Recently, there was quite a reaction by some to the following post, allegedly by an emergency room physician...
Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive
Brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone. While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer. And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly
acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based on the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.
Respectfully,
STARNER JONES, MD
I wish people would get just as excited about billionaires on Wall Street, oil companies and hedge funds ripping off the American people to the tune of hundreds of billion of dollars in fraud and corrupt manipulation of the financial system every year instead of getting upset because someone buys popcorn with their EBT card. That is not to say that there is no fraud in public assistance...there is and it should be dealt with. However, there are many many people who are down on their luck in America, most of them for short periods of time who need a helping hand from their neighbors who have been a bit more fortunate. For every case of a person who takes advantage of the system, there are many many others who do not choose to be poor, who do not choose to lose their jobs, who do not choose to have a physical or mental healthcare crisis in their lives. Some day you or someone close to you may need assistance to get back on their feet. We should be concerned about the right things, even though fraudulent collateralized debt obligations are much more difficult to understand than a gold tooth.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Benghazi...Another Republican Effort to Damage President Obama
A terrible tragedy occurred in Benghazi on September 11, of that there is no doubt. But why is John McCain and other Republicans fixating on this event as if something like this has never happened before, certainly not under a Republican administration...or has it??? The following attacks occurred on our embassies and consulates during the presidency of George W. Bush. How many hearings were held by Congress...none.
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomat directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
The Truth About Heathcare Reform
What is going on? Why are so many Republican governors still resisting every part of the Affordable Care Act they can? The reason is simple...they are scared to death the ACA will succeed and when it does...they will fail as a political party in America, forever.
There are two major points of resistance that Republicans are still insanely fighting to the death on: 1) refusal to accept the new Medicaid funding; and 2) refusal to establish state-run healthcare exchanges.
The second point is the easiest to discuss. The exchanges will be established, they are inevitable. The only question is how much input the states will have. Many Republican-led states have announced they are not establishing exchanges. All that means is that the Federal government will establish exchanges in their state without their input. Pretty stupid sounding, isn't it?
The first point is a bit more complicated to discuss, but it is just as simple to understand. Currently, Medicaid is a deal where the Federal government provides around 55% of the funds and the states match it with around 45%. Studies have shown that even at this level of matching funding, Medicaid is a net-positive for the states. That means that the influx of Federal funds not only does good for the poorest residents of a state, but it also creates stimulus with the result being jobs and people with those jobs paying taxes to the state. The new Medicaid funding is a no-brainer. The deal is that the Federal government will provide 100% of the funding, that's right, all of it, for the first 3 years. The states will provide no money whatsoever from 2014-2016. Then, after 2016, the state contribution will rise from 0% to 10% over the next several years. So, by 2020, the Federal share will be 90% and the state share will be 10%. You would have to be stupid...or evil...not to accept this money. Let me suggest that very few governors are stupid.
Not only does the new Medicaid funding provide health insurance to tens of millions of the poor in our country, but a major affect of this funding will be to provide reimbursement, billions of dollars of reimbursement, to hospitals for the care they currently provide to the poor that the poor do not pay for. Many people mistakenly think that hospitals "write off" care they provide to the poor...nothing could be further from the truth. What hospitals do is to "cost shift" to those of us who have insurance or pay our bills. I have studied the affect of the new Medicaid money in Florida and can tell you that the cost shifting that would be eliminated should reduce the hospital bills for the "taxpayers" in Florida by almost twice the state contribution to the program anticipated through the year 2020.
One other affect that will likely arise from the Republican governors refusal to accept the new Medicaid funding is another kind of "shifting." I expect that the poor in states like Florida and Oklahoma will "shift" to states like Massachusetts in order to get Medicaid insurance coverage.
I repeat, Republicans are still trying to destroy a program that their very own "thinkers" designed many aspects of. I had hoped that they would have finally accepted that they lost the election, President Obama cannot run again, and they would finally do at least one thing that is good for the country. But, it seems, they are still dedicated to inflicting extreme damage on America in the hope that they will be able to take power some day so they can inflict their extreme right-wing ideology on this great country.
How unpatriotic!
There are two major points of resistance that Republicans are still insanely fighting to the death on: 1) refusal to accept the new Medicaid funding; and 2) refusal to establish state-run healthcare exchanges.
The second point is the easiest to discuss. The exchanges will be established, they are inevitable. The only question is how much input the states will have. Many Republican-led states have announced they are not establishing exchanges. All that means is that the Federal government will establish exchanges in their state without their input. Pretty stupid sounding, isn't it?
The first point is a bit more complicated to discuss, but it is just as simple to understand. Currently, Medicaid is a deal where the Federal government provides around 55% of the funds and the states match it with around 45%. Studies have shown that even at this level of matching funding, Medicaid is a net-positive for the states. That means that the influx of Federal funds not only does good for the poorest residents of a state, but it also creates stimulus with the result being jobs and people with those jobs paying taxes to the state. The new Medicaid funding is a no-brainer. The deal is that the Federal government will provide 100% of the funding, that's right, all of it, for the first 3 years. The states will provide no money whatsoever from 2014-2016. Then, after 2016, the state contribution will rise from 0% to 10% over the next several years. So, by 2020, the Federal share will be 90% and the state share will be 10%. You would have to be stupid...or evil...not to accept this money. Let me suggest that very few governors are stupid.
Not only does the new Medicaid funding provide health insurance to tens of millions of the poor in our country, but a major affect of this funding will be to provide reimbursement, billions of dollars of reimbursement, to hospitals for the care they currently provide to the poor that the poor do not pay for. Many people mistakenly think that hospitals "write off" care they provide to the poor...nothing could be further from the truth. What hospitals do is to "cost shift" to those of us who have insurance or pay our bills. I have studied the affect of the new Medicaid money in Florida and can tell you that the cost shifting that would be eliminated should reduce the hospital bills for the "taxpayers" in Florida by almost twice the state contribution to the program anticipated through the year 2020.
One other affect that will likely arise from the Republican governors refusal to accept the new Medicaid funding is another kind of "shifting." I expect that the poor in states like Florida and Oklahoma will "shift" to states like Massachusetts in order to get Medicaid insurance coverage.
I repeat, Republicans are still trying to destroy a program that their very own "thinkers" designed many aspects of. I had hoped that they would have finally accepted that they lost the election, President Obama cannot run again, and they would finally do at least one thing that is good for the country. But, it seems, they are still dedicated to inflicting extreme damage on America in the hope that they will be able to take power some day so they can inflict their extreme right-wing ideology on this great country.
How unpatriotic!
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The Day Romney Lost the Race...Again
TIMELINE OF A CRISIS
First of all, my heartfelt sympathies are offered to the families of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, two other as-yet unidentified American embassy officers, and ten Libyan security personnel who lost their lives in the attack by terrorists in Benghazi. The contributions of these fine men, and their ultimate sacrifice for duty and the cause they believe in, is to be unequivocably honored.
