APATHY BREAKER?: Congress Democrats and GOP give hefty bonuses to staff in Q1 of 2011

COULD THIS BE AN APATHY BREAKER?

If there's one thing I learned while in journalism, it's that apathy and a lack of being informed runs rampant in the USA. We don't like to admit it, and I pray for it to be otherwise, but it is true. There are plenty of one-note horn tooters around, even, but not a lot of decent, informed, interested citizens. That is what I found. Not judging, just pointing it out. I find it saddening, especially in the last three years and so, but people are entitled to live as fools and do-nothings in the USA. It's never too late to start pushing back, though.

Strong proof of American political inactivity comes in the form of people being forever bilked by their government, and passing by such news like it were a dead rat on the street, with barely a notice. The Tea Party (despite what the race baiters and other leftist and elite drones want us to believe) was born out of a reaction to what common folks saw as our self-involved, deaf and irresponsible leadership. It was stewing for a very long time for some, me included. My Tea Party thinking goes back to at least 2000. Well, in my ever-present hope of waking others to the evolving loss of the America that should be, I present another of the blatant offenses of our fed gov't:
Congress gave more than $6 million in bonuses to staff during Jan-Mar 2011. When was your last, or when did you give the last, sizable raise or bonus? Four years ago? Two? TEN? Were you laid off, instead? Starting over?

Democrats lose this one by a stunning margin, too: roughly 4-to-1 more cash doled out by the Democrats. Congratulations, America. You elected them to spend your money. I hope you're happy. If things fail to change, come tell me how proud you are in a decade, on the bread line.
(Source: CNN, live at around 4pm on June 26, 2011.) - jR

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

Gore assails Obama on climate change, in 7,000 words

Comments of: Gore blasts Obama on global warming in Rolling Stone

...and the article, in The Tennessean, are worth the read.

Why read the comments? Well, the first six, which I read the other day, were very anti-Gore. 

More interestingly, this is his alleged home state's state capital's newspaper. And, Gore had, long ago, worked for, and perhaps the leading newspaper from his supposed home state. (His home was, really, Washington, D.C. Daddy was a senator, too, yuh see.)

It's fun to see the fake homeboy get dissed at home. 

- jR

Posted via email from liketotallypoliticaldude's posterous

Waiting for Huntsman? Uh, why?

How... anticlimactic. Gary Johnson's got competition for the most forgettable presidential candidate (at this point) now.

Jon Huntsman is a former governor of Utah, and was Obama's ambassador to China until recently. And he is SERIOUSLY trying to be our next president. As far as what he says, at least. I am not convinced.

To announce his campaign's launch, he chose the spot where Ronald Reagan announced his campaign for the 1980 presidential election. The parity ends there. There is no similarity between Reagan and Huntsman in style or personality. In case you didn't notice that. The Huntsman announcement had been anticipated by many -- or the media was telling us we should be anticipating it. Curiosity about an unknown who gets buzz is natural, and it appears that Huntsman needed it. And now, lost it. Huntsman is a terrific person, it seems. But upon hearing his speech at a park overlooking the Statue of Liberty -- as Reagan had done! -- I cannot fathom WHO was waiting for this, without any ill will against the GOP's White House chances in 2012, aside from his family, friends and existing fans. His speech was distant, and his message was... vague. Unemotional. Drab. DRY. Oddly, and dryly, humorous.

The actual statement that he was running, which he gave with a wisp of enthusiasm which was absent from the rest of the speech, seemed, on its own, like a scene from a Christopher Guest movie ("A Mighty Wind," "Waiting for Guffman" and "Best In Show" are a few of his comedies). His announcement was a real-life parody of a real presidential campaign announcement. It was "Waiting for Huntsman". So, who's anticipating his run NOW?

- jR

Posted via email from liketotallypoliticaldude's posterous

Criminals 101: Don't discuss illegal activities on social media

Are you clever? If you are a clever person who was knowingly going to transport an illegal substance across the country in order to sell that substance, in your classic Piper Comanche airplane, how would you handle the preparations, such as notifying contacts that you were heading out? Once you've answered, see if it matches with the following, or if this would even remotely fit into your scenario.

 

Colorado pilot waives hearing for drug charges

 

Via timesherald.com (PA):

 

Though Handzus [the accused criminal] did not file flight plans before piloting the aircraft on the 2,400 mile trip, investigators had seen his Facebook page and learned of his travel plans. And on the day the two landed at Blue Bell airport, detectives spotted the vintage blue Piper airplane.

 

- jR

 

Obama's words and waters being tested, or stirred

So, how about POTUS Obama's Middle East foreign policy (was it?) speech? He was clumsy. He was lawyerly. He was testing the waters with rhetoric and tossing in a few ideas, one of which distracted from the fine, thoughtful comments that went before it.

Sadly, that seems to be what the take-away will be, due to Obama's, uhh, audacity (not of hope, sorry, but of typical arrogance).

He suggested that Israel accept a retreat to their pre-1967 borders as part of a peaceful transition to a Palestinian state, which made Israel 9 miles wide at the time, in its middle.

Curiously, the very next day Obama met with Israel's PM, which suggests an anterior motive for the entire speech. The meeting showed us, those watching, that, with due respect to both men, the "Leader of the Free World" might hold the greatest powers of man in his office, but he still needs a talking to now and then by a conscientious, time-tested professional.

Bibi Netanyahu offered Obama his clear, diplomatic view of Obama's idea during a joint media session in the Oval Office. It was a stunning scene of an unfettered leader teaching an unsettled, face-shielding, simmering lecturer (Pres. Obama) a thing or two about how to prevent the destruction of Israel (while Obama needs further advice on avoiding helping chaos to reign elsewhere in the tribally, religiously and ethnically tense Middle East).

God willing, our big leader will not make things worse for Arabs in other countries OR Israelis/Palestinians of any stripe.

Mostly, for someone who holds an interest in the Middle East as I do, his speech was just a position speech, with little new BUT the line that toyed with being serious about the 1967 lines. THEN, quite as a man attempting to inject cover into everything, he added wording about land swaps.

Don't tire yourselves on the word games, watch for the fallout from this speech. Obama made it clear that the USA is on the side of those seeking democracy, and cast dispersions on the despots in the region, from Libya to Syria. It didn't offer a lot on Iran.

Watch, as predictable as time passing, there will be more tests and nasty words to encourage American guilt, once again. Yes, if you are NOT supporting BHO's words, some will say it equates supporting a cursed plight for innocent Palestinians.

Shame that these overt supporters of Palestinian leaders and their tactics had no guilt about their views. Hamas was elected to rule in Gaza. So keep in mind that their partnership with the more sane (you decide by how much) Palestinian leadership may only be a way to control that other side.

I ask this question often, and you should, too. I would like journalists to ask this question, and get a legit answer: Why is it STILL only Israel's back with a target on it, where the Palestinian plight is concerned?

How have the Israeli government failed Palestinians, when their own brethren do not want to take them in? If peace is a goal, this would be happening. Palestinians are being used by some Arabs as pawns in the Arab Cold War against Israel. They were rejected in 1948, in 1967, in later years.

Somehow this cruddy treatment is always propped up as Israel's blight on another race. Really? Are enough of you so stupid to believe that, or is it simply a convenient distraction from the solid issue: A broad faction of Arabs do not want the conflict to end but one way, with the end of the Jewish State.

Did Obama's speech make THAT clear? No.

- jR