*holding my nose* Gingrich-- seriously-- Gingrich???

Some Gingrich quotes to think about when someone thinks-- anybody but Romney.

Newt Gingrich quotes that should disqualify him from being president

This is also a good set by someone who has been collecting.

Newt Gingrich quotes

Seriously we are living in one of the nuttiest times I can imagine where a man who divorced one wife while she was getting cancer treatment, betrayed another with the woman he'd now like to present to the United States as First Lady because after their lengthy affair, while he was busy impeaching Clinton (for doing basically the same thing), she held on and he married her.

Gingrich is the ultimate in sleaze and that takes a lot because it's not just about his sex life (wife number three better not get sick and it's not hard to understand why she wears the heavy makeup she does). Gingrich is a hypocrite to the ultimate order and somehow that all led him to rise to the top of the Republican primary polls. Seriously? This is all that Republicans want for their president-- an adulterer (but forgiven in Jesus), a proven liar (but forgiven in Jesus), and someone who says what it takes at any one time while he criticizes someone else for doing the same thing?  (not sure how you get forgiven from that one as it's ongoing)

So he went after others for lobbying for organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while he was getting almost $2,000,000 himself for the same thing. Oh wait, I forgot he got it for being an historian. Seriously!!!! Republicans buy that??? Who are those 30% of the Republican voters?

Oh, I know some of them-- the religious right who like it that Gingrich found religion in 2009 since he could afford it given he now had the hot babe he wanted on his arm and is so unattractive and plump that what hotter babe would want him? He has to buy this one half a million in jewelry to keep her happy. Seriously-- this guy??? They will nominate him and vote for him and why again?

Some of it has to be the nutty times in which we live. I have expressed how I feel about the Occupy movement before here but now I read encouragement for California students to basically take over the streets until they get what amounts to free tuition. I read where another pundit is claiming the entitlements will be fought for in the streets.

Let me get this straight-- we are now going to have mob rule because once again one side doesn't like what the other is doing when they win the vote? The answer is rioting which leads to violence being used against the protestors, which leads to more rioting and pretty soon we end up where exactly?

What I see here is what I remember from 2004 when the gays were encouraged to aggressively push for gay marriage ahead of the presidential election. They had an in your face attitude that didn't get them gay marriage, and reelected George W. Bush. Who do you think the current Occupy movement will elect in 2012? Who benefits from it the most as the average American finds a group telling him that he has to do this or that or they will be in his face? Not by the way mentioning how to pay for that free tuition.

That's the problem with most of these in-your-face movements which includes the Tea Party. They never calculate the cost. In the case of Occupy, it's who then will run things; and with the Tea Party it is what about the services you yourself have needed?

I think the rise of the Occupy movement has led to the rise of Gingrich and where that will lead us I have no idea but it looks like a sleazy, smug, man who likes to talk as though he's a big intellectual when what he says doesn't equal it, will be their nominee unless he's been cheating on the little woman which for now I doubt.

Some of this is funny. I mean he basically has Bill Clinton's endorsement which makes total sense. Clinton hates Obama and with Gingrich, we have two philanderers who together brought down Glass-Steagall and gave us imbalanced trade policies leading to a short-term apparent boom and where we are today with manufacturing gone overseas and unemployment skyrocketing. All of this to avoid voting for a Mormon because let's face it, that's the real religious right biggie if they prefer Gingrich, who also switches positions so fast it's hard to know what he believes.

Republicans-- this is the best you can do? How about drafting Mitch Daniels. Tell his wife at least all their laundry is out in public and known (we think) and it didn't involve him but her. It wasn't about hypocrisy but just how life is. She owes it to the country as what we need running opposite Obama is a real conservative. Do Republicans really have one?

Higher education, corporations, power, and football

Our modern world is so complex and whatever sounds simple, when I first hear about it, likely won't end up that way. So the latest example again involves our Oregon governor who once again stepped in where angels fear to tread-- good thing he wears boots. This time it involves education, power, corporations, and football.

When we were driving up I-5 after the Thanksgiving holiday with our kids, I began spinning the radio dial trying to find talk radio. We came across a Eugene station. The program was called something like raging liberal and the two guests were university professors who were irate over their University of Oregon president being fired for which they were blaming Oregon's governor and the State Board of Higher Education. The host openly said he was also connected to the university, but I forget in what way.

At first it sounded like the president had just been summarily fired and final word would go down on Monday-- which means the people must rise up to demand the state keep this paragon of virtue. Since we had come in midway, we couldn't quite figure out why the abrupt firing, but our first thought was-- is Kitzhaber nuts given this is Civil War week-end with ducks and beavers swarming into Eugene for the big game?

For this being three supposedly very articulate people, the most we got from them  was the desire they had to have Oregonians put pressure out there to keep the president because of an important meeting regarding the firing on Monday. These people, and most of their callers, were furious and the governor was taking a lot of their rage; so it was hard to understand the reasons behind the firing. They did a satirical tape comparing it to firing a winning football coach right before the big game.

To them their president was innovative, stretching into the next century for his wonderful ideas, drawing in students from other nations, pulling in so much corporate money that in a time of difficult finances UofO was swimming in money, so much so that they had all unilaterally been given raises this spring. But as they said, this was perfectly fair that the other university systems had not been because everyone knew they were the best of the best, deserved the raises and the other two-bit state universities weren't able to compete with big universities back east like UofO could. On it went and pretty soon our sympathies were changing.

As we drove between Eugene and our turn toward Corvallis, the freeway was literally filled with cars going south to the game (those who weren't probably wondered what the heck was going on). For Oregon, college sports, even now with a few professional teams, is really the only game in town and the fans are rabid. UofO almost always gets into a bowl. OSU never does which means the outcome is normally preordained although there have been those Hail Mary years which infuriates the ducks who blame them for being spoilers.

