Republicans have been arguing against universal health care coverage for years as a socialist horror and big government meddling. The bold faced truth they refuse to argue, and Democrats never bring up, is that they enjoy big government provided health care themselves. How is it that government servants have better insurance than the people they serve?
The following AP story inspired me to formulate a solution I think we can all be happy with.
“Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's $30 billion state budget proposal for next year has been pared down by $120 million. The House budget committee wasted little time today in stripping millions of dollars…slated for the state Medicaid program that provides health care services to the poor, uninsured and elderly. Money also was taken away for public colleges and universities and for elementary and secondary education programs.”
Just once, I would like to see a governor propose stripping away health care funding for state legislators, especially for the go-it-alone Republican advocates of health savings accounts. It would be a test of ideology to see state representatives defend or denigrate taxpayer funded health care without bringing up a single payer plan for all Americans.
Who will take up the challenge?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Quick Reference Regarding Bush War Lies
In case you needed a quick look at a few of the lies used to go to war with Iraq, I want to steer you to "Remember: They Are Liars By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t Columnist Tuesday 08 April 2008
No one is such a liar as the indignant man.- Friedrich Nietzsche
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, along with a slew of administration underlings and a revolving-door cavalcade of brass hats from the Pentagon, have been making claims regarding Iraq for many years now.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, "enough to kill several million people," according to a page on the White House web site titled Disarm Saddam Hussein.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.
They lied. Continued....
No one is such a liar as the indignant man.- Friedrich Nietzsche
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, along with a slew of administration underlings and a revolving-door cavalcade of brass hats from the Pentagon, have been making claims regarding Iraq for many years now.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, "enough to kill several million people," according to a page on the White House web site titled Disarm Saddam Hussein.
They lied.
They claimed Iraq was in possession of 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.
They lied. Continued....
Friday, May 9, 2008
Republicans Aren’t Going to Like Stay at Home Parents
Salary.com, a Massachusetts-based company that assesses workplace compensation, came out with the current value of stay at home moms and dads.
In a cbc.ca article about the study, “American mothers who work in the home would earn $116,805, while stay-at-home mothers in Canada would earn about $126,593 if they were on a company payroll.
By comparison, the study found that In 2007, the study found that stay-at-home dads in the U.S. would be paid an annual salary of $128,755.
The survey may shed light on the important roles moms and dads play, but it also may infuriate Republicans who pay taxes on the wages they worked so hard for while stay at home parents pay nothing in taxes.
Think about it. The wealthy already pay taxes on their families hired help, why not those sneaky parents exploiting another tax loophole by doing the work themselves.
What they are doing has value, like laundry machine operators, computer operators, facilities managers, van drivers and janitors. Not to mention overtime work averaging a hefty 94.4 hour a week. Moms and dads are monopolizing a potentially lucrative business for specialists in each of the above areas. It’s true parents would have to go out and get good jobs to pay for the in home contractors, but the upside of job growth and employment would be much fairer than encouraging stay at home tax dodgers.
You may laugh, but think about how many people bought into privatizing Social Security, tax cuts for the wealthy, global free markets, single payer health care is socialism, corporate self regulation works, guns don’t kill people-people do, liberals blame America first, terrorist support Democrats, voter fraud and the war on poverty failed.
Scary isn’t it?
In a cbc.ca article about the study, “American mothers who work in the home would earn $116,805, while stay-at-home mothers in Canada would earn about $126,593 if they were on a company payroll.
By comparison, the study found that In 2007, the study found that stay-at-home dads in the U.S. would be paid an annual salary of $128,755.
The survey may shed light on the important roles moms and dads play, but it also may infuriate Republicans who pay taxes on the wages they worked so hard for while stay at home parents pay nothing in taxes.
Think about it. The wealthy already pay taxes on their families hired help, why not those sneaky parents exploiting another tax loophole by doing the work themselves.
What they are doing has value, like laundry machine operators, computer operators, facilities managers, van drivers and janitors. Not to mention overtime work averaging a hefty 94.4 hour a week. Moms and dads are monopolizing a potentially lucrative business for specialists in each of the above areas. It’s true parents would have to go out and get good jobs to pay for the in home contractors, but the upside of job growth and employment would be much fairer than encouraging stay at home tax dodgers.
You may laugh, but think about how many people bought into privatizing Social Security, tax cuts for the wealthy, global free markets, single payer health care is socialism, corporate self regulation works, guns don’t kill people-people do, liberals blame America first, terrorist support Democrats, voter fraud and the war on poverty failed.
Scary isn’t it?
The Conservative “What Has Knowledge Ever Built?” Mentality
Who could take issue with this inspiring observation about the benefits of a college education?
"Higher education is no longer just a matter of personal fulfillment. It is a matter of economic survival for our state and our nation. We live now in a 21st Century global economy that’s a knowledge economy. “-- State Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley at the UW-Marathon County convocation.
Republican Tim Haering can, and does, in an editorial that will drive you insane. He is a former policy adviser to former 4 term Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson. On May 8, 2008, Haering wrote the following comment “More College Students no Panacea,” in the Wisconsin State Journal. If you were ever unclear about the conservative attack on education and support of unaccountable school voucher programs, this should explain everything. Haering’s dumfounding logic will make your brain hurt:
Taking a step back is an understatement. Haering demonstrates for all of us, contempt for knowledge and a preoccupation with spending. Never mind the countries that fund the entire cost of their citizen’s educational needs. That would be the most dreaded form of socialism, while handing society over to a majority of educated elitists.
What I’m about to say may be over the top and reactionary, but here goes anyway; Conservatism is not only a failed political system as exemplified by the Republican administration and Congress between 2001 through 2008, but illogical to the extent that like a disease it’ll rot your brain.
A word of warning: Reading this again may cause uncontrolled shrieking and erratic, possibly violent, uncontrolled mood swings. Pass it on.
"Higher education is no longer just a matter of personal fulfillment. It is a matter of economic survival for our state and our nation. We live now in a 21st Century global economy that’s a knowledge economy. “-- State Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley at the UW-Marathon County convocation.
Republican Tim Haering can, and does, in an editorial that will drive you insane. He is a former policy adviser to former 4 term Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson. On May 8, 2008, Haering wrote the following comment “More College Students no Panacea,” in the Wisconsin State Journal. If you were ever unclear about the conservative attack on education and support of unaccountable school voucher programs, this should explain everything. Haering’s dumfounding logic will make your brain hurt:
“If a Supreme Court justice says we need more college graduates, it must be true. And if she thinks the UW System needs more public funding -- "We need you to share your commitment with your government leaders, so that when budget times come and things are tight, they do not fall prey to the temptation of slicing the higher education budget " -- we ought to get out our checkbooks...We should just jive to the jazz of Juris Doctor and the Ph.D.s.
Still, listening to their impassioned pleas, their sophisticated use of statistics and buzzwords like "knowledge economy,” I feel like I 'm hearing a Jaguar commercial telling us that Wisconsin would have a wealthier economy if everyone owned a XJ sedan -- because statistics show Jaguar drivers have higher incomes.
I hear propaganda. The UW System has a financial interest in growing its enrollment...The problem is that it wants taxpayers to subsidize their growth.
But just as taxpayers would not want to buy everyone a Jaguar, they should not jump at the chance to put more kids through college as a way to boost the economy. More college graduates won’t make us stars of the "knowledge economy.”
Think about it: What has knowledge alone ever built? Same as science:
Nothing. Technology applied all of science’s knowledge. Today’s knowledge economy is no different. It’s just more buzz about higher technology.
We are still in a technology-driven manufacturing economy. But so much of the technology is computer based, operating on software, we need more trained technicians to build and service the equipment. Do we need college grads to do that?
Don 't get me wrong. College is not a bad thing. Students benefit. But it takes about a 115 IQ to grasp college rigor, and only 30 percent will graduate. College is a great experience, even if you don 't finish. But why should taxpayers support all the incomplete efforts?
College grads earn more money, it’s true. But only because employers have become willing to pay more. There is not some transformational hocus pocus.
College grads don’t all invent Starbucks and stem cell therapies. Almost none will break new ground. Entrepreneurs are the real economic driving force, and more
entrepreneurs are dropouts than graduates. Only 23 percent have business degrees, an Intuit survey found.
How long will employers remain willing to pay higher wages for college grads? When I read the news, I hear the economy saying to colleges, "I need nurses, you give me political scientists. I need lab technicians, you send me artists. I need engineers, you send me screenwriters. I need scientists; you send me marketers, MBAs and lawyers. When will you send me what I need? " Technical schools have a more important role than universities in today’s technological economy.
The UW must take a step back, focus less on trying to be the Harvard of the Midwest and more on trying to be the kind of smart, affordable school that will make others want to be the UW of the Coast.”
