Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses Yearning to Breath Free.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of our teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

-"New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus

TPJ: Those highlighted words have greeted many a luckless and helpless immigrant for centuries as they washed up on our shores seeking the opportunities of America. However this long-held, dearly cherished motto is being challenged today on our southwestern border with the influx of Latino immigrants. Despite the reality that all of us besides Native Americans are children of immigrants. The Native Americans didn't want us here yet we forced our way into their land and took it from them by killing them. How is that better than forcing your way into America by crossing a border fence?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't re-enforce border security because it's important for national security, but if you're already here then I think you should be allowed to stay. Many of these immigrants have American born children here, so do we really propose breaking up families and separating children from their parents because they are immigrants seeking a better life for their families? Do we really think we can round up 11-20 million illegal immigrants logistically? Do you know how much that would cost and what that would look like? It would look like we're a police state and not a compassionate country of immigrants.

Does the Statue of Liberty say, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free. The wretched refuse of our teeming shore. Send these the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I life my lamp beside the golden door--except latinos?" Or except those who who might indeed be poor but came here by coming over a fence instead of on a boat? The Statue of Liberty says nothing about legal versus illegal. If our border is porous enough for people to be able to make it here than is that really their fault? Of is it our fault for not making the border more secure? We'll allow illegal Cuban immigrants to come here with the, "Wet foot, Dry foot" policy where if they step foot on American soil (dry foot) they're allowed to stay but if they are intercepted out at sea (wet foot) then we turn them back. So, how confusing, inconsistent and discriminatory is it that we allow some illegal Latino immigrants to come here so long as they step foot on American soil; yet other illegal Latino immigrants that jump over a fence but still land on American soil aren't allowed to stay?

Well, some people say that the policy with Cuba is different because they are a communist country and thus their people are being repressed, so we're allowing them in as political refugees. Oh really? So, you're saying then that Mexico is a stable, non-repressive, non-corrupt, safe place to live? So, you're a political refugee if you flee communism but you're not one if you flee a narco state as repressive as Mexico that is so corrupt there isn't enough money to invest in jobs for the people? That's hypocritical my friend. And how come we aren't holding rallies to kick out non-Latino immigrants that overstay their visas? For example, did you know that illegal immigrants from the Philippines are amongst the top five countries of origins (#5) that supply the most illegal immigrants to America in 2009? So, where is the heat to round up all those illegal Filipinos? The top 10 list also includes: India, (#6) Korea (#7) and China (#10)!! And what about all the illegal Canadians in this country? This illegal immigration issue has a lot of anti-Latino sentiment to it and if you don't see it then perhaps you're one of the people contributing to that sentiment.

A lot of people now think there is a difference between their ancestors who came through Ellis Island and those who cross our southern border. For example they claim that their ancestors learned English right away and assimilated easily into American culture--WRONG. The Germans refused for decades to give up their native tongue and raucous beer gardens. The Irish of Hell's Kitchen brawled and clung to political sinecures. The Jews crowded into the Lower East Side, speaking Yiddish, fomenting socialism and resisting forced assimilation.

TPJ: Another argument that seeks to hold up white ancestral immigrants as superior to today's illegal immigrants is that "they" are stealing jobs and depressing the economy. However that was said of our ancestors by those who were already here. They would compare the Irish to animals and Italians as backwards but in the end, "[...]Historians and demographers are clear about the bottom line: In the long run, New York City -- and the United States -- owes much of its economic resilience to replenishing waves of immigrants. The descendants of those Italians, Jews, Irish and Germans have assimilated. Manhattan's Little Italy is vestigial, no more than a shrinking collection of restaurants."

TPJ: The same is true today. The immigrants that are crossing our southern border are costing us money but I believe that they are doing more good for our economy than hurting. For all the talk of deporting all the illegal immigrants we'd be screwed if we didn't have them here doing the often overlooked "menial work" in this country. So, here is my three legged stool to reforming immigration. First, secure the border. Second, create a biometric I.D. card that all employees must show, which will drastically cut down on those coming here in the future to seek jobs. Third, create a path to citizenship for those who are already here and building a better life for themselves and their new country.

