And believe me, there's a vast difference between the two. In recent decades, the casting of illegal ballots here in the US has been nearly non-existent. No one has provided any meaningful proof to the contrary. Yeah, I know; in ye olden days, up until the mid-20th Century, the notorious Chicago Machine (my home town) had perfected to a fine art the discovery of ballots beneath thousands of tombstones. But that was then.
On the other hand, election fraud is rampant. Many Republican governors and state legislators have created unnecessary photo ID mandates, knowing full well that the voters most impacted would be low-income seniors, minorities, and the young --- the very folks most likely to vote for Democrats.
(Sidebar: The best analysis of election fraud vs. voter fraud that I've read, appeared in a Forbes Magazine article authored by John Lasik, dated November 6, 2012: Voter Fraud: A Massive Anti-Democratic Deception. It can easily be googled and is worth a look. The article is well-reasoned with no political overtones. Incidentally, Forbes is no hotbed of liberalism).
Many state legislatures have gone to great lengths to ensure that citizens from the aforementioned targeted groups are denied their right to the ballot. One of the most common tactics seems to be the requirement of documentation, such as a birth certificate, in order to obtain an ID. (The ID itself is offered free of charge, but obtaining official transcripts, especially birth certificates, can be costly. Wouldn't such an expense amount to a putative poll tax in violation of the 15th Amendment? Just asking).
Disgusting enough. But it gets worse. Possibly the most flagrant case of election fraud gave us the George W. Bush presidency in 2000. He wasn't popularly elected, nor would he have received Florida's electoral votes had the electoral process remained unsullied. Yet that's exactly what happened. (Unlike many Democrats, I refuse to blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss. Making him the goat diverts attention from the real reason that Bush became our head of state: Florida Republicans' hijacking of the electoral process).
A private data collection agency called ChoicePoint was hired by the State of Florida with the stated purpose of purging convicted felons from the voter rolls. (Many non-felons with identical names got deep-sixed as well. Considering the demographics, they were very likely Democratic voters). Coordinating this effort was Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who also happened to be the director of the Florida Bush campaign. (Conflict of interest? Here, have a whiff!). Also worth a note: The state's governor at the time was presidential sibling, Jeb Bush.
The gory details are precisely laid out in an article by a seasoned journalist named Gregory Palast. His piece first appeared in a British publication, The Observer, within days after the US Supreme Court anointed Bush the President of the United States (Bush v Gore). Like Mr. Lasik's Forbes piece, it's very much worth the read. Here the google info: Gregory Palast, A Blacklist Burning For Bush dated December 10th, 2000.
So there you have it, folks. Election fraud can really have consequences. And election fraud is rampant in every state where concerted efforts are being made to suppress the vote and highjack the legislative process. Consider this: Would a Gore administration have launched us on a tragic trajectory in the Middle East in 2003? (Would ISIL even exist?) Or would its economic policies have crashed our economy five years later?
I really don't think so.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Saturday, August 30, 2014
A Fox News Hothead Anoints Herself a Scholar of Islam
Last week, a Fox News host named Andrea Tantaros decided to offer us a history lesson: a brief lecture premised on her insistence that "Islam is a murderous religion." Citing the videoed execution of American journalist James Foley, she declared that the history of Islam set a precedent for the death of Mr. Foley. "The only thing these people understand is a bullet to the head." (Italics are mine).
The Asian-American Journalists' Association and the Muslim Public Affairs Council have called for an apology from Fox News and Ms. Tantaros. However, she refuses to make any effort to temper, let alone disavow, what amounts to a genocidal diatribe.
Perhaps a history lesson from a more temperate perspective is in order for "Ms. Authority On All Matters Islamic." Hey, Andrea, did you ever read about The Spanish Inquisition? Y'know, when the entirety of Spanish Jewry was expelled from their ancestral land during the late 1400s --- unless they converted to Christianity. (Yep, during that same era, the Native Americans discovered a rude interloper in their midst named Christopher Columbus). Both endeavors appear to have been bankrolled by Queen Isabella and her hubby Ferdinand.
Well, Andrea, the Jews of Spain were presented with three options: A) convert, B) leave the country, or C) be executed --- more likely than not, by some Christian dude under a black hood. Guess who welcomed many of the Jews who chose Option B, while Spain's neighbors to the north and west turned their faces away. It was the Ottomans. Those dreaded Muslims!
Peace!
The Asian-American Journalists' Association and the Muslim Public Affairs Council have called for an apology from Fox News and Ms. Tantaros. However, she refuses to make any effort to temper, let alone disavow, what amounts to a genocidal diatribe.
Perhaps a history lesson from a more temperate perspective is in order for "Ms. Authority On All Matters Islamic." Hey, Andrea, did you ever read about The Spanish Inquisition? Y'know, when the entirety of Spanish Jewry was expelled from their ancestral land during the late 1400s --- unless they converted to Christianity. (Yep, during that same era, the Native Americans discovered a rude interloper in their midst named Christopher Columbus). Both endeavors appear to have been bankrolled by Queen Isabella and her hubby Ferdinand.
Well, Andrea, the Jews of Spain were presented with three options: A) convert, B) leave the country, or C) be executed --- more likely than not, by some Christian dude under a black hood. Guess who welcomed many of the Jews who chose Option B, while Spain's neighbors to the north and west turned their faces away. It was the Ottomans. Those dreaded Muslims!
Peace!
Monday, July 28, 2014
Hamas & the Israeli Leadership: Two Atrocious Actors --- But Only One Has All the Cards.
As I write, the carnage in Gaza continues unrelentingly. Over 1,000 lives have now been lost during the 20-plus days of military action by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). According to local first responders, at least 80 percent of those fatalities have been civilians, including women and children. Tragically, the hard-liners have been holding tightly to the reins of power on both sides of the border.
Hamas, elected by a comfortable margin in 2006, had since become deeply unpopular among Gazans, with an approval rating of 15%. (Source: an unnamed poll cited in an article that appeared in The Guardian with the byline of Ian Black, a Tel Aviv correspondent, dated 5/2/14, predating Israel's latest attacks ). In the wake of the assault on Gaza, Hamas has regained widespread support, according to local journalists. Should we be surprised? Incidentally, Hamas's popularity was initially cultivated, not by the party's toxic view of Israel, but by dint of an array of social programs that helped relieve the plight of many poverty-stricken Gazans. In light of their electoral triumph and its leaders' bellicose declarations, Israeli officials responded by orchestrating an IDF lockdown of the entire Gaza Strip, creating a land of 1.8 million virtual prisoners. Eight years later, it's still in place. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these folks oppose the use of violence: nearly 80 percent, according to the previously cited poll.
In the meantime, a political impasse between the hard-line Hamas and the equally unyielding coalition of right-wing Israeli parties controlling the Knesset prevails. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies insist that Hamas recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Is this a reasonable expectation, given that land's previous history as the nation of Palestine? I don't know. Perhaps one should ask the Palestinians who were dispossessed to make way for the freshly minted State of Israel. (Disclosure: As a secular Jew myself, I'm well aware of our historical longing for a homeland and the advent of Zionism with the iron-bound determination to fulfill that dream, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. Israel was the realization of that dream, but not without a terrible human cost).
Meanwhile, Israel's leadership continues to green-light expansion of the West Bank settlements despite opposition to this controversial policy among the majority of their own citizens. As I indicated in the subject line, Israel has all the cards: The military and technological might as well as the unqualified support of the planet's only super-power. What more could they ask?
Nobody wants to have to live under a constant state of siege, whether in Israel or in Gaza. However, the vast majority of the Hamas rockets lobbed at Israel have been successfully neutralized by the IDF's Iron Dome defense system --- largely financed by the United States. I'm glad that it exists; it has undoubtedly saved countless lives. But the Gazans have no such protection.
I'd like nothing better than to see the Israelis and the Palestinians survive and thrive, be it in one state or two. But Israel holds all the cards. So what is there for them to lose by making the first move? For a start, why not make a concerted effort to do something that the majority of Israelis support: dismantling the West Bank settlements, once and for all.
