against state Rep. Chuck Hopson, formerly a Democratic member of the state legislature who switched parties and ran in the Republican primary for re-election."
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the end of "representtaive government" looks like.
The money floodgates for elections and attack ads are open.
It was nice while it lasted.
"The Texas Tribune reports that the company, KDR Development, paid for an ad against state Rep. Chuck Hopson, formerly a Democratic member of the state legislature who switched parties and ran in the Republican primary for re-election."
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the end of "representtaive government" looks like.
The money floodgates for elections and attack ads are open.
It was nice while it lasted.
Guest post on the Republican Party and health care reform
James Kunstler-- "The Party Of Cruelty"... (as posted on the "Monkeyfister" blog)
There is not much to disagree with here.
via Kunstler.com
It was amusing to see the Republican party inveigh against health insurance reform as if they were a synod of Presbyterian necromancers girding the nation for a takeover by the spawn of hell. This was the same gang, by the way, who championed the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, then regarded as the most reckless giveaway of public funds in human history. Along the way, they enlisted an army of nay-sayers representing everything dark, disgraceful, and ignorant in the American character. If the Republicans keep going this way, they'll end up with something worse than Naziism: a party that hates everything but believes in absolutely nothing.
The most striking elements of so-called health care in America these days is how cruel and unjust it is, and in taking a stand against reforming it the Republican party appeared to be firmly in support of cruelty and injustice. This would be well within the historical tradition of other religious crusades which turned political --such as the Spanish Inquisition and the seventeenth century war against witchcraft. Whatever else the Democratic party has stood for in recent history, it has tended to oppose institutional cruelty and injustice, and notice that it has also been the party for keeping religion out of government.
Now a health care reform act has passed and there's some reason to hope that insurance companies will be prevented from doing things like canceling the coverage of policy-holders who have the impertinence to actually get sick, which has been their main device for revenue enhancement, and we'll see how they cope with the idea that being alive in a treacherous world is the fundamental pre-existing condition.
I surely don't know if the nation can afford to pay for what this law requires, but then can we really afford to pay for anything? -- including the salaries, retirement benefits, and health insurance of congressmen, not to mention two wars, bailout life support for banks, rising unemployment benefits, shovel-ready stimulus projects, et cetera, blah blah? Probably not.
My guess is that the health care "industry" will unravel in the years ahead under the weight of its own hypercomplexity just as all the other hypercomplex systems of normal American life (such as it is) groan and collapse under their own unworkable immensities -- and I speak here of industrial-style farming, Big Box "consumerism," Happy Motoring, too-big-to-fail finance, centralized public education, and the pension racket. All the activities of daily life in this country have poor prospects for continuing in their current form.
At least this once a workable majority in the government has stood up to the forces of cruelty and injustice, and whatever else happens to us in the course of this long emergency, it will be a good thing if the party of fairness and justice identifies its adversaries for what they are: not "partners in governing," or any such academical-therapeutic bullshit, but enemies of every generous impulse in the national character.
I hope that Mr. Obama's party can carry this message clearly into the electoral battles ahead, painting the Republican opposition for what it is: a gang of hypocritical, pietistic sadists, seeking pleasure in the suffering of others while pretending to be Christians, devoid of sympathy, empathy, or any inclination to simple human kindness, constant breakers of the Golden Rule, enemies of the common good. In fact, the current edition of the Republican party has achieved something really memorable in the annals of collective bad intentions: they have managed to create a sense of the public interest whose main goal is the destruction of the public interest.
This is exactly what the Republican majority on the Supreme Court did earlier this year by deciding that corporations -- which are sociopathic by definition in being answerable only to their shareholders and nothing else -- should enjoy the same full privileges in election campaign contributions as human persons, who are assumed to have obligations, duties, and responsibilities to the common good (and therefore to the public interest). This shameful act by the court majority only underscores the chief defining characteristic of Republicans in their current incarnation: an inability to think. And so, naturally Republicans gravitate toward superstition and the traditional devices of improvident religious authorities -- persecution of the weak, torture, denial of due process, and dogmas designed to spread hatred.
I hope the American public begins to understand this, because they have been manipulated in their own pain and hardship by these dark forces, and their thrall to the likes of John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, and the rest of these vicious morons could easily increase as their economic hardships deepen. We're facing a comprehensive contraction of wealth and economy that is going to challenge every shared virtue in our national soul, and we're not going to meet these difficulties successfully without a sense of mutual obligation and sympathy for each other. The Republican party is just itching to turn a giant thumbscrew on the US public -- that is, before they try to start burning their enemies at the stake. We understand that the Health Care Reform Act is a first stand against that.
Thank you, James.
And thank you Monkeyfister blog for bringing it to our attention.
Link to original post:
http://monkeyfister.blogspot.com/2010/03/james-kunstler-party-of-cruelty.html
There is not much to disagree with here.
via Kunstler.com
It was amusing to see the Republican party inveigh against health insurance reform as if they were a synod of Presbyterian necromancers girding the nation for a takeover by the spawn of hell. This was the same gang, by the way, who championed the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, then regarded as the most reckless giveaway of public funds in human history. Along the way, they enlisted an army of nay-sayers representing everything dark, disgraceful, and ignorant in the American character. If the Republicans keep going this way, they'll end up with something worse than Naziism: a party that hates everything but believes in absolutely nothing.
The most striking elements of so-called health care in America these days is how cruel and unjust it is, and in taking a stand against reforming it the Republican party appeared to be firmly in support of cruelty and injustice. This would be well within the historical tradition of other religious crusades which turned political --such as the Spanish Inquisition and the seventeenth century war against witchcraft. Whatever else the Democratic party has stood for in recent history, it has tended to oppose institutional cruelty and injustice, and notice that it has also been the party for keeping religion out of government.
Now a health care reform act has passed and there's some reason to hope that insurance companies will be prevented from doing things like canceling the coverage of policy-holders who have the impertinence to actually get sick, which has been their main device for revenue enhancement, and we'll see how they cope with the idea that being alive in a treacherous world is the fundamental pre-existing condition.
I surely don't know if the nation can afford to pay for what this law requires, but then can we really afford to pay for anything? -- including the salaries, retirement benefits, and health insurance of congressmen, not to mention two wars, bailout life support for banks, rising unemployment benefits, shovel-ready stimulus projects, et cetera, blah blah? Probably not.