Taking a step back is an understatement. Haering demonstrates for all of us, contempt for knowledge and a preoccupation with spending. Never mind the countries that fund the entire cost of their citizen’s educational needs. That would be the most dreaded form of socialism, while handing society over to a majority of educated elitists.
What I’m about to say may be over the top and reactionary, but here goes anyway; Conservatism is not only a failed political system as exemplified by the Republican administration and Congress between 2001 through 2008, but illogical to the extent that like a disease it’ll rot your brain.
A word of warning: Reading this again may cause uncontrolled shrieking and erratic, possibly violent, uncontrolled mood swings. Pass it on.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
National Security Letters Losing to Constitution
Since I can’t really add much more to this story than the thoughts expressed below, I thought I would post it here to help spread the word. This authoritarian conservative government is dangerous to the survival of this country. I just hope it’s not to late.
“The Internet Archive was served a National Security Letter by the FBI demanding information about a patron of the Archive. The Archive fought it with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU. We won. ““This win was one of three challenges to the NSL’s: all three have been rescinded. The ACLU added, 'That makes you wonder about the hundreds of thousands of NSL’s that haven't been challenged.'"
“According to the Digital Librarian of the Internet Archive, “We can now talk about it, and what it is like to get a secret demand. We hope that this will be useful for the others that will receive these powerful demands. The free flow of information is at the heart of every library's work. That's why Congress passed a law limiting the FBI's power to issue NSLs to America's libraries. While it's never easy standing up to the government -- particularly when I was barred from discussing it with anyone -- I knew I had to challenge something that was clearly wrong. I'm grateful that I am able now to talk about what happened to me, so that other libraries can learn how they can fight back from these overreaching demands."
“The NSL was served on the Archive -- a digital library recognized by the state of California -- and its attorneys in November of 2007. The letter asked for personal information about one of the Archive's users, including the individuals name, address, and any electronic communication transactional records pertaining to the user. (They) decided to fight the NSL because it exceeded the FBI's limited authority to issue such demands to libraries. The Archive responded to the letter by handing over only publicly available documents and simultaneously filing a lawsuit challenging the letter. This lawsuit is the first known challenge to an NSL served on a library since Congress amended the national security letter provision in 2006 to limit the FBI's power to demand records from libraries.”
“Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU. "It appears that every time a national security letter recipient has challenged an NSL in court and forced the government to justify it, the government has ultimately withdrawn its demand for records. In the absence of much needed judicial oversight – and with recipients silenced and the public in the dark – there is nothing to stop the FBI from abusing its NSL power.”
“EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann wondered, "The big question is, how many other improper NSLs have been issued by the FBI and never challenged?"
“The ACLU has challenged this Patriot Act statute in federal court in two other cases where the judges found the gags unconstitutional: one involving an Internet Service Provider (ISP); the second a group of librarians. In the ISP case, the district court invalidated the entire NSL statute.”
“Last year Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced H.R. 3189, the "National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007." Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) introduced a Senate bill of the same name (S. 2088). Both bills are aimed at narrowing the statute by enacting limits on when and how NSLs can be used and bringing the gag order provision in line with the Constitution.”
“The Internet Archive was served a National Security Letter by the FBI demanding information about a patron of the Archive. The Archive fought it with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU. We won. ““This win was one of three challenges to the NSL’s: all three have been rescinded. The ACLU added, 'That makes you wonder about the hundreds of thousands of NSL’s that haven't been challenged.'"
“According to the Digital Librarian of the Internet Archive, “We can now talk about it, and what it is like to get a secret demand. We hope that this will be useful for the others that will receive these powerful demands. The free flow of information is at the heart of every library's work. That's why Congress passed a law limiting the FBI's power to issue NSLs to America's libraries. While it's never easy standing up to the government -- particularly when I was barred from discussing it with anyone -- I knew I had to challenge something that was clearly wrong. I'm grateful that I am able now to talk about what happened to me, so that other libraries can learn how they can fight back from these overreaching demands."
“The NSL was served on the Archive -- a digital library recognized by the state of California -- and its attorneys in November of 2007. The letter asked for personal information about one of the Archive's users, including the individuals name, address, and any electronic communication transactional records pertaining to the user. (They) decided to fight the NSL because it exceeded the FBI's limited authority to issue such demands to libraries. The Archive responded to the letter by handing over only publicly available documents and simultaneously filing a lawsuit challenging the letter. This lawsuit is the first known challenge to an NSL served on a library since Congress amended the national security letter provision in 2006 to limit the FBI's power to demand records from libraries.”
“Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU. "It appears that every time a national security letter recipient has challenged an NSL in court and forced the government to justify it, the government has ultimately withdrawn its demand for records. In the absence of much needed judicial oversight – and with recipients silenced and the public in the dark – there is nothing to stop the FBI from abusing its NSL power.”
“EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann wondered, "The big question is, how many other improper NSLs have been issued by the FBI and never challenged?"
“The ACLU has challenged this Patriot Act statute in federal court in two other cases where the judges found the gags unconstitutional: one involving an Internet Service Provider (ISP); the second a group of librarians. In the ISP case, the district court invalidated the entire NSL statute.”
“Last year Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced H.R. 3189, the "National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007." Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) introduced a Senate bill of the same name (S. 2088). Both bills are aimed at narrowing the statute by enacting limits on when and how NSLs can be used and bringing the gag order provision in line with the Constitution.”
Republicans Deploy Medically Unfit to Sustain Iraq War
There are so many jaw dropping stories of complete incompetence and cruelty dripping from this administration that it’s hard to focus on just one long enough for its underlying terror to set in.
Another repugnant story has oozed out from the festering sore we call the Bush administration.
According to USA TODAY “More than 43,000 U.S. troops listed as medically unfit for combat in the weeks before their scheduled deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2003 were sent anyway, Pentagon records show…this reliance on troops found medically "non-deployable" is another sign of stress placed on a military…the number of troops that doctors found non-deployable, but who were still sent to Iraq or Afghanistan fluctuated from 10,854 in 2003, down to 5,397 in 2005, and back up to 9,140 in 2007…Most service members are in the Army, which is doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan…an e-mail from the surgeon for the Fort Carson brigade that said medically "borderline" soldiers went to war because "we have been having issues reaching deployable strength." A report to the House Armed Services Committee is due in June.
These troop supporting fakes are so desperate to save face, that throwing a few sacrificial non-deployable men and woman in harms way, was a sad but necessary continuation of their war waging strategy. Plus they thought the whole thing would go unnoticed.
Right now I’m feeling a level of hatred that…Oh, what’s this…my god, you won’t believe this next story…
Another repugnant story has oozed out from the festering sore we call the Bush administration.
According to USA TODAY “More than 43,000 U.S. troops listed as medically unfit for combat in the weeks before their scheduled deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan since 2003 were sent anyway, Pentagon records show…this reliance on troops found medically "non-deployable" is another sign of stress placed on a military…the number of troops that doctors found non-deployable, but who were still sent to Iraq or Afghanistan fluctuated from 10,854 in 2003, down to 5,397 in 2005, and back up to 9,140 in 2007…Most service members are in the Army, which is doing most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan…an e-mail from the surgeon for the Fort Carson brigade that said medically "borderline" soldiers went to war because "we have been having issues reaching deployable strength." A report to the House Armed Services Committee is due in June.
These troop supporting fakes are so desperate to save face, that throwing a few sacrificial non-deployable men and woman in harms way, was a sad but necessary continuation of their war waging strategy. Plus they thought the whole thing would go unnoticed.
Right now I’m feeling a level of hatred that…Oh, what’s this…my god, you won’t believe this next story…
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Republicans and the Daddy State
Air America's Marc Maron made a funny observation the other day, suggesting that politicians treat us like kids with silly little promises. His funniest example drew from the pages of the New York Times; “Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida has been fighting to cut 10 cents from the state’s gasoline tax for two weeks in July.
Marin dryly thanked Gov. Crist for the gift of ten cents for a whole two weeks savings of $2. It’s a gift only a child, like in all of us, would be overwhelmed with. “We’re not children” Marin shouted.
It was funny while at the same time infuriating. The Republican authoritarian attitude, in the last 13 years, was to treat the public like a dim-witted child. Who can forget President Bush telling us how hard his job is, or that the war was too complicated for most of us to understand. The absurdity of “we’re fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here.”
Condescending stuff wouldn’t you say.
Gov. Crist’s father like attitude is on full display when he said. “It’s about trying to serve the people and trying to understand and have caring, compassionate hearts for what they’re dealing with at the kitchen table. I’m supposed to respond to the people and try to make them happy.”
Gosh dad, you’re so understanding.
For many years my main theme has been that Republicans politicians make lousy businessmen. And when it comes to the gas tax holiday, their bold incompetence is on display for all to see. Gov. Crist blissfully brushes aside the unintended consequences of a past gas tax holiday. “During the last gas tax suspension in Florida in 2004, people hoarded gasoline, driving up demand and prices.” Don’t you love fiscal conservatives?
