The gift that keeps on giving

When Reagan was president, he set in motion ideas that still impact the Republican party and our country. One is that the federal government is bad (other than for fighting wars) and the corollary goes along with it-- taxes are bad.

So today from the right comes the cry of socialism and how income redistribution is bad whenever any programs are suggested that would provide services, do anything about unemployment, keep wages up to living costs, educate kids, protect the air or water (not so much do they worry when the government spies on you, arrests you without a trial or goes to war with no excuse other than it wants to).

But boy do they love to talk about income redistribution. It is thrown into all their conversations and speeches. Taxes are bad. We will lower yours. Government is bad. We still stop it from doing anything (except wars around the world but don't worry we'll block VA benefits when the soldiers get home).

They even talk of privatizing VA hospitals so that it'll cost more to run and provide less care (think electrocutions in Iraq for what kind of care Halliburton corporations will provide our vets); so the profits can go to the private sector and the soldiers, well they can see what it's like to be in a hospital like the VA ones used to be before they were upgraded under Clinton. The right wing doesn't want VA hospitals to stay under the government because they are a success story proving government can do good (likewise, despite rightie claims, for Social Security) .

Cannot.. Absolutely CANNOT have the government looking good at anything; so must end anything that works. Medicare was one too until Bush added a prescription drug benefit which wasn't paid for (that was so Bush and those who follow him. Heaven forbid you'd pay for anything as you go). What the Republicans cannot directly destroy, they will ruin through adding things to it that finally make it look bad.

So the country as a whole, 50% anyway, and that means women more than ever before, are voting GOP because well they are mad. Mad that jobs have been shipped overseas and government doesn't stop it... except the government they are about to vote into power has done something about it-- encouraged more jobs to go overseas. Doing that makes the stock market happy, dontchaknow!

Apparently these ladies, who have switched their allegiance to the Republicans, don't like health care. Well they probably like it but not for those who cannot afford to pay for it. Heck the rates have already gone up thanks to a health care program that won't take full effect until 2014...

Do they think? Seriously, do they think?

I hear it regularly that everybody can get health care right now. Just walk into any ER and be charged a horrendous price but anyone can see a doctor.

Except, ER is not set up to do routine health maintenance. It's there for disasters and there is no way it is a substitute for regular health care where people find out their blood sugar is high before they go into a coma or their kidneys are ruined. Where they get blood pressure medication before the first heart attack. What ER can give chemotherapy? I mean it is an ignorant argument but it suits people who get all their information from slick TV ads, fox news and right wing talk radio.

ER is no substitute for a family doctor but that's just fine with the right wing as they don't really dislike death panels. Insurance companies provide the service all the time. They just like to throw the word around like so many others like clean air, patriot act, no child left behind, etc.

One thing the health care bill did, or would have done if people like Sharron Angle get their way and end it before it starts, was deny insurance companies the right to refuse coverage to a child with a preexisting condition. That went into effect right away. So a child with epilepsy might never be able to purchase insurance their whole lifetime. This is okay with the right and apparently a lot of Americans who have been convinced that Reagan was right-- government can't do anything right and taxes are bad.

I could say more on this but this blog is really about something else being thrown around ad nauseum-- income redistribution.

Oh how evil it sounds, how communist. We should only have to pay for the direct services we ourselves want and of course that mercenary army going around the world fighting... and maybe the big staffs for those Congress people and their lush offices, a few basics like flying them around the world to check on how the Bahamas are doing. Otherwise though government should do nothing and if we want a freeway, we can just damned well pay for a private contractor to build it and then pay tolls. Eisenhower had it all wrong about uniting a nation, that RINO!!!, We don't need to have meat inspected. Forget public schools, let the little hellions run the streets.

Let Americans keep all their money as they can do better than the government with taking care of these things (other than the continuous ongoing wars, of course). When jobs are shipped overseas, well we can come up with new companies for here... at lower wages, of course. $5 a day good with you?

Here's the truth and you can deny it if you will-- all of what we have in this country involves income redistribution. If you like a library, want any public services at all, value freeways you can whiz across the continent on, want your borders protected, airports and airways regulated, enjoy knowing the police and firemen are out there and ready to go-- you have to pay for it. Some of you will pay more than others because you have more.

This is even more true today as the wealth has been concentrated in a very small part of our population. There is one party who wants it to stay that way and even grow as they send the middle class back to the peon class where they belong. There is one party who supports the undermining of the middle. Yeah you go ahead and vote for that bunch maybe with the hope you'll be among the rich someday. *first good laugh I got on this topic*

You vote for someone who claims that loss of jobs is the fault of Obama but then that government should do nothing because government cannot do anything right. That's logical, isn't it?

They say Obama who immediately began the stimulus when he got in office did nothing for jobs. Maybe he trusted the states too much (where the right wants power returned) as 1/3 of the stimulus went directly to them for what were supposed to be shovel ready projects. Some probably actually got there. 1/3 went to tax cuts for the middle with 1/3 for economic projects. I know some of the states still have their 1/3 and don't seem to know how to spend it yet.

Maybe that stimulus could have been better spent but saving the big automakers from bankruptcy saved those jobs at least. And PLEASE don't tell me we now own the automakers we loaned the money to or that we will always control them. That is a right wing lie. When the loan is paid off, we'll be gone and they will still be working. Even Bush's TARP plan appears to be mostly saving financial companies and letting them repay the money to go on without any more overseeing.

Some of the Stimulus went to alternative energy development and the results of that might take awhile to show up but it could make a huge difference in the future.

Tell me-- how much of that would Republicans have done? Anything for jobs except cut taxes on the wealthiest with their trickle down theory? How can anybody vote for Republicans on a jobs excuse when they don't believe government can do anything right? Republicans just want to go off on junkets with their fat cat friends and learn how to better manage our economy from the billionaires who want to gain even more wealth.

I didn't used to have bad feelings toward Reagan. I saw him as a decent enough man. The more his words are being used to create the ignorant mess we have today with a whole class of people convinced taxes are bad, any help for someone else is socialism, and the government cannot do anything, the madder I get at him.

