I have a better understanding now of just how hard being a real blogger can be. I work full time and do this whenever I’m not too tired and the mood strikes me. In between those times so much happens. I intended to write about oil because last weekend I saw several oil reps on Meet the Press. I also watched Addicted to Oil and a segment on NOW about the death of the electric car. Our use of oil is a national security issue (as first mentioned by Pres. Carter), it’s a health care issue, it’s a human survival issue. I feel pretty strongly about it.
Then other issues came up. The House delayed the renewal the 1965 Voting Rights Act. As far as I can tell, from the AP article I read, the objections of the House Republicans were that the act allowed too many American citizens the right to vote. I’m only half kidding.
Also, the Senate defeated the Democrats’ proposed minimum wage increase. In what can only be described as a complete logical disconnect the Senate voted NO to raising the minimum wage while the house said YES to giving themselves a raise. So let me get this straight: The poorest Americans don’t deserve a cost of living increase, but the House does. In fact, lawmakers have seen a pay increase of over $30,000 since 1997, the last time minimum wage was increased. We sometimes forget that the salaries of all our governmental officials come from us. We should remember that EVERY November come election time.
But there was also good news. Warren Buffett donated $30.7 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with another $6.4 BILLION going to other charitable foundations. BILLION PEOPLE! The two richest men in the world doing what they can to make the world a better place.
Buffett went even further to say that the estate tax shouldn’t be repealed. "It's a very equitable tax," Buffett said. "It's in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged." I couldn’t have said it better myself.
So much happened. So many opinions to share. I don’t know where to start. And now it’s time to end. I didn’t even get to mention that the government is now spying on your bank records. You real bloggers are a hardworking lot.
j.r.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Is anyone else scared?
Is anyone else scared? W. talking about the “Iranian regime”. Discussion of shooting down the missile test by North Korea. Granted the article that mentioned shooting down the missile said it was a remote possibility, you know ‘cause it might spark a war, but isn’t the fact the idea was ENTERTAINED not scary? We saw what they did to a “regime” they thought had the precursors to nuclear weapons. What will they do to a nation that actually has them.
Luckily the Bush administration is not bothered by consistency or the need to follow logically what your own rhetoric dictates. They never suffer from cognitive dissonance. So we’re going to go all diplomatic on their asses. It makes sense if you use the right analogy. If we think they may have a gun, we shoot them to protect ourselves. If they are pointing a gun at us, we talk to them. NOW doesn’t that make sense. If you know for a fact they have a gun, cause it’s pointed right at you, you could get yourself killed trying to shoot them first. On the other hand, if you think they have a gun, (because fifteen years ago you saw them play with one, though for the last fifteen years they haven’t been allowed near guns or bullets and anytime they get near guns or bullets they get beaten up. But still you believe in your heart of hearts they have a gun in their possession. No one else thinks this. You don’t care, though. You would swear he’s hiding the gun in his backpack. In fact, you have several people swear they’ve seen it.) you kill them. Of course, it turns out they didn’t have a gun, but how could anyone know. What was I talking about? Oh yeah. Iran and North Korea.
Diplomacy is how we’re handling Iran and North Korea. Saddam was in a nutshell declaring himself the king of infinite space and we invaded him. Two nations hostile to the U.S. developing WMDs, one with a missile that has a range that can reach California, and we tell them “stop or we’ll say stop again.” Where is the rhetoric about the mushroom cloud that Iraq couldn’t, but Iran and N.K. most certainly could, bring us.
If only there were people in Congress to point out that this is far more important than flag burning and gay marriage. If only.
j.r.
Luckily the Bush administration is not bothered by consistency or the need to follow logically what your own rhetoric dictates. They never suffer from cognitive dissonance. So we’re going to go all diplomatic on their asses. It makes sense if you use the right analogy. If we think they may have a gun, we shoot them to protect ourselves. If they are pointing a gun at us, we talk to them. NOW doesn’t that make sense. If you know for a fact they have a gun, cause it’s pointed right at you, you could get yourself killed trying to shoot them first. On the other hand, if you think they have a gun, (because fifteen years ago you saw them play with one, though for the last fifteen years they haven’t been allowed near guns or bullets and anytime they get near guns or bullets they get beaten up. But still you believe in your heart of hearts they have a gun in their possession. No one else thinks this. You don’t care, though. You would swear he’s hiding the gun in his backpack. In fact, you have several people swear they’ve seen it.) you kill them. Of course, it turns out they didn’t have a gun, but how could anyone know. What was I talking about? Oh yeah. Iran and North Korea.
