Friday, October 31, 2008
Redistribution of Wealth
Apparently not a new concept. I guess it doesn't count when it is going to the top 1% of households.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Revolutionary Socialism??
This blog is going to be super long but I hope you tough it out and read it because I put a lot of time into this one as I think it forces us to think about some important things, regardless of our chosen political affiliations.
I have been doing a lot of reading for my American Revolution class and one of the books we are currently reading is “The Unknown American Revolution” by Gary B. Nash. I’m not in love with this book but I recently read a chapter that literally left my head spinning. I hope to hear from some of you regarding your thoughts on the story Gary Nash tells us here:
Ch 5, Section 4: “Rioting to Eat”
“There has been much rout and noise in the town for several weeks,” wrote Abigail Adams to her husband, who was still in Philadelphia in the summer of 1777. “Some stores had been opened by a number of people and the coffee and sugar carried into the market and dealt out by the pounds.” On July 24, women took the lead in battling a perfectly patriotic Boston merchant, Thomas Boylston. Indeed, two years before, Boylston had been on the British blacklist- a dangerous and vehement patriot. But while wealthy and eminent, Boylston was also “miserly” and “stingy” to use Abigail’s terms. Seeing an opportunity for windfall profits by withholding coffee and sugar from the market, thus driving up the price, he now faced a horde of angry Boston women. When he refused to sell his coffee at a reasonable price, “a number of females, some say a hundred, some say more,” related Abigail, “assembled with a cart and trucks, marched down to the warehouse, and demanded the keys, which he refused to deliver.” When Boylston (who happened to be the first cousin of John Adams’s mother), tried to face the women down, “one of them seized him by the neck and tossed him into the cart. Upon his finding no quarter, he delivered the keys, when they tipped up the cart and discharged him, then opened the warehouse, hoisted out the coffee themselves, put it into the trucks, and drove off.” Abigail doubted, she told John, that the women administered “a spanking” to the purse-proud Boylston, as some said, but she was certain about the fact that “a large concourse of men stood amazed silent spectators of the whole transaction.”
Abigail Adams was describing what in Europe was called taxation populaire- the people’s seizure of basic commodities and their subsequent sale at a fair price. Historians have seen this as an example of “the moral economy” at work, the implementation of an age old principle where no individual economic actor- whether merchant, miller, farmer, or shopkeeper- was entitled to enrich himself at the public’s expense, especially in a crisis situation.
On the home front, female militancy revolved around obtaining subsistence commodities. While their husbands and sons fought the British, the women and children had to eat. Almost by definition, the war between the Americans and England dislocated the market economy. The prolonged clash of arms cut off avenues of trade to the West Indies and continental Europe, created shortages as marauding American and British armies requisitioned food and livestock, forced the Americans to rely on paper currency (which soon led to rampant inflation), and offered unusual opportunities for unscrupulous merchants, retailers, and even famers to manipulate the price of foodstuffs.
Replying to Abigail’s account of Thomas Boylston’s comeuppance, John Adams made light of the incident, telling his wife that her letter “made me merry with the female frolic with the miser.” But it was far from a frolic for women in Boston and countless other towns. Many of them were managing their families, farms, and urban shops in the absence of men. Trying to cope with a disordered economy, women became involved in a majority of these food riots and often were the principal organizers. Striding on to the public stage, they became arbiters of what was fair, what was patriotic, and what was necessary to serve the needs of the whole community. Fighting for ethical marketplace conduct was consonant with supporting “the glorious cause”; conversely, men like Thomas Boylston displayed anti-patriotism by contributing to the misery of middle and lower class families- those who bore the brunt of battlefield blood sacrifices.
Marketplace riots began almost before the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence. Just a few days after the Continental Congress had agreed to sever ties with England, merchant Samuel Colton and retailers Jonathan and Hezekiah hale felt the anger of their neighbors for marking up prices on scarce molasses, sugar, salt, and rum in the close-knit village of Longmeadow, a few miles from Springfield in the Connecticut River valley. Not mincing words, Longmeadow’s citizens warned that “every man whose actions are unfriendly to the common cause of our country ought to be convinced of his wrong behavior and made to reform, or treated as an open enemy.” The tongue-lashing continued: “We find you guilty of very wrong behavior in selling at extravagant prices, particularly West Indian goods. This conduct… is very detrimental to the liberties of America. We therefore your offended brethren demand satisfaction of you… by a confession for your past conduct and thorough reformation for time to come.”
Sharply chastised, the hales recanted, agreeing to sell at prices specified by the assembled crowd. But Samuel Colton resisted. The town’s wealthiest man, his roots traced back to Longmeadow’s founders in the 1640’s. Ship owner, slave owner, head of a large household, and owner of the town’s finest dwelling, he was accustomed to the respect that most “river God’s” of the Connecticut River valley enjoyed. But now he had to eat humble pie. Deep into the night, a knot of blackfaced Longmeadow townsmen, wrapped in blankets “like Indians”, broke into Colton’s store, carried off his cache of sugar, salt, rum, and molasses, and put the liberated goods in the hands of the town clerk. The crowd included the deacon of Longmeadow’s Congregational Church and the cousin of Colton’s wife. After selling the commodities at a fair price, the town clerk tried to give the proceeds to Colton. When he refused to accept the money, crowd leaders entered his house, plunked the sum down on a table, and left. They had made their point: Those who tried to line their pockets at the expense of ordinary members of the community must answer for their misdeeds and yield to the collective will (p232-234).
Bloggers note: If you’ve been cheering for the townspeople’s let’s skip ahead in the chapter so you may consider this:
Controlling prices in the name of the community’s need troubled many moderate patriots and infuriated conservative ones. Many states set price limits in 1776 and 1777 on such essentials as bread and meat but they did so reluctantly. By 1777-78, merchants, retailers, and some farmers began pressuring state governments to repeal the price control laws, seeing them “as directly opposite to the idea of liberty,” as Boston merchants argued to the legislature (p237).
From a political standpoint, the idea of setting price controls so that the community needs are put before those of the individual does seem to have socialist implications. At the same time we can clearly see that these people felt that their demands were crucial to upholding their perception of liberty. On the other hand, by meeting the definition of liberty for the masses, the liberty of the individual businessman is compromised as he is unable to reach his maximum earning potential. Condsidering this argument I then wonder if the moral requirements of tending to the masses is so great that the needs of the individual must be set aside. This of course beggs the question: if they are set aside, is freedom some how lessened?
