Sunday, January 31, 2010

China Leads on Green Energy and American Homeless Give to Haiti Relief.

By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: January 30, 2010

TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year. “Most of the energy equipment will carry a brass plate, ‘Made in China,’ ” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of Nature Elements Capital, a private equity fund in Beijing that focuses on renewable energy.

TPJ: We're missing out on the economy of the future because some people fear change and don't believe in science. Really smart. Aiming for being a leader on green energy should be like the mission to be the first to get to the Moon. You'd think at the very least the stubborn and stingy would be for green energy if only for ending our dependence on foreign oil. And as usual a lot of selfish, greedy Americans don't want to pursue an aggressive green energy track because the up front technology "costs too much." Yeah, it's called an investment you dumb ass. Think of all the naysayers who said the car technology wouldn't go anywhere.

If we miss the boat on this new energy then we're setting ourselves back behind the rest of the developed countries for this new century. Imagine if we missed the boat on the industrial age like we might miss the green technology boom? We wouldn't have developed into a strong, developed country that we have been up until lately but we are entering a new century, which is focusing on a different technology. We are naive to be stubbornly ignoring the industries of the future. At some point the old industrial framework will no longer sustain us and great civilizations know how to evolve and adapt to emerging technologies and advancements. Those we refuse to change will fall behind. Even if you don't believe in global climate change, renewable energy is the future technology because oil and gas are a finite resource. Don't you want America to be competitive for your kids and grand kids' generations? Do we really want to lose out to China once again??

In other news: American Homeless Give to Haiti Relief.
Donations for Haiti have poured in to the American Red Cross of Central Maryland from a range of sources. Nothing, though, has stood out like the coins and crumpled dollar bills that spilled from one envelope. That gift - $14.64 - came from the pockets of homeless people at a downtown Baltimore shelter. "We were all weepy-eyed," recalled Red Cross volunteer coordinator Bobbie Jones, who was at the front desk when the donation arrived. Public relations director Linnea Anderson got teary, too. "Just the thought of those people huddled together in a shelter and seeing a need beyond themselves is enough to give anybody chills," she said. "What a remarkable example of the human spirit."
TPJ: Shame on anyone who has plenty of money and who didn't donate to Haiti relief when even the homeless are giving money!! They obviously haven't read or taken to heart Jesus's Lesson of the Widow's Mite. The tale is typically understood as a condemnation of the rich as they are described, for their inflated self-importance displayed by the ostentatious announcements of their own generosity: which Jesus dwarfs by comparison to the widow's mite.

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Question Time with President Obama and House Republicans.

In a parliamentary system of government such as that, which is in Great Britain has a tradition called, "Question Time" with the Prime Minister. In England the PM goes before Parliament from time to time to stand before the leaders and answer questions from the opposition about his policies. However, he is allowed to vigorously defend his answers in these exchanges. As well as hear questions from supporters too. It is usually televised and let's the people actually see their leaders working through policies instead of just closed door meetings. I like the idea because it keeps politicians talking, which increases the chances of shit getting done.

It was some of the most compelling television that I've seen since the campaign debates in 2008 but this kicked ass more than those stuffy, well-scripted debates. We like to see our leaders debating, discussing and otherwise doing their job!! So, it is in that light that I hope we see more of these "Question Times." The next one though I hope is with the Republican Minority Leader taking the questions. I thought this was some good analysis of the event:
Debating a law professor is kind of foolish: the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama's weakness -- his penchant for nuance -- into a strength. Plenty of Republicans asked good and probing questions, but Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president. (By the way: can we stop with the Obama needs a teleprompter jokes?) More than the State of the Union -- or on top of the State of the Union -- this may be a pivotal moment for the future of the presidential agenda on Capitol Hill. (Democrats are loving this. Chris Hayes, The Nation's Washington bureau chief, tweeted that he hadn't liked Obama more since the inauguration.)
TPJ: Yeah, I thought this was the best I've seen him since the campaign actually. And the State of the Union was well done too. I think he's back on his game and it's about time. It really was a strong showing and showed that he still has a strong command of the issues. It has gone a long way toward building up my confidence in him again. Where was this Obama all last year??? I hope this Obama doesn't retreat back into a cerebral morass that leaves him lost in his thoughts rather than on the offensive. To view the full debate click on this sentence.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, January 29, 2010

Obama Meets and Works with House GOP Leaders. Meeting Carried Live.

