Posts
On a recent cover of The Economist magazine (June 12-18, "What's wrong with America's right") was a caricatured drawing of the contrite state of American politics as evoked by the fighting might of the far right from what was once an attentive grand old party. The magazine cover portrayed a tea party event.
In bold black lettering, the words at the top of the page read, ‘What’s wrong with America’s right’. Lacking the expected punctuation mark, it was a statement… not a question.
At one end of the table sat a bright-smiling Sarah Palin (have you ever seen her otherwise?) brandishing a rapid-fire assault weapon in her right hand while in the left she proudly held up her prized bounty – a startled, bug-eyed donkey fearful of annihilation from its short span of influence.
To the far left of Palin was a teary-eyed old gent, obviously government-bred, wearing a top hat decorated with stripes of red and white, and a blue hat band imprinted with white stars. Attached to the hat was a sign: ‘Nonsense 24/7’. Although he bared no resemblance to Uncle Sam, his right hand was placed over his heart; from his left hand he daintily held a ‘Made In USA’ cup. Definitely not an enthusiast, his pinky finger drooped.
Immediately below and to the left of ‘sad Sam’ was a doll-like image of Barack Obama, the smallest character of them all, with pins sticking out from various parts of the body. Sitting in a cup with the letters ‘BP’ printed on its side, it required no bit of imagination to conclude that the Obama doll was dunked in a cupful of oil. Perhaps oddly, he too shone a bright white grin just like Palin’s.
Situated between Palin and Sam was a white varmint with disproportionately sized head and ears, noticeably larger than the body whole. At the least, he was very cheekish. Aristocratically postured, a smoldering stogie displayed a cigar band with a monogrammed ‘R’. These observations told me he might be a character of some importance. The squinting eyes from making a big wide yawn suggested he had spent a long and harrowing day of scampering about, repeatedly announcing, "I'm late! I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say hello! Goodbye! I'm late, I’m late, I’m late!”
And so it was, after such an exhaustive adventure, White Rabbit had finally delivered to the world Sarah in Tea Party Wonderland. There were many obstreperous observations to bemoan on the tea party table.
Off to the side was a cup with a placard, ‘Immigrants OUT!!’ At the very bottom of the page was a seemingly disinterested elephant. He seemed a lone on-looker, a mascot you might say. Hostess Sarah demanded there be no tea party spoilers.
In mid table, facing the elephant, was a tea pot stamped ‘FOX’, no doubt the right-then-righter cable news network. The creature, its bushy tail billowing out of the spout, glared menacingly at all. The hostess had bestowed upon this vessel of servitude the honor of placement as the centerpiece.
The article that accompanied the cover story was titled, ‘The risk of “Hell, no”!’ The photographs caught my eyes; the pictures were surreal.
In one picture stood Sarah waving to what I imagine was a crowd of a good number of people… good people, patriotism exalted in their every breath. A banner in the background read, ‘TEA PARTY EXPRESS III’ and, in smaller letters, ‘Just Vote Them Out’. An attention-getter for sure but what stood out most of all was Ms. Palin’s attire: a black skirt just above her knees and a bright red dress shirt. (Soccer moms don’t parade around in blouses!)
I revisit photo shots of various other campaign pin buttons. One was of Smilin’ Sarah with ‘RELOAD’ in the forefront… from the get-go, that girl’s got her finger on the trigger and a magazine ready to go. Black and red colors, again, were prominent.
Another button, ‘Take Our Country Back’ had a background of black, the continental United States a solid red. The theme of the pin exudes patriotism – reality includes racism.
It was the repeated prominence of the black and red in the photos and on the pin buttons that concerned me. The only red, white and blue was of what appeared to be an empty pitcher displaying the colors of our flag on a ‘Don’t drink the Kool Aid’ button. Too late… the pitcher was empty.
There once was a county whose military combatants wore hats… black hats… with a bright red star front and center. It was from an era of Communist Red China under the regime of Mao Zedong, of whom I quote, “We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.”
The content of The Economist article was summed up by the magazine’s own synopsis. “Too much anger and too few ideas.”
Monday, August 9, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Liar, Liar, Pant On Fire
Liar, liar, pants on fire, if you were a politician, your nose would grow longer than all the cable wire that surrounds the globe.
On November 17, 1973, in denying involvement in the Watergate scandal, President Richard Nixon insisted, “Well, I’m not a crook.” Worse than a lie, rather than face certain impeachment, on August 9, 1974, he became the only U.S. President to resign from office. Long before, in the 1950 mid-term elections, Democratic opponent for the U.S. Senate seat in California, then-Representative Helen Gahagan Douglas, foresaw his questionable integrity when she nicknamed him “Tricky Dick.”
On August 18, 1998, during his acceptance speech as presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention, George H. W. Bush bespoke, “Read my lips – no new taxes.” In January, 1990, he implemented a $4 billion a year payroll tax increase. Although he later stated that “I did it, and I regret and I regret it”, Bill Clinton won the 1992 Presidential Election.
In a deposition on the Paula Jones lawsuit, President Bill Clinton swore, “I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I’ve never had an affair with her.” Indeed, pants on fire, you liar! Impeached by the House of Representatives on December, 19, 1998, he was acquitted of perjury, obstruction of justice and malfeasance in office by the Senate on February 12, 1999.
The Center for Public Integrity claims that President George W. Bush “made 234 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statement about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda.” To support these allegations, the group cited reports from “the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.”
On many occasions during his presidency Bush was adamant that, as stated in November 2005, “This government does not torture people.” And that his administration adhered to "U.S. law and our international obligations." Going back to 2003, he claimed, “The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.” At the time, the administration used what they called “enhanced interrogation techniques”. And yet, on June 3, 2010, the former president admitted, “Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I'd do it again to save lives."
Enough about George W. Vice President Cheney was no truthsayer either, claiming in 2003, "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." In 2001, Cheney received a $34 million payout package; two years later Halliburton was rewarded one of the biggest federal contracts in history to take part in the Iraq war.
We pause for a moment from lying leaders to tread heavily on the man who epitomized the greedy excesses of Wall Street investors.
October 20, 2007, Bernie Madoff said, “In today’s regulatory environment, it’s virtually impossible to violate rules… but it’s impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time.” On December, 11, 2008, Madoff admitted, “It’s all just one big lie.” Upwards of $65 billion and tens of thousands of victims later, on June 29, 2009, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin, while sentencing the Ponzi schemer to 150 years in prison, decreed, “Mr. Madoff’s crimes were extremely evil.”
Recent government unemployment figures continue to be blatant lies. The June jobless rate was 9.5%, down from 9.7% in May but these figures don’t include some 652,000 people who gave up and stopped looking for work. If the truth was told, the June jobless rate would have been reported as rising to 9.9%.
The Obama administration claims the stimulus recovery package has created or saved between 2.5 to 3.6 million jobs when, in fact, the U.S. economy has lost a net 2.3 million jobs since the $862 million was pumped into the economy in February 2009.
On September 12, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a predictable lie, “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
Then came health care reform. This past September, President Obama insisted, “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax.” Not surprisingly, in defense of mandating penalties for failing to carry ‘minimum essential coverage’, the Justice Department has stated the mandate is “a valid exercise” for Congress to exercise its taxing authority through the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution. So, a tax it is.
During this and all political seasons, keep in mind the infamous words by Adolf Hitler from Mein Kampf: “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.”
On November 17, 1973, in denying involvement in the Watergate scandal, President Richard Nixon insisted, “Well, I’m not a crook.” Worse than a lie, rather than face certain impeachment, on August 9, 1974, he became the only U.S. President to resign from office. Long before, in the 1950 mid-term elections, Democratic opponent for the U.S. Senate seat in California, then-Representative Helen Gahagan Douglas, foresaw his questionable integrity when she nicknamed him “Tricky Dick.”
On August 18, 1998, during his acceptance speech as presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention, George H. W. Bush bespoke, “Read my lips – no new taxes.” In January, 1990, he implemented a $4 billion a year payroll tax increase. Although he later stated that “I did it, and I regret and I regret it”, Bill Clinton won the 1992 Presidential Election.
In a deposition on the Paula Jones lawsuit, President Bill Clinton swore, “I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I’ve never had an affair with her.” Indeed, pants on fire, you liar! Impeached by the House of Representatives on December, 19, 1998, he was acquitted of perjury, obstruction of justice and malfeasance in office by the Senate on February 12, 1999.
The Center for Public Integrity claims that President George W. Bush “made 234 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statement about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda.” To support these allegations, the group cited reports from “the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.”
On many occasions during his presidency Bush was adamant that, as stated in November 2005, “This government does not torture people.” And that his administration adhered to "U.S. law and our international obligations." Going back to 2003, he claimed, “The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.” At the time, the administration used what they called “enhanced interrogation techniques”. And yet, on June 3, 2010, the former president admitted, “Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I'd do it again to save lives."
Enough about George W. Vice President Cheney was no truthsayer either, claiming in 2003, "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." In 2001, Cheney received a $34 million payout package; two years later Halliburton was rewarded one of the biggest federal contracts in history to take part in the Iraq war.
We pause for a moment from lying leaders to tread heavily on the man who epitomized the greedy excesses of Wall Street investors.
October 20, 2007, Bernie Madoff said, “In today’s regulatory environment, it’s virtually impossible to violate rules… but it’s impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time.” On December, 11, 2008, Madoff admitted, “It’s all just one big lie.” Upwards of $65 billion and tens of thousands of victims later, on June 29, 2009, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin, while sentencing the Ponzi schemer to 150 years in prison, decreed, “Mr. Madoff’s crimes were extremely evil.”
Recent government unemployment figures continue to be blatant lies. The June jobless rate was 9.5%, down from 9.7% in May but these figures don’t include some 652,000 people who gave up and stopped looking for work. If the truth was told, the June jobless rate would have been reported as rising to 9.9%.
The Obama administration claims the stimulus recovery package has created or saved between 2.5 to 3.6 million jobs when, in fact, the U.S. economy has lost a net 2.3 million jobs since the $862 million was pumped into the economy in February 2009.
On September 12, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a predictable lie, “I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
Then came health care reform. This past September, President Obama insisted, “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax.” Not surprisingly, in defense of mandating penalties for failing to carry ‘minimum essential coverage’, the Justice Department has stated the mandate is “a valid exercise” for Congress to exercise its taxing authority through the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution. So, a tax it is.
During this and all political seasons, keep in mind the infamous words by Adolf Hitler from Mein Kampf: “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.”
Breaking Up Bush Era Tax Cuts
The George W Bush tax cuts that have been in place for nearly a decade must come to an end and the end result must allow tax breaks to expire for individuals making in excess of $200K and couples earning over $250K.
Backtracking for a moment to the years between 1947 and 1973, household income of the middle 20% of Americans nearly doubled while the top 20% saw their incomes rise by a disproportionate, but still impressive, 85%. Since then, through 2006 the middle class saw their incomes rise by just 24% while top-tiered incomes nearly tripled. Since 2007 when the housing bubble popped, there has been a 36% drop in the wealth of the middle class. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% saw a decline of just 11%.
Today, only 2% of Americans earn more than $250K, which is five times more than the rest of American workers. This means that 98% of us should rightfully be inclined to support the expiration of tax cuts to that very select group of money-makers.
Obstructionists to re-taxing readily the rich point out that the upper crust accounts for 30% of consumer spending which in itself exposes a reality that there is disparity of wealth in this county that relies too heavily on the affluent to keep the economy moving. In essence, this means that 2% of the populous have too great a deal of influence in the decisions made by Congress.
Who are among the rich and powerful who are adamant in maintaining their tax cuts? Might they not be lawyers, doctors, CEOs and CFOs and a few of their immediate underlings, inheritors of ‘old money’ and Wall Street investment manipulators? And how about politicians and their cohorts – lobbyists and campaign contributors? And highly compensated entertainers – actors, musicians and athletes?
Another point to be made is that, while ‘we’ rely on seasonal tax preparers to help us file our 1040 tax forms to report our miniscule incomes, ‘they’ employ on-hand tax lawyers to take advantage of the many loopholes in the tax codes. Not only that, but they also have tax shelters in offshore bank accounts.
No, I don’t buy-in to the alarms that by allowing tax cuts to expire for the rich will be detrimental to the recovery of the economy – the GDP may shrink by half a percentage point. What these pretentious claimants portend to be true are not so. They are not in the same grievous financial straits as the rest of us.
On one account, the upper echelon is drawing back from spending. Instead, in many instances they are hoarding their moneys just as have corporations and banking institutions. So there goes a good chunk of the reported 30% of consumer spending, thus hindering economic growth.
There have been a number of contradictory news items that have gotten my dander up to upper atmospheric proportions.