My guess is that the health care "industry" will unravel in the years ahead under the weight of its own hypercomplexity just as all the other hypercomplex systems of normal American life (such as it is) groan and collapse under their own unworkable immensities -- and I speak here of industrial-style farming, Big Box "consumerism," Happy Motoring, too-big-to-fail finance, centralized public education, and the pension racket. All the activities of daily life in this country have poor prospects for continuing in their current form.
At least this once a workable majority in the government has stood up to the forces of cruelty and injustice, and whatever else happens to us in the course of this long emergency, it will be a good thing if the party of fairness and justice identifies its adversaries for what they are: not "partners in governing," or any such academical-therapeutic bullshit, but enemies of every generous impulse in the national character.
I hope that Mr. Obama's party can carry this message clearly into the electoral battles ahead, painting the Republican opposition for what it is: a gang of hypocritical, pietistic sadists, seeking pleasure in the suffering of others while pretending to be Christians, devoid of sympathy, empathy, or any inclination to simple human kindness, constant breakers of the Golden Rule, enemies of the common good. In fact, the current edition of the Republican party has achieved something really memorable in the annals of collective bad intentions: they have managed to create a sense of the public interest whose main goal is the destruction of the public interest.
This is exactly what the Republican majority on the Supreme Court did earlier this year by deciding that corporations -- which are sociopathic by definition in being answerable only to their shareholders and nothing else -- should enjoy the same full privileges in election campaign contributions as human persons, who are assumed to have obligations, duties, and responsibilities to the common good (and therefore to the public interest). This shameful act by the court majority only underscores the chief defining characteristic of Republicans in their current incarnation: an inability to think. And so, naturally Republicans gravitate toward superstition and the traditional devices of improvident religious authorities -- persecution of the weak, torture, denial of due process, and dogmas designed to spread hatred.
I hope the American public begins to understand this, because they have been manipulated in their own pain and hardship by these dark forces, and their thrall to the likes of John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, and the rest of these vicious morons could easily increase as their economic hardships deepen. We're facing a comprehensive contraction of wealth and economy that is going to challenge every shared virtue in our national soul, and we're not going to meet these difficulties successfully without a sense of mutual obligation and sympathy for each other. The Republican party is just itching to turn a giant thumbscrew on the US public -- that is, before they try to start burning their enemies at the stake. We understand that the Health Care Reform Act is a first stand against that.
Thank you, James.
And thank you Monkeyfister blog for bringing it to our attention.
Link to original post:
http://monkeyfister.blogspot.com/2010/03/james-kunstler-party-of-cruelty.html
Monday, March 22, 2010
What they said wasn't "the 'n' word"
As the now-old saying goes, let's not put lipstick on this pig.
I keep seeing references to the incident in Washington, DC this past Saturday wherein some "Tea-bagger" Republican protester shouted an epithet at Represenetative John Lewis and it's irritating me.
I keep seeing it referred to as this ignorant person yelling "the 'n' word."
And I want to say stop.
Let's stop calling it that.
Let's stop making this nice. Or pretty. Or politically-correct.
Because it absolutely isn't any of those things.
Whoever that person was called Representative John Lewis--longtime civil rights activist and now legislator--a nigger.
The word isn't nice.
This is racism of its near-worst form.
The only thing worse, after this, is physical violence, let's be clear on this.
That word--nigger--is the worst thing a white person can call an African-American yet that's what this person did.
And then someone spat on our own Kansas City, Missouri Representative Emanuel Cleaver.
And then someone else, shortly thereafter, across Washington, called Representative Barney Frank a "homo."
Racism, homophobia and bigotry, all.
And stupid. And irresponsible. And hate-filled.
And it all has no place in any discussion or debate about health care.
And it has no place in America.
And it needs to stop.
And it needs to stop now.
If we call it something less than what it is, we're giving it a pass and that's not acceptable.
I keep seeing references to the incident in Washington, DC this past Saturday wherein some "Tea-bagger" Republican protester shouted an epithet at Represenetative John Lewis and it's irritating me.
I keep seeing it referred to as this ignorant person yelling "the 'n' word."
And I want to say stop.
Let's stop calling it that.
Let's stop making this nice. Or pretty. Or politically-correct.
Because it absolutely isn't any of those things.
Whoever that person was called Representative John Lewis--longtime civil rights activist and now legislator--a nigger.
The word isn't nice.
This is racism of its near-worst form.
The only thing worse, after this, is physical violence, let's be clear on this.
That word--nigger--is the worst thing a white person can call an African-American yet that's what this person did.
And then someone spat on our own Kansas City, Missouri Representative Emanuel Cleaver.
And then someone else, shortly thereafter, across Washington, called Representative Barney Frank a "homo."
Racism, homophobia and bigotry, all.
And stupid. And irresponsible. And hate-filled.
And it all has no place in any discussion or debate about health care.
And it has no place in America.
And it needs to stop.
And it needs to stop now.
If we call it something less than what it is, we're giving it a pass and that's not acceptable.
The 10 Most Ridiculous Quotes About Health Care Reform--and then some really ugly stupidity
They speak for themselves.
By Daniel Kurtzman, About.com Guide
1. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." —Sarah Palin, in a message posted on Facebook about Obama's health care reform plan, Aug. 7, 2009
2. "To our seniors, I have a message for you: you're going to die sooner." –Sen. Tom Coburn (R- Okla.), on what will happen if health care reform passes, Dec. 1, 2009
3. "If ObamaCare passes, that free insurance card that’s in people’s pockets is gonna be as worthless as a Confederate dollar after the war between the states — the Great War of Yankee Aggression." –Rep. Paul Broun (R- Ga.), March 18, 2010
4. "They intend to vote on the Sabbath, during Lent, to take away the liberty that we have right from God. This is an affront to God." –Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), interview with Glenn Beck, March 18, 2010
5. "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), summing up the Republican health care plan
6. "Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook … Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." —Rush Limbaugh, Aug. 6, 2009
7. "You have three people in the White House that are in love with eugenics or whatever it is you would call it today. … Please dear God, read history. Please dear God read the truth of what these people have said in their own words, and ask yourself this one question: Do you trust these people enough to give them control over who lives and who dies? Because that's what health care is when you have no other choice but to go to the state." —Glenn Beck, comparing health care reform to Nazi eugenics
8. "We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma." —Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Aug. 12, 2009
9. "That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions." —Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a pro-lifer who completely missed the irony of using the same slogan as the pro-choice movement
10. "Exercise freaks ... are the ones putting stress on the health care system." —Rush Limbaugh, June 12, 2009
~Compiled by Daniel Kurtzman
Up to now, they've only been saying fairly stupid, outrageous and ignorant things like the above.
