Ripped from the headlines of the day -- well, actually, December 14, 2012, I reworked the lyrics of Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth." Yes, I give Stephen Stills co-writing credit. :P
There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Dead children everywhere
I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
One side is right; the other side is wrong
Which side are you on?
Children singing songs over here
Merchants of Death over there
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
They open their bloody coats by the neck
Pull out their blood-stained wallets and cash their bloody checks
While singing "Hi Ho Hi Ho"
"It's off to work we go"
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
Blood is running in the street
The paranoia of the Merchants Of Death runs deep
They are always afraid
Step out of line, the Man comes and takes your gun away.
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
P.S.: To my gun-loving buddies, I actually favor an EXPANSION of gun rights, but "Merchants Of Death" is an effective poem. Just trying to keep the ol' mind nimble by trying poetry....
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Friday, April 19, 2013
Post #367 April 17: A Date Which Will Live In Infamy
----- Start Forwarded Message -----
Sent: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:24:12 -0500
From: "The White House" <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>
Subject: Shameful
The White House, Washington
Wednesday, President Obama stood with parents who lost children in the Newtown tragedy and said: "All in all, today was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
"That's because a minority of senators blocked legislation that would have made America safer and better protected our kids. Forty-five lawmakers stood in the way of improvements to the background check system that would keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable -- something that 90 percent of Americans support.
"A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies -- including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who's here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers -- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.
"Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders -- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn't worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.
"By now, it's well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We're talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that's already the law.
"And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it's not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.
"A majority of senators voted "yes" to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.
"I'm going to speak plainly and honestly about what's happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with "A" grades from the NRA -- come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.
"As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.
"Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both -- she's a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.
"In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn't contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That's why 90 percent of the American people supported it.
"But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of "big brother" gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn't matter.
"And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they're all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.
"But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn't want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics -- the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.
"And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- to vote "no."
"One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn't prevent all future massacres. And that's true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand -- if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.
"And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.
"I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn't make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?
"I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. "A prop," somebody called them. "Emotional blackmail," some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?
"So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
"But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don't give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We're going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We're going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We're going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.
"But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.
"To all the people who supported this legislation -- law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are -- you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don't act this time, you will remember come election time.
"To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn't represent your views on this one.
"The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they're better organized. They're better financed. They've been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that's the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can't get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.
"So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you've got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.
"And that's the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don't know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they've doing over the last several weeks, last several months.
"And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We're going to have to change. That's what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn't happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.
"And I'm assuming that the emotions that we've all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we've all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago -- the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who've lost a loved one to gun violence -- I'm assuming that's not a temporary thing. I'm assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.
"I believe we're going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people.
"Thank you very much, everybody."
---- End Forwarded Message -----
Sent: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:24:12 -0500
From: "The White House" <info@messages.whitehouse.gov>
Subject: Shameful
The White House, Washington
Wednesday, President Obama stood with parents who lost children in the Newtown tragedy and said: "All in all, today was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
"That's because a minority of senators blocked legislation that would have made America safer and better protected our kids. Forty-five lawmakers stood in the way of improvements to the background check system that would keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable -- something that 90 percent of Americans support.
"A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies -- including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who's here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers -- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.
"Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders -- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn't worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.
"By now, it's well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We're talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that's already the law.
"And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it's not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.
"A majority of senators voted "yes" to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.
"I'm going to speak plainly and honestly about what's happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with "A" grades from the NRA -- come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.
"As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.
"Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both -- she's a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.
"In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn't contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That's why 90 percent of the American people supported it.
"But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of "big brother" gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn't matter.
"And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they're all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.
"But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn't want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics -- the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.
"And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- to vote "no."
"One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn't prevent all future massacres. And that's true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand -- if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.
"And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.
"I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn't make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?
"I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. "A prop," somebody called them. "Emotional blackmail," some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?
"So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
"But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don't give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We're going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We're going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We're going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.
"But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.
"To all the people who supported this legislation -- law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are -- you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don't act this time, you will remember come election time.
"To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn't represent your views on this one.
"The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they're better organized. They're better financed. They've been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that's the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can't get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.
"So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you've got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.
"And that's the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don't know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they've doing over the last several weeks, last several months.
"And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We're going to have to change. That's what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn't happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.
"And I'm assuming that the emotions that we've all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we've all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago -- the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who've lost a loved one to gun violence -- I'm assuming that's not a temporary thing. I'm assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.
"I believe we're going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people.
"Thank you very much, everybody."
---- End Forwarded Message -----
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
ost #366 Re: BIG Dance
I will be pulling hard for Miami and Duke. I hate Duke --pure jealousy here -- and will routinely pull against them in the conference, the ACC, but I also realize that it makes the conference look good for Duke to win out-of-conference. Thank Goodness North Carolina is already gone. I will NEVER pull for Carolina, tho -- yes, my hatred runs deep!
You probably want to know: Why not give Carolina the same benefit as Duke --that is, hate them in the conference but pull for them outside the conference? Is not your deep-rooted hatred irrational and unhealthy? Maybe. I hate Duke for their success; I hate Carolina for their success. Indeed, the ACC used to be popularly known as the All North Carolina State Conference at its beginning -- now it is the All Carolina Conference. But that is just jealousy, too. Well, actually, my hatred runs deeper.
Sportsmanship, a sense of fair play -- players shake hands and compete on a level playing field. But Carolina has titled the playing field. The University has stepped in with their own institutionalized fraud -- bogus classes, bogus degrees, a scheme to pass athletes through the system while helping them remain academically eligible. This unfairly gave Carolina a significant competitive advantage over their fellow ACC and NCAA members which led to bragging rights and untold extra money in endorsements, booster donations and brand awareness. That is why I hate Carolina -- they don't play fair and refuse to even acknowledge their cheating ways.
