Like most people, I hold many distorted beliefs. When one of these beliefs is shattered, it can be a painful process.
I believed that U.S. veterans fought for the rights of ALL people. Not just white, middle class America, but for all of us. I also believed that they fought for our allies, and respected and upheld the constitution.
This is not true. Yesterday, several veterans paid the court costs of a woman who broke the law. She released thousands of names, along with personal information, to the media. She claimed that all of the people on "the list" were illegal immigrants, who were receiving services from the state. This woman had no way of backing her claims, she didn't work for ICE, she worked for DWS.
To me this is not about immigration, it is about the law. The same people who call these criminals "heroes", are the ones who also call this "a nation of laws". Well, if your last name is Velasquez, the law that protects your privacy, well doesn't.
I would like to remind those vets, that we are not at war with Mexico. They are in fact our allies. You swore an oath to protect ALL of us, not just the white ones. You swore an oath to protect our allies, ALL of them, not just the white ones. You swore an oath to protect our laws, ALL of them. You swore an oath to protect the constitution, ALL of it, not just the amendments you like.
By taking the side of a criminal, over your oaths, you have brought shame on the U.S. military.
Ask yourselves how many of your fellow servicemen were on that list. Quite a few Mexican,and Hispanic people serve this country. Many of their families receive food stamps and cash aid from DWS.
I don't know what to do with these feelings. Clearly I must support the troops. I do so now, with a heart that is heavier than yesterday.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
CNN Republican debate
It is 8:00 MST, I have just finished watching the live Republican debate.
so lets get right to it.
What I liked
1. I liked that Herman Cain said that states should decide the gay marriage issue. He was the only person among a seven member panel, who all say they are for more states' rights, to actually stand up for states rights. His comment proves that he is willing to stand on his principles even if it means that states do something that to his mind is not right.
2. I liked that Ron Paul took a strong stance on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What I didn't like
Well I was not surprised by anything, except the statements above.
1. Pawlenty didn't stand by his "Google test". When a question was asked about NASA Pawlenty, and all of the others, wanted to save it in some form. Does he not know about Virgin airlines?
I am not going to write a whole lot more, except to say the following.
These candidates are essentially the same person. There is nothing for anyone to get excited about. There is plenty for independent, and moderate Republican voters to be concerned about. Without exception the entire panel (if you'll pardon my language) masturbated the radical right, and the Tea Party. They were unwilling to depart from the die hard lines that have been drawn for them .
As I watched, I could not help but think of the line from Dante. "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."
so lets get right to it.
What I liked
1. I liked that Herman Cain said that states should decide the gay marriage issue. He was the only person among a seven member panel, who all say they are for more states' rights, to actually stand up for states rights. His comment proves that he is willing to stand on his principles even if it means that states do something that to his mind is not right.
2. I liked that Ron Paul took a strong stance on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What I didn't like
Well I was not surprised by anything, except the statements above.
1. Pawlenty didn't stand by his "Google test". When a question was asked about NASA Pawlenty, and all of the others, wanted to save it in some form. Does he not know about Virgin airlines?
I am not going to write a whole lot more, except to say the following.
These candidates are essentially the same person. There is nothing for anyone to get excited about. There is plenty for independent, and moderate Republican voters to be concerned about. Without exception the entire panel (if you'll pardon my language) masturbated the radical right, and the Tea Party. They were unwilling to depart from the die hard lines that have been drawn for them .
As I watched, I could not help but think of the line from Dante. "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."
Thursday, June 9, 2011
How hypocrisy aims to destroy a congressman
I truly did not think that I would be talking about this.
When Anthony Wiener gave his press conference, I figured that the news networks would run with the story. This happened as I predicted. What I didn't think would happen, was that Democrats would so quickly and willingly join in.
We truly have a problem in this country, a problem with political hypocrisy. Now I am not totally naive, I have seen proof of it again and again. What shocks me, is how it is being manifest in the case of Wiener.
Wiener admitted to having sent lewd pictures to women over the internet. When Andrew Breitbart released one of those pictures, everyone acted shocked and horrified. Why? It isn't like they hadn't been told about the picture, they had.
Despite what the media is saying, Wiener is not the first congressman to be caught sexting. Am I the only one who remembers transcripts being read of lewd texts sent to male interns?