In The Tampa Tribune Business section on July 24, in an article from the Orlando Sentinel, American Express Business Insights reported “ultra-affluent” cardholders, which are those who charge a minimum of $84,000 per year, increased their spending at theme parks by nearly 32% in the first quarter of 2010; there was a 1% increase by the rest of the company’s cardholders. The article also stated that Walt Disney World has begun presales of homes priced as high as $8M in the “Golden Oaks” residential development project. Interested parties readily “plunk down $25K just to get their names on a priority reservation list.”
Another shocker to my sensibilities was an insert in the June 27 Sunday edition of The New York Times. It came in the form of what I viewed as an “Atlas of Adventures”, a 167-page advertisement catalogue issued by Regent Seven Seas Cruises titled “Winter Collection – September 2010 to May 2011”.
The many discount offers included a 7-day cruise in the Western Caribbean with a 2-for-1 fare deal in a Deluxe Suite (356 sq ft including a 50 sq ft balcony) priced as $4,365 per person including free air fare and unlimited shore excursions (usually $89 to $99). It’s quite a deal considering the normal rate is $8,595/person plus air fare. On the higher end, $9,865/person (usually $19,565/person plus air fare) would provide the vacationer a Master Suite (1403 sq ft with a 187 sq ft balcony).
In comparison, a similar 7-day cruise aboard a Princes Cruises ship is priced from $749 (interior room/160 sq ft) to $1,149 (master suite with balcony/461 to 687 sq ft). No 2-for-1 fare offers; no freebee shore excursions but well within the means if many of the 98% of Americans.
For the most affluent, Regency offers the Full Discovery Collection, a 75-night cruise leaving from Istanbul and disembarking in Fort Lauderdale. The basic Deluxe Suite ($301 sq ft/49 sq ft balcony) cost $37,150 per person (usually $81,995 per person plus air fare). A Master Suite (2001 sq ft/71 sq ft balcony) costs $127,650 (usually $262,995 plus air fare).
It’s estimated that by extending the tax cuts to all American taxpayers would ‘cost’ the government over $2 trillion in unrealized tax revenues over the next decade. Broken down, $1.5 trillion would come from ‘us 98%’ and $800 billion from ‘those 2%’. Most middle and low income earners need the continuation of the tax cuts just to catch up on past due bills and for the basic necessities to maintain their social status – extending their tax cuts may also allow them to increase their discretionary spending, a known boost to the economy.
The $800 billion of re-found revenues to the federal government could be used to reduce the federal deficit. But, in my opinion, these funds might be better spent as an investment for job creation, a faithless goal of the Obama administration. The economic foundation of American has been built in large part by small businesses. They are the vehicle that can spur the economy by getting Americans back to work. Re-employed laborers will not only garner newfound wages, thus allowing them to spend rather than just survive through austerity measures, but would also bring in added tax revenues and take them off unemployment payrolls.
Tax breaks given to small business should not be a give-away; guidelines would need to be in place to guarantee the intended results, such as verifiable new employment over a period of a full year.
It appears that Republicans as a whole and a few stray Democrats will stalemate attempts to bring to an end tax cuts to the rich; it will be an all-or-nothing ‘compromise’ to extend or expire the tax cuts at every income level. This would be poor governance for the average American.
Regardless of the action or inaction of Congress, the acrimonious rich will never associate lower class American citizens as ‘we the people’ but, instead, look down upon us as ‘you, the little people’.
Backtracking for a moment to the years between 1947 and 1973, household income of the middle 20% of Americans nearly doubled while the top 20% saw their incomes rise by a disproportionate, but still impressive, 85%. Since then, through 2006 the middle class saw their incomes rise by just 24% while top-tiered incomes nearly tripled. Since 2007 when the housing bubble popped, there has been a 36% drop in the wealth of the middle class. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% saw a decline of just 11%.
Today, only 2% of Americans earn more than $250K, which is five times more than the rest of American workers. This means that 98% of us should rightfully be inclined to support the expiration of tax cuts to that very select group of money-makers.
Obstructionists to re-taxing readily the rich point out that the upper crust accounts for 30% of consumer spending which in itself exposes a reality that there is disparity of wealth in this county that relies too heavily on the affluent to keep the economy moving. In essence, this means that 2% of the populous have too great a deal of influence in the decisions made by Congress.
Who are among the rich and powerful who are adamant in maintaining their tax cuts? Might they not be lawyers, doctors, CEOs and CFOs and a few of their immediate underlings, inheritors of ‘old money’ and Wall Street investment manipulators? And how about politicians and their cohorts – lobbyists and campaign contributors? And highly compensated entertainers – actors, musicians and athletes?
Another point to be made is that, while ‘we’ rely on seasonal tax preparers to help us file our 1040 tax forms to report our miniscule incomes, ‘they’ employ on-hand tax lawyers to take advantage of the many loopholes in the tax codes. Not only that, but they also have tax shelters in offshore bank accounts.
No, I don’t buy-in to the alarms that by allowing tax cuts to expire for the rich will be detrimental to the recovery of the economy – the GDP may shrink by half a percentage point. What these pretentious claimants portend to be true are not so. They are not in the same grievous financial straits as the rest of us.
On one account, the upper echelon is drawing back from spending. Instead, in many instances they are hoarding their moneys just as have corporations and banking institutions. So there goes a good chunk of the reported 30% of consumer spending, thus hindering economic growth.
There have been a number of contradictory news items that have gotten my dander up to upper atmospheric proportions.
In The Tampa Tribune Business section on July 24, in an article from the Orlando Sentinel, American Express Business Insights reported “ultra-affluent” cardholders, which are those who charge a minimum of $84,000 per year, increased their spending at theme parks by nearly 32% in the first quarter of 2010; there was a 1% increase by the rest of the company’s cardholders. The article also stated that Walt Disney World has begun presales of homes priced as high as $8M in the “Golden Oaks” residential development project. Interested parties readily “plunk down $25K just to get their names on a priority reservation list.”
Another shocker to my sensibilities was an insert in the June 27 Sunday edition of The New York Times. It came in the form of what I viewed as an “Atlas of Adventures”, a 167-page advertisement catalogue issued by Regent Seven Seas Cruises titled “Winter Collection – September 2010 to May 2011”.
The many discount offers included a 7-day cruise in the Western Caribbean with a 2-for-1 fare deal in a Deluxe Suite (356 sq ft including a 50 sq ft balcony) priced as $4,365 per person including free air fare and unlimited shore excursions (usually $89 to $99). It’s quite a deal considering the normal rate is $8,595/person plus air fare. On the higher end, $9,865/person (usually $19,565/person plus air fare) would provide the vacationer a Master Suite (1403 sq ft with a 187 sq ft balcony).
In comparison, a similar 7-day cruise aboard a Princes Cruises ship is priced from $749 (interior room/160 sq ft) to $1,149 (master suite with balcony/461 to 687 sq ft). No 2-for-1 fare offers; no freebee shore excursions but well within the means if many of the 98% of Americans.
For the most affluent, Regency offers the Full Discovery Collection, a 75-night cruise leaving from Istanbul and disembarking in Fort Lauderdale. The basic Deluxe Suite ($301 sq ft/49 sq ft balcony) cost $37,150 per person (usually $81,995 per person plus air fare). A Master Suite (2001 sq ft/71 sq ft balcony) costs $127,650 (usually $262,995 plus air fare).
It’s estimated that by extending the tax cuts to all American taxpayers would ‘cost’ the government over $2 trillion in unrealized tax revenues over the next decade. Broken down, $1.5 trillion would come from ‘us 98%’ and $800 billion from ‘those 2%’. Most middle and low income earners need the continuation of the tax cuts just to catch up on past due bills and for the basic necessities to maintain their social status – extending their tax cuts may also allow them to increase their discretionary spending, a known boost to the economy.
The $800 billion of re-found revenues to the federal government could be used to reduce the federal deficit. But, in my opinion, these funds might be better spent as an investment for job creation, a faithless goal of the Obama administration. The economic foundation of American has been built in large part by small businesses. They are the vehicle that can spur the economy by getting Americans back to work. Re-employed laborers will not only garner newfound wages, thus allowing them to spend rather than just survive through austerity measures, but would also bring in added tax revenues and take them off unemployment payrolls.
Tax breaks given to small business should not be a give-away; guidelines would need to be in place to guarantee the intended results, such as verifiable new employment over a period of a full year.
It appears that Republicans as a whole and a few stray Democrats will stalemate attempts to bring to an end tax cuts to the rich; it will be an all-or-nothing ‘compromise’ to extend or expire the tax cuts at every income level. This would be poor governance for the average American.
Regardless of the action or inaction of Congress, the acrimonious rich will never associate lower class American citizens as ‘we the people’ but, instead, look down upon us as ‘you, the little people’.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
God, bless America.
Seven days ago America celebrated the 234th anniversary of the signing of The Declaration of Independence. No rocket’s red glare. Just fireworks bursting in air.
As for myself, I started the day late, having slept nearly twelve hours before rising about one o’clock in the afternoon. No. I hadn’t had a night of binge drinking. No taking of ‘enhancement’ drugs. It was a day of rest, pure and simple.
Once up, coffee and newspapers filled but a short period of the day. I was disappointed in, not what I read, but what wasn’t there to be read. Neither The Tampa Tribune nor The New York Times delivered to me a recap and up-to-date in-depth analyses of The Recovery Prevention Act of 2010.
The final bill, if passed by the Senate, will be a misnomer. We will never ‘recover’ the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been thrown at the feet of Wall Street investment manipulators with their Gucci shoes and their matching arrogant attitudes. Nor will the bill guarantee us a ‘prevention’ of another bailout meltdown.
By two-thirty, I set in motion a plan to make the evening an enjoyable get-together with a dinner and a movie. Blockbuster came first. It was a quick in-and-out visit as Season Two, Episodes 3 & 4 of ‘True Blood’ had already been chosen.
In a chipper mood, I shopped at Publix to pick out some USDA premium choice New York strip steaks, baking potatoes, sweet corn and salad fixings. At $10.99/pound, and a half-pound per serving, it was to be a beefed-up meal of contentment, which it was.
While in the produce section, there was a disturbance from a woman who had a few choice words with a young man by her side, presumably her son. I don’t know what the argument was about but she did the right thing by walking away. All of a sudden the kid, a very big boy, was in my face kindly inquiring if I was going to pay cash for my purchases. I hadn’t planned on it but he offered me a deal I couldn’t refuse. He would use a food stamp debit card to pay for my food purchases and I’d give him cash, fifty-cents to the dollar.
I’d heard of people getting this same exchange rate but this was my first time reaping the benefits of someone dependent on the entitlement program. After all was said and done, the total food bill was $58. After handing over $30, we were both happy fellows.
The meal was perfect, the steaks grilled to everyone’s delight. The DVD was as enjoyable as expected. The only fireworks we saw were those in the neighborhood. Someone complained about the smell of sulfur to which I countered with comments that questioned, “What did they think was in the air during the Revolution? Rose-scented potpourri? What about the smell of death and the cries of agony from wounded Patriots?” Point made.
‘The Capitol Fourth’ on PBS and ‘Macy’s 4th of July Fireworks’ on NBC were recorded and watched over the next two evenings. The latter was totally commercialized, the former truly spectacular. As I watched, I thought about the trade surplus with China, greenhouse gases and at what cost to taxpayers was ‘The Capitol Fourth’? Regardless, the sense of patriotism, freedom and the expressed appreciation of the men and women who have died to preserve the tenets of The Declaration of Independence made me feel proud to be an American. The afterglow was short-lived.
Just this week the Justice Department filed suit against Arizona’s new immigration law. This highlighted Arizona Governor Janice Brewer’s June 30 announcement of the cancellation of the Sept. 8-10 Border Governors Conference after other member states threatened to boycott the event in protest of the new law. Member states are Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, not to mention Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora and Tamaulipas.
Also in DOJ news, ‘the right’ has focused attention on Election Day 2008 when two members of the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense intimidated white Philadelphia voters with racial slurs while dressed in militia garb; one wielded a billy-club/nightstick.
After the election, the DOJ filed a suit against the NBPP but it was dismissed on May 15, 2009, citing “the evidence did not support” the case. DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams resigned with allegations that under Attorney General Eric Holder there is a “profound hostility by the Obama Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department towards a race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws.”
The jobless are still left without unemployment benefits. States remain underfunded for Medicaid. The Gulf of Mexico gusher is still spewing. Nearly half the states have joined the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We have yet to see how the Senate chokes on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. International affairs have never been worse.
God, bless America.
As for myself, I started the day late, having slept nearly twelve hours before rising about one o’clock in the afternoon. No. I hadn’t had a night of binge drinking. No taking of ‘enhancement’ drugs. It was a day of rest, pure and simple.