The following facts and information are offered to better understand the political response related to this tragedy.
Shortly prior to Noon EDT, 9/11/2012, more than 6 hours before the US Embassy compound perimeter was breached, the US Embassy in Cairo issued the following statement:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Around 6 PM EDT, 9/11/2012, the US Embassy in Cairo tweeted the following:
This morning's condemnation (issued before the protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of the breach of the Embassy.
10:09 PM EDT, 9/11/2012, Romney issued the following statement which was released at 10:25 PM EDT:
I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
10:10 PM EDT, 9/11/2012, an Obama administration official stated:
The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.
10:14 PM EDT, 9/11/2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the following statement:
I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack. This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government's full cooperation. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.
12:01 AM EDT, 9/12/2012, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus tweeted:
Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.
12:09 AM EDT, 9/12/2012, Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt stated:
We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.
6:06 AM EDT, 9/12/2012, The Associated Press reported:
Libyan officials say U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staffers were killed at the Benghazi (Libya) consulate, which was under attack by a mob with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.
10:20 AM EDT, 9/12/2012, Romney said, in part, the following at a televised press conference:
It's their administration (referring to the embassy in Cairo), their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth but also from the words of his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. They clearly sent mixed messages to the world. The statement that came from the administration -- and the embassy is the administration -- the statement that came from the administration (referring to the original Cairo Embassy statement issued before the attacks occurred)was a statement which is akin to apology. And I think was a severe miscalculation.I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.
At the press conference Romney was asked whether his criticism of the administration was "too soon." Romney responded:
I don't think that we ever hesitate when we see something which is a violation of our principles.
10:35 AM EDT, 9/12/2012, President Obama held a televised press conference during which:
He offered sympathy and praise for the slain foreign services officers, and did not refer to anything Romney, or anyone else, previously said on the issue.
6:07 PM EDT, 9/12/2012, during an interview at the White House with correspondent Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, President Obama said:
There's a broader lesson to be learned here. And I -- you know, Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That, you know, it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you've thought through the ramifications before you make 'em.>
Asked if Romney's attacks were irresponsible, the president replied, "I'll let the American people judge that."
These are the facts...you may decide who reacted to these events in a Presidential manner.
First of all, my heartfelt sympathies are offered to the families of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, two other as-yet unidentified American embassy officers, and ten Libyan security personnel who lost their lives in the attack by terrorists in Benghazi. The contributions of these fine men, and their ultimate sacrifice for duty and the cause they believe in, is to be unequivocably honored.
The following facts and information are offered to better understand the political response related to this tragedy.
Shortly prior to Noon EDT, 9/11/2012, more than 6 hours before the US Embassy compound perimeter was breached, the US Embassy in Cairo issued the following statement:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Around 6 PM EDT, 9/11/2012, the US Embassy in Cairo tweeted the following:
This morning's condemnation (issued before the protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of the breach of the Embassy.
10:09 PM EDT, 9/11/2012, Romney issued the following statement which was released at 10:25 PM EDT:
I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
10:10 PM EDT, 9/11/2012, an Obama administration official stated:
The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.
10:14 PM EDT, 9/11/2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the following statement:
I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack. This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government's full cooperation. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. In light of the events of today, the United States government is working with partner countries around the world to protect our personnel, our missions, and American citizens worldwide.
12:01 AM EDT, 9/12/2012, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus tweeted:
Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.
12:09 AM EDT, 9/12/2012, Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt stated:
We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.
6:06 AM EDT, 9/12/2012, The Associated Press reported:
Libyan officials say U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other embassy staffers were killed at the Benghazi (Libya) consulate, which was under attack by a mob with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades.
10:20 AM EDT, 9/12/2012, Romney said, in part, the following at a televised press conference:
It's their administration (referring to the embassy in Cairo), their administration spoke. The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth but also from the words of his ambassadors, from his administration, from his embassies, from his State Department. They clearly sent mixed messages to the world. The statement that came from the administration -- and the embassy is the administration -- the statement that came from the administration (referring to the original Cairo Embassy statement issued before the attacks occurred)was a statement which is akin to apology. And I think was a severe miscalculation.I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.
At the press conference Romney was asked whether his criticism of the administration was "too soon." Romney responded:
I don't think that we ever hesitate when we see something which is a violation of our principles.
10:35 AM EDT, 9/12/2012, President Obama held a televised press conference during which:
He offered sympathy and praise for the slain foreign services officers, and did not refer to anything Romney, or anyone else, previously said on the issue.
6:07 PM EDT, 9/12/2012, during an interview at the White House with correspondent Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, President Obama said:
There's a broader lesson to be learned here. And I -- you know, Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That, you know, it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you've thought through the ramifications before you make 'em.>
Asked if Romney's attacks were irresponsible, the president replied, "I'll let the American people judge that."
These are the facts...you may decide who reacted to these events in a Presidential manner.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Why Do Christians Imagine They Are Victims?
There are 49.8 million public school students in 98,800 public schools taught by 3.3 million Government employees, also known as teachers, in the United States. There has never been a documented case in modern times of a single one of these 49.8 million students ever being stopped from praying before they eat their lunch, ever being stopped from praying before they take a test, ever being stopped from praying for any reason as long as they are not creating a disruption. In fact, students pray in public schools millions and millions of times every day.
What is not allowed is for the Government to decide what is in those prayers.
What is not allowed is for the Government to lead your children in those prayers.
What is not allowed is for the Government to force students to recite Protestant prayers, or Catholic prayers, or Jewish prayers, or Muslim prayers, or Hindu prayers.
Why would anyone want the Government to decide who your children pray to or what your children say in their prayers? Can you imagine the outcry if that actually ever happened?
Apparently, if many in the Republican Party have their way, that is exactly what would happen every day in America. Government employees would decide what prayers your children would use and those same Government employees would lead your children in those prayers. I am sure they think this is a great idea because they just figure that those prayers will be "Christian" prayers.
Can you imagine what would happen the first time a child came home and said, "Hey Dad, the teacher made us recite a Muslim prayer today. It sounded interesting. Will you take me to the mosque on Friday?" or "Guess what we did at school today, Mom. The teacher has us chant Hindu mantras. It was cool, I don't want to go to church anymore."
They think it is okay because they assume that the Government will only force "Christian" prayers on those 49.8 million children, that the Government will only impose "Christianity" and nothing else on every one of those 49.8 million public school students.
Why would any parent want a Government employee to be involved in their child's religious upbringing? Isn't that what the church is for..isn't that what the parents themselves are for?
Fox News and other "conservative" media outlets fan the flames, spread the ignorance and reinforce the delusion. Excerpts from a recent Fox News article reflect this:
"The threat of a lawsuit from a Wisconsin-based organization has prompted a Georgia school district to ban school sanctioned prayer before sports games.
Despite the ban, hundreds turned out Friday night to pray together before the Haralson County High School football team took the field in its season opener.