Obama, attending the House Republicans' retreat in Baltimore, began with conciliatory remarks but soon became more pointed. He said a GOP-driven "politics of no" was blocking action on bills that could help Americans obtain jobs and health care. In a sometimes-barbed exchange, he said some in the audience have attended ribbon-cutting ceremonies for projects funded by the stimulus package they voted against. Obama also questioned why Republicans have overwhelmingly opposed his tax-cut policies, which he said have benefited 95 percent of American families. "I don't think the American people want us to focus on our job security, they want us to focus on their job security," he said.

Some senior Republican strategists and party veterans are beginning to fret that the party's refusal to work with President Obama, even when he crosses onto their own philosophical turf, could ultimately erode some of the political gains they've made this past year. The message being sent is that the GOP's sole mission is presidential destruction. "I can't tell you why they are taking this approach," said Jim Kolbe, a former member of Congress and longtime fiscal hawk from Arizona. "I have doubts about some of them myself but I think that certainly the pay-go and the commission have some merit and we should be supporting those. I don't have an answer to this. Whether this is just part of them being philosophically opposed or are they just being obstructionists, I don't know?
"I do think there is that worry [that we come off as obstructionists]," Kolbe added.

"I think this thing can turn around just as fast as it turned against the Democrats, it can turn the other way if the Republican don't respond with serious proposals here."


James: I think it is wise of Obama to meet with Republicans openly and on live television to underline his commitment to work with all parties. I think it did the country good to see him roll up his sleeves, walk into the lions den of a Republican retreat, take their questions and engage in a real exchange of ideas. It's a smart move to visually underline to the American people that he truly is seeking a way to find solutions and solve problem irregardless of, which party proposes the ideas.

This is exactly what he needs to do to regain the confidence of the American people and it really helps his credibility to criticize his own party as he did today during the conference. It gives him credibility with the American people that he's trying--and trying hard. If the Republicans don't pick up the other end of the stick then they'll have to explain that to the American people. It's good though that he visually showed the people that taking these issues seriously and is honestly willing to work with anyone who is also serious. I hope he has more of these live conferences.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Republicans Refuse to Clap for Tax-Cuts.

President Barack Obama started his State of the Union address Wednesday night by going after the low-hanging political fruit: declaring the bailout of the banks to be as popular as a root canal, urging a tax on Wall Street institutions, and touting the tax breaks his administration provided to working families. For this effort he got applause from just one half of the bicameral gathering of Congress. The Republican lawmakers in attendance sat on their hands while the president discussed policy provisions that, ostensibly, are very much in their philosophical wheelhouse. When Republicans didn't even applaud on behalf of his tax cuts, Obama pointed to the GOP side of the chamber and expressed surprise: "I thought I'd get some applause on that one," he said.

So, apparently, did others. A Democratic strategist quite pleased with the chilly Republican reception emailed the Huffington Post the following: "
Footage of every Republican sitting when Obama talked about bank tax is going straight into every 2010 ad."

TPJ: Wow. Republicans won't even clap for tax-cuts? Is there any doubt now that they are the "Party of No" and will go against whatever Obama proposes? Even tax-cuts??? So, they're more interested in opposing the president than supporting one of their key principles--tax cuts? Wow. This obstructionism has literally slowed our government down to a deep freeze, which isn't what the founders had in mind for our government. True, they wanted the Senate to the be the "cooling saucer of our democracy" but they didn't mean it to be a subzero meat locker. President Obama could come out and say, "Ahhh, the clear, blue sky is wonderful today" and the Republicans would say, "It's not blue and it's not daytime--it's black as night." And as funny as that may be, it's not very far from the truth. Sad. Our founding fathers would be so ashamed, if not furious.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, January 25, 2010

Democrats Consider Dropping Insurane Ban on Pre-Existing Conditions.