I am going to lay all of that aside for now. The GOP and those Democrats who are calling for Wiener to resign; say that it is not because of his amorous activity. They say it is because he lied.
Lying in congress simply cannot be tolerated, they say. Well, if that is the case why are any of them still in congress. Every member of congress has either told an outright lie, or have stretched the truth to get their political agenda across.
Every congressman who has been involved in a sex scandal has lied about it. Some even broke the law to lie about it. What Wiener did is not so unique as to be the deplorable act of deception that the media and politicians are making it out to be.
We are fallible imperfect creatures, who because of the puritanical/overstimulated society that we live in, are naturally confused and embarrassed by sex. I am not excusing Wiener's behavior. What I am doing, is saying that getting caught sending pics of your privates is embarrassing. It is a perfectly normal reaction to lie about it.
The idea that lying can destroy a political career is ludicrous.
Now back to the actual lewd acts at hand.
The idea that cyber sex can destroy a political career, and that buying prostitutes did not is equally ludicrous. One is perfectly legal, the other is not.
I stand by congressman Wiener, he is a good man who gives voice to people who have no high paid lobbyists.
When Anthony Wiener gave his press conference, I figured that the news networks would run with the story. This happened as I predicted. What I didn't think would happen, was that Democrats would so quickly and willingly join in.
We truly have a problem in this country, a problem with political hypocrisy. Now I am not totally naive, I have seen proof of it again and again. What shocks me, is how it is being manifest in the case of Wiener.
Wiener admitted to having sent lewd pictures to women over the internet. When Andrew Breitbart released one of those pictures, everyone acted shocked and horrified. Why? It isn't like they hadn't been told about the picture, they had.
Despite what the media is saying, Wiener is not the first congressman to be caught sexting. Am I the only one who remembers transcripts being read of lewd texts sent to male interns?
I am going to lay all of that aside for now. The GOP and those Democrats who are calling for Wiener to resign; say that it is not because of his amorous activity. They say it is because he lied.
Lying in congress simply cannot be tolerated, they say. Well, if that is the case why are any of them still in congress. Every member of congress has either told an outright lie, or have stretched the truth to get their political agenda across.
Every congressman who has been involved in a sex scandal has lied about it. Some even broke the law to lie about it. What Wiener did is not so unique as to be the deplorable act of deception that the media and politicians are making it out to be.
We are fallible imperfect creatures, who because of the puritanical/overstimulated society that we live in, are naturally confused and embarrassed by sex. I am not excusing Wiener's behavior. What I am doing, is saying that getting caught sending pics of your privates is embarrassing. It is a perfectly normal reaction to lie about it.
The idea that lying can destroy a political career is ludicrous.
Now back to the actual lewd acts at hand.
The idea that cyber sex can destroy a political career, and that buying prostitutes did not is equally ludicrous. One is perfectly legal, the other is not.
I stand by congressman Wiener, he is a good man who gives voice to people who have no high paid lobbyists.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
An unholy union
If a new law in Florida is not contested, all welfare recipients will be subjected to drug tests. The idea is to make sure that people on welfare are not buying drugs. This law is the direct result of statements by members of congress, such as Orin Hatch. Hatch said that all people on food stamps were drug addicts, he went on to say that there were plenty of jobs to be had. He said this mere months ago, when the unemployment rate was at 9.8%.
It is a long standing myth, that the majority of persons on welfare do not need to be there. this myth is easy to perpetuate because people in lower income brackets are arrested more often. Also many of us are people of color, or have a disability.
Ever since I was young, I was aware of the unholy marriage of money and morality. This union has collected some cache among groups like the Tea Party, who see wealth as a sign of moral character.
In the book "The secret" one of the lessons is about how God wants you to be rich, only when wealth is achieved should you turn your thoughts to the needs of others. This book spread like fire through the LDS community, in a matter of months it changed how lessons were taught. This book gave people further permission to judge those around them.
This thought has so corrupted religious thinking, that the LDS church is having trouble retaining converts.
So, how does this faulty reasoning manifest?
1. It perpetuates the belief that social programs are wrong.
People believe that money equals morality, so clearly those of us who benefit from social programs are of unrighteous character.
2. It frees landlords from the responsibilities of maintaining rental properties.
I heard a contractor who was working on our home say that if people wanted nice homes they should buy them. This belief that if we were better people we would live better is deeply entrenched in society.