Read the Martin report, a look at Carolina academics prepared by the former governor of North Carolina, Jim Martin. He found 670 instances of cheating -- 216 bogus classes which had little or no instructions and 454 unauthorized grade changes (for those keeping score at home, that is a little more than 44 instances of cheating per year) -- dating back to '97. He said this was isolated in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies and blamed one rogue professor (who, incredibly, would have had to taught a little more than 14 bogus classes per year) and one rogue administrator. Of course, Martin, a UNC grad, holds no one accountable -- not even the two rogues. [rolleyes]
When Chancellor Holden Thorp finally 'steps out the door.' (he is retiring, not because he instigated the scandal but because he oversaw the exposure) he ought to issue an apology -- expressing remorse and regret and an acknowledgement of what happened, how it happened and why it happened and a promise to fix things. "We're sorry. We cheated. We empowered Jock-Sniffing Professors to step in with their own institutionalized fraud -- bogus classes, bogus degrees, a scheme to pass athletes through the system while helping them remain academically eligible. This happened because of our mis-guided faith in The Carolina Way which enabled us to fail to properly oversee The Carolina Way to make sure that it was working as advertised. It wasn't. We did this to unfairly give ourselves a significant competitive advantage over our fellow ACC and NCAA members which led to bragging rights and untold extra money in endorsements, booster donations and brand awareness. We promise to never do this again and are taking steps to tighten our oversight. Again, we apologize." No names were besmirched, no reputations ruined. Is that too much to ask?
You probably want to know: Why not give Carolina the same benefit as Duke --that is, hate them in the conference but pull for them outside the conference? Is not your deep-rooted hatred irrational and unhealthy? Maybe. I hate Duke for their success; I hate Carolina for their success. Indeed, the ACC used to be popularly known as the All North Carolina State Conference at its beginning -- now it is the All Carolina Conference. But that is just jealousy, too. Well, actually, my hatred runs deeper.
Sportsmanship, a sense of fair play -- players shake hands and compete on a level playing field. But Carolina has titled the playing field. The University has stepped in with their own institutionalized fraud -- bogus classes, bogus degrees, a scheme to pass athletes through the system while helping them remain academically eligible. This unfairly gave Carolina a significant competitive advantage over their fellow ACC and NCAA members which led to bragging rights and untold extra money in endorsements, booster donations and brand awareness. That is why I hate Carolina -- they don't play fair and refuse to even acknowledge their cheating ways.
Read the Martin report, a look at Carolina academics prepared by the former governor of North Carolina, Jim Martin. He found 670 instances of cheating -- 216 bogus classes which had little or no instructions and 454 unauthorized grade changes (for those keeping score at home, that is a little more than 44 instances of cheating per year) -- dating back to '97. He said this was isolated in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies and blamed one rogue professor (who, incredibly, would have had to taught a little more than 14 bogus classes per year) and one rogue administrator. Of course, Martin, a UNC grad, holds no one accountable -- not even the two rogues. [rolleyes]
When Chancellor Holden Thorp finally 'steps out the door.' (he is retiring, not because he instigated the scandal but because he oversaw the exposure) he ought to issue an apology -- expressing remorse and regret and an acknowledgement of what happened, how it happened and why it happened and a promise to fix things. "We're sorry. We cheated. We empowered Jock-Sniffing Professors to step in with their own institutionalized fraud -- bogus classes, bogus degrees, a scheme to pass athletes through the system while helping them remain academically eligible. This happened because of our mis-guided faith in The Carolina Way which enabled us to fail to properly oversee The Carolina Way to make sure that it was working as advertised. It wasn't. We did this to unfairly give ourselves a significant competitive advantage over our fellow ACC and NCAA members which led to bragging rights and untold extra money in endorsements, booster donations and brand awareness. We promise to never do this again and are taking steps to tighten our oversight. Again, we apologize." No names were besmirched, no reputations ruined. Is that too much to ask?
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Post #365 See Ya 'Round
My eye treatments did NOT work -- well, FULLY. The right eye is good; the left eye is bleeding again. The doc is trying to figure the next step. Um, well, if I have to get more treatments, I will get more treatments. I'd rather be shot than to get more treatments, but I'd also rather be shot than to go blind. But what can you do? So, I am going to take an indefinite leave of absence -- that sounds better than "quitting." ;O
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Post #364 Happiness Is A Warm Gun! Pt. II
Some of my best friends still own guns, and they haven't killed anyone lately! :p
Personally, I sleep with a loaded baseball bat under my bed. On a strict risk analysis, it makes no sense for me to own a gun. Gun violence around here is shown in suicides, hunting accidents, justifiable homicide -- that husband needed killing -- and, uh, breakdowns of family education -- lil' Johnnie found his father's gun and shot his brother.
Indeed, my own risk analysis tend to back up national studies which show that binging a gun into your home is more likely to harm you or a family member than any intruder. But, if you that paranoid, well, go ahead.
There has been only one case around here in the past 40 years of gun violence with a hoodlum intruding -- that hoodlum had the gun and shot BEFORE the victim could get his own gun. Yes, it was a targeted assassination, and I learned not to make enemies. :p
However, I support everybody having a gun for hunting or self-defense, if they so choose -- either by the law or a Constitutional amendment. Since the Constitution dos not mention hunting or self-defense -- only being in a well-equipped citizen army -- as a reason for owning a gun, I'd support a Constitutional amendment saying so.
The Founding Fathers were no dummies. There is probably a reason the right to own guns is a qualified right. There is also probably a reason the right to own guns is in the 2nd Amendment, not the 1st.
I am a BIG believer in our Constitution, exactly as written. Too bad that Wayne LaPierre and other Nuts cannot read. I even support the EXPANSION of rights through the amendment process, as outlined in the Constitution.
As a practical matter, banning guns does not work.
But a semi-automatic assault rifle with a magazine larger than six bullets, a machine gun or anything that sprays bullets is not really a weapon used in hunting or self-defense -- no one except law enforcement or the military has the need to possess such; thusly, I'd have no qualms with banning the sale and manufacture of such Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The Constitution has no qualms, either.
After all, guns do not kill people, bullets kill people. Limit magazines to, say, six bullets. If you can't stop an intruder with six shots, you probably deserve to be intruded upon! :p
No one want to prevent "good people" from owning guns or obtaining concealed weapons permits should they qualify or sleeping with the barrel of their gun in their mouth (like Gomer Pyle -- ;O) . Possessing an "arsenal" of weapons, ammunition or explosives is evidence of intent to kill or maim or do serious damage and worthy of serious jail time.
Same principal as with drugs. Get caught with one or two joints, slap on the wrist and a diversionary program leading to dismissal. Get caught with 50 lbs of marijuana, you'll spend quite a few years in prison because you're a dealer.
An armed society is a polite society, right? More guns!?! [rolleyes]
Let's try to limit the damage, shall we?
Personally, I sleep with a loaded baseball bat under my bed. On a strict risk analysis, it makes no sense for me to own a gun. Gun violence around here is shown in suicides, hunting accidents, justifiable homicide -- that husband needed killing -- and, uh, breakdowns of family education -- lil' Johnnie found his father's gun and shot his brother.