Among the casualties of President Barack Obama's health care agenda may be those who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions and can't get insurance. An astute blogger noted that the new proposals floated by Democrats in the wake of the massive health care bill's collapse is a provision that would bar denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions -- but only if they were under 19. "Did someone just chuck pre-existing conditions overboard?" he wrote. "The original promise - even the bad Senate bill - protects everyone, of any age, from being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Now it's just children?" If the Democrats were to back away from a fullscale ban on pre-existing conditions, liberals are sure to question President Barack Obama, who included a ban at the top of his change.gov website's health care agenda prior to taking office.
"Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums," the then-president-elect's website said.
The challenge for Democrats: a ban on denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions went hand-in-hand with a requirement that all Americans carry insurance. Insurance companies conceded that they would accept all patients, regardless of health history, but only if everyone was required to have insurance, which would spread the cost of insuring the sick across a wider pool. Without an insurance mandate, a pre-existing ban would mean that premiums would almost certainly rise.

TPJ: Wow, we started with a robust public-option and now we'ved compromised away every point to where now we can't even get a ban ending pre-existing conditions? I have gotten some heat from Democrats for not stubbornly supporting this flimsy bill and for leaving the party for the Greens. Well, I have one thing to ask them. Still think that this would make the bill, "better than nothing?" I think it's worse than nothing, it goes the wrong way to where now the bill is beginning to look like Swiss cheese. If we can't even get pre-existing conditions banned then what's left?

It is time to face the fact that the Democratic Congress is just as corrupt as the Republicans. It is also time to recognize that Obama hasn't lead very well on health care. He got us all ginned up for true Universal health care during the campaign and the Democratic Party told us to give them the magic number of 60 seats in the Senate and they'd pass REAL health care reform. Well, now that they can't get their corrupt members of the party to vote for the public option the leadership has instead turned on the party base saying we were too idealistic!! If that's so, where do you think we got that idea, dumb-asses??? YOU!!

PHOTO CREDIT: Raw Story

---End of Transmission---

Friday, January 22, 2010

Olbermann on Supreme Court Ruling Removing Donation Limits for Corporations.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

TPJ: This means there will no longer be the Senator from Colorado but rather the Senator of Qwest. Or instead of the Senator of Texas you'll have the Senator of Exxon-Mobil.

"Today's decision does far more than simply provide Fortune 500 companies with a massive megaphone to blast their political views to the masses; it also empowers them to drown out any voices that disagree with them." Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), who is already pushing legislation to rectify the Court's decision, warned, "The law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable." "The Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century," the New York Times writes today.

In 2008, "the Obama and McCain campaigns combined to spend just over $1.1 billion, an enormous, record-breaking sum at the time," but a small fraction of what corporations have available. "With hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate profits at stake every time Congress begins a session," wrote Millhiser, "wealthy corporations would be foolish not to spend tens of billions of dollars every election cycle to make sure that their interests are protected.

No one, including the candidates themselves, have the ability to compete with such giant expenditures." David Kirkpatrick wrote in the New York Times that the Court "has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election."

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Campaign Corruption.

In a stunning reversal of the nation's federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns. Siding with filmmakers of "Hillary: The Movie," who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states. The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

"The notion that the First Amendment dictated [today's ruling] is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided," Stevens wrote for the others. "In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it," he added. Prior to the ruling, Bob Edgar, president of watchdog group Common Cause, warned against overturning McCain-Feingold. "Money has already corroded the discussion before Congress," he said. "It'll open Pandora's Box."

TPJ: This ruling undermines democracy by yanking away what little democratic power the people hand. So, corruption of the heart of our political process is covered by the first amendment? What about murder? Is that a first amendment right now, because the law is infringing upon my freedom of expression? They claim campaign donation restrictions prevent their freedom of speech. No, it puts them on the same playing field as the average American who doesn't have that much "freedom of speech" in their wallet or purse. As a historian, I highly doubt that the founding fathers meant for the first amendment to grant control of our electoral process to a few rich elite business men and women. This ruling is basically putting a price tag on democracy and gaming the system so that it is the rich and powerful have the final say, not the populous. If it isn't obvious to you that we live in a plutocracy that borders on fascism then you need to wake up.