And then to add dumb onto dumber, instead of preventing a repeat of past abuses, “the draft measures in Florida, Missouri and New York do not require retailers to pass on the tax suspension to consumers, nor are there provisions to prevent hoarding.”
The party of herd mentality, is quick to push their own plans: “The New York plan, sponsored by Republicans in the State Senate, would suspend three state gas taxes, amounting to about 32 cents per gallon, from Memorial Day to Labor Day: In North Carolina, the Republican candidate for governor is proposing a gas tax holiday and permanent reduction; In Missouri, State Representative Jim Lembke, Republican of St. Louis, has sponsored a more novel approach to suspending the state’s 17.6-cent gas tax: drivers would turn in their receipts at the end of the summer and the state would cut them a rebate check.”
Question: who’s going to pay for the paper work, record keeping and cost of sending out the rebate checks?
“In general, retailers did not pass on all of the intended savings. When Illinois and Indiana suspended about 7 cents of their state gas taxes in the summer of 2000, prices fell by an average of only 4 cents. Drivers saved no more than $2.50 a month, while each state lost tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue.”
And while Republicans try to top one another lowering the price of a gallon of gas, they have all but ignored another price hike. “John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute pointed out, “We’ve seen other things go up in prices, like milk, but if you ask 10 people on the street what’s the price of milk they may not know. All of them will know the price of gas.”
It’s around $2.78 per gallon, a dollar more than a year ago. With a 6 and 9 year old at home, could I have a dollar off holiday?
Marin dryly thanked Gov. Crist for the gift of ten cents for a whole two weeks savings of $2. It’s a gift only a child, like in all of us, would be overwhelmed with. “We’re not children” Marin shouted.
It was funny while at the same time infuriating. The Republican authoritarian attitude, in the last 13 years, was to treat the public like a dim-witted child. Who can forget President Bush telling us how hard his job is, or that the war was too complicated for most of us to understand. The absurdity of “we’re fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here.”
Condescending stuff wouldn’t you say.
Gov. Crist’s father like attitude is on full display when he said. “It’s about trying to serve the people and trying to understand and have caring, compassionate hearts for what they’re dealing with at the kitchen table. I’m supposed to respond to the people and try to make them happy.”
Gosh dad, you’re so understanding.
For many years my main theme has been that Republicans politicians make lousy businessmen. And when it comes to the gas tax holiday, their bold incompetence is on display for all to see. Gov. Crist blissfully brushes aside the unintended consequences of a past gas tax holiday. “During the last gas tax suspension in Florida in 2004, people hoarded gasoline, driving up demand and prices.” Don’t you love fiscal conservatives?
And then to add dumb onto dumber, instead of preventing a repeat of past abuses, “the draft measures in Florida, Missouri and New York do not require retailers to pass on the tax suspension to consumers, nor are there provisions to prevent hoarding.”
The party of herd mentality, is quick to push their own plans: “The New York plan, sponsored by Republicans in the State Senate, would suspend three state gas taxes, amounting to about 32 cents per gallon, from Memorial Day to Labor Day: In North Carolina, the Republican candidate for governor is proposing a gas tax holiday and permanent reduction; In Missouri, State Representative Jim Lembke, Republican of St. Louis, has sponsored a more novel approach to suspending the state’s 17.6-cent gas tax: drivers would turn in their receipts at the end of the summer and the state would cut them a rebate check.”
Question: who’s going to pay for the paper work, record keeping and cost of sending out the rebate checks?
“In general, retailers did not pass on all of the intended savings. When Illinois and Indiana suspended about 7 cents of their state gas taxes in the summer of 2000, prices fell by an average of only 4 cents. Drivers saved no more than $2.50 a month, while each state lost tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue.”
And while Republicans try to top one another lowering the price of a gallon of gas, they have all but ignored another price hike. “John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute pointed out, “We’ve seen other things go up in prices, like milk, but if you ask 10 people on the street what’s the price of milk they may not know. All of them will know the price of gas.”
It’s around $2.78 per gallon, a dollar more than a year ago. With a 6 and 9 year old at home, could I have a dollar off holiday?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Voter ID Has First Casualties and First Case for Supreme Court
The Roberts Supreme "activist" Court may have gotten it's wish for an actual case of voter disenfranchisement. crooksandliars.com
The Health of Republican Party Needs Care
In another example of how far removed the Wisconsin Republican party is to the citizens they supposedly represent, the latest Badger Poll should send a few of these government freeloaders packing for the private sector.
Since we can assume disatisfaction with health care can only get worse, not better, it should be unsettling to see that 48 percent have mixed feelings about the health care system.
According to the Capital Times online, “Two-thirds of the residents polled favored requiring every resident to get health insurance, and 76 percent were in favor of expanding government programs for those without insurance.”
“Half said the cost of health care in Wisconsin is "extremely problematic," while 61 percent favored replacing the current health care system with a new system administered entirely by state government that covers all Wisconsinites.”
Sixty one percent!
For a Republican Assembly that met less than a month in a year and a half, and collected a pay check and health insurance coverage, I hope they lose their ass in November.
Since we can assume disatisfaction with health care can only get worse, not better, it should be unsettling to see that 48 percent have mixed feelings about the health care system.
According to the Capital Times online, “Two-thirds of the residents polled favored requiring every resident to get health insurance, and 76 percent were in favor of expanding government programs for those without insurance.”
“Half said the cost of health care in Wisconsin is "extremely problematic," while 61 percent favored replacing the current health care system with a new system administered entirely by state government that covers all Wisconsinites.”
Sixty one percent!
For a Republican Assembly that met less than a month in a year and a half, and collected a pay check and health insurance coverage, I hope they lose their ass in November.
A Gun in Hand
“According to the 2007 Small Arms Survey, there are currently 270 million guns owned by civilians in the U.S., that’s nearly half of all guns owned worldwide.”-Freedom States Alliance
So how important is that we have easy access to guns. Very!
Just ask Aaron P. Jackson. This Falmouth, Va. man fatally shot his girlfriend, their two children and then himself. He used an assault rifle to kill his girl friend in a mobile home they shared, then used a handgun to shoot the couple's two children, Nicole Jackson, 2, and Aaron Jackson, 18 months, and himself. The children were shot in their cribs.
It’s strange how the AP story failed to mention whether the guns were legally purchased or not.
Hasn’t the debate been about the safety of legally purchased guns? The media has conveniently ignored the fact that those same weapons can be used illegally later. I’ve been told that nearly thirty thousand gun deaths a year is a reasonable price to pay for your second amendment right to insure your safety. In fact, guns help us weed out the weak among us: suicides account for 57% of the gun deaths: 17,424.
Of course that leaves us with over 12,000 deaths due to homicides, making us the number one most violent industrialized nation in the world. We’re number one, we’re number one…..!
I found this old quote that is almost, strike that, is laughable today: "The National Center for Health Statistics report for 1998 (latest available) shows that of the 30,708 total firearms-related deaths, only 11,798 -- slightly more than a third -- were homicides (some of which are justifiable). An incredibly low 866 were accidents, and 620 were listed as "undetermined" or "other" -- which probably includes a lot more self-defense shootings" I love the use of “only,” “slightly,” “justifiable,” “incredibly low” and “probably includes a lot more self-defense shootings.” Of course, that’s what it probably was. Right.
You can be sure criminals all over the country are canceling their plans to rob families tonight based on the fact they can’t be sure who, out of 40 percent of households, are standing watch for intruders.
According to my figures from 2004, the heavily armed countries like Australia scared off so many criminals that only 56 people were murdered. England of course learned their lesson after WW2 and armed everyone, resulting in an amazingly low number of murders; just 73. Sadly, since Illinois and Wisconsin refused to pass concealed carry legislation, the U.S. was left unprotected, resulting in a free for all; 11, 344 murders. Have they no shame?
One pro gun statement still confuses me. How can they boldly claim that “guns make us safer,” and then complain that “guns don’t kill people, but people kill people?”
Is it because saying “people make us safer” sound idiotic?
UPDATE: The Aaron Jackson murder suicide story has been updated and now includes this short, but important, line: "police at this point can only speculate as to why Jackson, who had a concealed handgun permit, had so much weaponry and what spurred his actions."
So how important is that we have easy access to guns. Very!
Just ask Aaron P. Jackson. This Falmouth, Va. man fatally shot his girlfriend, their two children and then himself. He used an assault rifle to kill his girl friend in a mobile home they shared, then used a handgun to shoot the couple's two children, Nicole Jackson, 2, and Aaron Jackson, 18 months, and himself. The children were shot in their cribs.
It’s strange how the AP story failed to mention whether the guns were legally purchased or not.