Because as much as you might not like it these immigrants have been a plus to our country. A lot of them are hard workers, people of faith, with strong families who really want to give back to the country that has given them so much. This path to citizenship would have to include a probationary period where you have to go to the "back of the line" of those who have been waiting for a legal grant into the country. This probation status would allow you to stay but there would be other requirements such as a fine, etc. We would grant you a "green card" to give you a pass to work and invest in the country while you're waiting in the back of the line. Perhaps it comes down to are we going to honor our American immigrant tradition and those words on the Statue of Liberty or are we going to become a police state that no longer values immigration. I'll leave you with this sobering fact--if we stopped immigration completely we'd have a population decrease each year in the future as people are having less children than in generations past. This according to Mary E. Williams in her book Immigration, Page 83.

---End of Transmission---

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

The Republican Economic Trifecta.

Don't listen to the Republicans--I mean it. They whine at every mic they can find and puff up on every camera put in front of them that the stimulus hasn't been helping. Well, guess what? They're wrong but that shouldn't come as a surprise. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (a former Republican member of the House of Representatives) said recently that Republicans are telling him in private that the stimulus is working:

"I believe the economic recovery plan has worked," LaHood said, in an interview with the Huffington Post, "and I've had Republican members tell me that when I've gone in and done projects or been with them or visited them in their offices... They know that we have dollars that have put people to work." Already, there have been numerous press reports of lawmakers attending stimulus-related ribbon cutting ceremonies in their districts as well as lobbying different government agencies for stimulus funds.

TPJ: LaHood went on to say, "There would be thousands of people out of work if it weren't for the economic recovery program. Thousands of people," LaHood said of the Recovery Act. "We know that thousands of jobs have been created. We know that thousands of projects are underway. All you have to do is travel around American, see the orange cones, and see the men and women working on infrastructure, working on projects, resurfacing roads... there is a lot of activity in America and a lot of people working. This would not have happened if not for the economic recovery."

TPJ: Still think you can believe the Republicans? Well, you know how they claim that we can't keep spending despite the fact that if you stop spending in a cash crush like this recession the economy will freeze? Yeah, well their buddy, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke (who was nominated under W. Bush) said the other day that we need to keep spending!! Duh!!
"At the current moment the large deficits, as unattractive as they are, are important for supporting economic activity," the nation's central banker told a Senate panel, citing "weak" private spending and a "great deal of excess capacity." Bernanke added that he'd be "reluctant to withdraw that support too precipitously in the near term." His comments strongly echoed remarks he made in June.
TPJ: This last one will bring the trifecta home. So, the GOP rant and rave about deficits despite what Benanke said but at the same time want the Bush tax cuts for the rich to not expire. They want to renew them but to pay for they want to run up the deficit!! Hypocrite zone is calling:
Five years ago, Republicans backed tax cuts—but said deficits didn’t matter. Today, they say deficits are all that matters, but still like tax cuts. During the Bush years, Republicans mostly insisted, in Dick Cheney’s famous words, that “deficits don’t matter.” Now they say deficits are virtually all that matters. Their rhetoric has shifted radically, but their policy prescriptions haven’t changed one bit. You might think that people terrified of deficits would be concerned about permanently extending tax cuts that will add at least $2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Nope. The Republicans were for cutting taxes when they didn’t care about deficits and they are for cutting taxes when they do care about deficits, which is another way of saying that they don’t really care about deficits.
TPJ: If you still believe the Republicans after all of this evidence then I'd just advise you to avoid cults and kool-aid--the first tends to brainwash you and the second tends to have poison in it. Best of luck out there!!

---End of Transmission---

Monday, July 26, 2010

Marijuana Advocates Oppose Nomination of Michele Leonhart.

A number of medical marijuana advocacy organizations are urging President Obama to withdraw his nomination of Michele Leonhart to serve as the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The Drug Policy Alliance, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Marijuana Policy Project, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and Students for Sensible Drug Policy are among the groups calling on the President Obama to withdraw his nomination.

Of concern to these groups, under Leonhart's administration, the DEA has raided a number of legal medical marijuana growers and dispensaries. In one case, the DEA raided the very first person to register for a medical marijuana cultivation permit, a sixty-nine year old woman from Mendocino County in California, even though her personal marijuana garden had been inspected and approved by the local sheriff.