'Everybody has their rights, but so do I, and it's not right for one person to say that I can't pray,' said Connie Locklear who helped organize the pro-prayer."
Guess what? None of the "hundreds" who prayed were arrested, thrown in jail, or otherwise persecuted. No one tried to stop "Connie Locklear" or anyone else from praying.
What is it in the brains of these people that causes them to take a set of facts, and completely twist those facts 180 degrees into something that defies reality?
Why do "Christians" claim they are persecuted simply because they are not allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others?
I am asking because I have no idea whatsoever!
What is not allowed is for the Government to decide what is in those prayers.
What is not allowed is for the Government to lead your children in those prayers.
What is not allowed is for the Government to force students to recite Protestant prayers, or Catholic prayers, or Jewish prayers, or Muslim prayers, or Hindu prayers.
Why would anyone want the Government to decide who your children pray to or what your children say in their prayers? Can you imagine the outcry if that actually ever happened?
Apparently, if many in the Republican Party have their way, that is exactly what would happen every day in America. Government employees would decide what prayers your children would use and those same Government employees would lead your children in those prayers. I am sure they think this is a great idea because they just figure that those prayers will be "Christian" prayers.
Can you imagine what would happen the first time a child came home and said, "Hey Dad, the teacher made us recite a Muslim prayer today. It sounded interesting. Will you take me to the mosque on Friday?" or "Guess what we did at school today, Mom. The teacher has us chant Hindu mantras. It was cool, I don't want to go to church anymore."
They think it is okay because they assume that the Government will only force "Christian" prayers on those 49.8 million children, that the Government will only impose "Christianity" and nothing else on every one of those 49.8 million public school students.
Why would any parent want a Government employee to be involved in their child's religious upbringing? Isn't that what the church is for..isn't that what the parents themselves are for?
Fox News and other "conservative" media outlets fan the flames, spread the ignorance and reinforce the delusion. Excerpts from a recent Fox News article reflect this:
"The threat of a lawsuit from a Wisconsin-based organization has prompted a Georgia school district to ban school sanctioned prayer before sports games.
Despite the ban, hundreds turned out Friday night to pray together before the Haralson County High School football team took the field in its season opener.
'Everybody has their rights, but so do I, and it's not right for one person to say that I can't pray,' said Connie Locklear who helped organize the pro-prayer."
Guess what? None of the "hundreds" who prayed were arrested, thrown in jail, or otherwise persecuted. No one tried to stop "Connie Locklear" or anyone else from praying.
What is it in the brains of these people that causes them to take a set of facts, and completely twist those facts 180 degrees into something that defies reality?
Why do "Christians" claim they are persecuted simply because they are not allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others?
I am asking because I have no idea whatsoever!
I Was Born in 1954...or Was It 1854?
I was born on January 23, 1954 in Tampa, Florida.
When I was born, "under God" was not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. Those two words were included in the Pledge by an Act of Congress on June 14, 1954. So it was not part of our heritage, it was part of the national hysteria regarding the "Red Scare" that communists were taking over America. I bet you didn't know that.
When I was born, the Confederate flag was not part of the Georgia state flag. It was added to the Georgia flag in 1956. So it was not part of "Southern heritage," it was part of Southern reaction to integration. I bet you didn't know that either.
I grew up in Tampa, Florida. Tampa is not Selma or Dothan...Tampa is not the Deep South. Tampa is a Midwestern city in a Southern state. When I was in elementary school, none of my classmates had southern accents.
Yet, when I was in 1st grade in public school, when Kennedy was President, we memorized the Holy Bible, but didn't have any black classmates. I never had an African-American classmate until 8th grade. Why? Because our schools were segregated by race. The African-American kids in Tampa were bused, sometimes 2-3 hours a day, more than 50 miles one way, to all-black schools...even if they lived in my neighborhood. Finally, in 1968, I had black classmates, a few. It wasn't until I was a senior in high school that the buses went the "other direction" and brought African-American kids out of their neighborhoods to our schools resulting in a black student population of about 10%.
When I was a kid, the public beaches in Tampa were segregated by law. I am talking about the north side of the Courtney Campbell Causeway, not the Ben T. Davis Beach that came later on the south side. I actually made a black friend somehow when I was 7 years old while playing there in the polluted waters of Old Tampa Bay. By the way, it was so polluted, mostly from the good old sewage that was flowing into the upper part of the Bay, that we used to slip on the slime and muck on the bottom where there should have been sand and rarely saw a living thing in the water. (Thanks to those pesky environmentalists, today the water is cleaner, the slime and muck has been replaced by sand and sea grass, and the trout and mullet have returned to the Bay). Well, my black friend and I had to play on the "line" between the "white" and "black" beaches. I never understood it, but my parents unhappily assured us we would "get in trouble" if either of us crossed that line.
The biggest grocery store in Tampa where we shopped when I was a kid was located on Florida Avenue and Limebaugh, in the Forest Hills neighborhood. The store had only one water fountain in the back corner with, you guessed it, a "Whites Only" sign on the wall above it. My poor mother was in great distress when she had to explain that sign to me! I asked her what the "negroes" did if they were thirsty. She said she didn't know.
You know, I am only 58 years old, but sometimes I feel like I am 158 years old because it is so hard to believe that these are the rules and laws society abided by in Tampa just a few decades ago.
When I was born, "under God" was not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. Those two words were included in the Pledge by an Act of Congress on June 14, 1954. So it was not part of our heritage, it was part of the national hysteria regarding the "Red Scare" that communists were taking over America. I bet you didn't know that.
When I was born, the Confederate flag was not part of the Georgia state flag. It was added to the Georgia flag in 1956. So it was not part of "Southern heritage," it was part of Southern reaction to integration. I bet you didn't know that either.
I grew up in Tampa, Florida. Tampa is not Selma or Dothan...Tampa is not the Deep South. Tampa is a Midwestern city in a Southern state. When I was in elementary school, none of my classmates had southern accents.
Yet, when I was in 1st grade in public school, when Kennedy was President, we memorized the Holy Bible, but didn't have any black classmates. I never had an African-American classmate until 8th grade. Why? Because our schools were segregated by race. The African-American kids in Tampa were bused, sometimes 2-3 hours a day, more than 50 miles one way, to all-black schools...even if they lived in my neighborhood. Finally, in 1968, I had black classmates, a few. It wasn't until I was a senior in high school that the buses went the "other direction" and brought African-American kids out of their neighborhoods to our schools resulting in a black student population of about 10%.
