I haven't lost sight of the irony behind the plethora of right-wing, hate-laced editorial columns attacking Barack Obama that appeared in the media during Easter week. Most of the editorials were poignant reminders of how little we’ve actually learned from Christ and just how low people will stoop to destroy a message of hope.
Take Michelle Malkin, for example. Her syndicated right-wing column entitled "Say Goodbye to the Glowbama Mystique", had a field day calling Barack Obama every political name in the book and chastising the candidate for his association with a fiery pastor whose views on a number of subjects, including the immorality of war’s violence, aren’t in line with Ms. Malkin’s extreme right-wing ideology.
The visceral nature of Ms. Malkin’s attack against Obama reminded me of similar attacks on Christ by the religious establishment of His day, who objected greatly to Christ’s association with tax collectors, prostitutes and the poor - people who were generally regarded as the sinners of society. Christ brought His message of hope to the marginalized, and those in power felt angry and threatened and saw to it that He was nailed to a tree.
Barack Obama is not Jesus Christ, nor is he America’s religious savior. But he does carry a message of hope for a better America, and there are many, like Ms. Malkins, who feel threatened by that message and will stop at nothing to nail Obama to a tree.
Hope can bring out the best in people. It can also bring out the worst
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Eliot Spitzer Should Resign
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's career as a corruption fighting prosecutor was worthy of admiration and acclaim, as he relentlessly championed the rights of society against institutions attempting to subjugate the interests of the common man. Given that track record, it was heartening to see the citizens of New York elevate Mr. Spitzer to the State's highest office where he could also use his vast influence and experience to continue that legacy.
Now that Governor Spitzer's effectiveness as a champion for the common man has been destroyed through his own personal failing, it's time for the Governor to step aside. Yes, it's grating that the sanctimonious crooks that inhabit New York's legislative majority are demanding an immediate resignation or they will commence impeachment proceedings, but the fact is that resignation is the only honorable thing left for Governor Spitzer to do.
An immediate resignation may not repair his reputation in the court of public opinion, but it is the one thing he can do to maintain his own self-respect. At this point in his life, it may be the only thing he has left!
It behooves the rest of us to remember that none of us are without personal failings...and regardless of the personal failings of Eliot Spitzer, he was no worse than the rest of us.
Now that Governor Spitzer's effectiveness as a champion for the common man has been destroyed through his own personal failing, it's time for the Governor to step aside. Yes, it's grating that the sanctimonious crooks that inhabit New York's legislative majority are demanding an immediate resignation or they will commence impeachment proceedings, but the fact is that resignation is the only honorable thing left for Governor Spitzer to do.
An immediate resignation may not repair his reputation in the court of public opinion, but it is the one thing he can do to maintain his own self-respect. At this point in his life, it may be the only thing he has left!
It behooves the rest of us to remember that none of us are without personal failings...and regardless of the personal failings of Eliot Spitzer, he was no worse than the rest of us.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Recession - A Political Dirty Word
Last week, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Banks, in testimony before Congress, and President Bush, at a press conference, both remarked that the U.S. economy was not heading for a recession. Even if they’re right, which many economists find highly doubtful, such claims are largely meaningless in light of the fact that tens of millions of individual U.S. economies – the economies of individual American households – are already experiencing recessions and there is little hope of changing the landscape anytime soon
2.83 million Americans collected unemployment benefits last week, the largest level since September of 2005.
Employers slashed 63,000 jobs from the economy last month, the largest decrease in five years.
Home foreclosure rates have skyrocketed to their highest point in 23 years.
Because of the tanking housing market, 10% of American homeowners have no equity or negative equity (mortgage higher than a home is worth) in their home.
The average price of a gallon of gas has surpassed $3.27 and is expected to hit $4.00.
The value of the U.S. dollar is in a free-fall in money markets around the world.
The stock market has lost over 600 points spanning the last 5 trading sessions.
Consumer confidence is at its lowest point since 2002.
Health care and College education expenses have soared through the roof.
Inflation could top 7% in 2008 if the current rate-climb continues.
Against this backdrop, millions of Americans are eagerly awaiting the ‘stimulus’ checks the government is planning to send out, starting in May. Unfortunately, most of that money will not be spent on stimulating the U.S. economy, or individual household economies for that matter, it will be spent by ordinary Americans in a vain attempt to keep from drowning. That is to say, it will be spent trying to stay current on the bills.
America needs a stimulus package that does more than simply mail out checks. It needs a package that creates millions of real jobs, shores up America’s infrastructure and stimulates long-term growth that individual economies can then experience. And it’s going to take leaders willing to admit that for many, recession is already here. If you can’t admit there’s a problem, you’re not going to be working towards a solution.
2.83 million Americans collected unemployment benefits last week, the largest level since September of 2005.
Employers slashed 63,000 jobs from the economy last month, the largest decrease in five years.
Home foreclosure rates have skyrocketed to their highest point in 23 years.
Because of the tanking housing market, 10% of American homeowners have no equity or negative equity (mortgage higher than a home is worth) in their home.
The average price of a gallon of gas has surpassed $3.27 and is expected to hit $4.00.
The value of the U.S. dollar is in a free-fall in money markets around the world.
The stock market has lost over 600 points spanning the last 5 trading sessions.
Consumer confidence is at its lowest point since 2002.
Health care and College education expenses have soared through the roof.
Inflation could top 7% in 2008 if the current rate-climb continues.
Against this backdrop, millions of Americans are eagerly awaiting the ‘stimulus’ checks the government is planning to send out, starting in May. Unfortunately, most of that money will not be spent on stimulating the U.S. economy, or individual household economies for that matter, it will be spent by ordinary Americans in a vain attempt to keep from drowning. That is to say, it will be spent trying to stay current on the bills.
America needs a stimulus package that does more than simply mail out checks. It needs a package that creates millions of real jobs, shores up America’s infrastructure and stimulates long-term growth that individual economies can then experience. And it’s going to take leaders willing to admit that for many, recession is already here. If you can’t admit there’s a problem, you’re not going to be working towards a solution.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
...and the Anti-O'Bama Hate E-mails Keep Coming
Nobody is as prolific at creating and spreading "hate" e-mails as the right-wing ideologues in this country are, and now that Barack O'Bama is leading the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, right-wing hate-mongers have focused their high-powered machinery on him. I've received a slew of anti-O'Bama hate e-mails in my mailbox this week, and I'm sad to report that many have stooped to a new low in hateful content.
Hatred sickens me. It pollutes the human experience. When I see e-mail cartoons that represent nothing more than hatred wrapped in caricatured form, I have the same reaction.
When hatred infects politics, it becomes even more dangerous because it provides whole societies with excuses for attacking or eradicating others. Arab cartoons, for example, often advocate the killing of Jews and the extermination of Israel...and the "overt" quality of their cartoons openly telegraphs the message that Jewish people are worthless and eradicating them from the world would be a good thing. U.S. cartoons, on the other hand, are way more subtle in their conveyance of hatred, which in some respects, can do far more damage because the reader does not immediately recognize the hate message, but takes it in, and ever so slowly has their normal defenses to hatred eaten away. Unfortunately, however a message is spread, whether subtly or overtly, the damage it causes is widely felt.
The term, "political correctness" has acquired a negative connotation in this country, but the underlying aim of the term, to encourage people to consider how their acts and what they say will affect those who hear and see them, is a goal worth pursuing since the practice fosters a harmonious existence for everybody.
When "PC" meets resistance, very often it's because folks don't want to recognize, or deal with the discomfort of recognizing their own personal stereotypes...or simply don't want to change their viewpoint because they like the way it makes them feel.
The point I am trying to make here is that, far too often in our lives, hate seems to be acceptable as long as it's not directed towards us, and we're willing to turn a blind eye towards hate so long as we're not in its ugly cross-hairs. I personally find that condition unacceptable, as I recognize that hate, in all its ugly forms, is nothing short of a cancerous growth on the soul of humankind.
Hatred sickens me. It pollutes the human experience. When I see e-mail cartoons that represent nothing more than hatred wrapped in caricatured form, I have the same reaction.
When hatred infects politics, it becomes even more dangerous because it provides whole societies with excuses for attacking or eradicating others. Arab cartoons, for example, often advocate the killing of Jews and the extermination of Israel...and the "overt" quality of their cartoons openly telegraphs the message that Jewish people are worthless and eradicating them from the world would be a good thing. U.S. cartoons, on the other hand, are way more subtle in their conveyance of hatred, which in some respects, can do far more damage because the reader does not immediately recognize the hate message, but takes it in, and ever so slowly has their normal defenses to hatred eaten away. Unfortunately, however a message is spread, whether subtly or overtly, the damage it causes is widely felt.
The term, "political correctness" has acquired a negative connotation in this country, but the underlying aim of the term, to encourage people to consider how their acts and what they say will affect those who hear and see them, is a goal worth pursuing since the practice fosters a harmonious existence for everybody.
When "PC" meets resistance, very often it's because folks don't want to recognize, or deal with the discomfort of recognizing their own personal stereotypes...or simply don't want to change their viewpoint because they like the way it makes them feel.
The point I am trying to make here is that, far too often in our lives, hate seems to be acceptable as long as it's not directed towards us, and we're willing to turn a blind eye towards hate so long as we're not in its ugly cross-hairs. I personally find that condition unacceptable, as I recognize that hate, in all its ugly forms, is nothing short of a cancerous growth on the soul of humankind.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Terrorsim No Cause to Celebrate
On a day filled with the unspeakable horror of a Palestinian gunman massacring 8 Jewish seminary students and wounding numerous others at a rabbinical seminary in Jerusalem, it is unconscionable to witness the sight of throngs of Palestinians pouring into the streets in Gaza to cheer in celebration of the murder and mayhem. It brings to mind a similar display of Palestinian callousness following the bloody Al Qaida attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001.
Peace will never come to the Middle East as long as terrorism, in any form, is celebrated in the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens.