Hasn’t the debate been about the safety of legally purchased guns? The media has conveniently ignored the fact that those same weapons can be used illegally later. I’ve been told that nearly thirty thousand gun deaths a year is a reasonable price to pay for your second amendment right to insure your safety. In fact, guns help us weed out the weak among us: suicides account for 57% of the gun deaths: 17,424.
Of course that leaves us with over 12,000 deaths due to homicides, making us the number one most violent industrialized nation in the world. We’re number one, we’re number one…..!
I found this old quote that is almost, strike that, is laughable today: "The National Center for Health Statistics report for 1998 (latest available) shows that of the 30,708 total firearms-related deaths, only 11,798 -- slightly more than a third -- were homicides (some of which are justifiable). An incredibly low 866 were accidents, and 620 were listed as "undetermined" or "other" -- which probably includes a lot more self-defense shootings" I love the use of “only,” “slightly,” “justifiable,” “incredibly low” and “probably includes a lot more self-defense shootings.” Of course, that’s what it probably was. Right.
You can be sure criminals all over the country are canceling their plans to rob families tonight based on the fact they can’t be sure who, out of 40 percent of households, are standing watch for intruders.
According to my figures from 2004, the heavily armed countries like Australia scared off so many criminals that only 56 people were murdered. England of course learned their lesson after WW2 and armed everyone, resulting in an amazingly low number of murders; just 73. Sadly, since Illinois and Wisconsin refused to pass concealed carry legislation, the U.S. was left unprotected, resulting in a free for all; 11, 344 murders. Have they no shame?
One pro gun statement still confuses me. How can they boldly claim that “guns make us safer,” and then complain that “guns don’t kill people, but people kill people?”
Is it because saying “people make us safer” sound idiotic?
UPDATE: The Aaron Jackson murder suicide story has been updated and now includes this short, but important, line: "police at this point can only speculate as to why Jackson, who had a concealed handgun permit, had so much weaponry and what spurred his actions."
Did Someone Slip Me the Conservative “cool-aid?”
I am really sick. Please, someone help me…please?
I’m reacting to the JSOnline/AP story “GOP group wants curbs on ethanol.”
I’ve been following the rising food price problem for a long time, and the world community seems to be pointing a finger at the food for fuel policies put in place over the last few years. The bone of contention for me is the sudden strange company I’m keeping.
“Twenty-four Republican senators, including John McCain, called for a halt to the expansion of ethanol production as a response to rising food prices. The senators urged the Environmental Protection Agency to restructure rules that would require greater production of ethanol from corn by 2022. "This subsidized (ethanol) program - paid for by taxpayer dollars - has contributed to pain at the cash register, at the dining room table, and a devastating food crisis throughout the world," McCain said in a statement.”
Oh god please, I hope I’m not having a bad hallucinogenic trip?
In a small way, on the other side, the opposition forces have a point…”Critics of the proposal said that too much attention was being placed on ethanol as a reason for rising food prices, and that not enough attention was being placed on the role that rising crude oil prices - which surged to $120 a barrel Monday - have played in driving up the cost of food.”
The point is that food for fuel is part of the problem, and must be dealt with. While critics say the case is over stated, conservatives want to gut the alternative fuel movement completely. Like Wisconsin's own, Rep. James Sensenbrenner.
“But ethanol opponents said public sentiment was moving to their side. Outrage over food prices is fueling a turnaround in public opinion about government support for ethanol, said U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Menomonee Falls. Sensenbrenner announced last week that he was co-sponsoring a bill that would repeal the renewable-fuel standard, as well as tax credits for ethanol producers and tariffs on importing ethanol.”
While Rep. Sensenbrenner wants to reverse direction when it comes to this nations energy independence(we’re so proud of him here in the state), other credible voices have convinced me of a solution less draconian.
“In a new study, University of Wisconsin-Madison agricultural economist Randy Fortenberry says it's clear that the increasing use of corn to produce fuel has played a role in rising corn prices - but he cautions that the magnitude of the increase has been overstated. Over the past 18 months, as ethanol production has doubled, corn prices have increased 85% to 100%, but increasing ethanol production is responsible for 25% to 40% of the higher price. That higher cost could be reflected in some of the increases in the price of beef, pork or poultry. But Fortenberry, citing federal statistics, said farmers were producing more corn for exports, for feeding livestock and for fuel, all at the same time. Overlooked in rising food prices, Fortenberry said, is the rising price of crude oil itself. Petroleum is used extensively in mass agriculture, both for fertilizer and for food transportation.”
And he isn’t the only one…”Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, said Monday that the United States and the European Union should reconsider banking on biofuels. ‘In the United States, as much as one-third of the maize crop this year will go to the gas tank, and this is a huge blow to the world food supply, so these programs should be cut back significantly,’ Sachs said in Brussels, Belgium.
If you haven’t noticed by now, my guilty association with right wingers on this issue prompts me to lay out every possible argument in support of dealing with this price problem. For example: “Top international food scientists recommended last month that the use of food-based biofuels, such as ethanol, be halted, saying that would cut corn prices 20% during a world food crisis.”
The main argument for the continuation of renewable research is from what develops over time; basically the journey there. “Wisconsin is pinning its hopes on development of cellulosic ethanol, which is ethanol that's not derived from crops that are also food sources. That ethanol could be refined from wood waste from the paper and forest-products industry, as well as switchgrass and corn stalks. (And)’The energy bill that Congress passed in December required expansion of corn-based ethanol and next-generation ethanol. John Biondi, president of C5-6 Technologies in Madison, a company that is developing enzymes to improve the efficiency of corn ethanol production, said: ‘It's amazing to me the degree to which corn ethanol is getting whipped for increases in food prices. It's a dramatic overreaction."
Because of the debate, “The biofuels backlash has made Biondi change his company's financing plans, as venture capital firms on both coasts are reluctant to invest in any kind of biofuel that involves grain. Fund-raising ‘is enormously more difficult and incredibly complex,’ Biondi said. I spend most of my time fighting fires. It has never made sense to me to turn food into fuel,’ he said.”
I remember reading with skepticism a story on my radio talk show about British Petroleum’s hesitation to use food grains for fuel, thinking that they made a good case. Yet I poked fun at it because it also sounded like a great excuse to do nothing.
I hope that soon, Democrats will follow my lead in asking tough questions and deal with this global problem. Actually, I’m begging that someone liberal please follow my lead, I really don’t like the company I’m keeping right now.
I’m reacting to the JSOnline/AP story “GOP group wants curbs on ethanol.”
I’ve been following the rising food price problem for a long time, and the world community seems to be pointing a finger at the food for fuel policies put in place over the last few years. The bone of contention for me is the sudden strange company I’m keeping.
“Twenty-four Republican senators, including John McCain, called for a halt to the expansion of ethanol production as a response to rising food prices. The senators urged the Environmental Protection Agency to restructure rules that would require greater production of ethanol from corn by 2022. "This subsidized (ethanol) program - paid for by taxpayer dollars - has contributed to pain at the cash register, at the dining room table, and a devastating food crisis throughout the world," McCain said in a statement.”
Oh god please, I hope I’m not having a bad hallucinogenic trip?
In a small way, on the other side, the opposition forces have a point…”Critics of the proposal said that too much attention was being placed on ethanol as a reason for rising food prices, and that not enough attention was being placed on the role that rising crude oil prices - which surged to $120 a barrel Monday - have played in driving up the cost of food.”
The point is that food for fuel is part of the problem, and must be dealt with. While critics say the case is over stated, conservatives want to gut the alternative fuel movement completely. Like Wisconsin's own, Rep. James Sensenbrenner.
“But ethanol opponents said public sentiment was moving to their side. Outrage over food prices is fueling a turnaround in public opinion about government support for ethanol, said U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Menomonee Falls. Sensenbrenner announced last week that he was co-sponsoring a bill that would repeal the renewable-fuel standard, as well as tax credits for ethanol producers and tariffs on importing ethanol.”
While Rep. Sensenbrenner wants to reverse direction when it comes to this nations energy independence(we’re so proud of him here in the state), other credible voices have convinced me of a solution less draconian.
“In a new study, University of Wisconsin-Madison agricultural economist Randy Fortenberry says it's clear that the increasing use of corn to produce fuel has played a role in rising corn prices - but he cautions that the magnitude of the increase has been overstated. Over the past 18 months, as ethanol production has doubled, corn prices have increased 85% to 100%, but increasing ethanol production is responsible for 25% to 40% of the higher price. That higher cost could be reflected in some of the increases in the price of beef, pork or poultry. But Fortenberry, citing federal statistics, said farmers were producing more corn for exports, for feeding livestock and for fuel, all at the same time. Overlooked in rising food prices, Fortenberry said, is the rising price of crude oil itself. Petroleum is used extensively in mass agriculture, both for fertilizer and for food transportation.”