When I was a kid, the public beaches in Tampa were segregated by law. I am talking about the north side of the Courtney Campbell Causeway, not the Ben T. Davis Beach that came later on the south side. I actually made a black friend somehow when I was 7 years old while playing there in the polluted waters of Old Tampa Bay. By the way, it was so polluted, mostly from the good old sewage that was flowing into the upper part of the Bay, that we used to slip on the slime and muck on the bottom where there should have been sand and rarely saw a living thing in the water. (Thanks to those pesky environmentalists, today the water is cleaner, the slime and muck has been replaced by sand and sea grass, and the trout and mullet have returned to the Bay). Well, my black friend and I had to play on the "line" between the "white" and "black" beaches. I never understood it, but my parents unhappily assured us we would "get in trouble" if either of us crossed that line.
The biggest grocery store in Tampa where we shopped when I was a kid was located on Florida Avenue and Limebaugh, in the Forest Hills neighborhood. The store had only one water fountain in the back corner with, you guessed it, a "Whites Only" sign on the wall above it. My poor mother was in great distress when she had to explain that sign to me! I asked her what the "negroes" did if they were thirsty. She said she didn't know.
You know, I am only 58 years old, but sometimes I feel like I am 158 years old because it is so hard to believe that these are the rules and laws society abided by in Tampa just a few decades ago.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
12 Reasons Why Romney Should Not Be President
There are at least 12 reasons why Mitt Romney would not make a good president. Here's John F. Ince's list. What's yours?
1 • Romney neither understands nor represents most Americans. The man lacks empathy for those who have not had all the benefits he has had in life. His presidency would be deeply polarizing. One can easily image his election as president would generate new waves of social unrest and violence. He clearly represents the 1% and the 99% will not tolerate policies that exacerbate the growing divisions between rich and poor.
2 • Romney's job creation claims are inflated and unrealistic. Mitt Romney's professional career was based on a very specific task: buying and selling companies for profit. He wants people to think that this qualifies him to be a job creator. With the exception of his investment in Staples and a few other early venture capital deals, his jobs creation claims are mostly chimera. He takes credit for creating jobs, when he was only an investor in those companies, not an executive. In practice, he predominantly used his power as an investor to eliminate jobs and shift other jobs overseas, all in the interest of making profits.
3 • Romney does not have a sound fiscal plan. Extrapolating from the projections Romney has offered for increased defense spending and tax cuts, his policies would blow a hole in the Federal budget, further eroding investors faith in the government's ability to get its fiscal house in order.
4 • Romney has little respect for the natural environment, nor a commitment to protect and preserve it for future generations. He blindly subscribes to Republican views that climate change is not scientifically proven. He gives no indication of any desire to develop alternative sources of energy that can mitigate the man made sources of pollutants. Instead he supports the rollback of environmental regulations all but giving companies a green light to pollute the environment and waste vital natural resources.
5 • Romney has lived a cloistered and privileged life and today has a very narrow view of the world. From the Cranbrook School to Brigham Young University, to Harvard Business School to Bain Capital, it's difficult to imagine anyone who has been less exposed to the lives and conditions under which most Americans live. The covenants of his Mormon faith are extremely rigid, restrictive and unrealistic. His devotion to his faith is admirable, but his inability to step beyond the confines of that religion suggest that he would have difficulty reconciling who he is with who others are in an increasingly diverse world.
6 • Romney's worldview is rooted in intolerance. He has a very narrow view of the world. America today is a diverse nation with many different racial groups, faiths, all in need of respect. The bully incident at his prep school and his aggressive corporate behavior buying and selling companies at Bain Capital suggest someone who has little desire help those who are different, less fortunate and in weaker position than him.
7 • Romney does not fully understand the transformative power of technological change. Mitt has no professional technical training. Most of the companies he invested in at Bain were low tech. His expertise is finance: specifically buying and selling companies. All this suggests someone who will pay lip service to the tech sector, but won't fully grasp the potential for transforming the economy and culture through advancing technology.
8 • Romney is temperamentally unfit for the presidency. He is peevish, controlling and less than transparent. He has a rigid worldview that revolves around what is best for himself and a small circle of those who support him.
9 • Romney lacks direct foreign policy experience. His four years as Governor of Massachusetts do not give him sufficient knowledge or expertise to effectively deal with an increasingly complex world. On the job learners nearly always make blunders, sometimes blunders so large that they create huge problems for the U. S.
10 • Romney lacks integrity and honesty. His fudging of issues is a sign that he feels he can head fake his way though difficult debates. His statement that he does not remember the prep school bully incident is implausible. His evasiveness over release of tax forms and embellishment of his accomplishments are all red flags. His decisions as an executive at Bain Capital were not rooted in ethical behavior. The man is simply not forthright enough to earn the trust of the American people.
11 • Romney has no commitment to women or equal rights. There is little in his public statements or record to suggest he feels any responsibility for advancing the interests of women and minorities.
12 • Romney lacks sufficient charisma and personality to be a strong leader. The country needs someone to lead forcefully and inspire citizens to tackle problems that threaten the diminishment of American stature on the world stage. Romney's robotic and reptilian personality fails to connect, leaving people feeling that Romney is in the game only for himself, rather than in it for the good of all.
Note: The author, John F. Ince of this article is a former classmate of Mitt Romney at Harvard Business School and former reporter at Fortune Magazine. He is the author of Mitt Romney: King of Bain and the Man Who Wants To Be President.
1 • Romney neither understands nor represents most Americans. The man lacks empathy for those who have not had all the benefits he has had in life. His presidency would be deeply polarizing. One can easily image his election as president would generate new waves of social unrest and violence. He clearly represents the 1% and the 99% will not tolerate policies that exacerbate the growing divisions between rich and poor.
2 • Romney's job creation claims are inflated and unrealistic. Mitt Romney's professional career was based on a very specific task: buying and selling companies for profit. He wants people to think that this qualifies him to be a job creator. With the exception of his investment in Staples and a few other early venture capital deals, his jobs creation claims are mostly chimera. He takes credit for creating jobs, when he was only an investor in those companies, not an executive. In practice, he predominantly used his power as an investor to eliminate jobs and shift other jobs overseas, all in the interest of making profits.
3 • Romney does not have a sound fiscal plan. Extrapolating from the projections Romney has offered for increased defense spending and tax cuts, his policies would blow a hole in the Federal budget, further eroding investors faith in the government's ability to get its fiscal house in order.
4 • Romney has little respect for the natural environment, nor a commitment to protect and preserve it for future generations. He blindly subscribes to Republican views that climate change is not scientifically proven. He gives no indication of any desire to develop alternative sources of energy that can mitigate the man made sources of pollutants. Instead he supports the rollback of environmental regulations all but giving companies a green light to pollute the environment and waste vital natural resources.
5 • Romney has lived a cloistered and privileged life and today has a very narrow view of the world. From the Cranbrook School to Brigham Young University, to Harvard Business School to Bain Capital, it's difficult to imagine anyone who has been less exposed to the lives and conditions under which most Americans live. The covenants of his Mormon faith are extremely rigid, restrictive and unrealistic. His devotion to his faith is admirable, but his inability to step beyond the confines of that religion suggest that he would have difficulty reconciling who he is with who others are in an increasingly diverse world.