So when I got home, I started looking for the reasons behind the firing, which turns out to not be a firing but a non-renewal of contract, over which he had been warned the year before that he would only have a one-year extension to improve his non-compliance with the goals the larger system in Oregon has for its university system.  He didn't see himself as part of any larger system as it was all about him and his university and he had the power.

I read more material about the complaints going far and wide over this firing [Voices of outrage in Gabon] and  [UofO community and students outraged over firing] -- of course, this is a firing that isn't a firing but a non-renewal of a contract where warning was given as to why-- never mind facts when people get their emotions aroused. Perhaps there will now be an Occupy UofO movement to take over the university for those dissatisfied.

So I began thinking about this and what Kitzhaber is saying. In a time where our other state universities are in trouble, UofO can draw in the big corporate bucks. This president is going overseas to draw students who can pay full tuition. Yes, I see the value of multiculturalism, but isn't the first concern supposed to be to our own students and country? No?

And those corporate dollars, they have a right to donate where they want; but when they go only one place, what about the rest of the students in the state? Maybe this president and his students had no concern for the other students but isn't it the job of the governor to care for more than the elites? What Kitzhaber said is when UofO sucks up all the dollars, Oregon's university system is ending up only being about it. His concern is to make all the universities able to give good educations that can get their students jobs. How plebeian a notion.

Listening to these three people talk on the radio was a good example of how they see the other universities-- pffft. Reading about the details of the reasons later, and having listened to these the three people discussing this on the radio are enough to convince me that the State Board of Higher Education wants to do the right thing (if they aren't scared out from doing it) and Kitzhaber is once again right on-- even though he's about to be bombarded by the corporate threats of withdrawing of funds and the elites putting him down for daring to not consider their needs primarily.

The elite (by their own definition) professors said if they didn't get these raises, they would go elsewhere. Hey go for it. And if Phil Knight (Nike) wants to run our state, I suggest he run for office. I am tired of business dictating everything and when it's also our universities, turning one of them into a king and the rest serfs, I think they don't get it that we are about more than elites and the peasants. Oh wait-- that is exactly how they think it is!

Pardon the turkey?

Governor's bold death penalty stand 

Here I go again with an opinion that displeases one-third of the people, but I am cheering Oregon Governor Kitzhaber's nuanced decision to punt ahead Oregon's death penalty to either the legislature or the next governor.

If you read the article, you'll know more details; but his decision not to give a man, next in line to be executed, clemency but also not to allow his exectution while he is governor is excellent and done for the right reasons. I cheer it even when I am one of those, who 27 years ago voted to enact a possible death penalty for certain crimes.

I am not at all sure I'd do the same thing if Oregon again votes on the issue. My courtroom experience this summer, serving on a felony jury trial, even more convinced me of the difficulty of getting truly fair jury trials. So much evidence is not admissible or never gathered leaving many juries with a lot of frustration as they must make a decision that takes into account the victim, the evidence, and under the constraints of the law which might be legalese more than what appears to be practical sense. The death penalty has been way too frequently used with the poor and minorities letting the rich and whites off.

I am proud of my governor and glad we donated to his being elected-- well re-elected as he had been our governor for 8 years then had to give it up as we don't enable governors to run more than 8 years consecutively. Another democrat took it over for the next 8 years, and Kitzhaber was back running in 2010 to my pleasure. I am even more pleased now.

Yes, I don't mind the death penalty being used when the crime is with no doubt, the convicted is sane, the crime particularly heinous, was plotted out, and the miscreant is not someone who likely will ever be turned from violence (no matter how many times he/she goes to the religious altar of fogiveness). The problem is it doesn't work out that way too often.

Oregon evidently based their law on Texas's which enables too many death penalties when the basic criteria (for me) would not be met. In the last few years we have heard of executions other places of the mentally ill as well as where there really was not positive proof but a jury, sometimes for bigoted reasons, decreed it anyway.  I don't want to be part of a culture that is cheering at hangings.

On our way to the family Thanksgiving, we listened to talk radio (as usual, all you can get when away from big cities are right wing talkers). The callers were, not surprisingly rabid over this decision. He was standing in the way of the voters.

Well times change and something this important should be reevaluated once in awhile. That conversation can now be had. I think a lot of us also didn't realize that the Supreme Court would decree innocence wasn't a factor in a death penalty verdict. As long as the trial was fair, the fact that an innocent person was about to be executed is okay. Say what!!!!

The right wing host and his callers gave off with the old bromide that a death penalty saves lives because it's a deterrent. That ignores the actual facts but then since when did the right ever let facts such as that murders are actually higher in states with a death penalty [Statistics for states without death penalty and consistently lower murder rates].

Now my original reason for voting for it was one of Oregon's more violent murderers had gotten out on parole and went right out and raped and murdered again. That though can be fixed by penalties that truly mean life in prison with no chance for parole or probation.

The other thing that offends me about this particular murder sentence is that Haugen was in prison for another murder before the death penalty (within the family as so many are) where he and another prisoner murdered (heinously) another inmate with weapons they had evidently forged or had smuggled to them. So that means our prison  system was partly responsible for his ability to do what he did, which could have been a crime of passion without forethought (or maybe not) but with weapons the state, which is supposed to run these prisons, right, evidently enabled. So who was most guilty for what happened?

I don't want someone like Haugen, with obviously an uncontrollable and violent temper, ever out of prison. Life in prison does it for me though.