Hamas, elected by a comfortable margin in 2006, had since become deeply unpopular among Gazans, with an approval rating of 15%. (Source: an unnamed poll cited in an article that appeared in The Guardian with the byline of Ian Black, a Tel Aviv correspondent, dated 5/2/14, predating Israel's latest attacks ). In the wake of the assault on Gaza, Hamas has regained widespread support, according to local journalists. Should we be surprised? Incidentally, Hamas's popularity was initially cultivated, not by the party's toxic view of Israel, but by dint of an array of social programs that helped relieve the plight of many poverty-stricken Gazans. In light of their electoral triumph and its leaders' bellicose declarations, Israeli officials responded by orchestrating an IDF lockdown of the entire Gaza Strip, creating a land of 1.8 million virtual prisoners. Eight years later, it's still in place. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these folks oppose the use of violence: nearly 80 percent, according to the previously cited poll.
In the meantime, a political impasse between the hard-line Hamas and the equally unyielding coalition of right-wing Israeli parties controlling the Knesset prevails. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies insist that Hamas recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Is this a reasonable expectation, given that land's previous history as the nation of Palestine? I don't know. Perhaps one should ask the Palestinians who were dispossessed to make way for the freshly minted State of Israel. (Disclosure: As a secular Jew myself, I'm well aware of our historical longing for a homeland and the advent of Zionism with the iron-bound determination to fulfill that dream, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. Israel was the realization of that dream, but not without a terrible human cost).
Meanwhile, Israel's leadership continues to green-light expansion of the West Bank settlements despite opposition to this controversial policy among the majority of their own citizens. As I indicated in the subject line, Israel has all the cards: The military and technological might as well as the unqualified support of the planet's only super-power. What more could they ask?
Nobody wants to have to live under a constant state of siege, whether in Israel or in Gaza. However, the vast majority of the Hamas rockets lobbed at Israel have been successfully neutralized by the IDF's Iron Dome defense system --- largely financed by the United States. I'm glad that it exists; it has undoubtedly saved countless lives. But the Gazans have no such protection.
I'd like nothing better than to see the Israelis and the Palestinians survive and thrive, be it in one state or two. But Israel holds all the cards. So what is there for them to lose by making the first move? For a start, why not make a concerted effort to do something that the majority of Israelis support: dismantling the West Bank settlements, once and for all.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Darrell Issa Is At It Again!
America's Self-Anointed Grand Inquisitor refuses to give it a rest! He's once again attempting to resurrect the alleged singling-out of 96 Tea Party organizations for special review by the IRS. It's already been well-established that 298 political groups spanning the entire ideological spectrum were flagged during this review. So once again, Mr. Issa, chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, is squandering our resources by engaging in one of his favorite activities: beating a dead horse, burying it, digging it up again, and beating it some more.
This time he's subpoenaed John Koskinen, the recently appointed head of the IRS. Apparently a couple years worth of emails got deleted from the system in the Cincinnati office, the center of this controversy. For the record, there is a truly egregious double standard in play here. The IRS expects us all to maintain impeccable records for seven years, yet they appear to maintain a la-la-la attitude in regard to their own record-keeping. That's a legitimate issue. But it shouldn't justify a third round of intense inquiry regarding a controversy that's already been settled. This particular horse has now been so badly beaten that all that remains is a soggy, gruesome pulp.
Now --- seeing as how the Good Chairman is so hot to trot to exercise his power, why not investigate something that really matters? There's always Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer and Company. Remember the lies they concocted to launch a war overseas with tragic consequences? I dunno, maybe that's too much of a challenge.
This time he's subpoenaed John Koskinen, the recently appointed head of the IRS. Apparently a couple years worth of emails got deleted from the system in the Cincinnati office, the center of this controversy. For the record, there is a truly egregious double standard in play here. The IRS expects us all to maintain impeccable records for seven years, yet they appear to maintain a la-la-la attitude in regard to their own record-keeping. That's a legitimate issue. But it shouldn't justify a third round of intense inquiry regarding a controversy that's already been settled. This particular horse has now been so badly beaten that all that remains is a soggy, gruesome pulp.
Now --- seeing as how the Good Chairman is so hot to trot to exercise his power, why not investigate something that really matters? There's always Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer and Company. Remember the lies they concocted to launch a war overseas with tragic consequences? I dunno, maybe that's too much of a challenge.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Payback Time for Eric Cantor
Many political observers have suggested that Eric Cantor's Republican primary loss last week signified a Tea Party resurgence; that Mr. Cantor lost because "he wasn't conservative enough". Yet he was a seven-term incumbent. But until last week, he'd never faced any serious primary opposition.
Dave Brat, the congressman's Tea Party-backed primary opponent hammered away at the mainstream Republicans whose interests Mr. Cantor clearly represented. Mr. Brat even went so far as to invoke a mantra most often cited by populist-progressives: "Mainstream Republicans (including Mr. Cantor) pay too much attention to Wall Street and not enough attention to Main Street." This perception really seemed to resonate among his constituents, and for good reason. They believed that they were being taken for granted. Their congressman was focused on being House Majority Leader and a conservative "young gun" with unbridled ambition. He didn't give a damn about them, and they knew it. Their antipathy toward their self-anointed "young gun" was so intense that he couldn't even buy the election with a $5 million war chest! By contrast, Mr. Brat's campaign invested only $230,000, with no help from the Tea party poobahs.
Eric Cantor's voting record shouldn't lead anyone to believe that "he wasn't conservative enough". Here's why:
- He's been unswervingly anti-women's choice.
- He's consistently voted against all forms of economic aid
to struggling families, as well as job stimulus measures.
- He's steadfastly opposed nearly all proposals
for maintaining or strengthening the social safety net,
including access to affordable health care.
And that's just scratching the surface. So, for iron-bound conservatives, what's not to love?
Come to think of it, there was one major fly in the ointment. True Tea-Partiers like Dave Brat hate "big government". Eric Cantor, Mitt Romney, and other mainstream Republicans seem to believe that government does have a mission. What is that mission? To protect the interests of Corporate America and its uber-wealthy beneficiaries. Which is why Mr. Cantor ultimately voted to raise the debt ceiling at zero hour.
So what really distinguishes true Tea-Partiers from mainstream Republicans? As far as I can tell, it's just one item: The mainstream Republicans' overarching arrogance and sense of entitlement.
Maybe --- eventually --- some --- well, perhaps just a few of those Tea Party folks will wake up and smell the coffee, and realize that they've been getting punked.
That seems to be what happened in Virginia's 7th District last week.
Dave Brat, the congressman's Tea Party-backed primary opponent hammered away at the mainstream Republicans whose interests Mr. Cantor clearly represented. Mr. Brat even went so far as to invoke a mantra most often cited by populist-progressives: "Mainstream Republicans (including Mr. Cantor) pay too much attention to Wall Street and not enough attention to Main Street." This perception really seemed to resonate among his constituents, and for good reason. They believed that they were being taken for granted. Their congressman was focused on being House Majority Leader and a conservative "young gun" with unbridled ambition. He didn't give a damn about them, and they knew it. Their antipathy toward their self-anointed "young gun" was so intense that he couldn't even buy the election with a $5 million war chest! By contrast, Mr. Brat's campaign invested only $230,000, with no help from the Tea party poobahs.
Eric Cantor's voting record shouldn't lead anyone to believe that "he wasn't conservative enough". Here's why:
- He's been unswervingly anti-women's choice.
- He's consistently voted against all forms of economic aid
to struggling families, as well as job stimulus measures.
- He's steadfastly opposed nearly all proposals
for maintaining or strengthening the social safety net,
including access to affordable health care.
And that's just scratching the surface. So, for iron-bound conservatives, what's not to love?
