The votes are in, the tally set, Mitt Romney is our President, inaugurated a week or so ago. Have to give him credit, he sure hit the ground running. With the House and Senate all locked up in GOP hands, it has been easy to make the changes the right wing has been wanting and fighting for years.
As a recap, what has happened in the last week.
The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things.
A 20% increase in the defense budget.
The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration.
Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level.
The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states.
Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources.
As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed.
Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections.
To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated.
The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue.
There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.
The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President.
And this is just the beginning.......
Showing posts with label Gays. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gays. Show all posts
Monday, June 11, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Gay Marriage..my thoughts
Much has been made lately about who has come out in support or against gay marriage. I too have some thoughts on this issue, of course.
Firstly, a little background. I am almost 60 years old. I was raised at a time when the gay issue was not an issue at all. For all I knew at the time, a gay person was about as rare as an albino. It was suggested that a gay person was somehow defective, some still believe this today. As I grew up, living in Yankee states and California my exposure to gays increased as more people came out of the closet. I was stuck with a moral dilemma. I took the stand that while it was not for me, I would not be 'against' the gay lifestyle unless it affected me personally, in other words if I got 'hit' on. My toughest struggle was when my young son came to visit me in California and the couple who lived next door to me were gay. He, coming from the bible belt in Florida. I faced a tough problem. How do I explain to a child the situation when he told me that two men were holding hands and kissing each other? How do I explain it to his mother in Florida what my response would be and not catch flak for it? Needless to say, I punted and told him that they were gay and in love, other than that I don't know anything. In the same apartment complex, there was a mixed race couple who were living together, he never questioned that. Not so many years ago, mixed marriages were frowned upon or outright illegal in some states. Certain minorities could not move in next door to you. Times change.
It is understood that everything is legal, unless there is a law against it. When we see states which have state laws specifically forbidding such things as gay marriage, one has to question why. The answer, whether we want to admit it is simply a moral issue. Where does morality come into play? Organized religion. The next question of course is obvious, if a state creates a law against gay marriage based upon religious morality, then there is a problem between separation of church and state. I admit, over the years I had not considered the difference between the two, secular and religious. When I excluded the religious argument against gay marriage, the clouds parted and the sun shone bright. If you exclude religious morality, which is not consistent across the religious spectrum, then what is the secular justification for denying gay marriage? There is none. If gay marriage were allowed, what would the ramifications be? From a secular point of view, there is none. Equal rights for all, not special rights.
If a state were to allow for gay marriage, this does not compel a church to perform that ceremony. Marriage is still a state issue, not church issue. No person or church has any right to decide for someone else what their live's should be, nor should they be able influence an outcome that frankly is none of their business. What right does a heterosexual have to decide for someone else?
The Catholic church is clear on this issue. The church see's homosexuality akin to mental illness and should be treated as such. The church is against gay marriage because in the eyes of the church, the whole reason for marriage is for procreation, which of course is not possible with gay marriage. While the church is tolerant (according to the Catechism) towards gays, the church is adamantly against the lifestyle. One could argue that procreation outside of marriage is against their god's will as well.
When New York was considering a law allowing for gay marriage, the swing vote came down to a Republican Senator, who voted for it. When asked why he voted for gay marriage, his answer was simple. "I cannot find a legal reason why not." When you think about it, that is the best answer one can give. If you consider that we are a secular nation and not one run by religion, then that answer fits just fine.
Time does change things.
So to all, on the issue of gay marriage, what secular reason can you find to defend the ban against it.
Firstly, a little background. I am almost 60 years old. I was raised at a time when the gay issue was not an issue at all. For all I knew at the time, a gay person was about as rare as an albino. It was suggested that a gay person was somehow defective, some still believe this today. As I grew up, living in Yankee states and California my exposure to gays increased as more people came out of the closet. I was stuck with a moral dilemma. I took the stand that while it was not for me, I would not be 'against' the gay lifestyle unless it affected me personally, in other words if I got 'hit' on. My toughest struggle was when my young son came to visit me in California and the couple who lived next door to me were gay. He, coming from the bible belt in Florida. I faced a tough problem. How do I explain to a child the situation when he told me that two men were holding hands and kissing each other? How do I explain it to his mother in Florida what my response would be and not catch flak for it? Needless to say, I punted and told him that they were gay and in love, other than that I don't know anything. In the same apartment complex, there was a mixed race couple who were living together, he never questioned that. Not so many years ago, mixed marriages were frowned upon or outright illegal in some states. Certain minorities could not move in next door to you. Times change.
It is understood that everything is legal, unless there is a law against it. When we see states which have state laws specifically forbidding such things as gay marriage, one has to question why. The answer, whether we want to admit it is simply a moral issue. Where does morality come into play? Organized religion. The next question of course is obvious, if a state creates a law against gay marriage based upon religious morality, then there is a problem between separation of church and state. I admit, over the years I had not considered the difference between the two, secular and religious. When I excluded the religious argument against gay marriage, the clouds parted and the sun shone bright. If you exclude religious morality, which is not consistent across the religious spectrum, then what is the secular justification for denying gay marriage? There is none. If gay marriage were allowed, what would the ramifications be? From a secular point of view, there is none. Equal rights for all, not special rights.