Indeed, my own risk analysis tend to back up national studies which show that binging a gun into your home is more likely to harm you or a family member than any intruder. But, if you that paranoid, well, go ahead.
There has been only one case around here in the past 40 years of gun violence with a hoodlum intruding -- that hoodlum had the gun and shot BEFORE the victim could get his own gun. Yes, it was a targeted assassination, and I learned not to make enemies. :p
However, I support everybody having a gun for hunting or self-defense, if they so choose -- either by the law or a Constitutional amendment. Since the Constitution dos not mention hunting or self-defense -- only being in a well-equipped citizen army -- as a reason for owning a gun, I'd support a Constitutional amendment saying so.
The Founding Fathers were no dummies. There is probably a reason the right to own guns is a qualified right. There is also probably a reason the right to own guns is in the 2nd Amendment, not the 1st.
I am a BIG believer in our Constitution, exactly as written. Too bad that Wayne LaPierre and other Nuts cannot read. I even support the EXPANSION of rights through the amendment process, as outlined in the Constitution.
As a practical matter, banning guns does not work.
But a semi-automatic assault rifle with a magazine larger than six bullets, a machine gun or anything that sprays bullets is not really a weapon used in hunting or self-defense -- no one except law enforcement or the military has the need to possess such; thusly, I'd have no qualms with banning the sale and manufacture of such Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The Constitution has no qualms, either.
After all, guns do not kill people, bullets kill people. Limit magazines to, say, six bullets. If you can't stop an intruder with six shots, you probably deserve to be intruded upon! :p
No one want to prevent "good people" from owning guns or obtaining concealed weapons permits should they qualify or sleeping with the barrel of their gun in their mouth (like Gomer Pyle -- ;O) . Possessing an "arsenal" of weapons, ammunition or explosives is evidence of intent to kill or maim or do serious damage and worthy of serious jail time.
Same principal as with drugs. Get caught with one or two joints, slap on the wrist and a diversionary program leading to dismissal. Get caught with 50 lbs of marijuana, you'll spend quite a few years in prison because you're a dealer.
An armed society is a polite society, right? More guns!?! [rolleyes]
Let's try to limit the damage, shall we?
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Post #363 "Merchants Of Death"
* Me and Stephens Stills
There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Dead children everywhere
I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
One side is right; the other side is wrong
Which side are you on?
Children singing songs over here
Merchants of Death over there
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
They open their bloody coats by the neck
Pull out their blood-stained wallets and cash their bloody checks
While singing "Hi Ho Hi Ho"
"It's off to work we go"
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
Blood is running in the street
The paranoia of the Merchants Of Death runs deep
They are always afraid
Step out of line, the Man comes and takes your gun away.
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Dead children everywhere
I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
One side is right; the other side is wrong
Which side are you on?
Children singing songs over here
Merchants of Death over there
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
They open their bloody coats by the neck
Pull out their blood-stained wallets and cash their bloody checks
While singing "Hi Ho Hi Ho"
"It's off to work we go"
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
Blood is running in the street
The paranoia of the Merchants Of Death runs deep
They are always afraid
Step out of line, the Man comes and takes your gun away.
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
We better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Post #362 Where Were The Good Guys With Guns?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/justice/illinois-teen-shot/index.html
How would more guns in society have saved her life?
How would more guns in society have saved her life?
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Post #361 Merry Christmas!
It's Christmas time
There's no need to be afraid
At Christmas time
We let in light and we banish shade
The White House, Friday, December 14, 2012
President Barack Obama on the shooting in Connecticut:
"This afternoon, I spoke with Governor Malloy and FBI Director Mueller. I offered Governor Malloy my condolences on behalf of the nation, and made it clear he will have every single resource that he needs to investigate this heinous crime, care for the victims, counsel their families.
"We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. And each time I learn the news I react not as a President, but as anybody else would -- as a parent. And that was especially true today. I know there's not a parent in America who doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.
"The majority of those who died today were children -- beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them -- birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own. Among the fallen were also teachers -- men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams.
"So our hearts are broken today -- for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these little children, and for the families of the adults who were lost. Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children's innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no words that will ease their pain.
"As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it's an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago -- these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.
"This evening, Michelle and I will do what I know every parent in America will do, which is hug our children a little tighter and we'll tell them that we love them, and we'll remind each other how deeply we love one another. But there are families in Connecticut who cannot do that tonight. And they need all of us right now. In the hard days to come, that community needs us to be at our best as Americans. And I will do everything in my power as President to help.
"Because while nothing can fill the space of a lost child or loved one, all of us can extend a hand to those in need -- to remind them that we are there for them, that we are praying for them, that the love they felt for those they lost endures not just in their memories but also in ours.
"May God bless the memory of the victims and, in the words of Scripture, heal the brokenhearted and bind up their wounds."
We know it's Christmas time.
America can do better.
There's no need to be afraid
At Christmas time
We let in light and we banish shade
The White House, Friday, December 14, 2012
President Barack Obama on the shooting in Connecticut:
"This afternoon, I spoke with Governor Malloy and FBI Director Mueller. I offered Governor Malloy my condolences on behalf of the nation, and made it clear he will have every single resource that he needs to investigate this heinous crime, care for the victims, counsel their families.
"We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. And each time I learn the news I react not as a President, but as anybody else would -- as a parent. And that was especially true today. I know there's not a parent in America who doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.
"The majority of those who died today were children -- beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them -- birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own. Among the fallen were also teachers -- men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams.
"So our hearts are broken today -- for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these little children, and for the families of the adults who were lost. Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children's innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no words that will ease their pain.
"As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it's an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago -- these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.
"This evening, Michelle and I will do what I know every parent in America will do, which is hug our children a little tighter and we'll tell them that we love them, and we'll remind each other how deeply we love one another. But there are families in Connecticut who cannot do that tonight. And they need all of us right now. In the hard days to come, that community needs us to be at our best as Americans. And I will do everything in my power as President to help.
"Because while nothing can fill the space of a lost child or loved one, all of us can extend a hand to those in need -- to remind them that we are there for them, that we are praying for them, that the love they felt for those they lost endures not just in their memories but also in ours.
"May God bless the memory of the victims and, in the words of Scripture, heal the brokenhearted and bind up their wounds."
We know it's Christmas time.
America can do better.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Post #360 Enjoy The View From The Back Of The Bus! :p, Pt. II
President Barack Obama has done stepped in it. His news conference on Wednesday -- at which he did not use a teleprompter, by the way, pre-empted "The Bold & The Beautiful." Any bounce from his re-election is now gone. :p
Anywho (WARNING: Uh, adult language):
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-to-spot-b.s.-political-story-in-under-10-seconds
#6 You are threatened with The Truth backed up by True Facts.
