A gun owner argument: gun control ‘punishes’ of gun owners who have done nothing wrong.
To play off of ‘guns don't kill people, people kill people.’…
-Drugs don’t make junkies, people make junkies…
Drug control laws ‘punish’ junkies who have done nothing wrong?
-Texting doesn’t kill people, cars kill people…
Anti-texting-while-driving laws ‘punish’ drivers who haven’t injured anyone when texting and driving?
***
The internet has brought about revolutionary changes in the media industry (news/music/video… TV and movie viewing) to the extent that it is unclear what the new paradigms in these fields will or can be. With the effects of global climate change quite literally in the air we breath, where is the energy revolution we so desperately need?
***
After being caught plagiarizing by Rachel Maddow (see here and here), Sen. Rand Paul expressed his regret that he could not duel his opponent (here and here).
As I see it, this is another form of Wayne LaPierre’s statement: ‘The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’; in other words, might makes right. ( I presume Rand Paul casts himself as the ‘good guy’ in this ‘duel’.)
The problem for Sen. Paul (and his Party and their financial backers) is… we all know otherwise.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
We need (an) opposition party(ies)
The worst part of the dysfunctional Republican Party in our two-party system is we’ve lost a true opposition party. Aside from Republican efforts to obstruct the Affordable Care Act, much of the conflict between the Democrats and Republicans is manufactured conflict for dramatic effect. After all, conflict = drama = ratings for news media.
The fact is… there are no significant difference between the two parties on economic or foreign policy issues (Benghazi is a manufactured conflict to discredit then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton). And a few differences on social issues (differences: women’s rights, voting rights, LGBT rights; similar: immigration policy, drug policy, education reform, prison/crime policy).
This nation faces many problems whose scale range from local school board controversies to threats of global economic and ecological collapse. We have the tools and resources and fortitude to confront these problems. What we don’t have are political leaders and worst, because they share the same position on these issues, our politicians actively construct legal means to obstruct attempts by political outsiders to advance these causes. It’s time to demand more of our political leaders.
As an end note, laws are easily circumvented:
-regulatory rules can interpret/re-interpret laws to the benefit of various interests (can essentially nullify the intent of the law).
-by budgeting insufficient funds to properly operate a regulatory agency
---
A very short list of issues which would hugely benefit from proper debate from multiple positions:
Financial industry reform
Healthcare reform which addresses rising costs
Immigration
Energy policy, especially relevant to ecological effects
Civil liberties of Americans (NSA spying; voting rights)
Whistleblower protection (including journalists)
Tax policy (including industry subsidies)
Regulatory reform (currently: industry insiders write the rules)
The fact is… there are no significant difference between the two parties on economic or foreign policy issues (Benghazi is a manufactured conflict to discredit then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton). And a few differences on social issues (differences: women’s rights, voting rights, LGBT rights; similar: immigration policy, drug policy, education reform, prison/crime policy).
This nation faces many problems whose scale range from local school board controversies to threats of global economic and ecological collapse. We have the tools and resources and fortitude to confront these problems. What we don’t have are political leaders and worst, because they share the same position on these issues, our politicians actively construct legal means to obstruct attempts by political outsiders to advance these causes. It’s time to demand more of our political leaders.
As an end note, laws are easily circumvented:
-regulatory rules can interpret/re-interpret laws to the benefit of various interests (can essentially nullify the intent of the law).
-by budgeting insufficient funds to properly operate a regulatory agency
---
A very short list of issues which would hugely benefit from proper debate from multiple positions:
Financial industry reform
Healthcare reform which addresses rising costs
Immigration
Energy policy, especially relevant to ecological effects
Civil liberties of Americans (NSA spying; voting rights)
Whistleblower protection (including journalists)
Tax policy (including industry subsidies)
Regulatory reform (currently: industry insiders write the rules)
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Link between default and Social Security…
Fact: The Social Security Trust Funds do not hold any ‘funds’; rather, they hold ‘special U.S. government securities’ which the Social Security administration can redeem at their discretion to cover benefit payouts.
Fact: Republicans claim that the Social Security Trust fund is broke.
Fact: Current Social Security payments have been sufficient to meet the payouts of Social Security programs and are projected to ‘run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2021’.
Fact (needs confirmation of role of ‘general funds’ attribution of monies borrowed from the Social Security Trusts): A significant portion of non-Social Security tax receipts and monies borrowed from the Social Security Trust Funds are used to cover other government expenditures: defense and intelligence (heavily dependent on private contractors), education (moderately dependent on private contractors), welfare/social programs, and other spending which includes subsidies (agriculture and energy) and research.
Fact: The richest Americans own the majority of stocks.
Extrapolation: Government functions (thus where government monies are spent) which are dependent on private contractors provide the most financial benefit to those contractors and their stockholders. Government spending on research also benefits stockholders of high technology companies. Therefore, the rich benefit greatly from government spending.
Question: If the Social Security Trust Fund did not exist, would the government have curtailed spending which mostly benefits rich Americans?
Extrapolation: Republican want to avoid raising taxes on the rich which will be necessary to redeem government securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds. [Alternate interpretation: the government, having given the rich the opportunity to profit from government spending, now expects them to pay taxes on their profit(s).] Republicans are doing this through campaigns to convince Americans that the Social Security Trust fund is broke (see above) and suggesting that a freeze in the debt ceiling does not inevitable result in a government default. Their claim that a default can be avoided through selective payment of government obligations (see here and here) smells of an attempt to void the securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds. If voided, the Social Security Administration would not be able to redeem them, no additional taxes would be called from and Social Security payments would not be possible.
