The two real, actual problems people have with "Obamacare"

Let's face it, the fact is, there are only two real problems Americans have with the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare."

Sure, there's the whole idea that we aren't quite sure what it is or how much it's going to cost or who's going to pay for it or, ultimately, how it will work because, really, that would require reading and/or paying attention, after all, right?  And who's "got time for that"?

But ignoring that, there's really only two problems Americans have with this bill.

The first one is the big one.

It REQUIRES Americans to do something.

By law.

It demands that we all get health insurance.

And that goes against everything Americans in the 21st Century have come to be for.

WE HATE TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO.

And we especially hate to be told what to do, for something to be required of us by Uncle Sam. We hate to be told we have to do something BY GUBMINT.  It just goes against our current, very spoiled grain right now.  We're far too spoiled to have anyone TELL US WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. (Even if it's for the greater well-being of the society, too, as it turns out).

That's the first problem.

The second problem is a tougher one, though albeit more short-term.

We really, really don't want no dang Kenyan/Socialist/Communist/Pinko/Gubmint lover tellin' us what to do.




 

What's wrong with our banking system.... and nation

One of the big things that's wrong with our country--the bankers, running it.

Check this out:

JPMorgan Executive May Escape Penalty

This is a real beauty.

On top of all else JP Morgan has done for themselves but against the American people and against the country, here's one of their executives who a) apparently lied to a court, under oath then, b) said she did (lied to the court) so that c) "the nation's top energy regulator is poised to extract a record settlement from JPMorgan Chase over accusations...it manipulated power markets" but, voila!, d) this JP Morgan Chase executive is going to apparently get off, scott-free from any charges.

JPM Chase will no doubt pay a huge fine, a penalty, then disavow any guilt and again, the executive will walk.

Isn't that just a nice, neat little package?

I'm sure the same would happen for you or I, even though we're middle- or lower-class and have no such millions or billions of dollars behind us.

Right?

The Founding Fathers on religion and our government?

Here you go. Here's one of our Founding Fathers and how serious he took the separation of church and state:



Faith based initiatives?  Funded by government?

I don't think so.

To the women of Missouri and Kansas and all who care about them

Know that your Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri and Pat Roberts, Republicans, both, voted against the Violence Against Women Act yesterday, in the Senate.

Fortunately, it did pass in spite of the fact that these two men are part of the group of 31 Repulicans who voted against it. Why they would want to be against a law fighting violence against women, I can't say, honestly. I'll have to do some research.

First things, first, it's just good to know.

Secondly, however, it's good to keep in mind, next time voting for these people comes up again, of course.

Links: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00087; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

Mayor's family not doing him any favors

First Mayor Sly's son got in trouble with the police--twice, I believe--now, his brother is doing similarly:

Mayor's Brother Charged With Domestic Assault

La Vance James Accused Of Domestic Assault, Armed Criminal Action

Yikes.

That's some PR department, there, Mayor.

Good luck with that. (And I'm not being sarcastic).

Links: http://www.kmbc.com/news/30966236/detail.html; http://www.pitch.com/plog/archives/2011/08/30/mayor-sly-james-son-accused-of-punching-a-woman-in-the-face-at-the-point; http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/shock-waves-arrest-sly-james-son/; http://www.massappealnews.com/2011/08/08/sly-james-drunken-sons/; http://fox4kc.com/2012/02/10/assault-charges-dropped-against-kcmo-mayors-son/; http://www.kctv5.com/story/15356012/kc-mayors-son-accused-of-punching-woman-in-face

What's really needed in Iraq, Afghanistan and the whole world

Plato had it right, of course:  "Ignorance, the root and the stem of every evil."

Whether the topic is Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan or Christine O'Donnell or Sarah Palin or the Tea Party or the Democrats or Republicans or whatever or whomever, what we need is awareness and information.  And I'm not talking Western indoctrination or influence.  I'm talking broad, intelligent, non-biased information and hard data.