And he isn’t the only one…”Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, said Monday that the United States and the European Union should reconsider banking on biofuels. ‘In the United States, as much as one-third of the maize crop this year will go to the gas tank, and this is a huge blow to the world food supply, so these programs should be cut back significantly,’ Sachs said in Brussels, Belgium.
If you haven’t noticed by now, my guilty association with right wingers on this issue prompts me to lay out every possible argument in support of dealing with this price problem. For example: “Top international food scientists recommended last month that the use of food-based biofuels, such as ethanol, be halted, saying that would cut corn prices 20% during a world food crisis.”
The main argument for the continuation of renewable research is from what develops over time; basically the journey there. “Wisconsin is pinning its hopes on development of cellulosic ethanol, which is ethanol that's not derived from crops that are also food sources. That ethanol could be refined from wood waste from the paper and forest-products industry, as well as switchgrass and corn stalks. (And)’The energy bill that Congress passed in December required expansion of corn-based ethanol and next-generation ethanol. John Biondi, president of C5-6 Technologies in Madison, a company that is developing enzymes to improve the efficiency of corn ethanol production, said: ‘It's amazing to me the degree to which corn ethanol is getting whipped for increases in food prices. It's a dramatic overreaction."
Because of the debate, “The biofuels backlash has made Biondi change his company's financing plans, as venture capital firms on both coasts are reluctant to invest in any kind of biofuel that involves grain. Fund-raising ‘is enormously more difficult and incredibly complex,’ Biondi said. I spend most of my time fighting fires. It has never made sense to me to turn food into fuel,’ he said.”
I remember reading with skepticism a story on my radio talk show about British Petroleum’s hesitation to use food grains for fuel, thinking that they made a good case. Yet I poked fun at it because it also sounded like a great excuse to do nothing.
I hope that soon, Democrats will follow my lead in asking tough questions and deal with this global problem. Actually, I’m begging that someone liberal please follow my lead, I really don’t like the company I’m keeping right now.
More Proof Republicans Value Oppressive Authoritarian Rule and Proud of It
Despite the avalanche of recent books about the authoritarian tendencies of the Republican/conservative mindset, the public still doesn’t sense the threat it would have on our young democratic socialist society.
The Associated Press fell down on the job again when it reported this story about the Supreme Court Justice vote in the Senate. “Republican John McCain castigated Democrat Barack Obama for voting against John Roberts as Supreme Court chief justice in a speech about the kind of judges McCain would nominate. "
“McCain promised to appoint judges who, in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to limit the reach of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. ‘Obama likes to talk up his image as someone who works with Republicans to get things done, yet Obama went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee,’ McCain said.”
It’s that “partisan crowd” of thoughtful Senators, representing their constituents, who voted their conscience and firmly held belief that the Constitution expands the rights of people in this country.
What AP neglected to mention was the partisan vote every Republican cast in favor of John Roberts with his known conservative agenda. Not one dissenter within the Party ranks.
The exclusion of this important detail should send shivers down the backs of anyone thinking there might be some hope for the fourth estate. It appears partisanship only works one way.
Think about it. When Republicans avoid and castigate more liberal leaning judges, by default, aren't they admitting their preference toward activist conservative judges? Yes, in case there might be a waivering right winger reading this.
The Associated Press fell down on the job again when it reported this story about the Supreme Court Justice vote in the Senate. “Republican John McCain castigated Democrat Barack Obama for voting against John Roberts as Supreme Court chief justice in a speech about the kind of judges McCain would nominate. "
“McCain promised to appoint judges who, in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to limit the reach of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. ‘Obama likes to talk up his image as someone who works with Republicans to get things done, yet Obama went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee,’ McCain said.”
It’s that “partisan crowd” of thoughtful Senators, representing their constituents, who voted their conscience and firmly held belief that the Constitution expands the rights of people in this country.
What AP neglected to mention was the partisan vote every Republican cast in favor of John Roberts with his known conservative agenda. Not one dissenter within the Party ranks.
The exclusion of this important detail should send shivers down the backs of anyone thinking there might be some hope for the fourth estate. It appears partisanship only works one way.
Think about it. When Republicans avoid and castigate more liberal leaning judges, by default, aren't they admitting their preference toward activist conservative judges? Yes, in case there might be a waivering right winger reading this.
Monday, May 5, 2008
GOP Willing To Watch Kids Become Addicts
As the proof keeps rolling in, the Republicans are looking out for the few individual bar owners interests, and protecting their bottom line from the anti-smoking nanny staters
Despite all the common sense and public health issues that have prompted entire countries to ban smoking, Wisconsin is worried about the poor addicted smoker. Where will they go, and why have we been so mean to these second hand smoke puffing cherubs of death?
Besides cutting down on heart attacks and diseases related to second hand smoke, we can ad this story to the long list of benefits that never sink bellow their special interest bottom line.
AP-“Restaurant tobacco bans influence teen smoking
A Massachusetts study suggests that restaurant smoking bans may play a big role in persuading teens not to become smokers. Youths who lived in towns with strict bans were 40 percent less likely to become regular smokers than those in communities with no bans or weak ones, the researchers reported in the May issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The findings back up the idea that smoking bans discourage tobacco use in teens by sending the message that smoking is frowned upon in the community, as well as simply by reducing their exposure to smokers in public places. The study found that strong bans had a bigger influence on whether smoking grew into a habit, reducing their chances of becoming smokers by 40 percent.”
Let’s face it, Republicans rarely look further than their own elections, so maybe it’s a little to much to ask that they peer off into the future and think long and hard about their legacy; painful deaths and health care costs all paid for by future generations.
Despite all the common sense and public health issues that have prompted entire countries to ban smoking, Wisconsin is worried about the poor addicted smoker. Where will they go, and why have we been so mean to these second hand smoke puffing cherubs of death?
Besides cutting down on heart attacks and diseases related to second hand smoke, we can ad this story to the long list of benefits that never sink bellow their special interest bottom line.
AP-“Restaurant tobacco bans influence teen smoking
A Massachusetts study suggests that restaurant smoking bans may play a big role in persuading teens not to become smokers. Youths who lived in towns with strict bans were 40 percent less likely to become regular smokers than those in communities with no bans or weak ones, the researchers reported in the May issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The findings back up the idea that smoking bans discourage tobacco use in teens by sending the message that smoking is frowned upon in the community, as well as simply by reducing their exposure to smokers in public places. The study found that strong bans had a bigger influence on whether smoking grew into a habit, reducing their chances of becoming smokers by 40 percent.”
Let’s face it, Republicans rarely look further than their own elections, so maybe it’s a little to much to ask that they peer off into the future and think long and hard about their legacy; painful deaths and health care costs all paid for by future generations.
Feingold and Congress Protect the Right to Vote
Like an early Christmas present, “U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Middleton, announced that he is co-sponsoring a bill that would legalize Election Day voter registration for all federal elections. “Feingold introduced the legislation in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined Indiana’s voter identification law was constitutional. ‘The right to vote is at the heart of our democracy, and we should constantly be looking for ways to make it easier for Americans to exercise that right,’ Feingold said in a statement. ‘Election Day registration has worked well in Wisconsin for more than 30 years and is a major reason why Wisconsin is a national leader in voter turnout. By allowing people to register in person on Election Day, we can bring more people into the process, which only strengthens our democracy.”
“Some Republicans have pushed for an end to same-day registration in Wisconsin, arguing the change is needed to cut down on the opportunity for voter fraud.” -AP
If you haven’t heard already, voter fraud is rare and simply not an issue nationwide. Unless someone out there is crazy enough to commit a felony so they can tip the scales of an election with a single illegal vote.
The real issue is election fraud, like changing the votes electronically, misplacing boxes of ballots or purging voter roles.
If you were unsure about the current laws, the AP article conveniently supplies the answer: “Laws determining voter registration regulations are currently handled separately by each state, with some guidance from Washington, D.C., as the running of elections — even elections for federal office — is one of the tasks left to the states by the U.S. Constitution.
According the press release: “The bill’s introduction comes days after the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana voter ID law that seriously impedes the ability of elderly and low-income Americans to vote.”
I have often heard from know it all conservatives that there is no constitutional guarantee to vote. Let’s take a look at, what George W. Bush calls, “that goddamn piece of paper.”
The Right to Vote:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.— Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.— Nineteenth Amendment (1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.— Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964)
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.— Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)
Funny, you’d think that the founding fathers and subsequent Congresses were somehow concerned about democracy and the right to vote. And for the strict constructionist, sorry, you won't find the requirement for picture IDs.
“Some Republicans have pushed for an end to same-day registration in Wisconsin, arguing the change is needed to cut down on the opportunity for voter fraud.” -AP
If you haven’t heard already, voter fraud is rare and simply not an issue nationwide. Unless someone out there is crazy enough to commit a felony so they can tip the scales of an election with a single illegal vote.
