Long Island Sound-off

Election Results And What They Mean

2010-11-03T13:41:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, America voted in what may turn out to be the heaviest voting turnout in a mid-term election ever. The House of Representatives changed hands but at a smaller number than some expected. Some prognosticators predicted an 80 - 90 seat change in the House and 8-9 seat change in the Senate. Instead there was a 60 seat change in the House and 6 in the Senate. Now that is not a small change by any means but not the earthquake that some predicted. And as for the effect of the Tea Party, while many Tea Party endorsed candidates won their elections, many lost. Just look at New York's Governor race. The Tea Party backed Paladino who surprisingly won the Republican primary against the Party backed Lazio. Paladino ended up in utter failure with only 34% of the vote in a year when Republicans were supposed to win everywhere (note that in NY Dems swept all the statewide offices). Was that only a fluke based on Paladino's awful candidacy? What about other Tea party endorsed candidates? Christine O'Donnel barely mustered 40% in the Senate race in Delaware. John Raese in West Virginia received only 43%. Sharron Angle got 44% in Nevada, Carly Fiorina 42.5% and Meg Whitman 41% in CA, Tom Tancredo 37% in Colorado, Linda McMahon in Connecticut with only 44% and many other failures in the House. There were some close failures from the Tea Party, Miller in Alaska apparently lost his Tea Party backed race to the woman he defeated in the Primary by about 6%, Buck lost a squeaker to Bennet in Colorado, and others. Of course there were many Tea Party victories as well, but who knows how the Republicans would have done if the Tea Party wasn't forcing them to the extreme right wing. Will Tea Party winners like Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey be able to persuade the rest of the Republicans (not to mention the still majority Democrats) to their side or will they have to moderate their views and piss off the people who got them there. Most likely they will become irrelevant. Being a minority in a minority party is not much fun. If the Republicans move even further to the right, they will accomplish nothing. They are going to have to moderate their views if they want to get any legislation passed. They will not overturn the health care bill. They will not get rid of the Department of Education or the Fed. But if the spend the next two years simply being the party of "NO" they will get nothing done and the Democrats will be able to blame it on them. If their entire agenda is, as Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell said “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president” or as he said today, "I think what the American people were saying yesterday is they appreciated us saying 'no'", then the Republicans will be held accountable. Every time a jobs bill or consumer legislation comes up and is defeated the President and the Democrats will point to the Republicans and say, this is what we have to deal with. They couldn't say that with the large majority they had. One last thing. If you have children in college and you were hoping that the laws regarding student loans, was going to be changed to make it easier to afford college, forget it. If you were hoping that your locality or school district was going to get tax relief, forget it (actually you can expect higher local and school taxes as federal funds will be cut). If you were hoping that roads and infrastructure were going to be fixed, forget it. If you were hoping for tighter regulations on banks, credit cards and wall street, forget it. The average family received their biggest tax cut ever last year. You can forget that too.

We the People

2010-10-21T17:38:00.004-04:00

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It occurred to me the other night, as I was watching a debate in Delaware between the Senate candidates at Widener Law School, that many people who like to refer to the Constitution, often stating that certain things are "unconstitutional" have probably never read the constitution. Chris Coons, a Yale Law School grad, who clerked for a Federal Appeals Court Judge, and Christine O'Donnell, who recently received her BA, debated the fine points of the Constitution. Particularly odd was the exchange regarding the First Amendment's establishment clause. Coons, who also holds a Master degree from Yale's Divinity School, pointed out to Ms. O'Donnell that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion (the exact phrase is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."). She seemed baffled. She kept repeating "that's in the first amendment?" over and over as if she could not believe it. When Mr. Coons used this as a reason why creationism should not be taught in public schools, she stated that the denial of the "right" to teach creationism is public schools was "unconstitutional". HUH? He stated that what is taught at home, in houses of worship, or in private schools was not subject to the Constitution, but public schools are. It should be noted that the 14th Amendment makes the rights the people have in the Constitution apply to the States as well as the Federal government. Later, when she was asked about whether she would like to see either the 14th, 16th or 17th Amendment repealed, as has been suggested by many Republicans (see Boehner, Kyl, and many others or many Tea Partiers on the 16th Amendment), O'Donnell could not recall what these Amendments were. The point is, there are people out there, saying that the President is doing things that are unconstitutional without knowing the Constitution. Ms. O'Donnell did say she supported keeping the 17th Amendment, but had no idea of the others. For those of you who do not know, the 14th Amendment originally gave citizenship to freed slaves but says anyone born or naturalized in the US would be a citizen. It also, as pointed out above, makes the rights in the Constitution applicable as against the States. It also apportions representatives, sets the voting age, and some laws applicable to the civil war and the confederacy. The 16th Amendment establishes the power of the government to collect taxes. The 17th Amendment sets up the current method of selecting the Senate. It's frightening to hear people at Tea Party rallies, or even Candidates for high office, not know the Constitution. My copy, which sits on my desk, is a pamphlet 6 inches by 3 1/4 inches, is only 34 pages for the Constitution. The Constitution has become nothing but a battle cry for those that feel wronged in some way. They don't know what it says. It is merely a symbol without real meaning. Just look at the principles of the so called "Constitution Party". This is a Fundamentalist Christian party that is anti-tax, anti-government and it's platform begins..." The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. " In and of itself, this is in direct opposition to the First Amendment. But to these wackjobs, the actual Constitution is irrelevant. They use the word "Constitution" as a symbol of what they believe America should be. Just like those who call the President a "socialist" without really knowing what that means. Or that right wing kid I saw on CNN recently who called CNN the "Communist News Network". It doesn't matter that they do not know what "Communist" even means, they just have to know it is a bad thing. Or those that compare the President to Hitler. Do they know what Hitler did? He murdered millions of innocent people. But that does not stop some people from using "Hitler" merely as something they do not not like. As long as the people are ignorant, others will take advantage of this ignorance. Whether that means using words without their true meaning, but merely as symbols that they promote as either good or bad, to promote their agenda. This adds to the dumbing down of America and may lead us to have ignorant people like Christine O'Donnell governing our country. I heard a Conservative commentator recently say that the success of the Tea Party is because the American people are tired of being led by Ivy League educated intellectuals and want somebody like themselves running the country. Since when did being smart become a bad word? God help us all.