Peace will never come to the Middle East as long as terrorism, in any form, is celebrated in the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Bush/Cheney Rap Sheets Get Another Entry
Wth three DUI's between them, and offices in the White House on their resume, one might have figured that the criminal rap sheets of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were as long as they were going to get, but apparently not! The Vermont towns of Brattleboro and Marlboro voted yesterday to press criminal charges against Bush and Cheney for "violation of the U.S. Constitution".
No doubt, the media today will focus heavily on Hillary Clinton's big primary wins in Texas and Ohio, but the Vermont towns' symbolic gesture deserves top-billing as a step, albeit one of questionable Constitutional legality, towards holding both the President and the Vice-President accountable for their systematic dismantling of the rights, privileges and protections guaranteed to all citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
While the charge of "crimes against humanity" would have been more apt, considering this Administration's immoral invasion in Iraq, the charge of crimes against the U.S. Constitution will suffice to put historians on notice that, far from being protectors of the pillars of our national foundation, Bush and Cheney were leaders in the campaign to tear it down.
For those efforts, both deserve to have their rap sheets lengthened.
No doubt, the media today will focus heavily on Hillary Clinton's big primary wins in Texas and Ohio, but the Vermont towns' symbolic gesture deserves top-billing as a step, albeit one of questionable Constitutional legality, towards holding both the President and the Vice-President accountable for their systematic dismantling of the rights, privileges and protections guaranteed to all citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
While the charge of "crimes against humanity" would have been more apt, considering this Administration's immoral invasion in Iraq, the charge of crimes against the U.S. Constitution will suffice to put historians on notice that, far from being protectors of the pillars of our national foundation, Bush and Cheney were leaders in the campaign to tear it down.
For those efforts, both deserve to have their rap sheets lengthened.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Go Vote Folks!
This is a short message to the folks in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont: Go out and Vote! (Especially all you Democrats) The Democratic race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offers a historic choice that any registered Democrat should relish making. Both are well-qualified candidates worthy of this Nation's highest office. Let your voices be heard! Go Vote
Monday, March 3, 2008
Abusing Our Juvenile Offenders
According to a recent study conducted by the Associated Press, reports of youngsters being abused and mistreated in juvenile detention facilities has reached epidemic levels in the United States. The Associated Press found that over 13,000 claims of abuse were filed between 2004 and 2007, a time period when approximately 46,000 youngsters were detained in the juvenile justice system. The AP study opined that the number of abuse claims filed is actually much higher than they reported because the study was not able to include private contractor facilities, who universally refuse to divulge the kind of abuse-related information the Associated Press was seeking. Sadly, the findings of the report seem to suggest that 1 in 4 juvenile detainees in the U.S. are abused in some form while detained.
In many instances, the juvenile justice system marks the final opportunity society has to readjust childhood behavior and set a youngster on the proper course of law-abiding citizenship. Unfortunately, that opportunity is far too often lost or seriously undermined when the last thing a juvenile experiences before adulthood is physical and emotional cruelty and sexual abuse.
The numbers reported by the Associated Press are alarming in and of themselves, but they mask an even deeper problem - the cavalier attitude many in this country possess when it comes to treatment of juvenile offenders. It’s not uncommon to hear somebody express the sentiment that a kid must have done something awfully bad to land in juvenile hall, and if they’re that bad, they ought to get a taste of what real prison life can be like – as if a youngster actually deserves the kind of abusive treatment they receive. Said attitude reflects a sense of ‘frontier justice’ still popular in this country, but it does not serve this Nation well when it comes to providing unruly juveniles with a healthy blueprint for leading a productive life. In fact, just the opposite is true.
When that taste of prison life includes cruelty and sexual abuse, juveniles overwhelmingly conclude that said behavior is not only acceptable, but it is necessary to achieve a sense of control over their lives. Hence, they leave the juvenile system not seeking to adjust their anti-social behavior, but rather seeking out situations where they can inflict cruelty and abuse on others or continue to experience said ill treatment from people more powerful than them. In both instances, the lives of those juveniles are markedly scarred, and many end up right back in criminal institutions – the very result juvenile facilities were created to avoid.
If Americans are sincere about the desire to reform wayward youth, its high time we demand said youth be treated with dignity and respect. If we do not take this one last opportunity to provide an example of how proper citizens should behave, our wayward youth will never get the message!
In many instances, the juvenile justice system marks the final opportunity society has to readjust childhood behavior and set a youngster on the proper course of law-abiding citizenship. Unfortunately, that opportunity is far too often lost or seriously undermined when the last thing a juvenile experiences before adulthood is physical and emotional cruelty and sexual abuse.
The numbers reported by the Associated Press are alarming in and of themselves, but they mask an even deeper problem - the cavalier attitude many in this country possess when it comes to treatment of juvenile offenders. It’s not uncommon to hear somebody express the sentiment that a kid must have done something awfully bad to land in juvenile hall, and if they’re that bad, they ought to get a taste of what real prison life can be like – as if a youngster actually deserves the kind of abusive treatment they receive. Said attitude reflects a sense of ‘frontier justice’ still popular in this country, but it does not serve this Nation well when it comes to providing unruly juveniles with a healthy blueprint for leading a productive life. In fact, just the opposite is true.
When that taste of prison life includes cruelty and sexual abuse, juveniles overwhelmingly conclude that said behavior is not only acceptable, but it is necessary to achieve a sense of control over their lives. Hence, they leave the juvenile system not seeking to adjust their anti-social behavior, but rather seeking out situations where they can inflict cruelty and abuse on others or continue to experience said ill treatment from people more powerful than them. In both instances, the lives of those juveniles are markedly scarred, and many end up right back in criminal institutions – the very result juvenile facilities were created to avoid.
If Americans are sincere about the desire to reform wayward youth, its high time we demand said youth be treated with dignity and respect. If we do not take this one last opportunity to provide an example of how proper citizens should behave, our wayward youth will never get the message!
Responding to a South American Bully
Some bullies are always looking for fight, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is no exception. Chavez has ordered a slew of his army battalions to the Venezuelan border with Columbia in an audacious saber-rattling move equaled only by his belligerent diatribes against the Columbian government and the United States.
Columbia poses no danger to Venezuela, nor are Columbian leaders seeking to wage war against a well-armed adversary at the same time as they are fighting drug lords in that country’s jungles. Nevertheless, Chavez continues to sound the drumbeats of war as if his country is on the verge of a massive home invasion. Clearly, Chavez is not satisfied with limiting his combative politics to Venezuela; so he’s decided to spread it to the rest of South America as well, a move that will bring much suffering and tragedy to the region.
Standing up to Chavez’ bellicose attitude without resorting to military force will require great courage on the part of this Nation’s leadership, and a willingness of our citizenry to pay the price (at the gas pump) for our courage because Chavez will certainly stop the flow of Venezuelan oil into the United States to test our resolve.
As individual citizens, we must not allow our government to make the same mistake with Venezuela that it made with Iraq. Nothing good can come from using violence against Venezuela. This time, cooler heads must prevail.
Columbia poses no danger to Venezuela, nor are Columbian leaders seeking to wage war against a well-armed adversary at the same time as they are fighting drug lords in that country’s jungles. Nevertheless, Chavez continues to sound the drumbeats of war as if his country is on the verge of a massive home invasion. Clearly, Chavez is not satisfied with limiting his combative politics to Venezuela; so he’s decided to spread it to the rest of South America as well, a move that will bring much suffering and tragedy to the region.
Standing up to Chavez’ bellicose attitude without resorting to military force will require great courage on the part of this Nation’s leadership, and a willingness of our citizenry to pay the price (at the gas pump) for our courage because Chavez will certainly stop the flow of Venezuelan oil into the United States to test our resolve.
As individual citizens, we must not allow our government to make the same mistake with Venezuela that it made with Iraq. Nothing good can come from using violence against Venezuela. This time, cooler heads must prevail.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Mukasey Threat to Democracy
It should come as no surprise to anyone that U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey is refusing to fulfill his duty as the government’s top attorney and pursue contempt of Congress charges against former White House aides Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton. Like his refusal to pursue charges against C.I.A. agents engaging in torture, Mukasey has once again demonstrated complete repugnancy for the rule of law when it conflicts with the political purposes of the Bush Administration.
When Mukasey took the oath of office such a short time ago, he vowed to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of this Nation over any other concern. Apparently, Mukasey had no intention of honoring said pledge, and his subsequent refusal to enforce the laws of this country place him squarely among the plethora of dishonorable liars who have inhabited the current Administration.
When people speak of terrorists, they invariably link such individuals as threats to the very core of our democracy. If that’s the case, then the likes of Mukasey deserve a spot in Guantanamo Bay as much as any foreign terrorist does, for their abuse of power represents no less a threat to the rule of law in this nation.
When Mukasey took the oath of office such a short time ago, he vowed to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of this Nation over any other concern. Apparently, Mukasey had no intention of honoring said pledge, and his subsequent refusal to enforce the laws of this country place him squarely among the plethora of dishonorable liars who have inhabited the current Administration.
When people speak of terrorists, they invariably link such individuals as threats to the very core of our democracy. If that’s the case, then the likes of Mukasey deserve a spot in Guantanamo Bay as much as any foreign terrorist does, for their abuse of power represents no less a threat to the rule of law in this nation.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Immigrants, Bigotry, Flag-Waving and Idol Worshipping
There's an anti-immigrant e-mail floating around that depicts a group of Hispanic high school students raising the Mexican flag above the American flag on a flagpole outside their high school. The creator of the e-mail expresses utter outrage at the lack of respect for our national symbol and urges the viewer to pass on the e-mail if they are similarly enraged.
I recently received the flag e-mail again, and this is how I responded to its sender:
"I’ve seen that e-mail before, and it never comes accompanied with a note urging folks to keep things in perspective. Then again, I never was big into idol worship, even when the idol was a piece of cloth, so I guess I just don’t have the same visceral feeling others get when they see an American flag so depicted.
The first thing that strikes me when I look at those photographs is that they depict a bunch of kids, who by their very nature as kids don’t grasp the depth of emotions they trigger in folks here who revere the flag like a god. Five years from now, they’ll know better.
