Like, Totally Political, Dude!: liberal

Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts

FILM THIN: Hollywood's Top Power Women Aren't Yet Excited about Hillary Clinton

MIA: Hollywood's Power Women for Hillary - Hollywood Reporter

Says one female executive (anonymous):

"Every woman I know who hasn't given to her feels guilty about it," says the industry dealmaker. "We all want a woman to be president — some of us just wish it were someone else."

Lara Bergthold, a campaign strategist at a group called RALLY, says:

The "fear factor" of the Republican field will drive donations from the notoriously liberal-leaning Hollywood. She says it is hard to imagine a Republican presidential candidate more likely to ignite anxiety in Hollywood than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

"The stakes are so high given the candidates on the other side," she says. "They're scary."

Not asked in the article: ARE YOU WAITING TILL THE OUTCOME OF FBI INVESTIGATION INTO HER MISUSE OF SECRET COMMUNICATIONS? Err, not even likely many of them are aware of the facts behind the email investigation, nor do they want to accept it. They're elitists just like Hillary. They probably still suspect Benghazi was actually due to a crappy video from a whack-job pastor. Or, they just don't care about such distractions since they have no direct or apparent impact on their lives.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

GW Bush, mass panic gave us Patriot Act, let's curtail it now

In context of the time when it was passed, the Patriot Act was a forgivable overreaction, perhaps. But today, it's just more big government that we cannot afford.

Sometimes, scary things happen in politics. Here's an example: far right web sites agree with the wildly leftist (and silly) MoveOn.org on something. They agree that we need to END THE PATRIOT ACT.

Thank goodness some polar political opposites can agree on something, huh? The left and right can't even manage to agree on which death-lusting terrorists are worth ridding off: The fringe left wants to provide jobs, food and education to some terrorists, while the fringe right believes everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. But, we can agree that nosing in on Americans, not merely inconveniencing them at airports (TSA), but listening on without lawful purpose (Patriot Act, potentially), is bad.

Of course, I dislike the Patriot Act because there's clear principles being shoved out of the way, and they were given a clear voice in the U.S. Constitution. That matters. Some who I would generally disagree with on political matters seem concerned that black extremists (but they think of them as merely put-upon poor people), Occupy Wall Street dweebs, pederasts (simply gay people), or potheads (pot is no worse than alcohol, so it should be at every kitchen bench) might be among those snared by officials who are supposedly looking for terrorists. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the whole of the Bill of Rights, are just a convenient table to stand on while they're fighting the Progressive-Statist power-grab fight. (Yeah, I'm not a fan of Obama Democrats, if you didn't guess.)

I think it's simple: the USA Patriot Act needs to go. As least, it needs generous curtailing. Tell your US Representative and your US Senator, and tell anyone to do the same. Here's a link to save you some time in reaching your reps.

But don't bother with Senate boss Mitch McConnell (R - KY), who is all for it, it seems. Not much of a Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is proving to be in the era of Obama statism. He plays right along. (As does House Speaker John Boerner of Ohio.) Radio and nonfiction book great, Mark Levin, has bashed McConnell as never before, in recent weeks (one time and another; and then some).

If the Patriot Act is extended as it looks like it will be -- a mistake -- it's still going to require a vote another day. Make it stop. The Patriot Act is GW Bush's contribution, along with DHS, TSA, and a massive military debt, to the nanny state, to his legacy as BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBLICAN. He was not a complete modern American conservative, he was a religious and social conservative only. He isn't a bad man, but he was, fiscally, a very expensive president. He is not solely to blame, of course, but his presidency will keep that reputation into the future telling of it in history books, I believe. You cannot blame him alone, as plenty of citizens were all for the Patriot Act back in the day. They were afraid.

Frightened people are not good at making rational decision, or making up sensible rules. You've watched a horror movie or two, right? Scared people are bad at making decisions --- VERY BAD! The Patriot Act proves it, I think. In context of the time when it was passed, the Patriot Act was a forgivable overreaction, perhaps. But today, it's just more big government that we cannot afford (I mean "afford" in every sense of the word that comes to mind). It's not a Prohibition Act for security, because that would look like a totalitarian police state; but perhaps it was as bipartisan and as reactionary as Prohibition.

We must fix the damage added in GW Bush's time along with Obama's. I am very comfortable pointing out that Obama has done nothing but add to the problem of a massive and ever-growing federal debt and bureaucracy. But I refuse to be partisan in my disgust with big government.

This comes with burdens that have been added for decades by an ever-growing federal government that has weakened the states, and the citizens, and hurt liberty for every person.

WAKE UP. Stop big government.

We went from the GREATEST generation during World War Two, to the MOST SELFISH GENERATION. Well, to be nice, let's call it the most distracted generation -- that of the 1950s-1980s. Now we're ringing in the STATIST GENERATION, as a result.

It's not too late, but it's time to change tack. Because, as so many FINALLY recognized in the economic upset of 2007-2009, things have gotten out of hand. Either government stays in control, or we get some control of it.

