I always find it interesting that the R/Cs who loudly proclaim that they espouse family values, whatever that means, have a narrow concept of that phrase. Take the illustrious Rick Snatorum: I sure don''t want him. "Devout catholic"; family values proclamations; 'pro life"; protect the children.
This guy came out defending the mishandling of the Penn State molestation. He essentially said that neither the coach, Paterno, or the U did anything wrong and that the Freeh investigation was totally off the mark in their findings. I guess it is OK for a football coach to molest young boys so long as the football team is winning games and generating lots of revenue. He really is a piece of work.
One Million Moms screamed at JC Penny for having Ellen DeGeneris as spokesperson. They felt that she was unfit to serve as a role model solely due to the fact that she is gay. To Penny's credit, they not only stood behind her in her position but ran adds showing families with same sex partners for what they are: loving, caring adults raising kids in a safe and secure home environment. But I guess those conditions in a family are not good enough for this women's group due, again, to the same sex couples as parents. Never mind what is best for the kids in a stable home environment; we need to be dogmatically correct. What a bunch of zealots.
When will people realize that not everyone is the same? That equal does not mean identical? That strictures against same sex relationships in the Judeo-Christian tradition are do to the ignorance of the authors who had no idea of what psychology is and that there is a human component called genetics that developed over tens of millions of years that create the sexual preferences of certain persons. Nature is replete with same sex attachments and why should people be any different as we are governed by the same process of evolution as all other living things on the planet. To deny this genetic reality is ignorance and to insist that all people MUST be the same or they are evil, is an idea produced by wayward minds.
Family values? I think not.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
More guns=more innocent people die
OK. So here we are, back in CO and a gun owner decides to kill a bunch of people and in the process also booby traps his apartment so that more people may die in addition to the ones he shot in the theater.
As usual, gun nuts responded with the usual drivel about the shooting would not have been so bad had, in the words of one Texas congressman, "everyone had been packing in the theater." Typically, there is no mention of the fact that automatic weapons, assault rifles, were used in the attack. There is a reason why these weapons are called assault weapons: they are made for the military to assault other armies that also have assault rifles. These are not sporting or hunting weapons; rather, they are weapons specifically designed to provide overwhelming fire power in a combat situation.
There is absolutely no justification for any private citizen to own such a weapon. If one is a hunter, than a rifle or a shotgun is reasonable. For home protection, maybe a handgun kept in the home is fine. What is not fine, is that anyone can buy these military weapons at any time and go on a rampage. The Second Amendment does state that a well armed militia is essential for national defense. It does not say that every person is entitled to posses weapons of mass killing power.
The right to bear arms is fine in context. Had the authors of the Constitution seen what egregious and offensive deeds were done using this amendment as justification, they would most likely be horrified. When the amendment was written America was a frontier country with no real standing army. The idea of having arms for protection and in the event of a foreign invasion made sense at the time.
We are no longer living in a frontier country and are in no danger of foreign invasion. The purpose of the amendment has all but disappeared. However, it is still valid but should not be a license to kill.
The sale of such military weapons needs to be outlawed. Weapons classified for military or law enforcement bodies should not be made available to the general populace. Again, I am not talking about weapons for individual hunting or in home protection. We have gone so far overboard in the crazy extension of the Second Amendment, someone for the NRA could probably make a case for every citizen having tactical nuclear weapons or stocks of biological or chemical weapons.
I find it interesting that the folks who defend this profligate ownership of military weapons say they are adherents to the strict meaning of the Constitution, with Scalia actually saying he has an 18th century dictionary next to him when deciding constitutional questions. Yet clearly, "arms" at the time the Constitution was written referred only to muzzle loading rifles and pistols. Clearly, these are the only weapons the founders had in mind when writing the second amendment and could be the basis for weapon ownership now.