What has infuriated the right, to not see this execution take place December 6, is they say Kitzhaber thwarted the will of the people. Except this was last voted on 27 years ago. Maybe Oregonians will again vote for it or maybe not. We will likely have that chance and can reevaluate what the law actually does.

While we are reconsidering all of this, how about cleaning up the prison system  because the idea that prisoners have sharpened screwdrivers and shivs seems all wrong to me. Some people aren't there with a life sentence.  It'd be nice that they survived doing their time.

Daily Show Strikes Again

I'll be back with more to say about politics (probably not OWS though for awhile as I am currently a little burned out on it-- not having a lot of luck with these calls asking us for money or to make phone calls for this or that either).  Daily Show though has a way of taking events, showing the hypocrisy within them, the essential nature of human beings-- and getting us to laugh. Hey laughing is good, isn't it?  It's funny how we can laugh at others but our own foibles, not so much. Give it a try if you dare :)

Daily Show interviews of OWSers 

Occupy Wall Street means what?

 Protesters calling for day of action following loss of camp in Zuccotti Park

 Okay did the police get too brutal in various cities across the US as they told protesters the tents had to go? I guess how we see that will depend on which side we stood. It's always easier to tell those who keep the peace or fight our wars to play nice than it is to be out there on the line and trying to face something that could turn deadly-- and no doubt this has always had that possibility.

I read one story criticizing how an 82 year old woman got pepper sprayed in the face in Seattle's crackdown. Now whether that should have happened brings another question-- was she using good judgment being there and not leaving when the police said to do so? Do we get a blank check when we get old and can behave however we want in ignoring the laws? Then there is the lady who was two months pregnant and was there also getting pepper sprayed... When I was pregnant, my first priority was protecting my baby and basically it's hard for me to justify a woman who would go somewhere like that, remain when told to leave, and not first concern herself with the health of that new life within. Her motivations for staying escape me. Maybe they all thought police can't do anything. They should read the newspapers of other incidences where the police must subdue an unruly individual or a mob.

Basically, like a lot of people, I think, when Occupy Wall Street began September 17th, I was in more or less sympathy with the reasons the demonstrators had gathered. I was unsure though about what they had named their movement. Occupy Wall Street means exactly what? Take it over? I also remembered many other anarchist melees where they claimed a lot of the same things but with violence as their answer. Sounds like the media who loves to stir this up with-- oh my what will they do now-- will get their answer and what they want for a bigger story!

I never liked the idea of tent cities being equated with freedom of speech. I don't really get how a demonstration morphs into setting up living quarters on someone else's property. And don't give me that the public parks belong to them. The public parks belong to all of us, not just squatters which is what this movement was evolving into.  To me then can homeless people also set up tents downtown? It's not like they don't also have a grievance that the system is keeping them from being successful-- never you mind if it's true.

I think this whole movement got a pass from a lot of ordinary citizens for a long time as we understood the frustration at an economic system that is totally out of whack for fairness. We also want regulations or things to be done to get manufacturing back in this country, tax fairness, and having a government with reasonable policies. The big debate is over how to get such things especially given how our country is divided for what we think should be done by government. We might all see a problem but we don't see the answer the same.

As the mayors began to order the demonstrators to leave I heard statements from these young people (and yes, despite the exceptions, most there or at least arrested have so far been under 40) about how they were going to come back and reclaim what they own. Wait a minute!! They own the park where they're camped? Does that mean any rules about living anywhere have to be thrown out? Sanitation regulations kaput? Squatting is back? Begging is in on a huge scale as these places need somebody else to fund them.

Then I read how Keith Olberman called the mayor of NYC a tyrant. I wasn't there the night of the removal, to know if a polite please leave was going to work, but the mayor was a tyrant for trying to maintain law and order? I wonder how Olberman would feel about it being a tent city to end abortion or from tea party types? Somehow I think his response wouldn't be the same. The mayor was doing his job for the rest of us whether that's what the demonstrators or Olberman want. Everybody can still gather there every single day for their demonstrations. That's their freedom. Living there comes under a different category.

What I don't understand (and I didn't get it when the Supreme Court labeled a corporation a citizen for purposes of giving money) is how does setting up a tent equal freedom of speech? Does freedom of speech mean someone can set up a tent on my farm and say they should have it not me? The Native Americans who were here first might have some basis for doing that.

Some said they think the taking back of the parks will be a benefit for the movement and it might well be if they understand they have to have goals and show their strength in numbers not by disrupting everybody else's lives or threatening violence in a temper tantrum if they don't get what they want. They either evolve into more than a tent city or they are not even a comma in history-- no matter how self-important they want to think they are.

As I wrote earlier, I don't want these occupiers saying they are doing it for me. No, they are doing it for themselves and those who think like them. Even though left wing media is spreading it on thick about how it's for the country, many of us over the age of fifty anyway have a physical stake in Wall Street ourselves. I guess we are the bad guys.

The stock market is where most of our investments are centered. Now if we have been responsible in investing, we didn't put it into shady operations nor things like hedge funds or derivatives. But we are investing and people over forty do have a lot of money there. Even for those who don't have direct accounts, they have pensions funds through government or corporations that are invested there.

To the young (those under forty) that's apparently wrong. Perhaps this is now a war between young and old? Over 60 and you're the enemy if you have anything material at all?

The youth do have a problem because they are at 50% unemployment and it's not hard to see how that's going to lead to protesting or worse. Roving bands of youth who have no job and feel they have been exploited is a good way to have a lot worse violence than downtown encampments. Talk of a mayor being a tyrant won't help.

What we (those of us not demonstrating) don't know is why those kids don't have jobs. Did they go to college and get a degree in theater arts or something where there simply aren't the jobs? Are they part of the sizable population who, even in the past, never went to college, really couldn't and needed manufacturing jobs to build their homes-- and those manufacturing jobs went overseas thanks to elder mismanagement and lack of government vision?