Once up, coffee and newspapers filled but a short period of the day. I was disappointed in, not what I read, but what wasn’t there to be read. Neither The Tampa Tribune nor The New York Times delivered to me a recap and up-to-date in-depth analyses of The Recovery Prevention Act of 2010.
The final bill, if passed by the Senate, will be a misnomer. We will never ‘recover’ the billions of taxpayer dollars that have been thrown at the feet of Wall Street investment manipulators with their Gucci shoes and their matching arrogant attitudes. Nor will the bill guarantee us a ‘prevention’ of another bailout meltdown.
By two-thirty, I set in motion a plan to make the evening an enjoyable get-together with a dinner and a movie. Blockbuster came first. It was a quick in-and-out visit as Season Two, Episodes 3 & 4 of ‘True Blood’ had already been chosen.
In a chipper mood, I shopped at Publix to pick out some USDA premium choice New York strip steaks, baking potatoes, sweet corn and salad fixings. At $10.99/pound, and a half-pound per serving, it was to be a beefed-up meal of contentment, which it was.
While in the produce section, there was a disturbance from a woman who had a few choice words with a young man by her side, presumably her son. I don’t know what the argument was about but she did the right thing by walking away. All of a sudden the kid, a very big boy, was in my face kindly inquiring if I was going to pay cash for my purchases. I hadn’t planned on it but he offered me a deal I couldn’t refuse. He would use a food stamp debit card to pay for my food purchases and I’d give him cash, fifty-cents to the dollar.
I’d heard of people getting this same exchange rate but this was my first time reaping the benefits of someone dependent on the entitlement program. After all was said and done, the total food bill was $58. After handing over $30, we were both happy fellows.
The meal was perfect, the steaks grilled to everyone’s delight. The DVD was as enjoyable as expected. The only fireworks we saw were those in the neighborhood. Someone complained about the smell of sulfur to which I countered with comments that questioned, “What did they think was in the air during the Revolution? Rose-scented potpourri? What about the smell of death and the cries of agony from wounded Patriots?” Point made.
‘The Capitol Fourth’ on PBS and ‘Macy’s 4th of July Fireworks’ on NBC were recorded and watched over the next two evenings. The latter was totally commercialized, the former truly spectacular. As I watched, I thought about the trade surplus with China, greenhouse gases and at what cost to taxpayers was ‘The Capitol Fourth’? Regardless, the sense of patriotism, freedom and the expressed appreciation of the men and women who have died to preserve the tenets of The Declaration of Independence made me feel proud to be an American. The afterglow was short-lived.
Just this week the Justice Department filed suit against Arizona’s new immigration law. This highlighted Arizona Governor Janice Brewer’s June 30 announcement of the cancellation of the Sept. 8-10 Border Governors Conference after other member states threatened to boycott the event in protest of the new law. Member states are Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, not to mention Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora and Tamaulipas.
Also in DOJ news, ‘the right’ has focused attention on Election Day 2008 when two members of the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense intimidated white Philadelphia voters with racial slurs while dressed in militia garb; one wielded a billy-club/nightstick.
After the election, the DOJ filed a suit against the NBPP but it was dismissed on May 15, 2009, citing “the evidence did not support” the case. DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams resigned with allegations that under Attorney General Eric Holder there is a “profound hostility by the Obama Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department towards a race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws.”
The jobless are still left without unemployment benefits. States remain underfunded for Medicaid. The Gulf of Mexico gusher is still spewing. Nearly half the states have joined the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. We have yet to see how the Senate chokes on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. International affairs have never been worse.
God, bless America.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Ellen Degeneres Studio Audience on Pharmaceuticals!
Not being much for daytime television, when Sue invited me to watch Toni Braxton perform a ‘new’ song from a ‘soon to be released’ CD, through clenched teeth behind pursed lips, out of kindness I acquiesced. Well, the songstress who had the megahit ‘Un-break My Heart’ a few years ago gave a la-de-da, whoop-de-do performance on a recorded episode of The Ellen DeGeneres Show that originally aired April 27.
Although I had fulfilled my obligation, and ready to go about my way, the announcer advised the television audience that ‘coming up next’ an eight-year old would be singing Journey’s ‘Don’t Stop Believing’. The video clip kept me a viewer.
Second grader John Teas carried on a very casual conversation with Ellen, chatting about his rise to instant fame on YouTube showing his first ever live performance in a talent contest in a school auditorium in front of a group of K-8 students.
Of course, at his age he was a bit fidgety but not the least bit nervous. When asked “What do you want to do when you grow up? You want to be a singer?” John replied, “I wanna be a singer, an artist and also a Lego designer.” My first thought – a future American Idol top 12 contestant. My second thought – an architectural engineer.
As we smiled and chuckled, Sue referred to John as a ‘child prodigy’. My immediate response, said very pointedly, was, “No… Michael Jackson was a child prodigy.” Sue agreed.
When the show was over, Sue extended the invitation to watch yet another episode. Sure, why not! Ellen’s entertaining enough. She’s fun, positively funny and kinda funky with her trademark smooth 'n groovy moves dancing up and down and across aisles of people in the studio audience.
The guest on the March 12 show was Chris O’Donnell, who I learned is the lead star on the TV show ‘NCIS: LA’. Whatever… Chris played Robin in one of the ‘Batman’ movies – that was all I remembered of him.
But prior to Ellen’s interview with the actor-turned-primetime TV character, there was a segment that she refers to as ‘Bad paid-for photos’. Three adults exposed childhood photos that were indeed hilariously atrocious! One woman’s photo reminded me of ‘Ugly Betty’. The other woman’s hair-do may have been freaky looking when the picture was taken some twenty years ago but I could easily imagine Lady Ga Ga making it a present-day fashion sensation.
The third person introduced himself as Mike, a pharmaceutical rep. The crowd went wild, filling the audio portion of the transmission with laughing and cheering and the clapping of hands as if they were in sheer ecstasy. My brow furrowed. My mouth frowned. Ellen immediately picked up on the audience enthusiastic laughter. She accommodated the accolade. “Pharmaceuticals!” “YA!” “Woo!” “Pills!” The crowd whooped a bit more. The moment passed and Ellen was back in control with her branded humor, out of bounds of the audience’s drug-induced frenzy.
Now, I’m all for the wonders of medications as prescribed by qualified physicians. I admit, I pop a few pills on a daily basis. Simvastatin does a great job of keeping my bad cholesterol at an acceptable level. Amlodipine keeps my blood pressure in check. And a weekly dose of alendronate sodium helps strengthen the discs in my back from the degenerative affects of spinal osteoporosis.
Although I appreciate the intended results of taking these medications, I sure don’t jump up and down and shout in exaltation, Hallelujah! Nor do I expect the same reaction of patients who take medicines for heart diseases, viral infections, stomach ailments, fungal diseases or myriads of other human ailments and frailties, including mental illnesses. Where’s the funny in that?
I doubt not that the middleclass women and men in Ellen’s audience, all of whom appeared to be whooping to one degree or another, were thoughtlessly thinking of drugs being used for ‘recreational purposes only’. There was no other conclusion.
Are the illicit uses of drugs so tightly woven into the fabric of America that humor precedes prudence? Is it truly laughable that, when taken for reasons other than what health concerns necessitate, drugs/pharmaceuticals maim and kill people, many who are innocent bystanders until peer pressure drives them to ‘fit in with the crowd’? Does that include the audience crowd that gave a hoot-n-holler when the pharmaceutical rep was introduced? Or perhaps it will be the children or grandchildren of those who sat comfortably in those cushy studio audience seats.
Back to funny Ellen. The ‘bad paid-for photo’ of Mike, the pharmaceutical rep, showed him when he was in the sixth grade. His head was shaved but for a tuft of hair curled downward from his forehead. During the interview with Chris O’Donnell, he asked, “What would you call that?” Ellen replied, “The caterpillar?” The crowd appropriately roared with laughter. So did I.
Although I had fulfilled my obligation, and ready to go about my way, the announcer advised the television audience that ‘coming up next’ an eight-year old would be singing Journey’s ‘Don’t Stop Believing’. The video clip kept me a viewer.
Second grader John Teas carried on a very casual conversation with Ellen, chatting about his rise to instant fame on YouTube showing his first ever live performance in a talent contest in a school auditorium in front of a group of K-8 students.
Of course, at his age he was a bit fidgety but not the least bit nervous. When asked “What do you want to do when you grow up? You want to be a singer?” John replied, “I wanna be a singer, an artist and also a Lego designer.” My first thought – a future American Idol top 12 contestant. My second thought – an architectural engineer.
As we smiled and chuckled, Sue referred to John as a ‘child prodigy’. My immediate response, said very pointedly, was, “No… Michael Jackson was a child prodigy.” Sue agreed.
When the show was over, Sue extended the invitation to watch yet another episode. Sure, why not! Ellen’s entertaining enough. She’s fun, positively funny and kinda funky with her trademark smooth 'n groovy moves dancing up and down and across aisles of people in the studio audience.
The guest on the March 12 show was Chris O’Donnell, who I learned is the lead star on the TV show ‘NCIS: LA’. Whatever… Chris played Robin in one of the ‘Batman’ movies – that was all I remembered of him.
But prior to Ellen’s interview with the actor-turned-primetime TV character, there was a segment that she refers to as ‘Bad paid-for photos’. Three adults exposed childhood photos that were indeed hilariously atrocious! One woman’s photo reminded me of ‘Ugly Betty’. The other woman’s hair-do may have been freaky looking when the picture was taken some twenty years ago but I could easily imagine Lady Ga Ga making it a present-day fashion sensation.
The third person introduced himself as Mike, a pharmaceutical rep. The crowd went wild, filling the audio portion of the transmission with laughing and cheering and the clapping of hands as if they were in sheer ecstasy. My brow furrowed. My mouth frowned. Ellen immediately picked up on the audience enthusiastic laughter. She accommodated the accolade. “Pharmaceuticals!” “YA!” “Woo!” “Pills!” The crowd whooped a bit more. The moment passed and Ellen was back in control with her branded humor, out of bounds of the audience’s drug-induced frenzy.
Now, I’m all for the wonders of medications as prescribed by qualified physicians. I admit, I pop a few pills on a daily basis. Simvastatin does a great job of keeping my bad cholesterol at an acceptable level. Amlodipine keeps my blood pressure in check. And a weekly dose of alendronate sodium helps strengthen the discs in my back from the degenerative affects of spinal osteoporosis.
Although I appreciate the intended results of taking these medications, I sure don’t jump up and down and shout in exaltation, Hallelujah! Nor do I expect the same reaction of patients who take medicines for heart diseases, viral infections, stomach ailments, fungal diseases or myriads of other human ailments and frailties, including mental illnesses. Where’s the funny in that?
I doubt not that the middleclass women and men in Ellen’s audience, all of whom appeared to be whooping to one degree or another, were thoughtlessly thinking of drugs being used for ‘recreational purposes only’. There was no other conclusion.
Are the illicit uses of drugs so tightly woven into the fabric of America that humor precedes prudence? Is it truly laughable that, when taken for reasons other than what health concerns necessitate, drugs/pharmaceuticals maim and kill people, many who are innocent bystanders until peer pressure drives them to ‘fit in with the crowd’? Does that include the audience crowd that gave a hoot-n-holler when the pharmaceutical rep was introduced? Or perhaps it will be the children or grandchildren of those who sat comfortably in those cushy studio audience seats.
Back to funny Ellen. The ‘bad paid-for photo’ of Mike, the pharmaceutical rep, showed him when he was in the sixth grade. His head was shaved but for a tuft of hair curled downward from his forehead. During the interview with Chris O’Donnell, he asked, “What would you call that?” Ellen replied, “The caterpillar?” The crowd appropriately roared with laughter. So did I.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Adjusting for inflation, the average American has seen their wages increase by less than 1% in the past ten years. Although there have been gains in employee benefits, including health care, the truth of the matter still points to widening divide between corporate executive compensation and the wages of non-unionized labor – 298% vs 4.3%.
Per the Bureau of Labor statistics, the median household income is little more than $46,000 per year. Of the 117 million households in the United States, 65% make less than the median income level, or 76 million households. Since the average household is comprised of 2.57 people, 195 million Americans fit into this economic class.
The Department of Health and Human Services describes the poverty level for an individual is $10,830/year and $3,740 for each additional person. The poverty rate in the U.S. is 13.2%, or 39.8 million people, which is consistent with the estimated number of Americans said to be without health insurance. Therefore, a family of four with a total household income of $22,050 is considered to be living in poverty, which may include one or more wage earners.
Crunching a few more numbers, only 35% of the U.S. population earns more than $65,000/year, 10% make in excess of $118,200/year and only 2.67% make over $200,000/year. At the pinnacle of economic fortune, a scant 0.1% of wage earners, or approximately 300,000 Americans, make over $1.6 million.