These are tough questions and each of has our own answers I guess. This reading captivated me because revealed that liberty means different things to different people and that those ideas can be in complete conflict with each other but can still be associated with democracy. Obviously we live in very different times, but the situation described here has a very familiar ring to it.
What do you think blog readers? Is one side of this argument more valid than the other?
I have been doing a lot of reading for my American Revolution class and one of the books we are currently reading is “The Unknown American Revolution” by Gary B. Nash. I’m not in love with this book but I recently read a chapter that literally left my head spinning. I hope to hear from some of you regarding your thoughts on the story Gary Nash tells us here:
Ch 5, Section 4: “Rioting to Eat”
“There has been much rout and noise in the town for several weeks,” wrote Abigail Adams to her husband, who was still in Philadelphia in the summer of 1777. “Some stores had been opened by a number of people and the coffee and sugar carried into the market and dealt out by the pounds.” On July 24, women took the lead in battling a perfectly patriotic Boston merchant, Thomas Boylston. Indeed, two years before, Boylston had been on the British blacklist- a dangerous and vehement patriot. But while wealthy and eminent, Boylston was also “miserly” and “stingy” to use Abigail’s terms. Seeing an opportunity for windfall profits by withholding coffee and sugar from the market, thus driving up the price, he now faced a horde of angry Boston women. When he refused to sell his coffee at a reasonable price, “a number of females, some say a hundred, some say more,” related Abigail, “assembled with a cart and trucks, marched down to the warehouse, and demanded the keys, which he refused to deliver.” When Boylston (who happened to be the first cousin of John Adams’s mother), tried to face the women down, “one of them seized him by the neck and tossed him into the cart. Upon his finding no quarter, he delivered the keys, when they tipped up the cart and discharged him, then opened the warehouse, hoisted out the coffee themselves, put it into the trucks, and drove off.” Abigail doubted, she told John, that the women administered “a spanking” to the purse-proud Boylston, as some said, but she was certain about the fact that “a large concourse of men stood amazed silent spectators of the whole transaction.”
Abigail Adams was describing what in Europe was called taxation populaire- the people’s seizure of basic commodities and their subsequent sale at a fair price. Historians have seen this as an example of “the moral economy” at work, the implementation of an age old principle where no individual economic actor- whether merchant, miller, farmer, or shopkeeper- was entitled to enrich himself at the public’s expense, especially in a crisis situation.
On the home front, female militancy revolved around obtaining subsistence commodities. While their husbands and sons fought the British, the women and children had to eat. Almost by definition, the war between the Americans and England dislocated the market economy. The prolonged clash of arms cut off avenues of trade to the West Indies and continental Europe, created shortages as marauding American and British armies requisitioned food and livestock, forced the Americans to rely on paper currency (which soon led to rampant inflation), and offered unusual opportunities for unscrupulous merchants, retailers, and even famers to manipulate the price of foodstuffs.
Replying to Abigail’s account of Thomas Boylston’s comeuppance, John Adams made light of the incident, telling his wife that her letter “made me merry with the female frolic with the miser.” But it was far from a frolic for women in Boston and countless other towns. Many of them were managing their families, farms, and urban shops in the absence of men. Trying to cope with a disordered economy, women became involved in a majority of these food riots and often were the principal organizers. Striding on to the public stage, they became arbiters of what was fair, what was patriotic, and what was necessary to serve the needs of the whole community. Fighting for ethical marketplace conduct was consonant with supporting “the glorious cause”; conversely, men like Thomas Boylston displayed anti-patriotism by contributing to the misery of middle and lower class families- those who bore the brunt of battlefield blood sacrifices.
Marketplace riots began almost before the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence. Just a few days after the Continental Congress had agreed to sever ties with England, merchant Samuel Colton and retailers Jonathan and Hezekiah hale felt the anger of their neighbors for marking up prices on scarce molasses, sugar, salt, and rum in the close-knit village of Longmeadow, a few miles from Springfield in the Connecticut River valley. Not mincing words, Longmeadow’s citizens warned that “every man whose actions are unfriendly to the common cause of our country ought to be convinced of his wrong behavior and made to reform, or treated as an open enemy.” The tongue-lashing continued: “We find you guilty of very wrong behavior in selling at extravagant prices, particularly West Indian goods. This conduct… is very detrimental to the liberties of America. We therefore your offended brethren demand satisfaction of you… by a confession for your past conduct and thorough reformation for time to come.”
Sharply chastised, the hales recanted, agreeing to sell at prices specified by the assembled crowd. But Samuel Colton resisted. The town’s wealthiest man, his roots traced back to Longmeadow’s founders in the 1640’s. Ship owner, slave owner, head of a large household, and owner of the town’s finest dwelling, he was accustomed to the respect that most “river God’s” of the Connecticut River valley enjoyed. But now he had to eat humble pie. Deep into the night, a knot of blackfaced Longmeadow townsmen, wrapped in blankets “like Indians”, broke into Colton’s store, carried off his cache of sugar, salt, rum, and molasses, and put the liberated goods in the hands of the town clerk. The crowd included the deacon of Longmeadow’s Congregational Church and the cousin of Colton’s wife. After selling the commodities at a fair price, the town clerk tried to give the proceeds to Colton. When he refused to accept the money, crowd leaders entered his house, plunked the sum down on a table, and left. They had made their point: Those who tried to line their pockets at the expense of ordinary members of the community must answer for their misdeeds and yield to the collective will (p232-234).
Bloggers note: If you’ve been cheering for the townspeople’s let’s skip ahead in the chapter so you may consider this:
Controlling prices in the name of the community’s need troubled many moderate patriots and infuriated conservative ones. Many states set price limits in 1776 and 1777 on such essentials as bread and meat but they did so reluctantly. By 1777-78, merchants, retailers, and some farmers began pressuring state governments to repeal the price control laws, seeing them “as directly opposite to the idea of liberty,” as Boston merchants argued to the legislature (p237).
From a political standpoint, the idea of setting price controls so that the community needs are put before those of the individual does seem to have socialist implications. At the same time we can clearly see that these people felt that their demands were crucial to upholding their perception of liberty. On the other hand, by meeting the definition of liberty for the masses, the liberty of the individual businessman is compromised as he is unable to reach his maximum earning potential. Condsidering this argument I then wonder if the moral requirements of tending to the masses is so great that the needs of the individual must be set aside. This of course beggs the question: if they are set aside, is freedom some how lessened?
These are tough questions and each of has our own answers I guess. This reading captivated me because revealed that liberty means different things to different people and that those ideas can be in complete conflict with each other but can still be associated with democracy. Obviously we live in very different times, but the situation described here has a very familiar ring to it.