Anywho (WARNING: Uh, adult language):
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-to-spot-b.s.-political-story-in-under-10-seconds
#6 You are threatened with The Truth backed up by True Facts.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Post #359 Enjoy The View From The Back Of The Bus! :p
George W. Bush was so bad that he has been beaten... twice... by a black Muslifrom Kenya. ;O The OBAMATRAIN, the hippist trip in America!
Seriously, TV is no longer in black and white -- this country has changed. We are no longer PALE, MALE and STALE. Embrace the change or continue to get left behind.
You'd think that Republicans would stop visiting that ol' "trickle down" well -- which has obviously run dry. Fresh ideas are needed. Here's one: Tie tax cuts to job creation. If a business creates a new job for a whole year, give 'em a tax cut.
To do so, to tie tax cuts to job creation, would expose the BIG Lie of Republicans: That is, tax cuts (and deregulation) lead to job creation. And where do tax cuts (and deregulation) fit into the law of Supply & Demand? They don't: Tax cuts (and deregulation) have nothing to do with job creation; tax cuts are how the right redistributes wealth. It's social engineering brought to you by your favorite (R).
Look a the case of Continental Tire, for example. Why did they spurn North Carolina and choose South Carolina? Were our taxes too high? Did we have too much regulation? Was it because we lacked an anti-gay Amendment to our state Constitution then? No, we lost Continental Tire because we refused to pay 'em a $45 million bribe --South Carolina paid a $30 million bribe.
The days of ol' Republican talking points are gone -- tax cuts for the wealthy, the fear of "them." Sing it, Ayn Rand:
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
Brotherhood -- a feeling of fellowship and sympathy and compassion for other people.
Seriously, TV is no longer in black and white -- this country has changed. We are no longer PALE, MALE and STALE. Embrace the change or continue to get left behind.
You'd think that Republicans would stop visiting that ol' "trickle down" well -- which has obviously run dry. Fresh ideas are needed. Here's one: Tie tax cuts to job creation. If a business creates a new job for a whole year, give 'em a tax cut.
To do so, to tie tax cuts to job creation, would expose the BIG Lie of Republicans: That is, tax cuts (and deregulation) lead to job creation. And where do tax cuts (and deregulation) fit into the law of Supply & Demand? They don't: Tax cuts (and deregulation) have nothing to do with job creation; tax cuts are how the right redistributes wealth. It's social engineering brought to you by your favorite (R).
Look a the case of Continental Tire, for example. Why did they spurn North Carolina and choose South Carolina? Were our taxes too high? Did we have too much regulation? Was it because we lacked an anti-gay Amendment to our state Constitution then? No, we lost Continental Tire because we refused to pay 'em a $45 million bribe --South Carolina paid a $30 million bribe.
The days of ol' Republican talking points are gone -- tax cuts for the wealthy, the fear of "them." Sing it, Ayn Rand:
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
Brotherhood -- a feeling of fellowship and sympathy and compassion for other people.
Monday, November 05, 2012
Post #358 The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is...
... a dancing horse on the White House lawn! ;O
Seriously, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said in 1933:
"[T]he only thing we have to fear is... fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."
Ahh, Roosevelt knew.
"[W]e now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good."
And it starts at the top.
"One thing about discipline... you don't discipline the bottom," Tom O'Brien, the head football coach at N.C. State University and ex-Marine, said. "You discipline the people at the top and when you do, then everybody stands up and pays attention."
For example, Mitt Romney wants everyone to pay the same tax rate. Me, too. Eliminate the Social Security tax cap -- make Romney (and members of Congress and the President) pay the same rate as I do. My Grandma, when she died last year, was drawing $470 a month. That works out to a little bit less than what someone pays who pays the cap. Members of Congress support a little more than one Grandma every year but could support two Grandmas (if they paid the same rate as I do on all of their income). John McCain supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support four Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Barack Obama supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 17 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Mitt Romney supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 300 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Who is ripping off Grandma? It starts at the top.
Mitt Romney is the tallest boy in class. When the bell rings for recess and everybody runs outside to play dodge ball, the ball sits on a high shelf in the back of the room within easy reach of Romney who had tall parents. Romney refuses to get it, saying he is under no obligation to get the ball and the solution is for the other kids to grow. Half of the class thinks he is selfish jerk; the other half thinks he is right -- even some kids with short parents.
* sigh *
Seriously, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said in 1933:
"[T]he only thing we have to fear is... fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory."
Ahh, Roosevelt knew.
"[W]e now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good."
And it starts at the top.
"One thing about discipline... you don't discipline the bottom," Tom O'Brien, the head football coach at N.C. State University and ex-Marine, said. "You discipline the people at the top and when you do, then everybody stands up and pays attention."
For example, Mitt Romney wants everyone to pay the same tax rate. Me, too. Eliminate the Social Security tax cap -- make Romney (and members of Congress and the President) pay the same rate as I do. My Grandma, when she died last year, was drawing $470 a month. That works out to a little bit less than what someone pays who pays the cap. Members of Congress support a little more than one Grandma every year but could support two Grandmas (if they paid the same rate as I do on all of their income). John McCain supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support four Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Barack Obama supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 17 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Mitt Romney supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 300 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Who is ripping off Grandma? It starts at the top.
Mitt Romney is the tallest boy in class. When the bell rings for recess and everybody runs outside to play dodge ball, the ball sits on a high shelf in the back of the room within easy reach of Romney who had tall parents. Romney refuses to get it, saying he is under no obligation to get the ball and the solution is for the other kids to grow. Half of the class thinks he is selfish jerk; the other half thinks he is right -- even some kids with short parents.
* sigh *
Monday, October 15, 2012
Post #357 R.I.P. Arlen Specter
I liked Arlen Specter -- he always seemed to go against the prevailing wind. The Senate could use a few more like him.
At least, he wasn't a tool... unlike Richard Burr ® of North Carolina. Burr is part of the problem -- elected in '94 with a promise to leave in 12 years ("Contract With America," item 10), he has stayed and stayed in D.C. I'd thought Burr would share the North Carolina value of not voting for something without paying for it -- the only exception is during a time of Constitutionally-declared war. But Burr fell in with the other smiling Republicans and voted for, as a Representative, George W. Bush's inflated and unbalanced budgets and, as a Senator, Bush's infamous Plan D for Medicare -- the largest expansion of government into health care since the start of Medicare, an expansion that wasn't paid for. And Burr blames President Obama for his own irresponsibility. Frankly, Burr is an embarrassment to North Carolina,
Godspeed, Arlen Specter. We'll miss you.