WAKE UP. Obama and other far left so-called liberal Democrats (they're statists, not liberals, dammit) have taken a bad thing -- the Great Recession -- and extended it. It is high time to stop it.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Ten years on, I regret its start, but I love what could have been in Iraq

We toppled Saddam Hussein, and he was found in a spider hole. He was tried, and hanged.
How dare we, huh? I guess Iraqis would have been better off if nobody died but the hundreds of thousands who would have died at bequest of the maniacal psychopath Saddam Hussein.
Or, is it only that tender-footed Americans would be better off had we not engaged his deadly dictatorship?
It was upsetting and offensive to me and many that the invasion happened over what proved to be bad intelligence. No matter the political or overemotional regard or hatred for Bush and his team, the bad intel stung him, and America. But once you're in, you're in.
Bush and his team knew, while America in general is afraid to accept it, that the only way to change a place in the Middle East is to look after it for an entire generation to prevent another brutal dictatorship. But we don't care enough to hold out that long, do we? Time to shut up and do your best, once you're in, though. And so many did their best, and, yes, many died in the pursuit of more freedom in the world, hardly meaningless despite what some cowards have said against the effort in Iraq.
So Bush wanted people to die? He enjoys death? Yes, the left is certain of it. Rumsfeld is EVIL, just like Cheney and Bush. Who cares that we toppled the most evil, imperialist bastard of his region?

Hussein kept his country in order, I recall several cowardly, halfwitted people noting, their apparent reason to regret our invasion. Like pinning a butterfly to a cork board keeps the insect in order, Hussein kept things in order. We should have let it be, those who demonize Bush suggest either directly, or indirectly. I guess these Middle Eastern furr-nurs are abstractions to some living the good life (whatever their intelligence or economic level) in the United States of America, huh?

- jR

(revised, July 2013)

Independence is not a thing you can enforce

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY. Note: You cannot enforce liberty.

The Founding Fathers, in the 1700s, understood the dire risks of pursuing liberty, and did not do so by enforcing some imagined (utopian) equality (see a Spearhead piece on equality), but by carefully separating themselves from an autocratic leader, by realizing and establishing not just a new government, but essentially a new form of government. That's a big deal. I think too many take it for granted, or only give it some general lip service today. The patriots of that age wanted to allow citizens who were law-abiding proceed in their lives, not be pinched at every turn of luck or at every respectable success.

The Founders' decision to leave the tyranny of Britain's King George was the promise of their ruin (Snopes.com), not knowing the outcome. They still took that chance. A calculated risk? Certainly. (What's the biggest risk of your life you've ever taken? Driving a car? Motocross? Bungie jumping? Or serving your country at a time of war? Saving someone from a burning building? Only the last two count.) Thanks to the Founding Fathers and many of their fellow patriots, the USA won its freedom, implausibly, from the most powerful sea and land force on the planet.

Look how far we've come, huh?

We can't say that today our leaders have the same thoughts that the Founders, or any patriots of the 1700s, had. We are a nation spoiled by our comforts, to the least engaged among us. The difference we can make is in recognizing those aspects of our lives that are spoiling us, and living beyond them.

The current Democratic chief in the White House (and by extension, those who surround him or share his ideas) has the notable trait of blaming others -- not a leadership trait. If you search for "Barack Obama blame" online, there are 58 million hits. That is the trait not of a true leader, but of an abuser, or a lowly wheeler-dealer, not a heroic and principled change agent. Of course, some of those are about average people seeing his lack of blame (Economist, unscientific poll), while others point out the irony of his claim and blame paradox (Economist article, June 2012). His rhetorical soundbites and longwinded speech-lectures too commonly amount to lies in the long run. See, just because you think something might be true doesn't excuse you when it is exactly wrong -- that's delusional. That's, apparently, a lot of Obama true believers in a nutshell. For instance, he pledged in 2009 that the ACA, or Obamacare, would help the needy and make costs go down for the middle class. Not happening.

Power grabs of one type or another have been too common since Sept. 11, sadly. Borne of concern for safety, they are obviously affecting freedoms, and it is far worse under Obama and the federal agencies under his umbrella than it had started out with under the equally security-over-liberty minded George Bush. The supposedly forward-thinking White House of 2013 is not an antidote to power over the people, but fully a part of that allegedly well-meaning, but nonetheless overbearing, attitude of enforcing fairness by playing favorites. This current condition is not in any way Americanism, it a whiff of totalitarianism.

In Texas, it seems that we've learned -- if one has no understanding of it for one's own -- that the support of abortion after 20 weeks is a right. Aborting a child after five months is a kind of liberty? For whom?! Unwilling mothers who are too dumb or delusional to decide to give up a child, in the worst way possible, before five months? Nationwide, we've seen the view that registering all legal guns is the only right thing to do, according to our president and those on the overbearing, nanny state, big government side of America. This is so, while letting arms slip into hands of known bands of killers to try and track the guns, and losing track of them (what the hell?!) is good for liberty. As well, while giving deadly arms to rogue activists akin to the Taliban, in this case, the Syrian rebels, is also acceptable. But. not entrusting Americans with their right to bear arms, a central tenet of the idea of liberty envisioned by our Founding Fathers. What liberty is Obama and the left in favor of? That which limits the rights of all in favor of coddling to the favored labels? How un-American have we gotten?

Slavery wasn't abolished by our founders and, out of context, that's shameful to me. In context, I realize that the civil war would have happened on the heels of the revolution, had that move been pushed. Still tragic, but to manage freedom from the King of England was a first step. The Founders were not perfect men. Obama is far from that himself, farther than they. That wrong does not translate well to the idea that the broad freedoms they envisioned in the 1700s were incorrect. Today, how is it that granting, to the government, more power over law-abiding citizens somehow makes anyone more "free"? I think leaving aside slavery at the outset was a compromise, no matter how regrettable it was. We live in different times, but how dare people suggest that these times also call for a government that nannies us? That isn't liberty, that's comfort to the disinterested and lazy. We shouldn't be regarding independence as something administered by the government. Because it can only be taken from us by a government. We freed the slaves not by limiting their freedom, but by preventing their enslavement. There is a huge difference.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Elite-led media resents a hero they don't understand: Ben Carson and the real world

Dr. Ben Carson dared to suggest that gay couples deserve to be treated equally, but to stop short of giving that the word "marriage." He mentioned NAMBLA and beastiality in the same sentence as gays, upsetting some folks. He apologized and clarified what he meant. More than once. On televison. But that's not good enough for the bigotos of the left, in this drippy, no-detractors echo chamber pep rally that is most of the mainstream media.