They're going batshit crazy now, since health care reform passed.
In Washington, Saturday, as you no doubt know, some of the "Tea Party" protesters starting yelling "nigger" at RepresentativeJohn Lewism ,spat on our own representative Emanuel Cleaver (he waived charges) and yelled "homo" at Rep. Barney Frank, all in their anger. (But no, no, they're not racist or homophobic, right?).
Now it's getting really ugly.
In fact, the ugliest, stupidest and worst of all, that I've seen, to date, is two Twitter posts that suggest assassinating the President.
Here's hoping sanity rules.
Original link here:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/healthcare/a/health-care-reform-quotes.htm
By Daniel Kurtzman, About.com Guide
1. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil." —Sarah Palin, in a message posted on Facebook about Obama's health care reform plan, Aug. 7, 2009
2. "To our seniors, I have a message for you: you're going to die sooner." –Sen. Tom Coburn (R- Okla.), on what will happen if health care reform passes, Dec. 1, 2009
3. "If ObamaCare passes, that free insurance card that’s in people’s pockets is gonna be as worthless as a Confederate dollar after the war between the states — the Great War of Yankee Aggression." –Rep. Paul Broun (R- Ga.), March 18, 2010
4. "They intend to vote on the Sabbath, during Lent, to take away the liberty that we have right from God. This is an affront to God." –Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), interview with Glenn Beck, March 18, 2010
5. "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), summing up the Republican health care plan
6. "Obama's got a health care logo that's right out of Adolf Hitler's playbook … Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate." —Rush Limbaugh, Aug. 6, 2009
7. "You have three people in the White House that are in love with eugenics or whatever it is you would call it today. … Please dear God, read history. Please dear God read the truth of what these people have said in their own words, and ask yourself this one question: Do you trust these people enough to give them control over who lives and who dies? Because that's what health care is when you have no other choice but to go to the state." —Glenn Beck, comparing health care reform to Nazi eugenics
8. "We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma." —Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Aug. 12, 2009
9. "That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions." —Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a pro-lifer who completely missed the irony of using the same slogan as the pro-choice movement
10. "Exercise freaks ... are the ones putting stress on the health care system." —Rush Limbaugh, June 12, 2009
~Compiled by Daniel Kurtzman
Up to now, they've only been saying fairly stupid, outrageous and ignorant things like the above.
They're going batshit crazy now, since health care reform passed.
In Washington, Saturday, as you no doubt know, some of the "Tea Party" protesters starting yelling "nigger" at RepresentativeJohn Lewism ,spat on our own representative Emanuel Cleaver (he waived charges) and yelled "homo" at Rep. Barney Frank, all in their anger. (But no, no, they're not racist or homophobic, right?).
Now it's getting really ugly.
In fact, the ugliest, stupidest and worst of all, that I've seen, to date, is two Twitter posts that suggest assassinating the President.
Here's hoping sanity rules.
Original link here:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/healthcare/a/health-care-reform-quotes.htm
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Once again, we must rely on the "Fourth Estate"
I just saw a report that the Bloomberg news group won a court legal battle for us, the American people, against the government, this time against the government keeping secrets.
It seems they were able to successfully use the Freedom of Information Act:
"The Federal Reserve Board must disclose documents identifying financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest U.S. government bailout ever, a federal appeals court said."
More: "The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled today that the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched primarily after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The ruling upholds a decision of a lower-court judge, who in August ordered that the information be released."
I see local blogs online bemoan newspapers and always complaining about how they are the "dead tree media" and I find it tiresome. And ignorant.
Sure, kill the newspapers in that paper form but they need to exist, for sure. Without media--a good, strong, searching, investigating and persevering media to question our government and its institutions, bureaucrats and legislators, we are far weaker as citizens, taxpayers and voters.
We would be operating far more in the utter darkness without them.
Additionally, they can't be owned by other, big corporations that have so much to gain from having only their own viewpoint put out.
So score one for the media and the people.
We need lots more of this.
Link text
It seems they were able to successfully use the Freedom of Information Act:
"The Federal Reserve Board must disclose documents identifying financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest U.S. government bailout ever, a federal appeals court said."
More: "The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled today that the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched primarily after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The ruling upholds a decision of a lower-court judge, who in August ordered that the information be released."
I see local blogs online bemoan newspapers and always complaining about how they are the "dead tree media" and I find it tiresome. And ignorant.
Sure, kill the newspapers in that paper form but they need to exist, for sure. Without media--a good, strong, searching, investigating and persevering media to question our government and its institutions, bureaucrats and legislators, we are far weaker as citizens, taxpayers and voters.
We would be operating far more in the utter darkness without them.
Additionally, they can't be owned by other, big corporations that have so much to gain from having only their own viewpoint put out.
So score one for the media and the people.
We need lots more of this.
Link text
Weekend entertainment suggestion
I think I have a great weekend entertainment suggestion for you today.
A friend mentioned that he did it last night while we were at breakfast this morning.
If you either get tired of "March Madness" basketball or your team isn't on or you just want something to watch on TV with the thought of having a good laugh, turn on Fox "News" this weekend.
Oh, yeah.
They're going nuts right now, what with the President and the Democrats anchoring to get a health care reform fix right now.
They're flipping out.
They're coming unhinged.
Whether it's Hannity or Beck or O'Really or whomever, go over and give them a view.
It's a hoot.
They're just sure that this is the end of the world or the virtual end of the world or that by Sunday evening we'll all be living in a Socialist country or some such absurd, ludicrous, insane, and/or emotional nonsense and hyperbole.
You may thank us later.
Have a great weekend, y'all.
A friend mentioned that he did it last night while we were at breakfast this morning.
If you either get tired of "March Madness" basketball or your team isn't on or you just want something to watch on TV with the thought of having a good laugh, turn on Fox "News" this weekend.
Oh, yeah.
They're going nuts right now, what with the President and the Democrats anchoring to get a health care reform fix right now.
They're flipping out.
They're coming unhinged.
Whether it's Hannity or Beck or O'Really or whomever, go over and give them a view.
It's a hoot.
They're just sure that this is the end of the world or the virtual end of the world or that by Sunday evening we'll all be living in a Socialist country or some such absurd, ludicrous, insane, and/or emotional nonsense and hyperbole.