A plutocracy is defined as rule by the wealthy, which thrives off of economic inequality and limits social mobility. This includes controlling the masses through campaign contributions, refusal by the wealthy to pay their share in taxes, which is ensured by using their money to buy access and control of the levers of government. As well as, threatening to move profitable businesses elsewhere, which is an act of holding the country's economy hostage to gain yet more profits and control. A corporation who has that much power is one that believes in the continuation of the company over the country. It is a total lack of economic patriotism. That kind of wealth allows one to drain one's home country of money and power because fear of living in a collapsed country is mitigated for them by the money that have accrued, which can be used to live anywhere in the world. Does this all sound familiar? It should if you live in America today because that is exactly what is occurring. Yet we are powerless to stop it because in a plutocracy the people without the money become the slaves. This is borderline fascism; the technical definition of, which is a government run and owned by corporations.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Massacre in Massachusetts.

It looks like the Democrats are about to lose a special election for the Senate seat left vacant by the death of the great "Liberal lion," Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. That's been a Democratic seat since the 1950s but it looks as though the conservative Republican is set to win. If that should happen it will set off alarm bells in the Democratic Party because Massachusetts is one of the strongest Democratic states. It is the bluest of blue states and because of that, a loss by the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley would signal more than a surge by independents and conservatives in the state. It is a clear sign that the Democrats, (who outnumber Republicans in the state by 3-1) are disillusioned by the failure of the Democratic controlled Congress to pass the heart of President Obama's health care reform, which was the public option.

Obama is just as at fault here because he was so hands-off and timid about fighting for true universal health care, which is what the majority of the base and country wanted just months ago. The dissmale approval numbers for the current, watered down health care bill doesn't simply reflect those who were against reform in any manner. It also represents many, many Democrats and others who form the President's base of his support showing their disappointment with how weak the bill turned out. That is an aspect of the numbers that the "experts" seem to be missing or willfully ignoring.

Indeed Coakley was a poor candidate but a Democrat should win the seat of Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts with plenty of votes to spare. The White House and Capital Hill need to stop taking the base for granted and doing the exact opposite of what they told us they'd do during the election. It's sad to say that the man, (Obama) who energized me is now the man who leaves me disillusioned and severed from my long-time party. He used our money, our passion, our platform for real change and our energy to propel him to election but then abandoned us. He led us into battle to fight for the public option and then left us without support on the battlefield. Then while the fight for true health care reform battled on he began the negotiations for our surrender well before the outcome of the war was certain!! He then turned on us for wanting to keep up the fight. The polls, before the plug was pulled on the public option showed that the majority of Americans supported it. Yet Obama retreated.

So, If Coakley wins the Democrats better not just blame her and call it an anomaly because the Democratic base is restless, disillusioned and starting to peal off. The other story is that if Brown wins it isn't simply because he was the better candidate. It will be in large part because Democrats just didn't show up to vote. That, and the independents are supporting Brown to punish Obama and the Democrats for messing up health care so much. It's not the only thing he's disappointed the base with: He has yet to close Gitmo, repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" and the defense of marriage act. He hasn't done cap and trade or much of anything on the environment. He has also escalated the war in Afghanistan and we're still in Iraq. The only area where I approve of his performance has been restoring our image abroad, preventing another great depression and with how he has handled the Haiti earthquake. However, the country is getting restless over the unemployment rate not going down during this Great Recession.

If the Democrats lose the 60th seat it will be their own damn fault. We're pissed and we're not going to take this two-party bullshit anymore. No, I don't like Republicans getting power. That said, however, when the Democrats fold to the will of the conservatives in their party on one of the main planks of the party platform, (universal health care) we don't see much difference between the two parties. The trans-formative phoenix can only rise from the ashes and perhaps it will take the destruction of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to bring about real diversity of representation. Either way, something has to change before Americans will have any more faith and trust in either established party. So, Democrats? Change or die.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Rush Limbaugh Trashes Haiti in Their Time of Need.

(Rush Limbaugh picture above doing his radio show)

I’m just gonna tell you, if I was named envoy to Haiti, I’d quit government. Envoy to Haiti? You can’t even pick up a prostitute down there without genuine fear of AIDS.” -U.S. radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh speaking about the disaster in Haiti.