The other thing that strikes me about the e-mail is how it’s engineered to create the impression that all Hispanic immigrants are disrespectful, flag-hating people. It takes the actions of a handful of nitwits and attempts to use them to smear a whole class of people; a classic example of bigotry in action.
I can’t decide which I loathe more – the bigotry or the idol worshipping."
Subsequently, the sender took issue with my reference to flag adoration being akin to idol worshipping. Here is my rebuttal:
"One reason I'm so negative about the 'pro flag' sentiment that has reached a crescendo over recent years is the corresponding willingness of those same flag wavers to shed every freedom and value that the flag was said to represent - all in the name of maintaining national security. If the events of 9/11 proved anything, it's how little we actually treasure our freedoms...because we quickly jettisoned them at the first sign of adversity. If Americans defended their freedoms and time-honored values with the same intensity as they worship the U.S. flag, this country would be a place worthy of national pride...and so would the flag.
I remember, back when I was a kid, asking my grandmother why God was so mad about the Israelites worshipping the golden calf. It was just a large piece of gold, she said. Some people thought it could do something, but it was just an object and God was upset that it took their focus away from Him and what was really important.
Today, I look at the flag in the same light. It's just an object that takes every one's focus away from that which is truly important. If that viewpoint makes me unpatriotic, so be it, but I tend to think that defending freedom is a far higher calling than defending a collection of strands of cotton, polyester and nylon."
I recently received the flag e-mail again, and this is how I responded to its sender:
"I’ve seen that e-mail before, and it never comes accompanied with a note urging folks to keep things in perspective. Then again, I never was big into idol worship, even when the idol was a piece of cloth, so I guess I just don’t have the same visceral feeling others get when they see an American flag so depicted.
The first thing that strikes me when I look at those photographs is that they depict a bunch of kids, who by their very nature as kids don’t grasp the depth of emotions they trigger in folks here who revere the flag like a god. Five years from now, they’ll know better.
The other thing that strikes me about the e-mail is how it’s engineered to create the impression that all Hispanic immigrants are disrespectful, flag-hating people. It takes the actions of a handful of nitwits and attempts to use them to smear a whole class of people; a classic example of bigotry in action.
I can’t decide which I loathe more – the bigotry or the idol worshipping."
Subsequently, the sender took issue with my reference to flag adoration being akin to idol worshipping. Here is my rebuttal:
"One reason I'm so negative about the 'pro flag' sentiment that has reached a crescendo over recent years is the corresponding willingness of those same flag wavers to shed every freedom and value that the flag was said to represent - all in the name of maintaining national security. If the events of 9/11 proved anything, it's how little we actually treasure our freedoms...because we quickly jettisoned them at the first sign of adversity. If Americans defended their freedoms and time-honored values with the same intensity as they worship the U.S. flag, this country would be a place worthy of national pride...and so would the flag.
I remember, back when I was a kid, asking my grandmother why God was so mad about the Israelites worshipping the golden calf. It was just a large piece of gold, she said. Some people thought it could do something, but it was just an object and God was upset that it took their focus away from Him and what was really important.
Today, I look at the flag in the same light. It's just an object that takes every one's focus away from that which is truly important. If that viewpoint makes me unpatriotic, so be it, but I tend to think that defending freedom is a far higher calling than defending a collection of strands of cotton, polyester and nylon."
Friday, February 29, 2008
Kicking the Homowner When They're Down
A careful examination of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s recent remarks to Congress about proposals to stem the current epidemic of mortgage foreclosures illustrates the dark side of conservative ideology concerning ‘personal responsibility’ in the marketplace. On one hand, Secretary Paulson advocates against Congress taking action to shore up lower class homeowners struggling under the weight of adjustable rate mortgage payments they cannot afford when the mortgage rate re-adjusts. One the other hand, Paulson vehemently oppose regulations against the mortgage lenders to prohibit the very practices that created this housing fiasco in the first place. What are we to conclude then, but that conservative economic policy is to encourage the creation of an economic trap and then severely punish those who are ensnared in it?
From 2004 through 2006, the President touted what he called the drive towards an “ownership society”, creating an illusion that the American Dream was within the reach of any American willing to sign on the dotted line – and for a brief time, it was. Millions of people with no down payments were approved for mortgages with no reference to their ability to repay the debt they were assuming. In a vast number of other cases, borrowers were approved for adjustable rate loans they could afford when they borrowed the money, but were obviously not going to be able to afford when the loan rate re-adjusted. In both situations, massive foreclosures were more than foreseeable; they were assured to occur.
Now, at the day of reckoning, the very government that encouraged and facilitated this economic meltdown seeks to evade assuming its own ‘personal responsibility’. If that’s compassionate economic conservatism, I want no part of it!
From 2004 through 2006, the President touted what he called the drive towards an “ownership society”, creating an illusion that the American Dream was within the reach of any American willing to sign on the dotted line – and for a brief time, it was. Millions of people with no down payments were approved for mortgages with no reference to their ability to repay the debt they were assuming. In a vast number of other cases, borrowers were approved for adjustable rate loans they could afford when they borrowed the money, but were obviously not going to be able to afford when the loan rate re-adjusted. In both situations, massive foreclosures were more than foreseeable; they were assured to occur.
Now, at the day of reckoning, the very government that encouraged and facilitated this economic meltdown seeks to evade assuming its own ‘personal responsibility’. If that’s compassionate economic conservatism, I want no part of it!
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The Missing Cheney E-Mails
Today is the Two Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety-Fifth day of the Dick Cheney Vice-Presidency, and during every one of those days, federal law required that all e-mail originating from the Office of the Vice-President were to be retained and archived.
Unfortunately, as we are being led to believe, e-mails from seven of those 2,595 days are missing. Nowhere to be found! Gone! Vanished into the thin air of cyberspace.
And those seven days just happened to be the very seven days, from September 30th, 2003 to October 6th, 2003, when the Justice Department started investigating the White House as the source of Bush Administration attempts to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson by outing his wife as a CIA agent.
Wilson was the guy who went public and exposed the Bush Administration’s lies with respect to supposed efforts by Saddam Hussein to buy Uranium from Nigeria, a false claim used by the Administration to justify America’s invasion into Iraq. The White House exposed Wilson’s wife’s CIA covert agent status to punish Wilson for exposing the truth.
The country now knows that the original source of the leak was the White House itself, including the President and Vice-President, though mostly centered in the Office of the Vice-President, but the e-mail exchanges that might have proved organized White House efforts to obstruct the Justice Department’s 2003 investigation are now nowhere to be found.
Coincidence? I don't think so!
Unfortunately, as we are being led to believe, e-mails from seven of those 2,595 days are missing. Nowhere to be found! Gone! Vanished into the thin air of cyberspace.
And those seven days just happened to be the very seven days, from September 30th, 2003 to October 6th, 2003, when the Justice Department started investigating the White House as the source of Bush Administration attempts to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson by outing his wife as a CIA agent.
Wilson was the guy who went public and exposed the Bush Administration’s lies with respect to supposed efforts by Saddam Hussein to buy Uranium from Nigeria, a false claim used by the Administration to justify America’s invasion into Iraq. The White House exposed Wilson’s wife’s CIA covert agent status to punish Wilson for exposing the truth.
The country now knows that the original source of the leak was the White House itself, including the President and Vice-President, though mostly centered in the Office of the Vice-President, but the e-mail exchanges that might have proved organized White House efforts to obstruct the Justice Department’s 2003 investigation are now nowhere to be found.
Coincidence? I don't think so!
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
A New Peddler of Hate Video
Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s second-in-command to Osama bin Laden, just released a new video wherein he bemoans a recent U.S. missile attack in Pakistan’s North Waziristan province that killed several of Al Qaeda’s top leaders. As is normal for videos released by the Al Qaeda leader, al-Zawahri lashed out in a diatribe against the United States and he promised more brutal and senseless violence in retaliation for U.S. efforts against his terrorist organization.
Of particular interest to me was the backdrop in al-Zawahri’s latest video, a loaded bookshelf like one would see in a huckster personal injury lawyer ad – designed to convey a sense of importance, but essentially a shelf full of knowledge and wisdom never consumed.
How appropriate that a purveyor of perversion and violence like al-Zawahri would expose himself as the huckster he is; a man whose character amounts to little more than a wretched old soul appearing before a fake backdrop.
There is no substance to al-Zawahri’s message, no wisdom in his words, no redeeming social value in his cause.
Hate and killing sow no crop worth reaping.
Of particular interest to me was the backdrop in al-Zawahri’s latest video, a loaded bookshelf like one would see in a huckster personal injury lawyer ad – designed to convey a sense of importance, but essentially a shelf full of knowledge and wisdom never consumed.
How appropriate that a purveyor of perversion and violence like al-Zawahri would expose himself as the huckster he is; a man whose character amounts to little more than a wretched old soul appearing before a fake backdrop.
There is no substance to al-Zawahri’s message, no wisdom in his words, no redeeming social value in his cause.
Hate and killing sow no crop worth reaping.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Scalia's Taste For Torture
You know the worlds gone mad when a United States Supreme Court Justice states publicly, with all the bluster of ancient Rome’s Caligula, that a country’s use of torture is justifiable in the name of national security. It’s hard to believe, given all we know about the atrocities committed by Germany’s Hitler, Rome’s Caligula and all those who perpetrated the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages, that some would still think that the depravity of torture could be excused, let alone encouraged, but that’s exactly what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suggested on BBC Radio several weeks ago.
As if that was not enough, Justice Scalia took the occasion to mock European criticism of the U.S. death penalty, calling Europe’s opposition to the American practice ‘self-righteous’ and ‘ridiculous’.
One could almost forgive Justice Scalia as being ignorant on both topics, as he’s never witnessed the atrocities that millions of Europeans did, but Scalia is routinely touted as one of the most brilliant thinkers on the Supreme Court. Thus, it can only be concluded that Scalia is perfectly happy with the use of torture and state-sponsored killing, as his comments suggest, which places him squarely in the company of such unworthy notables as Hitler and Rome’s Caligula.