What do you think blog readers? Is one side of this argument more valid than the other?
Friday, October 24, 2008
Americana
Too busy for a blog today but here's a little patriotic pick me up provided by my sister Sydney and her friend Hope.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Divided We Fall
*Sigh* I wish I didn't even have to write this blog. This blog has been rolling around in my brain after several days of news stories about various members of the GOP apologizing for making remarks about people being "un-patriotic" or "un-American" or "real Americans" and I had decided I was just going to let it slide. Then today I see this:
In case you can't read it the mailer says "Terrorists" on the front and on the inside it says (among other things) "Barack Obama. Not who you think he is."
RNC, are you shitting me? Send me a mailer about why your candidate is better, send me a mailer about why Obama's health care plan won't work, send me a mailer about what John McCain can do for me but seriously, I mean seriously, don't do this.
What is going on America? Have we completely forgotten that having two parties is a good thing? That having more than one candidate IS American? That we rely on differing opinions and ideas to balance our democracy? Furthermore, does either party realize that we have considerably large problems that we are counting on them to deal with and we want to hear from them about what they plan to do?
I realize that both parties are guilty of this business so I won't go into a continued GOP tirade but I think it's pretty clear who has employed this as their number 1 campaign strategy.
This un-patriotic socialist, terrorist vs. real American business is just blowing my mind. Apparently America we are so dumb that the only way to communicate with us is through scare tactics and divisive bullshit. Forget the issues, stop trying to figure out who has the best platform, just figure out which guy scares you the least and vote for him because thinking and talking about the issues is just too much work.
Obama & McCain, I have a message for both of you: QUIT THIS NONSENSE! Start acting like the Americans you are.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
2nd Response to Bailout Letter
I got a response this evening from my other Senator, John Cornyn. Once again it is detailed and once again I don't fully agree but I appreciate the response. I found it interesting that he does go a step farther than Senator Hutchison's letter in attempting to defend his own actions leading up to these events and he describes what he feels is an appropriate course of action in dealing with the offenders. His timing is spot on considering that I have just been trying to decide whether or not I will be voting for him. Here it is for your reading enjoyment.
Dear Ms. Jones:
Thank you for contacting me about the current financial crisis. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter. I, like many Texans, am angry and frustrated that the United States is in the current financial crisis. As a strong supporter of the free market, I am opposed to unnecessary government intervention in the economy.
As you know, the federal government has recently taken several steps to ensure that our financial system remains stable for the growth of our economy. Any actions by the federal government must be temporary and limited. Furthermore, any taxpayer money that is used to support our troubled economy must be subject to strict oversight and be repaid—in full—to the American people. Hard-working, financially responsible Texans should not have to pay for the irresponsible behavior of corporate executives who abused their positions. These executives must now be held fully accountable under the law.
The current financial crisis was caused, to a large extent, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—two government sponsored enterprises that played a central role in the much maligned mortgage market by guaranteeing loans to individuals who could not pay them back. Together, these two agencies own or guarantee nearly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market. I have long advocated that Congress reform both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in an effort to protect taxpayers. In 2006, I urged the Senate Majority Leader to bring reform legislation before the full Senate after reports that Fannie Mae intentionally overstated its earnings by $10.6 billion. This reform legislation would have increased oversight and taken steps to protect taxpayers from the risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed to our economy. Regrettably, the Senate did not consider these reforms because special interest groups lobbied their Congressional allies to prevent this legislation from being debated.
Furthermore, risky business practices by irresponsible financial institutions have caused great stress on our credit market, limiting the amount of credit available to both individuals and businesses. America’s system of credit is the lifeblood of our economy as it affects thousands of purchases and investments made in our country each day. Without access to credit, small businesses cannot pay their employees and working families cannot receive the loans necessary to send their children to college or purchase a new home or car. It is critical for our economy that the financial crisis be prevented from spreading to families and businesses across Texas which would result in many Texans losing their jobs, diminished college funds for their children, and a loss of hard-earned retirement savings.
Finally, it is imperative that all parties associated with the current financial crisis are aggressively investigated and that any corporate executives found to be involved in criminal activities are swiftly prosecuted. I intend to ensure that a thorough criminal investigation is conducted and that those responsible for violating any criminal laws of the United States are held accountable. As such, I have called on the Attorney General to begin a criminal investigation of executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is because of their poor—and possibly criminal—business practices that American taxpayers and our nation’s economy are in jeopardy. Soon after the Attorney General received my request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced an investigation of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and multiple Wall Street financial firms.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate and you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as the 110th Congress draws to a close. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
Dear Ms. Jones:
Thank you for contacting me about the current financial crisis. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter. I, like many Texans, am angry and frustrated that the United States is in the current financial crisis. As a strong supporter of the free market, I am opposed to unnecessary government intervention in the economy.
As you know, the federal government has recently taken several steps to ensure that our financial system remains stable for the growth of our economy. Any actions by the federal government must be temporary and limited. Furthermore, any taxpayer money that is used to support our troubled economy must be subject to strict oversight and be repaid—in full—to the American people. Hard-working, financially responsible Texans should not have to pay for the irresponsible behavior of corporate executives who abused their positions. These executives must now be held fully accountable under the law.
The current financial crisis was caused, to a large extent, by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—two government sponsored enterprises that played a central role in the much maligned mortgage market by guaranteeing loans to individuals who could not pay them back. Together, these two agencies own or guarantee nearly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market. I have long advocated that Congress reform both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in an effort to protect taxpayers. In 2006, I urged the Senate Majority Leader to bring reform legislation before the full Senate after reports that Fannie Mae intentionally overstated its earnings by $10.6 billion. This reform legislation would have increased oversight and taken steps to protect taxpayers from the risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed to our economy. Regrettably, the Senate did not consider these reforms because special interest groups lobbied their Congressional allies to prevent this legislation from being debated.
Furthermore, risky business practices by irresponsible financial institutions have caused great stress on our credit market, limiting the amount of credit available to both individuals and businesses. America’s system of credit is the lifeblood of our economy as it affects thousands of purchases and investments made in our country each day. Without access to credit, small businesses cannot pay their employees and working families cannot receive the loans necessary to send their children to college or purchase a new home or car. It is critical for our economy that the financial crisis be prevented from spreading to families and businesses across Texas which would result in many Texans losing their jobs, diminished college funds for their children, and a loss of hard-earned retirement savings.