But really it's not him. It's those who took those words and ran with them probably far beyond anything he imagined. Did he really want us to become a nation of wealthy and poor? He came out of the middle class. Didn't he see its importance in this country, what made it different than other places? I don't know but it's what the right is aimed at today and under the banner of Christianity. I wish a few of those religious righties would take a few days to read what Jesus really said and then try to compare it to what is being done in his name. Asking too much? Probably!

Reagan's Legacy

It makes sense to me that religious righties would support the Republican party because it is the only party that will promise to take away the rights of others to do things christianists believe their god would want stopped. Limitation of freedom based on religious values is their truth, and it's not new to our time period. They are on a holy crusade to ban all abortions including that of a girl who was raped by her father. Don't let logic ever get in the way of religious zeal.

And it is about forcing their values onto others as nobody in this country forces someone to get an abortion. No one forces them to choose to end their own lives if they are terminally ill (there are NO death panels except maybe in insurance companies). The right wants to block other people from marrying because nobody is going to force them to marry someone of their own sex. Most fundamentalists favor the Republican party or the tea party because it makes sense. I get that.

What doesn't make sense to me are the so-called economic righties. They vote based on something that isn't true at all. The Republican party is as big at spending as the Democratic. Oh they talk a good talk, but ask them what they will cut and it's usually waste... innocuous thing to say with no meaning but it suits those who kid themselves about what the Republicans are really up to-- which is shafting the middle class while increasing the power of the rich.

They are all for privatizing Social Security so that workers can invest their own tax money and not pay for grandpa already on Social Security. Ask people in the stock market how that works. Guarantees are non-existent unless the government guarantees the funds... and if it does, the only thing this will change will be Wall Street getting more of the pie.

I could go on and on about this but the following link says it better. If you read it, think about it, you may not be thrilled with the left but stop to think who it actually is who has been helping the shipping of jobs overseas, limiting wages, eliminating environmental controls on water and air for the benefit of corporations, making it easier for the rich to control ads and the airwaves, and finally a tax code that benefits the wealthy and is slowly eating away at the middle.

Reagan-- a gift that keeps on giving

Admittedly the Democrats have not done enough about this. But do you honestly believe the Republicans mean to do anything. Oh they talk about liberating you to make your own fortune by ending all regulations on corporations or financial institutions. If you believe that is what that means, you also believe in Santa Claus. Good luck with that!

Olbermann on the tea party candidates this year

I almost never implant videos even in my other blogs; but this was just so succinct with letting voters know what extreme means, you know how a little extremism isn't a big deal to so many of them this time. I know a lot of righties don't like Keith Olbermann. There's good reason for that as he really does come on strong but with facts-- in this case, their own words.

Here are some you need to consider about what this brand of extremism will do if it can:

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

Really think it doesn't matter?

Voting for something

A lot of politicians right now are running on their record...

Let's take Joe Miller in Alaska who just admitted he lied earlier when he could no longer keep the truth from coming out. That part of his record is probably supposed to be overlooked as part of his character...

And then there is Carly Fiorina in California who is running as a successful CEO (pardon me while I choke) and says she can do for the country what she did for HP. Perhaps voters in California should consider what that was.

What Carly Fiorina did for HP according to two grandsons of the founders

Don't just go by what these people say about themselves. Look at what they did. Sometimes what they say will match like that Sharron Angle will vote no on pretty much everything. How that will get jobs for people in Nevada is something they might want to question... if they bother thinking on it. I suspect in that case (having seen the signs back in the spring when we drove through Nevada), it's a hate Harry Reid and thinking anything would be better. For six years? Seriously someone like her who wants to end Social Security, who thinks that religion should dictate our laws, seriously for six years?

You know voting against someone you don't like without taking into consideration what you are then voting for, that's not showing good judgment, is it?

the complaints of the tea partiers

*taking deep breaths and throwing in a few ohhhmmmmms*

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What does that mean to you? Does it suggest a Christian government? This whole election cycle is coming very close to making me go nuts. The things the right says make it so hard to not write conversation ending things, belittling those who seem oblivious to what the founders of this country intended.

The latest, of this sort of thing, involves two that kind of go together. One is about freedom to not send children to public schools. The right acts as though they need some new laws to make this possible. Do these people pay ANY attention at all to facts. Anybody can home school their children. Anybody can send them to the private school of their choice. Nobody has to send their children to any public school at all.

Yes, there is a requirement children under a certain age receive an education but it's up to the parents to decide where that will be. This requirement of education is for the benefit of the community, of the democracy, of a government based on citizens voting depending on a... somewhat... educated populace. How do people vote wisely if they have no education?

So the argument is actually that these parents and righties do not then want to pay taxes to support public schools.

What they want is for me to pay for children (collectively or individually) to go to their choice of any private school-- and it would be my dollar as some of them might not even be paying taxes. Parents who have enough children and earn a low salary pay no or very little income taxes and if they don't own a home, they might not be paying property taxes either. Which means my tax dollars (and I do pay taxes) will be paying for that education which might encompass teaching creationism, talking against intellectualism, ridiculing science, and promoting fear of a god-- all of which I find an abomination. They should consider how much they'd like being forced to pay for a cult type school that taught Satanism.

There is today freedom of education so long as that education covers the agreed upon basics. You can as an individual not give a damn about the culture as a whole but you cannot refuse to pay for your share of costs that have been agreed upon to keep the culture healthy. We pay taxes for this nation (you know the thing these people talk so much about loving but then turn around and ignore that means the people in it).

Following along with that, there is the freedom of religion crowd (which are basically the same group) which is being ignited again by Tea Party candidates who claim they want less government but actually want more government invasion into our personal business in the name of 'their' religion.

How the Tea Partiers get the Constitution wrong.

The issue here, from people like Michelle Bachmann, relates to churches. They want those churches free to be as political as they want AND still keep their tax free status. Keep in mind any church can become political but they are at risk of losing that status. The agreement (not that these people care about such) was that in exchange for tax free status, churches would stay out of politics (see above).