The real issue is election fraud, like changing the votes electronically, misplacing boxes of ballots or purging voter roles.
If you were unsure about the current laws, the AP article conveniently supplies the answer: “Laws determining voter registration regulations are currently handled separately by each state, with some guidance from Washington, D.C., as the running of elections — even elections for federal office — is one of the tasks left to the states by the U.S. Constitution.
According the press release: “The bill’s introduction comes days after the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana voter ID law that seriously impedes the ability of elderly and low-income Americans to vote.”
I have often heard from know it all conservatives that there is no constitutional guarantee to vote. Let’s take a look at, what George W. Bush calls, “that goddamn piece of paper.”
The Right to Vote:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.— Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.— Nineteenth Amendment (1920)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.— Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964)
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.— Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)
Funny, you’d think that the founding fathers and subsequent Congresses were somehow concerned about democracy and the right to vote. And for the strict constructionist, sorry, you won't find the requirement for picture IDs.
Another Reason For Concealed Carry?
Driving defensively used to mean looking both ways before entering an intersection. Now, our gun toting free society has made that a quaint retro choice from another, more innocent time.
California road rage has recently grabbed the headlines due to their random nature and targeting of innocent people in their cars.
For example; a 20 year old driver died after being shot in the head without provocation; A young father had picked up his two sons from school and began the rush-hour drive home. After angering another motorist, he was fatally shot, while his belted in sons could do nothing as the car swerved off the highway. The boys were not injured.
Prior to that, seven car-to-car shootings took place in six weeks and resulted in five deaths and several injuries. Here's one interesting element: According to LAPD officials, for every homicide, there are more cases of people being wounded or shots fired that miss.
Is a big city phenomenon? I wish it was.
On May 4th, 2008, from the JSOnline, “A 16-year-old girl from Slinger, Wisconsin was in critical condition after she was shot in the head by someone in a passing vehicle in the Town of Addison. The girl was in a vehicle heading west on the highway around 11 p.m. Saturday when someone in a passing westbound vehicle shot at her vehicle multiple times. She was one of three people in the vehicle."
Now that we have more guns to protect ourselves, how do we defend against the random use of legally purchased firearms from cars, and drivers that are basically gone before anyone knows what happened?
California road rage has recently grabbed the headlines due to their random nature and targeting of innocent people in their cars.
For example; a 20 year old driver died after being shot in the head without provocation; A young father had picked up his two sons from school and began the rush-hour drive home. After angering another motorist, he was fatally shot, while his belted in sons could do nothing as the car swerved off the highway. The boys were not injured.
Prior to that, seven car-to-car shootings took place in six weeks and resulted in five deaths and several injuries. Here's one interesting element: According to LAPD officials, for every homicide, there are more cases of people being wounded or shots fired that miss.
Is a big city phenomenon? I wish it was.
On May 4th, 2008, from the JSOnline, “A 16-year-old girl from Slinger, Wisconsin was in critical condition after she was shot in the head by someone in a passing vehicle in the Town of Addison. The girl was in a vehicle heading west on the highway around 11 p.m. Saturday when someone in a passing westbound vehicle shot at her vehicle multiple times. She was one of three people in the vehicle."
Now that we have more guns to protect ourselves, how do we defend against the random use of legally purchased firearms from cars, and drivers that are basically gone before anyone knows what happened?
Friday, May 2, 2008
GOP US Infrastructure Crisis Solution-Tax Cut?
I have often described Republicans as freeloaders, relentlessly sucking society dry, with no thought of replenishing or maintaining our common recourse's.
These proud capitalists advocate removing corporate taxes and freeing business from suffocating regulation. Basically, it’s a “what can you do for me” approach to advancing their business health.
What’s missing, intentionally, is the business of government. Government is the peoples business. It’s a non profit business with department heads, employees, budgets, service, land management, environmental control, enforce laws and provide for our defense.
Using the power of suggestion, when conservatives complain that government is the enemy of business, we subconsciously accept the idea government is not a business. In fact, I would argue that this is the prevailing wisdom.
Once the Republican frame has been applied, their concept of liassez faire capitalism can more easily be argued. And that makes it impossible for government to ask “what can you do for me,” in its quest to benefit “we the people,” without sounding intrusive.
This opens the door for neo-liberal freeloaders to devour unabated, government provided benefits, even if giving back might initiate a transformational green economy. And it’s all happening at the most inopportune time.
According to PRNewswire, “The United States' infrastructure problems could reach crisis proportions in the next 10 years if steps are not taken to attract more private capital to the sector or overhaul the nation's antiquated regional infrastructure planning process,” says a report published jointly by Ernst & Young LLP and The urban Land Institute. The US currently has a $170 billion annual funding gap for infrastructure projects. However, the gap is widening every year (and) could balloon over the next few years as local and state governments experience "revenue shrink," particularly from lower property tax collections. "
Frankly, the US has been coasting when it comes to infrastructure spending, especially when compared to growing economies such as China which spends about nine percent of GDP on vital infrastructure.
"It is clear from the experience of other countries that public private partnerships (PPPs) are an essential tool in planning, building and maintaining vital infrastructure. Failure to fully embrace this model in the US could lead to our economy falling behind more of our global competitors.”
Not heeding that warning, and taking money away from this infrastructural investment, Sen. John McCain’s idea of a gas tax "holiday" giving low-income Americans "just a little break this summer" demonstrates the myth of the “fiscal conservative.”
A fellow for the Cato Institute called the proposal a "holiday from reality." Drivers would save a whole $2.35 every time they filled their tanks, or, about $30 over the summer.
Craig Thompson of Madison, executive director of the Transportation Development Association of Wisconsin wrote in a Wisconsin State Journal editorial “We don't need a gas tax holiday; the federal government would see an $8.5 billion loss in fuel tax receipts. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates that such a cut could result in the reduction of nearly 300,000 jobs.”
The question you will have to answer is “who will spend your tax dollars wisely.” Wisely is the key word and frame. The assumption right now is that it’s always wasted.
Once we return to the business of government (remember it is a business), we will expect the management of that government to be responsible and accountable.
These proud capitalists advocate removing corporate taxes and freeing business from suffocating regulation. Basically, it’s a “what can you do for me” approach to advancing their business health.
What’s missing, intentionally, is the business of government. Government is the peoples business. It’s a non profit business with department heads, employees, budgets, service, land management, environmental control, enforce laws and provide for our defense.
Using the power of suggestion, when conservatives complain that government is the enemy of business, we subconsciously accept the idea government is not a business. In fact, I would argue that this is the prevailing wisdom.
Once the Republican frame has been applied, their concept of liassez faire capitalism can more easily be argued. And that makes it impossible for government to ask “what can you do for me,” in its quest to benefit “we the people,” without sounding intrusive.
This opens the door for neo-liberal freeloaders to devour unabated, government provided benefits, even if giving back might initiate a transformational green economy. And it’s all happening at the most inopportune time.
According to PRNewswire, “The United States' infrastructure problems could reach crisis proportions in the next 10 years if steps are not taken to attract more private capital to the sector or overhaul the nation's antiquated regional infrastructure planning process,” says a report published jointly by Ernst & Young LLP and The urban Land Institute. The US currently has a $170 billion annual funding gap for infrastructure projects. However, the gap is widening every year (and) could balloon over the next few years as local and state governments experience "revenue shrink," particularly from lower property tax collections. "
Frankly, the US has been coasting when it comes to infrastructure spending, especially when compared to growing economies such as China which spends about nine percent of GDP on vital infrastructure.
"It is clear from the experience of other countries that public private partnerships (PPPs) are an essential tool in planning, building and maintaining vital infrastructure. Failure to fully embrace this model in the US could lead to our economy falling behind more of our global competitors.”
Not heeding that warning, and taking money away from this infrastructural investment, Sen. John McCain’s idea of a gas tax "holiday" giving low-income Americans "just a little break this summer" demonstrates the myth of the “fiscal conservative.”
A fellow for the Cato Institute called the proposal a "holiday from reality." Drivers would save a whole $2.35 every time they filled their tanks, or, about $30 over the summer.
Craig Thompson of Madison, executive director of the Transportation Development Association of Wisconsin wrote in a Wisconsin State Journal editorial “We don't need a gas tax holiday; the federal government would see an $8.5 billion loss in fuel tax receipts. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates that such a cut could result in the reduction of nearly 300,000 jobs.”
The question you will have to answer is “who will spend your tax dollars wisely.” Wisely is the key word and frame. The assumption right now is that it’s always wasted.
Once we return to the business of government (remember it is a business), we will expect the management of that government to be responsible and accountable.
Who the Hell Is Big Media Kidding
In eye popping brazenness, media giants CBS/AP tried to spin us with this “upbeat” headline; “U.S. Economy Surprises, 20,000 Jobs Lost In April; Unemployment Rate Dips To 5% In Better-Than-Expected Performance.”