You may thank us later.
Have a great weekend, y'all.
Friday, March 19, 2010
To the Iraq warmongers
Let's see, that's now-former President, George W. Bush, now-former Vice President Dick ("the Dick") Cheney, now-former Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz etc., etc.
To all of you, listed above, the Republican Party, any and all Democrats who went along for this hair-brained scheme, the media who didn't ask questions and also let the American people down and anyone and everyone who was for attacking Iraq pre-emptively and without provocation:
It was wrong. It was stupid. It was against our own, internal, national laws and it was against International Law.
And now this:
"In a Thursday panel at Cato on conservatism and war, U.S. Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and John Duncan (R-Tenn.) revealed that the vast majority of GOP members of Congress now think it was wrong for the U.S. to invade Iraq in 2003."
Well, thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for joining us. You're 7 long years, 4,282 American soldiers --men and women--and trillions of dollars too late.
To say that you screwed up is the grossest understatement I can imagine.
And I say this for a few reasons, none of which are to gloat.
First, we told you so.
There were thousands of us, nationwide, who were literally on the streets, protesting this war before it happened. We told you, warned you this was a mistake.
You didn't listen.
Second, the UN told you Saddam Hussein had no "weapons of mass destruction", that he was cooperating and that you could find no evidence of any such weapons.
You didn't listen.
Third, 13 intelligence agencies of our own government declared that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the US. This was broadcast before the war began on National Public Radio, very calmly and cooly. I heard it myself.
You didn't listen.
Fourth, again, this pre-emptive attack was against our own, internal laws.
No one listened.
Fifth, pre-emptively and without provocation attacking another sovereign nation was then and is now, to this day, against International Law.
You didn't listen.
Finally, and I'll put this last note in one heading instead of two--both history and common sense said that attacking Iraq was a mistake, and a big one. I have frequently, since this war began in March of 2003, quoted Winston Churchill on war and going to war. It is as true today as it was these 7 years ago as when first stated, all those decades ago:
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
But then no one ever accused George W. Bush of having a "world view" since he hadn't traveled outside the country before running for the Presidency, or of knowing history.
And he just wouldn't listen.
To all of you, listed above, the Republican Party, any and all Democrats who went along for this hair-brained scheme, the media who didn't ask questions and also let the American people down and anyone and everyone who was for attacking Iraq pre-emptively and without provocation:
It was wrong. It was stupid. It was against our own, internal, national laws and it was against International Law.
And now this:
"In a Thursday panel at Cato on conservatism and war, U.S. Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and John Duncan (R-Tenn.) revealed that the vast majority of GOP members of Congress now think it was wrong for the U.S. to invade Iraq in 2003."
Well, thank you, gentlemen. Thank you for joining us. You're 7 long years, 4,282 American soldiers --men and women--and trillions of dollars too late.
To say that you screwed up is the grossest understatement I can imagine.
And I say this for a few reasons, none of which are to gloat.
First, we told you so.
There were thousands of us, nationwide, who were literally on the streets, protesting this war before it happened. We told you, warned you this was a mistake.
You didn't listen.
Second, the UN told you Saddam Hussein had no "weapons of mass destruction", that he was cooperating and that you could find no evidence of any such weapons.
You didn't listen.
Third, 13 intelligence agencies of our own government declared that Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the US. This was broadcast before the war began on National Public Radio, very calmly and cooly. I heard it myself.
You didn't listen.
Fourth, again, this pre-emptive attack was against our own, internal laws.
No one listened.
Fifth, pre-emptively and without provocation attacking another sovereign nation was then and is now, to this day, against International Law.
You didn't listen.
Finally, and I'll put this last note in one heading instead of two--both history and common sense said that attacking Iraq was a mistake, and a big one. I have frequently, since this war began in March of 2003, quoted Winston Churchill on war and going to war. It is as true today as it was these 7 years ago as when first stated, all those decades ago:
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
But then no one ever accused George W. Bush of having a "world view" since he hadn't traveled outside the country before running for the Presidency, or of knowing history.
And he just wouldn't listen.
Sharp contrasts
Last evening on the Plaza was in sharp contrast to the night before, since the previous evening was all drinking and loud conversations.
As this shows, it was warm temperatures and wide open stores. It was really nice. While not yet completely, officially Spring, it surely felt like it.
And it's also in sharp contrast, apparently, to what it's going to be like on the Plaza this evening, when the rain comes in, and then this weekend, when the temperatures fall further and we get snow, if the forecast is correct.
But what the heck--last evening was terrific, Spring starts this weekend and next week has promises of temperatures in the 60's.
Somehow I think we'll make it.
Have a great weekend, everyone.
Thoughts on a Friday morning
--it was sure great to see and be in the sun and have such warm temperatures yesterday;
--so what if it's going to cloud up and bring us rain and snow this weekend--a) Spring begins this weekend, too and b) by next week, we'll be back in the 60's;
--I like the way Google predicts my searches (just don't try finishing my sentences);
--If I didn't have to get to the office this morning, I surely could have taken what I think were some terrific photographs;
--Great news for the weekend as it looks as though we're going to get at least some health care reform relief this weekend. The Democrats finally decided to "play rough", thank goodness;
--I wish I had more times and reasons to say "acoutrement". I love the way it sounds. (heck, for that matter, I wish I could speak French).
Let's have a great weekend, y'all.
--so what if it's going to cloud up and bring us rain and snow this weekend--a) Spring begins this weekend, too and b) by next week, we'll be back in the 60's;
--I like the way Google predicts my searches (just don't try finishing my sentences);
--If I didn't have to get to the office this morning, I surely could have taken what I think were some terrific photographs;
--Great news for the weekend as it looks as though we're going to get at least some health care reform relief this weekend. The Democrats finally decided to "play rough", thank goodness;
--I wish I had more times and reasons to say "acoutrement". I love the way it sounds. (heck, for that matter, I wish I could speak French).
Let's have a great weekend, y'all.
We all need to know about this group and their work
I was just made aware of what is to me, a new organization and website that seems to do terrific work, showing what appears to be a direct and clear correlation between money elected officials receive and their voting records.
I know. Shocking, right?
But the fact is, they take raw, hard, reported data, put it in their computers and show direct paths from monetary contributions to our elected officials votes.
That's some great work.
Maybe, one day, with this kind of hard data, we can better get and keep control of our officials and government so the right and good things happen for the country, instead of just for corporations and the wealthy.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Molly Ivins would be pleased, rest her soul.