TPJ: And you'd know all about prostitutes wouldn't you Rush? I'd much rather listen to the needs and problems of a prostitute with AIDS than Rush Windbag, er, Limbaugh I mean. So, basically he's reducing the great Haitian culture down to a country full of prostitutes with AIDS. Nice, Rush. Nice. Haiti has some of the most vibrant culture in the Caribbean if not world. Their colorful dances and rhythmic drumming and overall music is infectious and fun to experience. I'd much rather spend a day in Haiti in the worst conditions than listen to or be around Rush Dickhead. He's a coward and probably wouldn't help his own mother across the street but you know what? I bet deep down inside he hates himself. If he still has a ability to feel anything other than his sociopathic behavior.

---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Pat Robertson: Haiti Cursed by Pact with the Devil.

Televangelist Pat Robertson said Wednesday that earthquake-ravaged Haiti has been "cursed" by a "pact to the devil."

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."

Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other" and he contrasted Haiti with its neighbor, the Dominican Republic. "That island of Hispaniola is one island. It is cut down the middle; on the one side is Haiti on the other is the Dominican Republic," he said. "Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to god and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come. But right now we are helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable."

TPJ: True story my lily white ass. What is wrong with this man?!! Has he no shame? Obviously not. As a historian who has actually studied Haiti, I can tell you that he's full of shit. If he's such a fan of Jesus he should know better than to say this kind of bullshit. He's clearly playing off the stereotype that Haiti is some demonic country because many practice Voodoo. What he's missing (amongst many other things, like a brain) is that it is also a very Christian, Catholic country. As if Voodoo is even demonic at all. I don't even believe in demons and the devil and all this bullshit but that's another story. Robertson is sick in the head as this isn't the first outrageous thing he's said. I wish he was the one whose house was flattened -- he needs to be humbled and needs to apologize.

It's a stereotype too that somehow black countries are incapable of being prosperous because some believe their skin color is a "curse from 'God.'" They believe that black people are descendants of Cain from the Bible and are thus "cursed" with a black skin. As if black is a negative thing -- black is beautiful!! Some of the most beautiful people I have seen where when I was in Africa. That Cain curse claim is down right racist, ignorant and destructive. As a historian, the white man has done probably more damage to the Earth and other cultures than any other race. Pat Robertson needs to be checked into a mental ward -- he's a absolute JACK ASS. How can he be so callous and judgmental at a time like this? Or at any time for that matter but right now when they need our love, compassion and help? Hey, Pat!! What would Jesus do? You dip shit.

UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh is playing politics with this Haiti issue -- shocking, huh? I wish he'd just pop from growing so fat:

On his radio program Wednesday morning, Rusty said that President Barack Obama and company would use Haiti to get closer to the “light-skinned and dark-skinned black [communities] in this country” while adding that the U.S. has “already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. income tax.”

TPJ: Rush, you're such a humanitarian!! He's such a bag of puss. He has no sense of humanity at all and can't think about anything without playing politics with it. He'd probably blame the Democrats for the death of his own mother. If she's even still alive, I feel sorry for her. He's a racist, misogynist, homophobic wind bag with no sense of decency. I heard he claims to be a Christian but he does everything but what a Christian should do. He's a Christian in name only it seems to me and uses it as a club to beat non-Christians with. He doesn't fit with the Christianity I read in the Bible growing up. I think Jesus wouldn't be too happy with him but then again, I'm just a heathen Buddhist.

---End of Transmission---

Help Haiti After Devastating Earthquake.

As many of you know, Haiti (which is the 4th poorest country in the world) suffered a major, deadly earthquake yesterday (Tuesday). It was a 7.0 eartquake on a scale of 10 being the worst. It is the worst earthquake in Haiti in more than 200 years. Thousands upon thousands have already died. They need our help. I would like to be there to work on the ground but they said it is chaos on the ground and that the on-ground help should be left up to the established organizations who have experience doing this kind of thing.

So, the best thing we can do who live outside Haiti is to donate to a reputable organization such as The Red Cross. If you donate to Red Cross, select the button on this page that is for, "International Relief Fund" which will go directly to Haiti. Another good place to donate is UNICEF, which is a United Nationals organization. Haiti has been especially hit hard because they don't have the money to build buildings that can withstand earthquakes. So, buildings like police stations and hospitals have been hard-hit if not flattened. Even the National Palace collapsed, which is the where the president lives!! That's like the White House, here in America being flattened!!According to the latest, a prison was leveled and prisoners have escaped. Schools have collapsed and people are out in the streets.

