Avant-garde: Think Liberally

Go Texas

2008-07-08T11:35:00.003-04:00

Wow, so it's been a long time since I posted. In no small part due to the fact I have a major paper I'm working, and work has been crushing. Be that as it may...

There aren't too many areas where I'm overly sympathetic to the conservatives, but gun control is one. I was driving up 95 through Philly yesterday and there was a billboard that announced something like "We're tired of the violence guns bring to our communities, no more guns!"

Yeah, I've seen them too. Those little machines that are running around killing people. They hop around, filling themselves with bullets and wait for people to come home so they can shoot your children. How do guns bring violence to your community? First of all, guns are a symptom of a couple of things 1) could just be that people like to hunt or target practice (animal rights and the questionable practice of "sportsmanship" aside) 2) could be that someone did their homework and found that governments are not always trustworthy and if they come after you, they'll have guns... guess you're screwed if you don't 3) and finally, someone wants to hurt someone else.

The first two I'm ok with; the last one I'm not. Keeping something out of peoples hands that they really want is impossible eg war on drugs, prohibition, etc. Whether gun ownership is a right or not, we've been under the impression it is for so long that it is impossible to take them all back.

As a last point, I support what the guy in Texas did. If someone broke into my house, I'm not taking names or asking them why they're there, I will kill them as quickly as possible. The offence of these men was not against society, it was against an individual. The idea that people are "taking the law into their own hands" is assinine. The law is in your hands for your personal protection- you may have hired out the job to the police, but they come in after the fact. I'm tired of good people waiting for "the law" to show up. These are the same kinds of people who are waiting for FEMA to show up. Get off you ass and do something to help yourself. If that means killing thieves to prevent theft, crime, rape, murder, and who knows what else... then OK.

Obama, Hillary, and Braveheart

2008-06-04T14:49:00.002-04:00

Remember the scene in Braveheart where the guy (can't remember his name) wants to follow and support William Wallace but his father keeps undermining him by dirty backdoor deals? He grabs his dad by the shirt and says "Die! I want you to die!"

Well Hillary, I want you to die... not a physical death, just a political one. In the movie the father is working hard to secure - at the expense of what is right - more land, more wealth, and more power. Sound like anyone we know? If it hasn't already, it should have become obvious last night that Hillary will take the whole ship down if she can't be queen.

Vice President? The very idea of it offends me. I so oppose this person that if she gets the VP nomination, I'll be voting (again) for a 3rd party candidate. I just can't do it. I can't vote FOR a ticket with her name on it. At the risk of giving the nomination to McCain (not that my one vote would do so) I'd still vote for someone else if she's attached to the Presidency.

Conservatives beat us on Education

2008-05-27T21:28:00.004-04:00

I have a brother and sister-in-law who focus heavily on education in their home. Their oldest daughter is barely 7 years old and has tested out of the 2nd grade already. They worked so hard to get the school to allow them to advance her to the 3rd grade (essentially skipping two grades ahead) and the school wouldn't allow it. Several of the teachers showed up to vouch for my niece, both in terms of her academic abilities and her social skills; no dice. The principal refused to allow her to move forward even one year, much less two because she didn't want to set a precedent.

The irony is that when it comes to holding a child back a year the parents have the last say, at least in New York state. However, if your child is doing well then they aren't interested in helping them move forward. After fighting for her child and losing, she pulled all of her kids (all bright) from the school and began homeschooling.

Now, I'm about to cross the line here in several ways

#1 I'm a liberal who's DISGUSTED by the ownership teachers unions have over the democratic party.
#2 I have a bias against the homeschoolers because I suspect many of them are religious fundamentalists who are trying to limit their kids opportunities, not expand them
#3 I generally support public education... or do I?

Here is the problem as I see it: Schools that stink have no incentive to move exceptional kids forward because they bring up the test scores for the kids whose parents are not involved or who seemingly lack capacity and genuinely need special attention (funding for which is limited).
Teachers unions work to protect even crappy teachers and lousy parents demand more money so they don't have to get involved.

Here is the solution as I see it: Publicly fund and regulate education but privately run it. I do support public education, but we can have public education without having the hegemonic limitations imposed on us. Give each parent a voucher for their child's education of whatever we are currently spending on education, plus what we need to do it the right way, and then give parents the ability to hold their school DIRECTLY accountable for its success or failure.

Sometimes it's not even about "success" or "failure" so much as it is that some schools may be better suited for some students than others. Under our current system, however, the students without a lot of money are stuck. Wealthy parents will privately school their kids anyway and so it is the middle-class and poor who are screwed by the current educational practices; the very people Democrats claim to help most.

Hey Democrats, if you really care about the poor and middle-class then how about fixing the schools... not too difficult to do if you care to try. On this issue I must side with conservatives. It may be the only time I do, but it is so frustrating to have a party that sells out it's constituents for the proverbial special interest groups!