TPJ: If 14th states have legalized marijuana for medicinal use and California is on the verge of legalizing it for recreational use then it's beyond time for the federal government to get with the states. As usual the American people are ahead of the government on this one because in large part Congress members would rather play games to further their political career than to read the studies, listen to the people and make the right decision. Sooner or later, however, the states will force the hand of the feds and they'll have to change their policy. It's disgraceful that they haven't even backed off totally on going after lawful medicinal marijuana advocates and that is why Michele Leonhart is a bad choice. It seems that from her track record she'd only set drug policy back in this country rather than advance it to where the people are.

Speaking of marijuana reform, I can across this great little video from retired Maryland State Police Major Neill Franklin, the Executive Director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition:
TPJ: He's right on point. The drug dealer on the corner isn't going to ask your teenager for I.D. unlike if marijuana were regulated, controlled and sold in a store. Not to mention the crime you'd reduce. It's a no brainer. Now, in closing here's a short 6 minute clip on hemp and how it can help our struggling farmers as well. Hemp is NOT marijuana. It is the non-intoxicating fibrous cousin to marijuana. You can NOT get "high" from smoking hemp. You'd probably get a really bad headache but no "buzz." But It can be used for paper, (which yields FOUR TIMES more paper per acre than wood pulp) clothing, cooking oils and even biodegradable plastic!! It's a great crop for struggling farmers to benefit from.
TPJ: And it could get us off PLASTIC which is the biggest problem in getting us off oil as everything plastic is made from oil. We can stop using gas fueled cars but without an alternative to producing plastic we'll be hooked on oil for awhile. But once again our cowardly politicians don't want to face ignorant voters who think hemp is marijuana (and so what if it was anyway but that's another post) but instead of educate voters they just play the "get tough on crime" card.

---End of Transmission---

Friday, July 23, 2010

Abortion and Adoption.

Sometimes I think that if you are against abortion you should have to adopt a child. Of course that wouldn't be practical or probably the best solution for many reasons--especially since not everyone should be parents. However, perhaps the reality that not everyone would a good parent, (and some people would be down right dangerous to children) proves my point that abortion is an ugly but necessary right. My greater point though is that a lot people talk a good game about "saving life" and "protecting life" but then not enough people adopt children.

Some "pro-life" people love to think how righteous and moral they are for standing against abortion but too many then they look the other way once the kid is born. It seems that they love the fetus but hate the child. They want the child to be born but don't seem to want to pay to help care for it when it's born a crack addict or with HIV/AIDS. Or if it's born to a poor, single mother. These are the same people who are willing to cut off food stamps, welfare and other benefits for those same women (and children) whom they claimed to "love" while they're pregnant.

They say that life is not ours to take but are also often the same ones who support the death penalty and needless war. In closing, think about this--If we make abortion illegal and women have them anyway but are caught then what should we do to punish them? Since these people claim abortion is murder then obviously if they are to remain consistent in their argument they must conclude that these women should rot in prison for premeditated murder. Are they ready to lock up countless women and young women for such an action? They'd have to be.

You can't just say it's the doctor's fault because the women would clearly be going to see him/her for the expressed purpose of "murdering" a human life. Unfortunately for a lot of Conservatives the world isn't as black and white as their religion and/or political philosophy might lead them to assume. In many ways I wish life was that simple that everything simply came down to "good" or "bad" but that's not reality.

---End of Transmission---

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Alan Greenspan Against Extending Tax Cuts to Rich.

We know how much the paleo-conservatives are against any kind of borrowing in a deep recession where cash is scarce to prevent a full-blown depression. They don't believe that the government is a third party "spender of last resort" to keep the engines of the economy greased. However, that's not fully true.

They're still very much for borrowing. Despite their austerity stance these, "Born-Again Conservatives" support borrowing money to extend tax cuts to the rich. Yet, even the Bush nominated economist Alan Greenspan opposes extending these tax cuts. However, I think the greater point is that the Conservative argument that America can't borrow anymore is less about fiscal responsibility and more about denying the Democrats a chance to help the American people weather unemployment for fear Obama will get support.