Come to think of it, there was one major fly in the ointment. True Tea-Partiers like Dave Brat hate "big government". Eric Cantor, Mitt Romney, and other mainstream Republicans seem to believe that government does have a mission. What is that mission? To protect the interests of Corporate America and its uber-wealthy beneficiaries. Which is why Mr. Cantor ultimately voted to raise the debt ceiling at zero hour.
So what really distinguishes true Tea-Partiers from mainstream Republicans? As far as I can tell, it's just one item: The mainstream Republicans' overarching arrogance and sense of entitlement.
Maybe --- eventually --- some --- well, perhaps just a few of those Tea Party folks will wake up and smell the coffee, and realize that they've been getting punked.
That seems to be what happened in Virginia's 7th District last week.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
"Joe the Plumber" Teaches Us a Lesson About the 2nd Amendment: It's All About Him!
In the wake of last week's slaughter in Santa Barbara, political pundit Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher --- a.k.a. "Joe the Plumber" --- made a startlingly candid declaration, directed to the bereaved families. Here's his message of condolence:
"As harsh as this sounds .... your dead kids
don't trump my constitutional rights."
Contrast the abject cruelty of this statement with the heartfelt plea of Richard Martinez, whose only child Christopher was one of those who died.
"They talk about gun rights. What about
Chris's right to live?"
I make no pretense of being a constitutional scholar. But it seems as if the intent of the Constitution's framers will always be an issue. This is the Second Amendment as written in one clear sentence:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
With the most robust military force on the planet as well as law enforcement units at all levels of government, we're hardly in need of seat-of-the-pants militias. Here and there, a handful of wackos, who worship at The Altar of Things That Go Bang, may take issue with that statement. But the mainstream polls consistently conclude that a clear majority supports sensible gun laws.
I have little doubt that "Joe the Plumber" himself would ever lose his marbles while carrying a firearm. Considering the fact that, despite his self-anointed nickname he's not even a licensed plumber, he may even be less of a risk packing heat than he'd ever be wielding a toilet plunger!
But apparently Mr. Wurzelbacher can't bring himself to realize that this issue transcends his own selfish priorities. As Mr. Martinez eloquently stated, it was about his son's --- and everyone else's right to live.
In regard to the Constitution, if my memory serves me, the final sentence of the Preamble specifies something about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Here's my response to "Joe the Plumber" 's strident declaration:
As humane and as reasonable as this may
sound, everyone's constitutional right to
live trumps his allegedly constitutional
right to bear arms.
"As harsh as this sounds .... your dead kids
don't trump my constitutional rights."
Contrast the abject cruelty of this statement with the heartfelt plea of Richard Martinez, whose only child Christopher was one of those who died.
"They talk about gun rights. What about
Chris's right to live?"
I make no pretense of being a constitutional scholar. But it seems as if the intent of the Constitution's framers will always be an issue. This is the Second Amendment as written in one clear sentence:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
With the most robust military force on the planet as well as law enforcement units at all levels of government, we're hardly in need of seat-of-the-pants militias. Here and there, a handful of wackos, who worship at The Altar of Things That Go Bang, may take issue with that statement. But the mainstream polls consistently conclude that a clear majority supports sensible gun laws.
I have little doubt that "Joe the Plumber" himself would ever lose his marbles while carrying a firearm. Considering the fact that, despite his self-anointed nickname he's not even a licensed plumber, he may even be less of a risk packing heat than he'd ever be wielding a toilet plunger!
But apparently Mr. Wurzelbacher can't bring himself to realize that this issue transcends his own selfish priorities. As Mr. Martinez eloquently stated, it was about his son's --- and everyone else's right to live.
In regard to the Constitution, if my memory serves me, the final sentence of the Preamble specifies something about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Here's my response to "Joe the Plumber" 's strident declaration:
As humane and as reasonable as this may
sound, everyone's constitutional right to
live trumps his allegedly constitutional
right to bear arms.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Beating the Dead Horse GOP Style: First Obamacare, Then the IRS, Now Benghazi. (Tsk, tsk!)
Last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced his party's intention to reopen a congressional probe of the attack on the American embassy outpost at Benghazi. He has designated for this purpose a Select Committee on Benghazi. A GOP congressman from South Carolina named Trey Gowdy has been appointed chairman.
Congressional Republicans had mandated significant cuts in the State Department's embassy security budgets in both 2011 and 2012. Despite these misdirected attempts at fiscal prudence, they refuse to link these funding cuts with the lax state of security at the US embassy in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, the date of an attack that killed four Americans.
Instead, the GOP insists on yelling, "Cover up! Cover up!" Unless I'm mistaken, the present endeavor represents the eighth attempt to "investigate" this tragedy. They're willing to make political hay out of any situation, loss of life notwithstanding. It's ghoulish! Then again, this is the same group of stone-hearted folks who are perfectly willing to deny millions of people --- including their own constituents --- access to even the most basic health care by denying them Medicaid.
They've also repeatedly shot down any and all attempts to restore unemployment benefits and maintain the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at a level that make life bearable for the folks who really need them.
But nothing gets the ol' adrenalin pumpin' like a good old-fashioned investigation, no matter how repetitious or tiresome it gets. Sorry to break it to you guys, but that dead horse you keep thrashing ain't never gonna neigh or whinny again!
But hey, keep tryin'! It's a great investment of time and money for folks who enjoy watching sadistic clowns do their thing.
.
Congressional Republicans had mandated significant cuts in the State Department's embassy security budgets in both 2011 and 2012. Despite these misdirected attempts at fiscal prudence, they refuse to link these funding cuts with the lax state of security at the US embassy in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, the date of an attack that killed four Americans.
Instead, the GOP insists on yelling, "Cover up! Cover up!" Unless I'm mistaken, the present endeavor represents the eighth attempt to "investigate" this tragedy. They're willing to make political hay out of any situation, loss of life notwithstanding. It's ghoulish! Then again, this is the same group of stone-hearted folks who are perfectly willing to deny millions of people --- including their own constituents --- access to even the most basic health care by denying them Medicaid.
They've also repeatedly shot down any and all attempts to restore unemployment benefits and maintain the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at a level that make life bearable for the folks who really need them.
But nothing gets the ol' adrenalin pumpin' like a good old-fashioned investigation, no matter how repetitious or tiresome it gets. Sorry to break it to you guys, but that dead horse you keep thrashing ain't never gonna neigh or whinny again!
But hey, keep tryin'! It's a great investment of time and money for folks who enjoy watching sadistic clowns do their thing.
.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
So He Said "Apartheid"! Give Kerry a Break.
It seems as if Secretary of State John Kerry launched a verbal firestorm last week. The name "Israel" and the word "apartheid" escaped his lips in the very same sentence! Ouch!
Without missing a beat, conservative journalist Charles
Krauthammer demanded that Kerry resign. His voice was not a solitary wail in the darkness. Public officials on both sides of the aisle yelped for Kerry's scalp: one sterling example, among very few these days, of bi-partisanship at its finest. (Even the president unloaded: [The word apartheid is] " emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and not what I believe."). Here's Mr. Kerry's incriminating statement, made at The Trilateral Conference:
If there's not a two-state solution soon, Israel
risks becoming an apartheid state.
It already is! As emotionally loaded as the word "apartheid" may be, Israel's association with this Afrikaans-based term --- which defines a forced arrangement of "living apart" --- shouldn't shock anyone. Even recent Israeli heads-of-state, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, have invoked this term in exactly the same fashion as Kerry. Peace advocate and former president Jimmy Carter even incorporated the dreaded word into the title of a book, Palestine: Peace or Apartheid. And yep, he caught loads of flak for that awful misdeed!
Kerry has, under pressure, since apologized for his allegedly ill-advised use of "The A-Word". Why? Why do we remain in such a perpetual state of denial about Israel? Don't get me wrong; I'd like to see Israel continue to thrive. But as far as I'm concerned, there's no justification for sugar-coating Israel's treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. Limiting where they can live, operate their businesses, and cultivate their crops, as well as the everyday imposition of military checkpoints, is a form of apartheid --- even if it doesn't mirror in every detail the manner in which it was practiced in South Africa.