According to an April 2009 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 72% of those surveyed agreed “the poor have become too dependent on government assistance programs” which is up from 69% in 2007.
In a 2006 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 74% of respondents wanted to see spending on the poor increased. But just 43% wanted to see spending on blacks increased.
This attitude was further highlighted in June 2009 when Rush Limbaugh said that food stamps amount to “food care” for the obese to buy “Twinkies, Milk Duds, potato chips, six packs of Bud” as they “head home to watch the NFL on one of two color TVs … and that’s the poverty in the U.S.”
More blatant comments were made in January during a town hall meeting when South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer was quoted as saying, "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
Public outcry to this and other statements led Bauer to respond, "We have a problem of dependency which is getting worse instead of better. People collecting welfare with no intention of ever getting off the government gravy train. We don't mind a hand up, but we can't continue to have generational handouts. Especially when the state's considering furloughing teachers, and releasing prisoners early. Taxpayers have had enough. Somebody has to have the courage to speak out, to break the cycle of dependency. Speaking out about these programs may not be politically correct, but it's the right thing to do."
In a February blog, Bauer posted, “DSS (Dept of Social Services) says the maximum annual cash assistance for a mother of two is just over $3,250. But food stamps, WIC and housing assistance alone contribute an additional $10,000 in benefits – not too far off what might be earned in a minimum wage job. I am hearing from people who see no problem with drug testing as a condition for their jobs. They see no problem with having people on public assistance doing the same. Like the private sector, the first offense should mean mandatory counseling and the second one termination.”
In other words, no more free lunch for the lazy poor, although he noted his statements in no way were meant to be directed at the students. Very unconvincing.
This view by government officials is not unprecedented. Look at the lack of concern for the victims of hurricane Katrina. In my opinion, the lack of response to the crisis by President Bush and the statements made by Andre Bauer are racist.
New Orleans had 325,947 black residents prior to Katrina – 67.25% of the population. The white population was approximately 28%. Per the Brookings Institute, Post-Katrina figures in 2008 showed a 57% decline in blacks and 36% in the white population – 58% black, 34% white. Thus, the poverty level fell from 28% in 2000 to 23% in 2008. The correlation suggests a fewer blacks, more whites, and a lower poverty rate.
In a 2006 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 74% of respondents wanted to see spending on the poor increased. But just 43% wanted to see spending on blacks increased.
Per the Bureau of Labor statistics, the median household income is little more than $46,000 per year. Of the 117 million households in the United States, 65% make less than the median income level, or 76 million households. Since the average household is comprised of 2.57 people, 195 million Americans fit into this economic class.
The Department of Health and Human Services describes the poverty level for an individual is $10,830/year and $3,740 for each additional person. The poverty rate in the U.S. is 13.2%, or 39.8 million people, which is consistent with the estimated number of Americans said to be without health insurance. Therefore, a family of four with a total household income of $22,050 is considered to be living in poverty, which may include one or more wage earners.
Crunching a few more numbers, only 35% of the U.S. population earns more than $65,000/year, 10% make in excess of $118,200/year and only 2.67% make over $200,000/year. At the pinnacle of economic fortune, a scant 0.1% of wage earners, or approximately 300,000 Americans, make over $1.6 million.
According to an April 2009 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 72% of those surveyed agreed “the poor have become too dependent on government assistance programs” which is up from 69% in 2007.
In a 2006 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 74% of respondents wanted to see spending on the poor increased. But just 43% wanted to see spending on blacks increased.
This attitude was further highlighted in June 2009 when Rush Limbaugh said that food stamps amount to “food care” for the obese to buy “Twinkies, Milk Duds, potato chips, six packs of Bud” as they “head home to watch the NFL on one of two color TVs … and that’s the poverty in the U.S.”
More blatant comments were made in January during a town hall meeting when South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer was quoted as saying, "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
Public outcry to this and other statements led Bauer to respond, "We have a problem of dependency which is getting worse instead of better. People collecting welfare with no intention of ever getting off the government gravy train. We don't mind a hand up, but we can't continue to have generational handouts. Especially when the state's considering furloughing teachers, and releasing prisoners early. Taxpayers have had enough. Somebody has to have the courage to speak out, to break the cycle of dependency. Speaking out about these programs may not be politically correct, but it's the right thing to do."
In a February blog, Bauer posted, “DSS (Dept of Social Services) says the maximum annual cash assistance for a mother of two is just over $3,250. But food stamps, WIC and housing assistance alone contribute an additional $10,000 in benefits – not too far off what might be earned in a minimum wage job. I am hearing from people who see no problem with drug testing as a condition for their jobs. They see no problem with having people on public assistance doing the same. Like the private sector, the first offense should mean mandatory counseling and the second one termination.”
In other words, no more free lunch for the lazy poor, although he noted his statements in no way were meant to be directed at the students. Very unconvincing.
This view by government officials is not unprecedented. Look at the lack of concern for the victims of hurricane Katrina. In my opinion, the lack of response to the crisis by President Bush and the statements made by Andre Bauer are racist.
New Orleans had 325,947 black residents prior to Katrina – 67.25% of the population. The white population was approximately 28%. Per the Brookings Institute, Post-Katrina figures in 2008 showed a 57% decline in blacks and 36% in the white population – 58% black, 34% white. Thus, the poverty level fell from 28% in 2000 to 23% in 2008. The correlation suggests a fewer blacks, more whites, and a lower poverty rate.
In a 2006 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS), 74% of respondents wanted to see spending on the poor increased. But just 43% wanted to see spending on blacks increased.
Supreme Court Campaign for Corporations
It’s not that I’ve grown cynical as I’ve aged as much as it is a growing mistrust of people in power, politicians in particularly. Apparently I’m not alone. The approval rating given Congress by Americans is 18%, a bit lower than the 19% a year ago but a big decline from 24% in January. The clearest picture of how Americans feel about their public servants is the 78% disapproval rating of Congress, which ties the all-time high figure in March 1992.
According to the Gallup poll taken February 1-3, the largest change is among Democrats, whose approval dived from 45% in January to 30% this month. The change in attitude of the American public came after the President’s State of the Union address a week prior when he chastised Democrats, namely Senators, for not fulfilling their task of passing health care reform legislation, and blaming Republicans for blocking new initiatives without offering credible alternatives.
Yet, the approval rating among Republicans inched upward from 10% to 11%.
The results of a Rasmussen Reports poll from September 7 through September 13, 2009, revealed 70% of voters trust the American people more than they do political leaders. It follows suite that 68% view the federal government as a special interest group in itself and that the government and big business work in ways that hurt consumers.
Only 4% of Americans expressed support of the Political Class, the definition of which Rasmussen gives to “that small group of elites and its ardent supporters, the ones who try to brand themselves as populists but are in fact concerned primarily with the goodness of their own power and authority”.
A poll conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion found that 65% of the people surveyed disagreed with the Supreme Court's slim, but oh so decisive and predictably divisive, 5-4 vote in favor of Citizens United vs FEC – Democrats 67%, Republicans 63% and 72% among Independents – while 44% strongly disagreed. Only 17% agreed with the ruling.
In the online survey of 1,003 American adults, 32% of Americans said they have followed this story moderately or very closely. The 68% who haven’t followed it ‘closely or not at all’ are the ignorant majority, the perfect candidates to be overly influenced by whatever tactics wrought by indirect campaign financing toward the election/re-election of candidates who will be indebted for their political victories.
On the one hand, 45% of respondents agree that corporations should have the right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day. On the other hand, 42% disagree. The 13% who had no opinion could make it a flip of the coin.
Respondents are also in favor of legislation that would regulate how corporations can spend in political advertising, such as requiring the approval of a majority of shareholders before a corporation can run political ads (74%), requiring the chief executive of the corporation to appear at the end of the ad so the public knows who is behind it (75%), and limiting the ad-spending of corporations that have received federal bailout money or awarded federal contracts (75%).
It’s much too easy for opposite sides of the controversy to make claims that Our Founding Fathers would be [proud of/aghast at] the Supreme Court decision. At that time in American history, electricity was just a kite-flying phenomenon of Brother Franklin, the telephone Bell wouldn’t ring for another hundred years and computers wouldn’t become a household necessity for another hundred years. They could not have foreseen how high-speed Internet service would virtually pop out of nowhere to bring the world together in ways unimaginable.
No speculative commentary can justly conjure up how the crafters of the Constitution would view the Citizens United Supreme Court decision anymore than political pundits of today can predict what the future holds for America with the droves of money that will serve as carrot sticks dangling before the eyes of political hopefuls.
The best that we voters can hope for is that corporations will take responsible steps to reign in government spending, offer fair and constructive solutions to pay down the national debt and dissuade members of Congress from earmarking funds that serve their constituents well but do little good for the nation as a whole.
I fear that corporations will manipulate the legislative process to enhance their profiteering at the expense of American taxpayers, thus worsening with economic indulgences that will forever keep Americans indentured servants to interests other than their own.
Will the voting power of the people overcome the influx of corporate campaign financing in the coming elections? Or will we stare blindly at politicians as they read from teleprompters with words construed with interests that may not be of their preference but out of sheer necessity? Time alone won’t tell. Money will play a large part.
According to the Gallup poll taken February 1-3, the largest change is among Democrats, whose approval dived from 45% in January to 30% this month. The change in attitude of the American public came after the President’s State of the Union address a week prior when he chastised Democrats, namely Senators, for not fulfilling their task of passing health care reform legislation, and blaming Republicans for blocking new initiatives without offering credible alternatives.
Yet, the approval rating among Republicans inched upward from 10% to 11%.
The results of a Rasmussen Reports poll from September 7 through September 13, 2009, revealed 70% of voters trust the American people more than they do political leaders. It follows suite that 68% view the federal government as a special interest group in itself and that the government and big business work in ways that hurt consumers.
Only 4% of Americans expressed support of the Political Class, the definition of which Rasmussen gives to “that small group of elites and its ardent supporters, the ones who try to brand themselves as populists but are in fact concerned primarily with the goodness of their own power and authority”.
A poll conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion found that 65% of the people surveyed disagreed with the Supreme Court's slim, but oh so decisive and predictably divisive, 5-4 vote in favor of Citizens United vs FEC – Democrats 67%, Republicans 63% and 72% among Independents – while 44% strongly disagreed. Only 17% agreed with the ruling.
In the online survey of 1,003 American adults, 32% of Americans said they have followed this story moderately or very closely. The 68% who haven’t followed it ‘closely or not at all’ are the ignorant majority, the perfect candidates to be overly influenced by whatever tactics wrought by indirect campaign financing toward the election/re-election of candidates who will be indebted for their political victories.
On the one hand, 45% of respondents agree that corporations should have the right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day. On the other hand, 42% disagree. The 13% who had no opinion could make it a flip of the coin.
Respondents are also in favor of legislation that would regulate how corporations can spend in political advertising, such as requiring the approval of a majority of shareholders before a corporation can run political ads (74%), requiring the chief executive of the corporation to appear at the end of the ad so the public knows who is behind it (75%), and limiting the ad-spending of corporations that have received federal bailout money or awarded federal contracts (75%).
It’s much too easy for opposite sides of the controversy to make claims that Our Founding Fathers would be [proud of/aghast at] the Supreme Court decision. At that time in American history, electricity was just a kite-flying phenomenon of Brother Franklin, the telephone Bell wouldn’t ring for another hundred years and computers wouldn’t become a household necessity for another hundred years. They could not have foreseen how high-speed Internet service would virtually pop out of nowhere to bring the world together in ways unimaginable.
No speculative commentary can justly conjure up how the crafters of the Constitution would view the Citizens United Supreme Court decision anymore than political pundits of today can predict what the future holds for America with the droves of money that will serve as carrot sticks dangling before the eyes of political hopefuls.
The best that we voters can hope for is that corporations will take responsible steps to reign in government spending, offer fair and constructive solutions to pay down the national debt and dissuade members of Congress from earmarking funds that serve their constituents well but do little good for the nation as a whole.
I fear that corporations will manipulate the legislative process to enhance their profiteering at the expense of American taxpayers, thus worsening with economic indulgences that will forever keep Americans indentured servants to interests other than their own.
Will the voting power of the people overcome the influx of corporate campaign financing in the coming elections? Or will we stare blindly at politicians as they read from teleprompters with words construed with interests that may not be of their preference but out of sheer necessity? Time alone won’t tell. Money will play a large part.
Buckles
Buckle up for safety. Buckle down for financial security. Put them together and you just might survive the next crash, whether it be from an auto accident or the next big dip in the market value of your dwindling investments.