You wouldn’t think that the bloodthirsty would achieve such high respect, but like I said, “The worlds gone mad”.
As if that was not enough, Justice Scalia took the occasion to mock European criticism of the U.S. death penalty, calling Europe’s opposition to the American practice ‘self-righteous’ and ‘ridiculous’.
One could almost forgive Justice Scalia as being ignorant on both topics, as he’s never witnessed the atrocities that millions of Europeans did, but Scalia is routinely touted as one of the most brilliant thinkers on the Supreme Court. Thus, it can only be concluded that Scalia is perfectly happy with the use of torture and state-sponsored killing, as his comments suggest, which places him squarely in the company of such unworthy notables as Hitler and Rome’s Caligula.
You wouldn’t think that the bloodthirsty would achieve such high respect, but like I said, “The worlds gone mad”.
Gas Economics
The Headline I read touted that gas prices rose 2 cents over the weekend, but I can tell you that’s not true. Gas prices didn’t rise over a span of three days – they rose in a matter of minutes. And it wasn’t two cents; it was ten!
Somewhere between 3:10 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, the price of gas rose ten cents at a local convenience store and within an hour, every gas outlet within 20 miles of my computer followed suit.
At the same time as the news outlets were reporting that gasoline supplies in the U.S. were rising, an event the laws of supply and demand say should trigger a price reduction, every gas station in the country was increasing their prices. So much for the fundamentals of economics!
Call me jaded, but I think gas suppliers are gouging.
Tensions rise in the Middle East; gas prices go up ten cents.
Tensions abate in the Middle East; gas prices go down five cents.
Fire breaks out at a domestic oil refinery; gas prices go up ten cents.
Firemen extinguish the blaze; gas prices go down five cents.
And then, at the end of each fiscal quarter, Exxon posts record profits.
Somewhere between 3:10 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, the price of gas rose ten cents at a local convenience store and within an hour, every gas outlet within 20 miles of my computer followed suit.
At the same time as the news outlets were reporting that gasoline supplies in the U.S. were rising, an event the laws of supply and demand say should trigger a price reduction, every gas station in the country was increasing their prices. So much for the fundamentals of economics!
Call me jaded, but I think gas suppliers are gouging.
Tensions rise in the Middle East; gas prices go up ten cents.
Tensions abate in the Middle East; gas prices go down five cents.
Fire breaks out at a domestic oil refinery; gas prices go up ten cents.
Firemen extinguish the blaze; gas prices go down five cents.
And then, at the end of each fiscal quarter, Exxon posts record profits.
Monday, February 25, 2008
War Lies Go Unpunished
There was a time in this country when killing without justification was treated severely, oftentimes resulting in the death of the perpetrator, but that practice hasn't been applied to our elected officials who authorize killing with reckless abandon under the cloak of 'waging war'. And it certainly hasn't been applied to President Bush and his Administration for lying to the American people and duping the Nation into believing there was a moral justification for going to war in Iraq.
The well-respected Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C. recently released the results of an in-depth study it undertook of public statements issued by President Bush and members of his Administration in the lead-up to the Iraq War. The study documented that President Bush and his Administration issued 935 false statements regarding the justification for invading Iraq in the two years before the war began.
Those lies convinced a majority of the American people (albeit a slim majority) that invading Iraq was morally justified when it was not. They duped this Nation into sacrificing the lives of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars that future generations will be required to repay. They triggered the senseless deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis. They destroyed America's moral credibility in the eyes of the world, but more importantly, in the eyes of God.
Even today, many of our conservative politicians refuse to acknowledge the lies, refuse to repudiate the lies and refuse to accept responsibility for perpetrating the lies. As a result, those lies go unpunished...and the killing continue! When will it end? When will someone be held responsible?
The well-respected Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C. recently released the results of an in-depth study it undertook of public statements issued by President Bush and members of his Administration in the lead-up to the Iraq War. The study documented that President Bush and his Administration issued 935 false statements regarding the justification for invading Iraq in the two years before the war began.
Those lies convinced a majority of the American people (albeit a slim majority) that invading Iraq was morally justified when it was not. They duped this Nation into sacrificing the lives of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars that future generations will be required to repay. They triggered the senseless deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis. They destroyed America's moral credibility in the eyes of the world, but more importantly, in the eyes of God.
Even today, many of our conservative politicians refuse to acknowledge the lies, refuse to repudiate the lies and refuse to accept responsibility for perpetrating the lies. As a result, those lies go unpunished...and the killing continue! When will it end? When will someone be held responsible?
Friday, February 22, 2008
MISSING THE MARK - a Question of Ethics or Romance
If you read The New York Times article questioning John McCain's relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, or any of the hundreds of articles subsequently commenting on the story, you can’t help concluding that society is still not ready to accept non-marital male-female relationships without jumping to the conclusion that a romantic and/or sexual element lies somewhere within.
What disappoints me is not that The New York Times ran the piece; after all, McCain is running for President on an ethical and moral character platform, it’s that the discussion quickly dissolved into whether The New York Times showed bad taste for running the article or John McCain cheated on his wife. Few stopped to examine the nature of relationships in general. It appear as if everybody just assumed that a man and a woman can't have a non-romantic relationship, an assumption that is patently false.
In my book, The New York Times article and the firestorm it has triggered is more telling about the focus of this Country than McCain's character. I saw the piece as questioning McCain’s willingness to be influenced by special interest lobbying – whereas the rest of the country focused on the question of McCain’s marital fidelity. Perhaps our society gravitates towards the scent of sexual scandal out of habit, but this proclivity gravely undermines a discussion that is sorely needed - the nature of relationships between the sexes and how those relationships should be viewed in the public arena.
Until such a discussion occurs on a broad scale in this country, every question of improper political influence between a man and a woman will automatically become clouded by the aura of sexual impropriety, and the evils of improper political influence will take a backseat thereto. For that, we all suffer.
What disappoints me is not that The New York Times ran the piece; after all, McCain is running for President on an ethical and moral character platform, it’s that the discussion quickly dissolved into whether The New York Times showed bad taste for running the article or John McCain cheated on his wife. Few stopped to examine the nature of relationships in general. It appear as if everybody just assumed that a man and a woman can't have a non-romantic relationship, an assumption that is patently false.
In my book, The New York Times article and the firestorm it has triggered is more telling about the focus of this Country than McCain's character. I saw the piece as questioning McCain’s willingness to be influenced by special interest lobbying – whereas the rest of the country focused on the question of McCain’s marital fidelity. Perhaps our society gravitates towards the scent of sexual scandal out of habit, but this proclivity gravely undermines a discussion that is sorely needed - the nature of relationships between the sexes and how those relationships should be viewed in the public arena.
Until such a discussion occurs on a broad scale in this country, every question of improper political influence between a man and a woman will automatically become clouded by the aura of sexual impropriety, and the evils of improper political influence will take a backseat thereto. For that, we all suffer.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Common Sense Security Finally Begins
Long overdue improved security measures were commenced at this Nation's borders today when new State Department rules concerning the forms of ID needed to gain entry into the country finally went into effect. The media is reporting that officials at the State Department say enforcement will not be strict at first, which is disappointing to say the least, but the action to improve security at the borders is a welcomed sign nonetheless. Once full enforcement is implimented, we can all breathe a little easier.
That's not to say that the new rules will end outside threats. Nothing can be farther from the truth. What the rules do represent though, is a major common-sense improvement in how we scrutinize those coming into this Counrty. The new rules represent a significant step in protecting our Nation without unnecessary infringement on the lives of those who cross our borders.
That's something we can all celebrate.
That's not to say that the new rules will end outside threats. Nothing can be farther from the truth. What the rules do represent though, is a major common-sense improvement in how we scrutinize those coming into this Counrty. The new rules represent a significant step in protecting our Nation without unnecessary infringement on the lives of those who cross our borders.
That's something we can all celebrate.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Atttorney General: Think No Torture...See No Torture
It's not very reassuring that the Nation's chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, won't provide a legal opinion as to whether "waterboarding" constitutes torture, and thus, constitutes a violation of the federal statutes prohibiting torture. Mukasey says that's not his job. I find such a claim incredulous!
I thought the job of the Attorney General of the United States was to enforce this Nations' laws and to insure that every person who violates those laws is held accountable for their actions. And I also thought, apparently in error according to Mukasey, that in order to carry out his or her duties, an Attorney General would have to render a judgment call as to whether an actor's conduct fell within the conduct prescribed by a federal criminal statute. After all, the Canons of Legal Ethics require a prosecutor to believe that a crime was committed before charges can be filed. So, it would seem logical that when it comes to whether conduct is illegal or not, especially when the conduct centers around torture, the Attorney General would have an opinion.
But not with this Attonrey General. The way he sees it, that's not his job.
I thought the job of the Attorney General of the United States was to enforce this Nations' laws and to insure that every person who violates those laws is held accountable for their actions. And I also thought, apparently in error according to Mukasey, that in order to carry out his or her duties, an Attorney General would have to render a judgment call as to whether an actor's conduct fell within the conduct prescribed by a federal criminal statute. After all, the Canons of Legal Ethics require a prosecutor to believe that a crime was committed before charges can be filed. So, it would seem logical that when it comes to whether conduct is illegal or not, especially when the conduct centers around torture, the Attorney General would have an opinion.
But not with this Attonrey General. The way he sees it, that's not his job.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Mudslinging the "L" Word
It's hard to imaging either John McCain or Mitt Romney as an agent of change when they resort to slinging the "L-word" (liberal) at one another. I'm a diehard liberal, so I can tell you that neither candidate even comes close to qualifying as liberal, but if this is how both are acting now in the midst of the Republican primaries, imagine how both would be in the Fall facing a Democratic opponent. Expect today's name-calling to the 9th power.
The other Republican candidates wouldn't act better; they just didn't make today's news bulletins.