From the article, NBC News on Dr. Ben Carson: 'Blinded by the White', on Breitbart.com:

Carson ... said he was in favor of giving same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, short of marriage.

NBC News obviously wants to destroy the threat of any independent-thinking black man as quickly as possible. So it should come as no surprise that, by the time Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart filled in for MSNBC's Martin Bashir, Carson's apology was treated as far from sufficient. In short, Capehart and his guests, Toure' and Krystal Ball, treated the apology as a lie.

This is all par for the course at NBC News.

Sadly, so is the chryron pictured above -- "Blinded by the White" -- which was used as the clip of Dr. Carson played during the segment.

NBC News is notorious for using this kind of race-baiting to further its left-wing agenda, including fraud

Indeed.

While it's easy to pass it off as a given that media is left-leaning, that's not enough to indict the media. And it doesn't have to be.

The leaders of our media are part of the most insular, closed-quarter, often the most highfalutin, parts of this country and the world. If they aren't humble enough to recognize that, and if they don't instill such humility in writers (not opinion writers, journalists!) and demand that they work against their own biases, then these media leaders and their writers are part of the problem. As it happens, these leaders are dragging newbies panting and eager to please, every year, into that same highrise with a limited perspective. Arrogance begets arrogance.
It encourages an ignorance of the great outside: the real world. The world in which Dr. Ben Carson grew up.

There's NBC, The Washington Post (often, not decisively), TIME, Huffinton Post (madhouse filled with nut-job leftist commenters, to boot), GQ, CBS, CNN, etc., etc., all seeming to be trying to be the big man on the left. It's a tone deafness of those who live in certain quarters believing they have the answers for the whole.

And they will treat those who aren't on their side not with curiosity or even cynicism, but snide disregard and putrid insults, like MSNBC treats Dr. Carson.

They need some humility.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne

Rape is rape, except when it's done by a liberal artiste

Updated at 3:30 p.m ET
(CBS News) Republican Rep. Todd Akin on Monday apologized for the controversial remarks he made over the weekend about abortion and rape, but he said he has no plans to drop out of the Missouri Senate race despite building pressure from within the GOP.

"What I said was ill-conceived, and it was wrong," Akin said on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's radio show Monday. "I really just want to apologize to those that I've hurt."

Akin's apology came as President Obama suggested the Republican's remarks illustrated the broad differences between Democrats and Republicans on issues like health care and reproductive rights.

"Rape is rape," Mr. Obama told reporters at the daily White House briefing Monday. "And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we're talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me."

Mr. Obama added that Akin's remarks underscore "why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women."

The president acknowledged that his GOP rival Mitt Romney and other Republicans have distanced themselves from Akin's statements. However, he said, "The underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women for their health care decisions, or qualifying 'forcible rape' versus 'non-forcible rape' -- those are broader issues....between me and the other party."

The controversy started after Akin, a six-term Missouri conservative now running against Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, was asked in a local interview on Sunday whether he would support abortions for women who have been raped.

"It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin said in the interview. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin said of a rape victim's chances of becoming pregnant.

Romney abortion view overrides Ryan in Akin response
Romney, Scott Brown rebuke Akin's rape comments
Mo. Rep. Todd Akin: Rape rarely leads to pregnancy

Romney called the remarks "inexcusable," while some Republican senators like Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin called for him to drop out of the Senate race.

Some liberals tried to tie other Republicans to Akin's comments, noting that Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, co-sponsored an abortion-related bill with Akin that would have limited federal funding for abortions to victims of forcible rape," rather than just rape. The FBI's definition of rape is known as "forcible rape," and it is used to distinguish between statutory rape and other kinds of rape.

Huckabee asked Akin whether he was talking about "forcible rape" when he used the term "legitimate rape."

"I was talking about forcible rape, and it was absolutely the wrong word," Akin said.

Akin said he understands that women can become pregnant from rape. "I didn't mean to imply that wasn't the case," he said. "That does happen."

While Akin acknowledged he made a "very, very serious error," he added that he's not dropping out of the Senate race.

"I don't know that I'm the only person in public office who suffered from foot-in-mouth disease," he said. "I feel just as strongly as ever that my background and ability will be a big asset in replacing Claire McCaskill... Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't make them useless."

Later in the day, Akin wrote on Twitter, "I am in this race to win. We need a conservative Senate." His Twitter message also included a link to his fundraising page.

As the Washington Post notes, the Republican Party can't force Akin to drop out of the race, but he could voluntarily resign by 5 p.m. Tuesday, or he could withdraw from the race by court order by Sept. 25.

In spite of Akin's insistence that he'll stay in the race, the pressure Monday continued to build against him. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) told Akin Monday it would no longer financially support his Senate bid if he chose to stay in the race, a GOP source told CBS News.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the NRSC, said in a public statement that Akin's comments were "wrong, offensive, and indefensible," though he stopped short of explicitly calling on him to exit the race.

"I recognize that this is a difficult time for him, but over the next twenty-four hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party, and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service," Cornyn said.