Diplomacy is how we’re handling Iran and North Korea. Saddam was in a nutshell declaring himself the king of infinite space and we invaded him. Two nations hostile to the U.S. developing WMDs, one with a missile that has a range that can reach California, and we tell them “stop or we’ll say stop again.” Where is the rhetoric about the mushroom cloud that Iraq couldn’t, but Iran and N.K. most certainly could, bring us.
If only there were people in Congress to point out that this is far more important than flag burning and gay marriage. If only.
j.r.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
I watched Mr. Smith goes to Washington today. I love that movie. If it were released today it would be condemned by Fox News and the right as more of that Hollywood Liberal-Michael Moore-Hate-America-First-George Clooney tripe. Corruption in the Senate, destroying a man using the media, and disdain for the filibuster. The movie highlights more than anything that the more things change the more they stay the same. Insert Jack Abramoff for Taylor, insert (and I know this will piss people off) John Kerry or Al Gore for Smith. O.K. I know I'm way to liberal to be open minded but it's there. Kerry vs. The Swift Boat Veterans. The Media painting Al Gore as a constant fabricator. And while I doubt that the Republican party would stoop to running little kids off the street, I wouldn't put it past them. They profess a love for our military and our troops, but that didn't stop them from spreading rumors about John McCain when they ran against him in the primaries. This is a man who served our country with distinction. He gave years of his life for us in that POW camp and they used that to suggest (with just the slightest hint) that he betrayed us. Despicable. They questioned former Senator Max Cleland's patriotism. He gave both his legs and his right arm for this country. What did Bush or Cheney ever give.
It's sad in a way. We've made so much progress, yet not really. Congress is still under the control of special interests. The media can still be bought and paid for. And you can still present evidence before a Senate committee that is full of lies and falsified information. Were there ever really any "good old days"
j.r.
It's sad in a way. We've made so much progress, yet not really. Congress is still under the control of special interests. The media can still be bought and paid for. And you can still present evidence before a Senate committee that is full of lies and falsified information. Were there ever really any "good old days"
j.r.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Will the Democratic Party please stand up!
Republicans know how to win elections. They play off your fears and prejudices and get you to vote. They know that while defense can keep you from losing a game, it is offense that wins it. They play to win, we play not to lose, and it has cost us. As long as we keep trying to get to the middle of the road, the Republicans are going to keep running over us. They aren’t trying to sway Democratic voters, they’re playing to their people. We should do the same.
Gore should have won Nader’s people, Kerry should have won big with female voters. They both have voting records that play to these groups, yet during the campaign they tried not to lose. They tried to seem more pro-life than pro-choice. Less environmental more “things are just fine”. We need to take a stand, because they do.
Things I know Republicans stand against.
Gay marriage
Environmental regulation
Illegal immigrants
Abortion
Gun control
We’re so afraid of losing the votes of people who agree with Republicans that we’re losing our own voters. If Gore had played up his environmental creds more (and not distanced himself from Clinton), Nader wouldn’t have been an issue. If any candidate stood up and said they are the polar opposite of the current candidate they may have stood a better chance.
Examples by me:
On Gay Marriage: I support gay marriage and will fight any amendment or bill that seeks to marginalize our law-abiding, tax paying citizens.
On Environmental Regulations: Global warming and the greenhouse effect are real. No legitimate scientist thinks otherwise. Continued denial of the effects we are having on this planet only puts us and our children at peril.
On Abortion: I hope for the day when there are almost no abortions performed. But not because we outlawed it. When we improve sex education, the numbers of abortions will go down. When we make better birth control and easier access to it, the numbers will go down. When we live in a society that does not put ALL of the burden on the woman, and none of it on the man, the numbers will go down. I cannot in good conscience tell a woman with little money and no health insurance that she must endure the physical, psychological and financial burdens that come with bringing a child into this world. It’s one thing to say a woman can’t have an abortion, it’s another entirely to say you will pay all her medical expenses and stay with her for the next 18 years to ensure they are provided for.
I know those views seem extreme, but that’s because all we have are far right and middle. On gay marriage all we heard was “NO” and “maybe civil unions” which still sounds like you don’t really like it. On the environment: “Global warming is not real” and “there’s some debate but most agree”. And finally on abortion: “HELL, NO!” and “only in the case of…” But if you stood up and said the things I wrote up there you would win the Gay and Lesbian vote, the Environmental vote and a good portion of the women’s vote. Add speaking Spanish and not sounding like a Gringo and you’d have an election landslide.
j.r.
Gore should have won Nader’s people, Kerry should have won big with female voters. They both have voting records that play to these groups, yet during the campaign they tried not to lose. They tried to seem more pro-life than pro-choice. Less environmental more “things are just fine”. We need to take a stand, because they do.