Instead, we get this, today:

Iran has imposed new restrictions on 12 university social sciences deemed to be based on Western schools of thought and therefore incompatible with Islamic teachings, state radio reported Sunday.

The list includes law, philosophy, management, psychology, political science and the two subjects that appear to cause the most concern among Iran's conservative leadership — women's studies and human rights.

So this is what our American soldiers have died for and what our money is paying for--ignorance in Iran.  Terrific.

Finally, a step in the right direction from the Vatican

This just out this morning:

"The Vatican responded Monday to allegations that it had concealed years of clerical sex abuse by making it clear for the first time that bishops and other high-ranking clerics should report such crimes to police if required by law."

Long overdue but we'll take it.

See? If pushed enough, we can make some progress.

Now we need to keep pushing, Catholics included.

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.

At what point will elected politicians understand?

First, we get a report from The Kansas City Star, just earlier this week, that a bunch of our elected pols took a pretty good deal of corporate paid-for trips--junkets--and that they also, illegally, didn't report and now comes word--as if we're surprised--that "The House Ethics Committee says 20-term Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel repeatedly violated ethics rules by accepting corporate money for lavish trips to the Caribbean."

And this is just the latest for Charlie Rangel: "Rangel, chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee, also faces investigations into his use of office resources to raise money for a college center bearing his name and his failure to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets and income."

It's so frustrating.

All these people feel as though, apparently, that as long as the American people don't raise cane (cain?) about it, it's okay--that if they just "get by with it," even though it's illegal, that all will be well.

I assume they figure "If everyone else is doing it, I can, too."

How else can you explain such blatant disregard for ethics, the appearance of really poor judgement and virtually total disregard for law?

If a business or business person is paying for your trip to New York City or the Masters tournament or Japan (which is what Missouri representatives all did) or, as in the case of Charlie Rangel, a trip (trips?) to the Carribbean, how do you accept that trip as an elected representative and not know it's at least unethical, if not downright illegal?

What, are you stupid?

And we're sick of it.

It's not as though this is anything new, certainly, and we all know that but it just seems the graft and appearance of graft and unethical behavior is going beyond the pale in an atmosphere that, otherwise, needs a great deal of attention.

As taxpayers, as voters, as citizens, we are sick of our representatives taking care of themselves first, last and foremost, and then, incidentally doing a little of the public's business by voting on this or that, almost as a sideline.

They have fantastic health care, as elected officials--at least in the US Congress.

We certainly don't.

They have wildly lavish pensions to take care of them later in life, once they're off the public dole.

Again, corporate America has seen to it we don't have that option.

They have travel and franking (postage), both, budgets we don't have.

And in the meantime, America is kind of going to heck in a handbasket, economically and financially, in case they haven't noticed but who are they taking care of?

Themselves.

It's time for this party to be stopped.

We need to raise hell and get the kind of representatives and government we deserve.

Let's start by throwing Charlie Rangel out of Congress.

Unconscionable taxation

There is a terrific article in The Star today, showing what our representatives passed this week for legislation regarding taxes on pleasure crafts--boats--in Missouri:

"Cash-strapped legislators have recommended spending cuts for Missouri schools and shelters for battered women, but so far the yachting class can enjoy another season of clear sailing."

Read: paying no taxes on their large boat purchases.

No taxes.

It's so obviously hypocritical it's difficult to believe.

The article points out that the people who enjoy these large boats--yachts, truly, as the paper refers to them--are the people who are closest to the representatives. They are the lobbyists and corporate
wealhty who can no doubt purchase the tax cuts from the friends, these same representatives.

But what is most telling to me was The Star'schart, showing what the taxes would be for these watercraft, should this proposal pass.

Want to buy a 55 foot yacht?

Zero taxes.

45 foot boat?

Same--zero tax paid.

32 foot?

you're clear.

But buy a 22 foot pontoon? (Which, mind you, I'm not saying is "cheap" but it truly can't be compared in cost to the huge ships above).

$2315.00 in taxes.

That is stunning.

How about a 17 foot boat?