It's not dead yet

2008-05-08T17:27:00.000-04:00

“At the end of the day, we have to figure out who is the stronger candidate because that is what matters most.” -Hillary

Oh, I thought what matters most is that at the end of the day we stand for something besides our own narcissistic career ambitions. This is why Hillary should never be elected President, because she thinks politics are the ends for her and not a means for us.

Damn the torpedos!

2008-05-07T11:14:00.003-04:00

One of the problems that I have with President Bush is that if he gets it into his head that he wants to do something, not even his closest advisors, political allies, or friends can convince him otherwise. Sound familiar?

Last night Hillary lost by almost 15 points in NC and barely, barely squeeked by in Indiana; a state by the way, which will allow anyone to request a Democratic ballot. A state which has voted Republican in every election for many, many years. A state in which, presumably, "operation chaos" is in full swing. But Hillary will take her 2 point lead and declare "on to the White House!"

Obama has the popular vote, the delegate vote, and Hillary has the possibility (not probability though) of getting the super-delegates to go for her. The very idea of having super-delegates is offensive to me and I find to be exceptionally undemocratic as it is part of a machinery that works against voters.

In short, the only shot Hillary has is to overturn the will of the voters.

Obamanomics

2008-05-01T21:29:00.006-04:00

PBS tried to host a debate on the "gas tax holiday" supported by Hillary and McCain... they couldn't find ONE SINGLE Economist to defend the idea. Obama, on the other hand, has said the idea is silly... something EVERY SINGLE Economist has defended.

The reason for this comment? Just another way in which two polished politicians are trying to find ways to play for votes, while Obama fights for what is right.

Jeremiah Wright and Mormons

2008-05-01T21:29:00.004-04:00

I've been somewhat amused and simultaneously astonished at the ironies that are plaguing this election. Here are just a few: Hillary and McCain have been in politics for decades and are millionaires many times over, but Obama is an elitist. Hillary has the blue collar white vote??? And last and most importantly... Jeremiah Wright.

I wonder how many LDS liberals there are? I've attended a Mormon church since before I can remember and I can count on my hands how many liberals I've known. Prominent Mormon church leaders have said things like "blacks will never have the (Mormon) priesthood" and that "the biggest enemies to the church are feminists, intellectuals, and homosexuals." (I like to consider myself both of the former by the way) The late President Gordon B. Hinkley once poked fun of Senator Harry Reid on an LDS broadcast for being a Democrat. And it goes on...

I've endured far, far worse than any of these comments both in church meetings and in less formal settings from LDS Bishops, Stake Presidents, and many others. I've regularly attended our classes and listened to "teachers" talk about how the church's doctrines clearly align with the Republican party and assail "liberals." I wonder, is the fact (and it is a fact) that my Bishop is an unapologetic right-winger cause for doubting my liberal credentials? I wonder how many people have disowned friends and acquaintances they have simply because of disagreement with them?

Would you? Do you really only maintain relationships with people that agree with you? How sad if you do. How much better is the person who keeps up a variety of acquaintances than the narrow-minded fool who keeps the company only of himself and those like him.

2008-04-22T21:47:00.002-04:00

10 things to know about McCain

2008-04-09T21:45:00.002-04:00

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has
59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

Sources:

1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008 http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html
"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008 http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/
2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us
"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/
3. "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008 http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007
"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007 http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/
6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008 http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80
"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home
7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/ 8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251
9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008 http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/
"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/
10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

Obama or McCain?

2008-04-03T13:41:00.002-04:00

So I'm going to be a total hypocrite right now and say that even if you like Hillary more than Obama... there's just no way. I am the kind of person who likes to see underdogs fight, even if it's a losing battle (see Nader post) and I also like the idea that politics is about morality and not about numbers; however, the political positions between Obama and Hillary are not so great that it should prevent Hillary supporters from being realistic. Hillary is disliked by many on the left and HATED by most all of the moderate to right voters.

Door #1
Hillary wins the Democratic nomination and the left votes for Nader or maybe stays home.
Others vote FOR McCain or maybe vote AGAINST Hillary.
McCain wins handily. We have someone better than Bush, but not much.

Door #2
Obama wins the Democratic nomination and Hillary supporters vote for someone politically similar to Hillary but with much better political morals.
Obama wins handily. We have someone left of insanity for a change.

Admittedly, either of these doors will lead to a place better than the last 7 years. And admittedly, Hillary supporters will go down fighting for the first woman to be president. Unfortunately though, that's not how it will spin from the right. Hillary will go down in flames as a symbol of what is wrong with Uhmerikah; the left. It will be a referendum on how left policies and left politics are a failure. What this country needs now is to remember that Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, Voting Rights (broadly conceived of), Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the FDA, the FCC, the SEC, the FDIC and so many others thought to be generally good for the welfare of America's citizens are all the result of left politics.

In short, a vote for Hillary is a vote against the left. Case in point: Rush Limbaugh's "operation chaos."