Finally, it is imperative that all parties associated with the current financial crisis are aggressively investigated and that any corporate executives found to be involved in criminal activities are swiftly prosecuted. I intend to ensure that a thorough criminal investigation is conducted and that those responsible for violating any criminal laws of the United States are held accountable. As such, I have called on the Attorney General to begin a criminal investigation of executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is because of their poor—and possibly criminal—business practices that American taxpayers and our nation’s economy are in jeopardy. Soon after the Attorney General received my request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced an investigation of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and multiple Wall Street financial firms.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate and you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as the 110th Congress draws to a close. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Here We Go
Thanks to my girl Steph who is wise to the ways of the web, all of you can now view your ballot and prepare your voter checklist:
http://mk.thevoterguide.org/vgt/
Get busy. Times a wastin'
http://mk.thevoterguide.org/vgt/
Get busy. Times a wastin'
Monday, October 20, 2008
Tonight at 6
I don't have anything emotionally charged to blog about today but I did want to review a few newsworthy items.
First, election time has nearly arrived. If you are lucky enough to live in the great State of Texas you can vote right now (I have to tell you though Texas, I get a little personal excitement out of voting on election day so I'm waiting). A couple of people have mentioned to me that they don't know how to figure out what will be on their ballot so I thought I would take a few minutes to help out with that. If you are a Texan I would recommend that you visit this site:
http://z4.thevoterguide.org/a-dallas/get-started.do;jsessionid=07448055D849A2B3990ED7D822F7F896
This site will not only tell you what district you are in, it will show you your entire ballot and allow you to compare candidates (including judges). Once you decide who to vote for you can print the whole thing out and take it with you to the polling place. It's pretty groovy.
If you live anywhere else you should Google and visit your Secretary of State's website and you should be able to find all voting information there including the sample ballot. You will need to know your district number which can also be located by doing a little Googling. After you have your sample ballot you can visit the websites of each candidate to learn more about them. Yes this may require a little time and effort but DO IT ANYWAY! You may also want to check the website of your local paper because they likely have something similar to the link I provided above. If you want to know whether or not you can vote early and where, (and you have no aversion to the Obama website) you can visit here: http://www.voteforchange.com/ and gather the necessary information. I'm telling you, the internet is a beautiful thing.
In other news an 89 year old woman was arrested for refusing to return the neighbor kids ball. I say good. That's what you get for being mean. That's karma grandma.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_re_us/odd_football_charge
Sarah Palin announced today that she does support a Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay marriage. Good for her and her hate monger friends. This confirms my thinking that what she said about gay marriage in the debate was an outright lie. Sometimes I hate it when I am right. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_el_pr/palin_gay_marriage
And finally these assholes got together and pretended to do something.
I don't know what they are smiling about but I think there should be a new rule that if you are an elected official currently holding a position in Washington you aren't allowed to smile about a damn thing right now. This rule particularly applies to the idiot on the far right who terrifies me every time he smiles about something.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/financial_meltdown
That is all. Carry on.
First, election time has nearly arrived. If you are lucky enough to live in the great State of Texas you can vote right now (I have to tell you though Texas, I get a little personal excitement out of voting on election day so I'm waiting). A couple of people have mentioned to me that they don't know how to figure out what will be on their ballot so I thought I would take a few minutes to help out with that. If you are a Texan I would recommend that you visit this site:
http://z4.thevoterguide.org/a-dallas/get-started.do;jsessionid=07448055D849A2B3990ED7D822F7F896
This site will not only tell you what district you are in, it will show you your entire ballot and allow you to compare candidates (including judges). Once you decide who to vote for you can print the whole thing out and take it with you to the polling place. It's pretty groovy.
If you live anywhere else you should Google and visit your Secretary of State's website and you should be able to find all voting information there including the sample ballot. You will need to know your district number which can also be located by doing a little Googling. After you have your sample ballot you can visit the websites of each candidate to learn more about them. Yes this may require a little time and effort but DO IT ANYWAY! You may also want to check the website of your local paper because they likely have something similar to the link I provided above. If you want to know whether or not you can vote early and where, (and you have no aversion to the Obama website) you can visit here: http://www.voteforchange.com/ and gather the necessary information. I'm telling you, the internet is a beautiful thing.
In other news an 89 year old woman was arrested for refusing to return the neighbor kids ball. I say good. That's what you get for being mean. That's karma grandma.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_re_us/odd_football_charge
Sarah Palin announced today that she does support a Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay marriage. Good for her and her hate monger friends. This confirms my thinking that what she said about gay marriage in the debate was an outright lie. Sometimes I hate it when I am right. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_el_pr/palin_gay_marriage
And finally these assholes got together and pretended to do something.
I don't know what they are smiling about but I think there should be a new rule that if you are an elected official currently holding a position in Washington you aren't allowed to smile about a damn thing right now. This rule particularly applies to the idiot on the far right who terrifies me every time he smiles about something.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/financial_meltdown
That is all. Carry on.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Grammar Got Run Over By a Reindeer
I have a confession to make. I am an elitist. I possess the elitist opinion that a person who is serving in a leadership capacity should have the ability to put together complete, coherent, and proper sentences. I’m not an English teacher and I will not even begin to suggest that I don’t make mistakes when using the English language. In fact I frequently make spelling and grammatical errors and I’m not ashamed to admit it. Not only do I frequently make errors, I have also been known to speak in slang and/or swear at times. You'll probably find a mistake or ten in this blog. However, when I lived in small town America, my mother (who reads this blog so Hi Mom!) frequently nagged me….I mean reminded me about the importance of using proper grammar and a dictionary. Thank goodness she did because I have reaped many rewards as a result of understanding the importance of words and articulate speech. For the last 8 years I have watched our Commander in Chief make a complete ass of himself by bungling the English language and it drives me insane. Once again we are face to face with a political figure who is shockingly inarticulate. What’s even worse is that she seems to think it’s excusable because it makes her more like us. I come from the Midwest and as a result I say my O's funny. I can't fault the woman for her dialect but it's positively shocking to me that she can't figure out how to put words in the right order and that people find this to be acceptable behavior. Here are a few shining examples of the Governor massacring our language:
"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008
"Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ―" ―Palin, unable to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008
This one is my favorite so far (and it prompted this blog):
"It's all pro-America. I was just reinforcing the fact that there, where I was, there's good patriotic people there in these rallies, so excited about positive change and reform of government that's coming that they are so appreciative of hearing our message, hearing our plan. Not any one area of America is more pro-America patriotically than others," Palin responding to criticism from Joe Biden at a fundraiser in North Carolina, October 17, 2008
For good measure, here’s one that that is disconcerting not only for its odd use of the English language but also for its content:
"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." ―Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Sept. 30, 2008
My friends, this brazen slaughter of the English language is not cute. I do not find anything endearing or sweet about a public official speaking like she barely made it through the 6th grade.