If you want a real 'agent of change', you'll have to forego labeling and allow yourself to hope with Obama. He may be liberal, but you won't hear him slinging the "C-word".
The other Republican candidates wouldn't act better; they just didn't make today's news bulletins.
If you want a real 'agent of change', you'll have to forego labeling and allow yourself to hope with Obama. He may be liberal, but you won't hear him slinging the "C-word".
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Losers Don't Leave Iraq - Winners Don't Stay
When the Democratic candidates in last night’s debate were asked whether they were more interested in pulling troops out of Iraq or winning the war, I thought each candidate missed a golden opportunity to re-frame the question. Here’s what I’d have said:
[To the questioner] You’ve spent too much time listening to the Republicans! We’ve already won that war. We invaded Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. Saddam and his henchmen are dead. We invaded Iraq to rid them of nuclear and chemical weapons. It turns out they never had any in the first place. Case closed. We achieved out objective. We won that war. Bush said so on the deck of an aircraft carrier. It’s time to bring our troops home!
The notion that Iraq has to be the main battlefront on the War on Terror is nonsense. If we invaded Easter Island in the Pacific tomorrow, al-Qaeda would show up the next day and want to fight us there. Wherever we go, they’ll follow.
If the United States is truly serious about fighting Al-Qaeda, wouldn't it make more sense to do it on their own home turf, not in the middle of a somebody else's back yard and certainly not in the mddle of a Siite/Sunni/Kurd civil war where our guys get caught in the crossfire?
Wasting time in Iraq is the quickest was for the United States to lose the war against terrorism.
[To the questioner] You’ve spent too much time listening to the Republicans! We’ve already won that war. We invaded Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. Saddam and his henchmen are dead. We invaded Iraq to rid them of nuclear and chemical weapons. It turns out they never had any in the first place. Case closed. We achieved out objective. We won that war. Bush said so on the deck of an aircraft carrier. It’s time to bring our troops home!
The notion that Iraq has to be the main battlefront on the War on Terror is nonsense. If we invaded Easter Island in the Pacific tomorrow, al-Qaeda would show up the next day and want to fight us there. Wherever we go, they’ll follow.
If the United States is truly serious about fighting Al-Qaeda, wouldn't it make more sense to do it on their own home turf, not in the middle of a somebody else's back yard and certainly not in the mddle of a Siite/Sunni/Kurd civil war where our guys get caught in the crossfire?
Wasting time in Iraq is the quickest was for the United States to lose the war against terrorism.
Dr. Martin Luther King Would Have Been Encouraged
Watching Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards debate on the evening of a holiday dedicated to the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, I couldn't help believing that the civil-rights crusader and promoter of equality would have been wonderfully encouraged by the sight of a black man and a woman, standing center stage, as viable and widely accepted candidates for the United States Presidency. Sometimes, it's nice to observe the fulfillment of a dream in one's own midst.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Politicians and Recession
Politicians are frequently loath to mention the word, “recession” for fear that their acknowledgment of the possibility of such an event will trigger its actual occurrence, but such thinking gives a politician’s mouth more credit than it deserve. More often, it’s the politician’s actions, or lack thereof, that hastens the onset of the dreaded economic condition.
This failure to acknowledge the obvious works no justice to the American people. At the very juncture when steps could be taken to avoid the economic calamity that recession entails, officials most capable of affecting change are frequently too busy burying their heads in the sand and blindly hoping for the equivalent of an economic miracle, rather than rolling up their sleeves, acknowledging the obvious and moving towards a workable solution. By the time the political world decides to acknowledge the obvious, it’s too late to avoid recession’s juggernaut. Such is the case today.
For years, middle and lower class Americans have been struggling under the weight of higher and higher energy prices, soaring health expenses and a steady loss of quality paying jobs. That fact was obvious to anybody paying attention to the struggles of the common man. Since the middle class forms the backbone of the U.S. economy, the health of the economy is inextricably linked to their plight. It shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to predict the recession that confronts us, just somebody with the guts to open their mouth. But alas, they were suddenly silent. Woe to us!
Equally maddening are politicians who see “recession” as an excuse for political gain, rather than a torturous cloud that chokes life itself out of the weakest enveloped by it. When the recovery of the common man’s malaise takes a back seat to the quest to secure an ideological victory for one’s political viewpoint, millions will suffer needlessly.
This Nation’s top economists widely agree that any government intervention to ward off, or lessen the economic devastation of the impending recession, must be narrowly targeted to places where the pain is most greatly felt, so as not to cripple this countries long-term economic health. Such a solution would require politicians to cast aside their desire for ideological gain in favor of securing a workable solution.
I’d like to think that was possible, but in today’s polarized political climate, I’m not too optimistic about the prospect and I’m not afraid of opening my mouth to say so!
This failure to acknowledge the obvious works no justice to the American people. At the very juncture when steps could be taken to avoid the economic calamity that recession entails, officials most capable of affecting change are frequently too busy burying their heads in the sand and blindly hoping for the equivalent of an economic miracle, rather than rolling up their sleeves, acknowledging the obvious and moving towards a workable solution. By the time the political world decides to acknowledge the obvious, it’s too late to avoid recession’s juggernaut. Such is the case today.
For years, middle and lower class Americans have been struggling under the weight of higher and higher energy prices, soaring health expenses and a steady loss of quality paying jobs. That fact was obvious to anybody paying attention to the struggles of the common man. Since the middle class forms the backbone of the U.S. economy, the health of the economy is inextricably linked to their plight. It shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to predict the recession that confronts us, just somebody with the guts to open their mouth. But alas, they were suddenly silent. Woe to us!
Equally maddening are politicians who see “recession” as an excuse for political gain, rather than a torturous cloud that chokes life itself out of the weakest enveloped by it. When the recovery of the common man’s malaise takes a back seat to the quest to secure an ideological victory for one’s political viewpoint, millions will suffer needlessly.
This Nation’s top economists widely agree that any government intervention to ward off, or lessen the economic devastation of the impending recession, must be narrowly targeted to places where the pain is most greatly felt, so as not to cripple this countries long-term economic health. Such a solution would require politicians to cast aside their desire for ideological gain in favor of securing a workable solution.
I’d like to think that was possible, but in today’s polarized political climate, I’m not too optimistic about the prospect and I’m not afraid of opening my mouth to say so!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
RUSH STEALS MY THEORY
I should have figured that a quack like Rush Limbaugh would be hot on the Clinton conspiracy trail, but I underestimated his speed. A mere 3 hours after I posted my two conspiracy theories, Rush hit the airways and stole my idea...suggesting that the "Hillary Camp" bussed in illegal voters from surrounding states to stuff the New Hampshire ballot boxes.
Sorry, Rush! I'm the guy who started that theory and deserve all the credit.
Sorry, Rush! I'm the guy who started that theory and deserve all the credit.
The Birth of More Conspiracy Theories
Over the years, millions of conspiracy theories have been bandied about, but oftentimes nobody takes responsibility for starting them. It seems like an act of cowardice to set a theory in motion, but not have the gall to attach one's name to it.
Today, that's going to change. I'd like to go on record as creating two new conspiracy theories of my own. Mind you, they are totally unsubstantiated theories with no factual basis whatsoever - bordering on pure madness - but if either gains traction, or, by some bizarre twist of fate turns out to be true, I demand to be given credit as the first to advance that theory.
My first conspiracy theory: Hillary Clinton Operatives Stole the New Hampshire Election! *
(In the interest of fairness, must add the following disclaimer: I would rather Barack Obama be President. Hillary is my second choice!)
Okay, now that we're past the disclaimer, I'd like to point out that virtually all the pollsters had Barack Obama winning the New Hamshire election by 10 or more percentage points. Instead, Hillary won by three points. I could see a few pollsters getting it wrong, but the notion of everybody in the polling business being wrong just doesn't smell right...and if something stinks, well - you get the drift.
That's all the evidence I have. Are you ready for my second conspiracy theory, which is just as plausible as the first?
My second conspiracy theory: Christian Evangelical Forces Stole the New Hampshire Election For Clinton Because They Desire Her as the Democratic Candidate...*
...after all, nobody hates Hillary more than the evangelicals! And what better way to mobilize the G.O.P. evangelical base than by facing their version of the devil incarnate!
*theory first advanced by Steve Zorbaugh
Today, that's going to change. I'd like to go on record as creating two new conspiracy theories of my own. Mind you, they are totally unsubstantiated theories with no factual basis whatsoever - bordering on pure madness - but if either gains traction, or, by some bizarre twist of fate turns out to be true, I demand to be given credit as the first to advance that theory.
My first conspiracy theory: Hillary Clinton Operatives Stole the New Hampshire Election! *
(In the interest of fairness, must add the following disclaimer: I would rather Barack Obama be President. Hillary is my second choice!)
Okay, now that we're past the disclaimer, I'd like to point out that virtually all the pollsters had Barack Obama winning the New Hamshire election by 10 or more percentage points. Instead, Hillary won by three points. I could see a few pollsters getting it wrong, but the notion of everybody in the polling business being wrong just doesn't smell right...and if something stinks, well - you get the drift.
That's all the evidence I have. Are you ready for my second conspiracy theory, which is just as plausible as the first?
My second conspiracy theory: Christian Evangelical Forces Stole the New Hampshire Election For Clinton Because They Desire Her as the Democratic Candidate...*
...after all, nobody hates Hillary more than the evangelicals! And what better way to mobilize the G.O.P. evangelical base than by facing their version of the devil incarnate!