The Race to Race

2008-03-18T12:32:00.002-04:00

Clearly, Obama was forced into making the Philadelphia speech by Hillary and the Right-Wing. Ironically though they have said that Obama is trying to make this about race.

Three months ago Sean Hannity was running a campaign against Hillary Clinton called the “Stop Hillary Express.” Beck and Limbaugh were, of course, parroting the same kinds of things.

Now that they have realized what a force Obama is, they are terrified. Listen to how knee-jerk the reactions of the radio cons are. Turn on talk radio and listen to them. It is an insight into the mind of the malignorant.

Credentials of Conservative Radio Hosts

2008-03-17T21:34:00.004-04:00

Rush Limbaugh:
Education: HS Diploma, dropped out of college after flunking
Professional Experience: Top 40 DJ

Sean Hannity:
Education: HS Diploma
Professional Experience: Construction

Glenn Beck:
Education: HS Diploma
Professional Experience: Top 40 DJ

The great irony is that these men often criticize Hollywood actors who are activists, implying that the "Hollywood Elites" should stick to entertaining. Ironically, the conservative radio show hosts are nothing more than "entertainers" themselves.

Furthermore, these men also criticize the liberals in academics whose resumes (or CV's) show their extensive commitment to understanding political matters.

Just food for thought.

Vote Entitlement

2008-02-29T00:19:00.002-05:00

In November of 2004 I voted for Ralph Nader, not just because of the Republicans but because of the Democrats.
I get quite frustrated by the Democrats' claims that Nader "spoiled" the 2000 election or that he "siphoned" votes from Gore.
Since when are the Democrats entitled to get my vote?
In addition to this rhetoric, the Democrats also filed one law suit after another to prevent Nader from competing in 2004.
If these really are the people that are running for office on the Democratic side, maybe we'd be better off with a Republican in 2008... then the Dem's will have another 8 years to shape up and act like the people they claim to be.

Fox Editing

2008-02-25T23:46:00.001-05:00

Vanilla or French Vanilla

2008-02-05T22:12:00.000-05:00

I know I'm about to become lonely, but if we (liberals) are misguided and, frankly, dumb enough to elect Hillary then I'd consider voting for a republican. Not even just an independent, a republican. Why? To punish Hillary as a candidate. She's such a bad choice that I'd go against everything I believe in politically to make a point morally; that sell-outs are not welcome here.

Conversely, I think the same of McCain. If republicans are misguided and, frankly, dumb enough to elect McCain then they deserve to get cleaned up.

Worst case scenario: Hillary and McCain. They are so bland and rigid and "moderate" that it's not even a choice. Hell, they could run together... and I'm running away.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

2008-01-24T13:14:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama is not a Muslim, he is a practicing Christian. Romney is a Mormon, Huckabee is a Baptist, Giuliani is a Catholic, and Hillary is Satanic. Just kidding ;-)

Frankly, if a candidate's religion matters to you then you have failed to understand a fundamental American value, namely, that the President elect is to represent all Americans equally without respect to their faith and is not to govern as though we live in a theocracy. This standard applies equally to each of the candidates, not just to the ones we disagree with.

Although Obama (my personal favorite) is not a Muslim, if he were, he would be just as outstanding and would remain heads above all the others.

Radio, Republicans, and Recession

2008-01-23T23:13:00.000-05:00

Glenn Beck has been promoting doom and gloom on the economy for, oh let's see... at least a year now. Today was no different. Today he had a guest on named Steve Cordasco who is a money expert. They talked about our economic woes and how a key indicator to watch is 30yr T-bills. For all of you financially non-literate types ;-) that's a 30 year Treasury bill, a very safe investment with low interest rates. The rates on bonds go down as the demand for them gets higher. The rates on 30yr T-bills are lower than they've ever been before. This, Beck's guest Cordasco claims is a sign of things to come. People are moving their money into very safe investments for the long haul.

Now, it must be remembered that it's an election year and with that will be all that typically goes along with an election year. Glenn Beck's first choice for President is Mitt Romney, a man with whom Beck shares religious faith. Beck has repeatedly touted Romney as someone with a strong business sense who can save our country's financial crisis. What better way to move Beck's political agenda along than with a little financial mess that must be cleaned up by... oh, I don't know... Romney!

I have no doubt that there is a recession on the way, but let's think about how we got to this point. Two leading factors come to mind 1) debt 2) economic anarchism. Both of these were taken on at the behest of Conservatives.

1) Our national debt climbs to pay for our 3.5 billion per day war budget and the corporate bail-outs that Bush has arranged for such paupers as Citibank (since they shouldn't have to be held responsible for their bad loans) is strapping us as a nation. On top of this, we as individuals have responsibility for taking their crappy loans and getting caught up in the borrow-and-spend mentality our President advised following 9-11.