This is a government version of corporate pension fund raiding. It is illegal and immoral and should be called out as such.
Fact: Republicans claim that the Social Security Trust fund is broke.
Fact: Current Social Security payments have been sufficient to meet the payouts of Social Security programs and are projected to ‘run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2021’.
Fact (needs confirmation of role of ‘general funds’ attribution of monies borrowed from the Social Security Trusts): A significant portion of non-Social Security tax receipts and monies borrowed from the Social Security Trust Funds are used to cover other government expenditures: defense and intelligence (heavily dependent on private contractors), education (moderately dependent on private contractors), welfare/social programs, and other spending which includes subsidies (agriculture and energy) and research.
Fact: The richest Americans own the majority of stocks.
Extrapolation: Government functions (thus where government monies are spent) which are dependent on private contractors provide the most financial benefit to those contractors and their stockholders. Government spending on research also benefits stockholders of high technology companies. Therefore, the rich benefit greatly from government spending.
Question: If the Social Security Trust Fund did not exist, would the government have curtailed spending which mostly benefits rich Americans?
Extrapolation: Republican want to avoid raising taxes on the rich which will be necessary to redeem government securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds. [Alternate interpretation: the government, having given the rich the opportunity to profit from government spending, now expects them to pay taxes on their profit(s).] Republicans are doing this through campaigns to convince Americans that the Social Security Trust fund is broke (see above) and suggesting that a freeze in the debt ceiling does not inevitable result in a government default. Their claim that a default can be avoided through selective payment of government obligations (see here and here) smells of an attempt to void the securities held by the Social Security Trust Funds. If voided, the Social Security Administration would not be able to redeem them, no additional taxes would be called from and Social Security payments would not be possible.
This is a government version of corporate pension fund raiding. It is illegal and immoral and should be called out as such.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Day 9
So it’s Day 9 of the shutdown because Republicans in Congress aren’t willing to pass a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government and we are careening towards a potential default in less than 10 days. And now, instead of manning up to vote for an unconditional CR, the Republicans are passing piecemeal bills to address each crisis as they get media spotlighted. This isn’t responsible budgeting, this is impulse buying and it does little to resolve the major budget issue and next to no positive PR for the Republican Party.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
King James Bible
I wonder how many American Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians know that King James of the King James Bible fame (on which Scofield Reference Bible is based) is a “…flaming homosexual.”
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Republican Party = Syria, Russia and Vladimir Putin?
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) were interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN about the Republican strategy on how to manage the debt ceiling fight where both politicians drew unexpected parallels…
Rep. Sean Duffy: “…the President is going to have to negotiate with us [Republicans] just like he wants to negotiate with Syria and Russia to figure out a solution on how to resolve this debt problem…”
Rep. Peter King: “… if he can sit down with Vladimir Putin, he can sit down with John Boehner…”
Since presidents are elected nationally, President Obama represents the interests of the nation; we would hope the equating of the Republican Party with Syria, Russia and Vladimir Putin doesn’t mean the Republican Party does not act in the interest of the American people.
Update: Maybe the Republicans are asking to be treated as a hostile foreign power… They’ve listed a series of demands in exchange for a one year increase of the debt ceiling… the long term strategy of a foreign enemy?
Rep. Sean Duffy: “…the President is going to have to negotiate with us [Republicans] just like he wants to negotiate with Syria and Russia to figure out a solution on how to resolve this debt problem…”
Rep. Peter King: “… if he can sit down with Vladimir Putin, he can sit down with John Boehner…”
Since presidents are elected nationally, President Obama represents the interests of the nation; we would hope the equating of the Republican Party with Syria, Russia and Vladimir Putin doesn’t mean the Republican Party does not act in the interest of the American people.
Update: Maybe the Republicans are asking to be treated as a hostile foreign power… They’ve listed a series of demands in exchange for a one year increase of the debt ceiling… the long term strategy of a foreign enemy?
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Leadership
I recently ran across a definition for managerial excellence: ‘excellent execution of an excellent strategy.’ It occurred to me that this is a good definition of leadership.
It is too bad our recent presidents have been highly deficient as leaders…
President ‘Heck of a job, Brownie’ Bush:
-poorly executed an abysmal Hurricane Katrina strategy
-neglected to develop much less execute a terrorist defense strategy prior to September 11, 2001
-ineptly executed two inadequate strategies of war for Iraq and Afghanistan
President ‘No drama’ Obama:
-modesty executed an inadequate economic stimulus strategy
-did a reasonable job executing an immoral and, most likely, unconstitutional national/international strategy of electronic surveillance
-has no obvious strategy on how to legislate/govern around the obstacle of an intransigent House of Representatives
The U.S. is a powerful nation with numerable resources and incredible… why can’t we elect leaders who are capable of leading?
It is too bad our recent presidents have been highly deficient as leaders…
President ‘Heck of a job, Brownie’ Bush:
-poorly executed an abysmal Hurricane Katrina strategy
-neglected to develop much less execute a terrorist defense strategy prior to September 11, 2001
-ineptly executed two inadequate strategies of war for Iraq and Afghanistan
President ‘No drama’ Obama:
-modesty executed an inadequate economic stimulus strategy
-did a reasonable job executing an immoral and, most likely, unconstitutional national/international strategy of electronic surveillance
-has no obvious strategy on how to legislate/govern around the obstacle of an intransigent House of Representatives
The U.S. is a powerful nation with numerable resources and incredible… why can’t we elect leaders who are capable of leading?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)