At least, he wasn't a tool... unlike Richard Burr ® of North Carolina. Burr is part of the problem -- elected in '94 with a promise to leave in 12 years ("Contract With America," item 10), he has stayed and stayed in D.C. I'd thought Burr would share the North Carolina value of not voting for something without paying for it -- the only exception is during a time of Constitutionally-declared war. But Burr fell in with the other smiling Republicans and voted for, as a Representative, George W. Bush's inflated and unbalanced budgets and, as a Senator, Bush's infamous Plan D for Medicare -- the largest expansion of government into health care since the start of Medicare, an expansion that wasn't paid for. And Burr blames President Obama for his own irresponsibility. Frankly, Burr is an embarrassment to North Carolina,
Godspeed, Arlen Specter. We'll miss you.
Monday, October 08, 2012
Post #356 Defending Obamacare....
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -- that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Are all men created equal? Absolutely: The Declaration of Independence, like the Constitution, does not classify people according to sex or race. The Declaration of Independence's central proposition -- equality -- applies to men and women alike, regardless of skin color (or religion, for that matter). The observed inequalities of individual men and women -- in intelligence or strength, for examples -- are insignificant and dramatically underscore the ways in which all human beings, as a species, are equal in their nature. The Declaration of Independence speaks of "all men" and not "all human being" because the former is a more rhetorically powerful way to describe mankind.
Yes, the preceding paragraph came, word for word, from the American Heritage website. If the preceding paragraph does not match your own bigotry, take it up with the American Heritage folks. Another way to think of this is that all humans have equal value -- everyone has an equal standing before the law.
The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights: the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The right to Life protects the individual's ability to take all those actions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his life -- buying health insurance, for example. There is only one fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived: A man's right to his own life. Life is the vessel which carries both our Liberty and Happiness. Therefore, our government's #1 responsibility is to secure our unalienable right to Life.
Obamacare promotes freedom by giving real choices for all responsible citizens (those with health insurance) and targets the irresponsible (those without health insurance). If you have ever been mugged by Life, you will understand the tyranny -- the despotism, not of government, but of the social dynamics that define our health care system.
Continuing with Mr. Jefferson: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [citizens] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." To do less than securing our unalienable right to Life is sowing the seeds of discount and an eventual Revolution!
That President Barack Obama was not able to better -- simply and clearly, defend Obamacare at the debate was disheartening. I do not want a President who 'stays above the fray;' I want a President who brings the passion. Of course, Mitt Romney remains part of the problem.
Are all men created equal? Absolutely: The Declaration of Independence, like the Constitution, does not classify people according to sex or race. The Declaration of Independence's central proposition -- equality -- applies to men and women alike, regardless of skin color (or religion, for that matter). The observed inequalities of individual men and women -- in intelligence or strength, for examples -- are insignificant and dramatically underscore the ways in which all human beings, as a species, are equal in their nature. The Declaration of Independence speaks of "all men" and not "all human being" because the former is a more rhetorically powerful way to describe mankind.
Yes, the preceding paragraph came, word for word, from the American Heritage website. If the preceding paragraph does not match your own bigotry, take it up with the American Heritage folks. Another way to think of this is that all humans have equal value -- everyone has an equal standing before the law.
The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights: the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The right to Life protects the individual's ability to take all those actions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his life -- buying health insurance, for example. There is only one fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived: A man's right to his own life. Life is the vessel which carries both our Liberty and Happiness. Therefore, our government's #1 responsibility is to secure our unalienable right to Life.
Obamacare promotes freedom by giving real choices for all responsible citizens (those with health insurance) and targets the irresponsible (those without health insurance). If you have ever been mugged by Life, you will understand the tyranny -- the despotism, not of government, but of the social dynamics that define our health care system.
Continuing with Mr. Jefferson: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [citizens] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." To do less than securing our unalienable right to Life is sowing the seeds of discount and an eventual Revolution!
That President Barack Obama was not able to better -- simply and clearly, defend Obamacare at the debate was disheartening. I do not want a President who 'stays above the fray;' I want a President who brings the passion. Of course, Mitt Romney remains part of the problem.
Monday, October 01, 2012
Post #355 Who Is The 47% Not Paying Taxes?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/09/27/who-is-47-not-paying-taxes/
As the above article from FOXBusiness.com makes clear the fallacy of Mitt Romney's 'bogeymen' -- the welfare queen, the gangbanger, the lazy wetback, ruining this country, perhaps we can finally lay to rest the bigotry of the Silent Majority and its expression in Ayn Rand's 'selfishness is a virtue' -- selfishness is NOT a virtue; it is part of greed, one of the seven deadly sins!
Wasn't Ayn Rand an atheist? Not that there's anything wrong with that! :p
After all, only 6.9% fall into that 'mooching' category -- along with students and members of the armed forces and some millionaires.
The most relevant thing I saw in that article was that four of the top ten wealthiest Americans are members of the Wal-Mart family with a combined wealth of $107 billion, and yet 50% of Wal-Mart employees referenced in that article did not earn enough to pay income tax. And that is exactly what is wrong with this country: Redistribution! From the poor to the rich....
The shame of America is not that we are letting 47% of Americans get away with not paying federal income tax; the shame of America is that we have 47% of Americans who cannot afford to pay federal income tax. Our 'job creators' have let us down -- despite our kowtowing to them.
"There's a reason we have low rates on capital gains and that's because it spurs new investment in our economy and allows capital to move more quickly," House Speaker John Boehner said. Well, maybe capital moving too quickly is the problem.
"When you create a tax cut for someone...you create an obligation for somebody else, and then you're taking away that person's money and giving it to someone else." OMGZ! Redistribution!
Tax cuts have nothing to do with job creation; tax cuts are how the right redistributes wealth. It's social engineering brought to you by your favorite (R).
P.S.: My eye surgery was canceled due to an increased risk of putting me under and....
I will be undergoing weekly laser treatments on an outpatient basis for the next six-eight weeks -- two weeks have been done so far. FRANKLY, I am more concerned with the additional 6-8 weeks of stress.