2) Free-market capitalism, or more appropriately "economic anarchism" does not work. Well, it works in a feudal sense, but not in a democratic one. Ironically, the all-wise consumers in whom economic anarchists place all trust to guide the market are fools the moment they step into a voting booth. Furthermore, the "free-market" is actually not free. The people who own it are increasingly the Citibank's and Wal-Marts of the world. This phenomenon will continue as the "free-market" works it's magic.

It just seemed a little too much today to be coincidence with the first two hours of the program being about economic crisis and the third hour being about Romney for President. It turns out Steve Cordasco is a conservative talk show host on 1210am in Philadelphia aka "The Big Talker." This is the same station from which Beck's career took off. They offered no other explanation for the take off in T-bills other than a recession. Uh, how about that baby boomers are retiring left and right and any financial advisor would be remiss if they didn't suggest putting money in T-Bills as a source of income for a retiree??!!!???

There may be a recession ahead, but how we got there is as important as how we can get out. In fact, if we are careful to learn from our mistakes... we might not make them again in 2008.

Social Insecurity

2008-01-22T13:52:00.000-05:00

After receiving an email forward from a friend, I've decided to point out a couple of things regarding Social Security. Now, I understand that not one is particularly concerned about social security as a topic right now (which is to say the media isn't talking about it, no politicians are particularly motivated about it right now, and we have more pressing concerns such as the Superbowl) but I do take forwards seriously.

Well, allow me to clarify. I take seriously forwards which are 1) political in nature and 2) which are written to help or hurt a person or cause. My reasoning is that most people (being predisposed toward apathy with respect to politics) will take forwards at face value or will completely discard them altogether.

In the case of this forward I think neither of those approaches is appropriate. It raises some legitimate concerns, though not comprehensively. It offers no solutions either, other than a transparent one which is inadequate. I'll try to make some points and offer a solution in the end.

With all of this in mind, here's the forward:

Your Social Security

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this…It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what .and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are Facts!!!
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt , a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can
YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

Some questions, points, musings, and thoughts on this topic:

* Yes, FDR implemented social security. Something not often pointed out is that the payout started at roughly 62 and the average life expectancy was roughly 65. (I say "roughly" because I'm not sure of the exact ages, but I'm within a year or two of each. It was never designed to be a retirement plan, it was designed to be safety net for people who may not be able to afford heat, housing, or food.

* Yes, the Democrats have raided the funds and simultaneously given themselves a nice retirement plan in the process. Yes Republicans were equally (not incidentally) responsible for that. Look at the votes!

* Yes, FDR said only 1% of 1,500 would go to FICA. So what???? Every time I go to Wendy's the prices go up, should we put handcuffs on them preventing an increase?

* Why didn't the Republican controlled congress, senate, or white house do a damn thing about it when they were in power?

* Why do Republicans get the same retirement pay out as Democrats?

* During Clinton's presidency, he did try to reform social security and was stonewalled. By whom?

* In a state with many retirees which is also conservative (Florida) Republicans have used not only social security but low (to no) taxes on older citizens who vote to get elected.

Here's my suggestion, keep a safety net for people that will not be able to survive without some sort of assistance in the form of Social Security while allowing people who are young and planning their retirement to set aside for it by putting money in stocks and specially designated retirement plans.

Oh wait, we do that!
If you're young, get a 401(k), 403(b), SEP, Roth IRA, Traditional IRA, Whole Life Policy, or Annuity. (Scratch that, annuities are a rip-off).

If you're old and you're on Social Security, life sucks because the "security" is nothing close to "retirement" and you should tell those "young whipper-snappers" to start saving for the latter or they'll be stuck in the former.

True, this is not a Democrat or Republican thing, so why are we only being shown one party's errors???? The solution is for us to hold both parties accountable for the failing Social Security. Neither should get a pass as they've both participated in the corruption and they've both failed to rectify the problem. We can, as voters, hold them accountable but unfortunately that will require more than forwards and blogs, it will require true civic engagement. Sorry... there's no magical formula, we just have to get involved.

2008-01-14T22:30:00.000-05:00

I think I finally understand what Neitzche meant when he said “We have art to hide ourselves from the truth.” I was thinking about how, for example, people watch movies wherein characters do things we would all love to do and we appreciate seeing them do it. We acknowledge that it should be done in reality but no one really does it. Perhaps Art itself is contributing to this. I mean, if people have an outlet for their frustrations then they have no incentive to actually carry out their frustration… they may simply view art and then feel better. No real change, just feelings. Therefore, Art is the enemy of revolution.

GOBAMA!

2008-01-03T23:56:00.000-05:00

They said he couldn't do it. Democrats and Republicans alike thought the "Hillary Express" would win it. Obama will be our next president, and not a moment too soon.

Here's Lookin' Up You, Kid!

2007-11-20T10:24:00.000-05:00

What's that I hear? Is it a banjo, the sound of beagles chasing a "coon" up a tree and some fried green tomatoes? No, it's the sound of Kyla Ebbert cashing in on just how white trash and slutty she can be.