It's not just this youth movement that doesn't have a set of goals. Our country as a whole doesn't have one either if we ever had a unified one (I've been reading a lot of history recently and it's not like this kind of conflict is new.)

We really don't know why so many of the young are unemployed in comparison to the population at large. Believe me with four grandchildren growing up, I am asking myself that question how do mine get jobs when they reach that age? What will it take to get them lives like I had? Will such opportunities even be possible? If it is, it's going to take government working to get manufacturing back here and if that means Wall Street takes a hit in stock values, I am okay with that. It needs to be balanced between investment and jobs with jobs the priority and when it's not, Houston, we have a problem.

Now with these unemployed kids, maybe it's not their doing, but then again maybe they don't want to do a job beneath their dignity and therefore aren't working not because they couldn't but because they can't find one big enough for their egos. We  really do not know (their families may); but we know they have very high unemployment numbers and that leaves them with a lot of time to lie around. Doing it in a tent downtown when food is donated and they are told by cable news pundits that they are doing it for the 99% probably sounds good to them-- except they aren't doing it for me and how many others (not in the media) really don't like their method.

My age group believed you played by the rules. We believed in our ability to change the government. Now we are told the government cannot be changed. We evidently are supposed to be donating to a tent camp with no clear goals for how to change anything or else down there ourselves, resisting arrest and being beaten with rubber batons; and if we don't, we evidently are part of the 1%-- even if we are a long way from rich.

When they talk (as the above article clams) about Molotov cocktails for Macy's who is that hitting at? Now I get how 1% own more resources than the whole other 99% but I don't get how that means that 99% all agree with these kids and the pundits behind them. nor what they mean when they say they want income equality. If that's fixing the tax rates, fine it makes sense, but it takes government to do that, doesn't it?

Generally I like left wing media pretty much but about now I've had it with them as my opinion is they are stirring this up for their own ratings. I am for now getting my news from the papers online because to listen to the cable news outlet is to hear pushing of this as though it was justified and had a good purpose to it.

Rachel has been saying that these squatter camps for demonstrating purposes were like Hoovervilles before the New Deal. Well I had to go look that one up as I didn't remember any protest settlements like that. She was wrong or she lied. Hoovervilles were homeless camps where the people built shanties to live in. They were building them on government land though or private property and often did get their villages broken up for being illegally occupied.

Hoovervilles are more like today's homeless camps or really those my grandmother talked about being down in the brush around Portland after WWII. It's not like homelessness is new to after Reagan. It comes and goes. The supposed freedom of speech claim for the tent cities can't be linked to Hoovervilles-- at least until people like Rachel reworked the definitions for her own purposes.

Any city of any size has some kind of homeless camps. I guess if these kids want to go down and join them with their tents, it might be tolerated. It's occupying downtown that turns off people who are actually going to be voting in the next election, who will be turning out to work for the causes these kids claim should claim they want. By the time I get through reading the laundry list of what they want, I see it as the platform at a Democratic Convention.

For the demonstrators, I suggest they get a job. Yes, there are jobs, just not at the wages they want, not with benefits maybe, but there are jobs advertised all the time. Go where they are if required, forget if your degree fits it. Just convince that boss you know how to work, and then work for real change through candidates-- get people to challenge the existing party leaders in the primaries. It can be done. One man-- one vote. It won't be done by whiners.

As for them taking over Wall Street, that pretty near infuriates me. So they want the money average people like me and mine saved and invested? They want what they didn't work for? What they should want is meaningful regulation on Wall Street, a tax on stock trades that would discourage short trading by those who swing the market so badly on any word of crisis. Regulation is what Wall Street needs, not having it taken over by a loud mouthed bunch who disobey the police and consider the park to be theirs because an equally loud-mouthed commentator like Keith Olberman said it should be .................

You know it's things like this that mean I'm not a liberal or part of any one group. I see what I believe is right and it's often not what the extremes want from either side. I am though that middle who actually usually determines what happens. Scream at the police and the likelihood is you will find yourself on the losing side of the next election. Wonder who that benefits!

going against the stream-- as usual

As usual for me, I am going against the grain for how most liberals appear to see the occupation movement and how I see what needs to be done. I didn't like the tent city approach to it and am not sure what that was supposed to be saying. We don't like our jobs; so will camp downtown until we get better ones? Oh wait, we are the ones without regular jobs and we will stay here until we get a job? How will staying there get you a job? It is vague for how it'd work.

I grew up when demonstrations were common, and for good reasons often. They make total sense to me.  You gather up like minded people, get a permit to gather at a city center for a group of speakers, maybe march through the city where the city has the ability to plan for orderly traffic rerouting because you aren't doing this illegally. I see the reason to show strength in numbers and have speakers who can espouse your viewpoint. No doubt about the truth in squeaky wheel gets the oil or out of sight, out of mind; but this occupy thing had a potential, as I saw it, of not getting any satisfaction for the real problems, drawing to it the wrong element (anarchists in short and by the camping the homeless who are always wandering around all our cities), and what about bathroom facilities? Without a concrete suggestion for how to fix what they see as wrong, what is its purpose? How can it gain a purpose if no suggested method is out there? Those are my doubts about it.

So this movement hasn't asked my opinion but I'll give it anyway. I think we need to find candidates who express our viewpoint, donate to them, and do what the tea party did in 2010, effectively taking over one of the seats of power, in our case, if we are lucky, all three with a plan in mind for what that means and what we expect from it.

In my view, the tea party formed and got together candidates to run but they had money and an organization behind them to do that. Big money came in the form of the Koch brothers and other wealthy hedge fund managers who didn't want to take a chance that their gravy train was about to implode.