Is it to the benefit of the churches who want to be political that their donations and buildings are tax free? It was originally done because they were supposedly caring for the poor-- so they were proving a service to society as a whole. Today, the average church is doing well if they donate 3% of their funds to charitable work outside their doors. Those tax free donations go to the church's own needs which might be a gymnasium for its members.

A case can be made, even from the churches themselves, that the tax benefit isn't worth it:

Should churches pay taxes or be exempt?

Repeating-- the logic of ending the current taxing situation, besides the fact that churches give very little of their revenue to anybody but themselves, is that they are limited in campaigning for their pet causes-- which stopping their tax free status would end.

If we keep the tax laws as they are, with these tax advantages, while we let churches have the right to campaign openly and even order their members to vote certain ways according to god, then my tax money is going to help them do this by the fact that I pay the share they would be paying if they were paying income tax on their full income or paying property taxes.

Churches right now have the right to campaign openly, demand their members vote according to god's will. Losing their tax free status is too high a price to pay to do god's will? So it would seem. So what they want, with the help of the tea partiers and politicians like Bachmann, is to have their cake and eat it too.

I am reading American Taliban (not Muslims) by Markos Moulitsas about the Christian religion in this country (which I prefer to label christianist because they have little resemblance to what Christ taught), what its goals have been and what we might face with more religious power in the political arena.

For those tea partiers, who believe their movement is all about less government, they might want to read that book and another called The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of America's Power by Jeff Sharlet regarding the power a certain religious group has been amassing both in our government and the military.

If you are a religious right winger, that's good news; but if not, give some thought as to where this is heading and whether it's really what you had in mind.

from bad to worse

Very much I would like to understand the reasoning of the right wing, not the nut job right but the average rightie who seem to support a party which has as its main concern protecting the interests of the wealthiest Americans and not the average Joes. How on earth have they convinced Americans to vote against their own best interests? I am mystified and it just gets stranger and stranger.

When Bush got the fifth conservative Supreme Court Justice, he secured the power of the wealthy in this country through enabling them or even foreign governments to donated unlimited amounts of money with no requirement to identify from where it has come.

You know, those unlimited funds would not have to make a difference if Americans were smart and could recognize phony advertising when they see it. If they would check facts when someone like a Carly Fiorina promises she'll cut the deficit but they look at her corporate record and recognize she was a failed CEO who got appointed above her skill set (Peter Principle), rewarded by a corporate system that sends off corporate failures with more than a pink slip, who liked/likes to live the life of the rich, and is not likely to care about the average citizens in California once elected anymore than she did the workers at HP before.

The power of this moneyed set really is not greater than any average citizen (one vote) if average citizens bothered to get informed. The Koch brothers have two actual votes, but what they have beyond that is the power of the purse to fund a movement of ordinary people who somehow have become convinced that what is good for the wealthiest is also good for them.

When the Koch brothers have their gatherings of the elite as they did in June and will again in January [Secret GOP Donor Network], they include other multimillionaires, and have included Glenn Beck for media and two Supreme Court Justices-- Scalia and Thomas. Since the meetings require secrecy from attendees we can only guess their goals but it's not hard given how much these people benefit from deregulation of their industries and how much wealth they have already acquired.

Does anybody seriously think that being at an event like that doesn't tell you how those justices will rule on anything impacting these rich people? They aren't just political, they are bought and paid for by this catering to them. What is amazing is that while what is discussed at this meeting is demanded it be kept 'secret' they are also obviously so blatantly powerful that they don't have to fear anybody standing in their way.

When judges attend, does anyone seriously think they will then do anything to lessen what is happening in this country with it heading toward a nation with no middle class and instead the rich and those who serve them? If there was any doubt about that, the decision they made to give corporations the rights of citizens for 'free speech' told you to forget it.

The people in the tea party have been convinced they only need to worry about welfare queens and while they are looking that direction, they miss what is really happening. The ads these people are paying for tell you everything about how they manipulate voters. It does not have to work but with a television network and many radio programs all putting out the same message, it works with too many voters.

Did you see the clip of Rush Limbaugh showing an unflattering photo of Obama and telling his millions of listeners how it obviously shows Obama looking like the devil himself? You know Limbaugh doesn't believe in that, you could hear it in his voice, but he knows his listeners will hear it, see it and fear will grow even greater among those who fear Obama is the Antichrist which Limbaugh knows well has been one of the accusations from the weak-minded. It works too often, and who does it benefit when it does?

[Limbaugh lowers himself once again] to the lowest denominator to compete with Beck.

When the Supreme Court decided that a wealthy person or a corporate entity (from any country) could donate any amount of money they wanted to any cause or candidate, they tipped the balance of power from being about the will of the majority to the pressure of the wealthy.

Why is this good to righties? What possible reason do they have for wanting less financial regulations? How about letting businesses go overseas with no penalty here (which Republicans continued as policy by their threat of filibuster)? Then they give speeches about Obama at fault for loss of jobs while their corporate overseers, who fund their trips and hire them if they lose offices, they are the reason this is happening.

Why do the right wing want the wealthy to have more power? I scratch my head trying to sort through why the right leaning middle would be voting as they are. I read how Obama is having a hard time getting the white working class to support him; but if they don't support him, what exactly are they supporting? Do they have a clue?

I hear a lot of talk from the tea partiers about freedom. Does that mean freedom to pollute, freedom to cheat, freedom to manufacture overseas and take the profits back here with no taxes or low taxes on them, or is it desire for freedom for citizens who don't have jobs with benefits to get sick and not have a regular doctor to go to? What freedom are people talking about? Freedom to be an old person with no Social Security and no doctors? Please, help me understand what freedoms? When Obama wanted to keep the Bush tax cuts for the average person but not keep them for the wealthiest, the Republicans blocked it. Whose side are they on? Okay, I know that but why do any voters support that?

In Oregon a very good Congressman, Pete DeFazio is in a close race with a total nut job right winger, who taught his children at home from books that teach that blacks are inferior to whites [Robinson], who argues that global climate change isn't happening with no proof but plenty of muddying of the waters. Who is running on being a scientist while not acting like one.