First, I am offended by the idea that because she is from a small town Mrs. Palin is given a free pass to talk like an idiot. It not only devalues the importance of education for people in communities of all sizes, it’s also inherently false. Some of the most well versed individuals I know are the products of small town education. Sarah Palin's inability to effectively and appropriately communicate perpetuates the myth that small town citizen = unsophisticated and under-educated.
Second, I think a person’s ability to construct sentences and communicate has a direct correlation to that individual’s thought process and intelligence. I don’t think this point requires any further explanation.
Finally, and most importantly in my opinion, communication is one of the cornerstones of leadership. Joe six-pack may like it that the Governor speaks his language but I can assure you that they don’t appreciate it at the U.N. and we certainly don’t appreciate it in this house. Like it or not, we now live in a global community and I am appalled by the idea that a woman who might represent us on a global stage will be made fun of because she can’t talk. I've watched "W" do it for 8 years and it’s degrading and humiliating.
I am not against the idea of a small town Washington outsider running for President. In fact I think the idea is grand. Give me a small town candidate who can communicate their ideas to me coherently and with even a shred of eloquence and I’ll listen intently to what they have to say. This isn't an issue of experience, it is a matter of being represented by someone who does not demonstrate the ability to speak as though she were educated (even though she does have a degree in *GASP* Journalism {I say as I vigorously shake my head in disgust that someone awarded her a degree in a subject that requires excellent writing skills not to mention the fact that she couldn't name a damn newspaper or magazine}).
If my expectation that the leaders of the free world should have a better than basic grasp on the English language is unreasonable, I guess I don’t fit in with the rest of you America. I’ll be watching for the USPS to deliver my elitist club card any day now and my new elitist friends and I will sit around having grammatically correct conversations with each other while the rest of you are busy being “real Americans” who don't care about silly little things like proper speech and global image. I wish you and your word fumbling candidate the best of luck in your efforts to make America respectable again.
"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008
"Well, let's see. There's ― of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there's never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ―" ―Palin, unable to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008
This one is my favorite so far (and it prompted this blog):
"It's all pro-America. I was just reinforcing the fact that there, where I was, there's good patriotic people there in these rallies, so excited about positive change and reform of government that's coming that they are so appreciative of hearing our message, hearing our plan. Not any one area of America is more pro-America patriotically than others," Palin responding to criticism from Joe Biden at a fundraiser in North Carolina, October 17, 2008
For good measure, here’s one that that is disconcerting not only for its odd use of the English language but also for its content:
"All of 'em, any of 'em that have been in front of me over all these years." ―Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Sept. 30, 2008
My friends, this brazen slaughter of the English language is not cute. I do not find anything endearing or sweet about a public official speaking like she barely made it through the 6th grade.
First, I am offended by the idea that because she is from a small town Mrs. Palin is given a free pass to talk like an idiot. It not only devalues the importance of education for people in communities of all sizes, it’s also inherently false. Some of the most well versed individuals I know are the products of small town education. Sarah Palin's inability to effectively and appropriately communicate perpetuates the myth that small town citizen = unsophisticated and under-educated.
Second, I think a person’s ability to construct sentences and communicate has a direct correlation to that individual’s thought process and intelligence. I don’t think this point requires any further explanation.
Finally, and most importantly in my opinion, communication is one of the cornerstones of leadership. Joe six-pack may like it that the Governor speaks his language but I can assure you that they don’t appreciate it at the U.N. and we certainly don’t appreciate it in this house. Like it or not, we now live in a global community and I am appalled by the idea that a woman who might represent us on a global stage will be made fun of because she can’t talk. I've watched "W" do it for 8 years and it’s degrading and humiliating.
I am not against the idea of a small town Washington outsider running for President. In fact I think the idea is grand. Give me a small town candidate who can communicate their ideas to me coherently and with even a shred of eloquence and I’ll listen intently to what they have to say. This isn't an issue of experience, it is a matter of being represented by someone who does not demonstrate the ability to speak as though she were educated (even though she does have a degree in *GASP* Journalism {I say as I vigorously shake my head in disgust that someone awarded her a degree in a subject that requires excellent writing skills not to mention the fact that she couldn't name a damn newspaper or magazine}).
If my expectation that the leaders of the free world should have a better than basic grasp on the English language is unreasonable, I guess I don’t fit in with the rest of you America. I’ll be watching for the USPS to deliver my elitist club card any day now and my new elitist friends and I will sit around having grammatically correct conversations with each other while the rest of you are busy being “real Americans” who don't care about silly little things like proper speech and global image. I wish you and your word fumbling candidate the best of luck in your efforts to make America respectable again.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Poor Bert
Great news everyone! We're once again going to play "Candidates who don't know their history".
So in the last two debates John McCain has whipped out the Herbert Hoover reference on Obama twice. While this is probably an effective gimmick for the average individual who is terrified of another Depression, someone forgot to tell John McCain that Ms Jones happens to be a resident expert on one Herbert Clark Hoover and his administration. My major research project for last semester was an in depth analysis of Hoover and his Presidency. I know, good timing right? If you're looking for some bedtime reading I'll send you the paper. It'll put you right out.
Poor Bert Hoover gets a bad rap. This is a guy who once said:
"The trouble with capitalism is capitalists; they're too damn greedy."
Right on Bert!
Anyway, getting on with the facts I would first like to gently remind the Senator from Arizona that Mr. Hoover was a member of the, ahem, Republican party and all of the things Hoover did were in keeping with his very strong Republican principles. Seriously, this guy was as Republican as they come. Second, let's get down and dirty and look at exactly what was said:
In debate number two McCain said:
"Well, you know, nailing down Senator Obama's various tax proposals is like nailing Jell-O to the wall. There has been five or six of them and if you wait long enough, there will probably be another one. But he wants to raise taxes. My friends, the last president to raise taxes during tough economic times was Herbert Hoover, and he practiced protectionism as well, which I'm sure we'll get to at some point."