6 • Romney's worldview is rooted in intolerance. He has a very narrow view of the world. America today is a diverse nation with many different racial groups, faiths, all in need of respect. The bully incident at his prep school and his aggressive corporate behavior buying and selling companies at Bain Capital suggest someone who has little desire help those who are different, less fortunate and in weaker position than him.
7 • Romney does not fully understand the transformative power of technological change. Mitt has no professional technical training. Most of the companies he invested in at Bain were low tech. His expertise is finance: specifically buying and selling companies. All this suggests someone who will pay lip service to the tech sector, but won't fully grasp the potential for transforming the economy and culture through advancing technology.
8 • Romney is temperamentally unfit for the presidency. He is peevish, controlling and less than transparent. He has a rigid worldview that revolves around what is best for himself and a small circle of those who support him.
9 • Romney lacks direct foreign policy experience. His four years as Governor of Massachusetts do not give him sufficient knowledge or expertise to effectively deal with an increasingly complex world. On the job learners nearly always make blunders, sometimes blunders so large that they create huge problems for the U. S.
10 • Romney lacks integrity and honesty. His fudging of issues is a sign that he feels he can head fake his way though difficult debates. His statement that he does not remember the prep school bully incident is implausible. His evasiveness over release of tax forms and embellishment of his accomplishments are all red flags. His decisions as an executive at Bain Capital were not rooted in ethical behavior. The man is simply not forthright enough to earn the trust of the American people.
11 • Romney has no commitment to women or equal rights. There is little in his public statements or record to suggest he feels any responsibility for advancing the interests of women and minorities.
12 • Romney lacks sufficient charisma and personality to be a strong leader. The country needs someone to lead forcefully and inspire citizens to tackle problems that threaten the diminishment of American stature on the world stage. Romney's robotic and reptilian personality fails to connect, leaving people feeling that Romney is in the game only for himself, rather than in it for the good of all.
Note: The author, John F. Ince of this article is a former classmate of Mitt Romney at Harvard Business School and former reporter at Fortune Magazine. He is the author of Mitt Romney: King of Bain and the Man Who Wants To Be President.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The False Premise of Conservatives - Lessons Learned from Chick-fil-A
We see it every day. Conservatives frame every important discussion in America by establishing a completely false premise first. The most recent example is the "Chick-fil-A" fiasco.
Conservatives framed the issue as, "Dan Cathy is merely exercising his First Amendment right to free speech," or, alternatively, "Dan Cathy is just expressing his religious views." If you believe this lie, then if you take exception to Chick-fil-A's activities (and that's what they are, activities, not speech), then you are somehow against freedom of speech and/or freedom of religion.
Let me suggest, if Dan Cathy had merely said in an interview, "I believe in the traditional definition of marriage," or "I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage," and that was the extent of it, there would be no controversy. But that is not the extent of it.
First, part of what Dan Cathy said was, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about." So he didn't just state his position on traditional marriage or the Bible, he went on to use some pretty strong language directed at the gay population in our country. Okay, so we are still in the free speech category, although the speech is a lot stronger than some would think because I had to search to the second index page of Google to get this quote. It seems that, even after the fact, conservatives are still redefining the argument. The first 11 Google hits when I searched the string "Dan Cathy quote" were stories in "Christian" publications that claimed Dan Cathy is being misquoted, then go on to omit the above quote that was in the original news stories and only quote the "soft" part of his interview.
Second, Dan Cathy didn't just speak, he donated millions of dollars in corporate profits that had made their way to his Winshape Foundation to fund the cause of depriving gay Americans of their rights. So now we have moved from speech to action. And some of that action (money) went to a group called the Family Research Council that has been identified as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center for, among other things, making statements that some gays should be exported out of the United States and that those remaining in the country should be criminally prosecuted for their behavior, specifically sodomy. Sodomy laws were ruled to be unconstitutional by a decision of the US Supreme Court called Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.
So now we have framed the real issue...Dan Cathy was not merely exercising his freedom of speech or religion, he was making negative statements that were directed at a part of our society and he was donating money to groups that were actively working to deprive that part of society of the same rights other Americans have. Starting to make a little more sense why gay Americans and their supporters were upset enough to take action, in this case, organizing a boycott to deprive Dan Cathy of the money he was using against them, isn't it? Also, starting to make a lot more sense why "Christian" leaders needed to falsely frame this argument. It would have been much harder to stage a "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" if the cause was to support hate speech and to take people's rights away. They would have gotten a few people to turn out, but not the masses.
Conservatives have been doing this for 30 years, and getting better and more refined about it all the time. For example, no conservative will utter the words "Democratic Party" ever, they have renamed it "Democrat Party," even though that is not its name. They have taken it so far that even I had to look up the name of the Party to be sure...they are changing what reality is...because to most people perception is reality.
It is getting harder and harder all the time in this age of electronic overload to maintain truth and sanity.
That is why I am here for those who care!
Conservatives framed the issue as, "Dan Cathy is merely exercising his First Amendment right to free speech," or, alternatively, "Dan Cathy is just expressing his religious views." If you believe this lie, then if you take exception to Chick-fil-A's activities (and that's what they are, activities, not speech), then you are somehow against freedom of speech and/or freedom of religion.
Let me suggest, if Dan Cathy had merely said in an interview, "I believe in the traditional definition of marriage," or "I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage," and that was the extent of it, there would be no controversy. But that is not the extent of it.
First, part of what Dan Cathy said was, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about." So he didn't just state his position on traditional marriage or the Bible, he went on to use some pretty strong language directed at the gay population in our country. Okay, so we are still in the free speech category, although the speech is a lot stronger than some would think because I had to search to the second index page of Google to get this quote. It seems that, even after the fact, conservatives are still redefining the argument. The first 11 Google hits when I searched the string "Dan Cathy quote" were stories in "Christian" publications that claimed Dan Cathy is being misquoted, then go on to omit the above quote that was in the original news stories and only quote the "soft" part of his interview.
Second, Dan Cathy didn't just speak, he donated millions of dollars in corporate profits that had made their way to his Winshape Foundation to fund the cause of depriving gay Americans of their rights. So now we have moved from speech to action. And some of that action (money) went to a group called the Family Research Council that has been identified as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center for, among other things, making statements that some gays should be exported out of the United States and that those remaining in the country should be criminally prosecuted for their behavior, specifically sodomy. Sodomy laws were ruled to be unconstitutional by a decision of the US Supreme Court called Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.
So now we have framed the real issue...Dan Cathy was not merely exercising his freedom of speech or religion, he was making negative statements that were directed at a part of our society and he was donating money to groups that were actively working to deprive that part of society of the same rights other Americans have. Starting to make a little more sense why gay Americans and their supporters were upset enough to take action, in this case, organizing a boycott to deprive Dan Cathy of the money he was using against them, isn't it? Also, starting to make a lot more sense why "Christian" leaders needed to falsely frame this argument. It would have been much harder to stage a "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" if the cause was to support hate speech and to take people's rights away. They would have gotten a few people to turn out, but not the masses.