Kyla Ebbert, the woman who was upset with Southwest for drawing attention to her for wearing skimpy clothing is now available to see totally nude on Playboy.com. Yes, apparently she was so jealous of the clothing getting the attention that she took it off and burned it, then posed for national attention. She is, of course, deeply scared by this debacle and laments that her payday came on the heels of her blossoming Hooters job but is sure that since the photos were "very tastefully done" she will still be able to pursue a law degree and become an attorney.

Her mother, an aging woman well past her prime reluctantly agreed to Kyla posing nude and was quoted as saying "Why is that little Bitch getting all the attention? I have to live vicariously through her? I gave birth to her, where's my prize? Anyone want to see me naked?"

Kyla: there is no law career in your future; the best thing that ever happened or will happen to you in your life is the attention you got for your Barbie skirt. It's all downhill from here. Unfortunately you never had a shot did you? You are, after all, your mother's daughter.

Getting Blue Is Not Enough

2007-11-15T09:57:00.000-05:00

I’ve felt emotionally depressed on more than one occasion in my life and it turned out to be good for me because I reevaluated my life and reordered it according to what is important to me. In fact, each time I’ve been depressed it’s because I allow myself to lose focus, to become concerned with things that are not so important, and to forget who I am.

America has done just that. Celebrities, money, pride, laziness, apathy; they all stem from our loss of identity. America is in the middle of an existential crisis and unless we regroup we could lose ourselves for good. I’m not an alarmist, but go back to my life metaphor… if I continually work too much and neglect my family (who is really the only important thing in this world) then I stand to lose them. My wife will leave me if I neglect her and/or the children long enough or severely enough. If America does the same, other countries will be more appealing and become a magnet for the peoples of the world.

Lest I sound too glossy, I know this country has made grievous mistakes; name one that hasn’t. A country is a complex organism involving individuals, factions, power-grabs and even the struggle to accurately record the events of its development. So of course there will be mistakes. On the whole, however, this is one of the greatest countries in the world. Or was.

Well, maybe we’re not to the point of using past tense, but it’s not that far off it seems. Not to worry, I have a solution: A National Economic Depression. I don’t mean we get a little “blue” and have a downturn or excessive inflation for a while, I mean we get an economic depression that provokes a reawakening in this country to who we are. I mean that we are hungry, cold, hot, tired, scared, and driven to work toward a common hope again. I think we’ve not only lost the ability to work toward hope, but we’ve lost hope. It’s not that we are so down that we’ve lost hope, it’s that we are so fat, dumb, and happy that we’ve lost it. We don’t need hope, we have stuff. Stuff divides people but hope unties. If we knew how to live with our stuff and balance our lives that wouldn’t be a problem, but unfortunately we don’t. As if that weren’t enough, hope has been replaced by greed and pride which have disconnected us from the rest of the world. How can we understand global problems when we are so detached from them? A depression, that’s how.

Conservatives: American Gangsters

2007-11-03T00:48:00.000-04:00

I’ve been surprised to hear so much about a movie on the talk radio programs. They don’t usually talk about movies, why this one? They are less than happy about the fact that there are some “negative social messages” in the movie American Gangster. The “negative social message” is that the bad guy gets off in the end. His lifestyle is glamorized. How dare those Hollywood liberals glamorize such a bad, bad man!

Interestingly, this movie takes a man who is a capitalist and glorifies him. He is unapologetically looking for a way to make sure “no one owns him” and he makes reference to macro-economic principles in his business speak. For example, he tells another character about how “there is a demand for his product and he can deliver it to people at a higher quality and lower price than his competitors.” But what’s wrong with that? Sounds like good ol’ capitalism to me!

“But wait,” you say “He’s damaging our communities by delivering his harmful substance to our children and neighbors!” I retort, “Ah, but I’m a good red-blooded American capitalist who believes that if the market demands it, it must be good.” I mean after all, we don’t want government getting in the way of private enterprise do we? The supply must meet the demand.

Why should the same conservatives who are not happy with the social message of American Gangster continue to bemoan the government intervention? Is it because they don’t recognize that economics are tied to social problems? Yes, probably. They’d much rather attempt to wax philosophically about human nature and that there’s something wrong with poor people inherently which makes them poor. Or maybe the conservatives don’t recognize Denzel’s character as the prototype of the American (free-market) Capitalist? Definitely.

I’m not in favor of keeping drugs illegal any more than prostitution or any other activity that people want to do on their own. What I am in favor of is limiting activities that affect others such as driving or piloting while under the influence, violent crimes, stealing, vandalism, etc. Economics is a social force, not an individual one and its effects are felt throughout society, hence, the new deal, unions, and the entire high liberal tradition.