Meanwhile, the Karl Rove-backed super PAC American Crossroads confirmed to CBS News that it is pulling its ads from Missouri. "The act speaks for itself," Crossroads said to CBS regarding its decision to pull its ads.

The editors of the conservative magazine the National Review wrote Monday that it was time for Akin to step aside.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also called Akin's comments "totally inexcusable."

"What he said is just flat wrong in addition to being wildly offensive to any victim of sexual abuse," McConnell said in a statement. "Although Representative Akin has apologized, I believe he should take time with his family to consider whether this statement will prevent him from effectively representing our party in this critical election."

via cbsnews.com

Remember when that master of relevant social commentary, Whoopi Goldberg, said that what Roman Polanski did to a young teenager in the 1970s wasn't "rape rape"? I won't say she is as vital to anyone as this Akin dude, but, really, where was THIS sort of broad shock across the media then?!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57496599-503544/akin-apologizes-for-ra...

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Rape is rape, except when it's done by a liberal artiste

via cbsnews.com

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57496599-503544/akin-apologizes-for-ra...

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Mike Moore on Assange rape, he and Keith Olbermann put it in quotes

O-blubber-man Suspends His Own Twitter Account

Julian Assange: the Wikileaks leader encourages a military member's crime, flaunts himself as a hero for freedom of speech, when he is more accurately an anarchist or an all-points agitator. And there's this:

Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold [one woman, Miss A,] down in a sexual manner." ... Here are the charges as reported by the UKPA:

The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

Since I cannot watch Olbermann and not shower afterward, via The Blaze, I learned that filmmaker -- and often crass, far left mouthpiece -- Mike Moore was an Assange apologist on Keith's show, for the rape charges. Olbermann was not against the view. He then suspends his own Twitter account due to people twee-ttacking him for agreeing with Moore.

This time Moore, and months earlier it was Whoopie Goldberg soft-talking the underage rape charges against the Polish Holocaust survivor turned director turned pervert turned cowardly runaway.

What's wrong with some allegedly intelligent, logical, rational, and talented lefty loons -- and others? -- excusing the act of rape?! I was getting tired of Goldberg's presence on "The View" long ago, but I've written her off as an unnecessary distraction since her "it's not rape-rape" comment. Clue?! And Moore, never-Moore -- not even on my Netflix cue any more.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/keith-olbermann-suspends-his-own-twitter-account/

- jR

Vote: Stop raising taxes so we can start raising raises!

On Tuesday, November 2, 2010: VOTE for those who will:

STOP RAISING TAXES - SO WE CAN START RAISING RAISES.

Or: STOP EXPANDING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SO PEOPLE CAN AGAIN AIM FOR THE AMERICAN DREAM!

Does this make sense? Yes, of course it does, except to those who are convinced that government is the solution to all or most problems. Ronald Reagan famously said: in "today's crisis," government is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. His actual quote has been streamlined to "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

That quote has been turned, stunningly, on its head by spiteful, poorly educated (on politics and civic history) left-wingers. They even go so far as to suggest that somehow conservatives think the best government would be nearly no government. Or, so little government that the greedy, violent, criminal, depraved, and any ne'er do wells could ultimately be the insane running the asylum.

Outside of a sense that the crazies are already running society, the turning of those words of Reagan, and the broad sentiment he conveyed, into something flatly "anti-government" is unproductive to the point of being cruel.

Saying that a small government sentiment is "anti-government" is akin to saying that those who believe in watching what they eat actually would prefer not eating, and that both will allow you to safely get into better shape. It's not just playing with words, it's wacky. Animaniacs kind of wacky.

Vermont has a senator with this bizarre, seemingly all-or-nothing political rhetoric, by the name of Bernie Sanders. And MSNBC has at least one vocal comrade of Sanders, in Ed Schultz. Both are an embarrassment to anyone seeking a rational discussion on the size of government versus the scale of people's opportunities and liberties.

Excellence and progress comes from the private sector, from R&D and science, and from not bureaucrats, pork projects, and wildly imbalanced pension plans for gov't employees. Don't be fooled by pie-in-the-sky promises. The only reason gov't spending and size gets continually larger is because the ones with the purse strings forgot they work for people, not the other way around. Time to change that.

Government is not the enemy of the people, but only until it proves to be the enemy. It is hurting us, but only some are truly outraged by it, most notably in recent years, the tea party movement.

It's hard to live on what was not long ago a good income level, and there's no sign of improvement coming. Better to stop the march toward government dominance now than to weep for the extinction of the American Dream later. One by one it is happening, for a variety of reasons, high among them the high cost of living versus honest, usual incomes. Remember when most middle class families could survive on one full-time income? No? It used to be so.

Now, and always, vote for the goal of smaller government and, thus, greater opportunity. The issues beyond the question of expanding government are indeed important, but they won't be your concern as a citizen if you're struggling to SUPPORT the government rather than CARING FOR yourself, your family, you business, and your community. It is getting harder every year for most people, and not only because of the recession. It's the trend going back decades, sadly.

It is time to stop raising taxes and to start allowing raises -- for those NOT working for Congress or on Wall Street -- to happen. It is through better family earnings that we get improved tax bases, not through larger and larger government. Doesn't that make honest sense to these so-called leaders?!

Don't wait for their answers, give them yours on November 2.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

The Motley Fool's Rebuttal of the Latest of Krugman's "1938 in 2010" Twaddle

Historical government spending in the United S...

Image via Wikipedia

Who you gonna believe? Some professional investors or a professional Keynesian? I'm going with the capitalists, and not the sour-faced NY Times columnist. (Note: bolding and links are mine.)