*theory first advanced by Steve Zorbaugh
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
In Remembrance
A very dear friend was taken from this world on Sunday, the tragic victim of domestic violence at the hands of her estranged husband. She is survived by a seventeen year old daughter, Tiffany. The following is my memorial to this woman, whose dream of a happier life was cut short by a senseless act of violence:
Sometimes, ordinary women summon extraordinary courage to transform lives; and sometimes, those women pay for their courage with their own life. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to free themselves from the yoke of emotional abuse and domestic violence; and sometimes, the violence consumes them anyway. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to dream for a better life, a happier life, a safer life, a calmer life, a more rewarding life; and sometimes, that dream is extinguished in the blink of an eye with nary a rhyme or reason. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to teach their offspring that hope can be found in the midst of utter desolation, that resolve and determination can give rise to hope for a better tomorrow and that a life lived by one’s own choice, no matter how short, is far superior to a lifetime of living according to the will of another. Tammy was one of those women
And sometimes, extraordinary courage transforms ordinary women into extraordinary women. Tammy was one of those women too.
She loved her daughter. She treasured her family. She cherished her friends. She yearned for a happier life – a dream unfortunately cut short – but by her courage she planted a seed that is Tiffany’s hope and a reminder to us all that courage to take the first step is truly extraordinary.
God Bless us All!
Sometimes, ordinary women summon extraordinary courage to transform lives; and sometimes, those women pay for their courage with their own life. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to free themselves from the yoke of emotional abuse and domestic violence; and sometimes, the violence consumes them anyway. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to dream for a better life, a happier life, a safer life, a calmer life, a more rewarding life; and sometimes, that dream is extinguished in the blink of an eye with nary a rhyme or reason. Tammy was one of those women.
Sometimes, ordinary women find the extraordinary courage to teach their offspring that hope can be found in the midst of utter desolation, that resolve and determination can give rise to hope for a better tomorrow and that a life lived by one’s own choice, no matter how short, is far superior to a lifetime of living according to the will of another. Tammy was one of those women
And sometimes, extraordinary courage transforms ordinary women into extraordinary women. Tammy was one of those women too.
She loved her daughter. She treasured her family. She cherished her friends. She yearned for a happier life – a dream unfortunately cut short – but by her courage she planted a seed that is Tiffany’s hope and a reminder to us all that courage to take the first step is truly extraordinary.
God Bless us All!
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Two Parties - One Dance (The Democrats)
What could be better than holding two proms at the same locale on one night? How about two presidential debates?
That’s exactly what ABC and sponsor, Facebook did, and they should be congratulated for holding the Saturday night presentation, a program that featured two separate presidential debates on the campus of Saint Anselm’s College in New Hampshire. The debates were well moderated and briskly paced, with ample opportunity for the candidates of each party to mix it up with one another, and both debates provided voters with sharper views of the distinctions between the candidates.
Candidate “spin” aside, voters who watched the debates were the clear winners.
Obama didn’t disappoint, Hillary made her points, Edwards showed his conviction and Richardson kept tapping the podium, even though he managed the night’s best zinger.
Let’s start with Richardson and work our way up in the Democratic polls. Bill’s entire performance was overshadowed by the irritating habit he had of tapping his fingers on the podium while he was speaking. The microphone picked up the continual tapping and it was hard to pay attention to what he was saying. Richard made a good point when he asked rhetorically, “What’s wrong with experience? Is it suddenly akin to being a leper?” Of course, having executive experience is a quality he’s touting as important because he’s been a state governor and that’s a point in his favor, but I sometimes wonder why anybody would claim to have the necessary experience when nobody, except an incumbent President seeking re-election, really has “prior experience”. And every time Bill says, “I’m the only one who balanced a budget” I cringe. That’s because a couple hundred million Americans have done it too. Perhaps another candidate will one day think of it too.
Edwards wasted no time going on the attack, labeling Hillary Clinton as the “status quo” candidate, a charge that provoked a fierce return barrage from Clinton, but one Edwards withstood and proved that, if nothing else, Edwards was truly committed and passionate about his desire to battle for the middle class. It’s hard to look at Edwards though and not wonder how much he paid for his current haircut. Edwards missed a chance to erase some of that image when asked what gaffe he made during the campaign that he’d like to erase, if he had the opportunity to do so. I can’t recall his answer, except that it had nothing to do with the haircut and it should have. People do care about how a President will handle the public purse, and the wasteful haircut was just the kind of thing that would cause folks to overlook John’s other good ideas.
Hillary Clinton handled herself well in the debate and confirmed, at least in my mind, that she has the intellectual capacity, the iron resolve and the passion necessary to be a good President. She’s match or better Margaret Thatcher’s steel will. Hillary’s comments regarding the capacity to translate talk into action and feelings into reality were well-reasoned arguments meant to position her as an agent for change and to negate some of the momentum Barack Obama gained by garnering that mantel. Unfortunately, Hillary is still saddled with Bill’s negative moral image and the “calculating and cruel” image of her that the right-wing stalwarts have so effectively painted of her over the years. She may very well be an, ‘agent of change’ in the role of President, but even left-wingers like myself have a difficult time formulating the picture. Nevertheless, Hillary did a fine job of articulating her points and positions.
The pundits said that Barack Obama needed to avoid making a big gaffe, and he accomplished that feat, and much more. He demonstrated in a firm, but calm manner that he was equipped to handle the rigors of the Oval office and possessed the intellectual capacity and wisdom necessary to perform the job properly. Obama was right when he said that words do matter and that words empower people. Words matter because people need to know that their voices are being heard and people need to know that those they elect truly understand the issues being faced in everyday life by ordinary Americans. Words also matter because the job of bringing true change to America will entail a collective discussion between folks of many different backgrounds. For too long our leaders have acted and talked at, but no to Americans. Obama’s decision to change course is a welcomed start to change.
That’s exactly what ABC and sponsor, Facebook did, and they should be congratulated for holding the Saturday night presentation, a program that featured two separate presidential debates on the campus of Saint Anselm’s College in New Hampshire. The debates were well moderated and briskly paced, with ample opportunity for the candidates of each party to mix it up with one another, and both debates provided voters with sharper views of the distinctions between the candidates.
Candidate “spin” aside, voters who watched the debates were the clear winners.
Obama didn’t disappoint, Hillary made her points, Edwards showed his conviction and Richardson kept tapping the podium, even though he managed the night’s best zinger.
Let’s start with Richardson and work our way up in the Democratic polls. Bill’s entire performance was overshadowed by the irritating habit he had of tapping his fingers on the podium while he was speaking. The microphone picked up the continual tapping and it was hard to pay attention to what he was saying. Richard made a good point when he asked rhetorically, “What’s wrong with experience? Is it suddenly akin to being a leper?” Of course, having executive experience is a quality he’s touting as important because he’s been a state governor and that’s a point in his favor, but I sometimes wonder why anybody would claim to have the necessary experience when nobody, except an incumbent President seeking re-election, really has “prior experience”. And every time Bill says, “I’m the only one who balanced a budget” I cringe. That’s because a couple hundred million Americans have done it too. Perhaps another candidate will one day think of it too.
Edwards wasted no time going on the attack, labeling Hillary Clinton as the “status quo” candidate, a charge that provoked a fierce return barrage from Clinton, but one Edwards withstood and proved that, if nothing else, Edwards was truly committed and passionate about his desire to battle for the middle class. It’s hard to look at Edwards though and not wonder how much he paid for his current haircut. Edwards missed a chance to erase some of that image when asked what gaffe he made during the campaign that he’d like to erase, if he had the opportunity to do so. I can’t recall his answer, except that it had nothing to do with the haircut and it should have. People do care about how a President will handle the public purse, and the wasteful haircut was just the kind of thing that would cause folks to overlook John’s other good ideas.
Hillary Clinton handled herself well in the debate and confirmed, at least in my mind, that she has the intellectual capacity, the iron resolve and the passion necessary to be a good President. She’s match or better Margaret Thatcher’s steel will. Hillary’s comments regarding the capacity to translate talk into action and feelings into reality were well-reasoned arguments meant to position her as an agent for change and to negate some of the momentum Barack Obama gained by garnering that mantel. Unfortunately, Hillary is still saddled with Bill’s negative moral image and the “calculating and cruel” image of her that the right-wing stalwarts have so effectively painted of her over the years. She may very well be an, ‘agent of change’ in the role of President, but even left-wingers like myself have a difficult time formulating the picture. Nevertheless, Hillary did a fine job of articulating her points and positions.
The pundits said that Barack Obama needed to avoid making a big gaffe, and he accomplished that feat, and much more. He demonstrated in a firm, but calm manner that he was equipped to handle the rigors of the Oval office and possessed the intellectual capacity and wisdom necessary to perform the job properly. Obama was right when he said that words do matter and that words empower people. Words matter because people need to know that their voices are being heard and people need to know that those they elect truly understand the issues being faced in everyday life by ordinary Americans. Words also matter because the job of bringing true change to America will entail a collective discussion between folks of many different backgrounds. For too long our leaders have acted and talked at, but no to Americans. Obama’s decision to change course is a welcomed start to change.
Two Parties - One Dance (The GOP)
Romney sounded like Kerry, McCain sounded presidential, Huckabee avoided making gaffs, Thompson acted well, Giuliani articulated his losing message with style and Ron Paul was, well…Ron Paul!
The polls suggest that John McCain is the leader in the New Hampshire race, engaged in a tight battle with Mitt Romney for the hearts and souls of independent voters, who can vote in whichever party primary they please. McCain displayed all the attributes of a good president last night. He was forceful, exuded conviction, was articulate in the explanation of his ideas and opinions and, most importantly, voiced a recognition of the necessity for and willingness to bridge ideological gaps with Democrats to achieve real change in the lives of ordinary Americans. McCain made good points on the need to attack wasteful spending on prescription drugs by importing cheaper drugs from Canada and he spoke eloquently regarding the need to eliminate foreign oil and fight global warming as a joint project. Whether that message resonates with G.O.P. voters outside New Hampshire remains to be seen, but McCain offered a clear picture of the kind of leader he would be.
Romney appeared flat, so much so that one has to wonder whether the “Liberal from Massachusetts” label the demagogues like Huckabee like to sling has actually started to tarnish his normally polished exterior. Little of Romney’s usual campaign charm made its way into the debate, and without that charm, Romney appeared like John Kerry in a Swift Boat attach ad. Yes, Romney landed a few blows on the competition, but he took more than his fair share too. More importantly, Romney showed once again how out of touch he is with the problems of real working American. Romney said he’d rely on the free market to take care of the economy’s woes and was the first to rush to the defense of oil and pharmaceutical companies. All he’s really proposing is another term of Bush economics.