Wasn’t it John Mellencamp who insightfully wrote, “You make it hurt so good?” Sing it with me. The good news doesn’t stop there, either;
“Employers cut far fewer jobs in April than in recent months and the unemployment rate dropped to 5 percent, a better-than-expected showing. For the fourth month in a row, the economy lost jobs. But in April the losses totaled 20,000, an improvement from the 81,000 reductions in payrolls logged in March.”
Despite all the good employment news, “Job losses for both February and March turned out to be a bit deeper than previously reported. In April, construction companies slashed 61,000 jobs. Manufacturers cut 46,000 and retailers got rid of 27,000.”
All I needed was that gentle media assurance that the “U.S. Economy Surprises…in Better-Than-Expected Performance,” to ease my mind enough to appreciate the wisdom and promise of Republican economics.
Wasn’t it John Mellencamp who insightfully wrote, “You make it hurt so good?” Sing it with me. The good news doesn’t stop there, either;
“Employers cut far fewer jobs in April than in recent months and the unemployment rate dropped to 5 percent, a better-than-expected showing. For the fourth month in a row, the economy lost jobs. But in April the losses totaled 20,000, an improvement from the 81,000 reductions in payrolls logged in March.”
Despite all the good employment news, “Job losses for both February and March turned out to be a bit deeper than previously reported. In April, construction companies slashed 61,000 jobs. Manufacturers cut 46,000 and retailers got rid of 27,000.”
All I needed was that gentle media assurance that the “U.S. Economy Surprises…in Better-Than-Expected Performance,” to ease my mind enough to appreciate the wisdom and promise of Republican economics.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
U.S. Gift to World- Wage Gap Economics
Because of NAFTA, GAT and the World Trade Organization, major industrialized nations that had strong self sustaning economies are now dependant on cheap labor and imported goods.
Canada, which has had a healthy economy and budget surplus’s, is now falling victim to this race to the bottom trade formula. From the Candian Press, “Canada's rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer and the middle class stagnates, according to 2005 census data released May 1, 2008, by Statistics Canada. Between 1980 and 2005, median earnings among Canada's top earners rose more than 16 per cent while those in the bottom fifth saw their wages dip by 20 per cent.
“The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said the census report should set alarm bells ringing. The biggest economic boom since the 1960s has basically only boosted the rich…leaving the middle class stagnant and the poor worse off.”
“According to the centers senior economist, "In the 1960s, when the economy grew this rapidly, almost everybody got a bigger piece. In this generation of economic growth, the gains are accruing primarily to those on the top."
Sound familiar? The Bush administrations trade policies have ushered in this dramatic gap between the have’s and have nots. Working with other powerful governmental leaders, the citizen workers of these countries have been left out of the profit equation. Why governments refuse to get in on the action, collecting taxes and profiting from free market policies, is still a bit of a mystery to me. I can only surmise that government officials are merely setting themselves up for lucritive positions after public service.
New Democrat MPs said they are "alarmed and worried" about the data. "Most Canadians are stuck in neutral on income. The poorest of us are even worse off than we suspected." He said the economic and social policies of recent years have failed. "Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have blindly assumed that a rising tide lifts all boats," he said. "But obviously not all boats have risen and too many paddlers, in fact, have no boats."
One startling statistic: “Median earnings among those in the middle remained status quo, registering a mere 0.1 per cent increase over 25 years.” Imagine that, two and a half decades and a mere 0.1 per cent increase.
The Center’s conclusion? "It's a wakeup call for Canadians and their governments. You can't keep ignoring this, especially with financial storm clouds from the south moving into Canada. "This is not a sustainable trajectory."
That would make the U.S. that untoward neighbor, with it’s run down house, unkept yard and putrid smoke wafting over everyone in the community.
Canada, which has had a healthy economy and budget surplus’s, is now falling victim to this race to the bottom trade formula. From the Candian Press, “Canada's rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer and the middle class stagnates, according to 2005 census data released May 1, 2008, by Statistics Canada. Between 1980 and 2005, median earnings among Canada's top earners rose more than 16 per cent while those in the bottom fifth saw their wages dip by 20 per cent.
“The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said the census report should set alarm bells ringing. The biggest economic boom since the 1960s has basically only boosted the rich…leaving the middle class stagnant and the poor worse off.”
“According to the centers senior economist, "In the 1960s, when the economy grew this rapidly, almost everybody got a bigger piece. In this generation of economic growth, the gains are accruing primarily to those on the top."
Sound familiar? The Bush administrations trade policies have ushered in this dramatic gap between the have’s and have nots. Working with other powerful governmental leaders, the citizen workers of these countries have been left out of the profit equation. Why governments refuse to get in on the action, collecting taxes and profiting from free market policies, is still a bit of a mystery to me. I can only surmise that government officials are merely setting themselves up for lucritive positions after public service.
New Democrat MPs said they are "alarmed and worried" about the data. "Most Canadians are stuck in neutral on income. The poorest of us are even worse off than we suspected." He said the economic and social policies of recent years have failed. "Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have blindly assumed that a rising tide lifts all boats," he said. "But obviously not all boats have risen and too many paddlers, in fact, have no boats."
One startling statistic: “Median earnings among those in the middle remained status quo, registering a mere 0.1 per cent increase over 25 years.” Imagine that, two and a half decades and a mere 0.1 per cent increase.
The Center’s conclusion? "It's a wakeup call for Canadians and their governments. You can't keep ignoring this, especially with financial storm clouds from the south moving into Canada. "This is not a sustainable trajectory."
That would make the U.S. that untoward neighbor, with it’s run down house, unkept yard and putrid smoke wafting over everyone in the community.
Stuck in Iraq
Impeachment should be back on the table. Incompetence in office should not be tolerated by anyone, regardless of Party. I challenge any Republican, Bush backer and war monger to justify the administrations lack of preparation in developing a back up plan for our fighting men and women returning home from Iraq.
In the Vermont Press story: “Plainfield soldier stuck in Iraq as airline bringing troops home goes bankrupt,” you can’t help but ask how something like this could have been allowed to happened. If you’ve defended privatization of government services in the past, perhaps this might give you reason to reconsider such policies.
“Waneta Mayhew has waited 12 long months for her son to come home from Iraq. She found out she'll have to wait a little longer. Mayhew's son is one of at least two Vermont soldiers stranded in Baghdad due a transportation snafu that has delayed the return of hundreds of American servicemen."
"ATA Airlines, the private company contracted by the Department of Defense to ferry servicemen from Iraq to the United States, went bankrupt earlier this month, leaving soldiers in the lurch after their tours had expired. ‘I'm pissed,’ Mayhew said from her Plainfield home Wednesday. ‘He's done his year. Bring him home.’ Mayhew, who lost two brothers in the Korean War, said she has worried long enough."
"Don't we have some army planes? Why do we have to depend on commercial airlines to get our men to and from Iraq?"Sens. Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seeking a prompt resolution to the airline debacle. Lt. Col. Fred Rice is a spokesman for U.S. Transportation Command said the military is working quickly to fix the problem but that the logjam of returning soldiers will likely cause delays weeks down the road. 'What we are experiencing is definitely an inconvenience for our soldiers, and of course we feel that it is a main priority for us to get those soldiers home."
And no one saw this coming? This is inexcusable ineptitude by government officials that should prompt public outrage. The test will be this: whether people accept the conservative frame that government is bad and should be cut, or whether people see an opportunity to improve and make more responsive our public servants. And of course, bring our soldiers home.
In the Vermont Press story: “Plainfield soldier stuck in Iraq as airline bringing troops home goes bankrupt,” you can’t help but ask how something like this could have been allowed to happened. If you’ve defended privatization of government services in the past, perhaps this might give you reason to reconsider such policies.
“Waneta Mayhew has waited 12 long months for her son to come home from Iraq. She found out she'll have to wait a little longer. Mayhew's son is one of at least two Vermont soldiers stranded in Baghdad due a transportation snafu that has delayed the return of hundreds of American servicemen."
"ATA Airlines, the private company contracted by the Department of Defense to ferry servicemen from Iraq to the United States, went bankrupt earlier this month, leaving soldiers in the lurch after their tours had expired. ‘I'm pissed,’ Mayhew said from her Plainfield home Wednesday. ‘He's done his year. Bring him home.’ Mayhew, who lost two brothers in the Korean War, said she has worried long enough."
"Don't we have some army planes? Why do we have to depend on commercial airlines to get our men to and from Iraq?"Sens. Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seeking a prompt resolution to the airline debacle. Lt. Col. Fred Rice is a spokesman for U.S. Transportation Command said the military is working quickly to fix the problem but that the logjam of returning soldiers will likely cause delays weeks down the road. 'What we are experiencing is definitely an inconvenience for our soldiers, and of course we feel that it is a main priority for us to get those soldiers home."