Krugman wrote another Op-Ed about his favorite subject "1937". The year when the Fed Gov't cut back some spending and the economy faltered. I've disputed this ludicrousness before, stating that if EIGHT years of spending didn't fix the problem, when in the hell is all this spending supposed to work? Let's also not forget that in 1934 the dollar was devalued by 50% and THAT didn't work.

In this particular Op-Ed he goes further, stating "From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. Over the course of the war the federal government borrowed an amount equal to roughly twice the value of G.D.P. in 1940 — the equivalent of roughly $30 trillion today".

Pro-WWII end recession/depression economist LOVE to point out that huge spending on a massive scale ended the Great Depression. I've spoken to many of these people before and asked them EXACTLY when this massive spending ended the Great Depression. There are only two answers: 1) When the war started 2) After the war ended

Let's tackle #1 first (When the war started). These are the scariest people in the world today, because they don't believe in freedom in the least.

You'll need to visit the site for the whole thing. More at the Motley site.

-jR

Sen. Bernie Sanders says: hands off my beloved Social Security, you vicious, anti-government nuts!

WASHINGTON - DECEMBER 16: Sen. Bernie Sanders...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) comments on what he sees as right-wing "hatred" of Soc Sec. Hatred of it is going a bit far, except maybe some far-flung kooks.

Opinion: We can't allow deep benefit cuts, including a steep rise in the retirement age. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41628.html

Some of it (note: the links within it are mine):

"The White House deficit commission is reportedly considering deep benefit cuts for Social Security, including a steep rise in the retirement age. We cannot let that happen.

"The deficit and our $13 trillion national debt are serious problems that must be addressed. But we can -- and must -- address them without punishing America's workers, senior citizens, the disabled, widows and orphans.

"First, let's be clear: Despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. That's a lie!

"The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. Today's $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039.

"Got that? In case you don't, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible beneficiary for the next 29 years.

"It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.

"The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing, anti-government crowd is based on the fact that the government program has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For 75 years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans. ..."

(use link above to read the whole piece)

Disliking how Soc Sec's Trust Fund is borrowed from by a greedy government, and the balance of pay-ins versus pay-outs, is what is creating worries, as far as I'm aware. Pretty simple that is more money goes out than goes in, it's going to dry up! I don't recall hearing anyone suggest it was going to run out next year, but in 2039? The estimates have varied. Who said banish it? I think younger people just don't trust government with their retirement account.

Sanders' crude calling of people "anti-government" leaves out a vital adjective. Anarchists and crooks are anti-government; right wingers who are neither of those are against a BIG, dominating, bossy, liberty-sucking federal government. They are not against government.

Senator, Tea Party people, as far as I am aware and as far as I am informed, are merely against a massive, costly, too-powerful Big Brother government full of people who twist facts -- such as what they feel about Soc Sec. If that is not clear, senator, then you have a scant excuse for being a representative of any people.

Senator, by the looks of this rant of yours, you are an agitator and extremist, not your right wing antagonists. Judging from the deviant language you used, in the opinion piece, about those who favor an affordable and liable government over a constantly growing, taxing beast, you're way off-center, to say the least.

Your comments about Soc Sec history of success -- obvious stuff, isn't it? -- aside, your coloring of the right is juvenile, done with crayons, not informed nore sensible, as with fine art oil paint.

Shame, Vermont, for keeping this wacky man in power. He is way off-color.

- jR

Obama is JUST a narcissist. Like Hitler was JUST a Nazi.

Barack Obama at the University of Nevada, Las ...

Barack Obama - Image via Wikipedia

I don't care what your politics: if you think Obama is brilliant, humble, sincere, honest, appreciative of his office, deserving of a Nobel and songs sung to him by schoolchildren, and that he is not a pure political operator bent on turning America in a hard left direction... you JUST DON'T GET IT.

He is unquestionably a narcissist. He adores himself, and there were people in Chicago politics who loved him for it. They, in their own words, "protected" him from risky issues, on his way to the Senate, and to the White House. Protected.

His narcissism is immediately evident in his lack of conventional humility in his speeches: "I" "I" and "I" everywhere with this president. It is also evident in his

While Obama was not raised in a wealthy family, he sure seems to have ... a golden stick in his butt. (Excuse the imagery.) I have not seen such infantile attacks on news media, or opposition -- EVER -- from a top leader, certainly not another president. (You understand that unless, like Sean Penn and plenty of others who've enjoyed USA liberties yet understand few of them, you count Castro and his kind as respectable.) It would be less disturbing if this behavior was not calculated, but these verbal attacks are part of a plan, not mood-driven one-offs. It is a part of radical activism, and he's invited it into the White House. (Almost as much as the former president of the SEIU, Andy Stern.)

With the divisiveness in our politics knocked up to a whole new level with him and Mme. Speaker Pelosi leading the spurning of clarity for ideology, ticked off that everyone won't simply let him (and Pelosi and that ilk) run us like some elected monarchy, I stand back and think that God's grace will be the only thing to spare us from the twaddle and naivete. Just gone from irritating, to mystifying, to amusing. Not a happy amusing, mind you, a shameful one. It would be funny, were it not a real life story, and were it not my president swaggering about so proud of himself, compelled to realize the unproven idea of the America he wants me to live in.

I applaud him (I do!) for bringing issues, including healthcare and the external reputation of American arrogance, to the forefront. It is how he's handling those and other issues, which is clumsy, that sets me off. His rhetoric is good, his actions aren't. The actions count more.