Herbert Hoover did, with the approval of Congress, increase the tax rates of the highest and lowest income earners in the United States. He did this in 1931, in an attempt to increase confidence in the National Treasury. However, his initial reaction following the 1929 drop was to call for a tax reduction. The tax increase was then later implemented to counter the fact that tax revenues had so drastically decreased (since incomes were down and taxes had been reduced) but of course this turned out to be too little and way too late as the country was already in the Depression by that time. SO to say that Herbert Hoover was just running around jacking up taxes on poor defenseless Americans after the market crash is not exactly what I would call a true statement. One might suggest that had Hoover immediately increased taxes the GDP would not have had almost 2 years to drastically fall off. Taxes suck but my friends, shit aint free. I'll address his trade jab in the next one.
Tonight we were treated to this little dandy:
"So I don't -- I don't think there's any doubt that Senator Obama wants to restrict trade and he wants to raise taxes. And the last president of the United States that tried that was Herbert Hoover, and we went from a deep recession into a depression."
Well we've talked about the taxes so lets get on with the trade issue because I gotta tell you, this one really chapped my ass. Hoover did practice protectionism and restrict trade but he did so for reasons that are VERY different than the circumstances we see today and by the time he did it we were already IN a depression. This act did not cause the country to suddenly shift into a depression as the Senator suggests. One of the major factors in the Great Depression (and I admittedly failed to address this in my Depression blog) was that the agricultural economy in the Midwest and South was in the tank. Because of the lack of trade restrictions in the years leading up to the Depression, farmers over-produced in an attempt to reap the rewards of a very free market. As a result of this change in production an enormous surplus was created and farmers were unable to sell commodities at prices that would garner a profit and in many cases they were selling at a loss. Trade restrictions were initiated through the passing of the Smoot-Hawley Act which raised tariffs on industrial and agricultural products in an attempt to curb excessive production by U.S. Farmers. Now if all of this sounds like a big mess that has nothing to do with our current situation, you would be correct. It's an apples to oranges comparison that frankly is bananas.
I won't drag on and on with right now but you can read about Obama's trade policies here if it interests you:
I'd offer you the John McCain equivalent to that but he doesn't have one so instead I will offer you this quote which I guess sums up his trade policy: "Lowering barriers to trade creates more and better jobs, and higher wages. It keeps inflation under control. It keeps mortgage and other interest rates low, and it makes goods more affordable for low and middle income consumers. Protectionism threatens all those benefits." you can read the rest of that article here: http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/speeches/32676e3b-4492-4fc4-b0e9-e01efe5ccebe.htm
While I don't fundamentally agree with Senator Obama on all fronts, this is one area where I am in complete agreement. In my personal opinion, the over-extension of free trade has created a situation in which major industrialized employers are given good cause to go overseas, where labor is cheaper, causing us to not only lose jobs and tax revenues from those companies but also to drastically increase our import ratio. Somehow "Made in America" now translates to "Too expensive to be sold on the shelves at Wal-Mart". Reducing imports and providing incentives for industrial companies to remain in or move to the U.S. will increase jobs, production, and tax ratios. Now I realize there are counter arguments to this but if you want to see them here you are just going to have to post them in the comments.
The bottom line of today's lesson is:
A) Senator McCain needs to study up on what went down in the Hoover years before he starts throwing around loose facts and
B) Senators, I know Herbert Hoover and Obama, your no Herb Hoover. Frankly, Herbert Hoover was a better man than both of you. He didn't cause the Depression but he took the rap for it in history and it's too bad because he was a damn good guy who inherited a disaster and frankly Senator McCain, as an Iowan (like Bert) and as a former Republican I'm pissed at you for perpetuating that myth. Find an actual shitty President to compare your opponent to (like Jimmy Carter for instance) and quit beating on poor Bert.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Representative Riff Raff
Just prior to the house and senate voting on the bailout bill, I sent an email and faxed letter to all 4 of my representatives asking them not to pass the bill. I was pleasantly surprised to get this detailed response today from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison:
Dear Ms. Jones:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue. On September 19, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced a plan by the Bush Administration to stabilize the financial services sector of the economy. This plan included broad authority for the Treasury Secretary to purchase troubled financial instruments with very limited oversight and few protections for taxpayers. In July, I voted against a similar proposed bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because it did not provide taxpayer protection and limits on executive compensation for a government owned entity. For the same reasons, I was not willing to support the Administration’s initial proposal, and I encouraged my colleagues to continue work on a plan that would protect taxpayers, provide strict oversight, and place limits on the benefits to executives who accept taxpayer assistance. In the days following the Treasury Secretary’s announcement, concerns about the danger to the broader economy deepened. The high-profile failure of numerous financial institutions caused the commercial lending market to accumulate and hold cash. The credit markets effectively froze, making it difficult for consumers to obtain loans for purchases such as homes and automobiles. The lack of lending in these areas began to place further pressure on the troubled housing market and threatened to spread deeper into the economy. Similarly, many small and mid-sized businesses were finding it difficult to obtain financing to meet their payroll obligations and purchase inventory. Many cities were entering the bond market and getting no bids, even with AAA ratings. The current liquidity crisis still poses a real potential for significant job losses. After consulting with numerous financial experts, small businesses, and bankers in Texas, it became clear to me that normal commercial lending activity would not resume without action by Congress.Despite this realization, I was still not inclined to support the Paulson plan. After weeks of negotiation, however, a bi-partisan compromise was reached. While there are provisions in the bill that I do not favor and would not have drafted, overall the need for action to stabilize the market and to protect the retirement savings of millions of Americans weighed heavily on my mind. Ultimately, I supported the Senate bill along with 73 of my colleagues. The bill we passed was a major improvement over the initial plan announced by Secretary Paulson. We increased the deposit insurance cap from $100,000 to $250,000 so that families will have added protection for savings and retirement accounts. While the initial proposal authorized up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, the measure we passed takes a more cautious approach, initially authorizing $250 billion and requiring the approval from Congress and the President for additional funding. Importantly, the bill we passed includes restrictions on the benefits received by executives whose companies are selling some of their distressed assets to the government. In return for purchasing the assets, taxpayers will obtain an ownership stake in the companies. Many leading economists believe that the real estate market will turn around in the foreseeable future and government owned properties and assets will be sold at a profit. A provision in this bill that I supported requires any profits realized to be placed in the nation’s treasury to reduce the deficit. If, however, after five years the government is facing a loss in the program, the President must submit a plan to Congress recommending how the money will be recouped from financial services companies. I believe that these protections are a dramatic improvement over the Administration’s initial proposal.The bill passed by the Senate included an important package of tax policy provisions. One of these provisions is an extension of the state and local sales tax deduction, which is a matter of fairness for states like Texas that do not have a state income tax. The average Texan will save $520 when they file their federal income tax forms next year. We also shielded low and middle-income taxpayers from higher taxes associated with the flawed alternative minimum tax (AMT) and included tax incentives to spur energy production and innovation including the wind energy production tax credit and the research and development tax credit. As Texans, we have learned to take responsibility for our actions and being asked to pay for the mistakes of others is something many, including myself, find deeply troubling. However, after careful deliberation, I believe that the risks associated with doing nothing outweighed the risk of passing a less than perfect bill that nevertheless includes important protections for taxpayers. Economic evidence clearly suggested the problems were spreading into the broader economy. That is why I voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
I appreciate hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510202-224-5922 (tel)202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov
While I completely disagree with her decision, I have to give her props for sending me a detailed response (I got nothing from the other 3 accept an acknowledgment of receipt). It is their job to respond to me as a constituent and I just thought I would take the time to tell people that this particular Senator has not forgotten that. She may have voted contrary to my desires but she at least took the time to explain her actions (which I still think were stupid but at least I understand her rationale). Her seat is not up in this election but it's something for my fellow Texans to tuck away in their brains for the next time she is. It's also a lesson to everyone that it is worthwhile to call and write your represntatives and we should all do more of it!