3. It allows bishops to ask personal questions to people who need aid from the church.
My bishop was very upset to find that my job didn't pay enough for me to eat. He made it very clear to me that I needed to change my situation all on my own.
We simply cannot allow this to continue. The idea that a hard working person is not good enough. The idea that kindness, generosity, loving care, are not admirable qualities in and of themselves. The idea that the size of your home is equal to the strength of your character. These ideas have no place in the real world. It is up to us to do away with this way of thinking. If our religious leaders allow this to be taught as doctrine, it is time to find new ones.
It is a long standing myth, that the majority of persons on welfare do not need to be there. this myth is easy to perpetuate because people in lower income brackets are arrested more often. Also many of us are people of color, or have a disability.
Ever since I was young, I was aware of the unholy marriage of money and morality. This union has collected some cache among groups like the Tea Party, who see wealth as a sign of moral character.
In the book "The secret" one of the lessons is about how God wants you to be rich, only when wealth is achieved should you turn your thoughts to the needs of others. This book spread like fire through the LDS community, in a matter of months it changed how lessons were taught. This book gave people further permission to judge those around them.
This thought has so corrupted religious thinking, that the LDS church is having trouble retaining converts.
So, how does this faulty reasoning manifest?
1. It perpetuates the belief that social programs are wrong.
People believe that money equals morality, so clearly those of us who benefit from social programs are of unrighteous character.
2. It frees landlords from the responsibilities of maintaining rental properties.
I heard a contractor who was working on our home say that if people wanted nice homes they should buy them. This belief that if we were better people we would live better is deeply entrenched in society.
3. It allows bishops to ask personal questions to people who need aid from the church.
My bishop was very upset to find that my job didn't pay enough for me to eat. He made it very clear to me that I needed to change my situation all on my own.
We simply cannot allow this to continue. The idea that a hard working person is not good enough. The idea that kindness, generosity, loving care, are not admirable qualities in and of themselves. The idea that the size of your home is equal to the strength of your character. These ideas have no place in the real world. It is up to us to do away with this way of thinking. If our religious leaders allow this to be taught as doctrine, it is time to find new ones.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Disecting Pawlenty's plan
Tim Pawlenty has come out with his budget plan. I wanted to take the time and walk you through it, hopefully explaining where he goes wrong.
"Between 1983 and 1987 --- the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9%. Between 1996 and 1999 ---- under President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress. The economy grew at more than 4.7%. In each case millions of new jobs were created --- incomes rose --- and unemployment fell to historic lows. The same can happen again. "
This statement does not take into account the fact that both Regan and Clinton raised taxes. There can be no real growth without revenue.
"American businesses today pay the second highest tax rates in the world. That's a recipe for failure --- not adding jobs and economic growth. We should cut the business tax rate by more than half. I propose reducing the current rate from 35% to 15%. "
All of the countries that are part of the EU had to agree to strict tax cuts for businesses. This led to economic failure. It would be wise to make sure that companies actually paid their taxes before giving them yet another tax break.
"A balanced federal budget shouldn't be a political sound bite. It should be the law of the land."
this is downright ridiculous. The federal government cannot balance it's budget every year. Add on your new policies, and it becomes even harder. How can we balance a budget if we are cutting revenue from all revenue sources?
"For example --- I've proposed capping and block-granting Medicaid to the states"
By sending each state money for Medicaid you ensure that disabled adults have no access to care. By capping the amount you send, you ensure that families and individuals who fall on hard times cannot get access to health care.
"There's some obvious targets. We can start by applying what I call "The Google Test." If you can find a good or service on the Internet. Then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it. "
This has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read.
Here are his examples of things we should not do any more.
"The post office --- the government printing office --- Amtrak --- Fannie and Freddie were all built for a different time in our country. When the private sector did not adequately provide those services. That's no longer the case."
Let me take these one at a time.
1. The post office. Though it is true that companies like Fed ex and others allow you to send packages, they do not have access to mail boxes. If we gave these private companies access to mail boxes, people in rural areas would lose mail service. It is simply not worth it to a private company to send trucks out to rural areas. The cost they would have to pass on to the customer would be so much that people in rural areas would not be able to afford it.
2. The government printing office. If we sent all government printing to a private firm, that would be the only account they could have. Thus creating the same thing we have now.