So I am counting on people acting to limit the power held by him and his fellow far-leftists, come the elections of November 2010. This country deserves hot debate, but not to be a high-tax, big government, welfare-heavy, centralized nation. It is the United States, after all, not the State, of America.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Ding dong, Statists' Union calling... 'Health reform - right the wrongs!'

Insurance companies that seem to serve almost singly as investment companies rather than a health care coverage company certainly tick me off. But what's better is what I would like to see, not what's easily likely to be MUCH WORSE.

Name one operation of the government that saves any money for anyone, except in the coffers of those earning money from the operation. We taxpayers bought GM: what did you get out of that? I got nothing, thanks.

Government, as I've heard said quite a few times recently, is not in the business of giving up money: it is in the business of taking it. Medicare is struggling, the Post Office is struggling, Democrats can't even get along with themselves, the CRA program killed the fair market in real estate -- fair to people who actually could pay a mortgage, I mean! -- crooked dealings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac embarrassed even legitimate criminals, but we should count on government to do right by us in health care?

Judging from the email (far below), Consumers Union does trust government above the free markets, to not just control markets reasonably through regulation, but to snarl the health industries in their greedy, poorly budgeting, non-consumer-oriented grip. Or so it would appear. You be the judge.

I, for one, was a bit ticked off about this group's eager part in pushing omnivorous governmental "regulation" (read: effective taking-over) of health care in the States. This, just below, is the reply I gave to the Consumers Union "alert" email, farther below, regarding health reform.

My Rant to CU's Kathy Mitchell

Dear Kathy Mitchell:

For goodness and good sense sake, how is government blatantly maneuvering to control the free market going to help us? We need regulatory reform, control, YES, CONTROL, of these big insurance companies, but not a statist approach to controlling huge chunk of the economy. This message sends another message -- that you are eager to head down the path of government control of a major portion of our economy. That is, it is far to say, not what this country's wealth is built on. Without needing to point out to me that it is also built on the backs of poorly paid workers, and slaves, etc., give me a current reason for why the free market will fail us, but the government will not?

Why do YOU trust government in this broad matter (not merely health cost coverage), but not markets? Of all the interest groups in this fight, I would have thought you'd have had an issue with vigorous state-run economic efforts that are being brazenly shoved at us, only slowed by those you badge as the enemy of progress. It is not the free market that brings all types of innovation, including to medicine? How is this bill upholding that hope for the future?

WE NEED CHANGE. I AGREE. Not whatever change suits the characters in support of big-government, let-the-state-solve-all-our-problems, ideas. We need changes that affect how the market and regulation affects our health industries -- insurance, medical tech, hospitals, doctors, drugs, etc. -- not the unions of government workers and such getting all that they want at the cost of those of us who are not in unions, or interested in government abusing us over the free market abusing us. Neither is appealing. We need the government to do their REAL job -- regulating, supporting advances (with our tax dollars going to innovative businesses) in the best interest of the PEOPLE, and the markets to do their jobs -- innovating, creating jobs, paying taxes (which are costs handed to consumers: so, allowing employees and consumers to afford to live and pay their taxes).

This bill, if anyone has actually managed to read it in its most recent morphing to allay legitimate concerns, is not right. They wanted to cram it in our faces in August, you'll remember, and resistance, if nothing else, has forced those not intrinsically meant to benefit through money or power to actually have to address REAL concerns.

If this is the best that Consumers Union can do for the public, then you are suspected of an embarrassingly non-consumer-oriented statist leaning, by me, and likely an awful lot of other folks, who once held up the group as an apolitical consumer group, generally reliable and unbiased. Not so much, anymore.

[Salutations....]

The CU Action Fund email

On Dec 15, 2009, Consumers Union Action Fund wrote:

650,000 could lose coverage so Aetna investors can enjoy higher returns. That's not how it should work. Help us end the stalemate and get a bill out of the Senate.

Give just $5 right now--for a holiday victory that can improve our lives forever.

Dear Xxxxxx,

You can't put a price on good health. But one of the nation's largest health insurance companies just did.

Aetna – which is on track to make $1 billion this year – says it will raise customers' premiums in order to make even more profit. The company expects the price hike to force as many as 650,000 people to lose their insurance – the equivalent of the residents of cities like Denver, Boston, Seattle or Baltimore losing their coverage at once.

Meanwhile, health reform opponents say our insurance markets are 'working' just great, and they're doing everything they can to kill prospects for real change this week. But when an insurance CEO is willing to cut hundreds of thousands of Americans' health coverage to make even more profit, is our health insurance market really working for us?

We don't have a billion dollars, but we have hundreds of thousands of people like you.

Your $5 contributions in the fall got a TV ad on the air in key states--one that put Consumer Reports' trusted name behind the effort to finally pass reform now. The ad is still running, and we want to keep it running.

We're joining forces with the American Cancer Society, AARP and other consumer groups to focus the media on the real story: Americans are losing coverage and facing huge rate increases while the industry lobbies against the changes that will help the most. Consumers Union is also knocking on doors in holdout Senators' states to generate calls and letters from constituents demanding they stand up for American families and take on the insurance giants.

All these things cost money. We're asking people in every state to pitch in so we can open minds and hearts in the states where lawmakers are on the fence.

While the Senate bill isn't perfect, it rights a lot of wrongs. Companies would have to spend the bulk of your insurance premium on your health care -- or else rebate you the difference. They could no longer deny you coverage, drop you if you get sick, or charge you ridiculous out-of-pocket costs for treatment. After a Senate bill passes, we're going to push to get the best of both Senate and House measures into a final reform package.