If a state were to allow for gay marriage, this does not compel a church to perform that ceremony. Marriage is still a state issue, not church issue. No person or church has any right to decide for someone else what their live's should be, nor should they be able influence an outcome that frankly is none of their business. What right does a heterosexual have to decide for someone else?
The Catholic church is clear on this issue. The church see's homosexuality akin to mental illness and should be treated as such. The church is against gay marriage because in the eyes of the church, the whole reason for marriage is for procreation, which of course is not possible with gay marriage. While the church is tolerant (according to the Catechism) towards gays, the church is adamantly against the lifestyle. One could argue that procreation outside of marriage is against their god's will as well.
When New York was considering a law allowing for gay marriage, the swing vote came down to a Republican Senator, who voted for it. When asked why he voted for gay marriage, his answer was simple. "I cannot find a legal reason why not." When you think about it, that is the best answer one can give. If you consider that we are a secular nation and not one run by religion, then that answer fits just fine.
Time does change things.
So to all, on the issue of gay marriage, what secular reason can you find to defend the ban against it.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Propaganda and Hate, are you are you as sick of it as much as I am?
For the last year I have been compelled to do battle with those extremists on the right as well as the left. Dr. Goebbels would be more than proud with the multiple propaganda machines in play, Hitler himself coined the phrase, "when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." ".
There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's.
As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.
On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven.
For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe.
Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.
Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact.
Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!
How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?
Now for some political crap.
Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%.
Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill.
Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.
Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists.
Repeal Obamacare.
No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills.
Same sex marriage.
Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?
Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.
False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion.
I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe.
There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's.
As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.
On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven.
For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe.
Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.
Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact.
Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!
How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?
Now for some political crap.
Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%.
Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill.
Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.
Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists.
Repeal Obamacare.
No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills.
Same sex marriage.
Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?
Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.
False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion.
I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
After Iowa
The Iowa caucus finished tonight with 3 leaders. Of the three, only one generally appreciates the responsibility of be President of all of us. The other two are extremist ideologues who have a very narrow moral view and agenda not shared by mainstream America. One must remember, this is a secular nation, with laws created by Congress. It is not the place of a President to wage a religious war upon this nation. It is common knowledge that the term 'family values' is a code phrase for the extremist views of right wing Christians, who wish to foist their values and morality upon the rest of us, to deny us our rights as Americans to choose our own values.
If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.
It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.
What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.
There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?
Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?
So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.
As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.
The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.
I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?
If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.
It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.
What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.
There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?
Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?
So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.
As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.
The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.
I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?
Friday, December 3, 2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell. DADT
I am not sure what the big deal is with DADT. A little history here. Prior to DADT, the Military would ask you if you were a homosexual and if you told the truth, they would reject you. DADT made an accommodation in this area by eliminating the question. If you were gay and were willing to follow the rules, in other words not engage in homosexual activity while on duty and kept your sexual orientation quiet, you could serve.
From my point of view, the only practical difference between getting rid of DADT is simply this, gays can now serve openly if they choose to. The only difference between now and repeal is the fact they can actually say they are gay if they choose to and not be kicked out. Gays are serving now in the military, that is a fact. For the life of me, this is much ado about nothing. It's not like there will be an influx of gays in the military except for those 80,000 who have been kicked out for admitting it, those who may wish to return to active duty.
This is not necessarily a moral issue for me. The reality is there are gay folks, simple fact of life. To deny them the opportunity to serve just like the rest of us seems unfair. They are good Americans who want to serve their country, to defend her as those before. They don't do it because they are gay, they do it it because they are Americans.
The military conducted their studies and the facts are clear. DADT must go. Congress should accept this. The military wants it to end, if it's ok with them, who are we to say otherwise? Think of it this way. When was the last time the military actually asked the rank and file what they thought? NEVER. The answer is clear, 70% said, get rid of it.
From my point of view, the only practical difference between getting rid of DADT is simply this, gays can now serve openly if they choose to. The only difference between now and repeal is the fact they can actually say they are gay if they choose to and not be kicked out. Gays are serving now in the military, that is a fact. For the life of me, this is much ado about nothing. It's not like there will be an influx of gays in the military except for those 80,000 who have been kicked out for admitting it, those who may wish to return to active duty.
This is not necessarily a moral issue for me. The reality is there are gay folks, simple fact of life. To deny them the opportunity to serve just like the rest of us seems unfair. They are good Americans who want to serve their country, to defend her as those before. They don't do it because they are gay, they do it it because they are Americans.
The military conducted their studies and the facts are clear. DADT must go. Congress should accept this. The military wants it to end, if it's ok with them, who are we to say otherwise? Think of it this way. When was the last time the military actually asked the rank and file what they thought? NEVER. The answer is clear, 70% said, get rid of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)