Their game plan for re-election seems to be stall, block, obstruct, and deceive until Americans are so frustrated with the inaction in D.C. that they vote in the Republicans. They don't have a platform of ideas on how to end this Great Recession or what they'd do differently from the George W. Bush era. They are just running on being the Anti-Obama party; as well as banking on being the only other party Americans could choose. They don't have any different solutions--they're just getting support for being the "other party." So the right-wing is all ginned up that they are going to "Over-throw 'Socialism'" and "Take their country back." O.k., let's see you solve the record number of crises America is facing--and do it within a year because that's all the time you gave Obama and the Dems. Let's see the "Face of the NEW Republican Party" and all the unique and timely ideas you have hidden in your magical bag that you won't show anyone until you're elected.

I know it's frustrating to have so many problems at once right now in America because we're not use to such long-term hardships in our modern society. However, before you give the keys back to the Republicans (as Obama said) remember that they are the ones who drove the car into the ditch under Bush. Remember all the failures under Bush? Well, those aren't like failures one can fix over the weekend in the garage. Those are structural cracks and cave ins that will take most of Obama's presidency to turn around--if not longer. They say that in a long, tough military campaign it isn't often a good idea to switch the generals around in the middle of the fight. Let's have a bit more patience and give the Democrats and President Obama at least one full term to get things moving in the right direction again. That's only four years, and we're already through half of them. Two more years isn't that long to wait, and by then we should have a clearer, more accurate conclusion on Obama's policies.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Scott McInnis Is Trying To Pass The Plagiarism Blame; Spreading Lies. John Hickenlooper is the Better Choice.

With the August 10th primary election just around the corner, Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis has been hit with charges of plagiarism. (PICTURED LEFT: Scott McInnis) The Hasan Family Foundation paid McInnis $300,000 in 2005 and 2006 to write a series of articles on water rights. Now the Foundation is demanding all payments be returned after McInnis admitted that portions of the articles submitted under his name were plagiarized from a 1984 article by Gregory Hobbs, now a Supreme Court justice. McInnis blames a research assistant for the folly.

Scott avoided answering questions about exactly how much of the article he wrote, but insists that a research assistant selected the plagiarized content.

TPJ: So besides a plagiarist, Scott McInnis is also a coward by throwing his research assistant under the bus for the plagiarism but the assistant isn't going quietly. "A researcher whom Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis blamed for plagiarism allegations said Wednesday he won't sign a letter from the campaign owning up to what happened because he claims McInnis is lying." TPJ: If we can't trust this guy to write his own speeches, how can we trust him to tells us the truth on more important matters that come up in Congress? Integrity is a big deal for me and especially in these times of so many crooked politicians. And apparently this might not be the only case of plagiarism from McInnis, which is creating talk that he'll drop out:

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo told 9News's Adam Schrager on Thursday that he has heard Scott McInnis will drop out of the Governor's race. Meanwhile, the Denver Post reports that Tancredo, former candidate Josh Penry and CU President Bruce Benson are all being looked at as potential replacement candidates.

TPJ: I hope that if they kick out McInnis that the Republicans pick Tancredo to replace him because he'd be the be the easiest challenger to my candidate, businessman and Mayor of Denver John Hickenlooper. "Hick" knows how to run a business and deal with employment issues. He's a common sense kind of guy and even though he's been mayor of Denver it feels like he's just one of us. As the video below shows. He hasn't lost that touch with the people. Plus, how can you go wrong with a guy who has a greats sense of humor? His knowledge of business helped revitalize downtown Denver with his successful restaurants and bars. His laid back but driven attitude says, "Colorado" all the way. He also got his masters in geology, which fits Colorado and our big mountains even more!! We need Hick to return Colorado to our coveted spot on the map of America. His business sense will help revitalize Colorado as he did downtown Denver. PICK HICK!!
---End of Transmission---

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Republicans Say "No" to Unemployment Benefits for the Working Class But "Yes" to Tax Cuts for the Rich.

For weeks, Senate Republicans have filibustered an extension of unemployment benefits on the grounds that Democrats aren't willing to cut spending or raise taxes to pay for them. At the same time, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, and Republicans want them to be renewed. For two days, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl has raised eyebrows by insisting that emergency aid to unemployed people -- what he called a "necessary evil" -- be paid for through either tax hikes or spending cuts, while the tax cuts (which mostly benefit wealthy people) not be offset in any way. Yesterday claimed that this view is shared by "most of the people in my party."