In neither instance are you likely to come out unscathed… unless you’re a corporate executive who’s assured of a big fat pay check and a hefty bonus or two, fitted with designer crash helmets and an armored military Humvee; a commercialized Hummer might not suffice with a revolting public, what with the continued excesses of Big business, Big government, Big Banks and all the Big-dealing lobbyists whose only goal is to keep the status quo of the average American living under the thumb prints of serfdom.
Corporate executives are aghast at the very thought they should give up a penny’s worth of compensation through a redistribution of their wealth, and that of their cronies, to those who do the grunt work to fill their pockets with riches beyond our wildest prayers.
We’re much too reliant on government. We have become submissive to governing bodies who cower unabatedly to the real power brokers, certainly not the voters who put them in office, but the Big Game players aforementioned.
The pittance of minimum wage salaries does nothing to keep families from living in poverty. To make a point, out of approximately 32 million people who may [be forced to] participate in the government mandated health care system [if enacted], 19 million are expected to be eligible to receive subsidies of anywhere from 90% for a family of four whose income is about $88,000 ($44,000 for individuals) to a 97% subsidy for a four family household with an annual income of approximately $29,000 ($14,000 threshold for singles). That’s a lot of people and a whole lot of subsidizing with taxpayer dollars.
Since 1980, the average working man and woman has seen their income increase about thirty percent. Also since then, corporate executives have given themselves (through their hand-picked board of directors) anywhere from three hundred to four hundred percent pay raises.
(It’s rather interesting, and disappointing, that during my extensive searches through the mazes of Google, which in (4.4 seconds) might display upwards of ‘About 1,234,578 results’, could I find a single source that narrowed the gap of the 300% to 400% figures. This led me to believe that no one really knows, or willing to admit, to what degree the top 1% of these high and mighty money mongers actually ‘earn’. In some cases, might it possibly be 1,000% above and beyond that of what the core majority of Americans make?)
Going a step further, and pointing out that nobody wants to give up what they’ve been generously given, the expiration of the G. W. Bush tax cuts that only benefited those with the highest bundles of cash reserves, is under fire from the ones who benefited from those tax cuts.
Nor can I fail to comment on the claims, and complaints, that the top 1% wage earners pay a ‘disproportionate’ percent of income taxes. Their accountants know what loopholes to leap through to lessen the impact of paying the government their fortunes as allowed by current tax codes. They have accountants; we have tax preparers who may receive training but, otherwise, don’t have the same level of education, thus no CPA after their names – many are seasonal employees who are paid hourly wages instead of commissions, such as many who work for, as an example, H&R Block.
From 2007 figures, the top 1% of income earners had a 19% share of all income in the U.S. but paid 37% of the total U.S. tax bills. The bottom 50% made 13% of all earnings but contributed only 3% in federal income taxes. But the bottom 50% are the American consumers whose spending make up 70% of GDP but only with what financial resources they by spending whatever their financial resources allow. Most have lost their jobs, savings, investments and home values. By no stretch of the imagination do these people have the disposable income to help dig the U.S. out of the continued deterioration of the nation’s still faltering economy. With their credit cards maxed out, or cancelled for non-payments and declared bankruptcies, the situation makes it a foregone conclusion that a solid recovery is nowhere in sight.
In my estimation, the best course of action for the average American, whether working, living from one extension of unemployment benefits to another, or barely surviving on Social Security incomes, is to buckle down before they buckle under. It may be the worst course of action to avoid deflation and Dow Street investors would send industrial averages tumbling to lows not seen since when? The depression maybe?
If you should take personal responsibility of your financial future and place your dollars and cents in a guaranteed but low interest money market accounts or certificate of deposit, it may prolong the recovery but you will have done what all wise people should do: look out for your own self interest and emulate what the Big Bad Boys are doing.
In neither instance are you likely to come out unscathed… unless you’re a corporate executive who’s assured of a big fat pay check and a hefty bonus or two, fitted with designer crash helmets and an armored military Humvee; a commercialized Hummer might not suffice with a revolting public, what with the continued excesses of Big business, Big government, Big Banks and all the Big-dealing lobbyists whose only goal is to keep the status quo of the average American living under the thumb prints of serfdom.
Corporate executives are aghast at the very thought they should give up a penny’s worth of compensation through a redistribution of their wealth, and that of their cronies, to those who do the grunt work to fill their pockets with riches beyond our wildest prayers.
We’re much too reliant on government. We have become submissive to governing bodies who cower unabatedly to the real power brokers, certainly not the voters who put them in office, but the Big Game players aforementioned.
The pittance of minimum wage salaries does nothing to keep families from living in poverty. To make a point, out of approximately 32 million people who may [be forced to] participate in the government mandated health care system [if enacted], 19 million are expected to be eligible to receive subsidies of anywhere from 90% for a family of four whose income is about $88,000 ($44,000 for individuals) to a 97% subsidy for a four family household with an annual income of approximately $29,000 ($14,000 threshold for singles). That’s a lot of people and a whole lot of subsidizing with taxpayer dollars.
Since 1980, the average working man and woman has seen their income increase about thirty percent. Also since then, corporate executives have given themselves (through their hand-picked board of directors) anywhere from three hundred to four hundred percent pay raises.
(It’s rather interesting, and disappointing, that during my extensive searches through the mazes of Google, which in (4.4 seconds) might display upwards of ‘About 1,234,578 results’, could I find a single source that narrowed the gap of the 300% to 400% figures. This led me to believe that no one really knows, or willing to admit, to what degree the top 1% of these high and mighty money mongers actually ‘earn’. In some cases, might it possibly be 1,000% above and beyond that of what the core majority of Americans make?)
Going a step further, and pointing out that nobody wants to give up what they’ve been generously given, the expiration of the G. W. Bush tax cuts that only benefited those with the highest bundles of cash reserves, is under fire from the ones who benefited from those tax cuts.
Nor can I fail to comment on the claims, and complaints, that the top 1% wage earners pay a ‘disproportionate’ percent of income taxes. Their accountants know what loopholes to leap through to lessen the impact of paying the government their fortunes as allowed by current tax codes. They have accountants; we have tax preparers who may receive training but, otherwise, don’t have the same level of education, thus no CPA after their names – many are seasonal employees who are paid hourly wages instead of commissions, such as many who work for, as an example, H&R Block.
From 2007 figures, the top 1% of income earners had a 19% share of all income in the U.S. but paid 37% of the total U.S. tax bills. The bottom 50% made 13% of all earnings but contributed only 3% in federal income taxes. But the bottom 50% are the American consumers whose spending make up 70% of GDP but only with what financial resources they by spending whatever their financial resources allow. Most have lost their jobs, savings, investments and home values. By no stretch of the imagination do these people have the disposable income to help dig the U.S. out of the continued deterioration of the nation’s still faltering economy. With their credit cards maxed out, or cancelled for non-payments and declared bankruptcies, the situation makes it a foregone conclusion that a solid recovery is nowhere in sight.
In my estimation, the best course of action for the average American, whether working, living from one extension of unemployment benefits to another, or barely surviving on Social Security incomes, is to buckle down before they buckle under. It may be the worst course of action to avoid deflation and Dow Street investors would send industrial averages tumbling to lows not seen since when? The depression maybe?
If you should take personal responsibility of your financial future and place your dollars and cents in a guaranteed but low interest money market accounts or certificate of deposit, it may prolong the recovery but you will have done what all wise people should do: look out for your own self interest and emulate what the Big Bad Boys are doing.
Sarah in Tea Party Wonderland
On a recent cover of The Economist magazine was a caricatured drawing of the contrite state of American politics as evoked by the fighting might of the far right from what was once an attentive grand old party. The magazine cover portrayed a tea party event.
In bold black lettering, the words at the top of the page read, ‘What’s wrong with America’s right’. Lacking the expected punctuation mark, it was a statement… not a question.
At one end of the table sat a bright-smiling Sarah Palin (have you ever seen her otherwise?) brandishing a rapid-fire assault weapon in her right hand while in the left she proudly held up her prized bounty – a startled, bug-eyed donkey fearful of annihilation from its short span of influence.
To the far left of Palin was a teary-eyed old gent, obviously government-bred, wearing a top hat decorated with stripes of red and white, and a blue hat band imprinted with white stars. Attached to the hat was a sign: ‘Nonsense 24/7’. Although he bared no resemblance to Uncle Sam, his right hand was placed over his heart; from his left hand he daintily held a ‘Made In USA’ cup. Definitely not an enthusiast, his pinky finger drooped.
Immediately below and to the left of ‘sad Sam’ was a doll-like image of Barack Obama, the smallest character of them all, with pins sticking out from various parts of the body. Sitting in a cup with the letters ‘BP’ printed on its side, it required no bit of imagination to conclude that the Obama doll was dunked in a cupful of oil. Perhaps oddly, he too shone a bright white grin just like Palin’s.
Situated between Palin and Sam was a white varmint with disproportionately sized head and ears, noticeably larger than the body whole. At the least, he was very cheekish. Aristocratically postured, a smoldering stogie displayed a cigar band with a monogrammed ‘R’. These observations told me he might be a character of some importance. The squinting eyes from making a big wide yawn suggested he had spent a long and harrowing day of scampering about, repeatedly announcing, "I'm late! I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say hello! Goodbye! I'm late, I’m late, I’m late!”
And so it was, after such an exhaustive adventure, White Rabbit had finally delivered to the world Sarah in Tea Party Wonderland. There were many obstreperous observations to bemoan on the tea party table.
Off to the side was a cup with a placard, ‘Immigrants OUT!!’ At the very bottom of the page was a seemingly disinterested elephant. He seemed a lone on-looker, a mascot you might say. Hostess Sarah demanded there be no tea party spoilers.
In mid table, facing the elephant, was a tea pot stamped ‘FOX’, no doubt the right-then-righter cable news network. The creature, its bushy tail billowing out of the spout, glared menacingly at all. The hostess had bestowed upon this vessel of servitude the honor of placement as the centerpiece.
The article that accompanied the cover story was titled, ‘The risk of “Hell, no”!’ The photographs caught my eyes; the pictures were surreal.
In one picture stood Sarah waving to what I imagine was a crowd of a good number of people… good people, patriotism exalted in their every breath. A banner in the background read, ‘TEA PARTY EXPRESS III’ and, in smaller letters, ‘Just Vote Them Out’. An attention-getter for sure but what stood out most of all was Ms. Palin’s attire: a black skirt just above her knees and a bright red dress shirt. (Soccer moms don’t parade around in blouses!)
I revisit photo shots of various other campaign pin buttons. One was of Smilin’ Sarah with ‘RELOAD’ in the forefront… from the get-go, that girl’s got her finger on the trigger and a magazine ready to go. Black and red colors, again, were prominent.
Another button, ‘Take Our Country Back’ had a background of black, the continental United States a solid red. The theme of the pin exudes patriotism – reality includes racism.
It was the repeated prominence of the black and red in the photos and on the pin buttons that concerned me. The only red, white and blue was of what appeared to be an empty pitcher displaying the colors of our flag on a ‘Don’t drink the Kool Aid’ button.
There once was a county whose military combatants wore hats… black hats… with a bright red star front and center. It was from an era of Communist Red China under the regime of Mao Zedong, of whom I quote, “We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.”
The content of The Economist article was summed up by the magazine’s own synopsis. “Too much anger and too few ideas.”
In bold black lettering, the words at the top of the page read, ‘What’s wrong with America’s right’. Lacking the expected punctuation mark, it was a statement… not a question.
At one end of the table sat a bright-smiling Sarah Palin (have you ever seen her otherwise?) brandishing a rapid-fire assault weapon in her right hand while in the left she proudly held up her prized bounty – a startled, bug-eyed donkey fearful of annihilation from its short span of influence.
To the far left of Palin was a teary-eyed old gent, obviously government-bred, wearing a top hat decorated with stripes of red and white, and a blue hat band imprinted with white stars. Attached to the hat was a sign: ‘Nonsense 24/7’. Although he bared no resemblance to Uncle Sam, his right hand was placed over his heart; from his left hand he daintily held a ‘Made In USA’ cup. Definitely not an enthusiast, his pinky finger drooped.
Immediately below and to the left of ‘sad Sam’ was a doll-like image of Barack Obama, the smallest character of them all, with pins sticking out from various parts of the body. Sitting in a cup with the letters ‘BP’ printed on its side, it required no bit of imagination to conclude that the Obama doll was dunked in a cupful of oil. Perhaps oddly, he too shone a bright white grin just like Palin’s.
Situated between Palin and Sam was a white varmint with disproportionately sized head and ears, noticeably larger than the body whole. At the least, he was very cheekish. Aristocratically postured, a smoldering stogie displayed a cigar band with a monogrammed ‘R’. These observations told me he might be a character of some importance. The squinting eyes from making a big wide yawn suggested he had spent a long and harrowing day of scampering about, repeatedly announcing, "I'm late! I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say hello! Goodbye! I'm late, I’m late, I’m late!”