How do we duplicate that? Well we donate money to those we hear talking like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson whether they are in our district or state. Personally we began that in 2010 when for the first time we donated to a Congressman, Pete DeFazio, who was not in our district but who we had heard stand up for the things we believe. We also had never donated to a Governor's race before, never felt we had to. Boy was I glad we had when I saw the states that got these radical tea party type governors who started trying to demolish all the rights of the ordinary people in the supposed name of liberty but in reality in the name of their big bucks donors. Donate even if a small amount as it shows numbers behind that person and those ideas.

If we don't have money to donate, we work the phones or sent out mailers or whatever it takes to get people in the House and Senate who are not just democrats in name only. That's what the tea party voters did. They got it that you can call yourself anything but it's how you vote that shows who you really are.

We have plenty of Democrats who vote regularly with the Conservatives, which I wouldn't mind so much of the word conservative hadn't been usurped by a group only interested in supporting the wealthy. Conservative as used by Republicans today has absolutely none of the meaning it used to have.

So we support people to run for office who will actually change things.  We pressure them to follow through on their promises. We have big money too who believe in liberal values. We need them to be more active, to put their money out there like George Soros, who is a hated name in right wing circles. Soros doesn't support just causes that line his own wallet but rather ones that he sees as right for the culture. You can disagree with his view on what that means, but you should respect how he works for what won't necessarily make him more money but will help others. You can't say that for the Koch brothers or the hedge fund multimillionaire who tried to take away DeFazio's seat in 2010 and will try again in '12.

I am not averse to big gatherings where people hear speakers and show their numbers; but when it comes time to block streets, to take over a park block and camp there, I think it's wrong-- and potentially unhealthy. Ever read how typhoid is spread or other plagues? Such encampments are providing the opportunity for anarchy to take over-- and without an agenda of what it's about. It can't just be-- I want what they have. That doesn't work for me. How do you propose to get it where I can think about how I feel about it, that works better for me. It's not as dramatic, but it's what democracy is supposed to be about.

When the tea party was first coming together, I heard a lot of the talk of revolution and hear it again now. Do people who use the word so loosely have any idea what that will mean? Violence as a method of achieving change usually ends up with the meanest ones in power and that most of us will not like.

Our American Revolution was an exception-- although we might've also been ahead to try an orderly method of change as when you turn to guns, it seems it's easier to think next time of the same answer and you end up with the Civil War next. The reason the Revolution though did succeed was because a revolution isn't just about winning the battles. It has to have orderly minds at the head. In 1776, they were learned men and had a plan that they could put in place. Luckier even was the toughest, most successful warrior of the lot was a man called George Washington, who resisted being put in place as an Emperor or King. You don't always get that lucky.

I don't know how long the Occupy movement will continue but I hope it evolves into working for the ones who will be able to actually make a change in our system to make taxation more fair. Oh I know the spiel about how the wealthy pay most taxes now. They pay more than 40% of the taxes. Gotcha... but they have over 90% of the wealth. Think about it for a bit and I think you can see how an equitable rate for them where they pay the same rates as everybody who isn't in poverty, that should be the goal. Not to take all they have. That's back to anarchy or like the French Revolution/s which only leads to more revolutions.

Instead aim for fair tax policies that encourage investment, that reward work, that discourage sending manufacturing overseas, that recognize there are good reasons for government and make sure government fulfills those reasons. In my opinion, that's the duty of good citizens-- not camping downtown.

Mottos meaningless... or not?

Recently with all the problems swirling around the United States, the United States House of Representatives took its time to reestablish the importance of the motto given to the United States in 1956, In God We Trust, for which they voted (except for 9 of them) to reaffirm as our motto. It's not like they had any serious problems to consider; so why not, left and right, pander to their religious base?

Most of us lefties probably haven't thought much about mottos; but now that they brought it up, it appears to me to be the problem the extreme right has today with their attitude toward all problems-- God'll fix it. God justifies it. If I did it (which you haven't proven), God forgives it-- how about a little hymn, folks! And onward it goes with global warming, poverty, dirty air or water, morality, and just about any issue you can think of which a people might face but choose not to because-- in god they trust and who cares about their fellow man. It's likely his/her fault to have such problems anyway.

It also shows the me-too party for the weaklings they are. Can't even vote against something stupid like that? Exactly for what will they stand up? Opposition party my foot. They don't even have enough gumption for that.

What it made me think about is the unofficial motto of the United States from its founding-- [e pluribus unum].  Okay, I do have to admit, it's a pretty communistic thinking-- we are one together. Wow, now that's socialism if I ever heard it (Christ-like too-- socialist that he was). And yet from 1786, it was our suggested motto to encourage our highest ideals. Damned intellectual founders putting another language onto our currency. The general meaning of each Latin word is clear: Pluribus is related to the English word: "plural." Unum is related to the English word: "unit." or "Out of one-- many". Easy to see why the far right would want to ignore that kind of thinking.

What the heck could those founders have been thinking-- that we would consider ourselves one nation, united with each other? Even people different than ourselves??? Caring for our brothers? Seems a little weird when really all we need is a mystical being to take care of all those folks-- except those the being wants to zap, you know, the bad guys those who don't agree with us (this zapping can also include winning certain sporting events).

So the party that claims how it values the Founding Fathers throws out their wisdom for a 1950s view of how life should be and maybe a little occult good luck thrown in. I mean how can that kind of god not reward a people who would say they trust in him totally? 
 