He was correct. "That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference.

TPJ: This is a classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do" from the Republicans. This is the exact same ideology that they pursued under George W. Bush, so they obviously haven't learned anything from being out of power. Nor from the crash of the economy that started under Bush--Obama simply inherited it. Granted Obama hasn't done as much as he could but he wasn't left with much to work with after "W." This is yet more evidence to bolster my theory that the Republicans have no new ideas. They are simply counting on the impatience of the American people because we've become a country that demands immediate satisfaction. We aren't use to having to face hardship for a long period of time. It's hard to unravel 30 years of Reaganomics in the short 2 years that Obama has been in office.

I have become a bit impatient of the president myself but I think it's important we remember that he has more major crises on his plate than any president since perhaps FDR. So, I think he deserves a bit of a break from our impatient, somewhat unrealistic expectations on how much a president can do to change the economy, and on how fast we think an economy the size of ours can rebound.

"That's been the majority Republican view for some time," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told TPMDC this afternoon after the weekly GOP press conference. "That there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject."

The CBO and other budget experts strongly disagree. And Democrats want to preserve the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $200,000-$250,000 a year -- but only for them. Allowing them to expire for wealthier people would raise hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years, which could allow them to offset the spending Republicans currently decry.

TPJ: Reaganomics has been a failure but it's taken this long to fall apart because it works for a bit but eventually collapses under it's own weight of the greediness built into it. That's because in order for Reaganomics (also know as "trickle-down economics") to supposedly work it requires the big corporations and uber-rich to allow some of their windfalls to fall down to the masses. However, what ended up happening was the rich just did what they know best--greedily hording their money and using it to make MORE money FOR THEM, rather than let it trickle down.

Reaganomics also called for looser regulations on money, which led directly to the downfall of Wall Street and by extension, the American economy that we've seen in this Great Recession. The Reaganomics school thought that loosening big business from the "shackles" of regulation would loosen up for money for everyone. The problem is that without regulations people manipulate the system--it's human nature unfortunately. Regulations are like the police of the economy to make sure that everyone is following the rules so that capitalism can flourish but also provide guidelines so that down times in the economy aren't as deep.

Sure we won't have the DOW up in the 16,000 mark but with extreme growth comes extreme economic crashes. Regulations make it so that if private corporations make bad business decisions the rest of the country isn't dragged down with them. So they want to extend the Bush tax cuts to the affluent--like that worked under Bush the first time!! Those tax cuts really trickled down to the blue collar guys and gals. Remember how those tax cuts helped keep the economy from collapsing under Bush? Me neither--that's because they didn't help anyone but the rich who kept most of them in their fat bank accounts or used them to invest in some company overseas--probably in China. If you think you'll see any of that tax money come back to you just remind yourself about the first round of Bush tax cuts to the rich. How much did YOU get trickling down from them?

---End of Transmission---

Monday, July 12, 2010

Is Obama a Socialist?

Have months of Fox News hyperventilating and right-wing fear mongering over our supposed socialist-in-chief finally paid off? A majority of voters now think President Barack Obama is a socialist, at least according to one new poll. The poll (PDF) from Democracy Corps finds that 55 percent of likely voters believe that the word "socialist" describes the president either "well" or "very well."

James: As a historian by college education I would lay good money down in a bet that 100% of those 55% don't know the definition of socialism. This is embarrassing. Have we become that uneducated as a population?

I am an actual European style Social Democrat, so I'm familiar with Socialist ideology and I'd be jumping with joy if I thought Obama was even being LIBERAL--let alone a Social Democrat of the European variety. And the European Social Democrats aren't even full blown socialists!! A social democrat is someone who believes in a small dose of Socialism mixed with a large dose of Democracy.

It rejects: taking power via revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat (think Lenin, Stalin and Mao) and total public ownership of the means of production. It accepts: Regulated private markets with minimal public ownership of some industry, a strong social safety network, (think social security, Medicare) strong environmental protections, a progressive tax system, secular control of government, fair trade, and social justice (think gay marriage). It is the kind of government you find in Scandinavia, France, Germany, Spain and Australia.