Also, given the poor living conditions there is a real risk of disease killing even more Haitians in the aftermath of this horrible disaster. May relief (both material and spiritual) come quickly to the good people of Haiti. I'm going to light a candle to burn all day in solidarity with the Haitians and hope that international aid arrives as quickly as possible. These are the moments where our development of compassion is put to the test. Please, give what you can. I could only afford $10 but every little bit helps. We can't let these people suffer alone. We, those how have been given much must help -- to those who have been given much, much is required.

P.S. - Does anyone know of a Buddhist organization that helps people during international disasters such as many Christian churches do?

~Peace to the Haitians~

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Marijuana Compound Could Beat Back Brain Cancer.

MONDAY, Jan. 11 -- Preliminary research suggests that a combination of compounds in marijuana could help fight off a particularly deadly form of brain cancer. But the findings shouldn't send patients rushing to buy pot: the levels used in the research appear to be too high to obtain through smoking. And there's no sign yet that the approach works in laboratory animals, let alone people. Still, the finding does suggest that more than one compound in marijuana might boost cancer treatment, said study author Sean McAllister, an associate scientist at California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute in San Francisco. "Combination therapies might be more appropriate," McAllister said.

Researchers have long studied the compounds in marijuana known as cannabinoids, which are thought to hold possible health benefits. One, known as THC, is well known for its role in making people high when they smoke or eat pot. Researchers have been testing it as a treatment for the brain tumors known as glioblastomas. In the new study, researchers tested THC and cannabidiol, another compound from marijuana, on brain cancer cells. The findings appear in the January issue of Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. The study authors found that the combination treatment seemed to work better at killing the cancerous cells and preventing them from growing back. The prognosis for people with the condition is grim because tumors spread throughout the brain. It can be impossible for treatments to remove the entire tumor, Fisher said.

TPJ: I keep telling people that marijuana is a miracle drug/herb and they keep coming up with more and more evidence. Is it any wonder that it has been used by shamans and others for medical benefits for thousands of years? It also shows the power of plants and how stupid it is to destroy all of our old growth forests and rain forests. Who knows how many other miracle plants are out there? There could be a cure for cancer, cure for AIDS and/or many other diseases and conditions. I've seen many shows on television where doctors go deep into the Amazon to learn medicine from the ethnic groups that live in those forests. They keep finding that those people have a full-blown pharmacy in those plants and trees. I much rather trust a natural plant that some artificially created pill made from dozens of chemically altered ingredients.

---End of Transmission---

Monday, January 11, 2010

Democrats Defend Reid Because They Need Him.

If you've been reading my posts in the last few days you know that I'm disappointed in the Democrats for coming to the defense of Harry Reid. They all lined up like loyal soldiers to defend the terrible comments that Reid made of Obama. Then it finally clicked -- they're defending him in large part due to political expediency. They won't kick Harry to the curb despite these comments and failing to deliver the type of health care reform their majority and base demanded because they need his vote. Despite caving into the right-wings demands (four times) on the health care debate they barely passed a watered down version of "reform."

So they're willing to be look hypocritical on defending these racist comments so that they can maintain a majority. Now, I'm all for a Democratic majority but not at the expense of defending a derogatory statement about the first African-American president of the United States. I don't know why Obama accepted Reid's apology, and so quickly but then again Obama has shown how willing he is to sell out his party. Why would it be any different for selling off his integrity for Harry Reid's vote? It looks like Reid is going to lose his re-election campaign anyway. That seemed fully apparent well before this controversy. I'm not a partisan liberal and I'd rather be in the minority than be a party of fakers, sell-outs and hypocrites. Then again, I left the Democratic Party for some of those very reasons (amongst others).

My innate cynicism should have clued me into this sooner but I am still not fully use to the idea that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, which they are. I'm so disillusioned about politics in America as well as many Americans. This country is turning into a stinking, festering, eroding sewer pipe that is about to burst.

---End of Transmission---

Here We Go Again!! RNC Chair Insulted Native Americans.

I found myself doing something that I haven't done--ever, and that was support Michael Steele and his repudiation of Harry Reid's racially charged comments about Obama. Then, today, I find out that Steele HIMSELF just recently insulted Native Americans!! He used the phrase, "Honest Injun" which is a double racist insult. Injun is a derogatory name for an Indian, which is also seen as insulting to some Native Americans.