DeFazio has done a good job for Oregon; so why is the race close? Because one guy who was a hedge fund billionaire, who resented DeFazio trying to put regulations onto those like him has funded the campaign against him. Hedge Fund Billionaire Funds Robinson Campaign.

This is what happens when advertising works. This is what happens when you can afford to throw a lot of money against one or two politicians who don't go the way you want and they can't match your funds. There is only one way to stop it-- quit having it work! People do not have to be influenced by these slick ads. They can look at the issues and vote accordingly. For those who have right wing religious values, I do understand even while I disagree but for anybody voting on economic issues, this whole thing makes no sense at all.

We know government has been corrupt to varying levels, but tell me is there any reason to think Republicans won't make it even worse with their total caving to the wealthy? When will we reach a point where we cannot go back?

DeFazio isn't taking it lying down-- and neither have we as we donated, earlier in the month, when we saw what was happening, to his campaign even though we don't get to vote for him since we live a bit north of his voting district! He is the kind of Congressman Oregon needs. The kind our country needs. Yes, that's my opinion.

DeFazio Confronts 'Concerned Taxpayers'

Wearing Purple

If a person doesn't wear purple, or own much that is purple, Spirit Day, as a way of showing our united support for teens dealing with anti-gay bullying, this presented a problem. After doing some closet cleaning and bringing back onto hangers my winter clothing, lo and behold there was one of my favorite sweaters, the only purple one as it turns out.

I think this is a good cause and believe wholeheartedly in the need for this country to get its act together on what really matters. Condemning someone for how they are born is not fair and is ignorant. We can't take credit for being born straight or gay. We just are what we are. Why is it so hard for some people to get that?

While one side is very loud on this topic, the other side often is not. Those who want to see civil rights mean something need to get more 'in your' face, I am thinking. It's too important to do otherwise.

Because it didn't photograph very purple, I took another one outside, not sure that improved things but really it is a purple sweater.

religion and politics

This is a question first with a comment from me but mostly a question for anybody who reads here.

Should someone's religious beliefs be a factor in a campaign for office? Is it fair game in an ad? Should their life measure up to what they claim to believe? (trying not to laugh)

We know it is but should it be? Is it fair to bring up negative aspects to their religion as a possible impact on what they will do once they get the office and in the case of the Senate, that means you live with that for six years if their beliefs impact the job in a way voters didn't expect.

Jack Conway running for the US Senate in Kentucky probably got hurt himself when he put out an ad questioning the sincerity of Rand Paul's spiritual beliefs based on things he did when much younger. I suspect that wouldn't matter much to Christians anyway as they believe in redemption. What he might've done back then will even make them more respecting of him now-- assuming they don't think he picked those beliefs based on opportunism.

You simply cannot be nominated, in the Republican party, to an important office in probably most of the United States, certainly not the South without following what I call christianist doctrine, using that term to distinguish it from those who follow Christ and his teachings solely. Christianist doctrine is political and it's been a big factor in the United States off and on for a lot of years starting with the Puritans probably. Boy you want to look for American Taliban in the US and you can start with them.

(I'm reading American Taliban right now by Markos Moulitsas and he traces the current political fundamentalism through its more recent incarnation to where it is today. Bill Maher gave him a bad time for using the title as too provocative and unfair. But Maher was wrong. It's very fair as the Taliban are not al Qaeda even if they might have harbored them and sympathized with their goals. The Taliban are religious fundamentalists who when they have the power use their religion to brutalize others. This doesn't just happen in Islam).

So is it right to be concerned about someone's religious beliefs? Do you tend to believe their testimonies as to what they believe now? Are they fair game when they come from years back with an ad? It's unfortunate for Conway that he chose that path to winning as he may lose over it and would that be a fair outcome?

In case you haven't been following this story, here's a link to give you the idea of some of the ads out there right now. I miss all of that by not watching much television and then only cable news and movies.

Six brutal ads that put Conway's Aqua Buddha ad to shame

Man-Up

My problem with politics right now is that I don't see many good guys. You see good guys anywhere? It's a terrible time to have to vote, but I always do and will. It will also be straight ticket Democrat which makes me unhappy. I like to vote for the person but there is no 'person' in the Republican party. There is an agenda (that runs from extreme to more extreme) they all share; so I'll vote for Democrats even when I sometimes have to hold my nose to do it because that 'other' agenda is abhorrent to me. And I will vote because to not vote is to give up and be one of 'them'... Yeah, I said it... there is an us and them. It's another thing that makes me angry because there should not be; but that's not what this topic is about.

When Harry Reid and Sharron Angle debated in Nevada, it was pretty much determined by assorted media that it was a draw at best for Harry since he didn't come across strong; but since Angle was expected to be horrible, she probably won it. She also was obviously more willing to lie about and fudge her past statements as in whatever she had to do to win. Is that what she meant by man up?

She used it to refer to Social Security regarding what Reid said. Never mind that he was right. Social Security can be fixed with some tweaking, for instance taxing income above the level where it currently stops. It isn't what Angle wants to hear (nor what plays with her constituency and she definitely has one) as she either wants to end it or privatize it depending on the day you hear her talking. She used the term man up against Reid because he doesn't fit some movie version of a tough guy even if he has been one in reality as a one time boxer. He talks soft, so much for being manly. What matters to Republicans right now is image, not reality.

Or was Harry not manning up because he didn't call her out regarding her ignorant statement about Shariah law already in the United States in one city where it's not and in another that is basically a ghost town in Texas... Oh yeah Shariah law is sure going to take over Texas all right. Was his not calling her on that what made him unmanly and she's was evidently manly because she's willing to lie to get what she wants? Is that the message Republicans are using everywhere in campaigns, what they mean by man up?