So how is that Obama is a Socialist when me, (and many other Social Democrats) think he's not one of us? Let alone a full blown socialist as many in this poll believe. A full blown socialist is in short by definition: one who believes in the political theory that believes in total public ownership and administration of industry. In order for Obama to be a socialist he'd have to make public ALL the private businesses out there in America. Is that happening? Of course not. Is it even happening in Europe? Nope. How can he be a socialist when even the actual socialists reject him? Even Tea Party favorite Ron Paul agrees that Obama isn't a socialist. I'm all for political debate but how can that even occur if we're not using the accurate definition of a Socialist? Have we learned nothing from the "Red Scare" of the '50s?? Apparently not.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Socialist Lemonade Stands? So Says Terry Savage.

(ChattahBox)A bizarre Ayn Rand-ish rant heard ’round the world attacking a kid’s free lemonade stand as un-American and anti-capitalism, evidencing a “lack of economic responsibility” has been making the rounds of the blogoshpere this week. Terry Savage, a syndicated financial writer for the Chicago-Sun Times penned a Fourth of July screed against free lemonade stands everywhere, writing “There is no ‘free’ lemonade. In giving drink away, girls ignore rules of economics — and sum up what’s wrong with U.S.” When traveling through an upscale neighborhood over July 4th weekend, Savage was horrified to discover a group of little girls accompanied by their commie-socialist nanny operating a free lemonade stand, representing all that’s wrong with our welfare state. So, Savage proceeded to terrorize the little girls sitting on their front lawn, by lecturing them (screeching) on the finer points of capitalism:

“No!” I exclaimed from the back seat. “That’s not the spirit of giving. You can only really give when you give something you own. They’re giving away their parents’ things — the lemonade, cups, candy. It’s not theirs to give.” “I pushed the button to roll down the window and stuck my head out to set them straight.” “You must charge something for the lemonade,” I explained. “That’s the whole point of a lemonade stand. You figure out your costs — how much the lemonade costs, and the cups — and then you charge a little more than what it costs you, so you can make money. Then you can buy more stuff, and make more lemonade, and sell it and make more money.”

She wasn’t kidding.

TPJ: Not the spirit of giving? Since when is "free" not giving? By that same logic, if the kids didn't own the lemonade then is she suggesting that the kids are thieves stealing it from their parents? Or that the parents are socialists for giving the lemonade and candy to their kids for free? She's suggesting (perhaps unknowingly) by her logic that parents should charge kids for everything!! No more free hugs, no more free stories at bed time. What's wrong with all these socialist parents giving their kids a drink of free water in the middle of the night?!! Maybe next parents will start opening lines of credit for kids if they want to eat dinner. Or sending their children a bill after they turn 21!! These are the unintended consequences of this kind of half-baked thinking. This lady is taking her politics a little too seriously I think.

Isn't our society politicized enough without ambushing children and indoctrinating them into one political ideology or another? I don't think it's a good idea to have adults wandering the streets to approach kids about politics or for that matter much of anything. I thought we are supposed to teach our kids not to trust strangers but here's this lady taking it upon herself to indoctrinate random children toward a particular political and economic theory!! I wouldn't want or approve of a stranger coming up to my child trying to tell them anything political--that's for parents and trained, sanctioned teachers to do. And don't tell me she's just trying to teach them hard work because it's clear given her political and economic background, as well as code words she used that she was trying to sell a particular vein of thinking.

I just think this hyper-political environment we live in now is getting out of control when people are approaching kids trying to recruit them into some specific economic or political camp. I'm a Liberal but I'm not going to go around and teach kids lessons in the dangers of trickle down economics!! Our kids grow up too fast as it is. Their little brains aren't developed enough to tackle supply side economics versus Keynesian economics. They wanted to do something compassionate and give away free lemonade on a hot day. What's so wrong with that? Since when did being nice become socialist? God forbid we help others freely. This country is so upside down. I don't recognize it anymore.

---End of Transmission---

Sunday, July 04, 2010

A Mind Like a Rusty, Steele Trap.

Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele has finally jumped the shark saying that the Afghanistan war is "Obama's war of his choosing." This is one of the worst cases of revisionist history I've seen yet from the Bush apologists. Steele continued, "This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." This denial that Obama inherited not only the "terror wars" from Bush but also the crashing economy is a pathetic attempt by the Republicans to manipulate the public into thinking that America didn't have any problems until Barack Obama walked into the White House. Given the scope of their lies, I'm surprised they haven't yet blamed Obama for there being no WMDs in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and HIV/AIDS.