Conservatives complain about the effects of capitalism, while they simultaneously prate on about how “the market” should decide this or that. Unfortunately, “the market” keeps gangsters in business… and business is good. If only the conservatives could see that many of our gangsters today wear suits, live in the same uptight suburbanite communities as the rest of us, and propagate the false notion that there is something to them that can be called “American” in the first place.

Reaching...

2007-10-18T21:21:00.000-04:00

On days like today I get hopeful that our country can be repaired. Someone else gets it. As an avid listener to the Glenn Beck program I’ve noticed that for the last several months (or maybe longer) he has been advocating the position that Americans are being divided by politicians and pundits for power and money.

I couldn’t agree more. Something happened in 2000 when the stakes were high and the vote was so, so very close. Al Gore won the popular vote; Bush won the electoral vote by literally a few thousand votes, and America has not been the same since. Our differences have become more pronounced and new battle lines were drawn along the political landscape which benefit a very few people in this country.

Don’t get me wrong, I know that differences have always existed and they didn’t start in 2000. In fact, the founding of America as we know it was an arduous task that involved vehement disagreement. Why should we be so privileged as to escape the same difficult process that has been necessary in every country, corporation, family, church, or any other organization in the world? Furthermore, there are many things on which I don’t agree with Glenn Beck but I don’t hate him. I don’t want him to leave the country or to lose his job. On the contrary, the reason talk radio has been so successful is that people like me have not been doing a good job of calling out the people that are “on our side.” Even many of the people who claim to hate Rush Limbaugh are in debt to him for their employment. If Limbaugh went off the air, lots of pundits would be unemployed; not just him.

If the right can do it, we can too. Reach across. Our political differences will, to some extent, always be there and should give hope to everyone that we’ll always be a diverse people, respectful that others will disagree but united in our commitment to preserve a place where disagreement is itself respected.

Ron Paul?

2007-10-11T22:30:00.000-04:00

I hope for Obama. I'll vote for Obama. But if Obama loses out to Hillary, third party here I come. As one or two of my previous posts suggest, I'm not a Hillary fan. I'm looking forward to the primaries because it will show me what other people are thinking. I really don't trust the polls, so the only way I'll know if I'm alone on this or not is the primaries. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I'm thinking Ron Paul.

I'm attaching a link for the article / report which is motivating some of my thoughts on this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ainAqA2prMBo&refer=us

In a nutshell, there is a new report out (which people around here are talking a lot about) from Rutgers. The report identifies the 4 states which lead the nation in population loss. They are: New Jersey, California, New York, and Louisiana. Now, Louisiana is an anomaly and I think we all know why residents have left there in record numbers. That leaves the other three. Hmmmm... Now why would people leave those three particular states? Well, they were asked why and they said it's because of the high taxes and high cost of living. Taxes on the middle class are overwhelming around here. Historically, taxes are at a very low point for the wealthy but at a very high point for the middle and lower classes.

When we moved to Philadelphia, I was astonished to find that people think nothing of paying anywhere from $7,000-$12,000 per year for property taxes. That’s PROPERTY tax only. Now, there are income taxes (federal, state, and local), sales tax, and a myriad of other taxes. I must admit, I see both the R's and D's spending our tax money like crazy. For Republicans, it's the war and corporate welfare. For the Democrats, it's social security and private welfare.
I'm so tired of it that I'm thinking I could vote for a Libertarian. I put both Ron Paul and, to a lesser extent, Giuliani in that camp. The thing with Giuliani: he's a major proponent of the war. Ron Paul, not so much. Ron Paul, however, will not win and it would be a purely symbolic vote. Giuliani may well be the candidate who could win. If they will reach over on the social issues, I'll try to reach over some on the economic issues. In fact, after the reality check that people are moving from high tax areas to other, lower-cost areas to live tells me that I'm not the only one.

Categories- Their Friend and Our Enemy

2007-10-08T13:27:00.001-04:00

I just heard a radio host make several claims I found intriguing. It's not because they are special or by any means the exception. On the contrary, I find them to be the most abused method of keeping unqualified people employed in the American political scene today.

"Anytime you see the word "progressive" you should think: unfair. Socialist."

In speaking of a Cornell professor named Robert Frank, this host said:
"He's not factually wrong, he's ideologically wrong because he's a lib."

In speaking of the Cornell students who may attend this professor’s class, the host said:
"Their skulls are full of mush."

Whose words of wisdom are these? None other than Limbaugh. Now, in the world of intellectual disputes; Limbaugh isn't on the radar. Books have been written about the fallacies this man commits (whether knowingly or the more likely unknowingly). However, he is opinionated and many people listen to him. He should be taken seriously despite his lack of cognitive abilities because he influences people who aren't able either by 1) the constraints of time or 2) because they lack desire to deconstruct his claims. Interestingly, he attacks democrats / liberals for giving a pass to the Dems on whatever they do (which I applaud) but then expects his audience not to do the same with his views. And they don't.