You can bet on one thing about the media when it comes to debates or speeches. I wish they'd disappoint me, but they haven't yet. They will pick out one thing and if there is a simple, key sentence, it's all you will hear about. Angle telling him to man-up, was tailor made for media. It's been working for other Republicans this season also (was it in Rovian talking points?) That catch phrase is what they hope will man them up to the Congress as they try to convince Americans there is only one manly party out there.

Man up has a subliminal message and you know if it you think about it at all. It takes a man, a certain kind of man, to do the tough things. Given who the Republicans have been nominating in the way of women, either Barbie dolls or women who bought their own ticket to the parade, they clearly have a problem with images as in that's all they want. Their women must be pretty and probably not bother their pretty little heads with details. It's okay to get out there on the stump and screech but just don't discuss real policy. Who wants that?

Using the term man up ought to offend women all across this country (and men too actually) but people have lost track of their power as human beings. For women it appears if you are a Republican, power comes through beauty-- unless you can pay your own way. No way will a woman who looks like Madeleine Albright be nominated for a Republican position. Republicans even brag over how much prettier their women are than the Democratic ones.

Yes, I know their candidates aren't all beauties but those who aren't, are buying it with money they earned other ways. Look at Carly Fiorina, a failed CEO running on being a successful CEO for a job that isn't about being a CEO, a woman who was paid a minimum of $20 million (and maybe a lot more) just to get rid of her.

Then there is Meg Whitman using possibly as much as $180 million of her own as the only way she'd ever have been nominated or win. Heck everybody else buys government, why not her?

Another in that category is Linda McMahon who earned points for kicking a man in the groin (possibly faked with pro-wrestling whoever knows), but at least did earn her money by people opting to pay for wrestling events although sometimes that's not as simple as it seems with manipulating cities and states to pay for the facilities that allow those fancy sporting events.

And, of course, the just vote no Sharron Angle who if she gets into the Senate might make Harry Reid glad he's no longer there.

Perhaps I should include Jan Brewer in the she's running and isn't pretty bunch, but we know why she's even in the race and nobody needs a wikipedia link to tell them.

I got distracted but my objection to what Angle said, that played so well with the media, that other Republicans are using, is that Republicans think it takes a man to get things done (or a woman acting like a man or a Barbie doll who can inspire men?).

Using the term man up is evidently intended to inspire voters. Do men feel flattered by the term? Don't ask me but men should not either as it appears to relate to lying when need be, stomping on the backs of the elderly and the poor. If it works, it'll be because we have a populace who doesn't understand what real strength is and bases it all on TV shows or movies.

Women can be as strong and tough as men and it doesn't require having balls or pretending to have them. I think of my mother who was in her late 70s when she broke a hoe over the back of a young bull when he had gotten out of the fences and she was looking after the farm here.

I think of my daughter who, working as a field archaeologist, was the one to go down into the deep holes (with risk of them crumbling in around her) because she was smaller to look for artifacts or when out on a survey and the boulder was rolling straight at her on a hillside, she ducked unsure if she'd survive but no need to man up. She woman-ed up! Damnitall, what is wrong with people to think only acting macho can get things done whether it's a man or woman?

If Americans vote with that logic in November, we will be facing two years of Republican control of Congress and it'll give Obama a chance to see if he is ready to 'woman-up'...

That was a joke. I sometimes feel I have to be sure I add that as some people have no sense of humor. I know too many strong men (the real kind, not the posing sort) from my grandfathers, to my father, to my husband, son, son-in-law, and male friends to not know what strong men are like and they don't have to be mean about it or play macho, posturing games. As for weak women, who has the babies?

Men and women both can be tough and when people play games with pitting one against the other, it's always to make us all lose. Is it too much to ask the media to stop picking up on these cute phrases that have an underlying message that is ugly? I suppose it is, but we don't have to let it work!

After I wrote this, I really liked what Maureen Dowd in the Sunday New York Times had to say on the topic.

DADT

There is so much to write about right now that I was torn over which offended me the most. I opted for this topic, but the other will follow rapidly. It just isn't as emotionally upsetting to me as: [Obama's Don't Ask Don't Tell Madness]

Basically the people who read this political blog more or less want someone to defend Obama. I get that. I see as they do that the alternative is much worse, but can we really defend what is wrong just because it's our guy and not end up losing our own collective souls?

Lately, Obama has been making it darned hard to defend him or to even understand what he's doing. Does he want so much to be friends with every kid that he doesn't realize actions have meaning? Does he really expect the Republicans will ever go out with him? Does he think the ones who brought him to the party have nowhere else to go?

The last one could be what he figures or maybe he really wants the Republicans to win this one. Maybe somebody told him he should want them to win it because despite his going on the stump for Democrats, he's doing an awful lot to undermine them with putting out this kind of tripe.

First of all, it's not up to Congress to end Don't Ask Don't Tell. Congress cannot be trusted with Constitutional issues and it was never intended to be. Congress should be made up of statesman but it's actually mostly made up of politicians who are always in it for the bottom line-- their own.

When Civil Rights for minorities was made the law of the land, it was done by enforcing the meaning of the Constitution through the courts. When women were finally given the right to make decisions about their own bodies, it was done by enforcing the meaning of the Constitution through the courts. Now here we are again and a Democrat... a damned Democrat in our president, dares to make the case that gays must only gain their rights through... wait for it... Congress.

A do-nothing, easily intimidated, paid for by the highest bidder, lack of guts, Congress should decide that the idea of taking one whole class of people and denying them the rights of everybody else, that's not okay?

Well if we have to wait for them, given the way it's been going, it won't happen. Congress, especially not once the Republicans take back the House and Senate, won't do any of that. They will be too busy investigating Obama for every nitpicking thing they can come up with to find grounds for impeachment. Some won't even wait for that, they'll be filing the first shot as soon as they get those heads of the committee positions to authorize investigations and issue subpoenas. These are the same types who spent the Clinton years doing just that. We know what they are already promising, people like Issa who is in a position to have that power if Republicans take control. Does Obama really not pay attention to history? If you don't get it as to what they will be doing, it means you also haven't been listening or paying attention these last two years when they tried to block those who had it from doing anything.