Dear Ms. Jones:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue. On September 19, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced a plan by the Bush Administration to stabilize the financial services sector of the economy. This plan included broad authority for the Treasury Secretary to purchase troubled financial instruments with very limited oversight and few protections for taxpayers. In July, I voted against a similar proposed bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because it did not provide taxpayer protection and limits on executive compensation for a government owned entity. For the same reasons, I was not willing to support the Administration’s initial proposal, and I encouraged my colleagues to continue work on a plan that would protect taxpayers, provide strict oversight, and place limits on the benefits to executives who accept taxpayer assistance. In the days following the Treasury Secretary’s announcement, concerns about the danger to the broader economy deepened. The high-profile failure of numerous financial institutions caused the commercial lending market to accumulate and hold cash. The credit markets effectively froze, making it difficult for consumers to obtain loans for purchases such as homes and automobiles. The lack of lending in these areas began to place further pressure on the troubled housing market and threatened to spread deeper into the economy. Similarly, many small and mid-sized businesses were finding it difficult to obtain financing to meet their payroll obligations and purchase inventory. Many cities were entering the bond market and getting no bids, even with AAA ratings. The current liquidity crisis still poses a real potential for significant job losses. After consulting with numerous financial experts, small businesses, and bankers in Texas, it became clear to me that normal commercial lending activity would not resume without action by Congress.Despite this realization, I was still not inclined to support the Paulson plan. After weeks of negotiation, however, a bi-partisan compromise was reached. While there are provisions in the bill that I do not favor and would not have drafted, overall the need for action to stabilize the market and to protect the retirement savings of millions of Americans weighed heavily on my mind. Ultimately, I supported the Senate bill along with 73 of my colleagues. The bill we passed was a major improvement over the initial plan announced by Secretary Paulson. We increased the deposit insurance cap from $100,000 to $250,000 so that families will have added protection for savings and retirement accounts. While the initial proposal authorized up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, the measure we passed takes a more cautious approach, initially authorizing $250 billion and requiring the approval from Congress and the President for additional funding. Importantly, the bill we passed includes restrictions on the benefits received by executives whose companies are selling some of their distressed assets to the government. In return for purchasing the assets, taxpayers will obtain an ownership stake in the companies. Many leading economists believe that the real estate market will turn around in the foreseeable future and government owned properties and assets will be sold at a profit. A provision in this bill that I supported requires any profits realized to be placed in the nation’s treasury to reduce the deficit. If, however, after five years the government is facing a loss in the program, the President must submit a plan to Congress recommending how the money will be recouped from financial services companies. I believe that these protections are a dramatic improvement over the Administration’s initial proposal.The bill passed by the Senate included an important package of tax policy provisions. One of these provisions is an extension of the state and local sales tax deduction, which is a matter of fairness for states like Texas that do not have a state income tax. The average Texan will save $520 when they file their federal income tax forms next year. We also shielded low and middle-income taxpayers from higher taxes associated with the flawed alternative minimum tax (AMT) and included tax incentives to spur energy production and innovation including the wind energy production tax credit and the research and development tax credit. As Texans, we have learned to take responsibility for our actions and being asked to pay for the mistakes of others is something many, including myself, find deeply troubling. However, after careful deliberation, I believe that the risks associated with doing nothing outweighed the risk of passing a less than perfect bill that nevertheless includes important protections for taxpayers. Economic evidence clearly suggested the problems were spreading into the broader economy. That is why I voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
I appreciate hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510202-224-5922 (tel)202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov
While I completely disagree with her decision, I have to give her props for sending me a detailed response (I got nothing from the other 3 accept an acknowledgment of receipt). It is their job to respond to me as a constituent and I just thought I would take the time to tell people that this particular Senator has not forgotten that. She may have voted contrary to my desires but she at least took the time to explain her actions (which I still think were stupid but at least I understand her rationale). Her seat is not up in this election but it's something for my fellow Texans to tuck away in their brains for the next time she is. It's also a lesson to everyone that it is worthwhile to call and write your represntatives and we should all do more of it!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Pay It Forward
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2008/10/11/natpkg.or.gas.pay.forward.kgw
So I saw this video on CNN tonight and for some reason it just really really hit me hard. So hard that I almost got in my car and drove to 7-11 to buy someone's gas. There is no better time than the present to be your brother's keeper. I have decided that I am going to look for more ways to bring random acts of kidness into the world. An no, if I already know you and you see me at the gas station I will not buy your gas. That doesn't count.
Do something nice for someone tomorrow. They need it and so do you.
So I saw this video on CNN tonight and for some reason it just really really hit me hard. So hard that I almost got in my car and drove to 7-11 to buy someone's gas. There is no better time than the present to be your brother's keeper. I have decided that I am going to look for more ways to bring random acts of kidness into the world. An no, if I already know you and you see me at the gas station I will not buy your gas. That doesn't count.
Do something nice for someone tomorrow. They need it and so do you.
Friday, October 10, 2008
This blog has no title
Or purpose.
Here's a little something:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_pr/osama_ballot;_ylt=AtwHJDB19NAWiN6wLGOOGh2s0NUE
I've been sitting here studying my keyboard trying to figure out how that happened and the conclusion I have come to is "Human error my ass". It's fairly amusing that someone got away with it I have to admit.
My new t-shirts arrived today. This one is my favorite since it's one of my favorite things to say.
Anyway, the arrival of my shirt made me think of these videos which make me laugh no matter how many times I watch them. Have a little giggle at GW's expense and enjoy your falling stock market free weekend.