$1390.00

Then there's a 12 foot rowboat?

You'll pay $115.00 in taxes, sucker.

The poor schlub who pays $1500.00 for a rowboat pays $115.00 more in taxes that the guy who can and does pay nearly a million dollars for his yacht.

This is revolting. Disgusting. Shameful. Really unscionable.

Let there be no doubt, NOT STEVE WONDER said it best when he said, "Them that has, gets."

Apparently these fatcats and their representative friends are completely unfamiliar with the term "noblesse oblige."

Still wrong. Grossly wrong

I agree with the President and his decision to not release additional pictures of tortures over in Iraq, going against his earlier declaration that he would, in fact, release them.

He's right this time--putting out more pictures now would only further stir up more animosity and anger and who knows what. It would be of no benefit.

I also think the President is correct in shutting down the Guantanamo Prison. There are only approximately 240 prisoners there and Montana alone has publicly announced they would take 100 of those prisoners. That would leave 2.85 prisoners, left to be distributed to the other 49 states.

And we can't handle that, as a country?

Nonsense. Of course we can.

Where I don't agree with President Obama is that he has declared there are some prisoners at Guantanamo right now who we will simply continue to hold indefinitely without any charges filed and without any trial.

And that's just wrong.

That is not what the United States is about or has ever been about.

That makes us no better than the old Soviet Union or China, even today.

We have always acted with our Constitution and laws and said that you cannot be held without charges being filed, without trial and without facing your accusers.

Are we not, any longer, any better than some South American "banana republic"?

We always used to think we were.

Pyrrhic victories, surely and at best

First, a reminder:

Pyrrhic victory, defined:

Origin: 1880–85; < Gk Pyrrikós; after a remark attributed by Plutarch to Pyrrhus, who declared, after a costly victory over the Romans, that another similar victory would ruin him

Pyr·rhic victory (pĭr'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n. A victory that is offset by staggering losses. [After Pyrrhus.]

If ever there were Pyrrhic victories, it would be anyone who assumes we've gotten a victory or victories by attacking Iraq.

The fact is, I really don't think anyone's claiming any victories, as such, other than the one claimed by our now ex-president George W. Bush, that he kept us safe from another attack or some such.

Why Pyrrhic?

Well, let's see. more than 4,200 American soldiers killed, many thousands handicapped, maimed and really, destroyed, one way or another, by this war; spending beyond which we can't afford; debt for the war beyond which we can't afford; this was has bankrupted us morally, with our peers in the world; the fact that we tortured people which, may I remind you, is against our own internal law as well as international law?

And so much more.

Yes, Pyrrhic victory.

No one discusses this possibility, really.

No one argues or discusses that maybe we're a war and a bridge and many incursions too far.

In over our heads.

Between this arbitrary war and our unregulated banking and financial and spending messes and our Constitutional issues, huge debts, questions and problems, we're rattled to our foundations.

And no one's talking about it.

Not really.

We're whistling past the graveyard, it seems.

And how can you solve the big problems if you aren't acknowledging their existence?

Gitmo' savings! (from SNL)

Energy and power

Energy and the sources for energy and electricity in the United States--and the world, really--need to change.

Our old power structures used to work but they don't any longer.

The whole idea of having an electric company that creates the power, only to dole it out to all of us is extremely outdated, particularly here in America, where corporations own and run the power-generating facilities and they exploit their customers with whatever charges and price increases they want to put forward, just because they want it and because they have the government officials in their own financial pockets.

That's one reason it no longer works.

The other reason the old way doesn't work is because the way of creating the electricity--having turbines moved by water, usually--is so damaging and polluting to the environment.

Added to that the global warming, it's just a recipe for needing replacement.

And the thing is, we have a solution for this.

The fact is, we need to have photovoltaic cells on our commercial and residential buildings so each facility can create its own energy.

There's no reason this can't happen, technically.

It would solve the problems of people not being able to afford energy for heating and cooling, along with the environmental and global warming problems.