As the above article from FOXBusiness.com makes clear the fallacy of Mitt Romney's 'bogeymen' -- the welfare queen, the gangbanger, the lazy wetback, ruining this country, perhaps we can finally lay to rest the bigotry of the Silent Majority and its expression in Ayn Rand's 'selfishness is a virtue' -- selfishness is NOT a virtue; it is part of greed, one of the seven deadly sins!
Wasn't Ayn Rand an atheist? Not that there's anything wrong with that! :p
After all, only 6.9% fall into that 'mooching' category -- along with students and members of the armed forces and some millionaires.
The most relevant thing I saw in that article was that four of the top ten wealthiest Americans are members of the Wal-Mart family with a combined wealth of $107 billion, and yet 50% of Wal-Mart employees referenced in that article did not earn enough to pay income tax. And that is exactly what is wrong with this country: Redistribution! From the poor to the rich....
The shame of America is not that we are letting 47% of Americans get away with not paying federal income tax; the shame of America is that we have 47% of Americans who cannot afford to pay federal income tax. Our 'job creators' have let us down -- despite our kowtowing to them.
"There's a reason we have low rates on capital gains and that's because it spurs new investment in our economy and allows capital to move more quickly," House Speaker John Boehner said. Well, maybe capital moving too quickly is the problem.
"When you create a tax cut for someone...you create an obligation for somebody else, and then you're taking away that person's money and giving it to someone else." OMGZ! Redistribution!
Tax cuts have nothing to do with job creation; tax cuts are how the right redistributes wealth. It's social engineering brought to you by your favorite (R).
P.S.: My eye surgery was canceled due to an increased risk of putting me under and....
I will be undergoing weekly laser treatments on an outpatient basis for the next six-eight weeks -- two weeks have been done so far. FRANKLY, I am more concerned with the additional 6-8 weeks of stress.
Friday, September 07, 2012
Post #354 9/11: A Day Of Infamy, Pt. II
Look at August 06, 2001, and Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S.," the "historical" document which had no "actionable" intelligence. No, obviously, that PDB did not specify a time, date or place, but surely a warning must not be specific in order for a President to take action.
The only thing new in that PDB -- Bush had received 40 PDBs concerning Bin Laden by that time -- was that the FBI was conducting 70 investigations. This was a good point for Bush to have called the FBI -- "70 investigations? That's a lot. What's up with that?"
Bush was not engaged against terrorism BEFORE 9/11. Having a President who is not engaged before disaster has implications -- ask the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
Jihadists hijacking planes in the air, flying the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings was not "unimaginable."
In 1996, when the Olympics were held in Atlanta, I paid attention to the preparations because 1) it was close, and 2) it was supposed to be the last Olympics before the end of time. Of course, they were worried bout terrorism, such as commandoes Munich-style or truck bombs World Trade Center-style or Oklahoma City-style or planes flying into buildings.
Indeed, when Amanda Beard won her swimming medals in what was basically an outdoor arena, the TV cameras would scan the night sky and show the lights of the planes landing at the Atlanta airport, and the TV guys talked about how dangerously close they were even tho the FAA had ordered a three-mile no-fly zone.
Why were they worried about planes flying into buildings? Well, at the trial of the first WTC bomber, they laid out the details of a plot from the Philippines to blow up 11 planes over the Pacific and hijack two others in the air and fly them into buildings.
Remember the plane in France jihadists wanted to hijack and fly into the Eiffel Tower in 1994? Commandos stormed the plane on the ground -- jihadists learned that they needed to hijack planes in the air and fly them themselves. The intelligence community -- and anybody else paying attention -- picked up on hijacking plane in the air, flying the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missilesagainst buildings as a way of the jihadists.
Indeed, different pre-9/11 plots have named the Sears Tower (now the Willis Tower), CIA headquarters, the Seatle SpaceNeedle, the TransAmerica building in San Francisco among others as targets for the jihadists to hijack planes in the air, fly the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings.
Yes, Bush was taken by surprise -- obviously. But the U.S. intelligence community warned Bush about an imminent attack wherein jihadists would hijack planes in the air, fly the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings, and Egypt, France, Israel and Russia passed on their own warnings in the month before 9/11; Bush did NOTHING -- other than to tell a messenger, "You've covered your ass now."
I would expect a President -- any President -- to do like Franklin Delano Roosevelt in November 1940 and at least issue a war warning: Have the FAA warn the airlines about the threat of hijackings and tell them to take precautions; step up the air marshals; call the FBI -- "hey, buddy, the CIA is here having a fit 'bout terrorism. What do ya know 'bout that?" Again, Bush did NOTHING. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe.
The bottleneck is at the top of the bottle. Um, 9/11 was NOT an intelligence failure; the failure was in the White House. I think a President should be aware of what his intelligence community had been working on for five years. Does the buck stop in the White House -- yes or no?
And they gave us Iraq instead....
President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, "These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can't get 'em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us."
Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?
Indeed, at a 9/13 meeting in the Oval Office with Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer of New York and Senators John Warner and George Allen of Virginia about getting aid for their states, Bush said, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
And so the Decider decided. He wouldn't repeat President Clinton's 'mistake' of chasing shadows -- he was going after bigger fish....
The only thing new in that PDB -- Bush had received 40 PDBs concerning Bin Laden by that time -- was that the FBI was conducting 70 investigations. This was a good point for Bush to have called the FBI -- "70 investigations? That's a lot. What's up with that?"
Bush was not engaged against terrorism BEFORE 9/11. Having a President who is not engaged before disaster has implications -- ask the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
Jihadists hijacking planes in the air, flying the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings was not "unimaginable."
In 1996, when the Olympics were held in Atlanta, I paid attention to the preparations because 1) it was close, and 2) it was supposed to be the last Olympics before the end of time. Of course, they were worried bout terrorism, such as commandoes Munich-style or truck bombs World Trade Center-style or Oklahoma City-style or planes flying into buildings.
Indeed, when Amanda Beard won her swimming medals in what was basically an outdoor arena, the TV cameras would scan the night sky and show the lights of the planes landing at the Atlanta airport, and the TV guys talked about how dangerously close they were even tho the FAA had ordered a three-mile no-fly zone.
Why were they worried about planes flying into buildings? Well, at the trial of the first WTC bomber, they laid out the details of a plot from the Philippines to blow up 11 planes over the Pacific and hijack two others in the air and fly them into buildings.
Remember the plane in France jihadists wanted to hijack and fly into the Eiffel Tower in 1994? Commandos stormed the plane on the ground -- jihadists learned that they needed to hijack planes in the air and fly them themselves. The intelligence community -- and anybody else paying attention -- picked up on hijacking plane in the air, flying the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missilesagainst buildings as a way of the jihadists.