Whatever you can give will help us fight for you. We are the closest we've been in history to getting all Americans affordable, reliable health care. Take reform across the finish line!

Sincerely,
Kathy Mitchell
Consumers Union Action Fund, Inc.
506 W. 14th Street, Suite A
Austin, TX 78701

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (twitter)

Cong. Alan Grayson visits Ocala local leaders, gets jeers from detractors

Who will stop the $1 million man? The man who almost lost, and spent lots of his own money to win in the leadership lottery. A congressman who is a national embarrassment (I like to think) for anyone who looks at politics as something more than a Jerry Springer Show form of reality entertainment.

Alan Grayson, a lawyer who was known for fighting corruption, is a first term congressman for a gerrymandered district taking in part of Orlando and lots of other areas.

In 2008, Grayson spent around $1 million of his own money to beat an average, and unpopular, GOP congressman named Ric Keller. Grayson won with only 52% of the vote. There were a lot of noses held shut in November 2008 inside the voting booths of Florida District 8, I suspect.

Lots of people, even outside the district, seem to admire Grayson, for "telling it like it is". Whatever "it" is, it is not clear without a lengthy explanation with plenty of projecting by the explainer. Fans hear what they want to hear from Grayson, and nothing he says matters to his fans, just that he's being against The Other Side. He stated the GOP health reform plan was to have everyone sick "die quickly". Hmm. Can I see that bill? It was meant to be funny. (Alert: he is not a funny man, except perhaps creepy funny.)

He expanded on that, saying we should prevent a national "holocaust" by accepting a massive health reform plan that amounts to a huge, costly entitlement program very much like Medicare. (You know how well that program's doing in controlling spending, don't you? It is not well, not well at all.)

He did a lot of good in his legal career, in the fight against government contract corruption, proving to be a standout in that area. It would be nice to see him return to that arena. One can dream, can't one (or millions)? After all, he thinks he's being clear, and that's stunningly funny (quote from Ocala.com site):

Grayson has upset Republicans - and even a few Democrats - with some of his rhetoric in recent weeks, including his statements on the Republicans' position on health care and a reference to an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a "K Street whore."

The remarks have made Grayson a media and Internet sensation.

In an interview, the congressman attributed that reaction to people having become accustomed to a "culture of dishonesty" in Washington, where elected leaders shrink from telling what they really think on issues.

"A few Democrats"? Seriously? Only a few? Gag. If so, that's what's wrong with Democrats these days -- no longer the party of a Truman or a JFK, or even an Olympia Snowe (har har).

You would probably find that view laughable if you watched a series of clips of Grayson's prepared and practiced antics, on the floor of the US House, doing some of this "telling it like it is", and using "holocaust" regarding the -- unholy? -- lack of health coverage in the States. You could also visit his shamelessly pandering site, namesofthedead.com, which celebrates, apparently, everyone who died not from illness, but illness made clearly worse -- one would think from his rhetoric -- by insufficient medical care or health coverage.

Or, you could not go to the site, and just hope he goes back to fighting corruption in 2011.

Read the whole Ocala.com article at the site.

- j Ruse (aka AirFarceOne, on Twitter)

Breaking: National Utopian Telegenic Socialists party to launch in Hollywood

RUMORED: Sean Penn, Janine Garofalo, Rosy O'Donnell, Whoopie Goldberg, Joy Behar and several other celebrities are reportedly under discussion to launch National Utopian Telegenic Socialists party, or the Hollywood NUTS.

Their political platform is said to be in the midst of a vocal sorting out by the well-known actors and entertainers. Negotiations on the group's official stand on a broad group of issues aren't expected to be completed until sometime in 2010.

- j Ruse, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Are nuclear weapons deserving of a Nobel Prize? Obama vowed to earn his, the Bomb already has

It's refreshing to see that, over at the oft-slobbering news rag TIME, someone can manage to offer thoughts that are based on reality, not wishful thinking, in the always-vital area of nuclear proliferation. (The emphases below are mine.)

From TIME magazine, 'Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons':

As long as a nukeless world remains wishful thinking and pastoral rhetoric, we'll be all right. But if the Nobel committee truly cares about peace, they will think a little harder about actually trying to make it a reality. Open a history book and you'll see what the modern world looks like without nuclear weapons. It is horrible beyond description.
During the 31 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, the world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of an estimated 78 million to 95 million people, uniformed and civilian. "

Somewhere above 78 million people died in two world wars, within 31 years. Since 1945, how are we doing? Better, I'd say.

Is it impossible for anyone to see that so long as nukes are CONTROLLED, thus, not in the hands of those who will use them simply to advance their religious or power-hungry zealotry, that the THREAT of them in the world actually makes it a safer place? What exactly is the educational background of the dunces who think the US is a bigger threat with nuclear weapons than another country? Only the powerful, sociopathic zealots who are now kept -- barely -- in check by our having them.

Amazingly, there are calls for more centralized governing, even in what started out as what you could call the individualism center of the planet, the United States. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bigger government is corrupt -- absolutely. Especially in the still-kicking power center of the world, the United States.

Please, wake up, or take your voice out of the argument, thanks, if you think some hands-holding, rainbows-without-storms, birds-chirping, floating cars fantasy is going to happen in your lifetime. Not going to come out of human effort alone. It's a nice sentiment. Sadly, it always reminds me of the outset of the original Battlestar Galactica, when the human powers-that-be insist, despite advice otherwise, that they can live peacefully with their aggressive enemy. Also, it reminds me of the cliche, but not irrelevant, historic blunder of UK PM Chamberlain who signed (with France) an agreement with Adolf Hitler that gave part of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. Hitler invaded Poland only months later.