And no one saw this coming? This is inexcusable ineptitude by government officials that should prompt public outrage. The test will be this: whether people accept the conservative frame that government is bad and should be cut, or whether people see an opportunity to improve and make more responsive our public servants. And of course, bring our soldiers home.
Let’s Make Camping Safe Again-Concealed Guns the Answer
“Critics say there's no data showing the public would be helped by visitors with concealed handguns. One group calls it an effort to "solve a problem that doesn't exist."-The Guardian
Not satisfied U.S. policy changes any Republican can be proud of, from spreading democracy via war and neo-liberal economic policy resulting in rising food prices and shortages, The Bush administration legacy may include concealed guns in National parks. For the US gun lobby, it’s a dream come true. For nature loving families, it’s simply a nightmare from which there is no escape.
The interior department, the over sear of 390 national parks and 548 wildlife refuges, would repeal an age old ban of guns in the park system.
In the Bizzaro world, made famous in Superman comics, Bizzaro citizens would say something that would meant just the opposite. For instance, Bizzaro Superman might say to Bizzaro Jimmy Olsen, “You carry loaded had gun in park so you won’t have to shoot someone.” Hell, you don’t even have to use comic book analogies when you have Bush’s Interior secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s recent comment, "The safety and protection of park and refuge visitors remains a top priority.” Huh?
Just in case you don’t want to believe a word I’m writing because I’m your typical biased liberal anti-gun advocate (true), how do you explain Park law enforcements concerns about the whole idea of people with handguns and assault weapons parading along our camp trails? National Park Service employee advocacy groups and the National Parks Conservation Association rightly identified the intent of the change when they said, “This is purely and simply a politically-driven effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. There are no existing data that suggest any public interest to be gained by allowing visitors to parks to possess concealed handguns. This proposed regulation increases the risk to visitors, employees and wildlife rather than reducing it.”
Republicans have joined with the National Rifle Association to get guns in parks before a possible Democratic president takes office. Despite the quiet, back to nature concept of visiting our national parks, Bizzaro world inhabitants would be impressed by the gun advocates logical explanation for packing heat; “Me take gun camping to shoot scary looking animals and criminals that live there.”
According to the Guardian news service story, “Although threats to rangers in national parks have risen according to some independent research, the sites remain highly safe for visitors. The chance of becoming a crime victim in an official US refuge is 1 in more than 708,000."
But if national parks and reserves weren’t dangerous enough already, perhaps we should think of bringing law and order to crime ridden pubic trains and restaurants that serve alcohol.
That’s what the gun lobby wants Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue to do by signing House Bill 89, allowing permits to carry concealed weapons on MARTA trains, state parks and restaurants that serve alcohol.
In a great story exposing the clichés of the gun lobby, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote, “Lobbyists offer no facts to support their position, only the bumper-sticker argument that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
“Fortunately, that statement has been put to a real-life test. New York has enacted some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Unlike Georgia, New York is a "may issue" state, which means an applicant must show good cause or justifiable need for a concealed weapons permit and that law enforcement can refuse to issue such a permit. New York City limits individual gun purchases to one every 90 days, maintaining a gun offender registry and requiring firearms dealers to review inventories and file reports with police twice a year.”
“According to the Georgia gun lobby, New Yorkers should now be at the mercy of well-armed criminals and violent crime should be rampant. According to the gun lobby calculus, this should add up to more criminals with guns and more bodies of innocent people strewn in the streets. But in fact, New York now has the lowest crime rate among the 10 largest U.S. cities. Since 1991, violent crime has fallen 75 percent. Last year, gun homicides fell 22 percent; shootings dropped 16 percent. The city has 5,000 fewer police officers than in 2000. In other words, less access to guns has not translated to more gun crime. Fewer guns have meant less gun violence, not more.”
“New York's progress is even more impressive when you consider the impact of guns brought in from beyond its borders. City police have found that 87 percent of guns recovered in crimes there —- including weapons used in 60 percent of the murders —- came to the Big Apple from other states with lax gun laws, including Georgia.”
“But what about 'the gun lobby fantasy' that common-sense gun laws lead to more blood in the streets. The United States has more guns in private hands than any other developed nation, so if more guns make us safer, the United States should have a very low rate of violent crime. The opposite is true. In 2004, 11,344 Americans were murdered with a firearm. Compare that to Australia, where guns were used to murder 56 people, and to England and Wales, where guns were used in the murders of 73 people. The gun lobby explains those numbers by claiming that people in Australia and England are inherently more peaceable than Americans. But is the gun lobby now going to tell us that New Yorkers are more gentle and law-abiding than Georgians?”
Like they say in Bizzaro world, “Me could say it better than that, even if I try.”
Not satisfied U.S. policy changes any Republican can be proud of, from spreading democracy via war and neo-liberal economic policy resulting in rising food prices and shortages, The Bush administration legacy may include concealed guns in National parks. For the US gun lobby, it’s a dream come true. For nature loving families, it’s simply a nightmare from which there is no escape.
The interior department, the over sear of 390 national parks and 548 wildlife refuges, would repeal an age old ban of guns in the park system.
In the Bizzaro world, made famous in Superman comics, Bizzaro citizens would say something that would meant just the opposite. For instance, Bizzaro Superman might say to Bizzaro Jimmy Olsen, “You carry loaded had gun in park so you won’t have to shoot someone.” Hell, you don’t even have to use comic book analogies when you have Bush’s Interior secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s recent comment, "The safety and protection of park and refuge visitors remains a top priority.” Huh?
Just in case you don’t want to believe a word I’m writing because I’m your typical biased liberal anti-gun advocate (true), how do you explain Park law enforcements concerns about the whole idea of people with handguns and assault weapons parading along our camp trails? National Park Service employee advocacy groups and the National Parks Conservation Association rightly identified the intent of the change when they said, “This is purely and simply a politically-driven effort to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. There are no existing data that suggest any public interest to be gained by allowing visitors to parks to possess concealed handguns. This proposed regulation increases the risk to visitors, employees and wildlife rather than reducing it.”
Republicans have joined with the National Rifle Association to get guns in parks before a possible Democratic president takes office. Despite the quiet, back to nature concept of visiting our national parks, Bizzaro world inhabitants would be impressed by the gun advocates logical explanation for packing heat; “Me take gun camping to shoot scary looking animals and criminals that live there.”
According to the Guardian news service story, “Although threats to rangers in national parks have risen according to some independent research, the sites remain highly safe for visitors. The chance of becoming a crime victim in an official US refuge is 1 in more than 708,000."
But if national parks and reserves weren’t dangerous enough already, perhaps we should think of bringing law and order to crime ridden pubic trains and restaurants that serve alcohol.
That’s what the gun lobby wants Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue to do by signing House Bill 89, allowing permits to carry concealed weapons on MARTA trains, state parks and restaurants that serve alcohol.
In a great story exposing the clichés of the gun lobby, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote, “Lobbyists offer no facts to support their position, only the bumper-sticker argument that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”
“Fortunately, that statement has been put to a real-life test. New York has enacted some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Unlike Georgia, New York is a "may issue" state, which means an applicant must show good cause or justifiable need for a concealed weapons permit and that law enforcement can refuse to issue such a permit. New York City limits individual gun purchases to one every 90 days, maintaining a gun offender registry and requiring firearms dealers to review inventories and file reports with police twice a year.”
“According to the Georgia gun lobby, New Yorkers should now be at the mercy of well-armed criminals and violent crime should be rampant. According to the gun lobby calculus, this should add up to more criminals with guns and more bodies of innocent people strewn in the streets. But in fact, New York now has the lowest crime rate among the 10 largest U.S. cities. Since 1991, violent crime has fallen 75 percent. Last year, gun homicides fell 22 percent; shootings dropped 16 percent. The city has 5,000 fewer police officers than in 2000. In other words, less access to guns has not translated to more gun crime. Fewer guns have meant less gun violence, not more.”
“New York's progress is even more impressive when you consider the impact of guns brought in from beyond its borders. City police have found that 87 percent of guns recovered in crimes there —- including weapons used in 60 percent of the murders —- came to the Big Apple from other states with lax gun laws, including Georgia.”
“But what about 'the gun lobby fantasy' that common-sense gun laws lead to more blood in the streets. The United States has more guns in private hands than any other developed nation, so if more guns make us safer, the United States should have a very low rate of violent crime. The opposite is true. In 2004, 11,344 Americans were murdered with a firearm. Compare that to Australia, where guns were used to murder 56 people, and to England and Wales, where guns were used in the murders of 73 people. The gun lobby explains those numbers by claiming that people in Australia and England are inherently more peaceable than Americans. But is the gun lobby now going to tell us that New Yorkers are more gentle and law-abiding than Georgians?”
Like they say in Bizzaro world, “Me could say it better than that, even if I try.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)