But unlike the gun nuts, I feel this is defeating the spirit, but not the literal meaning of the amendment. Times change and interpretations of the Constitution change as to what each amendment actually means in a contemporary context. The obstinate and ill considered position that all Americans are entitled to any and all weapons in the world is ludicrous and society needs to be nuanced in what the Second Amendment says.
Or, is it OK for the Supreme Court to state that only single shot muzzle loading weapons are the only ones protected by the second amendment?
As usual, gun nuts responded with the usual drivel about the shooting would not have been so bad had, in the words of one Texas congressman, "everyone had been packing in the theater." Typically, there is no mention of the fact that automatic weapons, assault rifles, were used in the attack. There is a reason why these weapons are called assault weapons: they are made for the military to assault other armies that also have assault rifles. These are not sporting or hunting weapons; rather, they are weapons specifically designed to provide overwhelming fire power in a combat situation.
There is absolutely no justification for any private citizen to own such a weapon. If one is a hunter, than a rifle or a shotgun is reasonable. For home protection, maybe a handgun kept in the home is fine. What is not fine, is that anyone can buy these military weapons at any time and go on a rampage. The Second Amendment does state that a well armed militia is essential for national defense. It does not say that every person is entitled to posses weapons of mass killing power.
The right to bear arms is fine in context. Had the authors of the Constitution seen what egregious and offensive deeds were done using this amendment as justification, they would most likely be horrified. When the amendment was written America was a frontier country with no real standing army. The idea of having arms for protection and in the event of a foreign invasion made sense at the time.
We are no longer living in a frontier country and are in no danger of foreign invasion. The purpose of the amendment has all but disappeared. However, it is still valid but should not be a license to kill.
The sale of such military weapons needs to be outlawed. Weapons classified for military or law enforcement bodies should not be made available to the general populace. Again, I am not talking about weapons for individual hunting or in home protection. We have gone so far overboard in the crazy extension of the Second Amendment, someone for the NRA could probably make a case for every citizen having tactical nuclear weapons or stocks of biological or chemical weapons.
I find it interesting that the folks who defend this profligate ownership of military weapons say they are adherents to the strict meaning of the Constitution, with Scalia actually saying he has an 18th century dictionary next to him when deciding constitutional questions. Yet clearly, "arms" at the time the Constitution was written referred only to muzzle loading rifles and pistols. Clearly, these are the only weapons the founders had in mind when writing the second amendment and could be the basis for weapon ownership now.
But unlike the gun nuts, I feel this is defeating the spirit, but not the literal meaning of the amendment. Times change and interpretations of the Constitution change as to what each amendment actually means in a contemporary context. The obstinate and ill considered position that all Americans are entitled to any and all weapons in the world is ludicrous and society needs to be nuanced in what the Second Amendment says.
Or, is it OK for the Supreme Court to state that only single shot muzzle loading weapons are the only ones protected by the second amendment?
Friday, July 20, 2012
Turnaround is Fair Play
Senator Patty Murray of Washington has a good plan to counter Republican obstinacy when it comes to the Bush tax cuts. Instead of fighting for a more equitable plan of extending the cuts for those making less than $250k per year and canceling the recession causing cuts for the very wealthy, her idea is to allow ALL the cuts to expire as they are written to law. After January 1, the cuts for the middle class could then be reinstated apart from those of the wealthy. This, after all, is essentially what the Republicans used to extend all the cuts previously. Now, of course, they are whining about class warfare and punishing the middle class. The use bloviations of the champion bloviators. When the Demos use their own tactics the babies cry "FOWL" that you do what we did!
This coupled with the mandated cuts put into law by the Republicans last year because they refused any compromise that was mature on the debt ceiling, will automatically decrease spending, much of it in non-social welfare programs; and increase revenue that should never have been cut in the first place. Remember that when Bush and the R/Cs made their budget breaking tax cuts? The treasury had a surplus for the preceding several years. Then came the cuts. Then came Bush's wars which were not included in any budget/revenue plan. These two ill conceived peccadillos were financed "off the books" which immediately led to massive deficits. After eight years of fiscal stupidity and budgetary dogma that continued to degrade the finances of the US, Obama was elected to right the situation.