So, I will. Cornell is an Ivy League University and I fail to believe those students' skulls are "full of mush." They lack life experience to be sure, but I don't believe Limbaugh could hack it with them in any intellectual capacity. How is it that taking kids to church or to a private school which teaches according to the parents wishes is good, but if they're taught something contrary to that then we're brainwashing them?

More importantly, for all of us who are average, working people we must recognize the problem with placing ideas and people into categories. It's so easy to categorize. It makes us feel organized and rational, but it’s bad policy. Limbaugh and his ilk hope that you and I will not think about a matter once it has been deemed "Progressive", "Liberal", "Socialist", etc. Where Limbaugh is right, however, is that people on the left hope the same when they use terms like "Conservative", "Religious-Right", "Racist", "Hatemonger", etc. I mean, honestly, should anyone take Al Sharpton seriously anymore?

How much longer must we allow the right to (even if betimes accurately) ONLY attack the left?
How much longer must we allow the left to (even if betimes accurately) ONLY attack the right?
Am I the only person in America who sees them all as being intellectually deficient, if not devoid? What about their moral obligation to gut-check? It's called honesty. I don't like it when I'm wrong either, but I still doubt myself and my beliefs. Categories like the tired, trite, cliché, political categories cooked up to keep politicians and pundits employed are working against honesty and morality.

Smoke em' out

2007-10-07T15:51:00.000-04:00

They could be male, female, black, brown, white, blonde or bald, young or old, wealthy or broke and yet for some reason they all have one thing in common: they discard their cigarettes out of car windows. So far as I can tell, they have absolutely no conscious about it whatsoever and most of them don't even look around to see if anyone noticed. My favorite is when they are driving and their cigarette bounces (lit, mind you) all over the road in front of my car like a little firework show.

They make great decorations for the median too don't they? I love it when the driver in front of me tosses one still burning into the mulch. I guess they think "Hey, there are already 300 there, what's another one?" Or maybe they aren't thinking at all. For you smokers out there, who exactly do you think cleans up your stupidity? I suppose I should excuse the smokers who don't toss out their butts, but you seem to be outnumbered.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people having the right to smoke whatever they want, though not necessarily wherever or whenever. I do think it's their right though. What I'm opposed to is their disregard for the environment, the community, and our tax dollars. This seems to be particular to smokers because I just don't see McDonald's patrons tossing their cup holder out the window. I'm sure it happens, but rarely. Smokers who do not litter are, however, the exception.

So what's to be done about it? Personally, I'd like to light them on fire while they are being crucified upside down after they've been forced to eat a few hundred discarded cigarette remains. Maybe a more realistic (and humane) solution is to put another $1.00 or so tax on each pack and pay city workers from that tax to go around and clean them up. Maybe we should record them with our cell phones and put them and their license plate on youtube where they will promptly be given a ticket for littering by the cops.

I suppose the ultimate solution would be a plea to their conscious that would result in them reconsidering their actions. I suspect most smokers have no idea how annoyed the rest of us are at seeing their nasty little habit all over the street. I'm an optimist, and I can have hope for humanity. Until then, I can only hope they just filled up and there's a trace of gas on the side of their vehicle that will catch on fire and blow them away. :-)

President Hillary?

2007-10-04T10:09:00.000-04:00

The latest poll places Hillary Clinton at the top of the Democratic Candidates for President, which means she's leading Obama by double-digits. As a liberal, please no. Hillary Clinton is not a liberal, she's not a conservative, she's a Hillary. She will do what she needs to do for herself. If she needs to be for the war... okey dokey. If she needs to be against it... sounds good. Burning the flag amendment making it illegal to burn the American flag... count her in.

Instead of Hillary for President, I have a very realistic proposal: How about we elect a quarter for president? Well it doesn't have to be a quarter, it could be a 50-cent piece or a dime, or whatever. Essentially any two-sided object which can be tossed and flipped to make an important decision will do. What we need is find a way to decide between (typically two) paths at a minimal political cost to any one person. That's what Hillary has done throughout her political career; and flipping coins is all about the numbers.

K-Fed Up

2007-10-03T10:59:00.000-04:00

Britney Spears; I think you’re hot, but frankly, I’m tired of looking at you. I don’t care that you’re a wreck. I feel bad about it, but I have more important things to worry about in my life and it requires real news… not your life, it requires real media… not the E channel on every channel.

Every time I turn on the TV, it’s the latest mistake you’ve made. I’m sorry for singling you out because, like, Lindsay, Paris, O.J., and, like, so many other totally popular people are, like, guilty of, like, the same thing. And here’s the real kicker: we the consumer are the ones provoking the media to follow you around. It’s your fault that you behave so badly, but it’s our fault that you get attention for it. You are getting rich off of our incompetence while the media gets higher ratings for entertainment than it does for news

P.S. How does it come to be that in one of the greatest civilizations in the history of the world, a Judge must give a guy named "K-Fed" custody of children???

In a follow-up to the healthcare... I'd like to suggest we shoot the unhealthy parents of otherwise healthy children.

Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness

2007-10-02T10:55:00.000-04:00

In respose to dialogue over Universal Healthcare, Libertarian / Conservative Neal Boortz made the case that to take from one and provide to another in the form of taxes is "stealing." This form of redistribution (a phrase which implies a legitimate distribution to begin with) is, to Boortz, an unfair, unjust, and immoral practice.

Most libertarians and classical liberals think so. Their view of what makes one "Free" is entirely reliant upon a physical freedom which is rooted in basic economics. Money comes from work, work is a physical activity, and for our work we get stuff. That's freedom. If you take my stuff from me, you take my work; you take (most literally) my life away. It's a system that rewards laziness and punishes success, they say.

I wonder, how free is the man suffering from black lung who worked in the coal mines out of dire necessity? How free are the people for whom treatment in this country is available (but not affordable) when they cannot work? How free are people so impoverished by their birth, location, or circumstances that they most literally do not have the opportunity to escape it? Freedom is a fluid concept which is regulated by circumstances all the time. Although we'll never have an egalitarian society, we should guarantee some freedom from in addition to the freedom to. After all, isn't that the objective of the state, to provide freedom? Freedom from illness and poverty are just as necessary as freedom to pursue certain activities; in fact, they pre-empt them.

Healthcare is a right. It is a right because it enables our society to be more productive. I am not, and presume that I will never argue that a portion of our society should be able to sit around and reap the benefits of another's labor. Marx said one of the primary tenets of communism is that everyone must contribute, and I'm not even advocating communism.

Healthcare is the agenda item which will decide the 2008 election; not war. We've lost the war and the Republicans insist we stay there until they can say we didn't. The cost of the war is currently running about 3.5 Billion per day, but we can't afford Universal Healthcare? It's a good thing we aren't a bunch of socialists who have socialist medicine provided by the hardworking capitalists for those lowly, lazy commies on the bottom... else we might find that people would be trying to sneak into our country for healthcare instead of trying to bomb us!

Wealth-fare

2007-10-01T12:37:00.000-04:00

Today on the Glenn Beck program he used an example of the “unfair” practice of socialism which coerces one person into paying for lunch for 40 people. It does seem unfair doesn’t it? Why should one person have to pay for 40% of the population? After all, this is America and we would like to see people work for what they have, not coerce one wealthy person into giving it to them, right?

Of course there is one small problem… how did that person get the money to begin with? How is it they have enough to pay for the lunch of 40 people? Beck talked about a billionaire who used to live in a home with eight other families and worked his way into billionaire status. The billionaire was not named by Beck but allegedly said he hoped to leave this life penniless by giving his money away. He (Beck) then said we need more of those people around. ABSOLUTELY!

In fact, I can think of a couple of billionaires that worked their way to money and are giving it away: Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Oops, I forgot… they aren’t conservatives. In an ironic twist the people who understand that the real “forgotten man” has been forgotten by the yacht club, the billionaire example Beck used is still the exception; not the rule. I wonder how far and how long one has to look to find the one example of a person who lived in a house with cardboard walls turned billionaire to substantiate an ideology of “free-market” capitalism?

Leave that point alone for a second and consider this: the same conservatives who claim they want us to work hard for money and that competition is good for the economy simultaneously want to maintain wealth-fare, that is, trust funds and inheritance which carve out a particular portion of society and designate that they should never have to work again. Those who are on wealth-fare will never compete economically, they’ll never go on unemployment, they think COBRA is a snake, and that only rednecks drive American made cars. Since when did the welfare of society at large get replaced by the wealth-fare of a minority? And more importantly, is that really American?

Bollinger vs. Ahmadinejad

2007-09-29T23:19:00.000-04:00

It was perhaps a bit too symbolic... an American who invited a Middle-Easterner to speak, and then gives in to conservative pressure and insults him. Now, before I come across as an Ahmadinejad apologist I should make my necessary disclaimer: Ahmadinejad is a bad person.
I get that.

I also get that bad people don't really become bad by us calling them so, but rather by demonstrating bad behaviors, which he has done.
However, Bollinger looked like a fool and made a fool of America because whether we like it or not he was representing us too. Unfortunately for us, he fed right into the plan: let America look arrogant, ignorant, and bigoted. Thanks Lee.

This was a world event and was broadcast to people around the globe. We must remember that the perception of people in the Middle East is formed by their media, just as ours influences us. The supposedly "liberal media" began adding to the pressure to cancel his opportunity to speak from the moment they learned of it. Right-wing radio began with their typical claims that it would be un-American of us to have a terrorist speak in this country, etc.

If diplomacy is possible; we started the talk with a slap in his face. If not, we gave him propaganda. Either way, we lost a good opportunity on that one all because Mr. Bollinger got scared by the right-wing brown shirts.