Indeed, different pre-9/11 plots have named the Sears Tower (now the Willis Tower), CIA headquarters, the Seatle SpaceNeedle, the TransAmerica building in San Francisco among others as targets for the jihadists to hijack planes in the air, fly the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings.
Yes, Bush was taken by surprise -- obviously. But the U.S. intelligence community warned Bush about an imminent attack wherein jihadists would hijack planes in the air, fly the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings, and Egypt, France, Israel and Russia passed on their own warnings in the month before 9/11; Bush did NOTHING -- other than to tell a messenger, "You've covered your ass now."
I would expect a President -- any President -- to do like Franklin Delano Roosevelt in November 1940 and at least issue a war warning: Have the FAA warn the airlines about the threat of hijackings and tell them to take precautions; step up the air marshals; call the FBI -- "hey, buddy, the CIA is here having a fit 'bout terrorism. What do ya know 'bout that?" Again, Bush did NOTHING. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe.
The bottleneck is at the top of the bottle. Um, 9/11 was NOT an intelligence failure; the failure was in the White House. I think a President should be aware of what his intelligence community had been working on for five years. Does the buck stop in the White House -- yes or no?
And they gave us Iraq instead....
President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, "These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can't get 'em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us."
Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?
Indeed, at a 9/13 meeting in the Oval Office with Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer of New York and Senators John Warner and George Allen of Virginia about getting aid for their states, Bush said, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."
And so the Decider decided. He wouldn't repeat President Clinton's 'mistake' of chasing shadows -- he was going after bigger fish....
Post #353 9/11: A Day Of Infamy
Eleven years later, the question remains: Does a President have any responsibility for the failures of his own government? Does the buck stop in the White House?
I consider a successful terrorism attack to be a failure. I'd expect a President -- any President -- to review what happened and fire those responsible. George W. Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission, refused to give a formal interview to Congress and promoted Condoleezza Rice. I think he failed to be responsible.
The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.
Why wasn't Bush all over this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)
SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
As Senator Carl Levin said as the new administration took office, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."
And where was Bush?
On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, sent Condi Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda." It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."
On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Ari never did.
Clarke had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq.
Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries themselves? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."
The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001. One week later, Bush got the word of the 9/11 attacks, stared like a deer caught in the headlights and pondered 'who could have done this?' Really? No idea, huh?
The CIA had been tracking Bin Laden for five years, and Bush had received 40 Presidential Daily Briefings concerning Bin Laden, and Bush was taken by surprise. [rolleyes]
I do not blame Bush for not connecting the dots; I do blame Bush for ignoring the dots. He did NOTHING -- no warnings, no follow-up questions. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe.
I consider a successful terrorism attack to be a failure. I'd expect a President -- any President -- to review what happened and fire those responsible. George W. Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission, refused to give a formal interview to Congress and promoted Condoleezza Rice. I think he failed to be responsible.
The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.
Why wasn't Bush all over this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)
SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
As Senator Carl Levin said as the new administration took office, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."
And where was Bush?
On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, sent Condi Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda." It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."
On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Ari never did.
Clarke had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq.
Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries themselves? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."
The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001. One week later, Bush got the word of the 9/11 attacks, stared like a deer caught in the headlights and pondered 'who could have done this?' Really? No idea, huh?
The CIA had been tracking Bin Laden for five years, and Bush had received 40 Presidential Daily Briefings concerning Bin Laden, and Bush was taken by surprise. [rolleyes]
I do not blame Bush for not connecting the dots; I do blame Bush for ignoring the dots. He did NOTHING -- no warnings, no follow-up questions. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Post #352 Medicare, Sorry-@ss
I am sick and tired of blowhards ranting about Medicare. It's NOT FREE! Yes, I am covered by Medicare, but I spend $1000s in out-of-pocket expenses every year -- probably way more than your sorry-@ss spends on health insurance. Indeed, I will be going into the hospital next week to have eye surgery -- my surgery was postponed -- and, even with Medicare, I will be paying for a hot tub for my doc! :p All Medicare does is keep me from losing my home. So, please, spare me your tales of "hang nails" covered by FREE Medicare.
Know a welfare recipient? Ever been in a welfare recipient's home? The last time I was, they had a picture of Jesus on the living room wall -- yes, a white Jesus, by the way.
Socialism? Uh, there are no Obamacare doctors working in Obamacare hospitals. Medicare is a government-run aid program, but it's a far cry from socialism. You want an example of socialized medicine in America complete with a single-payer system? Check out the VA, army doctors in VA hospitals. The GM model is closer to socialism than Medicare. It truly boggles the mind that people throw around the word "socialism" without understanding its meaning!
Know a welfare recipient? Ever been in a welfare recipient's home? The last time I was, they had a picture of Jesus on the living room wall -- yes, a white Jesus, by the way.
Socialism? Uh, there are no Obamacare doctors working in Obamacare hospitals. Medicare is a government-run aid program, but it's a far cry from socialism. You want an example of socialized medicine in America complete with a single-payer system? Check out the VA, army doctors in VA hospitals. The GM model is closer to socialism than Medicare. It truly boggles the mind that people throw around the word "socialism" without understanding its meaning!
Friday, August 24, 2012
Post #351 It's The Rules, Stupid!, Pt. II
Hey, Mitt Romney: No one hates your money; we hate the rules you play by -- a lower tax rate, frivolous deductions, Swiss bank accounts....
http://gawker.com/5936394/the-bain-files-inside-mitt-romneys-tax+dodging-cayman-schemes
http://gawker.com/5936394/the-bain-files-inside-mitt-romneys-tax+dodging-cayman-schemes
Friday, August 17, 2012
Post #350 I Am An Economic Powerhouse
I am going to use my Medicare check to bolster the American economy. I will be going next week into an America hospital to have eye surgery performed by an American doctor.
My doctor has two big houses (housing industry) filled with fancy furniture (furniture industry) and four fancy cars (automobile industry). He has fancy clothes (clothing industry) and eats out at least once a day (restaurant industry) and eats in the rest of the time (grocery industry and farmers). I could even be supporting prostitution, for all I know. :p
Me? I've been waiting 32 years and haven't been trickled on yet. Yes, eliminate the Free Ride: Farm subsidies, a lower tax rate for investors, tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas, frivolous deductions, tax havens in Bermuda, the list just goes on.... It starts at the top!