And so it was, after such an exhaustive adventure, White Rabbit had finally delivered to the world Sarah in Tea Party Wonderland. There were many obstreperous observations to bemoan on the tea party table.
Off to the side was a cup with a placard, ‘Immigrants OUT!!’ At the very bottom of the page was a seemingly disinterested elephant. He seemed a lone on-looker, a mascot you might say. Hostess Sarah demanded there be no tea party spoilers.
In mid table, facing the elephant, was a tea pot stamped ‘FOX’, no doubt the right-then-righter cable news network. The creature, its bushy tail billowing out of the spout, glared menacingly at all. The hostess had bestowed upon this vessel of servitude the honor of placement as the centerpiece.
The article that accompanied the cover story was titled, ‘The risk of “Hell, no”!’ The photographs caught my eyes; the pictures were surreal.
In one picture stood Sarah waving to what I imagine was a crowd of a good number of people… good people, patriotism exalted in their every breath. A banner in the background read, ‘TEA PARTY EXPRESS III’ and, in smaller letters, ‘Just Vote Them Out’. An attention-getter for sure but what stood out most of all was Ms. Palin’s attire: a black skirt just above her knees and a bright red dress shirt. (Soccer moms don’t parade around in blouses!)
I revisit photo shots of various other campaign pin buttons. One was of Smilin’ Sarah with ‘RELOAD’ in the forefront… from the get-go, that girl’s got her finger on the trigger and a magazine ready to go. Black and red colors, again, were prominent.
Another button, ‘Take Our Country Back’ had a background of black, the continental United States a solid red. The theme of the pin exudes patriotism – reality includes racism.
It was the repeated prominence of the black and red in the photos and on the pin buttons that concerned me. The only red, white and blue was of what appeared to be an empty pitcher displaying the colors of our flag on a ‘Don’t drink the Kool Aid’ button.
There once was a county whose military combatants wore hats… black hats… with a bright red star front and center. It was from an era of Communist Red China under the regime of Mao Zedong, of whom I quote, “We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.”
The content of The Economist article was summed up by the magazine’s own synopsis. “Too much anger and too few ideas.”
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Do You Want To Know A Secret?
“All secret societies, oath bound, political parties are dangerous to any nation.” Ulysses S. Grant, 18th President of the United States.
Among secret societies, Skull and Bones of Yale University may be the most notorious. With all its rituals and macabre relics (allegedly the heads of Geronimo, Martin Van Buren and Poncho Villa), there are only 15 inductees per year with a roll call of about 800 living members at any given time.
Many ‘Bonesmen’ have gone on to positions of great power within the United States, especially in politics, including what might be called ‘The Bush Dynasty’.
Prescott Sheldon Bush (Bones Alma Mater 1917) married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, whose son George, Jr. and grandson George III were also Bonesmen (1927 and 1953); James S. Bush (1922), son of Prescott and father of George H.W. Bush and Jonathon J. Bush (1953); and grandson George W. Bush (1968). Take note that John Ellis Bush graduated from the University of Texas at Austin.
There have been many brethren in the hierarchy of the U.S. government. In 1981, Supreme Court Justice Potter (1937) swore in ‘H.W.’ as Vice President, while ‘W.’ appointed no less than ten Bonesmen under his presidency, the most noteworthy being William Donaldson (1953) to the SEC.
John Kerry (1966) faced off with George W. Bush in the 1984 Presidential Election. Questioned by media on the merits of the society, Kerry said, “It’s a secret.” In his autobiography, Bush reiterated, "My senior year I joined Skull and Bones, a secret society, so secret, I can’t say anything more."
Of other secret societies, Freemasons have a more diverse membership in 164 countries, 500 million members worldwide of which approximately 200 million are in the United States.
The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of denouncing Freemasons dating back to 1783 when Pope Clement XII issued the first prohibition of membership in “Francs Massons or by any other name according to the various languages.”
In 1917, Pope Benedict XV declared in the Code of Canon Law that “Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or against legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.”
The 1983 Code of the Canon Law declared, “A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.”
Although the mention of Freemasons was omitted, the Office of the Sacred Congregation issued the ‘Declaration of Masonic Associations’ which clarified “…the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion."
The document was signed by Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the one and same who wrote in a 1986 letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church ‘The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”, “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech and action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”
Of course, Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XIV, whose handling of sexual abuse cases during the period from 1981 to 2005 when he led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the responsibility for upholding doctrine purity. During this period, sexual abuses were either widely known to have occurred in previous decades or known to have taken place in Germany, Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, and Sweden… In other words, it’s a global phenomenon, including incidences in the United States.
In 2008, then-deceased priest Harold White and Leonard Abercrombie cost the Archdiocese of Denver $5.5 million for 18 individual claims for abuses that occurred from 1954-1981.
In 2002, three priests in Boston were sentenced to prison for multiple cases of abuse, including those of John Geoghan who sexually abused over 130 children over a 30-year period in six parishes. This led to the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law.
Of late, the perversions of Rev. Lawrence Murphy that occurred in Wisconsin have come to light that from 1950 to 1974 he sexually molested perhaps 200 deaf boys as he, too, was shuffled off to various parishes because he was a top fundraiser and too ‘valuable’ to let go.
With the given history of pervasive sexual abuses, the Catholic Church, to me, is the undisputed hierarchy of secret societies. Pope Benedict XIV continues to feign ignorance to the abuses that were rampant during the years he responsible to uphold purity within the Church.
To quote President John F. Kennedy, “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.”
Among secret societies, Skull and Bones of Yale University may be the most notorious. With all its rituals and macabre relics (allegedly the heads of Geronimo, Martin Van Buren and Poncho Villa), there are only 15 inductees per year with a roll call of about 800 living members at any given time.
Many ‘Bonesmen’ have gone on to positions of great power within the United States, especially in politics, including what might be called ‘The Bush Dynasty’.
Prescott Sheldon Bush (Bones Alma Mater 1917) married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, whose son George, Jr. and grandson George III were also Bonesmen (1927 and 1953); James S. Bush (1922), son of Prescott and father of George H.W. Bush and Jonathon J. Bush (1953); and grandson George W. Bush (1968). Take note that John Ellis Bush graduated from the University of Texas at Austin.
There have been many brethren in the hierarchy of the U.S. government. In 1981, Supreme Court Justice Potter (1937) swore in ‘H.W.’ as Vice President, while ‘W.’ appointed no less than ten Bonesmen under his presidency, the most noteworthy being William Donaldson (1953) to the SEC.
John Kerry (1966) faced off with George W. Bush in the 1984 Presidential Election. Questioned by media on the merits of the society, Kerry said, “It’s a secret.” In his autobiography, Bush reiterated, "My senior year I joined Skull and Bones, a secret society, so secret, I can’t say anything more."
Of other secret societies, Freemasons have a more diverse membership in 164 countries, 500 million members worldwide of which approximately 200 million are in the United States.
The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of denouncing Freemasons dating back to 1783 when Pope Clement XII issued the first prohibition of membership in “Francs Massons or by any other name according to the various languages.”
In 1917, Pope Benedict XV declared in the Code of Canon Law that “Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or against legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See.”
The 1983 Code of the Canon Law declared, “A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.”
Although the mention of Freemasons was omitted, the Office of the Sacred Congregation issued the ‘Declaration of Masonic Associations’ which clarified “…the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion."
The document was signed by Prefect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the one and same who wrote in a 1986 letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church ‘The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”, “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech and action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”
Of course, Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XIV, whose handling of sexual abuse cases during the period from 1981 to 2005 when he led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the responsibility for upholding doctrine purity. During this period, sexual abuses were either widely known to have occurred in previous decades or known to have taken place in Germany, Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, and Sweden… In other words, it’s a global phenomenon, including incidences in the United States.
In 2008, then-deceased priest Harold White and Leonard Abercrombie cost the Archdiocese of Denver $5.5 million for 18 individual claims for abuses that occurred from 1954-1981.
In 2002, three priests in Boston were sentenced to prison for multiple cases of abuse, including those of John Geoghan who sexually abused over 130 children over a 30-year period in six parishes. This led to the resignation of Cardinal Bernard Law.
Of late, the perversions of Rev. Lawrence Murphy that occurred in Wisconsin have come to light that from 1950 to 1974 he sexually molested perhaps 200 deaf boys as he, too, was shuffled off to various parishes because he was a top fundraiser and too ‘valuable’ to let go.
With the given history of pervasive sexual abuses, the Catholic Church, to me, is the undisputed hierarchy of secret societies. Pope Benedict XIV continues to feign ignorance to the abuses that were rampant during the years he responsible to uphold purity within the Church.
To quote President John F. Kennedy, “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.”
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
A Racy Cup of Tea
There’s something seriously wrong with the ideology of Tea Party Movement. The ‘official website’ mission statement professes ‘The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.’ Sounds like mighty good stuff, doesn’t it? But it’s not necessarily so.
Massachusetts voters got it right when they handily elected Republican Scott Brown over what was supposed to be a shoe-in victory for Democrat Martha Coakley. Although Brown claimed during an interview with the Boston Globe that he was “not quite sure what you are talking about”, when questioned about what he thought about the Tea Party movement, he had nonetheless attended a fundraiser sponsored by the Greater Boston Tea Party eleven days prior to making the statement.
As it turned out, Brown went to Washington as an “independent voice” and proved to be true to form when the first piece of legislation he voted in favor of was the Democratic Jobs Bill. Aghast at such audacity, Tea Party enthusiasts chastised Brown for having “voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.” Although the Congressional Budget Office estimated the $15 billion will create between 100,000 to 200,000 jobs, it lacked the premise of fiscal responsibility, a heinous crime by any measure to the Tea Party.
The Tea Party was formed in response to the growing number of moderate Republicans. If the intentions of the Tea party are to attract voter support in the upcoming mid-term elections, their defeat may be preordained by making statements that could very likely alienate a vast majority of the electorate.
To begin with, during a January town hall meeting on Medicare, Republican South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said federal government entitlement programs for the poor are like “feeding stray animals” and that by giving “an animal or a person ample food supply” they will “reproduce, especially the ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
The comment may have been made in correlating a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion with food stamp benefits totaling $706 billion and that with 34% of the children in the state being black as compared to 14% nationwide, and the poverty rate among blacks is 33.5% the solution may be to drug test parents as a condition for people to continue public assistance when 58% of South Carolina school children receive free or subsidized lunch programs.
I can‘t imagine Bauer will be able to fulfill his 2012 goal of becoming the next Governor of South Carolina in 2012 when Mark Sanford vacates the post due to term limits. A third of the registered voters are non-white and only 3% of the population is Hispanic. Bauer isn’t the only politician to make statements that are blatantly racist.
In February, Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman from Colorado and a 2008 presidential candidate, told an audience at a Tea Party Convention in Nashville that "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." The statement suggested literacy tests would have prevented Obama from becoming President.
I don’t know where Tancredo’s future political aspirations may lie but they’re seriously in doubt when he makes statements that too easily group together illiterate blacks and Hispanics that don’t speak English. They are racist in nature and hopefully at odds with the majority of the electorate.
Such are my concerns about the Tea Party movement. What I thought would be a group of patriots destined to become political game changers have, instead, become what I refer to as ‘political punks’ for their unrelenting intentions on disrupting the status quo with no structured solutions to combat what is socially unacceptable to their simplistic ideals.
Massachusetts voters got it right when they handily elected Republican Scott Brown over what was supposed to be a shoe-in victory for Democrat Martha Coakley. Although Brown claimed during an interview with the Boston Globe that he was “not quite sure what you are talking about”, when questioned about what he thought about the Tea Party movement, he had nonetheless attended a fundraiser sponsored by the Greater Boston Tea Party eleven days prior to making the statement.
As it turned out, Brown went to Washington as an “independent voice” and proved to be true to form when the first piece of legislation he voted in favor of was the Democratic Jobs Bill. Aghast at such audacity, Tea Party enthusiasts chastised Brown for having “voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.” Although the Congressional Budget Office estimated the $15 billion will create between 100,000 to 200,000 jobs, it lacked the premise of fiscal responsibility, a heinous crime by any measure to the Tea Party.
The Tea Party was formed in response to the growing number of moderate Republicans. If the intentions of the Tea party are to attract voter support in the upcoming mid-term elections, their defeat may be preordained by making statements that could very likely alienate a vast majority of the electorate.