Conservatives have been doing this for 30 years, and getting better and more refined about it all the time. For example, no conservative will utter the words "Democratic Party" ever, they have renamed it "Democrat Party," even though that is not its name. They have taken it so far that even I had to look up the name of the Party to be sure...they are changing what reality is...because to most people perception is reality.
It is getting harder and harder all the time in this age of electronic overload to maintain truth and sanity.
That is why I am here for those who care!
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Republicans Should Be Ashamed for Voter Suppression!!!
Following is summary of testimony from the trial in Pennsylvania regarding the voter photo ID law passed by Republicans to suppress the votes of Democrats. The same stories can be found around the country where Republicans have launched a concerted effort to steal elections by depriving Democrats of their voting rights based on lies and distortions that they are addressing a voter fraud situation that does not exist.
Every Republican involved in this evil effort should be ashamed of themselves. Every person who does not raise their voice against this terrible plan to steal elections should feel the guilt of knowing that they do not believe in democracy. Nothing is more fundamental to being an American.
Today's testimony from four plaintiffs, Tia Sutter, Danny Rosa, Joyce Block and Bea Bookler, provided poignant stories from many of those cross sections.
Sutter, a former attorney who worked as a Philadelphia assistant district attorney for more than 10 years, is a registered voter who had tried for years to get photo ID. She is 61, doesn't drive and her only photo ID is from when she was a college student in 1978. Her Social Security card is under the name Tia Sutter. Her New York-state birth certificate is under the name Christine Sutter. She has been told that she cannot get a state issued ID because her names don't match. "I thought I knew my legal name," she said. "I'm not sure anymore." To change her name on her SS card, she was told she would need a court order, which would cost $400 and would take months. "My roots and my future are all in Pennsylvania," Sutter said, choking up with emotion. "It's hurtful to me that this is now a question of 'papers please.' If your papers aren't in order, you can't vote."
Danny Rosa, 63, of West Chester is the son of a Puerto Rican woman and was born in New York. He doesn't know why his birth certificate identifies him as Danny Guerra, his grandmother's maiden name. But since he was a boy, he has always gone by the surname Rosa, the name of his stepfather who raised him. Rosa was the name on his night school diploma and it was the name on his Air Force honorable discharge certificate, which hangs on a wall in his living room. "You're proud of that?" plaintiffs' attorney Marian Schneider asked him. "I am proud," he said. "It's about the only thing I ever completed." A regular voter, he wanted to comply with the new law. So he spent the better part of a day gathering his paperwork and making two trips to the local PennDOT driver's license center where he waited about an hour each time. (He doesn't drive and had to get a ride.) "I showed him (the technician) my birth certificate and he told me my name's no good," Rosa said. "I served in the service for four years," Rosa said. "I don't do it (vote) just for kicks. It means something special to me. I think it should be important for everybody."
Because the next two plaintiffs were not physically able to make the trip from their homes to Harrisburg, their video depositions were played in court in lieu of testimony.
Joyce Block, 89, was born in Brooklyn, the daughter of vaudevillians. She married in the 1940s. She is Jewish and her marriage certificate is in Hebrew. Her Social Security card and her birth certificate are in her maiden name, "Joyce Altman." She never got a driver's license "because I felt everyone was safer without me on the road." Since registering to vote when she was 21 - she voted for FDR - she has not missed an election. In 2010, ill and in the hospital, she was determined she was not going to miss the election and refused to vote by absentee ballot. "I wanted to make sure I voted," she said. "And I carried and carried on until they let me take a wheelchair and I voted." When she heard about the new law, she had her granddaughter take her to the PennDOT center. She was told that because her Social Security card and birth certificate were in her maiden name, she could not get photo ID. She showed the technician her marriage certificate. He said he couldn't read Hebrew. Block has a large family and a great support system. She is politically active and complained to her state senator, who called PennDOT. When she returned the next time to the center, there were no problems. But she agreed to be a plaintiff because she wants to make sure that others without such a support system are not disenfranchised.
Bea Bookler, 94, was born one year before the ratification of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing American women the right to vote. Today, she seldom leaves her room at the Devon Senior Living Center. She spends her days reading and watching television.The only times she goes out anymore are on rare and special occasions, when her daughter will take her out for lunch. Also, she goes out twice a year to the election polls, which are next door to her home. Bookler is unsteady and shakes during her testimony and says it's just too hard to get around anymore. Over the years, she has lost her Social Security card and her birth and marriage certificates. While she could sign a form attesting that she has no identification and be granted a special ID used solely for voting, it would still take a trip to PennDOT, something she is physically unable to do. "It's too hard," she said. "You can see I'm not exactly mobile. I get dizzy and shaky." During her testimony, Bookler was asked why, if it's so hard, she bothers to go to the polls. The question seemed to confuse her. "I would never not vote," she said. "How proud I am to live in a country is a real democracy. And anything that prevents people from voting is taking away our democracy. "Democracy is only real if we all participate."
We must not let this country turn its back on democracy!
Today's testimony from four plaintiffs, Tia Sutter, Danny Rosa, Joyce Block and Bea Bookler, provided poignant stories from many of those cross sections.
Sutter, a former attorney who worked as a Philadelphia assistant district attorney for more than 10 years, is a registered voter who had tried for years to get photo ID. She is 61, doesn't drive and her only photo ID is from when she was a college student in 1978. Her Social Security card is under the name Tia Sutter. Her New York-state birth certificate is under the name Christine Sutter. She has been told that she cannot get a state issued ID because her names don't match. "I thought I knew my legal name," she said. "I'm not sure anymore." To change her name on her SS card, she was told she would need a court order, which would cost $400 and would take months. "My roots and my future are all in Pennsylvania," Sutter said, choking up with emotion. "It's hurtful to me that this is now a question of 'papers please.' If your papers aren't in order, you can't vote."
Danny Rosa, 63, of West Chester is the son of a Puerto Rican woman and was born in New York. He doesn't know why his birth certificate identifies him as Danny Guerra, his grandmother's maiden name. But since he was a boy, he has always gone by the surname Rosa, the name of his stepfather who raised him. Rosa was the name on his night school diploma and it was the name on his Air Force honorable discharge certificate, which hangs on a wall in his living room. "You're proud of that?" plaintiffs' attorney Marian Schneider asked him. "I am proud," he said. "It's about the only thing I ever completed." A regular voter, he wanted to comply with the new law. So he spent the better part of a day gathering his paperwork and making two trips to the local PennDOT driver's license center where he waited about an hour each time. (He doesn't drive and had to get a ride.) "I showed him (the technician) my birth certificate and he told me my name's no good," Rosa said. "I served in the service for four years," Rosa said. "I don't do it (vote) just for kicks. It means something special to me. I think it should be important for everybody."