"One thing about discipline ... you don't discipline the bottom," Tom O'Brien, the head football coach at N.C. State University and ex-Marine, said. "You discipline the people at the top and when you do, then everybody stands up and pays attention."
;O I used my work ethic and innovative ideas to get ahead. But Ronald Reagan's BOOM never trickled down to me or my family. All I can say is that I am better off now than I was fours ago -- not impressed with (or scared by) Republicans who have no numbers to
believe in.
In fact, of the Presidential elections I've voted in, I have gone backwards under Republicans -- '84, '88, '92, '04, '08 -- and gone forward under Democrats -- '96, '00, '12. I'd rather vote for Jill Biden's husband -- in case there any James Earl Rays reading this -- than Mitt Romney.
If I had the reins, I'd start by:
1. Adding a Constitutional amendment saying that the Bill Of Rights applies to individual living adult humans -- none of that "corporations are people" nonsense.
2. Eliminating the Social Security tax cap -- make Mitt Romney (and members of Congress and the President) pay the same rate as I do. My Grandma, when she died last year, was drawing $470 a month. That works out to a little bit less than what someone pays who pays the cap.
Members of Congress support a little more than one Grandma every year but could support two Grandmas (if they paid the same rate as I do on all of their income). John McCain supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support four Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Barack Obama supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 17 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Mitt Romney supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 300 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income).
Who is ripping off Grandma? Not me -- I am a lil' job creator: Where's my tax cut!?! :p
My doctor has two big houses (housing industry) filled with fancy furniture (furniture industry) and four fancy cars (automobile industry). He has fancy clothes (clothing industry) and eats out at least once a day (restaurant industry) and eats in the rest of the time (grocery industry and farmers). I could even be supporting prostitution, for all I know. :p
Me? I've been waiting 32 years and haven't been trickled on yet. Yes, eliminate the Free Ride: Farm subsidies, a lower tax rate for investors, tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas, frivolous deductions, tax havens in Bermuda, the list just goes on.... It starts at the top!
"One thing about discipline ... you don't discipline the bottom," Tom O'Brien, the head football coach at N.C. State University and ex-Marine, said. "You discipline the people at the top and when you do, then everybody stands up and pays attention."
;O I used my work ethic and innovative ideas to get ahead. But Ronald Reagan's BOOM never trickled down to me or my family. All I can say is that I am better off now than I was fours ago -- not impressed with (or scared by) Republicans who have no numbers to
believe in.
In fact, of the Presidential elections I've voted in, I have gone backwards under Republicans -- '84, '88, '92, '04, '08 -- and gone forward under Democrats -- '96, '00, '12. I'd rather vote for Jill Biden's husband -- in case there any James Earl Rays reading this -- than Mitt Romney.
If I had the reins, I'd start by:
1. Adding a Constitutional amendment saying that the Bill Of Rights applies to individual living adult humans -- none of that "corporations are people" nonsense.
2. Eliminating the Social Security tax cap -- make Mitt Romney (and members of Congress and the President) pay the same rate as I do. My Grandma, when she died last year, was drawing $470 a month. That works out to a little bit less than what someone pays who pays the cap.
Members of Congress support a little more than one Grandma every year but could support two Grandmas (if they paid the same rate as I do on all of their income). John McCain supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support four Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Barack Obama supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 17 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income). Mitt Romney supports a little more than one Grandma every year but could support 300 Grandmas (if he paid the same rate as I do on all of his income).
Who is ripping off Grandma? Not me -- I am a lil' job creator: Where's my tax cut!?! :p
Friday, August 10, 2012
Post #349 "Did North Carolina Really Outlaw Global Warming?"
;O No. Not exactly. But recent actions by the Republican-led legislature of North Carolina have given rise to such jokes.
Let me explain: Some coastal towns in North Carolina wanted to plan ahead for a rise in sea level over the next, say, 50 to 100 years -- which is smart. That kind of long-range planning ought to be applauded.
One study, a "sky is falling" liberal study produced by tree huggers who do not donate to Republicans, predicted a sea-level rise of 39 inches; another study. a right-thinking conservative study produced by businesses who do donate to Republicans, predicted a sea-level rise of 9 inches.
Common Sense will tell you that The Truth is probably somewhere in between 9 and 39 inches and that coastal towns would be best-served by taking a middle number into account -- say, 24. And add 2 or 3 to be safe.
Now, this is where those idiots in Raleigh came into play. The legislature outlawed the use of the 39 inch figure --or any other figure -- and mandated the use of the 9 inch figure provided by their friends.
I thought a conservative principle was 'local control' -- but no. Those idiots sold out a conservative principle to gain an advantage -- more donations -- for an election.
Par for the course.
I was Alex P. Keaton BEFORE there was an Alex P. Keaton and was sure the firsst thing Ronald Reagan would do after his Inauguration would be to pull the plug on Jimmy Carter's bailout of Chrysler -- but, no, he threw a conservative principle under the bus, did not stop the federal government from intervening in the private sector and even upped the bailout. All in the name of politics.
And, most conservatives will tell you now what a great success it was -- instead of hanging their heads in shame -- and criticize Barack Obama for doing the same.
* sigh *
Let me explain: Some coastal towns in North Carolina wanted to plan ahead for a rise in sea level over the next, say, 50 to 100 years -- which is smart. That kind of long-range planning ought to be applauded.
One study, a "sky is falling" liberal study produced by tree huggers who do not donate to Republicans, predicted a sea-level rise of 39 inches; another study. a right-thinking conservative study produced by businesses who do donate to Republicans, predicted a sea-level rise of 9 inches.
Common Sense will tell you that The Truth is probably somewhere in between 9 and 39 inches and that coastal towns would be best-served by taking a middle number into account -- say, 24. And add 2 or 3 to be safe.
Now, this is where those idiots in Raleigh came into play. The legislature outlawed the use of the 39 inch figure --or any other figure -- and mandated the use of the 9 inch figure provided by their friends.
I thought a conservative principle was 'local control' -- but no. Those idiots sold out a conservative principle to gain an advantage -- more donations -- for an election.
Par for the course.
I was Alex P. Keaton BEFORE there was an Alex P. Keaton and was sure the firsst thing Ronald Reagan would do after his Inauguration would be to pull the plug on Jimmy Carter's bailout of Chrysler -- but, no, he threw a conservative principle under the bus, did not stop the federal government from intervening in the private sector and even upped the bailout. All in the name of politics.
And, most conservatives will tell you now what a great success it was -- instead of hanging their heads in shame -- and criticize Barack Obama for doing the same.
* sigh *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)