Anyway, the group is MAPLight and you can find them at MAPLight.org. (For what it's worth, I found it yesterday on The Huffington Post).
Knowledge being power, this is the kind of information we need so we can get back some power in this countr.
Following is from their site and tells of them and their work. Check it out.
Let's "follow the money", as the old saying goes, and hold and keep our representatives accountable to us.
Mission and Purpose
MAPLight.org, a groundbreaking public database, with offices located in Berkeley, California, illuminates the connection between campaign donations and legislative votes in unprecedented ways. Elected United States officials collect large sums of money to run their campaigns, and they often pay back campaign contributors with special access and favorable laws.
This common practice is contrary to the public interest, yet legal. MAPLight.org makes money/vote connections transparent, to help citizens hold their legislators accountable.
Nonprofit and Nonpartisan
MAPLight.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is nonpartisan. Contributions to MAPLight.org are tax-deductible as provided by law.
The Database
MAPLight.org combines three data sets:
•Bill texts and legislative voting records
•Supporting and opposing interests for each bill
•Campaign contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics and the National
Institute on Money in State Politics
Combining this data makes visible key information that could never before be determined easily.
I know. Shocking, right?
But the fact is, they take raw, hard, reported data, put it in their computers and show direct paths from monetary contributions to our elected officials votes.
That's some great work.
Maybe, one day, with this kind of hard data, we can better get and keep control of our officials and government so the right and good things happen for the country, instead of just for corporations and the wealthy.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Molly Ivins would be pleased, rest her soul.
Anyway, the group is MAPLight and you can find them at MAPLight.org. (For what it's worth, I found it yesterday on The Huffington Post).
Knowledge being power, this is the kind of information we need so we can get back some power in this countr.
Following is from their site and tells of them and their work. Check it out.
Let's "follow the money", as the old saying goes, and hold and keep our representatives accountable to us.
Mission and Purpose
MAPLight.org, a groundbreaking public database, with offices located in Berkeley, California, illuminates the connection between campaign donations and legislative votes in unprecedented ways. Elected United States officials collect large sums of money to run their campaigns, and they often pay back campaign contributors with special access and favorable laws.
This common practice is contrary to the public interest, yet legal. MAPLight.org makes money/vote connections transparent, to help citizens hold their legislators accountable.
Nonprofit and Nonpartisan
MAPLight.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, is nonpartisan. Contributions to MAPLight.org are tax-deductible as provided by law.
The Database
MAPLight.org combines three data sets:
•Bill texts and legislative voting records
•Supporting and opposing interests for each bill
•Campaign contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics and the National
Institute on Money in State Politics
Combining this data makes visible key information that could never before be determined easily.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Fox News: White trash?
The question has to be asked.
The evidence:
They're reactionary.
They're virtually exclusively white.
They've proven themselves to be racist.
They're embarassingly emotional (e.g., Glenn Beck, at minimum).
They yell at their guests, if they don't agree with them (e.g., Bill O'Reilly).
They interrupt their guests after they ask them questions, up to and including the most powerful man in the world, the sitting President of the United States, showing few good manners and no respect for that same guest (e.g., Brett Baier interviewing President Obama, above).
I'm not saying it's so.
I'm just saying it seems like a good and fair question.
(Or is that a "fair and balanced" question?).
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Freeze earmarks? Hell, kill 'em
Yesterday, some Conservative Republicans put up a proposal to "temporarily ban senators from earmarking spending bills with back-home projects like roads, water projects and grants to local governments."
The Senate rejected it.
It seems they don't have the courage to take away this little privilege of theirs that they use to take more fiscal pork back home.
Sure, they call themselves "Conservatives" or "Blue Dog Democrats" but like a hog at a trough, they just can't come up with enough strength to walk away.
This was only going to be a temporary moratorium on these earmarks, too.
Talk about lack of conviction.
Here's a thought and suggestion I've put up here before for some enterprising representative in Washington:
Propose that earmarks be done away with.
Heck yes.
It's the only fiscally responsible thing to do.
We've been hearing for weeks, if not months, about the debt and deficit we have as a nation.
And these legislators will still spend far too much in government--who are they kidding?
"Defenders of earmarks say they represent but a small portion of the overall budget, are a legitimate way for lawmakers to exercise Congress' power of the purse, and that they know the needs of their states better than agency bureaucrats."
Horse-hockey.
Besides spending too much money--and coming out of "back rooms" to do it--it also raises questions of these same representatives doing illegal political favors for constituents and companies that get funds from earmarks. Getting rid of them would give the nation a huge double benefit, at minimum.
"Opponents say earmarks are often wasteful, invite corruption and are a way to win votes for big-spending legislation."
Much more true.
So, note to some political upstart Senator or Representative out there (Claire? Anyone?)--go against the Party line and make a serious proposal for a law making earmarks illegal.
You'll be on and in the news immediately (you glory hound).
I'm surprised someone hasn't done it already.
This is no way to run a government. Or country.
The Senate rejected it.
It seems they don't have the courage to take away this little privilege of theirs that they use to take more fiscal pork back home.
Sure, they call themselves "Conservatives" or "Blue Dog Democrats" but like a hog at a trough, they just can't come up with enough strength to walk away.
This was only going to be a temporary moratorium on these earmarks, too.
Talk about lack of conviction.
Here's a thought and suggestion I've put up here before for some enterprising representative in Washington:
Propose that earmarks be done away with.
Heck yes.
It's the only fiscally responsible thing to do.
We've been hearing for weeks, if not months, about the debt and deficit we have as a nation.
And these legislators will still spend far too much in government--who are they kidding?
"Defenders of earmarks say they represent but a small portion of the overall budget, are a legitimate way for lawmakers to exercise Congress' power of the purse, and that they know the needs of their states better than agency bureaucrats."
Horse-hockey.
Besides spending too much money--and coming out of "back rooms" to do it--it also raises questions of these same representatives doing illegal political favors for constituents and companies that get funds from earmarks. Getting rid of them would give the nation a huge double benefit, at minimum.
"Opponents say earmarks are often wasteful, invite corruption and are a way to win votes for big-spending legislation."
Much more true.
So, note to some political upstart Senator or Representative out there (Claire? Anyone?)--go against the Party line and make a serious proposal for a law making earmarks illegal.
You'll be on and in the news immediately (you glory hound).