Things I know Republicans stand against.
Gay marriage
Environmental regulation
Illegal immigrants
Abortion
Gun control
We’re so afraid of losing the votes of people who agree with Republicans that we’re losing our own voters. If Gore had played up his environmental creds more (and not distanced himself from Clinton), Nader wouldn’t have been an issue. If any candidate stood up and said they are the polar opposite of the current candidate they may have stood a better chance.
Examples by me:
On Gay Marriage: I support gay marriage and will fight any amendment or bill that seeks to marginalize our law-abiding, tax paying citizens.
On Environmental Regulations: Global warming and the greenhouse effect are real. No legitimate scientist thinks otherwise. Continued denial of the effects we are having on this planet only puts us and our children at peril.
On Abortion: I hope for the day when there are almost no abortions performed. But not because we outlawed it. When we improve sex education, the numbers of abortions will go down. When we make better birth control and easier access to it, the numbers will go down. When we live in a society that does not put ALL of the burden on the woman, and none of it on the man, the numbers will go down. I cannot in good conscience tell a woman with little money and no health insurance that she must endure the physical, psychological and financial burdens that come with bringing a child into this world. It’s one thing to say a woman can’t have an abortion, it’s another entirely to say you will pay all her medical expenses and stay with her for the next 18 years to ensure they are provided for.
I know those views seem extreme, but that’s because all we have are far right and middle. On gay marriage all we heard was “NO” and “maybe civil unions” which still sounds like you don’t really like it. On the environment: “Global warming is not real” and “there’s some debate but most agree”. And finally on abortion: “HELL, NO!” and “only in the case of…” But if you stood up and said the things I wrote up there you would win the Gay and Lesbian vote, the Environmental vote and a good portion of the women’s vote. Add speaking Spanish and not sounding like a Gringo and you’d have an election landslide.
j.r.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Bush's immigration speech
George Bush unveiled his 5 point plan for dealing with immigration. Now I have many feelings about his 5 point plan, but the one the American people should really focus on is: How much is this going to cost?
1. Strengthen our Borders – the cost for this point alone must be astronomical. He wants to hire 6,000 more employees. If you paid them minimum wage that would still be over 60 million a year (tax payer dollars), for every dollar over minimum add another 12 million a year. Not to mention the cost for these infrared cameras, motion sensors, the cost of building fences, and roads. Then add the additional cost of sending everyone back, not just to Mexico, which would be cheap, but if someone comes from Cuba or Chile or China we’re (the taxpayers) going to have to pay to send them back there. For this proposal alone the cost goes over a billion dollars.
2. Temporary worker program - It’s one thing to say we need new Ids for all workers. Easy to say that we want to set up a system for workers and employers to get together, but who’s paying for it. A new office or upgrades to the currently existing INS offices is going to be required. More employees will most likely need to be hired. A new government agency will have to be set up to help immigrants who wish to work legally here in the U.S. find employers who want to hire them. Essentially a Federal temp agency. And we’ll be paying for it.
3. Employer accountability – In order to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers, you need people to investigate the claims. Once again hiring more people or tasking already over tasked law enforcement with that duty. At least this one could possibly pay for itself with the fines we could levy on employers who violate the law. But it would still probably only break even.
4. Illegals here could earn citizenship – Once again, without increasing the number of people in the federal government, nothing is going to change for those illegals who have been here for years. If those who are going the legal route get to go first in line (and that already takes a long time), then I don’t see those who have been living here for 20-30 years illegally trying to become legal citizens when they would have to wait even longer, work even harder and pay a penalty. THEY’RE POOR YOU MORON! If they had money they would enter the U.S. legally!
5. Which I could only understand as NO HABLO ESPANOL! I didn’t hear much on point five except that everyone must try to speak English. I agree with this one and I think GEORGE W. BUSH should be the first who has to pass an English test for citizenship. That would solve all our problems. Once he’s declared not a citizen then we can legally take the Presidency away from him. HOORAYY!!!
I believe we need strong borders. I believe we need to do something about our immigration problem. But this is just too expensive, and wouldn't really solve the problem. At a time when we have a tremendous deficit and owe money to foreign countries do we really want to get deeper in debt. And remember that as the number of Federal employees goes up so does our tax burden. Whatever happened to Republicans being for smaller government. To co-opt the phrase most often used in local elections: "This plan costs to much, does too little."
- j.r.
1. Strengthen our Borders – the cost for this point alone must be astronomical. He wants to hire 6,000 more employees. If you paid them minimum wage that would still be over 60 million a year (tax payer dollars), for every dollar over minimum add another 12 million a year. Not to mention the cost for these infrared cameras, motion sensors, the cost of building fences, and roads. Then add the additional cost of sending everyone back, not just to Mexico, which would be cheap, but if someone comes from Cuba or Chile or China we’re (the taxpayers) going to have to pay to send them back there. For this proposal alone the cost goes over a billion dollars.