To begin with, during a January town hall meeting on Medicare, Republican South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said federal government entitlement programs for the poor are like “feeding stray animals” and that by giving “an animal or a person ample food supply” they will “reproduce, especially the ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
The comment may have been made in correlating a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion with food stamp benefits totaling $706 billion and that with 34% of the children in the state being black as compared to 14% nationwide, and the poverty rate among blacks is 33.5% the solution may be to drug test parents as a condition for people to continue public assistance when 58% of South Carolina school children receive free or subsidized lunch programs.
I can‘t imagine Bauer will be able to fulfill his 2012 goal of becoming the next Governor of South Carolina in 2012 when Mark Sanford vacates the post due to term limits. A third of the registered voters are non-white and only 3% of the population is Hispanic. Bauer isn’t the only politician to make statements that are blatantly racist.
In February, Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman from Colorado and a 2008 presidential candidate, told an audience at a Tea Party Convention in Nashville that "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." The statement suggested literacy tests would have prevented Obama from becoming President.
I don’t know where Tancredo’s future political aspirations may lie but they’re seriously in doubt when he makes statements that too easily group together illiterate blacks and Hispanics that don’t speak English. They are racist in nature and hopefully at odds with the majority of the electorate.
Such are my concerns about the Tea Party movement. What I thought would be a group of patriots destined to become political game changers have, instead, become what I refer to as ‘political punks’ for their unrelenting intentions on disrupting the status quo with no structured solutions to combat what is socially unacceptable to their simplistic ideals.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Is the Tea Party Over Already?
There’s something seriously wrong with the ideology of Tea Party Movement. The ‘official website’ mission statement professes, ‘The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.’ Sounds like mighty good stuff, doesn’t it? But not necessarily so.
Massachusetts voters got it right when they handily elected Republican Scott Brown over what was supposed to be a shoe-in victory for Democrat Martha Coakley. Although Brown claimed during an interview with the Boston Globe that he was “not quite sure what you are talking about”, when questioned about what he thought about the Tea Party movement, he had nonetheless attended a fundraiser sponsored by the Greater Boston Tea Party eleven days prior to making the statement.
As it turned out, Brown went to Washington as an “independent voice” and proved to be true to form when the first piece of legislation he voted in favor of was the Democratic Jobs Bill. Aghast at such audacity, Tea Party enthusiasts chastised Brown for having “voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.” Although the Congressional Budget Office estimated the $15 billion will create between 100,000 to 200,000 jobs, it lacked the premise of fiscal responsibility, a heinous crime by any measure to the Tea Party.
The Tea Party was formed in response to the growing number of moderate Republicans. If the intentions of the Tea party are to attract voter support in the upcoming mid-term elections, their defeat may be preordained by making statements that could very likely alienate a vast majority of the electorate.
To begin with, during a January town hall meeting on Medicare, Republican South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said federal government entitlement programs for the poor are like “feeding stray animals” and that by giving “an animal or a person ample food supply” they will “reproduce, especially the ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
The comment may have been made in correlating a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion with food stamp benefits totaling $706 billion and that with 34% of the children in the state being black as compared to 14% nationwide, and the poverty rate among blacks is 33.5% the solution may be to drug test parents as a condition for people to continue public assistance when 58% of South Carolina school children receive free or subsidized lunch programs.
I can‘t imagine Bauer will be able to fulfill his 2012 goal of becoming the next Governor of South Carolina in 2012 when Mark Sanford vacates the post due to term limits. A third of the registered voters are non-white and only 3% of the population is Hispanic. Bauer isn’t the only politician to make statements that are blatantly racist.
In February, Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman from Colorado and a 2008 presidential candidate, told an audience at a Tea Party Convention in Nashville that "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." The statement suggested literacy tests would have prevented Obama from becoming President.
I don’t know where Tancredo’s future political aspirations may lie but they’re seriously in doubt when he makes statements that easily group together illiterate blacks and Hispanics that don’t speak English. They are racist in nature and hopefully at odds with the majority of the electorate.
Such are my concerns about the Tea Party movement. What I thought would be a group of patriots destined to become political game changers have instead become what I refer to as ‘political punks’ for their unrelenting intentions on disrupting the status quo with no structured solutions to combat what is socially unacceptable to their ideals.
Massachusetts voters got it right when they handily elected Republican Scott Brown over what was supposed to be a shoe-in victory for Democrat Martha Coakley. Although Brown claimed during an interview with the Boston Globe that he was “not quite sure what you are talking about”, when questioned about what he thought about the Tea Party movement, he had nonetheless attended a fundraiser sponsored by the Greater Boston Tea Party eleven days prior to making the statement.
As it turned out, Brown went to Washington as an “independent voice” and proved to be true to form when the first piece of legislation he voted in favor of was the Democratic Jobs Bill. Aghast at such audacity, Tea Party enthusiasts chastised Brown for having “voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.” Although the Congressional Budget Office estimated the $15 billion will create between 100,000 to 200,000 jobs, it lacked the premise of fiscal responsibility, a heinous crime by any measure to the Tea Party.
The Tea Party was formed in response to the growing number of moderate Republicans. If the intentions of the Tea party are to attract voter support in the upcoming mid-term elections, their defeat may be preordained by making statements that could very likely alienate a vast majority of the electorate.
To begin with, during a January town hall meeting on Medicare, Republican South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer said federal government entitlement programs for the poor are like “feeding stray animals” and that by giving “an animal or a person ample food supply” they will “reproduce, especially the ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
The comment may have been made in correlating a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion with food stamp benefits totaling $706 billion and that with 34% of the children in the state being black as compared to 14% nationwide, and the poverty rate among blacks is 33.5% the solution may be to drug test parents as a condition for people to continue public assistance when 58% of South Carolina school children receive free or subsidized lunch programs.
I can‘t imagine Bauer will be able to fulfill his 2012 goal of becoming the next Governor of South Carolina in 2012 when Mark Sanford vacates the post due to term limits. A third of the registered voters are non-white and only 3% of the population is Hispanic. Bauer isn’t the only politician to make statements that are blatantly racist.
In February, Tom Tancredo, former Republican Congressman from Colorado and a 2008 presidential candidate, told an audience at a Tea Party Convention in Nashville that "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House." The statement suggested literacy tests would have prevented Obama from becoming President.
I don’t know where Tancredo’s future political aspirations may lie but they’re seriously in doubt when he makes statements that easily group together illiterate blacks and Hispanics that don’t speak English. They are racist in nature and hopefully at odds with the majority of the electorate.
Such are my concerns about the Tea Party movement. What I thought would be a group of patriots destined to become political game changers have instead become what I refer to as ‘political punks’ for their unrelenting intentions on disrupting the status quo with no structured solutions to combat what is socially unacceptable to their ideals.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Working Man's T-Party
He’s the man who does the grunt work in America – without him, the prosperity of the past decade wouldn’t have happened because he cleared the land, laid down the foundation, hammered, cemented, plumbed and stuccoed the homes that put a roof over the heads of his fellow Americans.
He’s not above the law – so long as he doesn’t get caught. He’s never been victimized – he’s been ‘done wrong’. He doesn’t know about passionate lovemaking – it’s raw sex and the tender afterglow. He’s proud of his guns – it does a guy good to truck it out to the Florida scrub and shoot a few rounds.
He worries about what the future holds for his kids, more nowadays than ever. He wants them to have a better life than himself. College? The best he can do is make sure they graduate from high school. After that, hard knocks build character.
He worked for The Boss Man whose ethic was more about getting the job done in the least amount of time than it was about quality. Boy, he’d be running his own business right now, doing it right. But the economy sank. So did his chances of getting a small business loan.
He’s a couch potato but with a six-pack by his side, and a couple more in the fridge, his goal is to become a smashed potatohead. A good chugfest helps drown out the sorrows of “What life’s done to me?”
He smokes, weed included. Other drugs? Hard liquor beats hard drugs any time of the day. The meds meant to dull the down-to-the-bones pains of years of backbreaking work are now the only guaranteed source of income. The return on the dollar is too good to pass up. He’s an entrepreneur, a believer in supply and demand.
Football is the only sport and the rest are for pansies. Except for Jordan, Shaq, Bonds, Jeter and maybe A-Rod when he’s got his act together. Skin color doesn’t matter in sports.
He’s a can-do person. He can do this and he can do that but an occasional do-it-yourself job gets screwed up. Who does he call? His buddy. Between the two of ‘em they get it done – the best example of bipartisanship.
A dog’s best friend is his master. A man’s best friend? You guessed it – his guns. The right to bear arms is the only protector of The Constitution – the symbol of freedom that guarantees life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and free speech. And justice for all.
White isn’t the flag of surrender. It’s a dare to come and get me and I’ll beat the crap out of ya!
Call it male chauvinism but a woman’s place is in the home. Cleaning, cooking, caring for the kids – those are her responsibilities. But he can’t get over the fact that he hasn’t been able to find a job in weeks, months, perhaps a year or more. So the little woman has to take on a job to help make ends meet. And that’s not right! Although he might not know it was Truman who said it first, but out of anguish for the plight he’s in, he howls, “I’m mad as Hell.”
And who’s he mad at? Those dirty, rotten, scoundrel, scandalous politicians, that’s who! Democrats are for the working man. Republicans are for gun rights. But their all a bunch of self-serving ego-headed maniacs that spend more time listening to bankers, lawyers, CEOs and who knows who else rather than the people who gave them their jobs and pay their salaries through taxes. Taxation with mispresentation, that’s what it is!
The Tea Party people seemed to have a certain down to earth appeal about ‘em but then he saw the SUVs, RVs and hybrid cars and there’s not a one of ‘em that looks like they’ve ever put in a back-breaking day of work in their lives as he has.
They’re the disgruntled. They’re middle class and he’s not. The recession to them is a depression to him. They’re fed up with the politicians in Washington but they’re being herded up just like every other American.
He displays the colors of patriotism day in, day out. His body is burned red from working endless days in the scorching sun. He’s forever in blue jeans. During the day his shirt is soiled from sweat and dust, dirt and grime from a hard day’s work, but when he’s all cleaned up, feeling good and accomplished, he dons a fresh, clean white T-shirt. You can’t get much more Americana than that!
So, what’s he thinkin’? A T-shirt Party would best represent him. Damn right!
And if that doesn't work out, how about a Wet T-shirt Party! Sarah Palin for President!
(Note: The content of this column has been edited. Add a couple hundred more words – they all start with the letter “F”.)
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Foreign Entitlement
At first glance, the article appeared to be an advertisement but, as I saw no disclosure to that affect, I began reading what portends to be an alarming realization that future trends in globalization bids farewell to highly technical jobs in the United States.
As it turned out, the ‘article’ in The Wall Street Journal was written by two esteemed professionals, Kannan Srikanth (Indian School of Business, assistant professor of strategy) and Phanish Puranam (London Business School, professor of strategic and international management) which I interpreted as a soft-shell approach to hard-sell an idea with the headline ‘Advice for Outsourcers: Think Bigger’ and a sub-headline that read, ‘Too many companies mistakenly limit offshore work to routine tasks’.
To sum it up, five questioned were asked of the corporate reader if their offshore business operations are hindered by poor performance, communication problems with onshore enterprises, and differences in education and training, but the nutshell was cracked and the meat of the ‘thesis’ was exposed with question #5, ‘Would it benefit you to be able to move more intellectually complex work offshore?’
Now, doesn’t that just beat all? Not at all. The ‘essay’ provided a link to a podcast where Jennifer Merritt, WSJ Career Journal Editor, interviewed Dr. Srikanth in a discussion emphasizing the advantages of widening the scope of offshore jobs to include highly educated professionals in organic and process chemistries, computer chip design, engineering design, risk evaluation, pharmaceuticals and other well-paid professionals with a disclaimer that such a strategy “would not necessarily result in cost-savings” – an unlikely claim.
Big business corporations in the U.S. and Western Europe were specifically identified as beneficiaries of the expansion of outsourcing jobs to workers not only in India, but also China. The domino effect will also lead to lay-offs of executive positions in the U.S. Take heed that these are highly paid jobs and, once their gone, they’re virtually lost forever with no strategic means to replace them with other well-paying jobs, the loss of which will cost the U.S. billions of dollars in personal taxable income.
The interview came to a climax with Ms. Merritt feeding a question to Dr. Srikanth that was poised to bring to attention concerted efforts to entice natural born citizens of India to bring their Western-educated talents back to the homeland.
Let me twist this dialogue in another direction and piece together what globalization means to America’s future.
The near collapse of financial conglomerate AIG was largely caused by credit-default swaps that were questionably sold as insurance, a small degree of which was executed by Alico, an affiliate insurance unit based in Delaware. The main perpetrator was AIG Financial Products in London, the disintegration of which led to the biggest bailout in American history.