Before he was even installed in office, R/Cs in the senate and house were focused on one thing only: make Obama a one term president no matter what. That no matter what included sandbagging ANY proposal that was put forward by the Democrats, regardless of merit. This intransigence and obstinacy prevented andy meaningful legislative action for the last two years. The single minded focus of making Obama look bad no matter what happened to the country, is largely responsible for the less than ideal economic situation we are in now. The stimulus, which was quite successful in preserving existing jobs, and the bailout of Chrysler and GM which allowed thousands of good paying jobs to be kept from being exterminated by R/C indifference to the struggling middle class, was really too small to generate a large number of jobs; jobs that would have gone a long way towards improving the economy of the country.
Obama's lack of leadership in the health care fight and indifference to the mid-term elections were disastrous for the American people. Hopefully, he learned his lesson: That a person cannot reason with zealots. Overwhelming force is the only tactic that will work with closed minded people who hate based on a persons name and skin color.
This coupled with the mandated cuts put into law by the Republicans last year because they refused any compromise that was mature on the debt ceiling, will automatically decrease spending, much of it in non-social welfare programs; and increase revenue that should never have been cut in the first place. Remember that when Bush and the R/Cs made their budget breaking tax cuts? The treasury had a surplus for the preceding several years. Then came the cuts. Then came Bush's wars which were not included in any budget/revenue plan. These two ill conceived peccadillos were financed "off the books" which immediately led to massive deficits. After eight years of fiscal stupidity and budgetary dogma that continued to degrade the finances of the US, Obama was elected to right the situation.
Before he was even installed in office, R/Cs in the senate and house were focused on one thing only: make Obama a one term president no matter what. That no matter what included sandbagging ANY proposal that was put forward by the Democrats, regardless of merit. This intransigence and obstinacy prevented andy meaningful legislative action for the last two years. The single minded focus of making Obama look bad no matter what happened to the country, is largely responsible for the less than ideal economic situation we are in now. The stimulus, which was quite successful in preserving existing jobs, and the bailout of Chrysler and GM which allowed thousands of good paying jobs to be kept from being exterminated by R/C indifference to the struggling middle class, was really too small to generate a large number of jobs; jobs that would have gone a long way towards improving the economy of the country.
Obama's lack of leadership in the health care fight and indifference to the mid-term elections were disastrous for the American people. Hopefully, he learned his lesson: That a person cannot reason with zealots. Overwhelming force is the only tactic that will work with closed minded people who hate based on a persons name and skin color.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Interesting bits
John McCain calls out Michelle Bachman, who, you may remember, was a one time potential presidential candidate, for yet another of her weirdo conspiracy theories. Can it be that there is a glimmer of intelligence surfacing in the Republican party? Time will tell.
Mitt says he was retired retroactively from Bain as of 1999. Too bad the SEC has filings showing he was sole owner, CEO, Chairman and who knows what else until 2002. Lying to the SEC in a felony. Could it be Mitt is following in the footsteps of the illustrious Richard (I am not a crook) Nixon? Interesting.
Rep. Gosar, who unfortunately represents the district where I live, has said the health care in the US has been nationalized. Quite a statement considering that people will be buying health insurance from PRIVATE COMPANIES. Republicans are great at telling lies, but, as usual, do not bother with actual facts. Rather, they rely on bumper sticker slogans.
Sheriff Arpaio, also an Arizona denizen, claims he has proof that Obama's birth certificate is a Forgery. He and his "posse", no joke with the wording, are convinced that 50 years ago, this conspiracy was launched in Hawaii, Kenya and the US. Maybe I can tap into the guys who did that for some lottery numbers?
Maybe it's the heat.