Huckabee displayed the charm that Romney lacked, which explains why his numbers among diehard GOP Evangelicals are rising and Romney’s are not. Like McCain, Huckabee comes across as a highly likeable guy, but Huckabee offers the same qualities that George W. Bush offered in 2000 and 2004, and a message virtually identical. If you love George W. Bush, you’ll love Huckabee. Unfortunately, the country can’t afford 4 more years of George Bush and a Huckabee win would mean exactly that! Huckabee offered nothing new to the debate, but he can afford that luxury because he’s a likeable guy. Hopefully, GOP voters, and if not the rest of America, will soon recognize we can’t afford a Bush clone before it’s too late.
Fred Thompson remained on script, every bit the wise District Attorney we know him to be on Law and Order. When queried about Barack Obama, Thompson deftly managed to slip the words, “Liberal” and “Welfare State” into a single descriptive sentence with the ease Brutus slipped a dagger into Caesar, but Thompson can’t escape the fact that everybody knows he’s a skillful actor. In an election season where seeming authenticity is fetching a fair premium, Thompson can’t make headway because folks don’t know when he’s acting and when he’s not. Also, Thompson can’t draw a distinction between the views he holds and those of his GOP opponent, Mike Huckabee. Given the choice, most voters will go with the more likeable guy, which explains why Huckabee, and not Thompson is rising in polls among GOP voters..
Rudi Giuliani, the only true centrist on the GOP stage, spoke eloquently regarding his treatment of immigrants and immigration-related issues in New York City during his term as mayor. He passionately defended his actions on humanitarian grounds, and his explanations were succinct and to the point. Unfortunately, humanitarianism doesn’t resonate well with Christian Evangelicals who are more interested in the concept of Christ, the sword-wielding marauder of the Left Behind series than the concept of Christ, the peace-loving champion of the poor and the oppressed. Rudi’s heart was in the right place, but he’ll have to save his policies for another Kingdom. The GOP is the ‘Party of God’ in name only. One response worth noting though, was Rudi’s retort to charges that he supports amnesty. Rudi said that Reagan…the hero of the GOP, game immigrants amnesty. And then Rudi said “Reagan would have been in a Romney attach ad too”. You got that right, Rudi!
And then, there was Ron Paul. Ron got to weigh in on a few issues, but never really had the chance to illuminate the electorate about the bulk of his platform or why they should vote for him over the other men on the podium. For those who don’t know Ron…he’s the libertarian candidate of the GOP. It’s a lonely spot he occupies and last night was a good example why.
The polls suggest that John McCain is the leader in the New Hampshire race, engaged in a tight battle with Mitt Romney for the hearts and souls of independent voters, who can vote in whichever party primary they please. McCain displayed all the attributes of a good president last night. He was forceful, exuded conviction, was articulate in the explanation of his ideas and opinions and, most importantly, voiced a recognition of the necessity for and willingness to bridge ideological gaps with Democrats to achieve real change in the lives of ordinary Americans. McCain made good points on the need to attack wasteful spending on prescription drugs by importing cheaper drugs from Canada and he spoke eloquently regarding the need to eliminate foreign oil and fight global warming as a joint project. Whether that message resonates with G.O.P. voters outside New Hampshire remains to be seen, but McCain offered a clear picture of the kind of leader he would be.
Romney appeared flat, so much so that one has to wonder whether the “Liberal from Massachusetts” label the demagogues like Huckabee like to sling has actually started to tarnish his normally polished exterior. Little of Romney’s usual campaign charm made its way into the debate, and without that charm, Romney appeared like John Kerry in a Swift Boat attach ad. Yes, Romney landed a few blows on the competition, but he took more than his fair share too. More importantly, Romney showed once again how out of touch he is with the problems of real working American. Romney said he’d rely on the free market to take care of the economy’s woes and was the first to rush to the defense of oil and pharmaceutical companies. All he’s really proposing is another term of Bush economics.
Huckabee displayed the charm that Romney lacked, which explains why his numbers among diehard GOP Evangelicals are rising and Romney’s are not. Like McCain, Huckabee comes across as a highly likeable guy, but Huckabee offers the same qualities that George W. Bush offered in 2000 and 2004, and a message virtually identical. If you love George W. Bush, you’ll love Huckabee. Unfortunately, the country can’t afford 4 more years of George Bush and a Huckabee win would mean exactly that! Huckabee offered nothing new to the debate, but he can afford that luxury because he’s a likeable guy. Hopefully, GOP voters, and if not the rest of America, will soon recognize we can’t afford a Bush clone before it’s too late.
Fred Thompson remained on script, every bit the wise District Attorney we know him to be on Law and Order. When queried about Barack Obama, Thompson deftly managed to slip the words, “Liberal” and “Welfare State” into a single descriptive sentence with the ease Brutus slipped a dagger into Caesar, but Thompson can’t escape the fact that everybody knows he’s a skillful actor. In an election season where seeming authenticity is fetching a fair premium, Thompson can’t make headway because folks don’t know when he’s acting and when he’s not. Also, Thompson can’t draw a distinction between the views he holds and those of his GOP opponent, Mike Huckabee. Given the choice, most voters will go with the more likeable guy, which explains why Huckabee, and not Thompson is rising in polls among GOP voters..
Rudi Giuliani, the only true centrist on the GOP stage, spoke eloquently regarding his treatment of immigrants and immigration-related issues in New York City during his term as mayor. He passionately defended his actions on humanitarian grounds, and his explanations were succinct and to the point. Unfortunately, humanitarianism doesn’t resonate well with Christian Evangelicals who are more interested in the concept of Christ, the sword-wielding marauder of the Left Behind series than the concept of Christ, the peace-loving champion of the poor and the oppressed. Rudi’s heart was in the right place, but he’ll have to save his policies for another Kingdom. The GOP is the ‘Party of God’ in name only. One response worth noting though, was Rudi’s retort to charges that he supports amnesty. Rudi said that Reagan…the hero of the GOP, game immigrants amnesty. And then Rudi said “Reagan would have been in a Romney attach ad too”. You got that right, Rudi!
And then, there was Ron Paul. Ron got to weigh in on a few issues, but never really had the chance to illuminate the electorate about the bulk of his platform or why they should vote for him over the other men on the podium. For those who don’t know Ron…he’s the libertarian candidate of the GOP. It’s a lonely spot he occupies and last night was a good example why.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
More Anti-Immigrant Hate E-Mail Polluting the Internet
Here's another 'anti-immigrant' hate e-mail that's been floating around and my response.
THE E-MAIL:
In Case you have not seen this. 33 Senators Voted Against English as America 's Official Language June 6, 2007On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:35:23 -0500, "Colonel Harry Riley USA ret" wrote:
"Senators,
Your vote against an amendment to the Immigration Bill 1348, to make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day no less when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock character and principles of America . I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens. I don't much care where you come from, what your religion is, whether you're black, white or some other color, male or female, democrat, republican or independent, but I do care when you're a United States Senator, representing citizens of America and vote against English as the official language of the United States Your vote reflects betrayal, political surrender, violates your pledge of allegiance, dishonors historical principle, rejects patriotism, borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator... impeachment, recall, or other appropriate action is warrented. Worse, 4 of you voting against English as America 's official language are presidential candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, and Senator Obama. Those 4 Senators vying to lead America but won't or don't have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's official language when 91% of American citizens want English officially designated as our language. This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as political hacks... unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualifed to serve as President of the United States. If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a back-lash so stunning it will literally rock you out of your panties... and preferably, totally out of the United States Senate.The entire immigration bill is a farce... your action only confirms this really isn't aboutAmerica ; it's about self-serving politics... despicable at best."Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
The following senators voted against making English the official language of America : Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Wants to be President?Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Wants to be President?Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Wants to be President?Domenici (R-NM) Coward, protecting his Senate seat...Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Not unusual for himFeinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Wanted to be PresidentKohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Disappointment here.....Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Wants to be President?Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority LeaderSalazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-M)"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." ~ President Abraham Lincoln " Amen
"Please forward to as many people as you know. WE NEED THIS INFORMATION PASSED ON TO EVERY RED-BLOODED AMERICAN!!!!!!
MY RESPONSE:
There’s plenty of evidence, both anecdotally and by scientifically conducted studies, that over 90% of second-generation immigrants in this country speak fluent English. That conclusion might sound astonishing, but it actually makes sense. The immigrant parents who come here often do not speak English and, because it’s far more difficult to pick up a new language during adulthood, they tend to learn English more slowly. Their children, however, pick up English in schools very quickly and, by the third generation, only about 10% of the 2nd generation’s kids are even fluent in their grandparent's native language.
The myth generated by the “English-Only” proponents is that immigrants, by and large, don’t want to learn English, but it’s just an urban myth. The opposite is true. A 2005 study conducted by a widely respected “conservative-based” foundation, concluded that an overwhelming majority of immigrants desired to learn English because they viewed it as a key to assimilating and gaining a piece of the American Pie. Interestingly, immigrants widely reported that social barriers were the largest hinderance in their efforts to learn English and, as a result, they relied heavily upon the use of their native language as a matter of comfort.
Several weeks ago, somebody sent me an e-mail with a gripe about non-English speaking immigrants and ended with the view that anybody who doesn’t speak English should be denied entry into the US. I believe that kind of thinking ends up limiting the gene pool – if you catch my drift – but it certainly seems to be an ever-increasing viewpoint.
From a legal position, English already IS our official language. The “bill" to which the e-mail refers does not “establish” English as anything, because English as the official language is what already exists. What the bill does attempt to do is forbid all branches of government from teaching English as a second language (which is how immigrant children best learn English in schools) and from accommodating non-English speaking people with government functions (no more Spanish pamphlets or non-English interpreters). Personally, I think that’s an ignorant idea.