Obama is right in one thing. Right now, there is no alternative to supporting Democrats, not with the Republicans eager to gut any chance for the middle class to regain jobs or even get the educations to get those jobs, not when the only thing they can see cutting are more public services while they grow the military, when they would take gay rights backward, but he's wrong on what he did.

The ugliness of what Obama did to those who have supported him, who know that it is wrong wrong wrong to deny gays the right to marriage and to serve openly and proudly in the military, to do that means he has sold all of us out and not even to the highest bidder as the other party already has them. This is worse for the kids growing up who still cannot live in a country that recognizes although we might be born different colors or sexes, we all have certain unalienable rights.

He sold us out to people who support someone like Christine O'Donnell who made the religiously bigoted, stupid and ignorant comment that being gay is the equivalent of adultery in the military... Excuse me but being gay is a biological fact and gay people are no more required to practice sex with someone else than a heterosexual (of course, she has a crusade out there to make self-satisfying sex equally sinful).

O'Donnell might not win her election but people who think a lot like her are going to win enough to make it quite possible that the Congress will be under Republican control. Obama through asking the court for a stay on DADT, by announcing the feds will enforce drug laws no matter what the states might decide (watch him go after Oregon's death with dignity law next. The only question will be before or after the election), as he tries to consolidate power for the federal government through putting down Arizona's attempt to regulate illegal immigration, like saying he could work with Republicans if they do win (Is he not only an opportunist on all of this but also nuts?), Obama will be part of helping a Republican Congress to happen and we lefties won't soon forgive him for it. We voted for change, not more of the same old same old.

Oh there's more...

The Case for Obama

If you are a progressive or a leftie, read this from Rolling Stone and think twice about not voting in November.

The Case for Obama

I have to subscribe to that magazine again! Is anybody else doing the research they are right now?

the new media and politics

Do you think our instant access to opinions and information through the Internet is helping our political process or hindering it?

You know, once upon a time when we read say a political essay, we pretty much knew that, whatever side that person was on, they had some responsibility to be writing truth. If they did not, the newspaper or magazine for which they worked, would fire them, Today people read blogs, listen to radio programs and have no clue how much that person really knows, what their expertise might be, and even whether they lie. But they take what is said as gospel when it fits their preconceived opinion and is on their side of the political divide. If you have a certain agenda to press, it's not hard to find a lot of links to buttress up your viewpoint or make it look like it is solid information.  Frank Rich talked about this on Sunday --

Facebook Politicians

Thanks to the Internet, writers can put out a post without spelling anything, knowing how to use punctuation and with places like Twitter and Facebook, it's not even possible to tell if they know how... or even if they wrote the words-- yet by some it will be taken as truth without further checking. These sites and the 'information' (using that word loosely) on them are not accountable to anybody. If they are popular, whatever they say will yield thousands of drones pressing 'like' who think they just heard something deep and important.

Worse when I turn on any news program, I am likely to have to hear what the robo-politicians said; so even if I avoid Facebook for my truth meter, I will hear the statement on a regular news program which in my case might be intended to horrify me but for others hearing it on say Fox, it'll be-- yep, that's how it is. Is it?

Part of me thinks this new media, with its speed of getting out ideas, is great. We can research things that we'd have spent months doing before-- but how do we know our research site is truthful? No publisher is fact checking much if any of it.

Part of me thinks this whole thing is proving very useful for a certain group of people, people with a lot of money, and they don't have my best interests at heart. Yet with newspapers going down, less magazines, limited numbers of news programs on television and mostly owned by a few people, what is our choice for getting information today?

The Fed's Magic Money-Making Machine

Once again Matt Taibi shows why I wish I could manage to get his blog working in the blog list along side here. Does this worry you? Should it? Do you seriously think Republicans will handle it differently than Democrats?  If I am wrong to be concerned, explain to me why.

Matt Taibi-- The Fed's Magic Money-making Machine

Oh I know. It'll help our economy. Does it dawn on those claiming that, when a trillion dollars is printed with nothing behind it, that's why bread costs more in the grocery store? And with this kind of manipulative thinking, guess what, Social Security payments won't go up at all because the guys that calculate that say there is no inflation. Nope, none at all... unless, of course, you want to eat, pay rent, heat your house, have a phone, fuel your car, insure anything, but hey as long as you what you need is a new DVD, you're in good shape...

You cannot print dollars out of thin air and not have it impact the value of the dollars already there, can you? I am no major in economics, but this just doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone tell me why it should?


Why aren't more reporters covering this stuff?

government and power

Once in awhile when I write comments elsewhere they end up being as long as blogs and probably the owners of the blogs wish they were somewhere else as they go on and on. But still they are answering a question that I consider worth more than a couple of words. Below represents is one of those times.

I might add after I put this answer there, I got slammed by one of the other commenters (John Adams back from the grave) saying I am what has gone wrong with this country, with a lot more insults directed at me personally. I have heard it all before; and don't need to repeat it because if you are a leftie, you have heard it also. But since this is my blog where my answer can go (with a few improvements) and with comment moderation, only those who disagree by points, not by personality attack, will find their comments seeing light here. There are plenty of tea party blogs for them to go where they can all reassure each other how wise they are.

The gist of the question was the writer, due to recent events was asking himself and his readers-- do you think the federal government has your best interests at heart? And I said--

Why on earth would it be just 'recent events' that would cause that? Should you totally trust any big organization whether it be corporate or religious or government to have your best interests at heart... ever? Those who do end up with governments like we have seen throughout history, and it didn't just start here in 2008 despite how righties want to see it, those things start with the people letting it happen (Incidentally the recent failures of government didn't begin in 2000 either). Sometimes people let it happen for safety but whatever the reason, eventually they find they cannot get their power back.

So, don't trust! And for rigthties, don't trust the tea party organization either.

In all cases, look at what these groups and leaders want, what they stand for, when you vote, look at whether they are doing what they claim, does their life bear witness to what they claim they can do for the country, but even if that all looks good on voting day, don't trust them too much, none of them. Hold them accountable by your attention to what they are doing.