Because the next two plaintiffs were not physically able to make the trip from their homes to Harrisburg, their video depositions were played in court in lieu of testimony.
Joyce Block, 89, was born in Brooklyn, the daughter of vaudevillians. She married in the 1940s. She is Jewish and her marriage certificate is in Hebrew. Her Social Security card and her birth certificate are in her maiden name, "Joyce Altman." She never got a driver's license "because I felt everyone was safer without me on the road." Since registering to vote when she was 21 - she voted for FDR - she has not missed an election. In 2010, ill and in the hospital, she was determined she was not going to miss the election and refused to vote by absentee ballot. "I wanted to make sure I voted," she said. "And I carried and carried on until they let me take a wheelchair and I voted." When she heard about the new law, she had her granddaughter take her to the PennDOT center. She was told that because her Social Security card and birth certificate were in her maiden name, she could not get photo ID. She showed the technician her marriage certificate. He said he couldn't read Hebrew. Block has a large family and a great support system. She is politically active and complained to her state senator, who called PennDOT. When she returned the next time to the center, there were no problems. But she agreed to be a plaintiff because she wants to make sure that others without such a support system are not disenfranchised.
Bea Bookler, 94, was born one year before the ratification of the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing American women the right to vote. Today, she seldom leaves her room at the Devon Senior Living Center. She spends her days reading and watching television.The only times she goes out anymore are on rare and special occasions, when her daughter will take her out for lunch. Also, she goes out twice a year to the election polls, which are next door to her home. Bookler is unsteady and shakes during her testimony and says it's just too hard to get around anymore. Over the years, she has lost her Social Security card and her birth and marriage certificates. While she could sign a form attesting that she has no identification and be granted a special ID used solely for voting, it would still take a trip to PennDOT, something she is physically unable to do. "It's too hard," she said. "You can see I'm not exactly mobile. I get dizzy and shaky." During her testimony, Bookler was asked why, if it's so hard, she bothers to go to the polls. The question seemed to confuse her. "I would never not vote," she said. "How proud I am to live in a country is a real democracy. And anything that prevents people from voting is taking away our democracy. "Democracy is only real if we all participate."
We must not let this country turn its back on democracy!
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Simple Solutions
American businesses are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. Republicans say that if we cut taxes, particularly on what they refer to as "job creators" and slash regulations, businesses will magically be willing to put this capital at risk. The problem is, no amount of tax or regulatory cutting will incentivize a business to hire an additional worker when there is no additional demand for their product. That would be stupid, and American businesses are not stupid. It seems most likely that the result of cutting taxes on "job creators" is that American businesses will be sitting on $3 trillion in cash.
The first step is to identify the problem. The problem right now, at this moment, is lack of demand caused by the consumers in this country simply not having money to spend. They don't have money because: 1) they don't have jobs; 2) they are underemployed; 3) they are being paid less than they used to be paid. In order to address this, several steps should be taken immediately: 1) cut taxes on the middle class; 2) institute real infrastucture spending. Additionally, the tax code should be reformed to accomplish several major policy goals: 1) stop rewarding businesses for moving jobs "offshore;" 2) reward businesses for hiring more employees.
Simple solutions...things all Americans should agree on.
When Did We Stop Abiding by "The Rule of Law"
Okay, let's see, we just survived the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression...and yet, for the first time in modern history when an economic meltdown has occurred, no one was charged with a crime...even though millions of Americans lost trillions of dollars due, in part, to lies by financial folks. We just went through a period of time when our friends and neighbors know that some of us tortured prisoners in the "War on Terror." In fact, Jose Rodriguez, former head of the CIA's clandestine services, who destroyed the videotapes of some of the torture said, "I was concerned that the distinction between a legally authorized program as our enhanced interrogation program was, and illegal activity by a bunch of psychopaths, would not be made." Yet no one was charged with a crime.
We claim to be a country guided by "The Rule of Law." My question is, was that ever true, and if it was, when did it stop being true?
Was it true when President Clinton was impeached by Republicans in the House of Representatives for lying in a deposition about an extra-marital affair that obviously had nothing to do with his role as President?
Or was it true when President Nixon was pardoned by a Republican for his role in a criminal conspiracy to undermine our democracy through the coverup of political crimes that had everything to do with his role as President?
Finally, is it true when young inner-city men get life sentences for a few ounces of cocaine, yet many financial thugs who commit billion dollar crimes do not face prosecution, from Republicans or Democrats?
It seems we have abided by "The Rule of Law" by making corruption legal.
Why I am Sad...
It seems like white men over 50 are becoming more mean, hateful and bitter day by day. Why is this so? Maybe it is because they feel their power and dominance slipping away. Maybe it is just as simple as they are mean, hateful, bitter human beings. Go to any right-wing (I prefer to call them wrong-wing) blog or website and the hatred is unbelievable. I think they were always hateful, it is just easier to see in this techo-world.
Why am I sad? Because they think I am one of them. I hear comments all the time from other old white men who think, because I look like them, that I am like them. I asked a new liberal African-American friend who had seen me for months, what he thought my politics were. He replied "let's see, old white guy with short hair from the south who used to be in law enforcement - yeah, conservative."
I am not like them.
Sam Donaldson - My New Hero!
Neil Munro of the Daily Caller interrupted President Obama's speech yesterday, an act of rudeness and disrespect for a President I have not witnessed in my 50 years of political observation. Munro's boss, Tucker Carlson, defended his reporter's actions by comparing it to Sam Donaldson's tough questioning of previous Presidents. Donaldson took exception to this by pointing out that he never interrupted a President's speech and only asked questions during the appropriate time for questions. Donaldson's response follows:
"Never once did I interrupt a president in any way while he was making a formal statement, a speech, honoring awardees or in any other way holding the floor. Yes, almost always when he was finished in the Rose Garden or in the Briefing Room or at a photo opportunity with other world leaders I tried to question him (only rarely was it a shout on the rope line, more often a more normal tone of voice) and other reporters of course did the same thing along with me. What this man did yesterday is something new, to me wrong and unusual. I think it is probably the result of the growing incivility of the times, the competition among reporters and news organizations to be noticed not only for the work product but for the theatrics of the gathering…and there is one more factor, let’s face it: Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American! These people and perhaps even certain news organizations (certainly the right wing talkers like Limbaugh) encourage disrespect for this president. That is both regrettable and adds, in this case, to the general dislike of the press on the part of the general public. For Tucker Carlson to say that he would if he can give this man a raise for this rude attempt to interrupt the president is reflective of what I’ve said above and, to me, lowers my opinion of Tucker."
Sam Donaldson had the guts to challenge the conservative lie - they can't stand having a black President. Let's face it, they treated President Carter terribly, then they treated President Clinton even worse, but nothing comes close to the disrespect they have shown President Obama.
They should all be ashamed of themselves.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Let's Talk Facts About Global Warming
Updated on 12/2/2019
Did you know...a gallon of gas weighs 6.3 pounds, yet burning it produces almost 20 pounds of carbon dioxide?