English-only advocates act as if this is a major problem that has suddenly happened upon the scene; but I’ve got this sense that it is no greater problem today than it was when the Cubans, Haitians, Italians, Welsh, Irish, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese resettled here. If you ask me, what really drives this issue is disdain of immigrants. Half the folks who moan about the issue come right out and say so and half of the remainder can’t write a proper English sentence. You’d think that with spell-check available, the pro-English crowd would demonstrate better grammar.
THE E-MAIL:
In Case you have not seen this. 33 Senators Voted Against English as America 's Official Language June 6, 2007On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:35:23 -0500, "Colonel Harry Riley USA ret" wrote:
"Senators,
Your vote against an amendment to the Immigration Bill 1348, to make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day no less when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock character and principles of America . I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens. I don't much care where you come from, what your religion is, whether you're black, white or some other color, male or female, democrat, republican or independent, but I do care when you're a United States Senator, representing citizens of America and vote against English as the official language of the United States Your vote reflects betrayal, political surrender, violates your pledge of allegiance, dishonors historical principle, rejects patriotism, borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator... impeachment, recall, or other appropriate action is warrented. Worse, 4 of you voting against English as America 's official language are presidential candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, and Senator Obama. Those 4 Senators vying to lead America but won't or don't have the courage to cast a vote in favor of English as America's official language when 91% of American citizens want English officially designated as our language. This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as political hacks... unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualifed to serve as President of the United States. If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a back-lash so stunning it will literally rock you out of your panties... and preferably, totally out of the United States Senate.The entire immigration bill is a farce... your action only confirms this really isn't aboutAmerica ; it's about self-serving politics... despicable at best."Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~ anonymous
The following senators voted against making English the official language of America : Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Wants to be President?Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Wants to be President?Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Wants to be President?Domenici (R-NM) Coward, protecting his Senate seat...Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Not unusual for himFeinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Wanted to be PresidentKohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Disappointment here.....Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Wants to be President?Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority LeaderSalazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-M)"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." ~ President Abraham Lincoln " Amen
"Please forward to as many people as you know. WE NEED THIS INFORMATION PASSED ON TO EVERY RED-BLOODED AMERICAN!!!!!!
MY RESPONSE:
There’s plenty of evidence, both anecdotally and by scientifically conducted studies, that over 90% of second-generation immigrants in this country speak fluent English. That conclusion might sound astonishing, but it actually makes sense. The immigrant parents who come here often do not speak English and, because it’s far more difficult to pick up a new language during adulthood, they tend to learn English more slowly. Their children, however, pick up English in schools very quickly and, by the third generation, only about 10% of the 2nd generation’s kids are even fluent in their grandparent's native language.
The myth generated by the “English-Only” proponents is that immigrants, by and large, don’t want to learn English, but it’s just an urban myth. The opposite is true. A 2005 study conducted by a widely respected “conservative-based” foundation, concluded that an overwhelming majority of immigrants desired to learn English because they viewed it as a key to assimilating and gaining a piece of the American Pie. Interestingly, immigrants widely reported that social barriers were the largest hinderance in their efforts to learn English and, as a result, they relied heavily upon the use of their native language as a matter of comfort.
Several weeks ago, somebody sent me an e-mail with a gripe about non-English speaking immigrants and ended with the view that anybody who doesn’t speak English should be denied entry into the US. I believe that kind of thinking ends up limiting the gene pool – if you catch my drift – but it certainly seems to be an ever-increasing viewpoint.
From a legal position, English already IS our official language. The “bill" to which the e-mail refers does not “establish” English as anything, because English as the official language is what already exists. What the bill does attempt to do is forbid all branches of government from teaching English as a second language (which is how immigrant children best learn English in schools) and from accommodating non-English speaking people with government functions (no more Spanish pamphlets or non-English interpreters). Personally, I think that’s an ignorant idea.
English-only advocates act as if this is a major problem that has suddenly happened upon the scene; but I’ve got this sense that it is no greater problem today than it was when the Cubans, Haitians, Italians, Welsh, Irish, Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese resettled here. If you ask me, what really drives this issue is disdain of immigrants. Half the folks who moan about the issue come right out and say so and half of the remainder can’t write a proper English sentence. You’d think that with spell-check available, the pro-English crowd would demonstrate better grammar.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Obama Win a Positive Step for a Positive America
Congratulations are in order for Barack Obama on his Tursday win in the Iowa caucuses. That Obama’s heartfelt message of hope resonated with Iowa Democrats who turned out in record numbers is an encouraging sign for those who truly long for a change in the tenor of political discourse in America. Let’s hope his campaign continues on this path and his message catches fire in the hearts of all Americans, not just Democrats.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Internet Immigration E-Mails Spread Lies and Flame Hate
The circulating petition e-mail posted at the end of this note is a prime example of Internet propaganda. The actual purpose of the e-mail is not to petition the President, but rather, to inflame ordinary folks against Congress and undocumented immigrants with lies and distortions.
For example, the letter begins: "We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security."
Note that the word "passed" is missing from that sentence. There's no need to petition the President unless such a bill actually passed- and one didn't. In fact, such a bill was not even considered. Given the fact that a comprehensive immigration reform bill cannot even pass Congress, who would be willing to commit political suicide by proposing what the letter below suggests? The answer is nobody - Conressional perks are too valuable.
In the explanatory paragraph before the petition, the writer states: "If the government gives benefits to 'illegal' aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives?"
Good point, if it were true, but it's not. That statement is another "dead giveaway" to the letter's inaccuracy. Nodbody, not even U.S. citizens, gets SSD benefits or regular social security retirement benefits without contributing FICA taxes - NOBODY!
Nor can so-called "illegals" get SSDI benefits, though even if they could, SSDI benefits do not get paid from revenues collected by FICA taxes or from the funds maintained for regular social security. SSDI is paid for out of the government's general budget in the form of block grants that are subsequently controlled by states who determine there own benefits (because the state has to match the funds)...so nobody's social security checks would be jeopardized by granting "illegals" those benefits...which I must restate, they're not getting.
Now, it's true that states have various rules regarding welfare benefits and other services (i.e. health care access, food stamps, education) that do not distinguish between documented residents and those who are not. And yes, it's true that many desire the federal government to impose restrictions on states prohibiting them from granting services to undocumented individuals as a condition to receiving federal funding. But none of those efforts threaten or bolster the social security system. There is simply no statutory or regulatory connection between those programs.
Finally, I'd like to add that I do not share the writer of the petition's sentiment regarding being "fed-up...with paying for services for illegals". With me, it's a Biblical "thing"...I'd rather be counted among those who were more interested in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the poor and administering to the sick than those who are worried about who's "illegal" and who is not. I don't think that Christ would find the distinction noteworthy.
Of course, that could have something to do with the fact that, as a child, he was in illegal immigrant in Egypt too.
(Below is the e-mail)
Social Security Changes
It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Bush. You need to sign this petition and flood his e-mail box with e-mails that tell him that, even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it. It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone. If the government gives benefits to "illegal" aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives? As stated below, the Senate voted this week to allow "illegal" aliens access to Social Security benefits. Attached is an opportunity to sign a petition that requires citizenship for eligibility to that social service.
Dear Mr. President:
We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security. We demand that you and all Congressional representatives require citizenship as a prerequisite for social services in the United States. We further demand that there not be any amnesty given to illegals, NO free services, no funding, no payments to and for illegal immigrants. We are fed up with the lack of action about this matter and are tired of paying for services to illegals.
For example, the letter begins: "We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security."
Note that the word "passed" is missing from that sentence. There's no need to petition the President unless such a bill actually passed- and one didn't. In fact, such a bill was not even considered. Given the fact that a comprehensive immigration reform bill cannot even pass Congress, who would be willing to commit political suicide by proposing what the letter below suggests? The answer is nobody - Conressional perks are too valuable.
In the explanatory paragraph before the petition, the writer states: "If the government gives benefits to 'illegal' aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives?"
Good point, if it were true, but it's not. That statement is another "dead giveaway" to the letter's inaccuracy. Nodbody, not even U.S. citizens, gets SSD benefits or regular social security retirement benefits without contributing FICA taxes - NOBODY!
Nor can so-called "illegals" get SSDI benefits, though even if they could, SSDI benefits do not get paid from revenues collected by FICA taxes or from the funds maintained for regular social security. SSDI is paid for out of the government's general budget in the form of block grants that are subsequently controlled by states who determine there own benefits (because the state has to match the funds)...so nobody's social security checks would be jeopardized by granting "illegals" those benefits...which I must restate, they're not getting.
Now, it's true that states have various rules regarding welfare benefits and other services (i.e. health care access, food stamps, education) that do not distinguish between documented residents and those who are not. And yes, it's true that many desire the federal government to impose restrictions on states prohibiting them from granting services to undocumented individuals as a condition to receiving federal funding. But none of those efforts threaten or bolster the social security system. There is simply no statutory or regulatory connection between those programs.
Finally, I'd like to add that I do not share the writer of the petition's sentiment regarding being "fed-up...with paying for services for illegals". With me, it's a Biblical "thing"...I'd rather be counted among those who were more interested in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the poor and administering to the sick than those who are worried about who's "illegal" and who is not. I don't think that Christ would find the distinction noteworthy.
Of course, that could have something to do with the fact that, as a child, he was in illegal immigrant in Egypt too.
(Below is the e-mail)
Social Security Changes
It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Bush. You need to sign this petition and flood his e-mail box with e-mails that tell him that, even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it. It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone. If the government gives benefits to "illegal" aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives? As stated below, the Senate voted this week to allow "illegal" aliens access to Social Security benefits. Attached is an opportunity to sign a petition that requires citizenship for eligibility to that social service.
Dear Mr. President:
We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security. We demand that you and all Congressional representatives require citizenship as a prerequisite for social services in the United States. We further demand that there not be any amnesty given to illegals, NO free services, no funding, no payments to and for illegal immigrants. We are fed up with the lack of action about this matter and are tired of paying for services to illegals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)