An organization known as the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) seems to wield considerable weight among the Washington poobahs, in and around Congress. And yep, they do have the shekels and like to present themselves as the voice of American Jewry. (Disclosure: As a secular Jew myself, I can state unequivocally that they do not speak for me. Nor, to my knowledge, do the majority of U.S. Jews feel an unswerving, unquestioning loyalty to Israel).
It seems to me that those of us not named Charles Krauthammer or Sheldon Adelson should also matter once in a while. Let Mr. Kerry do his job and stop giving him grief for speaking the truth.
Without missing a beat, conservative journalist Charles
Krauthammer demanded that Kerry resign. His voice was not a solitary wail in the darkness. Public officials on both sides of the aisle yelped for Kerry's scalp: one sterling example, among very few these days, of bi-partisanship at its finest. (Even the president unloaded: [The word apartheid is] " emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and not what I believe."). Here's Mr. Kerry's incriminating statement, made at The Trilateral Conference:
If there's not a two-state solution soon, Israel
risks becoming an apartheid state.
It already is! As emotionally loaded as the word "apartheid" may be, Israel's association with this Afrikaans-based term --- which defines a forced arrangement of "living apart" --- shouldn't shock anyone. Even recent Israeli heads-of-state, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, have invoked this term in exactly the same fashion as Kerry. Peace advocate and former president Jimmy Carter even incorporated the dreaded word into the title of a book, Palestine: Peace or Apartheid. And yep, he caught loads of flak for that awful misdeed!
Kerry has, under pressure, since apologized for his allegedly ill-advised use of "The A-Word". Why? Why do we remain in such a perpetual state of denial about Israel? Don't get me wrong; I'd like to see Israel continue to thrive. But as far as I'm concerned, there's no justification for sugar-coating Israel's treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. Limiting where they can live, operate their businesses, and cultivate their crops, as well as the everyday imposition of military checkpoints, is a form of apartheid --- even if it doesn't mirror in every detail the manner in which it was practiced in South Africa.
An organization known as the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) seems to wield considerable weight among the Washington poobahs, in and around Congress. And yep, they do have the shekels and like to present themselves as the voice of American Jewry. (Disclosure: As a secular Jew myself, I can state unequivocally that they do not speak for me. Nor, to my knowledge, do the majority of U.S. Jews feel an unswerving, unquestioning loyalty to Israel).
It seems to me that those of us not named Charles Krauthammer or Sheldon Adelson should also matter once in a while. Let Mr. Kerry do his job and stop giving him grief for speaking the truth.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Senator Angus King Speaks His Mind
It's refreshing to hear a public official lay it on the line once in a while without leaning too heavily on the euphemisms. Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats is the guy!
King, a member of the Senate Intelligence Subcommittee, during a recent network interview, suggested that former Vice President Dick Cheney "should give waterboarding a try himself, if he doesn't believe it's torture." (The subcommittee had just moved to declassify the executive summary of a report on the CIA's interrogation and torture practices during the Bush administration).
The Good Senator has been equally plain-spoken regarding health care. I recently latched onto an archived article in The National Memo; Mr. King lambasted the Koch Brothers and their allies for attempting to scare young people into opting out of the Affordable Care Act. Here's the quote:
(It's) a scandal --- those people are guilty of murder
in my opinion. Some of those people they persuade
are going to end up dying because they don't have
health insurance. For people to do that to other
people in the name of some obscure political ideo-
logy is one of the grossest violations of our humanity
that I can think of. This absolutely drives me crazy.
The mainstream media doesn't seem to be giving him any coverage. I would think that a suitable headline would attract readers. Then again, I guess that's my own naivete in play here.
Still, it's nice to feel validated once in a while. A few of my posts have carried a similar theme: the heartlessness of many Republicans and potentially fatal consequences.*
Hang in there, Senator King. You have a new fan!
* Check out the following posts:
7/8/13: A Must-Read --- Especially for Anyone Who
Votes Republican
9/8/12: Republican Voters --- Accomplices to Murder
5/4/12: Legislative Violence
King, a member of the Senate Intelligence Subcommittee, during a recent network interview, suggested that former Vice President Dick Cheney "should give waterboarding a try himself, if he doesn't believe it's torture." (The subcommittee had just moved to declassify the executive summary of a report on the CIA's interrogation and torture practices during the Bush administration).
The Good Senator has been equally plain-spoken regarding health care. I recently latched onto an archived article in The National Memo; Mr. King lambasted the Koch Brothers and their allies for attempting to scare young people into opting out of the Affordable Care Act. Here's the quote:
(It's) a scandal --- those people are guilty of murder
in my opinion. Some of those people they persuade
are going to end up dying because they don't have
health insurance. For people to do that to other
people in the name of some obscure political ideo-
logy is one of the grossest violations of our humanity
that I can think of. This absolutely drives me crazy.
The mainstream media doesn't seem to be giving him any coverage. I would think that a suitable headline would attract readers. Then again, I guess that's my own naivete in play here.
Still, it's nice to feel validated once in a while. A few of my posts have carried a similar theme: the heartlessness of many Republicans and potentially fatal consequences.*
Hang in there, Senator King. You have a new fan!
* Check out the following posts:
7/8/13: A Must-Read --- Especially for Anyone Who
Votes Republican
9/8/12: Republican Voters --- Accomplices to Murder
5/4/12: Legislative Violence
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Obamacare & The Brussels Sprout: Some Folks Hate It, But It's Good For Us: Part 2
Despite its naysayers' non-stop tongue-clucking and finger-wagging, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is proving to be more popular than even its most dedicated boosters expected. As of March 31st, the sign-up deadline, more than seven million have signed up, not including the state-operated exchanges, nor Medicaid beneficiaries (in the states that have allowed it). Others are still waiting in the wings; many had attempted to apply, but were unable to complete the process owing to system-overload-related crashes. (They're being granted deadline extensions).
Sure, the Affordable Care Act has its warts, but for millions of its beneficiaries, it's a vast improvement over the alternative --- which for many was no coverage at all. Senator Mitch McConnell still insists that the ACA is an impending catastrophe. This, despite the fact that in his native state, His Old Kentucky Home, the ranks of the uninsured have been cut by 40%.
I'd like to offer a couple of anecdotes from two splendid bloggers with The Daily Kos:
1) A gentleman who uses the handle "Old Redneck" had been volunteering at a local library in rural Virginia, assisting an ACA "regional navigator" signing uninsured people up for Obamacare. One of the clients they helped was a single mother of three whose husband had been killed in an industrial accident. She works two part-time jobs and, lacking insurance, couldn't remember when any of her family had last seen a doctor. The navigator found her a policy that pays 95% of her medical bills; her premium is $51 a month. In Old Redneck's words,
She didn't believe it when the navigator printed
her insurance card on the spot. When the fact
of what she had done finally sunk in, she
couldn't stop crying and hugging everyone
in sight. Neither could the rest of us.
2) A young blogger who calls himself "UntyingTheNot" also extolled the virtues of the ACA. UTN stated that his new policy has enabled him to see a doctor for the first time in five years. A fledgling business owner, he works a couple of part-time jobs that enable him to subsist, qualifying him for Medicaid.
Owing to the lengthy time lapse since his last medical exam, his doctor advised him to get a detailed lab work-up as well as vital medication for an ongoing health issue to which he hadn't been attending. His physician also cautioned him to "make 100% sure that your Medicaid is worked out before going for this. [Otherwise] It'd cost over $1000 out of pocket." (Also his prescription would run over $300 a month).
UTN then did the computations. For a wage-earner making $10 an hour, an office visit ($135) in addition to the $1000 lab work plus a year of essential medication ($3600), 473.5 hours --- 12 weeks of full-time work would be required. Of course this excludes all other expenses necessary for basic survival, such as --- uh --- food and shelter.
Absurd, right? Well, this well explains why, prior to the ACA, 47 million Americans had no health insurance!