I'm surprised someone hasn't done it already.
This is no way to run a government. Or country.
"Crunch time" on health care reform
We need this.
It's not arbitrary.
Our health care system is broken--and badly.
Millions, literally tens of millions of Americans don't have health care and more lose it, each day.
People die in America because they don't have and can't afford health care.
Further proof of our needs and the problems:
Patient's plea makes the best case for health care reform
Catholic nuns urge passage of Obama's health bill
It's the right thing to do.
We need it, as I said.
Now is the time.
Let's get this passed.
Please support health care reform.
It is patently not a "government takeover" of our health care system.
It's not arbitrary.
Our health care system is broken--and badly.
Millions, literally tens of millions of Americans don't have health care and more lose it, each day.
People die in America because they don't have and can't afford health care.
Further proof of our needs and the problems:
Patient's plea makes the best case for health care reform
Catholic nuns urge passage of Obama's health bill
It's the right thing to do.
We need it, as I said.
Now is the time.
Let's get this passed.
Please support health care reform.
It is patently not a "government takeover" of our health care system.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Michael Jackson: Good news, bad news
The good news?
Your music just made for the biggest music deal ever , worth a reported $250 million. That's one quarter of a billion dollars.
Congratulations.
The bad news?
You're dead.
Your music just made for the biggest music deal ever , worth a reported $250 million. That's one quarter of a billion dollars.
Congratulations.
The bad news?
You're dead.
Texas: Rewriting history
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." --Napoleon Bonaparte
It couldn't be more true.
And it's being proven again, down in Texas right now, as I wrote earlier.
Here are just a few of the real beauties that the Texas State Board of Education has come up with to add to or change in their textbooks, and so, in textbooks that can end up all over the rest of America:
--A greater emphasis on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s. Who knows why, except they do downplay the liberal gains of the 60's, too. Maybe this is their way of "getting even." (pathetic, isn't it?);
--A reduced scope for Latino history and culture: A proposal to expand such material in recognition of Texas’ rapidly growing Hispanic population was defeated in last week’s meetings.
Never mind that more 36.5% of Texas' population is Hispanic or Latino as of the 2008 census .
Never mind that more minorities will be born this year, compared to Caucasians.
Forget about Texas' rich history of Hispanics in the state's creation and growth. Forget all that. The Board just marginalized them, big time: "Oh, you exist, but we just don't think you're that important."
And you know what else? They won't even recognize the inherent racism of this;
--Changes in specific terminology: This one really cracks me up. Check this out--"Terms that the board’s conservative majority felt were ideologically loaded are being retired. Hence, 'imperialism' as a characterization of America’s modern rise to world power is giving way to 'expansionism,' and 'capitalism' is being dropped in economic material, in favor of the more positive expression 'free market.' (The new recommendations stress the need for favorable depictions of America’s economic superiority across the board.)"
These are Conservatives, for pity's sake, and they're ashamed of the word "capitalism". God, I love that. I bet they don't get the irony or hypocrisy of it;
--A more positive portrayal of Cold War anticommunism: This is another beauty. They prop up Senator Joe McCarthy and his communist witch-hunt, wherein he ruined people's lives. Nearly unbelievable. These are some sad, tragic, misguided people on that Board;
--Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins: Okay, here's where they start really making me angry. It's one thing if you glorify communist-baiter Joe McCarthy (hateful jerk though he was), but to eject Thomas Jefferson as an influential source for America? Holy cow. That's almost unthinkable. Jefferson is known, in the world out there that is educated and civilized, as a truly brilliant man, writer and thinker. Just not in Texas. Knocking him off this pedestal does a true and deep disservice to the students of Texas and any- and everywhere else these textbooks land. This is sacrilege;
--A recommendation to include country and western music among the nation’s important cultural movements: The popular black genre of hip-hop is being dropped from the same list.
This ruling on "country and western music" and dropping hip-hop is, to me, where they show their real stupidity, shallowness and racism, by my--and I'm thinking a lot of other people's--thinking. Country and western music? Really? And you care about this? This is the part that starts to get laughable (but still, continued pathetic).
Oh, and, once again, Texas State Board of Education--your racism is showing.
If this weren't so tragic and stupid, I'd be laughing.
Link to original post:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253
It couldn't be more true.
And it's being proven again, down in Texas right now, as I wrote earlier.
Here are just a few of the real beauties that the Texas State Board of Education has come up with to add to or change in their textbooks, and so, in textbooks that can end up all over the rest of America:
--A greater emphasis on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s. Who knows why, except they do downplay the liberal gains of the 60's, too. Maybe this is their way of "getting even." (pathetic, isn't it?);
--A reduced scope for Latino history and culture: A proposal to expand such material in recognition of Texas’ rapidly growing Hispanic population was defeated in last week’s meetings.
Never mind that more 36.5% of Texas' population is Hispanic or Latino as of the 2008 census .
Never mind that more minorities will be born this year, compared to Caucasians.
Forget about Texas' rich history of Hispanics in the state's creation and growth. Forget all that. The Board just marginalized them, big time: "Oh, you exist, but we just don't think you're that important."
And you know what else? They won't even recognize the inherent racism of this;
--Changes in specific terminology: This one really cracks me up. Check this out--"Terms that the board’s conservative majority felt were ideologically loaded are being retired. Hence, 'imperialism' as a characterization of America’s modern rise to world power is giving way to 'expansionism,' and 'capitalism' is being dropped in economic material, in favor of the more positive expression 'free market.' (The new recommendations stress the need for favorable depictions of America’s economic superiority across the board.)"
These are Conservatives, for pity's sake, and they're ashamed of the word "capitalism". God, I love that. I bet they don't get the irony or hypocrisy of it;
--A more positive portrayal of Cold War anticommunism: This is another beauty. They prop up Senator Joe McCarthy and his communist witch-hunt, wherein he ruined people's lives. Nearly unbelievable. These are some sad, tragic, misguided people on that Board;
--Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins: Okay, here's where they start really making me angry. It's one thing if you glorify communist-baiter Joe McCarthy (hateful jerk though he was), but to eject Thomas Jefferson as an influential source for America? Holy cow. That's almost unthinkable. Jefferson is known, in the world out there that is educated and civilized, as a truly brilliant man, writer and thinker. Just not in Texas. Knocking him off this pedestal does a true and deep disservice to the students of Texas and any- and everywhere else these textbooks land. This is sacrilege;
--A recommendation to include country and western music among the nation’s important cultural movements: The popular black genre of hip-hop is being dropped from the same list.