Mitt says he was retired retroactively from Bain as of 1999. Too bad the SEC has filings showing he was sole owner, CEO, Chairman and who knows what else until 2002. Lying to the SEC in a felony. Could it be Mitt is following in the footsteps of the illustrious Richard (I am not a crook) Nixon? Interesting.
Rep. Gosar, who unfortunately represents the district where I live, has said the health care in the US has been nationalized. Quite a statement considering that people will be buying health insurance from PRIVATE COMPANIES. Republicans are great at telling lies, but, as usual, do not bother with actual facts. Rather, they rely on bumper sticker slogans.
Sheriff Arpaio, also an Arizona denizen, claims he has proof that Obama's birth certificate is a Forgery. He and his "posse", no joke with the wording, are convinced that 50 years ago, this conspiracy was launched in Hawaii, Kenya and the US. Maybe I can tap into the guys who did that for some lottery numbers?
Maybe it's the heat.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Forum of Idiocy #2
These so-called candidates would, as I said, also abolish the EPA. Think about that. This is a Republican initiated program started by Richard Nixon. Since its inception, air quality across the country has improved dramatically. Particulate matter has been reduced by a great amount. Tens of thousands of people, mostly elderly, the very young and those with compromised immune systems, would have died sooner rather than later were it not for these pollution regulations.
Additionally, water quality has shown steady improvement since the EPA was founded. Rivers that were toxic and flammable are now largely capable of sustaining aquatic life and even in Lake Erie, where in the 60s and 70s it was completely unsafe for human contact, people can now safely swim and boat with out fear of chemical burns, infection from untreated sewage and other fun holiday benefits. Upsate NY saw one of the worst sites in the country, the Love Canal. Tens of thousands of toxic waste was dumped in the canal over the years instead of being properly disposed of. Unborn kids dying in utero, kids with cancers and leukemia, forced evacuations of entire neighborhoods.
Gas mileage standards substantially decreased our dependence on foreign oil and will continue to do so so long as the bar continues to be raised. These standards were a big part of reducing air pollution and preventing people from early deaths.
Acid rain has been greatly reduced. This was largely a by-product of dirty coal burning power plants in the west and mid-west that discharged chemicals into the air which floated eastward. When mixed with precipitation, the resulting rain was more acidic than tomato juice. This resulted in damage to forests, sterilization of lakes in upstate NY due to the fact that the water was too acidic to support life. This result carried into lakes as far away as Scandinavia.
Now think about abolishing the agency. It was created to address problems of people dying, children getting horrendous diseases from industrial dumps, killing of the elderly with poisoned air, keeping us dependent on foreign oil, often from our so-called "allies" that supported the 9/11 terrorists with money from our oil purchases. And these dopes want to abolish the EPA?
More on these extremist right-wing demagogues tomorrow.
Gas mileage standards substantially decreased our dependence on foreign oil and will continue to do so so long as the bar continues to be raised. These standards were a big part of reducing air pollution and preventing people from early deaths.
Acid rain has been greatly reduced. This was largely a by-product of dirty coal burning power plants in the west and mid-west that discharged chemicals into the air which floated eastward. When mixed with precipitation, the resulting rain was more acidic than tomato juice. This resulted in damage to forests, sterilization of lakes in upstate NY due to the fact that the water was too acidic to support life. This result carried into lakes as far away as Scandinavia.Now think about abolishing the agency. It was created to address problems of people dying, children getting horrendous diseases from industrial dumps, killing of the elderly with poisoned air, keeping us dependent on foreign oil, often from our so-called "allies" that supported the 9/11 terrorists with money from our oil purchases. And these dopes want to abolish the EPA?
More on these extremist right-wing demagogues tomorrow.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Forum of Idiocy
The name is German and simply means the politics of reality or the reality of politics; here we will address both concepts regarding the real agenda of the current crop of Conservative/Republican politicians, their funders and supporters and what is truly at stake for the American public.