Even though it's been obvious how these people think, I would not have even thought to write about this now had not a tea party type legislator (no, I don't know he was but this is so tea party like in its simplistic, ignore real problems, kind of thinking) thought it so important to revisit the topic rather than coming up with something practical to do about our wars, jobs, environment, budget, or bank regulation. Should I thank him?  If they actually started working five days a week, one can only wonder what marvelous ideas they'd think of dealing with next...

Veterans Day

Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina exceeded even my low expectations for him by his vote against tax incentives for companies that hire veterans. He said it was a principled stand because to give those incentives was not fair. We all know how fair everything must be. I guess it is fair to ask people to risk their lives, to face the possibility of life-long injuries for serving their country but to suggest we should show our appreciation of that in a material sense-- that's not fair?

DeMint has been one of the spokesmen for the Tea Party bunch. Since they claim to be the real patriots, I hope they are paying attention to his vote when he runs again. Or maybe he plans to retire and get a lobbyist position. The Koch brothers might appreciate what he did.

I don't generally write about holidays in my blogs but Veterans Day seems like a good time to not just talk about appreciating our veterans but to put our voice behind real benefits to show our appreciation. Americans have always done that after all our wars; and if that is favoritism, then great.

I like the idea of showing some favortism to those who sacrificed to serve-- some giving the ultimate sacrifice; but keep in mind when they sign up, they don't know what they will be asked to do. Some have joined because they want an education or can't get a job in the private sector in these times; but a lot did it because they wanted to serve their country. They are a special group and we ought to materially show our appreciation for what they have done. Fortunately most Republican Senators agreed.

When you hear of a member of Congress talking about cutting veteran benefits to lower our deficit, write down their name and remember it when you vote the next time.

Those who gave so much, who are coming back to a country with even less jobs than when they left it, they deserve our thanks and a lot more than yellow ribbons. How about material benefits!

Sexuality and power

Herman Cain is so good at doing things to rile up a person that it makes it easy to forget there are others running for the Republican presidential nomination in the United States. I mean come on if anybody but him had not known China has had the nuclear bomb since the early 60s, that would have been the end of their campaign. Somehow though his fans give him a pass and maybe they will now on sexual harassment.

Pretty much the last thing I wanted to do this week was to watch either Sharon Bialek or Herman Cain discuss these harassment issues. It's plain icky, but I felt I should because it seemed important not just because of how it might mean Cain sees women but also how he sees power. In the beginning you tend to think such things are about sex. They aren't. They are about power and watching these two people showed that very clearly-- especially his press conference. (I have to look up the definition of megalomaniac as the word came to mind a lot while watching Cain. He strikes me as the kind of person that could lie and fool a lie detector because it's all about him).

But let's start with her. Sharon Bialek accused him not actually of sexual harassment. What she described was an assault; but hey it's just a technicality, right? Rush Limbaugh immediately jumped on her being a babe but implied she was coming forth now for money. If she hadn't been a beauty, he'd have demeaned her looks. As for her getting money from this, she didn't get any but that's another minor technicality. Someone like Rush probably doesn't get it that a woman like her is exactly who men like Cain would hit upon.

Beautiful √

Sexy looking √

Out of work or economically vulnerable √

No power base or strong family behind her √

Every accusation against her (Cain called her a troubled woman which is interesting since he also claimed he didn't know her ever) has only emphasized she would be a prime target and gives excellent examples as to why so many women fear speaking out.

Bottom-line, neither she or Gloria Allred have profited from speaking out; and with all the difficulty that goes with it when it's a powerful man, it's amazing any women ever speak out. I think about what Paula Jones went through when it was Governor Bill Clinton (which I am sure Republicans thought should be prosecuted). The right tends to imply Allred only does this when it's Republicans. No, she's been the voice for vulnerable women hit upon by powerful men and that has included plenty of Democrats.

Bialek didn't come forward years ago because that kind of thing happens to women, and they don't press charges. In my life, I've had such things happen. I sure never asked for it. Women don't go to the law over it unless the inappropriate touch is repeated or more is forced. Bialek said Cain put out the physical gestures, and when she said no, he backed off; but not before making it clear a job might be in the offering if she was 'responsive'.

Clearly Cain can't admit he did this or any of the other inappropriate actions that are coming out. His run for the presidency would be over as would his future big bucks on Fox News. He has to lie and he will. The problem I see is the people who will support him in the lies, who will give him the words to say, who will donate money to his campaign showing they not only don't mind but maybe like him better for what he's done.

That's why it keeps happening because there is no price to pay, and some act as though it's not a big deal. Tell that to women. It's not on a level with rape, but it's an ugly memory that women don't forget-- even if it's not a big deal to the perpetrator to the point he can forget about it. Women don't.

The hits on this woman by the vicious right are just beginning with Cain at the top of the list with what he's put out. What Cain has claimed is exactly what you'd expect from a powerful man who has no conscience, who doesn't really believe the spiritual words he espouses. He says his wife said she doesn't believe it because he hasn't done that around her. What a surprise.

So here comes Cain out to angrily justify himself as he stands there totally sure of himself, claiming he's running for president as a successful businessman which is why somebody is out to get him. Excuse me but first of all, he's been a successful lobbyist. He did run Godfather Pizza, making it successful by closing restaurants and firing employees (shades of Romney) but come on, this is a pizza chain most of us haven't ever even sampled. His work as CEO of the restaurant association was a lobbyist firm based in DC (a contract he left 6 months early).

Since then he's done work for Americans for Prosperity funded by the Koch Brothers [Herman Cain] given speeches, had a radio program as well as worked as a public speaker. His connection to the Koch brothers did not begin this year, and they are major funders of his campaign according to all I have read.