But the fact is, we have the power structures in existence now, in our governments and society, that want and need--for their own existence--to keep things just the way they are.

In Missouri, right now, for instance, the Kansas City Star reported that, even if you wanted to put solar panels on your home, you legally can't get insurance to cover it, thus making it virtually impossible to do.

Corporations are aligned against this advance in technology for our society.

It's probably much more possilbe in Europe, where they don't let corporations have a stranglehold on the citizen's actions and lives.

This is why I've said here that, with this new President, we have work ahead of us--a great deal of work--and we have to keep pushing and take our country and society back from the corporations.

More from "W's" Administration

Yet more evidence today that this administration will go down as more corrupt, inept, greedy, incompetent and filled with graft than Warren G. Harding's--or any other:

Ideology-Based Hiring at Justice Broke Laws, Investigation Finds

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2008


Senior Justice Department officials broke civil service laws by rejecting scores of young applicants who had links to Democrats or liberal organizations, according to a biting report issued yesterday.

The report by the Justice Department inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that a pair of high-ranking political appointees who are no longer with the department had violated department policy and the Civil Service Reform Act by using ideological reasons to scuttle the candidacy of lawyers who applied to the elite honors and summer intern programs.

In one instance, steering committee member Esther Slater McDonald deemed "unacceptable" an applicant who professed admiration for the environmental group Greenaction and passed over another with ties to the Poverty and Race Research Action Council, the report said.

McDonald, who left the Justice Department last year and now works for a law firm in the District, sent colleagues a Nov. 29, 2006, e-mail in which she complained about "leftist commentary and buzzwords" in applications. Many of the underlying documents, on which McDonald and others wrote comments, were destroyed before the probe began, according to the report.

Auditors also criticized Michael J. Elston, former chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, for failing to supervise McDonald and for weeding out candidates on his own based on "impermissible considerations." Elston may have denied one Stanford Law School applicant because she had written a law review article about gender discrimination in the military, the report said. Elston left the Justice Department last year amid questions about his role in the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. He now works at a private law firm.

McDonald and Elston did not return calls for comment yesterday. Experts said they are unlikely to face sanctions for what investigators called deliberate "misconduct" because they have left government employment.

Traditionally, the highly coveted intern and honors jobs had been awarded based on merit. But in 2002, top Justice Department officials moved to give political appointees more control, prompting complaints from the career ranks. The problem flared up again in 2006, when hundreds of applications were rejected for questionable reasons, according to the report.

Candidates for the Honors Program that year whose résumés indicated liberal affiliations were weeded out at three times the rate of conservative-leaning applicants, investigators said. San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, who was later fired for reasons that remain under investigation, reached out to no avail to Elston over the decision to reject a candidate who had won a prestigious appellate clerkship with a Democratic judge.

Peter Keisler, then chief of the Justice Department's civil division, called Elston after several applicants to his unit were denied, including a Harvard Law School graduate and former Justice summer intern who had worked as a paralegal at Planned Parenthood, the report said.

The honors and intern program report is the result of the first in a series of investigations into the role that politics may have played in law enforcement and hiring decisions at the Justice Department over the course of the Bush administration. Studies focusing on hiring and enforcement in the troubled civil rights division, the rationale for the U.S. attorneys' dismissal, and the role played by former Justice Department officials including Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales could be issued soon, according to lawyers following the issues.

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, who replaced Gonzales last year, said he has taken steps to overhaul the hiring process. Considering politics in hires for career slots is "unacceptable," Mukasey said in a statement.

Former Justice Department officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations said the study underscores the challenge for the next president.

"The Honors Program at DOJ has always been the 'A-List,'" said Nicholas M. Gess, a Justice official under President Bill Clinton. "The next attorney general will be stuck with many from the 'B-List."

From this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062400819_pf.html

Side note, back to yours truly: I bet most Americans don't know this happened, don't know about any of the events listed here, aren't aware of any real controversy and don't know the laws their own President's Administration is, yet again, breaking.

Pay attention, people!