Here's a little something:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_el_pr/osama_ballot;_ylt=AtwHJDB19NAWiN6wLGOOGh2s0NUE
I've been sitting here studying my keyboard trying to figure out how that happened and the conclusion I have come to is "Human error my ass". It's fairly amusing that someone got away with it I have to admit.
My new t-shirts arrived today. This one is my favorite since it's one of my favorite things to say.
Anyway, the arrival of my shirt made me think of these videos which make me laugh no matter how many times I watch them. Have a little giggle at GW's expense and enjoy your falling stock market free weekend.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Boxer
I know some of you were probably expecting me to post a scathing cynical blog about the debate, or George Bush, or the economy, but today I decided to take a day off from that. There comes a point for all of us, not only personally but as a nation, when we feel so beat down by what is happening that we have to decide to either lay down and take it or stand up and fight back. Well the last couple of days I've started to realize that true to form, I'm moving into fighting mode both personally and as a citizen of this great country. In honor of my decision to fight back making some promises so without further ado, here is my list of promises to you America:
1. I promise to use my right to vote and will encourage others to do so at every opportunity. This nation belongs to its people and come hell or high water it's got to stay that way.
2. I promise to be more fiscally responsible and give greater consideration to the way my actions directly or indirectly impact others.
3. I promise to use my voice to educate and encourage others who have checked out or given up on the world around them.
4. I promise that 20 years from now I will still be bad mouthing the administration of George W. Bush. Oops, that just slipped out. This being positive stuff is hard work.
5. I promise to do my personal best to educate your children in a way that is free from my personal political opinions but still encourages them to think for themselves and be interested in the world around them.
6. I promise to stand and put my hand over my heart and truly think about what liberty is when I am in the presence of your flag America. I do however reserve the right to not say the words "under God" when reciting the pledge because while there very well may be a God, that is not for my government to decide.
7. I promise to continue to educate myself so that I can be an informed and responsible citizen of this country and of the world.
8. I promise to smile at each and every one of you when I say "Welcome to Walmart" 20 years from now when I am working there because my 401K was completely depleted when I was in my 30's.
9. I promise that even though things are going to get worse before they get better, I will not give up on you, lose hope, panic, and flee to another nation (unless John McCain becomes president and then dies in office).
10. I promise to crack jokes, be cynical, make fun of political figures, and get worked up over things happening in this country because in my own way, that is how I show that I care about you America.
So there you have it. I would encourage each of you to make some promises of your own. We may be knocked down but as far as I'm concerned, the fighter still remains.
1. I promise to use my right to vote and will encourage others to do so at every opportunity. This nation belongs to its people and come hell or high water it's got to stay that way.
2. I promise to be more fiscally responsible and give greater consideration to the way my actions directly or indirectly impact others.
3. I promise to use my voice to educate and encourage others who have checked out or given up on the world around them.
4. I promise that 20 years from now I will still be bad mouthing the administration of George W. Bush. Oops, that just slipped out. This being positive stuff is hard work.
5. I promise to do my personal best to educate your children in a way that is free from my personal political opinions but still encourages them to think for themselves and be interested in the world around them.
6. I promise to stand and put my hand over my heart and truly think about what liberty is when I am in the presence of your flag America. I do however reserve the right to not say the words "under God" when reciting the pledge because while there very well may be a God, that is not for my government to decide.
7. I promise to continue to educate myself so that I can be an informed and responsible citizen of this country and of the world.
8. I promise to smile at each and every one of you when I say "Welcome to Walmart" 20 years from now when I am working there because my 401K was completely depleted when I was in my 30's.
9. I promise that even though things are going to get worse before they get better, I will not give up on you, lose hope, panic, and flee to another nation (unless John McCain becomes president and then dies in office).
10. I promise to crack jokes, be cynical, make fun of political figures, and get worked up over things happening in this country because in my own way, that is how I show that I care about you America.
So there you have it. I would encourage each of you to make some promises of your own. We may be knocked down but as far as I'm concerned, the fighter still remains.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Oh No You Didn't
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 7, 12:50 AM EDT
Lehman sought millions for execs while seeking aid
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The now-bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers arranged millions in bonuses for fired executives as it pleaded for a federal lifeline, lawmakers learned Monday, as Congress began investigating what went so wrong on Wall Street to prompt a $700 billion government bailout..........
You can read the rest here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MELTDOWN_LEHMAN?SITE=OHALL2&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
So, you greedy bastards wanna play games? I know a game. It's called Monopoly. Sometimes you make all the money and own all the property but sometimes you:
Consider that an invitation....
You know, there used to be a time when you could drag a person out in the street and tar & feather them for doing things that were contrary to the cause of liberty and democracy. Granted, women and minorities didn't have rights then but I can't help but be a tiny bit nostalgic for the Colonial era. A little civilian justice would make me feel pretty warm and fuzzy inside right about now.
Oct 7, 12:50 AM EDT
Lehman sought millions for execs while seeking aid
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The now-bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers arranged millions in bonuses for fired executives as it pleaded for a federal lifeline, lawmakers learned Monday, as Congress began investigating what went so wrong on Wall Street to prompt a $700 billion government bailout..........
You can read the rest here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MELTDOWN_LEHMAN?SITE=OHALL2&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
So, you greedy bastards wanna play games? I know a game. It's called Monopoly. Sometimes you make all the money and own all the property but sometimes you:
Consider that an invitation....
You know, there used to be a time when you could drag a person out in the street and tar & feather them for doing things that were contrary to the cause of liberty and democracy. Granted, women and minorities didn't have rights then but I can't help but be a tiny bit nostalgic for the Colonial era. A little civilian justice would make me feel pretty warm and fuzzy inside right about now.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
In Case You Missed It
It's not the real debate but it's close enough. Plus it saves me having to write a long blog because it pretty much sums up what I thought while I was watching it. :)
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Just Say No to Dick
I have lots to say about the debate tonight, both candidates had moments that made me shake my head, but since I'm still sick as a dog I'll just give you this little piece of transcript:
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.
IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?
BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.
Joe, I still think you're an ass but at least you got that right.
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.
IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?
BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.
Joe, I still think you're an ass but at least you got that right.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Utter Collapse
Don't worry, I'm not talking about our economy (yet). This time I'm talking about me. Unfortunately I am super super sick so I'm going to be taking a few days off from blogging. I know the timing isn't good but ya can't fight mother nature I guess. Anyway, don't go anywhere, I promise I'll be back soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