What he has done about his wife, who he brought up in this news conference, is keep her away from his business world, keep that little lady at home; and the man can do what he wants out in the big bad world.This is clearly a pattern of behavior. [Fifth woman comes forward]

When there is a culture out there that encourages men like Cain, that makes women (and boys frankly) fearful of speaking up because of threats which included death threats, from fervent followers against someone like Anita Hill, it's not hard to understand how this kind of thing happens. Anybody who excuses it (and that includes that toad Limbaugh) is part of the culture, and they should think long and hard about what they are doing as it can also happen to women they love.

No, I cannot know for sure that these women are telling the truth. It is he said/she said. But there is a pattern of behavior being illustrated (and observed by others) with a man apparently oblivious to the rules others follow. He has nothing to lose by continuing to deny it all-- unless he has a conscience of which I have seen no evidence on anything else.

Vote

Be sure you vote Tuesday. It is a privilege that some have given their lives to keep possible. I've heard the argument it doesn't matter. I say if you don't like the choices this election, vote anyway and work for better choices next time. Voting is part of living in a democracy, and I don't buy the arguments from non-voters. To me, it's an unwillingness to be responsible. Considering the price some paid for that, it's enough to make a person cry that they think they can now make a difference by sitting home. Sorry but sitting home satisfies one group and they are the victors in such a choice. Some states have more significant choices than others, like Ohio and Mississippi, but if you are voting for a governor or replacing a legislator who retired, it's critical for you too.

What We Need in Congress

I don't want this blog to turn into one of links but this is too good to not share as we rapidly approach 2012. I believe very strongly that we have to concentrate on getting Congress fixed no matter who the president is. My guess is if Republicans take control of the Senate, they'll end this ridiculous requirement to need 60 Senators to block the many filibusters.  These guys/gals are so lazy that requiring them to actually be there to filibuster, as it used to be, will end the practice except for those feeling very intensely and then let them work for it. Given the way Congress operates, the argument that a real filibuster blocks progress is blown out of the water.

Congress has given itself a sweet deal with its three day work-weeks, and the argument in the link for why that should end makes sense to me. Frankly I'd bet those new tea partiers won't care about making Congress work harder. They just want to block it doing anything by voting down anything that costs money-- except, of course, their own salaries, benefits, and pensions.

The next election should be as much or more about getting people into Congress who have principles as anything else. I think we need to be donating to campaigns not just in our own districts or states because some states will find it hard to get anyone with progressive ideas even into the primaries let alone win. Without those who can think, who learn from history, who understand what logic is, who believe in science, it won't matter who is the president.

And if you are a conservative, I recommend the same thing-- look for logic, not slick slogans. If someone says they are a brother from another mother, look beyond the joke to from where that came and what it means especially if the other brother is out to eviscerate the average working person in this country. If the saying came from a movie, it tells you something also.

The presidency matters and I don't for a moment think it doesn't, but Obama had that 60 vote majority for the Senate for about a year of his term and it didn't help when enough of those Democrats were those in name only and voted against Progressive values. Same thing if someone is a conservative, find out for what that so-called conservative really stands.

Overhaul Congress

Rachel Maddow's theory on Herman Cain

If you don't regularly see Rachel Maddow or you missed her show November 4, take some time and watch this video. She has an amazing set of facts that she has put together to form a premise that I think everybody should see. What Cain (or whoever is behind him) has decided about the American voter amazes me and makes me wonder-- is he right? Is that the intelligence and emotional level of the average Republican voter? I guess we'll find out. Anyway check this out-- it's awesome. This is the best of the best on reporting, writing and putting together a thesis from a set of facts. Really impressive whatever party you support.

herman-cain-the-practical-joke-no-one-is-getting

Campaign fodder

I have been having some good laughs lately with the Republican candidates for the presidency. It is kind of funny wondering how many different ways Romney can try to hedge his bet on one issue after another; but then he is a politician, right?

Perry is not a joke but this video is as his speech in New Hampshire went viral with good reason. A stand up comic who was ridiculing presidential candidates could do no better. He claims he wasn't drunk. I believe him; but if he's actually a standup comedian, he's good at it. He's cute. He's silly and he's obviously cutting loose.

Truthfully, I am not really averse to that in a candidate, but his statement that it was right that his state allowed students who had come illegally as a child to get in-state tuition, that finished him with the extreme righties anyway.  Still it's worth watching for the fun of this. Jon Stewart had a lot of fun with it.

Perry in the Granite State and ??? 

 I do not consider Cain to be a joke. Until the sexual harassment accusations came forward, I think he could very well have taken the presidential nomination based purely on 9-9-9 and being charming. Sounds like he was a mite too sure of his being charming in the late 90s.  Here's the thing though-- even before the accusations-- what does this kind of ad mean?

Cain Campaign-- Yellow Flowers???

Cain is obviously a bright guy but I am having a hard time understanding where he was going with that? Americans like cowboys. Put cowboys in anything and they'll like it?

The sexual harassment charge against Cain is more significant and not funny.  As usual his explanation is making it worse. I do not think he's helped either by the usual right wing bad guys (Limbaugh and Coulter) coming out in his defense and implying the charges were only brought because he's black and it was liberals who did it. Liberals would've waited for the main election; so this was by other Republicans. Why does Karl Rove's name come to mind?

First Cain said he didn't remember the incidents at all. That was ridiculous as no man who is successful and accused of such would forget it. It is embarrassing to a man at the least and very frightening at the most to have such an accusation raised and yet he forgot it? Only if there were a LOT of them is that possible.

Then he said he had nothing to do with any settlement-- then that there was money but it was just severance pay-- a full year's severance pay? Give me a break. So far he won't release the Restaurant Association from keeping the details secret. Rush has been in defense in high mode but Rush is just like that and a little nuts himself.