There is no doubt that globalization has intertwined American corporate interests over and above our sovereignty. A third of all sales and nearly 40% of the profits of major American companies come from abroad. Spot-check: During the ‘80s and ‘90s approximately 50% of foreign shares were in foreign investments compared to 90% today. Therefore, American corporations, directly or indirectly, are dependent on profits from foreign interests.
The impact of these facts will have major implications on the election of our lawmakers. Money talks and the free speech given to corporations by the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs the FEC will allow corporations the means to bankroll election campaigns with their vast amounts of money.
If alive today, our Founding Fathers would once again incite American patriots to bear arms and challenge the Supreme Court decision. The crafters of the Constitution fought and died to guarantee the rights and freedoms of all men and in no way intended to give corporations the rights to spend freely their caches of funds to dominate election campaigns to brainwash the electorate to put in office lawmakers who will to some degree give corporate interests the wherewithal to denigrate the inherent rights bestowed upon American citizens.
As opined in the WSJ, “The president’s claim about ‘foreign entities’ bankrolling U.S. political campaigns is also false, since the Court did not overrule laws limiting such contributions.” Consider the fact that the WSJ is owned by News Corporation which also owns Dow Jones, whose industrial averages are purveyors of international monetary demagoguery.
My conclusion, and possibly yours, is that American corporations will take into consideration their foreign interests and greatly influence voters to elect lawmakers who will, in turn, cast their legislative votes in favor of their international interests.
The impact of the Supreme Court ruling will have on state and local issues has yet to be thrashed out. Micro-politicking is sure to be of particular interest.
As it turned out, the ‘article’ in The Wall Street Journal was written by two esteemed professionals, Kannan Srikanth (Indian School of Business, assistant professor of strategy) and Phanish Puranam (London Business School, professor of strategic and international management) which I interpreted as a soft-shell approach to hard-sell an idea with the headline ‘Advice for Outsourcers: Think Bigger’ and a sub-headline that read, ‘Too many companies mistakenly limit offshore work to routine tasks’.
To sum it up, five questioned were asked of the corporate reader if their offshore business operations are hindered by poor performance, communication problems with onshore enterprises, and differences in education and training, but the nutshell was cracked and the meat of the ‘thesis’ was exposed with question #5, ‘Would it benefit you to be able to move more intellectually complex work offshore?’
Now, doesn’t that just beat all? Not at all. The ‘essay’ provided a link to a podcast where Jennifer Merritt, WSJ Career Journal Editor, interviewed Dr. Srikanth in a discussion emphasizing the advantages of widening the scope of offshore jobs to include highly educated professionals in organic and process chemistries, computer chip design, engineering design, risk evaluation, pharmaceuticals and other well-paid professionals with a disclaimer that such a strategy “would not necessarily result in cost-savings” – an unlikely claim.
Big business corporations in the U.S. and Western Europe were specifically identified as beneficiaries of the expansion of outsourcing jobs to workers not only in India, but also China. The domino effect will also lead to lay-offs of executive positions in the U.S. Take heed that these are highly paid jobs and, once their gone, they’re virtually lost forever with no strategic means to replace them with other well-paying jobs, the loss of which will cost the U.S. billions of dollars in personal taxable income.
The interview came to a climax with Ms. Merritt feeding a question to Dr. Srikanth that was poised to bring to attention concerted efforts to entice natural born citizens of India to bring their Western-educated talents back to the homeland.
Let me twist this dialogue in another direction and piece together what globalization means to America’s future.
The near collapse of financial conglomerate AIG was largely caused by credit-default swaps that were questionably sold as insurance, a small degree of which was executed by Alico, an affiliate insurance unit based in Delaware. The main perpetrator was AIG Financial Products in London, the disintegration of which led to the biggest bailout in American history.
There is no doubt that globalization has intertwined American corporate interests over and above our sovereignty. A third of all sales and nearly 40% of the profits of major American companies come from abroad. Spot-check: During the ‘80s and ‘90s approximately 50% of foreign shares were in foreign investments compared to 90% today. Therefore, American corporations, directly or indirectly, are dependent on profits from foreign interests.
The impact of these facts will have major implications on the election of our lawmakers. Money talks and the free speech given to corporations by the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs the FEC will allow corporations the means to bankroll election campaigns with their vast amounts of money.
If alive today, our Founding Fathers would once again incite American patriots to bear arms and challenge the Supreme Court decision. The crafters of the Constitution fought and died to guarantee the rights and freedoms of all men and in no way intended to give corporations the rights to spend freely their caches of funds to dominate election campaigns to brainwash the electorate to put in office lawmakers who will to some degree give corporate interests the wherewithal to denigrate the inherent rights bestowed upon American citizens.
As opined in the WSJ, “The president’s claim about ‘foreign entities’ bankrolling U.S. political campaigns is also false, since the Court did not overrule laws limiting such contributions.” Consider the fact that the WSJ is owned by News Corporation which also owns Dow Jones, whose industrial averages are purveyors of international monetary demagoguery.
My conclusion, and possibly yours, is that American corporations will take into consideration their foreign interests and greatly influence voters to elect lawmakers who will, in turn, cast their legislative votes in favor of their international interests.
The impact of the Supreme Court ruling will have on state and local issues has yet to be thrashed out. Micro-politicking is sure to be of particular interest.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
We've Been Had By The Supreme Beings
Of the $1.4B in campaign funds in the 2008 General Election, which nearly doubled 2004 figures, and covering all political parties in the House and Senate races, $404M came from Political Action Committees and $800M from individual donations, a two-to-one ratio. In the Presidential race, individual donations were $1.4B of the total $1.8B.
The deduction? PACs know their funds are best spent supporting elected officials who have the ultimate power to pass into law legislation that will have an impact on their interests. The influence of the all-mighty dollar at its best.
Data released January 27 by the Federal Election Commission shows nearly $450M has been accumulated for this year’s Midterm Elections among both Democrats and Republicans, new candidates and incumbents inclusive, of which $130M has come from Political Action Committees while individual donations total $275M.
But the recent Supreme Court decision on United Citizens vs the Federal Election Commission will no doubt turn on the spigots of corporate campaign financing, inflicting upon American voters a flurry of lies, half-truths and misrepresentations of candidates and ballot initiatives. And, in spite of the state of the economy, in this election year there will be beaucoup bucks thrown here, there and everywhere the politicians go. Contributions are still regulated (for now) but given the freedom for corporations to ‘speak’ as they will in any venue not resolve the grievous financial plights of American taxpayer.
2009 was totally wasted. Misdirected stimulus funds. Failure to focus on job creation. An inept, disruptive Congress. The redistribution of wealth from the Treasury to Wall Street. And health care reform that has turned the political arena into a self-interest free-for-all. States demanding exemptions, pharmaceutical companies muscling down attempts to contain rising costs, insurance companies refusing to give up even a smattering of their fortunes, and labor unions given exclusive concessions that sidestepped the concessions – all contributed to blocking any chance at health care reform.
Because of mistrust, confusion and worries about the economy, as never before we’ve heard more and more about moderates, centrists, liberals, conservatives and, fresh out of the political coffee pot, comes another breed of political activists, tea party-goers. Our structured democratic state has gone helter-skelter. Because of this myriad of opposing factions within both parties, the Midterm Elections are unpredictable. Corporate maneuvering has been set up to be the determining factor in many Congressional races.
The New York Times called the Court decision “a broad interpretation of free speech rights.”
President Obama said “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” And we all snickered at the posturing of the polished politician.
The Court’s decision played along party lines – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia – all appointed by Republican Presidents and the majority vote. They outnumbered Democrat-appointed Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975 and the senior member who’s gotten much wiser in his old age with 35 years on the bench. He wrote, “The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind,” Justice Stevens wrote. “And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.”
Lawrence Noble, who serves as general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, speculated corporations can, in essence, threaten, “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you – whichever one you want.” This interpretation is right on the money and suggests that any amount can make or break a candidate’s bid for political office.
Another Republican-appointee from the Reagan era, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, had a different take on the impact of the Supreme Court decision on Citizen United vs. Federal Election Commission. Referring to the June, 2009, ruling in Caperton vs. Massy, the Supreme Court ruled West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from hearing a case where he had voted twice in favor of overturning a $50M decision against the owner of a business who had donated $3M to his campaign to defeat an incumbent. It was the first time the Court had ruled that judges elected to state courts can be required to step down from hearing cases if one party made major contributions to their elected campaigns. O’Connor said that between the two cases it “should be a warning to states that still choose their judges by popular election.” In other words, last week’s decision creates “an increasing problem for maintaining an independent judiciary.”
Looking forward, does this mean that large banking institutions, investors, mortgage lenders – in short, Wall Street – will effectively take on, and manipulate, any financial reform tactics proposed by the Obama Administration? Count on it.
In the Court decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials.”
As The Tampa Tribune opined, “… the ruling affirmed free speech and acknowledged voters can think for themselves.” But voters are easily duped when flashy pictures appear before their eyes and fancy words and sounds fill their minds. Campaign infomercials may decide the upcoming elections.
Money is no object when corporations are given the means to influence American voters. Face it, the Supreme Court sold out America and its citizens to corporate interests in the grandest of all mergers and acquisitions. We, the people, have been had by the supreme beings.
The deduction? PACs know their funds are best spent supporting elected officials who have the ultimate power to pass into law legislation that will have an impact on their interests. The influence of the all-mighty dollar at its best.
Data released January 27 by the Federal Election Commission shows nearly $450M has been accumulated for this year’s Midterm Elections among both Democrats and Republicans, new candidates and incumbents inclusive, of which $130M has come from Political Action Committees while individual donations total $275M.
But the recent Supreme Court decision on United Citizens vs the Federal Election Commission will no doubt turn on the spigots of corporate campaign financing, inflicting upon American voters a flurry of lies, half-truths and misrepresentations of candidates and ballot initiatives. And, in spite of the state of the economy, in this election year there will be beaucoup bucks thrown here, there and everywhere the politicians go. Contributions are still regulated (for now) but given the freedom for corporations to ‘speak’ as they will in any venue not resolve the grievous financial plights of American taxpayer.
2009 was totally wasted. Misdirected stimulus funds. Failure to focus on job creation. An inept, disruptive Congress. The redistribution of wealth from the Treasury to Wall Street. And health care reform that has turned the political arena into a self-interest free-for-all. States demanding exemptions, pharmaceutical companies muscling down attempts to contain rising costs, insurance companies refusing to give up even a smattering of their fortunes, and labor unions given exclusive concessions that sidestepped the concessions – all contributed to blocking any chance at health care reform.
Because of mistrust, confusion and worries about the economy, as never before we’ve heard more and more about moderates, centrists, liberals, conservatives and, fresh out of the political coffee pot, comes another breed of political activists, tea party-goers. Our structured democratic state has gone helter-skelter. Because of this myriad of opposing factions within both parties, the Midterm Elections are unpredictable. Corporate maneuvering has been set up to be the determining factor in many Congressional races.
The New York Times called the Court decision “a broad interpretation of free speech rights.”
President Obama said “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” And we all snickered at the posturing of the polished politician.
The Court’s decision played along party lines – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia – all appointed by Republican Presidents and the majority vote. They outnumbered Democrat-appointed Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975 and the senior member who’s gotten much wiser in his old age with 35 years on the bench. He wrote, “The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind,” Justice Stevens wrote. “And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.”
Lawrence Noble, who serves as general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, speculated corporations can, in essence, threaten, “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you – whichever one you want.” This interpretation is right on the money and suggests that any amount can make or break a candidate’s bid for political office.
Another Republican-appointee from the Reagan era, retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, had a different take on the impact of the Supreme Court decision on Citizen United vs. Federal Election Commission. Referring to the June, 2009, ruling in Caperton vs. Massy, the Supreme Court ruled West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself from hearing a case where he had voted twice in favor of overturning a $50M decision against the owner of a business who had donated $3M to his campaign to defeat an incumbent. It was the first time the Court had ruled that judges elected to state courts can be required to step down from hearing cases if one party made major contributions to their elected campaigns. O’Connor said that between the two cases it “should be a warning to states that still choose their judges by popular election.” In other words, last week’s decision creates “an increasing problem for maintaining an independent judiciary.”
Looking forward, does this mean that large banking institutions, investors, mortgage lenders – in short, Wall Street – will effectively take on, and manipulate, any financial reform tactics proposed by the Obama Administration? Count on it.
In the Court decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials.”
As The Tampa Tribune opined, “… the ruling affirmed free speech and acknowledged voters can think for themselves.” But voters are easily duped when flashy pictures appear before their eyes and fancy words and sounds fill their minds. Campaign infomercials may decide the upcoming elections.
Money is no object when corporations are given the means to influence American voters. Face it, the Supreme Court sold out America and its citizens to corporate interests in the grandest of all mergers and acquisitions. We, the people, have been had by the supreme beings.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)