3. Amtrak. Without light rail Amtrak is the only passenger train. Greyhound buses are not wheelchair accessible so millions of passengers would not be allowed to travel.
4. Fannie, and Freddie. Pawlenty is simply wrong when he says that a person can get an affordable guaranteed loan from a private lender.
The private sector cannot and does not provide these services.
"Between 1983 and 1987 --- the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9%. Between 1996 and 1999 ---- under President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress. The economy grew at more than 4.7%. In each case millions of new jobs were created --- incomes rose --- and unemployment fell to historic lows. The same can happen again. "
This statement does not take into account the fact that both Regan and Clinton raised taxes. There can be no real growth without revenue.
"American businesses today pay the second highest tax rates in the world. That's a recipe for failure --- not adding jobs and economic growth. We should cut the business tax rate by more than half. I propose reducing the current rate from 35% to 15%. "
All of the countries that are part of the EU had to agree to strict tax cuts for businesses. This led to economic failure. It would be wise to make sure that companies actually paid their taxes before giving them yet another tax break.
"A balanced federal budget shouldn't be a political sound bite. It should be the law of the land."
this is downright ridiculous. The federal government cannot balance it's budget every year. Add on your new policies, and it becomes even harder. How can we balance a budget if we are cutting revenue from all revenue sources?
"For example --- I've proposed capping and block-granting Medicaid to the states"
By sending each state money for Medicaid you ensure that disabled adults have no access to care. By capping the amount you send, you ensure that families and individuals who fall on hard times cannot get access to health care.
"There's some obvious targets. We can start by applying what I call "The Google Test." If you can find a good or service on the Internet. Then the federal government probably doesn't need to be doing it. "
This has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read.
Here are his examples of things we should not do any more.
"The post office --- the government printing office --- Amtrak --- Fannie and Freddie were all built for a different time in our country. When the private sector did not adequately provide those services. That's no longer the case."
Let me take these one at a time.
1. The post office. Though it is true that companies like Fed ex and others allow you to send packages, they do not have access to mail boxes. If we gave these private companies access to mail boxes, people in rural areas would lose mail service. It is simply not worth it to a private company to send trucks out to rural areas. The cost they would have to pass on to the customer would be so much that people in rural areas would not be able to afford it.
2. The government printing office. If we sent all government printing to a private firm, that would be the only account they could have. Thus creating the same thing we have now.
3. Amtrak. Without light rail Amtrak is the only passenger train. Greyhound buses are not wheelchair accessible so millions of passengers would not be allowed to travel.
4. Fannie, and Freddie. Pawlenty is simply wrong when he says that a person can get an affordable guaranteed loan from a private lender.
The private sector cannot and does not provide these services.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Republican candidates
Ron Paul
1 says that he would do away with the ADA, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid,
2 believes that a business owner can choose to discriminate against any kind of person he does not like.
3 believes that public schools should be closed. School is a privilege not a right.
Newt Gingrich
Same as above with a few exceptions
1 if you hold public office, having an affair is "Patriotic"
2 As far as I can gather he believes in public schools.
Mitt Romney
1. Passed health care reform that is exactly the same as the affordable care act. He says that it was a good idea for his state, but the rest of the country doesn't need insurance. Did not mention his reform when he rolled out his new website.
2. Believes that giving money to small businesses is the same as socialism.
3. After saying that the auto bailout worked, he said that Obama was "the worst president".
Tim Pawlenty
1.Wants to eliminate ethanol subsidies while keeping them for big oil.
2. Wants Medicare doctors to be paid not just by volume but based on patient outcome. I like this idea actually. Those of us who have Medicare, or Medicaid know that quality of care is sometimes non existent. This idea at least tries to tackle the problem of fraud in the system.
Michelle Bachman
1. Repeal the affordable care act.
2. Amend the constitution so that it defines marriage as one man one woman.
3. Create jobs. (I guess)
4. De fund planned parenthood
Herman Cain
1. End all social programs, so that churches can take care of the poor.
2. Repeal the affordable care act.
3. End regulation of businesses, they will make the air and working conditions safer on their own.
Rick Santorum
1. End all regulation.
2. Repeal the affordable care act.
So there you have it. God help die hard Republicans if they don't field a better set of candidates than this.
All of these candidates are Tea Party suck ups. Where is the real Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)