Organizations and groups of humans have this propensity to abuse power. Don't give it to them whether it's 'your' party or the 'other' guy's. And you give power when you look the other way at crooked deals when it's your bunch. You give it to them when you let stupid ads work. You give it to them when you ignore what they do after they get in.

There is a difference though between the citizenry assigning jobs to government, like police protection, fire protection, education, military, highways, taking care of the poor, the old, the sick, monitoring the safety of food supplies, those things we the people individually cannot do ourselves. There is a difference from even voting them the resources to do those jobs, as we have to pay for what we want, there is a difference between that and sitting back and trusting they will do it without us looking again. We should know where our money is going and be sure it's to what is claimed.

When there there is an educated (mostly) populace who are engaged and holds government accountable, there is more chance it'll go well. Government is not the bad guy. It's a lazy people or those who think they can get something for nothing, or those who want to abuse others and find a group way to do it, or those who ignore what their own rodents do and only worry about the other guy's, that's when government goes bad and it's as much the fault of the voters as the 'leaders'.

Don't give away your power and be sure you know what and where it is!

Photo is from Rock Creek Montana and one of the many places I go to recharge my batteries. It's wilderness. It's owned by the government, as in us; and it's there because somebody many years ago believed in setting aside land for everyone to use as a place to recreate as well as profit from timber sales and livestock leasing.

Tea partiers don't like these places because they are government owned and everybody knows what the government does is always bad. I am so grateful they are still there but it'll take those of us who don't think like a tea partier to keep them still there for future generations! Otherwise, like those wise tea partiers love to see, the wealthiest among us will own them all and the rest can stay out or pay through the nose to go in. Tea partiers... supporters of the little guy!

Taking power

Recently we saw a film that was not favored by the critics for assorted reasons but which we enjoyed quite a bit. Prince of Persia, Sands of Time, is an action type film but it's about a lot more than the usual roller coaster ride in these films. It is about power and what some do to get it. It is also about standing up for what is right-- the first time.

In Sands of Time people have the opportunity to redo decisions but life isn't so convenient. When we have given up our power, it can be very difficult to get it back. This is some of what is being argued by the tea party bunch. They think they lost power and they want it back but their problem is they don't even know who got it. They don't know how they lost it and they are operating on emotion.

Whether you are a leftie or a rightie, using fear as a tactic works against your own empowerment. We cannot get anywhere by doing what we do based on fear. Oh, I know how powerful fear can be as a tactic. We only have to look at what Americans allowed to happen after 9/11, but how much logic went into any of that? A patriot act that arbitrarily can spy on anybody, arrest anybody, torture anybody, supposedly to keep us safe. Patriot act? Do these people know what the original patriots did to gain the freedoms this generation just tossed away? Clue-- they didn't value safety all that highly or there'd have been no American Revolution.

Some would say there never should have been because Canada got their freedom without it. You know sometimes what happens one place impacts another and it's quite possible that without the American Revolution a lot of other things would not have happened as they did. What that Revolution was about was power and with the Constitution the founders tried to ensure that the power of the people would not be lost to the bankers, the richest, and foreign interests ever again.

So let's see how that's going from the right who talk so much about freedom. Take the right wing Supreme Court who gave any corporation the right to donate money to political causes (this is from this country or elsewhere) with nobody even knowing who donated the money or paid for the ad. How do you like that today when you see the Chamber of Commerce blasting Democrats and Obama, and you find out how much money they have been given by foreign interests which they claim wasn't used for those exact ads. So they used it to cover their other costs while they used their other funds (most of which came from three billionaires) to blast the Democrats.

If you really want to take back your power, start by paying no/nada/zero attention to any political ad. Turn your mind off as soon as you see them come on. Even if they are 'your' guy. Instead, look at what the candidates have said themselves in speeches, most of that is online somewhere. Look at their history. See if their lives show any evidence for their claims. Check out sites like Politifact; Truth or Fiction; and others that explore what is claimed and look at solid evidence. Read political commentators; but don't listen to those ads. They are never where you will find anything but spin.

If you want your power, you have to take it and it starts with being informed about what is involved with your own best interests, not the Koch brothers...

I feel like with no photos here, compared to its sister site, it makes this seem as though I don't value it as highly (I do); so I am going to use a few starting with my Rose of Sharon, a shrub which I love, which has a rich history Biblically speaking for its name, and which I once used as the title for one of my fiction stories because it can be started from a very dead looking little stick that eventually turns into what you see at the top of this blog. It blooms in late summer but it's worth the wait. I still have faith in our country for our own blooming. It's not over 'til it's over.

Education in America

Right now, I could write about politics every day as so many things are upsetting to me. My gosh who are we as a people? Do we really want to leave behind the weak? Is Social Darwinism what Republicans truly want? And don't even get me started on Democrats. Did they expect two years of Obama would fix everything? Will they really stay home in November to show him! Are they bored with no 'show'?

Get it straight, the ones we hurt the worst, when we vote out good leaders for someone who claims, like Christine O'Donnell, I am you, it's us we are hurting. O'Donnell who cannot pay her bills without donations, who might even have fudged how she used those donations, who has chosen Christianity as the religion that can do the most for her, who claims god is running her campaign while he can't seem to run her life, a possibly very nice lady; but one who seems ineffectual at everything she does except maybe run for office, that woman thinks she's everybody out there and that people should vote for what I would call losers as who wants somebody who actually gets an education they don't have to lie about?

Of ALL the things (and there are plenty) that the right is doing right now that worries me the most, that actually comes closest to infuriating me, it is their take on public education which many of them apparently would decimate if they could. Why would that be?

They began this with their usual say one thing and mean another--  No Child Left Behind. What that really meant was a lot of money for testing services and no real comprehension of what learning is about. Teachers hated it. Those who like to take tests loved it. Did it do anything to really educate students to be thinkers, to have basic knowledge? Who would know.