The more Cain talks, the worse this is for him but by now I bet he's talking for his wife more than the campaign. I read the comments from the righties as to how they see it and they blame people like me for the accusation even surfacing. It's not likely as frankly who benefits from it coming up-- Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry probably most or maybe Mitt Romney. The point is Cain was told 10 days ahead of the article surfacing. He wasn't blindsided.

It's not the first time a candidate lied about what he said or did. It won't be the last. But with Cain, it's kind of an ongoing thing. But oh wait, I can't say that because he's black right? Okay to harass Obama for all kinds of sleazy and unproven things, but different when it's a Republican even when there was a real payment to keep the matter quiet. I will believe Cain about this when he lets the Restaurant Association reveal the details. Otherwise, he's just another candidate who wants it both ways!

And yes, he is black but that doesn't give him a free ticket to sexually harass women. Are there false accusations about such behavior? You bet, but this is beginning to sound like an ongoing behavior for the man who likes to keep the little woman at home.

They will drag his wife out to deny it. Like she'd know what he says to other women. I can 'guarandamntee' you that wives often have no clue what men say to other women!

In defense of Obama

President Obama is about as unpopular with a certain segment of the left as he is of the right. I am not sure totally where this hate-- and it is hate-- comes from but it shows up with cruel cartoons and accusations that everything that goes wrong anywhere is his fault.

Now I have to put in a disclaimer here. I am not thrilled with everything he's been doing either. We gave quite healthily to his campaign in 2008 but have held off on any money so far; but the more I see the characters who represent the alternatives (except Jon Huntsman) or listen to the debates, the more I know eventually we will be donating because I can see it'll be like McCain with Palin. Obama might not be it all but they are so far the other way that for me there is no choice but to support Obama (looking at Mississippi's personhood bill is just one example or the attempt to stop government employees from being able to negotiate as unions). Incidentally, I don't agree with Huntsman either on a lot of important issues, but at least he's a thinking person.

Obama is not as liberal as many would have liked. He's a lot more of a pragmatist but some of what he's being accused of I think is very unfair. For instance some on the left consider the drone killing of the American al Qaeda leader to be murder. They wanted him to have a trial-- except that was obviously not possible given the country he was operating within. The fact that Obama has been continuing to fight the war against terrorists but has used precision tactics is not making the left any happier than when it was all out war with tanks.

Here's how I see it. We are at war but it's not with a country (momentarily). We are at war with a mindset and warriors who are willing to die to attain their ends so long as it scares or kills other people. The American who was recently killed was proud of what he was doing in recruiting more troops for that war, convincing more to be willing to die in a suicide bomb attack. This isn't like he was out there saying he was innocent. He was open that he was a traitor to his own country. He had realigned his allegiance to what he saw as a higher cause-- which was terrorism. To me then the killing of him was self-defense and an act of war. It is the price traitors have always paid.

Obama made it clear he would fight a different kind of war but he would fight it. He has done exactly that with the drone attacks. Scary? You bet but war is scary. These are tactics that are specific and aimed at those who want to or have attacked us. I don't see how we can ignore that they are there.

Torture I see as different. He claims he has not authorized it but will not give up possibly using the act of rendition which might mean transferring prisoners to those who will (although from what I have read of the current US war tactics, it doesn't seem taking prisoners is what they are trying to do. They are instead eliminating the enemy with as little collateral damage as possible.

Most of what I see Obama doing in every issue is step by step to get a goal (which is why Republicans also don't like him-- although they vary from thinking he's a dictator of rare effectiveness to totally bumbling and incapable of doing anything right). Obama's way is not dramatic and it's not showy. In the end though it keeps moving us toward goals that matter to me like getting rid of don't ask don't tell. This is why I think we will eventually get gay marriage if we don't go backward with a Republican presidency led by extremists.

Obama made a lot of liberals mad when he backed off on enforcing the ozone reductions over cities like L.A. Well that had already been set for reevaluation in 2013; so in a lot of ways it was just a tactic which didn't mean anything but because it showed up as backing off infuriated a group of former supporters. It is unfortunate that often what is showy is what gets the attention and inch by inch frustrates everybody.

If liberals do back off from him. If they don't give him donations or volunteer to help, we will get one of the Republicans running for office. Some say it won't matter if we also get a Democratic Senate and House (a long way from givens). I say keep in mind Bush with many of his years having Democratic House and Senate and he still did a lot of damage.

Wouldn't it be better to get that Democratic House and Senate with enough power to pass legislation (In other words no blue dogs-- democrats in name only)? Then if Obama fails us, we know why and we can put pressure on the House and Senate to override him. But what if he really wants what we thought he did and in 2012 we finally get a shot at seeing what Democrats might rule like if they had real power?

Finally he has given us two good, strong liberal Supreme Court Justices. IF we have a Romney or Cain, we know we will get another Alito or Roberts. That would make six, relatively young, strong right wing judges who can overturn laws we have had on the books for years, who preside in the Supreme Court as though they are above laws or precedent. It won't just be abortion that will feel the heat of that kind of Supreme Court. It will be the rights of all of us in every sense except what benefits the wealthy and the corporations who are now considered people. What a Roberts court can do when Ginsburg retires which she says she'll do after 2012, it doesn't bear thinking about. If say Kennedy also resigns or any of the five current extremist justices, if we have Obama and a Senate in Democratic hands, we could even get a Hillary Clinton. Just think about that if nothing else for the heartburn it'd give to Scalia. *s*

There are a lot of issues I'd like to see happen with a strong liberal president but it's possible the country would not vote for that. If Cain gets the Republican nomination with his very strong tea party, corporate and right wing social policy positions, it says this country is a lot further right than a lot of us hoped.