Honest Injun, "implies that most of "them" are untrustworthy and this one is the exception (which is where the expression comes from). Here's an example of how it was used, "You can't trust those injuns but this one here is an "honest injun'"). Imagine if someone had said, "White people can trust Steele because he's an 'Uncle Tom'").

Uncle Tom is a racial slur meaning, "A black man who will do anything to stay in good standing with "the white man" including betray his own people. In other words, those other black people are untrustworthy and out to destroy the white race but (fill in the name) is an good 'Uncle Tom.'"

It's sad to see by Steele engage in that kind of talk as he himself is a minority and yet he goes on to insult another minority group. When will this racial bullshit stop? Hopefully with the younger generations.

---End of Transmission---

White, Ex Ill Governor: I'm Blacker Than Obama.

(CNN) - Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is apologizing for telling Esquire Magazine he's "blacker than Barack Obama." In the February edition of Esquire, Blagojevich said Obama was "catapulted in on hope can change, what we hope the guy is …

"What the f***? Everything he's saying's on the teleprompter. I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived. I saw it all growing up," he said. The governor apologized for his "stupid comments," but said he was expressing "real frustration" that nothing has changed under the Obama administration.

TPJ: Another Democrat spewing racially controversial comments!!! That makes three (Harry Reid, Bill Clinton and now Blagojevich) in about as many days. I think the worst part of Blago's comments was the shoe shiner comment because for decades many African-Americans could only find work doing so-called, menial jobs such as shining shoes for the rich white folks.

Yes, it was stupid but it was also demeaning and insulting to what African-Americans have gone through. Blago has no idea what it means to be African-American and nor do I. However, it's never a good idea to try and compare your struggles with those of a race who weren't even allowed to vote just a few decades a go.

It makes me wonder how many other Democrats who lived through the days when it was still "o.k." to discriminate think similar things as Reid, Clinton and Blago? We've been on the cusp of the next generation of leaders from the early Generation X for some time and I hope that our generation will do better with race issues than the boomers.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Bill Clinton Compares Obama to a Servant.

Think Harry Reid is the only Democrat in hot water over insensitive remarks about Obama and his race? Think again, it gets worse. Former President Bill Clinton compared Obama to a servant:
In lobbying the late Sen. Edward Kennedy to endorse his wife, former President Clinton angered the liberal icon by belittling Obama. Telling a friend about the conversation, Kennedy recalled Clinton had said “a few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” the authors paraphrase.
TPJ: Now, if you have even just a basic knowledge of American history you know that for many, many years African-Americans were slaves. After the slaves were freed these African-Americans often could only find work as servants for the very people who use to enslave them. They often did jobs surrounding kitchen and meal duties, which includes making and serving coffee. At best this is an extremely, racially insensitive remark but at worst it's down right racist.

Bill Clinton is no stranger to racial controversy. During the 2008 campaign he dismissed then candidate Obama's win of South Carolina saying, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina." Jackson is an African-American man who ran for president in the 80s and had won the state of South Carolina. One of the obvious similarities between Jackson and Obama is that they are both African-American. And, the state of South Carolina just so happens to have a very large African-American population. So, it appeared to many that Clinton was saying Obama only won South Carolina because he was African American.

What is wrong with these Democrats??? Thank goodness I'm no longer a Democrat. I finally left because of the health care failure but now with Reid and Clinton's remarks, I am convinced I made the right move to the Green Party.

UPDATE: Some are saying that Clinton was referring to Obama's inexperience when saying he would have been serving us coffee just a few years ago. I think that's a part of it, however, then he went on to say to Kennedy that he thought the only reason that Kennedy was going to endorse Obama was because he's black. At the very least, Bill Clinton needs to know who he's talking about and what that means.

---End of Transmission---

Democrats are Losing Credibility with Harry Reid's Comments.

This morning I went through my Sunday ritual of watching the morning talk shows and was dumbfounded as Democrat after Democrat defended Reid's racist comments. Defending a fellow Democrat simply because he's a Democrat (which is what it appears is occurring here) makes them look just as horrible as the Republicans. It destroys credibility and alienates minorities, which is suicide for a political party. You all know me, I'm a liberal through and through but I more than willing to call Democrats out when they screw up and Reid screwed up big time. It pains me to see fellow liberals saying nothing about this incident on their blogs, let alone ask for Reid to pay for his racism.