The emphasis now is to condemn teachers for the failures in these tests. Education crisis why testing and firing teachers doesn't work. Not to say there are not bad teachers but how are they evaluated? Is it when a child whose parents don't encourage them to study, where there is no support at home, when that child fails and it then is the teachers' fault? How many kids don't try enough in high school because they know they have no chance to go anywhere after it unless they agree to fight a war in a foreign land and risk being killed over there? For a lot of young people, that's their only hope to go beyond high school.

In Oregon, one of our university deans figures the cost of one year of tuition will go up to $27,000 a year in not that distant future. Who in the middle class can afford that? So is it any surprise that many kids give up before they even finish high school?

There is blame in what has gone wrong in education for the left too. How many lefties looked the other way when schools began to teach cultural rules in class time instead of say basic reading, writing and arithmetic? When schools took time out of an already packed day for teaching cultural goals, they began a path that seemed good to some but in reality opened a door to different cultural norms being taught-- like say creationism rather than the facts of science.

Teach the basics-- mathematics, history, English, time-proven literature, science, and if we manage to do that, we did a good job. We won't for every student. Some just won't care and they'd be better off taking a class in plumbing but we have to try to a certain level anyway. This country is based on an educated populace voting wisely. Giving up in the schools, means giving up on those voters.

At one time deportment was taught by example and on the playground and school bus. Kindness was dealt by examples when say a student was bullied, by how the teacher treated the students. Today they try to have classes in what is bullying but it takes precious class time and worse doesn't work when it's not led by example, when the schools have lost control. At one time being sent to the Vice-principal's office was a scary possibility. Now it is toothless. If the schools have no real authority, if parents don't exercise theirs, is it any surprise so many students are in trouble.

Here's the thing, there are lots of children, the majority still getting a good education up through the twelfth grade but what comes next? If we don't see college as a part of the whole educational thread, where do the kids go who got that high school diploma but cannot find a job without more training? Does anybody care? Not Republicans for sure as their view is either they educated their kids and it's somebody else's problem now or else they never had kids and could care less about any collective we. They ignore the fact that most of them benefited from a public education being available because this is all about them now and what's best for 'them'. To fix public education, they would offer destruction of it. Sounds typical of how they see any collective action that benefits more than themselves.

I know at least some of the schools are doing a good job based on having grandchildren in public schools. The option to letting the rest go is dooming the future of our country. It will yield an increasingly easily led population with no clue of their country's history and tricked by slick advertising of poorly animated paranormal wolves.

The thing Bush said about no child left behind sounded as good as clean air initiative or patriot act. The problem was, like the others, it never meant that!

Values Voters

Values Voters (VV from now on) is one of the names that politically oriented Christians are giving to their cause of making their religion the law of the land. By using that title, I think they indicate their belief that to have values, you must be a Christian. Well maybe they think Jews could but certainly not Islamics who they see as trapped to do whatever their Imam demands. Certainly not atheists and agnostics who cannot possibly live moral lives or care about values. This group with their agenda of taking over the country is having conventions, speakers, candidates and basically wanting to take back the United States from what I guess must be non-VV.

Prayer Warriors and Palin Organizing Spiritual Warfare to take over America

Here is my problem besides the desire to hook God into their crusade, the values they apparently think only they have relate to forcing their moral choices onto everybody else. They want what their religion teaches (which incidentally has almost nothing to do with teachings from the person they claim founded that religion) to be the law of the land.

Values Voters are apparently interested in candidates like Christine O'Donnell, those who think they are being directed by God. Now why God could not have helped her get a real job, pay her mortgage, indicate by how she lives her life that she knows how to help a country get its act together, well that's something we will have to accept as mystery, I guess.

Now I have no problem at all with people who wish to live their lives by the dictates of their religions-- unless that is hurting others. That's their right in a country that espouses freedom of religion. But what about when they want to force their so-called values onto me?

You know there are people who are VVs who are not Christians. Yes... shocking though that is. Like me for instance...  My values are that I believe I should not do things that hurt others or that hurts the earth. I believe in helping others whenever I can, not looking at those who are hurting with a shrug of my shoulder but for what could I do that might help. I believe in sharing when it really helps someone else. That's almost as simple as love your brother as yourself.

What I am saying here is that, I think that the left is also voting on values (shocking though this might be to right wing Christians but some of them are also Christians). Those values are things like not making the dollar our first priority, not damaging the environment,  taking care of the poor, educating children of us all, treating all people with respect until they prove they don't deserve it, and these values are important not just about us as individuals but as the collective us which seems lost in the rhetoric from the right. How can they talk so much about loving this country but lose sight of the fact it's made up of all of us?

****************************

I am trying to get a blog roll going here of good political blogs. I don't care if they are conservative if they offer real ideas and don't lie about the solutions they are offering. I tried to add Matt Taibi to the list but it kept giving me Rolling Stone's latest article on things that had nothing to do with politics. It's weird how blogger does that as the link works fine when I save it to my bookmarks...  So here is Taibi's latest blog and well worth reading even though it doesn't relate to Values Voters as such.

Matt Taibbi -- Obscene Tax Break Survives again

Tea & Crackers by Matt Taibi

I used to have Matt Taibi's blog linked to my blog in the days when I wrote about politics there. Then he stopped doing a regular blog and began to write from Rolling Stone and I caught his writing less frequently. This link came from seeing it on Ronni Bennett's blog.

Taibi, as usual, provides an in depth look this time at the tea party movement and is especially worth reading for those who don't know much about what is really going on or where it is heading. If all you are catching is the headlines, you need to take some time with this one. It's long but I think will prove worth your time.

Tea & Crackers How Corporate interests and Republican insiders built the Tea Party Monster by Matt Taibi

I haven't subscribed to Rolling Stone for years but they are doing some of the best political expose writing out there. If the mainstream media won't cover this kind of thing or can't, then it's good to support those who are doing it.

This article is a powerful look at what is happening politically, where it came from, and where it's heading. You thought it came up from the grassroots, think again! Tea party types won't like it or believe it. They are beyond influencing right now for voting this November. They won't believe anything that doesn't suit their preconceived agenda, the one they have been sold; but it's for anybody else who isn't quite to that point yet.