Gasoline is basically 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen. When gas burns, carbon is released and combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to form CO2 (hydrogen is also released and combines with oxygen to form water and water vapor, but this does not create the same problem as CO2 formation). Carbon has an atomic weight of 12; oxygen has an atomic weight of 16; so CO2 has an atomic weight of 44. Therefore, each new CO2 molecule weighs 44/12, or 3.7 times as much as the original carbon atom. 87% of 6.3 = 5.5; 5.5 X 3.7 = 20...that is 20 pounds of CO2.
The average person on earth produces 4 tons of CO2 per year (counting everything we do...burning gas, burning wood, deforestation, etc.); multiplied by 7 billion people means that, in addition to naturally occurring carbon dioxide, we add 28 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere per year. Although this may not sound like a lot since naturally occurring CO2 amounts to 700 billion tons per year, the earth can handle the naturally occurring CO2, and it can even handle some of the man-made CO2, but it is the portion of the excess we create that is not being naturally "exchanged" that we must be concerned about. Part of the problem is that the "half-life" of CO2 is about 27 years, so although about half of the CO2 humans are currently creating is "exchanged" or absorbed by the earth, half is not. Due to the fairly long "half-life" of CO2, the result is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm (the level it has been fairly stable at for the past 10,000 years) to 415 ppm since 1750. Almost two-thirds of that increase has occurred in the past 50 years, so the level of CO2 measured in the atmosphere appears to be accelerating. The level of 415 ppm has not been seen in the past 20 million years. You may have heard lies like, "The volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo released more CO2 than all of man's activities in history." In fact, average volcanic activity produces less than 1 billion tons of CO2 each year, and, according to volcanologists, the super eruptions like Pinatubo or Mount St. Helens added the equivalent of CO2 produced by humans in one day.
We know that CO2 can increase temperatures, especially night-time lows and winter temperatures. We know that increased temperatures can result in climate changes, including melting of glacial ice that can increase sea levels. We know that if the temperature on the planet increases at the upper range of scientific forecasts, we could see dramatic (as in bad) changes in agricultural production, mass species extinctions, flooding of low-lying coastal areas, weather extremes and even challenges to our very survival on the planet within the next 100 years.
These are the kinds of scientific facts we should be considering as we plan the future of this planet for our children and grandchildren and discuss the causes of "global warming" and what we can and should do about it.
Did you know...a gallon of gas weighs 6.3 pounds, yet burning it produces almost 20 pounds of carbon dioxide?
Gasoline is basically 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen. When gas burns, carbon is released and combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to form CO2 (hydrogen is also released and combines with oxygen to form water and water vapor, but this does not create the same problem as CO2 formation). Carbon has an atomic weight of 12; oxygen has an atomic weight of 16; so CO2 has an atomic weight of 44. Therefore, each new CO2 molecule weighs 44/12, or 3.7 times as much as the original carbon atom. 87% of 6.3 = 5.5; 5.5 X 3.7 = 20...that is 20 pounds of CO2.
The average person on earth produces 4 tons of CO2 per year (counting everything we do...burning gas, burning wood, deforestation, etc.); multiplied by 7 billion people means that, in addition to naturally occurring carbon dioxide, we add 28 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere per year. Although this may not sound like a lot since naturally occurring CO2 amounts to 700 billion tons per year, the earth can handle the naturally occurring CO2, and it can even handle some of the man-made CO2, but it is the portion of the excess we create that is not being naturally "exchanged" that we must be concerned about. Part of the problem is that the "half-life" of CO2 is about 27 years, so although about half of the CO2 humans are currently creating is "exchanged" or absorbed by the earth, half is not. Due to the fairly long "half-life" of CO2, the result is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm (the level it has been fairly stable at for the past 10,000 years) to 415 ppm since 1750. Almost two-thirds of that increase has occurred in the past 50 years, so the level of CO2 measured in the atmosphere appears to be accelerating. The level of 415 ppm has not been seen in the past 20 million years. You may have heard lies like, "The volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo released more CO2 than all of man's activities in history." In fact, average volcanic activity produces less than 1 billion tons of CO2 each year, and, according to volcanologists, the super eruptions like Pinatubo or Mount St. Helens added the equivalent of CO2 produced by humans in one day.
We know that CO2 can increase temperatures, especially night-time lows and winter temperatures. We know that increased temperatures can result in climate changes, including melting of glacial ice that can increase sea levels. We know that if the temperature on the planet increases at the upper range of scientific forecasts, we could see dramatic (as in bad) changes in agricultural production, mass species extinctions, flooding of low-lying coastal areas, weather extremes and even challenges to our very survival on the planet within the next 100 years.
These are the kinds of scientific facts we should be considering as we plan the future of this planet for our children and grandchildren and discuss the causes of "global warming" and what we can and should do about it.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Why I am for President Obama Still
In spite of the most unprecedented obstruction from the Republican Party in modern times...in spite of inheriting the worst economy in almost a century...in spite of those who oppose anything this man proposes, I am for President Obama still because he has delivered an amazing list of accomplishments. Just a few include: 1) He got Osama bin Laden and has wiped out most of the al-Qaeda leadership; 2) after inheriting the worst economy in 90 years, we have had 27 months in a row of job growth; 3) ended the longest war in US history in Iraq that he didn't start; 4) ending the war in Afghanistan that he didn't start; 5) Lillie Ledbetter Act - fair pay for women; 6) ended DADT; 7) efforts to reform healthcare in spite of obstruction from the Republicans who did nothing to reform healthcare under Bush except give half a trillion dollars to Big Pharma; 8) got a tax break for working Americans in spite of Republican opposition; 9) increased infrastructure spending; 10) ended the wasteful F-22 saving billions; 11) Race to the Top beginning improvements to education; 12) saved the US auto industry and millions of jobs; 13) stimulus saved millions of jobs; 14) expanded SCHIP healthcare to 4 million additional children; 15) enacted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; 16) allowed increased embryonic stem cell research; 17) New Start arms reduction pact with Russia; 18) protected us from terrorists within the bounds of the Constitution; 19) new weekly unemployment claims at 4-year low; 20) hiring initiatives for veterans; 21) permits Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices ending Bush practice of paying top prices to Big Pharma and saving hundreds of millions; 22) ending tax breaks to companies that send jobs offshore; 23) ended torture programs; 24) provided additional fairness to gay citizens; 25) came out in support of marriage equality; 26) Dodd-Frank Act to bring sane regulation back to our financial institutions; 27) continued to protect our environment including demanding a sane review of the issues related to the Keystone Pipeline; 28) prioritized immigration enforcement resources implementing a policy to allow productive law-abiding young people to stay in the country; 28) while serving as an incredible role model for fathers and husbands. These are just a few of the reasons that I am thankful for what this man has done for my country.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