These two fine bloggers have demonstrated the absolutely vital need for the ACA more effectively than I ever could. Thanks guys!
Oh, by the way Mr. McConnell, what did you mean by impending catastrophe? And Ms. Boonstra (see previous post), shouldn't you feel ashamed?
Sure, the Affordable Care Act has its warts, but for millions of its beneficiaries, it's a vast improvement over the alternative --- which for many was no coverage at all. Senator Mitch McConnell still insists that the ACA is an impending catastrophe. This, despite the fact that in his native state, His Old Kentucky Home, the ranks of the uninsured have been cut by 40%.
I'd like to offer a couple of anecdotes from two splendid bloggers with The Daily Kos:
1) A gentleman who uses the handle "Old Redneck" had been volunteering at a local library in rural Virginia, assisting an ACA "regional navigator" signing uninsured people up for Obamacare. One of the clients they helped was a single mother of three whose husband had been killed in an industrial accident. She works two part-time jobs and, lacking insurance, couldn't remember when any of her family had last seen a doctor. The navigator found her a policy that pays 95% of her medical bills; her premium is $51 a month. In Old Redneck's words,
She didn't believe it when the navigator printed
her insurance card on the spot. When the fact
of what she had done finally sunk in, she
couldn't stop crying and hugging everyone
in sight. Neither could the rest of us.
2) A young blogger who calls himself "UntyingTheNot" also extolled the virtues of the ACA. UTN stated that his new policy has enabled him to see a doctor for the first time in five years. A fledgling business owner, he works a couple of part-time jobs that enable him to subsist, qualifying him for Medicaid.
Owing to the lengthy time lapse since his last medical exam, his doctor advised him to get a detailed lab work-up as well as vital medication for an ongoing health issue to which he hadn't been attending. His physician also cautioned him to "make 100% sure that your Medicaid is worked out before going for this. [Otherwise] It'd cost over $1000 out of pocket." (Also his prescription would run over $300 a month).
UTN then did the computations. For a wage-earner making $10 an hour, an office visit ($135) in addition to the $1000 lab work plus a year of essential medication ($3600), 473.5 hours --- 12 weeks of full-time work would be required. Of course this excludes all other expenses necessary for basic survival, such as --- uh --- food and shelter.
Absurd, right? Well, this well explains why, prior to the ACA, 47 million Americans had no health insurance!
These two fine bloggers have demonstrated the absolutely vital need for the ACA more effectively than I ever could. Thanks guys!
Oh, by the way Mr. McConnell, what did you mean by impending catastrophe? And Ms. Boonstra (see previous post), shouldn't you feel ashamed?
Friday, March 28, 2014
Obamacare & The Brussels Sprout: Some Folks Might Hate It, but It's Good for Us: Part 1
Despite a rocky rollout, Obamacare seems to be rapidly gaining momentum. (At this point, I'm going to follow journalist E.J. Dionne's advice and refer to it by its formal name, the Affordable Care Act [ACA]). Unfortunately, many of its opponents are willing to lie about the ACA in ways that have a profound influence on the public.
Among the most notable Obama/ACA-haters is Cathy McMorris Rogers, a Republican congresswoman from Washington State. Not exactly a household name, Ms. Rogers was chosen by mainline Repubs to provide the officially sanctioned rebuttal to the president's recent State of the Union message. She spoke of a letter she received from a constituent she referred to as "Bette from Spokane".
According to The Good Congresslady, "Ms. Spokane" lamented the cancellation of her existing health insurance, blaming the ACA and stating that she'd have to pay $700 per month more for a replacement policy. However, the ACA, via its state-coordinated exchange, actually had comparable options available at cheaper rates. But "Ms. Bette from Spokane" (a.k.a. Bette Grenier) readily admitted that, "I wouldn't go on that Obama website at all." Ms. Rogers conveniently omitted that last statement from her rebuttal.
This next example really boggles my mind! A Michigan woman undergoing cancer treatment seems all too willing to deny fellow cancer-sufferers --- who happen to be less financially fortunate --- the same access. Her name is Julie Boonstra, an ironbound Republican married to a party functionary in the Metro Detroit area. She has insisted that the ACA would deny her the treatment she requires. Well, a conscientious Detroit journalist discovered that the ACA would indeed provide the needed treatment. When the reporter furnished Ms. Boonstra the documentation to back up his assertion, she stated that she didn't believe it! Just like that!
I wish Ms. Boonstra a full recovery, but I don't understand how she and others who share her views could be so callous and stone-hearted toward people with modest resources:
--- especially fellow cancer-sufferers!
However, despite significant misfires during the ACA rollout, legions and legions of folks are clamoring to sign up for it. What they're discovering is proving to be a godsend.
More on this in a few days. (Part 2)
Among the most notable Obama/ACA-haters is Cathy McMorris Rogers, a Republican congresswoman from Washington State. Not exactly a household name, Ms. Rogers was chosen by mainline Repubs to provide the officially sanctioned rebuttal to the president's recent State of the Union message. She spoke of a letter she received from a constituent she referred to as "Bette from Spokane".
According to The Good Congresslady, "Ms. Spokane" lamented the cancellation of her existing health insurance, blaming the ACA and stating that she'd have to pay $700 per month more for a replacement policy. However, the ACA, via its state-coordinated exchange, actually had comparable options available at cheaper rates. But "Ms. Bette from Spokane" (a.k.a. Bette Grenier) readily admitted that, "I wouldn't go on that Obama website at all." Ms. Rogers conveniently omitted that last statement from her rebuttal.
This next example really boggles my mind! A Michigan woman undergoing cancer treatment seems all too willing to deny fellow cancer-sufferers --- who happen to be less financially fortunate --- the same access. Her name is Julie Boonstra, an ironbound Republican married to a party functionary in the Metro Detroit area. She has insisted that the ACA would deny her the treatment she requires. Well, a conscientious Detroit journalist discovered that the ACA would indeed provide the needed treatment. When the reporter furnished Ms. Boonstra the documentation to back up his assertion, she stated that she didn't believe it! Just like that!
I wish Ms. Boonstra a full recovery, but I don't understand how she and others who share her views could be so callous and stone-hearted toward people with modest resources:
--- especially fellow cancer-sufferers!
However, despite significant misfires during the ACA rollout, legions and legions of folks are clamoring to sign up for it. What they're discovering is proving to be a godsend.
More on this in a few days. (Part 2)
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Chairman Issa, Champion of Free Discourse, Sets a Precedent
Congressman Darrell Issa, chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee likes to have his way. Who doesn't? But most of us learn while we're still li'l kiddos, that we can't always get what we want. It's a maxim that applies to nearly all of us who happen not to be named Darrell Issa.
From time to time, the Good Chairman likes to resurrect the IRS non-scandal; an agency administrator named Lois Lerner was accused of flagging Tea Party groups for special scrutiny. But such charges were proven baseless when it became evident that organizations spanning the political spectrum were probed with the same degree of intensity.
Once it became apparent that Ms. Lerner wasn't going to co-operate with the ongoing charade, Mr. Issa ground the proceedings to a screeching halt. When Congressman Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, questioned this unprecedented action, the chairman ordered that his mike be shut off. Darrell Issa's glorious tantrum has been captured on video for all the world to see: preserved in visual amber! Here it is: Chairman Issa, Parliamentarian Extrordinaire!
Get a load of Mr. Issa's body language. Check out that scowl! The contempt he has for his congressional colleague is evident. He later apologized to Mr. Cummings who, being the gentleman that he is, graciously accepted. What else could he do?
But the chairman's Joe-McCarthy-like antics are starting to grow a tad overripe. House Speaker John Boehner (a.k.a., His Orangeness) has rejected requests to have him censured. Still, even some of his Republican buddies think it's time for him to cool his jets.
From time to time, the Good Chairman likes to resurrect the IRS non-scandal; an agency administrator named Lois Lerner was accused of flagging Tea Party groups for special scrutiny. But such charges were proven baseless when it became evident that organizations spanning the political spectrum were probed with the same degree of intensity.