Only a stubborn cynic refuses to hope for a time of peace, but only a perfect fool believes they will be living in one sometime soon.

The world is getting more complex at the same time it is shrinking. We are in the midst of a shaping global economy that differs from the one that existed even 25 years ago. The requirement needs to be that the real troublemakers -- the centralized control dictators/theocracies, the extreme zealots, the terrorism-supporting factions -- prove to the truly democracy-oriented that they are willing to play far nicer. It is not to be the other way around. The US and its less imposing allies don't owe these people anything. But some leaders disagree. In fact, Obama seems to think the US was on a track of empire-building up to and until he became president. That's interesting from a man who uses the word "I" far more than "we".

A nuclear-free world is the fantasy of goofballs and academic arguments, yet, in the States, we now have a platitude-rich president who joins that crowd as a true believer, by his words.

Holocaust-denying, genocidal, mass-dog-killing, political-foe-assassinating, gross-poverty-concealing, terrorist-supporting, and/or Third World-resource-grifting, and other far-flung governments centered on abuses, not embarrassed by its exposure, are not interested in getting along with us. We are spoiled, misinformed, TV comedy show informed go-alongs, to them. Even those of us disgusted by the spoiled, misinformed, TV comedy show informed go-alongs. Their idea of peace is a world without your spoiled asses in it, or indoctrinated into their way of thinking.

They aren't interested in giving their people the freedoms the spoiled brats -- the super rich AND the car-driving, jeans-wearing, mobile texters -- in the First World enjoy. They are fighting for their ideals to win out, and for at-home survival. If America has its nuclear arsenal to lean on, like some bartender leaning on his 12-gauge letting the rough drunks know he means business, we might as well invite all the openness that cultural pluralism offers, invite the combustible mix of legalized recreational pot, a trust system for violent convicts, sharia law, and the wife-killing machismo of Brazil. Why not? If we cannot live by the ideas that exist, why not just live by whatever feels like it'll work, for a year, a month, a week? Why not make it a cage fight of bad social practices? Openness to the point of life-meaninglessness. In the end, the ones with some self-control and the most discipline will win. Is that you?

You best hope that living in a world like The Road Warrior is as fun to live as it is (at least for some) to watch.

Read on at the link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

---------------------------------

Portions delivered by Delicious.com
The tastiest bookmarks on the web

-- AirFarceOne (follow on twitter)

Bloggers report nut-jobs poll created on Facebook, then offer creepy anti-conservative diatribe

(A comment on a good move that instantaneously turns smelly-bad by authors of a rail-jumping 'Slobbering Blog')

An idiot Facebook user created a poll asking users if our president, Barack Obama, should be violently offed, wasted, done away. Pure madness, right? Happily, some loyal Obama supporters with a blog were aware and activist enough, when they noticed this thing, to not vote in it (I assume they didn't), but instead report it to the Secret Service.

What an adult, awesome thing to do, huh? I thought so too. Then I read their blog.

Say these saviors of all of us from a vile FB weeny, on their blog:

"The hate speech, the threats have gotten completely out of hand. And those who have incited viewers and listeners.. (here I omitted the non-liberal targets of their opinions)... are responsible for a good part of this horrific activity."

Oh, COMPLETELY out of hand! Yes! Horrible! This FB poll by some college dweeb, this is just one tiny little SIGN that the nation is much more dangerous with conservatives saying things of a broad, anti-leftist and/or anti-statist variety! They marched, for goodness sake! And in Washington, DC! Who marches in DC but scary people! (Like Christian fathers, or a million -- or so -- black men, or ... members of the military.)

These Thomas Paines of blogging go on, with great knowing: "No, it is not 'grassroots', not even close. It is a sick, terrifying, dangerous movement toward violence and the worst kind of civil unrest."

You know, that worst kind of civil unrest: the organized, overwhelmingly tame, and nonpolluting kind. Why, what else could that be but the WORST? Else the accusations and paranoia of these bloggers would be ... completely illogical, utter silliness! (Note: the impish exception is not the rule; the rule is the rule. Look into it.)

These modern Samuel Adamses go on: "The same "party leaders" who get their rocks off by pretending to be macho and exerting their windbaggy, wrongheaded power will one day come to realize that killing is real, not just a word on a Facebook poll."

Huh! So what these people are saying is, life ISN'T video game! I've learned something here! I wonder if those guys who created that Bush assassination film (YouTube clip only) realized this? No way. They would never have made that movie if they understood death is REAL. I think these bloggers must be the first in years to appreciate the difference between irate stooges' antics and reality, in fact. They seem so sure if it, at least.

And finally, these entirely rational American heroes state, of the obvious leaders of all these millions of dangerous anti-tax, anti-big government activists (all actually racists longing for the days of separate water coolers and when only white blues musicians got paid fairly, it's sooo obvious): "Time to tame them. And time to demand that they tame their deranged, diseased herd of blind followers."

Oh, most definitely. Taming them and their millions of deranged, diseased followers!!!!!!

I am sooo glad the Internet has rational people like these bloggers around to help us all keep our rational, aluminum-foil-laced cowboy hat-covered noggins.

Here's the full post by these brainiacs, which effectively gets interesting at "Okay, that's it, I've had it."

- jR AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles by Zemanta

Related articles by Zemanta

Related articles by Zemanta

Head count