Reid needs to go, just like the Democrats demanded Trent Lott go for his racist comments in 2002. Just imagine if a Republican had said this, and someone in such a high position as majority leader. Just the fact that he used the word, "negro" was grounds enough to kick Reid out on his ear but he said a lot more than that as we all now know. So combine that with Reid's inability to deliver to his base on health care and I seems crystal clear to me that the Democrats can do a lot better than Reid.

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, January 09, 2010

Harry Reid Must Go. Bring in Chuck Schumer.

TPJ: What's with Harry Reid's racial comments?

Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader and the national government's highest-ranking Mormon, has admitted now remarking apparently with some amazement on the nation's highest-ranking black Democrat as being notably "light-skinned" and having "no Negro dialect."

TPJ: It doesn't help that Mormons have had a checkered past in accepting African-Americans being worthy to hold the priesthood in their church. Buh bye Harry. I've wanted Chuck Schumer as majority leader anyway for some time. racist

---End of Transmission---

Marijuana in the News.

In the 40 years since U.S. President Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs," the supply and use of drugs has not changed in any fundamental way. The only difference: a taxpayer bill of more than $1 trillion. A senior Mexican official who has spent more than two decades helping fight the government's war on drugs summed up recently what he's learned from his long career: "This war is not winnable." Growing numbers of Mexican and U.S. officials say—at least privately—that the biggest step in hurting the business operations of Mexican cartels would be simply to legalize their main product: marijuana. Long the world's most popular illegal drug, marijuana accounts for more than half the revenues of Mexican cartels.

Earlier this year, three former Latin American presidents known for their free-market and conservative credentials—Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil—said governments should seriously consider legalizing marijuana as an effective tool against murderous drug gangs.

TPJ: Help end crime -- legalize it!! We're a trillion in the hole over this absurd and failing "War on Marijuana" when we could be MAKING money from it and paying for things like: high-tech, high-speed railway networks and smart grid technology or fund a better health care system. Why do we always seem to do things the hard way here in America? I still can't believe how we haven't learned from the prohibition of alcohol era. It's taken us since the 60's to figure this out??? Come on baby boomers!!! What did you think was going to happen? Prohibition of alcohol didn't work but somehow you thought prohibition of such a low-key drug as marijuana would work??? By the way, the closest thing I can compare marijuana use to for those who haven't done it would be like drinking a couple glasses of wine. Not exactly meth we're taking about.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, January 08, 2010

Rudy Giuliani Has Terrorism Amnesia.

It was a moment that positively cried out for a follow-up question. On Friday’s “Good Morning America” on ABC, the former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani claimed “we had no domestic attacks under Bush — we’ve had one under Obama.” The misstatement — which seemed to omit the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which occurred nearly eight months after President Bush took office — was roundly criticized after the fact, even by some of ABC’s own correspondents. “Even if you assume he meant post-9/11 this is hard to justify,” Rick Klein, the primary author of ABC’s political memo The Note, wrote on Twitter.

Some tied Friday’s remark to a similar one made by the former Bush press secretary Dana Perino last November. “We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term,” Ms. Perino said on the Fox News Channel.

TPJ: And yet 9/11 wasn't the only terrorist attack on Bush's watch. Remember the anthrax attacks? Or how about Richard Reid the "Shoe Bomber?" The conservatives barely waited a day to condemn Obama for the Christmas Day "Underwear Bomber" but for a long time after 9/11 the Democrats were mostly behind Bush. There were some lunatics on the left who claimed Bush staged the attacks (and some still think that) but most of us united as a country. We rallied behind Bush until he started to veer off into the Iraq debacle. Where is that unity now?

I'm disgusted with how much Republicans now just pull shit out of thin air to accuse the left of doing or being. And this idea that Obama doesn't believe we are at war as accused by the right is ludicrous. Especially since he just escalated the war in Afghanistan!! The people who believe this crap coming out of the right-wing camp really need some education--badly. If it weren't for their unwillingness to even listen to your points let alone debate in a fair way I might feel somewhat sorry for them.

---End of Transmission---