Once it became apparent that Ms. Lerner wasn't going to co-operate with the ongoing charade, Mr. Issa ground the proceedings to a screeching halt. When Congressman Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, questioned this unprecedented action, the chairman ordered that his mike be shut off. Darrell Issa's glorious tantrum has been captured on video for all the world to see: preserved in visual amber! Here it is: Chairman Issa, Parliamentarian Extrordinaire!
Get a load of Mr. Issa's body language. Check out that scowl! The contempt he has for his congressional colleague is evident. He later apologized to Mr. Cummings who, being the gentleman that he is, graciously accepted. What else could he do?
But the chairman's Joe-McCarthy-like antics are starting to grow a tad overripe. House Speaker John Boehner (a.k.a., His Orangeness) has rejected requests to have him censured. Still, even some of his Republican buddies think it's time for him to cool his jets.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Chairman Issa Leaves No Dead Horse Unbeaten
Recent charges that the Internal Revenue Service had singled out Tea Party-affiliated groups for vetting had seemingly been debunked. But Congressman Darrell Issa (R - CA) is a Man With a Mission, by crackey! As chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, he'll leave no stone unturned, even if it entails beating a dead horse, burying it, then digging it up and beating it some more.
Yes, it may be true --- to an extent --- that the IRS office in Cincinnati had singled out Tea Party organizations for special scrutiny at the behest of Lois Lerner, the since-retired head of the Exemptions Department. And why not? In the wake of the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, a mass of such groups materialized within a short period of time. Many were financed by extremely generous benefactors such as the Koch brothers.
But over time, the entire vetting effort included 298 groups overall, spanning the entire political spectrum. Does 96 out of 298 seem out of proportion? If so, maybe it's because of the Tea Party donors' bottomless pockets.
What was to be gained by subpoenaing Ms. Lerner? The fact that she invoked the Fifth Amendment became an issue. I can only assume that that's what her counsel advised her to do. Chairman Issa has been known to play loosey-goosey with such inconveniences as facts, mainly by presenting evidence out of context, as he had done in the past with this IRS affair.
I can well understand Ms. Lerner's desire to avoid having to face undue stress brought on by Chairman Issa's spurious accusations. It shouldn't always be assumed that pleading the Fifth automatically implies guilt.
Once it became painfully apparent to the Good Chairman that he wasn't going to have his way with Ms. Lerner, he staged a magnificent tantrum and ground the proceedings to a shrieking halt. But Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee would have none of it.
More on this saga in a day or two.
Yes, it may be true --- to an extent --- that the IRS office in Cincinnati had singled out Tea Party organizations for special scrutiny at the behest of Lois Lerner, the since-retired head of the Exemptions Department. And why not? In the wake of the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, a mass of such groups materialized within a short period of time. Many were financed by extremely generous benefactors such as the Koch brothers.
But over time, the entire vetting effort included 298 groups overall, spanning the entire political spectrum. Does 96 out of 298 seem out of proportion? If so, maybe it's because of the Tea Party donors' bottomless pockets.
What was to be gained by subpoenaing Ms. Lerner? The fact that she invoked the Fifth Amendment became an issue. I can only assume that that's what her counsel advised her to do. Chairman Issa has been known to play loosey-goosey with such inconveniences as facts, mainly by presenting evidence out of context, as he had done in the past with this IRS affair.
I can well understand Ms. Lerner's desire to avoid having to face undue stress brought on by Chairman Issa's spurious accusations. It shouldn't always be assumed that pleading the Fifth automatically implies guilt.
Once it became painfully apparent to the Good Chairman that he wasn't going to have his way with Ms. Lerner, he staged a magnificent tantrum and ground the proceedings to a shrieking halt. But Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee would have none of it.
More on this saga in a day or two.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Does Arizona Really Care About Gay Men & Women? Or Do They Just Want Their Business?
It was gratifying to learn that Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer
vetoed a toxic antigay piece of legislation known as Senate Bill 1062. This proposed measure would have allowed businesses to choose not to serve gay clientele so that their proprietors could honor their religious beliefs. A similar bill was recently vetoed in Kansas.
Apparently, the same dynamic is repeating itself in several states that have created similarly abhorrent bills. Antigay measures, justified by "defense of religious freedom" are being advanced, but then they crash, often by dint of a gubernatorial veto. Why? Because such legislation is bad for business.
It's good to know that legalized gay-bashing isn't going to see the light of day, even in the reddest of the red states. Yet I can't help being cynical. Non-Tea Party Republicans like Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake both declared their opposition to SB 1062. Good for them. But I don't get the sense that they or any other prominent Republicans opposed such legislation because they thought that it was morally repugnant and inhuman. Just bad for business!
Am I being too harsh?
vetoed a toxic antigay piece of legislation known as Senate Bill 1062. This proposed measure would have allowed businesses to choose not to serve gay clientele so that their proprietors could honor their religious beliefs. A similar bill was recently vetoed in Kansas.
Apparently, the same dynamic is repeating itself in several states that have created similarly abhorrent bills. Antigay measures, justified by "defense of religious freedom" are being advanced, but then they crash, often by dint of a gubernatorial veto. Why? Because such legislation is bad for business.
It's good to know that legalized gay-bashing isn't going to see the light of day, even in the reddest of the red states. Yet I can't help being cynical. Non-Tea Party Republicans like Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake both declared their opposition to SB 1062. Good for them. But I don't get the sense that they or any other prominent Republicans opposed such legislation because they thought that it was morally repugnant and inhuman. Just bad for business!
Am I being too harsh?
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Union Drive in Chattanooga: Tennessee Republicans Didn't Do Their Homework
A recent attempt by the United Auto Workers (UAW) to unionize a Volkswagen assembly plant in Chattanooga fell a tad short. The UAW is considering court action, citing undue meddling in the election effort by various Tennessee public officials, all Republican. (One GOP heavy, feeling his oats, growled a message at VW to this effect: "Nice tax break ya got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.")
Among other things, the workers were told that Volkswagen's plans to expand the Chattanooga plant might be jeopardized if they voted for the union. Seems plausible except for one bothersome li'l detail: Senator Tom Corker, Governor Bill Haslam (the former Chattanooga mayor, by the way) and other Republican poobahs, evidently failed to communicate with the corporate folks at VW before making such brash --- and untrue --- statements.
It seems as if it never occurred to Corker and Company, that VW's European style corporate culture wasn't in synch with their own values. Among VW's 106 assembly plants world-wide, the Tennessee factory --- the only one in the US --- also happens to be their only facility without a Euro-style works council. The works council is an arrangement of regularly scheduled meetings between labor and management that encourages a free flow of ideas. A union provides the structure for the works council.
Officially, VW maintained a neutral stance prior to the election. But it seems as if they really wanted the union to succeed. In the wake of the defeat, VW has announced that they're reconsidering any plans they may have had for expansion in the South. It's a blatant contradiction to the Republicans' anti-union message. So it looks as if Mr. Corker's fibs are coming back to bite him, his fellow Republicans and all the good people of Tennessee.
What did he say again in the wake of the union's defeat? Oh yeah. "I am thrilled for the employees at Volkswagen and for our community and its future". It's probably true that some of the workers who voted nay are reflexively opposed to unions. But in light of widespread pro-union sentiments expressed among the rank and file before the election, many believe that some folks may have flipped their votes as a reaction to the Republicans' fear-mongering; perhaps enough to alter the outcome.
I think the union's challenge effort will sprout legs. Stay tuned!
Among other things, the workers were told that Volkswagen's plans to expand the Chattanooga plant might be jeopardized if they voted for the union. Seems plausible except for one bothersome li'l detail: Senator Tom Corker, Governor Bill Haslam (the former Chattanooga mayor, by the way) and other Republican poobahs, evidently failed to communicate with the corporate folks at VW before making such brash --- and untrue --- statements.