To give an example: At a local political "forum" there were several candidates for the C/R senate seat being vacated by Jon Kyl. Each was trying to outdo the others in how righteous he was and what needed to be done to get the country "back on track."
Now, you need to think about a candidate who puts a bible on the table in front of him and actually says that he will govern according to his Christian principles. Another, actually all, called for the abolition of the EPA with all environmental decisions left to individual states. The Department of Education was also to be abolished with only local schools setting individual standards for what the students could study and how they would be graded as to subject competency and performance.
Taxes were to be lowered for all rich people, governments cut still further, Medicare was to get the axe and of course, Obamacare is to be abolished with nothing, no programs at all, to replace it. There is to be a tall fence on the Mexican border to keep out illegals, voter fraud is to be pursued to the ends of the earth despite the fact that there was not a single candidate who could say that there had actually been any voter fraud in Arizona in recent memory.
Let's start with the bible routine. The Constitution specifically forbids any linking whatsoever between a church and the state. The reason for this is the experiences of several centuries in Europe where churches amassed enormous wealth, huge land holdings and were quite literally kingmakers. (Much like the huge evangelical churches of today.) Wary of the destructive model of a religion having power over or co-jurisdiction with the state as a political entity, the gentlemen who composed the constitution, based on secular humanist philosophy, knew exactly what they were about when they forbad the government being influenced by any religious body. For a candidate campaigning for public office to pledge to follow the tenets of any religion as a way of conducting his tasks as an elected representative is anti-Constitutional and as such, blatantly un-American.
To follow the tenets of a religion while legislating is a return to the old ways of government where only certain people could even hope to have a decent life. This is so in the caste system in India, in the Puritan colonies of colonial America and the southern States before and after the Civil War. And it is in danger of happening again if religion is allowed to trump reason, dogma is allowed to trump science, church based qualifications replace actual ability and a person's religion says where he or she may go to school, work and live.
More tomorrow on another of these geniuses at work.
To give an example: At a local political "forum" there were several candidates for the C/R senate seat being vacated by Jon Kyl. Each was trying to outdo the others in how righteous he was and what needed to be done to get the country "back on track."
Now, you need to think about a candidate who puts a bible on the table in front of him and actually says that he will govern according to his Christian principles. Another, actually all, called for the abolition of the EPA with all environmental decisions left to individual states. The Department of Education was also to be abolished with only local schools setting individual standards for what the students could study and how they would be graded as to subject competency and performance.
Taxes were to be lowered for all rich people, governments cut still further, Medicare was to get the axe and of course, Obamacare is to be abolished with nothing, no programs at all, to replace it. There is to be a tall fence on the Mexican border to keep out illegals, voter fraud is to be pursued to the ends of the earth despite the fact that there was not a single candidate who could say that there had actually been any voter fraud in Arizona in recent memory.Let's start with the bible routine. The Constitution specifically forbids any linking whatsoever between a church and the state. The reason for this is the experiences of several centuries in Europe where churches amassed enormous wealth, huge land holdings and were quite literally kingmakers. (Much like the huge evangelical churches of today.) Wary of the destructive model of a religion having power over or co-jurisdiction with the state as a political entity, the gentlemen who composed the constitution, based on secular humanist philosophy, knew exactly what they were about when they forbad the government being influenced by any religious body. For a candidate campaigning for public office to pledge to follow the tenets of any religion as a way of conducting his tasks as an elected representative is anti-Constitutional and as such, blatantly un-American.
To follow the tenets of a religion while legislating is a return to the old ways of government where only certain people could even hope to have a decent life. This is so in the caste system in India, in the Puritan colonies of colonial America and the southern States before and after the Civil War. And it is in danger of happening again if religion is allowed to trump reason, dogma is allowed to trump science, church based qualifications replace actual ability and a person's religion says where he or she may go to school, work and live.
More tomorrow on another of these geniuses at work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)