This ruling on "country and western music" and dropping hip-hop is, to me, where they show their real stupidity, shallowness and racism, by my--and I'm thinking a lot of other people's--thinking. Country and western music? Really? And you care about this? This is the part that starts to get laughable (but still, continued pathetic).
Oh, and, once again, Texas State Board of Education--your racism is showing.
If this weren't so tragic and stupid, I'd be laughing.
Link to original post:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253
Monday, March 15, 2010
Important Senate election this Fall
When it comes time to vote for a Senator for Missouri this Fall, keep in mind that the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), voted Roy Blunt as one of the most unethical members of Congress.
Additionally, the website theMiddleClass.org gave our same Representative Roy Blunt failing grades--all F's --when ranking him for his work for us in Congress from 2003 through 2008. (They're still compiling data on all our representatives for 2009.)
It seems he supports corporations and "Big Business" just fine.
You and me out here in the working Middle Class, not so much.
At all.
The website Public Citizen (www.citizen.org) compiled "a disturbing dossier on Blunt, based on original research and a comprehensive compilation of news accounts of recent months. In the end, what emerges is a portrait of a legislative leader who not only has surrendered his office to the imperative of moneyed interests, but who has also done so with disturbing zeal and efficiency."
Public Citizen came to the conclusion that "Ties to special interests" leave him "unfit to lead."
I can go on about Roy Blunt and how he is and has been for (against?) Missourians but I'll only post this one more note--that is, how Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele himself came down on the issue of Roy Blunt:
"...conservative Springfield radio host Vincent David Jericho spoke with RNC Chairman Michael Steele. In their conversation, Jericho unleashed a litany of criticisms against Roy Blunt, Matt Blunt and other Washington Republicans."
"'Guys like Papa Blunt make us sick to our stomach. They aren’t conservatives, and they sure don’t reflect moral absolute the way that we expect the Republican Party to stand up,' Jericho said."
"Steele responded: 'I agree with you. And when stuff gets in the crapper, you gotta clean it out.'"
So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Even the present leader of the Republican Party spells out what kind of a guy Roy Blunt is and who should vote for him.
Sure, it's early in the Fall Senate election cycle but I want to make sure as many Missourians as possible know all they can about Roy (and Matt) Blunt and their allegiances and histories.
If you need more information, just Google "Roy Blunt". It will quickly and easily give you all you need to know about this man.
Additionally, the website theMiddleClass.org gave our same Representative Roy Blunt failing grades--all F's --when ranking him for his work for us in Congress from 2003 through 2008. (They're still compiling data on all our representatives for 2009.)
It seems he supports corporations and "Big Business" just fine.
You and me out here in the working Middle Class, not so much.
At all.
The website Public Citizen (www.citizen.org) compiled "a disturbing dossier on Blunt, based on original research and a comprehensive compilation of news accounts of recent months. In the end, what emerges is a portrait of a legislative leader who not only has surrendered his office to the imperative of moneyed interests, but who has also done so with disturbing zeal and efficiency."
Public Citizen came to the conclusion that "Ties to special interests" leave him "unfit to lead."
I can go on about Roy Blunt and how he is and has been for (against?) Missourians but I'll only post this one more note--that is, how Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele himself came down on the issue of Roy Blunt:
"...conservative Springfield radio host Vincent David Jericho spoke with RNC Chairman Michael Steele. In their conversation, Jericho unleashed a litany of criticisms against Roy Blunt, Matt Blunt and other Washington Republicans."
"'Guys like Papa Blunt make us sick to our stomach. They aren’t conservatives, and they sure don’t reflect moral absolute the way that we expect the Republican Party to stand up,' Jericho said."
"Steele responded: 'I agree with you. And when stuff gets in the crapper, you gotta clean it out.'"
So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Even the present leader of the Republican Party spells out what kind of a guy Roy Blunt is and who should vote for him.
Sure, it's early in the Fall Senate election cycle but I want to make sure as many Missourians as possible know all they can about Roy (and Matt) Blunt and their allegiances and histories.
If you need more information, just Google "Roy Blunt". It will quickly and easily give you all you need to know about this man.
A Missouri Travesty
Thanks to Representative Jason Kander for this video and to Tony at Tony's KC Blog (from whom I saw and appropriated it). This is too important not to put up.
It is stunning that these are the conditions for our state.
This all needs to change.
And as soon as possible.
It is stunning that these are the conditions for our state.
This all needs to change.
And as soon as possible.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Pope Benedict XVI----guilty?
If you aren't following the big new sex scandal coming out of Germany and Rome--yes, right up to and including the Vatican--you should be.
It's getting very close to the Pope himself.
It seems his brother was in charge in Germany when they reportedly had some sexual and physical abuse, both, going on.
Worse, the Pope's "former archdiocese acknowledged it transferred a suspected pedophile priest while Benedict was in charge."
Ouch.
It gets worse, too:
"...concern is mounting over a 2001 Vatican directive the pope penned instructing bishops to keep abuse secret."
It's getting curiouser and curiouser.
It's the old problem, at a new place: What did the Pope know and when did he know it?
Dan Brown's book and movie, "Angels and Demons", might not have anything on this one.
Stay tuned.
Link to another, new story, too, on abuse reports now coming out of Switzerland:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/13/1810039/swiss-media-60-people-report-abuses.html
It's getting very close to the Pope himself.
It seems his brother was in charge in Germany when they reportedly had some sexual and physical abuse, both, going on.
Worse, the Pope's "former archdiocese acknowledged it transferred a suspected pedophile priest while Benedict was in charge."
Ouch.
It gets worse, too:
"...concern is mounting over a 2001 Vatican directive the pope penned instructing bishops to keep abuse secret."
It's getting curiouser and curiouser.
It's the old problem, at a new place: What did the Pope know and when did he know it?
Dan Brown's book and movie, "Angels and Demons", might not have anything on this one.
Stay tuned.
Link to another, new story, too, on abuse reports now coming out of Switzerland:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/13/1810039/swiss-media-60-people-report-abuses.html
No ethics in Kansas government?
You know you have problems as a state if you don't even have rules regarding conflicts of interest and ethics regarding your representatives.
Such is the case in Kansas right now.
According to KMBC: "House rules don't spell out what constitutes misconduct worthy of a reprimand, censure or expulsion."