2. Temporary worker program - It’s one thing to say we need new Ids for all workers. Easy to say that we want to set up a system for workers and employers to get together, but who’s paying for it. A new office or upgrades to the currently existing INS offices is going to be required. More employees will most likely need to be hired. A new government agency will have to be set up to help immigrants who wish to work legally here in the U.S. find employers who want to hire them. Essentially a Federal temp agency. And we’ll be paying for it.
3. Employer accountability – In order to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers, you need people to investigate the claims. Once again hiring more people or tasking already over tasked law enforcement with that duty. At least this one could possibly pay for itself with the fines we could levy on employers who violate the law. But it would still probably only break even.
4. Illegals here could earn citizenship – Once again, without increasing the number of people in the federal government, nothing is going to change for those illegals who have been here for years. If those who are going the legal route get to go first in line (and that already takes a long time), then I don’t see those who have been living here for 20-30 years illegally trying to become legal citizens when they would have to wait even longer, work even harder and pay a penalty. THEY’RE POOR YOU MORON! If they had money they would enter the U.S. legally!
5. Which I could only understand as NO HABLO ESPANOL! I didn’t hear much on point five except that everyone must try to speak English. I agree with this one and I think GEORGE W. BUSH should be the first who has to pass an English test for citizenship. That would solve all our problems. Once he’s declared not a citizen then we can legally take the Presidency away from him. HOORAYY!!!
I believe we need strong borders. I believe we need to do something about our immigration problem. But this is just too expensive, and wouldn't really solve the problem. At a time when we have a tremendous deficit and owe money to foreign countries do we really want to get deeper in debt. And remember that as the number of Federal employees goes up so does our tax burden. Whatever happened to Republicans being for smaller government. To co-opt the phrase most often used in local elections: "This plan costs to much, does too little."
- j.r.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Tom Cruise
I won’t write much about Hollywood. What angers me enough yell at the television rarely has anything to do with how Britney is treating her baby. Seriously people, there are children in this country who have no health care, are starving, and if they are lucky enough to make it to school age, may go to schools that are falling apart, with substandard books, teachers and which will most likely close leaving them unable to go to school at all thanks to Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. So I could give two of nothing about Britney’s baby.
Tom Cruise on the other hand intrigued me. His movie M:I:III opens today. Recently he’s been under attack for a lot of the “crazy” statements he’s made. His attack on Brooke Shields and his baby birthing rules were much in the news. And as crazy and the things Tom said were, he only makes movies not laws. Bill Frist on the other hand supports sex education (abstinence) that says you can get AIDS from tears and sweat. Rick Santorum compared Homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia. These are the people who make the laws we must live by. Why did I see more airplay about Tom claiming he knew psychiatry was BS, than Frist claiming he knew Teri wasn’t in a vegetative state…because he watched video of her. Tom Cruise may convert some people to scientology, maybe not, but I consider him harmless compared to senators and congressmen with irrational beliefs. It isn’t Tom Cruise who’s going to limit women’s access to birth control, or ban gay marriage or lead us into a war with questionable intelligence against a country that didn’t attack us. It’s going to be those other people I mentioned. So let Tom talk crazy and if he runs for office vote against him. And while you’re at it see if you can vote out of office the people who still believe that the WMDs exist.
-j.r.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
a little about me and my blog
I’d like to introduce myself. I’m an Austin Liberal Democrat. I have the life I always hoped for when I was young. I have a car, a nice apartment, digital cable, enough money to feed my addiction (books), a beautiful girlfriend, beautiful girls as friends, and a job that satisfies and challenges me, but which I can leave at work when I go home. What more could a person want?
How about a President who is smarter than me? How about Universal Health Care? How about a country that realizes that two people, any two people, getting married has no effect on you whatsoever?
My annoyance at people who agree with me, but don’t vote, knows no bounds. Yet, how much different am I? Yes, I vote. Yes, I give money to the ACLU and the democratic party, but what am I really doing to try and change things. I discuss issues with anyone who disagrees with me and try to make them change their mind. It’s a start. This I hope will be the next step.
I am adding my voice, or text at least, to the thousands of others who want to try to get this country back on course. Not getting it back to some mythical glory days that never existed, but to a future where equality is real, tolerance is practiced, and freedom is more than just a word.
That’s what I humbly hope to accomplish with my blog.
Oh, and I’d like to get that bastard impeached.
-j.r.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)