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.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
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!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