And yet House Speaker Mike O'Neal is "representing businesses, trade groups and insurance funds in a lawsuit against the state."
Check that out--the House Speaker, whose job is to represent the State and the people in it, is also representing business groups AGAINST the State of Kansas, in a lawsuit.
And there's no rules against this seemingly crystal clear conflict of interest.
If you're a business that wants to file or has filed a lawsuit against your own state, can you imagine having any more preferred attorney representing you than the Speaker of the House of Representatives?
That is, if you can make that fly.
And/or there are no ethics rules against it in your state.
Notes to the citizens of Kansas:
1) You need conflict of interest rules for your legislators;
2) Your legislators should have written them a long time ago (again, quoting KMBC: "The House last appointed a committee to review a member's conduct in 1951.";
3) You need them quickly. Now would be a good time;
4) In words from the Broadway play "Avenue Q": "It sucks to be you".
Such is the case in Kansas right now.
According to KMBC: "House rules don't spell out what constitutes misconduct worthy of a reprimand, censure or expulsion."
And yet House Speaker Mike O'Neal is "representing businesses, trade groups and insurance funds in a lawsuit against the state."
Check that out--the House Speaker, whose job is to represent the State and the people in it, is also representing business groups AGAINST the State of Kansas, in a lawsuit.
And there's no rules against this seemingly crystal clear conflict of interest.
If you're a business that wants to file or has filed a lawsuit against your own state, can you imagine having any more preferred attorney representing you than the Speaker of the House of Representatives?
That is, if you can make that fly.
And/or there are no ethics rules against it in your state.
Notes to the citizens of Kansas:
1) You need conflict of interest rules for your legislators;
2) Your legislators should have written them a long time ago (again, quoting KMBC: "The House last appointed a committee to review a member's conduct in 1951.";
3) You need them quickly. Now would be a good time;
4) In words from the Broadway play "Avenue Q": "It sucks to be you".
Thoughts on a Sunday
--Apparently it was another "lily white" day of Sunday morning news programs.
After searching them all and seeing most, I don't think there was one "person of color" represented on any of the shows. No minority perspective other than the one minority of women.
Surely this will change soon.
Note to networks: there's a whole world of "minorities" in the US whose viewpoints aren't being given, when they're left off the programs.
--George Will is, of course, against the President's plan for health care reform and said as much, again, on ABC's "This Week" program.
ABC should have had the economist Paul Krugman on, if possible, to counter his viewpoints. They needed someone authoritative on to rebut what points he made.
--I hadn't read anywhere, to date, about three Republican representatives (Hennsarling, Pence and Campbell) proposing we cap the national debt at 20% of the GDP. This was news to me.
I'm sure it will get traction, too.
It would have anyway, but with the news out today that the Social Security Administration is starting to pay out more--much more--than it takes in this year, it's easy to see this will resonate with Americans a great deal.
Speaking of spending, did you know the US has 90 military facilities in Japan?
Anyone thought of cutting there?
And why are we still in Germany?
And Italy?
--Quotes from "Kansas City Week in Review" on KCPT this week, both regarding state cuts in spending, due to Missouri and Kansas budget deficits in the millions of dollars:
"Our expectation of government has to change." --Nick Haynes, moderator.
"The 'day of reckoning' really is here." --Dave Helling, KCTV 5 reporter
--The Kansas City, Missouri Chamber of Commerce moving to Union Station is a great idea and deal for the station, the Chamber and the city, overall, period.
Good on ya', Chamber---you did good.
--From a song on KCUR today:
"Every generation thinks its the last, it's the end of the world..."
Face it, folks, we're just not that significant.
(Not that you can't help your neighbor).
Let's all have a great week.
(Also, you might go to KC Photog Blog this Wednesday for one picture per hour of the Brookside St. Patrick's Day parade, starting fairly early in the day. I think they turned out pretty well and they're a lot of fun.)
After searching them all and seeing most, I don't think there was one "person of color" represented on any of the shows. No minority perspective other than the one minority of women.
Surely this will change soon.
Note to networks: there's a whole world of "minorities" in the US whose viewpoints aren't being given, when they're left off the programs.
--George Will is, of course, against the President's plan for health care reform and said as much, again, on ABC's "This Week" program.
ABC should have had the economist Paul Krugman on, if possible, to counter his viewpoints. They needed someone authoritative on to rebut what points he made.
--I hadn't read anywhere, to date, about three Republican representatives (Hennsarling, Pence and Campbell) proposing we cap the national debt at 20% of the GDP. This was news to me.
I'm sure it will get traction, too.
It would have anyway, but with the news out today that the Social Security Administration is starting to pay out more--much more--than it takes in this year, it's easy to see this will resonate with Americans a great deal.
Speaking of spending, did you know the US has 90 military facilities in Japan?
Anyone thought of cutting there?
And why are we still in Germany?
And Italy?
--Quotes from "Kansas City Week in Review" on KCPT this week, both regarding state cuts in spending, due to Missouri and Kansas budget deficits in the millions of dollars:
"Our expectation of government has to change." --Nick Haynes, moderator.
"The 'day of reckoning' really is here." --Dave Helling, KCTV 5 reporter
--The Kansas City, Missouri Chamber of Commerce moving to Union Station is a great idea and deal for the station, the Chamber and the city, overall, period.
Good on ya', Chamber---you did good.
--From a song on KCUR today:
"Every generation thinks its the last, it's the end of the world..."
Face it, folks, we're just not that significant.
(Not that you can't help your neighbor).
Let's all have a great week.
(Also, you might go to KC Photog Blog this Wednesday for one picture per hour of the Brookside St. Patrick's Day parade, starting fairly early in the day. I think they turned out pretty well and they're a lot of fun.)
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Great quote today
As always, I was listening to KCUR 89.3 FM, the local NPR (National Public Radio) station and Bill Shapiro's show, "Cyprus Avenue" was on. It was his 2nd hour and it was a replay of one he did on Johnny Cash.
Anyway, Mr. Shapiro--because I don't know him--was speaking of the capitalization of country music which, he said, gave us the "putrid pablum of Taylor Swift."
I laughed out loud.
And I was in my car.
Have a great weekend, y'all. (I'll be writing tomorrow).
Anyway, Mr. Shapiro--because I don't know him--was speaking of the capitalization of country music which, he said, gave us the "putrid pablum of Taylor Swift."
I laughed out loud.
And I was in my car.
Have a great weekend, y'all. (I'll be writing tomorrow).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