It seems as if it never occurred to Corker and Company, that VW's European style corporate culture wasn't in synch with their own values. Among VW's 106 assembly plants world-wide, the Tennessee factory --- the only one in the US --- also happens to be their only facility without a Euro-style works council. The works council is an arrangement of regularly scheduled meetings between labor and management that encourages a free flow of ideas. A union provides the structure for the works council.
Officially, VW maintained a neutral stance prior to the election. But it seems as if they really wanted the union to succeed. In the wake of the defeat, VW has announced that they're reconsidering any plans they may have had for expansion in the South. It's a blatant contradiction to the Republicans' anti-union message. So it looks as if Mr. Corker's fibs are coming back to bite him, his fellow Republicans and all the good people of Tennessee.
What did he say again in the wake of the union's defeat? Oh yeah. "I am thrilled for the employees at Volkswagen and for our community and its future". It's probably true that some of the workers who voted nay are reflexively opposed to unions. But in light of widespread pro-union sentiments expressed among the rank and file before the election, many believe that some folks may have flipped their votes as a reaction to the Republicans' fear-mongering; perhaps enough to alter the outcome.
I think the union's challenge effort will sprout legs. Stay tuned!
Friday, February 21, 2014
Harrumphing Old White Dudes Love Their Porn: An Opportunity for Democrats to Take Back the House
A 2009 survey commissioned by the Harvard Business school has revealed that the greatest demand for pornographic ogling per capita is in red states --- particularly ones with heavy concentrations of evangelicals.
The state at the very pinnacle of the list? Blood-red Utah!
Other top contenders consist of the following states, all playpens of lust featuring a deep scarlet pigment: Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana.
My gut hunch* is that the most prolific consumers of on-line porn consist of a cohort I refer to as "Harrumphing Old White Dudes". These folks share some common traits; (1) they don't like unions, (2) they hate big government, and (3) they particularly detest That Socialist from Kenya Who Lives at the White House. (So you know how they're gonna vote). But they love their on-line porn! They simply can't ever get enough of that visual whoopie!**
Here's my proposal: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will need to get involved. Their task will be to marshal the resources of the eighty most popular premium pornography websites in the nation. Next on the agenda? Organize a Free Premium Porn Day. Arrange for pop-up ads on all major sites. Those Harrumphing Old White Dudes will get wind of it just as soon as you can say Tiffany and Her Barnyard Pals! The date? Tuesday, November 4th, of course --- which, by sheer coincidence, just happens to be the date of the midterm elections this year.
Here's what I envision. As soon as that calendar flips to the Fourth Day of November, all those porn-lovin', Obama-hatin' Harrumphing Old White Dudes will be hot to trot! At the crack o' dawn, they'll be glued to their computer screens. Remember now! --- Eighty premium websites! Free from dawn 'til dusk! They can have it all, and by gum, they will have it all!
Once all them Harrumphing Old White Dudes recover their poise long enough to take a break from their non-stop ogling, they'll look out the window. Dag-nab it, it's dark out! They'll check the time: Holy moley, it's seven o'clock! The polls have just closed! Thousand names of the devil! They've forgotten to cast their ballots!
The election results come pouring in. Fast forward to 11:03 PM, Eastern Standard Time. Every major network has declared victory for the Democrats. Seventeen Congressional seats needed to flip in order for the Democrats to regain a House majority: That's exactly what they got! All because thousands and thousands of porn-lovin', Obama-hatin', Harrumphing Old White Dudes couldn't tear themselves away from their pornographic whoopie long enough to vote. Mission accomplished!
Hey, it's worth a shot, don't ya think?
Here's what I envision. As soon as that calendar flips to the Fourth Day of November, all those porn-lovin', Obama-hatin' Harrumphing Old White Dudes will be hot to trot! At the crack o' dawn, they'll be glued to their computer screens. Remember now! --- Eighty premium websites! Free from dawn 'til dusk! They can have it all, and by gum, they will have it all!
Once all them Harrumphing Old White Dudes recover their poise long enough to take a break from their non-stop ogling, they'll look out the window. Dag-nab it, it's dark out! They'll check the time: Holy moley, it's seven o'clock! The polls have just closed! Thousand names of the devil! They've forgotten to cast their ballots!
The election results come pouring in. Fast forward to 11:03 PM, Eastern Standard Time. Every major network has declared victory for the Democrats. Seventeen Congressional seats needed to flip in order for the Democrats to regain a House majority: That's exactly what they got! All because thousands and thousands of porn-lovin', Obama-hatin', Harrumphing Old White Dudes couldn't tear themselves away from their pornographic whoopie long enough to vote. Mission accomplished!
Hey, it's worth a shot, don't ya think?
* If Congressman Darrell Issa can rely on his gut, I guess I can, too. (See the post on this blog dated 6/8/13: Chairman Issa's Digestive Tract is Working Overtime).
** Also eyeball an earlier post from 7/20/12: Repressed Feelings in Romneyland: Just Gotta Have It.
** Also eyeball an earlier post from 7/20/12: Repressed Feelings in Romneyland: Just Gotta Have It.
Friday, January 31, 2014
No Lunch for Deadbeats: So What If They ARE Kids?
Here's another one of those hand-collides-with-the-forehead moments.
Earlier this week, forty students at a Salt Lake City elementary school had their lunches snatched away from them by a district official. Her title? ---uh--- Child Nutrition Manager! They were then chucked in the garbage because once served, they couldn't be re-served. (The lunches that is, not the kiddos. Just thought I'd better clarify that).
The reason that these pupils lost their lunches was that their families' accounts were deemed delinquent. To make matters worse, these poor boys and girls were mortified in front of their classmates. Some cried. So did at least one cafeteria lady.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, which first ran the article, last Wednesday's lunch-snatching has been an ongoing policy. Apparently it's happened elsewhere too, including Texas. (Surprised)? Owing to the justified public outrage generated by this recent episode, the policy is at least now out in the open.
There are times that I can't help but believe that such abject cruelty and meanness can be contagious. These lunch-snatchers seem to be taking their cues right from the playbooks of two particular congressfolks (one former): Stephen Fincher and Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Fincher is the Western Tennessee congressman and self-anointed biblical scholar who cited a passage from the Bible indicating that "those who don't work, don't eat". (His words). (According to real scholars, the quote was taken grossly out of context). The congressman cited it as justification for his vote to cut food stamps. Yet he's never refused government aid for his own family's thriving four-square-mile cotton plantation.
Not to be forgotten is Mr. Gingrich: former Speaker of the House, presidential candidate, and serial hubby. Here's what he declared back in November, 2011:
Time to relax our truly stupid child labor laws.
Schools should fire their unionized janitors and
hire children as young as nine to do the work
instead.
That's a hard act to follow, folks. I'm absolutely sure that the vast majority of us are better than that. We need to elect more public officials who truly reflect our values.
Earlier this week, forty students at a Salt Lake City elementary school had their lunches snatched away from them by a district official. Her title? ---uh--- Child Nutrition Manager! They were then chucked in the garbage because once served, they couldn't be re-served. (The lunches that is, not the kiddos. Just thought I'd better clarify that).
The reason that these pupils lost their lunches was that their families' accounts were deemed delinquent. To make matters worse, these poor boys and girls were mortified in front of their classmates. Some cried. So did at least one cafeteria lady.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, which first ran the article, last Wednesday's lunch-snatching has been an ongoing policy. Apparently it's happened elsewhere too, including Texas. (Surprised)? Owing to the justified public outrage generated by this recent episode, the policy is at least now out in the open.
There are times that I can't help but believe that such abject cruelty and meanness can be contagious. These lunch-snatchers seem to be taking their cues right from the playbooks of two particular congressfolks (one former): Stephen Fincher and Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Fincher is the Western Tennessee congressman and self-anointed biblical scholar who cited a passage from the Bible indicating that "those who don't work, don't eat". (His words). (According to real scholars, the quote was taken grossly out of context). The congressman cited it as justification for his vote to cut food stamps. Yet he's never refused government aid for his own family's thriving four-square-mile cotton plantation.