And while I haven't completely agreed with how Obama has performed I do give him a break for the fact that he had to come in an clean up so much mess from Bush and others. I can't think of a president who inherited as many crises as President Obama has since probably FDR during the Great Depression/WWII era. Americans have become use to changes happening over-night but you can't endure 30 years of ignoring major problems without it taking awhile to fix. You can't emerge from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression over-night when it took 30 years of burning the candle at both ends to fall into this economic abyss. Especially an economy as big and as complex as ours. It's a bit like trying to turn a giant cargo ship around despite going full speed in the opposite direction. It doesn't happen immediately.

It's not that the Republicans are offering much of an alternative. Their plan as far as I can see it is to literally oppose every single thing Obama is trying to do to keep him from doing anything helpful for America. Why? It's a cynical bet that if they just let stall and obstruct enough that the American people will quickly tire of the inaction and in frustration and exasperation vote in the Republicans as the default "other choice." So, Michael Steele has jumped the shark not only for himself but perhaps for the entire Republican party. I say that because the Steele delusion is so laughably made-up it thrusts their obstructionism by deception game into the spotlight to where it's obvious to anyone even just somewhat clued into the politics of the last decade.

---End of Transmission---

Saturday, July 03, 2010

Uruguay = Cheaters.

I'm a football fanatic, and no, I'm not talking about American football. I'm talking about what some of my fellow Americans call soccer. Incidentatly I don't understand why they call it football in America. I mean, I love the game but the foot is barely used in American football. "Soccer" is all about using the feet, so it would make sense that it's called "FOOT-ball." American football should be called, "tackle ball" or "gladiator ball." Anyway, "REAL" football was something I played as a kid for at time but my interested increased when the World Cup Football Tournament (which is only played every 4 years) was hosted here in the United States in 1994. I spent two years in West Africa from '95-'97 were football is a religion and my interest became fanatic at that point.

So, in this World Cup the majority of the teams I like have been eliminated. The last one of mine left is the Netherlands--GO ORANGE!! My support of the African teams was riding on the shoulders of Ghana last night. In the closing minutes of the game Ghana kicked a ball that was headed straight into the goal, and would have gone in when a Uruguayan player used both hands to block the shot!! If you don't know football too well, using your hands is a foul and can bring about a "red card" charge, which gets you kicked out of the game and makes you miss the following game. Most hand ball fouls are incidental yet are still called as fouls because using the hands goes against the whole point of the game. But when a non-goalie player purposefully uses both hands to block a ball that otherwise would have gone in then that is blatant cheating. The hands behind the football in the picture above are the hands of the player who used his hands to stop the ball. See video of the hand ball incident below:

And Suarez showed no remorse for the handball, even claiming it is his very own 'hand of God'.

"The 'Hand of God' now belongs to me. Mine is the real 'Hand Of God'. I made the best save of the tournament. Sometimes in training I play as a goalkeeper so it was worth it," said Suarez.

TPJ: Hand of God?? Since when is the Judeo-Christian "God" that people believe in, a cheater? And how blasphemous is it to say that your hands were the "REAL" "Hand of God?" Never mind Jesus' hands that supposedly cured the sick and resurrected the dead. No, it's not those hands that are the "Hands of God." It's the hands of the arrogant, cheating, world-class asshat, footballer David Suarez??? He is without integrity in my eyes and if you don't care about your integrity then I think that tells a lot about what kind of a person you are. That's not the kind of person I'd trust or care to spend time with, so I'm glad that he will miss the semi-final game. He should be ashamed of himself, and in my mind is a little man who deserves little respect. I spit on his football shoes LOL.

---End of Transmission---

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Rainbow of Death.

I know it's hard to watch but PLEASE watch this video. Don't push this disaster into the back of your mind. We need to face what we are doing to our Earth--NOW. If you are Christian and naively believe we can do anything to Earth and God will save us--think again. What do you think your God would think of what we've done to his green garden of Eden? Do you think he'd like coming back and seeing all the garbage we've dumped into his creation? He might come back--who knows, but I doubt he'd be happy about our actions toward the home he supposed created for us.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy