You would think ... or at least hope ... that most sane, reasonable and responsible Republicans would be ashamed and embarassed that the current field of candidates is the best the party could scrounge up. It's perfectly acceptable to have a few off-the-wall beliefs or the occasional personality quirk. What's not acceptable is to base one's entire political belief-system on off-the-wall, contemptible, and in many respects just plain ignorant positions. And even more unacceptable is to then do your damndest to foist those beliefs on the American people. What Mr. Santorum and many like him fail to understand and appreciate is that they have entirely the wrong view of the U.S. Constitution. It's his, and those like him, belief that unless a 'right' is specifically mentioned, then it simply does not exist. He could not be more wrong. The U.S. Constitution lays-out in fairly straight-forward language the boundaries within which the various branches of the government must operate. It also carefully enumerates a few specific "rights" which it has been felt from time-to-time throughout this nation's history needed to be reaffirmed; in case anyone got the idea that they could act in ways which abridged those rights. All other rights/liberties/freedoms not specifically mentioned in the Constitution belong to the people. The U.S. Constitution was not crafted to serve as a checklist for what Americans could and could not do. It was created entirely for the singular purpose of defining and instructing how our government can and cannot conduct the people's business. Perhaps Mr. Santorum and his fellow candidates need a refresher course on Constitutional Law. Or perhaps he should simply READ the copy of the document he professes to have on his person at every waking moment. Whatever he chooses to do, he should also STOP trying to turn the document upon which this nation was founded into his own personal "Whack-a-Mole" hammer with which to squash the rights, liberties and freedoms that belong first, foremost and forever to the American people.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Rational Minds Must Prevail
On the eve of the Iowa Republican Presidential Caucuses, Iowans should take a few moments (at the very least) to consider the choice(s) they face. Many pundits and self-professed know-it-alls have suggested that the 2012 Presidential elections are among the least important of its kind in generations. They base their opinions on the fairly widely-held belief that whatever choices voters face in November, the problems this nation faces, and the real solutions to them, will remain largely unchanged, regardless who wins the presidential contest. There may be some validity to those assumptions. The past two years the American public has witnessed one of the most offensive demonstrations of partisanship in our nation's halls of power. Whether it is the intransigence of the Congressional Republicans, who refuse to consider supporting any measure put forth by their Democratic peers. Or the Democrats who have failed to truly wield the mantle of authority and responsibility given them by the voters in 2008. Whatever position one chooses to support, the other circumstance also continues as a reality. And when considering who to support in the presidential contest, voters must carefully consider who they truly believe would be best suited to move this nation forward.
Nearly every Republican presidential candidate has spent the past several months criss-crossing Iowa in an attempt to convince Iowan voters that they are the one who can best lead the United States. Unfortunately, when looking at those vying for the Republican nomination, it would be reasonable for one to arrive at the conclusion that the Republican Party has not brought their best men/women forward to run for the nomination. In fact, one could surmise by the collection of candidates on-hand in Iowa on this chilly January night, that the party has, in fact, tossed its collective hands in the air.
More important than the people actually running for the nomination are the policies and positions that they support. And how those viewpoints are almost diametrically opposed to what many believe to be the more common-sense, realistic policies and positions that candidates should put forth.
Among the various candidates two common themes hold positions of prominence in their plans for America: Less regulation for businesses, and lower taxes for everyone (individuals and corporations alike). Let's briefly look-back on what most recognize as the primary causes of the severe recession the U.S. has experienced the past few years.
First is the serious retraction of regulation and supervision over the financial industry. During the Great Depression of the 1930's the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt managed to enact the most sweeping restructuring of how business operated in the United States since the founding of the nation. The stock exchanges of the 1920's was often viewed as being nothing more than a legalized house of gambling. Companies were able to operate largely in secret; seldom (if ever) disclosing the true facts of how they did business to neither the general public, nor the investors who purchased shares in American busiensses. Through a number of legislative actions, Roosevelt was able to bring-to-heel the once rampant practice of insider influence peddling and profit-taking that had threatened to destroy the world's most vibrant economy. Banks were required to divest their investment holdings, once again returning to actual banking as their focus of operations. American businesses were required to publicly disclose and report via quarterly reports how each respective company was operating. Along with the requirement that officers of any company with holdings of more than 10% stock ownership of a company report any time that they purchased or sold any of their significant personal stock holdings. And those are only a few of the remarkable changes that were ushered in as part of the "New Deal."
During the presidency of George W. Bush, much of what Roosevelt had managed to create, while attempting to right the U.S. economic ship (which at the time was experiencing its most severe economic depression since the country was founded), was either repealed, amended or deemed not important enough to enforce. In the midst of the largest sustained growth in federal government spending in our nation's history, funding for regulatory and enforcement agencies who were charged with overseeing America's financial industry sectors was decimated. Bush didn't go quite so far as to leave the 'fox' to watch over the chicken coop. But he was not far from it.
Yet, in the face of dealing with the worst economic recession, second only to the Great Depression of the 1930's, Republicans remain seemingly oblivious to the notion that many of our nation's economic problems came-about largely because of the absence of real, effective oversight and regulation. Ironically, it is the position of the majority of Republican candidates that American businesses, including those in the financial services industries, are daunted by too much regulation. Those candidates are, pure and simply, wrong.
The other mantra that Republican candidates are inexhaustively preaching is the need for lower personal and corporate income taxes. It has been the suggestion of Republican presidential candidates and Republican members of Congress that any increase in taxes on the "job creators" will only undermine the slowly recovering economy. And as the nation faces horrendous unemployment and an ever-widening gulf between the "haves" and the "have nots," Republican believe that in order to put the federal government's financial house in order it is necessary to decimate the support programs that are providing food and shelter to tens of millions of Americans. All while individuals and corporations enjoy the lowest rates of taxation in generations.
While Republican voters in Iowa are being asked to choose the candidate that they wish to support for President, they would do well to remember that the state's "first in the nation caucus" position is a relatively tenuous position, at best. As polls of nearly every stripe are conducted across the state, and as nearly every single candidate has enjoyed surges of popularity in those polls at some point during the run-up to Caucus night, much of the media is portraying Iowans as being given a position of authority/responsibility in the presidential candidate nominating contest that they are ill-suited to be given. Relying on the landslide of polling being conducted across the state, media outlets and personnel widely trumpet each time a different candidate manages to garner any measure of a lead over their rivals. Such polling is not only disingenuous in its ability to accurately discern what a majority of Iowan voters are thinking at any given time, but it also severaly misleading, in that it best promotes the candidate that has "caught fire" most recently.
The growing belief of absurdity surrounding Iowa continuing retaining its first-in-the-nation status should give Iowans a moment of pause. Should Iowan Republicans give a majority to any one of the seriously questionnable candidates, the state could face losing it's vaunted position in the election process.
Iowans are better than how the media is portraying them. Many Iowans who participate in the local, state and federal politics take their responsibilities as a voter very, very seriously. They are loathe to commit to a candidate too early. Instead choosing to spend the weeks and months leading up to the caucuses to find-out where each candidate lies with regard to their policy positions. And while the voters of Iowa have in the past supported candidates that failed to win the national nomination, they are able to demonstrate to the rest of the country, and to those politicians, the fears and concerns of the "average Iowan."
It is my sincere hope that Iowa voters will carefully consider the field of candidates before them. And then choose the one they feel is best qualified and equipped to do what is necessary in order to put the United States on a more stable path of recovery and growth. If Iowans instead allow themselves to be swayed by candidates who believe it entirely appropriate to legislate morality and who believe religion DOES have a role in the running of our nation's governments, the state may well find itself relegated to a status of "just another 'fly-over' state."
Nearly every Republican presidential candidate has spent the past several months criss-crossing Iowa in an attempt to convince Iowan voters that they are the one who can best lead the United States. Unfortunately, when looking at those vying for the Republican nomination, it would be reasonable for one to arrive at the conclusion that the Republican Party has not brought their best men/women forward to run for the nomination. In fact, one could surmise by the collection of candidates on-hand in Iowa on this chilly January night, that the party has, in fact, tossed its collective hands in the air.
More important than the people actually running for the nomination are the policies and positions that they support. And how those viewpoints are almost diametrically opposed to what many believe to be the more common-sense, realistic policies and positions that candidates should put forth.
Among the various candidates two common themes hold positions of prominence in their plans for America: Less regulation for businesses, and lower taxes for everyone (individuals and corporations alike). Let's briefly look-back on what most recognize as the primary causes of the severe recession the U.S. has experienced the past few years.
First is the serious retraction of regulation and supervision over the financial industry. During the Great Depression of the 1930's the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt managed to enact the most sweeping restructuring of how business operated in the United States since the founding of the nation. The stock exchanges of the 1920's was often viewed as being nothing more than a legalized house of gambling. Companies were able to operate largely in secret; seldom (if ever) disclosing the true facts of how they did business to neither the general public, nor the investors who purchased shares in American busiensses. Through a number of legislative actions, Roosevelt was able to bring-to-heel the once rampant practice of insider influence peddling and profit-taking that had threatened to destroy the world's most vibrant economy. Banks were required to divest their investment holdings, once again returning to actual banking as their focus of operations. American businesses were required to publicly disclose and report via quarterly reports how each respective company was operating. Along with the requirement that officers of any company with holdings of more than 10% stock ownership of a company report any time that they purchased or sold any of their significant personal stock holdings. And those are only a few of the remarkable changes that were ushered in as part of the "New Deal."
During the presidency of George W. Bush, much of what Roosevelt had managed to create, while attempting to right the U.S. economic ship (which at the time was experiencing its most severe economic depression since the country was founded), was either repealed, amended or deemed not important enough to enforce. In the midst of the largest sustained growth in federal government spending in our nation's history, funding for regulatory and enforcement agencies who were charged with overseeing America's financial industry sectors was decimated. Bush didn't go quite so far as to leave the 'fox' to watch over the chicken coop. But he was not far from it.
Yet, in the face of dealing with the worst economic recession, second only to the Great Depression of the 1930's, Republicans remain seemingly oblivious to the notion that many of our nation's economic problems came-about largely because of the absence of real, effective oversight and regulation. Ironically, it is the position of the majority of Republican candidates that American businesses, including those in the financial services industries, are daunted by too much regulation. Those candidates are, pure and simply, wrong.
The other mantra that Republican candidates are inexhaustively preaching is the need for lower personal and corporate income taxes. It has been the suggestion of Republican presidential candidates and Republican members of Congress that any increase in taxes on the "job creators" will only undermine the slowly recovering economy. And as the nation faces horrendous unemployment and an ever-widening gulf between the "haves" and the "have nots," Republican believe that in order to put the federal government's financial house in order it is necessary to decimate the support programs that are providing food and shelter to tens of millions of Americans. All while individuals and corporations enjoy the lowest rates of taxation in generations.
While Republican voters in Iowa are being asked to choose the candidate that they wish to support for President, they would do well to remember that the state's "first in the nation caucus" position is a relatively tenuous position, at best. As polls of nearly every stripe are conducted across the state, and as nearly every single candidate has enjoyed surges of popularity in those polls at some point during the run-up to Caucus night, much of the media is portraying Iowans as being given a position of authority/responsibility in the presidential candidate nominating contest that they are ill-suited to be given. Relying on the landslide of polling being conducted across the state, media outlets and personnel widely trumpet each time a different candidate manages to garner any measure of a lead over their rivals. Such polling is not only disingenuous in its ability to accurately discern what a majority of Iowan voters are thinking at any given time, but it also severaly misleading, in that it best promotes the candidate that has "caught fire" most recently.
The growing belief of absurdity surrounding Iowa continuing retaining its first-in-the-nation status should give Iowans a moment of pause. Should Iowan Republicans give a majority to any one of the seriously questionnable candidates, the state could face losing it's vaunted position in the election process.
Iowans are better than how the media is portraying them. Many Iowans who participate in the local, state and federal politics take their responsibilities as a voter very, very seriously. They are loathe to commit to a candidate too early. Instead choosing to spend the weeks and months leading up to the caucuses to find-out where each candidate lies with regard to their policy positions. And while the voters of Iowa have in the past supported candidates that failed to win the national nomination, they are able to demonstrate to the rest of the country, and to those politicians, the fears and concerns of the "average Iowan."
It is my sincere hope that Iowa voters will carefully consider the field of candidates before them. And then choose the one they feel is best qualified and equipped to do what is necessary in order to put the United States on a more stable path of recovery and growth. If Iowans instead allow themselves to be swayed by candidates who believe it entirely appropriate to legislate morality and who believe religion DOES have a role in the running of our nation's governments, the state may well find itself relegated to a status of "just another 'fly-over' state."
Monday, December 19, 2011
Fallen Woman
Copied and shared from www.queerty.com.
It’s getting to be a bad joke: Pick a Republican who’s attacked same-sex marriage and they’re either gay themselves or done something totally skeevy to besmirch the holy institution.The latest culprit is Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (left), who stepped down from her leadership post Friday after allegations surfaced she was having an adulterous affair with a male staffer.
Color us stunned. Really.
Koch isn’t resigning as a state senator, mind you—just her leadership post (and refusing to seek re-election). Because it’s genetically impossible for a Republican politician to fully understand the nature of hypocrisy. Koch and her cronies helped get an amendment into the voting booth next year that will let the people of Minnesota vote on whether same-sex marriage should be banned. That makes sense—she’s something of an expert on things that destroy marriages.
“I think in the end there are probably only two people who really know what kind of relationship [it was] and how long it had been happening,” interim Senate Majority Leader Geoff Michell told the Star-Tribune. “It certainly had risen to a level within our Senate family that people were coming to us.”
While Koch’s male paramour hasn’t been named, Michael Brodkorb—her communications chief—is no longer on staff as of Friday. Draw your own conclusions.
“I think in the end there are probably only two people who really know what kind of relationship [it was] and how long it had been happening,” interim Senate Majority Leader Geoff Michell told the Star-Tribune. “It certainly had risen to a level within our Senate family that people were coming to us.”
While Koch’s male paramour hasn’t been named, Michael Brodkorb—her communications chief—is no longer on staff as of Friday. Draw your own conclusions.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Anti-AIDs Discrimination Rears Its Ugly Head ... Again
This unwarranted sense of fear of those who were infected continued for many years (many would say it still exists more readily than most would like to admit or accept), even after medical researchers and doctors discovered that transmission was only possible by direct contact with the blood supply of an infected individual with the blood supply of an uninfected individual. Despite America being told via a nearly unprecendented media storm of information, the result of tireless effort by many activists and AIDs support organizations (ASO's), the paranoia over possible infection continued to be prevalent years later.
During the 1980's a teenager named Ryan White became the virtual 'poster boy' for those afflicted with HIV/AIDs, as he was forced to leave the junior high school he was attending because school officials believed he posed a significant threat to the remaining student body. Despite the nation slowly learning that someone with HIV did not present any risk of transmission as the result of casual, and even some limited intimate, contact, citizens of the United States remained seriously divided as to whether White's school acted responsibly, or reprehensibly. White's legal case was ultimately decided in his favor, requiring that his school allow him to attend classes. Such legal precedence would, seemingly, only have since been strengthened by passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act (1990), along with a more recent package of amendments to the original legislation that effectively widened the scope of influence over what was deemed discriminatory, liberalizing (to some extent) what a disabled person would be able to expect/require of any potential (or current) employer or other public accomodation. However, the Milton Hershey School believes otherwise. In fact, their denial for admission to the school of a 13-yr. old who is HIV-positive is rather conclusive that despite legal protections afforded those are HIV-positive or who have been classified as having AIDs, along with the incredible medical advancements that have produced medications which reduce exponentially the threat of possible exposure (even through intimate contact) as they reduce levels of the virus in many of those infected to levels at which doctors refer to them as "undetectable," suggests that the school cares little about the facts about the science behind HIV/AIDs nor the legal responsibility it bears toward potential students who are HIV-positive.
Officials at the school offered in defense of their actions denying the 13-yr. old admission, that,
“We understand that the risks presented by an HIV-positive individual who is on medication are low,” the school said in a recent statement posted on its website. “Taking all these and other factors in consideration, including the fact that we would be prohibited by law from informing our community of the young man’s HIV-positive status, we concluded that the risk was significant, and rose to the level of a direct threat to the health and safety of others.”
Ironically, the possibility that a student might be exposed to the HIV virus while conducting themself as a student is not the school's concern. Instead, they are most concerned about the fact that students may well engage in sexual intercourse. And that despite the univeral procautions against the transmission of bloodborne pathogens that all public accomodations are required by law to follow, students could find themselves exposed to the virus.
It is difficult to decide which is most reprehensible about the school's behavior: their blatant and unnecessary discrimination against a potential student who is HIV-positive, or the fact that they consider themselves responsible for every Hershey student's sexual conduct. If the latter is the case, then one could come to the conclusion that should an unexpected pregnancy of a Hershey student, or one that was caused by a Hershey student should occur, that the school would then agree to providing any/everything needed for the care of the expectant mother and the child before and after the child's birth. However, it's HIGHLY unlikely that that is the case. No doubt, if a pregnancy occurs the school most likely is of the opinion that while it may concede to making 'reasonable accomodations' to the expectant mother so that she could continue her studies while the pregnancy progresses, it in no way accepts any measure of responsibility for the student's condition. Which gives Americans reason to ask, "Then why is it different for the kid with HIV? Why consider sexual conduct that results in pregnancy NOT the school's responsibility, but that which might be engaged-in by someone who is HIV-positive is within their purview?"
Let's face it: HIV/AIDs discrimination still exists. Ask anyone who is afflicted with the virus and they will no doubt quickly accede to the notion that although federal law makes such discrimination illegal, it's still around, and it's just as ugly as it has ever been. And in a strange twist of irony, while Americans find themselves in an era where those who embrace a conservative philosophy of government believe government at all levels, especially in areas like education, tries to provide too much to citizens, it's a private educational institution, one largely removed from many of the fiscal ties the federal and state governments have on their public counterparts, that is exhibiting blatant discriminatory practices.
HIV/AIDs discrimination is offensive enough when it happens to an adult with the disease. But such behavior reaches an even lower level of depravity and reprehensiveness when it targets a child.
The Milton Hershey School should apologize to the student denied admission. And the student should be allowed to attend the school, if he still desires to do so. Furthermore, the school should willingly agree to pay all of the costs associated with the student's attending private school, whether that school is Hershey, or some other learning institution. The school should also make some sort of public apology to all Americans who have been diagnosed with HIV/AIDs, stating clearly and unapologetically that their behavior was not appropriate. That they failed to appreciate the challenges someone who is HIV-positive might face, but instead ignored those possibilities and rathe embraced a fairly unsophisticated and insufficiently educated position on the question of whether or not to extend admission to an HIV-positive student.
Schools should be this nation's, and the world's, "citadels of learning." Institutions dedicated to providing the very best education possible for students. This could not be more true than it is today, when a growing number of young persons who identify themselves as gay are resorting to suicide in order to free themselves from the constant threat and mistreatment suffered at the hands of bullies. Those who are HIV-positive experience the isolation that is a common factor in the lives of members of the LGBT community, only it is usually more severe, direct, and even more harmful. Hershey could stand in the way of the further marginalization of those with HIV/AIDs. The school could also send a loud and clear message to educators everywhere that all students, regardless of their station in life, should be treated with the respect afforded to all human beings. It is 2011, after all. Nearly 30 years after the virus first 'officially' reared its ugly head, all Americans can and should do better by those who are HIV-positive. And those who are HIV-positive or have been diagnosed with AIDs should be able to expect all institutions to respect them first, foremost and always as human beings.
Bachmann Says U.S. is 'Bananas'
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" with show host David Gregory, Michelle Bachmann, the Minnesota Congresswoman and candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination suggested that the United States was spending like a "' banana republic or 'Greece'." Continuing her ongoing denunciation of all-things Obama, the Congresswoman again laid the blame for Washington spending, the federal deficit and the national debt at the feet of the President.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/45714607#VpFlash Go here for the full interview of Ms. Bachmann.
What Congresswoman Bachmann again fails to admit is that she was a member of Congress during the final two years of the Bush Administration. Years that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit. She also fails to admit that during George W. Bush's two terms in office, more debt was added to the federal deficit in those eight years than during the entirety of our nation's existence. That the reason for those massive deficits were two wars (one of convenience, one more rooted in necessity) that were entirely unfunded, the largest reductions in tax rates (in terms of dollars saved by the taxpayer) in our nation's history (without any commensurate reduction in spending), and the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program (alone adding $700-800 billion to the deficit over 10 years), which was hamstrung by the pharmacuetical manufacturers who essentially wrote the legislation by not allowing the federal government to seek quantity discounts from those same companies for the drugs the plan was intended to cover.
What the Congresswoman also fails to either understand, appreciate or perhaps simply doesn't care is that if the United States has, in her mind (a frightening thing to contemplate, in and of itself), begun acting like a 'banana republic', it's not because of government spending or the federal deficit. Rather, any resemblance to "banana-dom" is tied directly to the ever-expanding wealth disparity in the United States. In an interesting article written by the late-Christopher Hitchens for Vanity Fair magazine, the writer provided readers with an excellent, and somewhat telling (and some might say clairvoyant), description of what a banana republic is. This is shared, in part, because it seems fairly safe to say that while Ms. Bachmann knows the term 'banana republic', it is not entirely certain that she knows what it means. And her denunciation of the U.S. acting like such a country affirms that suspicion.
"In practice, a banana republic is a country operated as a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by the collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility. Such an imbalanced economy reduces the national currency to devalued paper-money, hence, the country is ineligible for international development credit and remains limited by the uneven economic development of town and country." (Banana republic. (2011, December 17). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:00, December 19, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banana_republic&oldid=466363585)
Hitchens goes on to opine that what typifies a banana republic is when, ". . . a money class fleeces the banking system, while the very trunk of the national tree is permitted to rot and crash. . . . ." (Ibid.)
In many respects Ms. Bachmann's declaration is somewhat correct, in that the United States is, in many ways, "a country operated by a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by the collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility." One could look at conditions in the U.S. today and see striking similarities between the aforementioned 'definition' and the way our "free enterprise" system and the federal government works to each others rather lop-sided benefit; "free enterprise" reaping whirlwind profits while public debt goes through the roof. However, where Ms. Bachmann stumbles is when she attempts to place blame for our tarnished fiscal condition at the feet of "big government spending." It is NOT government spending that has resulted in private corporations making billions upon billions of dollars in profits. Those are the result of previous administrations in Washington turning a blind-eye toward or even advocating for monopolistic corporate mergers that have given fewer individuals nearly overwhelming influence and power over this nation's financial, business and political policies. And all the while as Corporate America was actively and effectively "raping and pillaging" the American taxpayer and consumer, the federal government, particularly when controlled by Republicans, provided the wealthiest of Americans their lowest income tax rates in six decades, coupled with loopholes and a capital gains tax rate that is less than half the highest income tax bracket for those same wealthy individuals. Throw into that mix the completely disingenuous and fairly destructive practice of "privatizing" more and more of what the federal government had done in years and decades past, which only guarantees even MORE money flowing from the American taxpayer directly into the pockets of private companies/corporations, and you effectively not only have the monopolistic business environment, but you also have a government which has done nearly all that is within its power, short of handing them the keys to the White House, to ensure that those monopolistic businesses continue garnering ever-greater profits and influence.
No. Ms. Bachmann was not entirely wrong in suggesting that the United States has begun to resemble a banana republic. Where she was wrong was in attempting to suggest that blame for such an ignanimous description of our nation be blamed on the current administration. Like it or not, America did not reach the conditions in which we find it today in just the last 2+ years. America today is the result of decades of "Trickle Down Economics," a political party that is hell-bent on making sure the U.S. has only two economic classes (the wealthy and their servants), and an electorate that has seen its influence over elections and policy continually diluted, wittled away, and in some instances, largely co-opted or done away with altogether.
And what is probably the most ironic thing about Ms. Bachmann's appearance, past statements, and even her current candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, is her hubris-laden suggestion that she, and she alone, is the person best equipped to "bring America back." If it wasn't for the fact that she hopes to run for President, the most powerful individual on the surface of the planet, her determination and steadfastness in the face of scathing dismissals as being 'irrelevant' or 'poorly informed' would almost be admirable. Almost. Instead, her laser-like focus on the Presidency, and her almost rabid belief that she knows the cures for all the nation's ills, is fairly frightening.
As if the threat of the United States possibly being "Newt"-ered isn't enough to cause someone to contemplate a renewed faith in a higher power and the hope for deliverance from bombastic inanity, the haunting specter, and spectacle, that would be a "Bachmann Presidency" is reason enough to question how in Hell does someone of, at times, marginal intelligence and unchecked bravado and braggadocio find themself being a contender for the nomination to run for the Presidency on behalf of the Republican Party? America has always been proud to promote itself as the "land of opportunity." Where anyone can, with enough hard work and determination, reach untold heights of personal and professional success if they so choose. But when the Michelle Bachmann's of the world come even THIS close to the "levers of power," we need to rethink how such a bizarre concurrence of events could have happened. And strive to make sure that this particular bolt of lightening does NOT strike twice.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/45714607#VpFlash Go here for the full interview of Ms. Bachmann.
What Congresswoman Bachmann again fails to admit is that she was a member of Congress during the final two years of the Bush Administration. Years that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit. She also fails to admit that during George W. Bush's two terms in office, more debt was added to the federal deficit in those eight years than during the entirety of our nation's existence. That the reason for those massive deficits were two wars (one of convenience, one more rooted in necessity) that were entirely unfunded, the largest reductions in tax rates (in terms of dollars saved by the taxpayer) in our nation's history (without any commensurate reduction in spending), and the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program (alone adding $700-800 billion to the deficit over 10 years), which was hamstrung by the pharmacuetical manufacturers who essentially wrote the legislation by not allowing the federal government to seek quantity discounts from those same companies for the drugs the plan was intended to cover.
What the Congresswoman also fails to either understand, appreciate or perhaps simply doesn't care is that if the United States has, in her mind (a frightening thing to contemplate, in and of itself), begun acting like a 'banana republic', it's not because of government spending or the federal deficit. Rather, any resemblance to "banana-dom" is tied directly to the ever-expanding wealth disparity in the United States. In an interesting article written by the late-Christopher Hitchens for Vanity Fair magazine, the writer provided readers with an excellent, and somewhat telling (and some might say clairvoyant), description of what a banana republic is. This is shared, in part, because it seems fairly safe to say that while Ms. Bachmann knows the term 'banana republic', it is not entirely certain that she knows what it means. And her denunciation of the U.S. acting like such a country affirms that suspicion.
"In practice, a banana republic is a country operated as a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by the collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility. Such an imbalanced economy reduces the national currency to devalued paper-money, hence, the country is ineligible for international development credit and remains limited by the uneven economic development of town and country." (Banana republic. (2011, December 17). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:00, December 19, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banana_republic&oldid=466363585)
Hitchens goes on to opine that what typifies a banana republic is when, ". . . a money class fleeces the banking system, while the very trunk of the national tree is permitted to rot and crash. . . . ." (Ibid.)
In many respects Ms. Bachmann's declaration is somewhat correct, in that the United States is, in many ways, "a country operated by a commercial enterprise for private profit, effected by the collusion between the State and favoured monopolies, whereby the profits derived from private exploitation of public lands is private property, and the debts incurred are public responsibility." One could look at conditions in the U.S. today and see striking similarities between the aforementioned 'definition' and the way our "free enterprise" system and the federal government works to each others rather lop-sided benefit; "free enterprise" reaping whirlwind profits while public debt goes through the roof. However, where Ms. Bachmann stumbles is when she attempts to place blame for our tarnished fiscal condition at the feet of "big government spending." It is NOT government spending that has resulted in private corporations making billions upon billions of dollars in profits. Those are the result of previous administrations in Washington turning a blind-eye toward or even advocating for monopolistic corporate mergers that have given fewer individuals nearly overwhelming influence and power over this nation's financial, business and political policies. And all the while as Corporate America was actively and effectively "raping and pillaging" the American taxpayer and consumer, the federal government, particularly when controlled by Republicans, provided the wealthiest of Americans their lowest income tax rates in six decades, coupled with loopholes and a capital gains tax rate that is less than half the highest income tax bracket for those same wealthy individuals. Throw into that mix the completely disingenuous and fairly destructive practice of "privatizing" more and more of what the federal government had done in years and decades past, which only guarantees even MORE money flowing from the American taxpayer directly into the pockets of private companies/corporations, and you effectively not only have the monopolistic business environment, but you also have a government which has done nearly all that is within its power, short of handing them the keys to the White House, to ensure that those monopolistic businesses continue garnering ever-greater profits and influence.
No. Ms. Bachmann was not entirely wrong in suggesting that the United States has begun to resemble a banana republic. Where she was wrong was in attempting to suggest that blame for such an ignanimous description of our nation be blamed on the current administration. Like it or not, America did not reach the conditions in which we find it today in just the last 2+ years. America today is the result of decades of "Trickle Down Economics," a political party that is hell-bent on making sure the U.S. has only two economic classes (the wealthy and their servants), and an electorate that has seen its influence over elections and policy continually diluted, wittled away, and in some instances, largely co-opted or done away with altogether.
And what is probably the most ironic thing about Ms. Bachmann's appearance, past statements, and even her current candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, is her hubris-laden suggestion that she, and she alone, is the person best equipped to "bring America back." If it wasn't for the fact that she hopes to run for President, the most powerful individual on the surface of the planet, her determination and steadfastness in the face of scathing dismissals as being 'irrelevant' or 'poorly informed' would almost be admirable. Almost. Instead, her laser-like focus on the Presidency, and her almost rabid belief that she knows the cures for all the nation's ills, is fairly frightening.
As if the threat of the United States possibly being "Newt"-ered isn't enough to cause someone to contemplate a renewed faith in a higher power and the hope for deliverance from bombastic inanity, the haunting specter, and spectacle, that would be a "Bachmann Presidency" is reason enough to question how in Hell does someone of, at times, marginal intelligence and unchecked bravado and braggadocio find themself being a contender for the nomination to run for the Presidency on behalf of the Republican Party? America has always been proud to promote itself as the "land of opportunity." Where anyone can, with enough hard work and determination, reach untold heights of personal and professional success if they so choose. But when the Michelle Bachmann's of the world come even THIS close to the "levers of power," we need to rethink how such a bizarre concurrence of events could have happened. And strive to make sure that this particular bolt of lightening does NOT strike twice.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Majority Of Voters Support Protections For Gay Workers
By On Top Magazine Staff
Published: December 13, 2011
A survey released Friday found a vast majority of voters support protections for gay workers.
The poll released by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) in partnership with Greenberg Quinlan Research found that 77 percent of voters support protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in employment.
“Indeed, support for anti-discrimination laws and policies are so non-controversial that overwhelming majorities of Republicans, conservatives and observant Christians support them as well,” the report's authors wrote.
Seventy percent of Republicans and sixty-seven percent of conservatives support such protections.
The poll also found that a large majority (87%) of respondents believe it is illegal under federal law to fire someone for his or her sexual orientation, while 78 percent believe it is illegal under state law.
The poll demonstrates strong support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a proposed federal bill that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. ENDA has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 (except the 109th; 2005-2007).
The poll released by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) in partnership with Greenberg Quinlan Research found that 77 percent of voters support protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in employment.
“Indeed, support for anti-discrimination laws and policies are so non-controversial that overwhelming majorities of Republicans, conservatives and observant Christians support them as well,” the report's authors wrote.
Seventy percent of Republicans and sixty-seven percent of conservatives support such protections.
The poll also found that a large majority (87%) of respondents believe it is illegal under federal law to fire someone for his or her sexual orientation, while 78 percent believe it is illegal under state law.
The poll demonstrates strong support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a proposed federal bill that would outlaw workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. ENDA has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 (except the 109th; 2005-2007).
Pollsters surveyed 800 likely voters between November 9 and 13. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.46 percentage points.
Friday, December 9, 2011
That Gay Marriage Thing ... It's Bad, Right? Right?! Apparently Not!
Gay Marriage Has Boosted Iowa’s Economy, Study Concludes
The legalization of same-sex marriage in Iowa has provided an ecnomic boost to the state, according to a new study by UCLA.
The study was released by the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law which focuses on sexual orientation and public policy. It found that since Iowa extended marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2009, the resulting spending on wedding arrangements and tourism provided an additional $12 to $13 million to the state and local economy.
The institute estimated that gay marriages have likely added between $858,000 and $930,000 in tax revenue to the state.
The release of the report, titled “Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Iowa: Sales Tax,” comes just weeks before the Iowa caucus, the first of the Republican presidential nominating votes.
None of the eight individuals currently running for president, including Barack Obama, have explicitly expressed support for gay marriage, but there is a strong opposition to the idea within the Republican Party.
Five of the seven candidates currently seeking the GOP nomination have come out in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Four of the candidates – Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum – have signed a pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage promising their support for the federal ban.
Only Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman have said that they would not support such an amendment. Paul believes that marriage is a private matter and that the government should have no involvement. Huntsman says that while traditional marriage should be between a man and a woman, he does support civil unions for same sex couples.
Timothy Hagle, associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa, predicts that because the party is relatively united on the issue, this study won’t likely be a factor in the caucus outcome.
“It really shouldn’t effect what’s going on in this race because it’s not something that particularly divides the Republicans,” Hagle said.
Lee Badgett, one of the authors of the study, tells ABC News that timing of the studies release is a coincidence.
The study was released by the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law which focuses on sexual orientation and public policy. It found that since Iowa extended marriage rights to same-sex couples in 2009, the resulting spending on wedding arrangements and tourism provided an additional $12 to $13 million to the state and local economy.
The institute estimated that gay marriages have likely added between $858,000 and $930,000 in tax revenue to the state.
The release of the report, titled “Estimating the Economic Boost of Marriage Equality in Iowa: Sales Tax,” comes just weeks before the Iowa caucus, the first of the Republican presidential nominating votes.
None of the eight individuals currently running for president, including Barack Obama, have explicitly expressed support for gay marriage, but there is a strong opposition to the idea within the Republican Party.
Five of the seven candidates currently seeking the GOP nomination have come out in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Four of the candidates – Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum – have signed a pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage promising their support for the federal ban.
Only Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman have said that they would not support such an amendment. Paul believes that marriage is a private matter and that the government should have no involvement. Huntsman says that while traditional marriage should be between a man and a woman, he does support civil unions for same sex couples.
Timothy Hagle, associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa, predicts that because the party is relatively united on the issue, this study won’t likely be a factor in the caucus outcome.
“It really shouldn’t effect what’s going on in this race because it’s not something that particularly divides the Republicans,” Hagle said.
Lee Badgett, one of the authors of the study, tells ABC News that timing of the studies release is a coincidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)