Not to be forgotten is Mr. Gingrich: former Speaker of the House, presidential candidate, and serial hubby. Here's what he declared back in November, 2011:
Time to relax our truly stupid child labor laws.
Schools should fire their unionized janitors and
hire children as young as nine to do the work
instead.
That's a hard act to follow, folks. I'm absolutely sure that the vast majority of us are better than that. We need to elect more public officials who truly reflect our values.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Republican Voters Could Be Signing Their Own Death Warrants
Republican legislatures in two dozen states are still not allowing an expanded Medicaid program --- a vital provision of Obamacare --- to benefit their lowest-income residents.
Other than their visceral hatred for the president and everything associated with him, I can't think of any reason why these public officials would be so hell-bent on punishing their states' poorest citizens.
Oh yeah, I nearly forgot; many of these lawmakers seem to believe that the poor are to blame for their own misfortune. Yet, there's at least one potentially lethal fly in the ointment. Apparently, many small-town hospitals are shutting down, having been deprived of the Medicaid funding so vital to their survival.
The upshot is that the health of everyone in those states is at risk, regardless of financial status. Timely treatment for life-threatening injuries or medical traumas is no longer available. It's already happening.
A very well-written and well-documented article is available on-line from Bloomberg News. (Obamacare Cutbacks Shut Hospitals Where Medicaid Went Unexpanded; Byline: Toluse Olorunnipa, 11/24/13).
It doesn't matter how anyone voted or whether or not one is insured. Consider the case of a prototypical Harrumphing Old White Dude: an ironbound, 69-year-old Republican! A heavy smoker and voracious eater with 25 pounds of extra belly freight, he's assaulted by that cardiac yelp: the intense chest pain that also radiates down his left arm.
The nearest hospital, starved for funding has recently shut down. The next-closest medical center is forty miles down the road; the only ambulances in the region are busy. No matter how hard he prays to the Lord, Harrumphing Old White Dude will have breathed his last!
Do I paint a grim picture? Like I said, it's already happening, folks. If you're a resident of one of the affected states, there's a solution to this horrific state of affairs. Vote Democratic this November.
Other than their visceral hatred for the president and everything associated with him, I can't think of any reason why these public officials would be so hell-bent on punishing their states' poorest citizens.
Oh yeah, I nearly forgot; many of these lawmakers seem to believe that the poor are to blame for their own misfortune. Yet, there's at least one potentially lethal fly in the ointment. Apparently, many small-town hospitals are shutting down, having been deprived of the Medicaid funding so vital to their survival.
The upshot is that the health of everyone in those states is at risk, regardless of financial status. Timely treatment for life-threatening injuries or medical traumas is no longer available. It's already happening.
A very well-written and well-documented article is available on-line from Bloomberg News. (Obamacare Cutbacks Shut Hospitals Where Medicaid Went Unexpanded; Byline: Toluse Olorunnipa, 11/24/13).
It doesn't matter how anyone voted or whether or not one is insured. Consider the case of a prototypical Harrumphing Old White Dude: an ironbound, 69-year-old Republican! A heavy smoker and voracious eater with 25 pounds of extra belly freight, he's assaulted by that cardiac yelp: the intense chest pain that also radiates down his left arm.
The nearest hospital, starved for funding has recently shut down. The next-closest medical center is forty miles down the road; the only ambulances in the region are busy. No matter how hard he prays to the Lord, Harrumphing Old White Dude will have breathed his last!
Do I paint a grim picture? Like I said, it's already happening, folks. If you're a resident of one of the affected states, there's a solution to this horrific state of affairs. Vote Democratic this November.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Revival of the 50-State Strategy: Could the Dems Regain the House?
My lenses are not rose-tinted, but I'd like to believe that the midterm elections this November could defy the books. Yep, I honestly believe that the Democrats have a chance to recapture a majority in the US House, despite heavy odds.
A modified version of the 50-State Strategy pioneered by Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Campaign Committee (DNCC) in 2006, might be worth considering. The primary objective of this approach was focused on gaining support for Democratic presidential candidates in red states. However, a concerted effort was also made to promote Democrats running for state, local, and congressional offices. This endeavor worked well enough to help the Dems regain a House majority in the 2006 midterm elections.
Many political observers will be likely to cite a long-standing historical pattern in regard to congressional elections: that is, the party in the White House generally tends to lose seats in mid-term elections. That's generally been the case and 2006 was no exception.
However, I believe that this pattern could be broken because these are extraordinary times. Here's why: Many of the Republicans elected in 2010, especially those with Tea Party backing, have demonstrated an unprecedented degree of both inflexibility and abject cruelty. Here are some examples: Even during the era of Bush the Younger, House and Senate Republicans routinely approved extensions of federal unemployment benefits when the need was apparent. Additionally, threats of government shutdowns and fiscal default were never even on the radar.
Republicans in both houses of Congress are now insisting that the $25 billion price tag for a yearlong extension of federal unemployment insurance needs to be paid for by cutting other programs. Tax hikes? "No, no, no!" cry the Repubs, petulantly stamping their feet. Oh by the way, the 16-day government shutdown left us all $24 billion poorer!
One can only hope that well-intentioned voters --- those who really care about their neighbors and friends --- will grow weary of hard-hearted Congressfolks like Stephen Fincher, a Republican from western Tennessee, who opposes any sort of measure offering relief to struggling families, insisting that it's no business of the government's. After all, he insists, "Those who don't work don't eat", according to the Bible. Yet his own family's thriving cotton farm receives an average of $300,000 a year in agricultural subsidies!
Granted, convincing voters to exercise their franchise during mid-term elections is always a challenge. And harrumphing old white dudes always vote! But in 2012, many determined voters valiantly and successfully resisted concerted efforts on the part of Republican officials to suppress their rights to the ballot.
Once again, the odds may be heavy, but I'd like to believe that a Democratic House in 2014 is more than just a dream.
A modified version of the 50-State Strategy pioneered by Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Campaign Committee (DNCC) in 2006, might be worth considering. The primary objective of this approach was focused on gaining support for Democratic presidential candidates in red states. However, a concerted effort was also made to promote Democrats running for state, local, and congressional offices. This endeavor worked well enough to help the Dems regain a House majority in the 2006 midterm elections.
Many political observers will be likely to cite a long-standing historical pattern in regard to congressional elections: that is, the party in the White House generally tends to lose seats in mid-term elections. That's generally been the case and 2006 was no exception.
However, I believe that this pattern could be broken because these are extraordinary times. Here's why: Many of the Republicans elected in 2010, especially those with Tea Party backing, have demonstrated an unprecedented degree of both inflexibility and abject cruelty. Here are some examples: Even during the era of Bush the Younger, House and Senate Republicans routinely approved extensions of federal unemployment benefits when the need was apparent. Additionally, threats of government shutdowns and fiscal default were never even on the radar.
Republicans in both houses of Congress are now insisting that the $25 billion price tag for a yearlong extension of federal unemployment insurance needs to be paid for by cutting other programs. Tax hikes? "No, no, no!" cry the Repubs, petulantly stamping their feet. Oh by the way, the 16-day government shutdown left us all $24 billion poorer!
One can only hope that well-intentioned voters --- those who really care about their neighbors and friends --- will grow weary of hard-hearted Congressfolks like Stephen Fincher, a Republican from western Tennessee, who opposes any sort of measure offering relief to struggling families, insisting that it's no business of the government's. After all, he insists, "Those who don't work don't eat", according to the Bible. Yet his own family's thriving cotton farm receives an average of $300,000 a year in agricultural subsidies!
Granted, convincing voters to exercise their franchise during mid-term elections is always a challenge. And harrumphing old white dudes always vote! But in 2012, many determined voters valiantly and successfully resisted concerted efforts on the part of Republican officials to suppress their rights to the ballot.
Once again, the odds may be heavy, but I'd like to believe that a Democratic House in 2014 is more than just a dream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)