Post-Racial America or Just Racial America?

2010-08-14T05:06:00.006-04:00

Do you remember way back in January 2009? America had just elected it's first African American President. Many thought that the US had finally become "post-racial". I didn't. As a matter of fact, I originally supported Hilary Clinton because I didn't think America would elect a black President. I was wrong. America could elect one, but not let him govern. Instead of being "post-racial", the US has become extremely racial. The racism that exist today, from the likes of the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and most of my conservatives friends and relatives is astounding. Now Dr. Laura. Incidentally, Dr. Laura, who gives "mental health advice" is not a mental health professional. Her "doctor' comes from her PhD id Physiology, not Psychology. He did a study on insulin in rats. That qualifies her in giving advice? Maybe to rats (don't take insulin!), but not to people. Certainly not on relationships. She separated from her first husband and started having an affair with the guy who gave her a break into radio. Later she had an affair with a married man who divorced his wife when this model of social conservatism got pregnant out of wedlock. She announced she was pregnant at their wedding. Back to the present. So this hypocrite says on the air that for blacks to criticize whites who use the "N" word is hypocritical. Her lack of racial sensitivity is beyond belief. Growing up we (non-religious Jews) called our more observant friends "yids". They laughed. They knew we were not trying to hurt them. I hear Hispanics call other Hispanics "spic". They do this as an inside joke. They are among friends. It is harmless. But when an outsider uses these words, the meaning changes. When I hear the word "yid", "kike", Jew-boy" used by non-Jews (and I have), I become enraged. Why? Because of the intent behind the word. Whites who call Blacks the "N" word do not do so as an "inside" joke. They are not on the inside. They do not know the discrimination carried behind such words. When non Jews call Jews "yid" or "kike" I think of the Nazis calling Jews these words as they were shoving them into ovens in Auschwitz.

Today we have all sorts of discrimination and bigotry. It seems worse today then a decade ago. Could it be the eight years of Republican rule where the majority trampled on the minority? No. Could it be the election of the first Black President? Maybe. The resentment of the white majority that a black man, who is, in their minds, beneath them, is the President of this country is unfathomable. A US General and his staff criticizing the President of the US in public is unheard of. But because the President is black, they felt they could get away with it. The threats against the government by elected officials, saying they will use their "second amendment" rights against the government is pure treason, yet they get away with it. And the President is afraid to address this for fear of criticism of his using the "race card". Use it damn it, when it is obvious.

The racism against Hispanics is quite remarkable. The Arizona law making it a crime to be Hispanic looking is the most racist law passed in decades. And that is exactly what it does. I have read it. Don't comment on it unless you have. It states that law enforcement MUST (not may) demand proof of citizenship of anyone suspected of being illegal. Huh? First how does an "illegal" look. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal Canadians and Europeans in this country. Do you think this law is aimed at them? Do "illegal" aliens look different then legal aliens? Do we need to put yellow badges on people? Second, what is proof of citizenship? OK a legal immigrant would have his green card or visa. What would you have if you are a citizen but look illegal? Are we now going to make all people carry "papers" that they must produce at all times upon demand, like some WWII movie of some spy movie during the cold war? SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!!! God forbid a person gets stopped putting out the garbage or getting the newspaper in their pajamas. Is that what this country has come to? Some have said "carry a driver's license". That is not proof of citizenship or even legal status. A person on a student or work visa can get a drivers license. If they stop being a student, or working their license doesn't expire. An old friend made a comment recently on facebook about Arizona's unique "problem". They have no problem except their blind anti-Hispanic hysteria. The incident that allegedly started the controversy there, a killing of a farmer on the border originally thought to be the work of an illegal, turned out to be the work of a US citizen. There is nothing unique about Arizona. There are 15 states that border another country. Not to mention states like Florida that technically do not "border" another country, but are separated from other countries by small area of water (as does Wisconsin and Ohio). The only thing possibly unique about Arizona is the number of racist morons (although I am not sure how unique that is).

Then there is the anti-mosque controversy. First it was the "overlooking the World Trade Center Mosque" controversy, but now there has been a movement against mosques and Islamic institutions in almost every state. The anti-Muslim feeling in this country is scary. The US Constitution specifically forbids the establishment of religion. It is clear. THIS IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY! And there is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian". Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Wikkins, Zoroastrians, and any other Religious group, or non-religious groups like atheists, are EQUAL to Christians. There are 11 Christian Churches equal to or closer to the 9/11 site then where this Muslim Cultural Center is being built. 39 Muslim Americans died in the WTC on 9/11, Is the ground not sacred for them too? Opposition to the Muslim Cultural Center (it is not really just a Mosque - more like a YMCA or JCC), is nothing short of racist anti-Muslim hysteria and EVERYONE who opposes this is a bigot (and that includes my friends).

It appears America has gone backwards. Instead of being a land of freedom for all who seek it (remember the words on the statue of liberty), the land my grandparents came, to escape anti-Semitism and poverty, it has become a land of "I got here first, you are not allowed". When conservatives say they want to "take back America" they really want to take away America. They want to destroy the promise of America.

GOP - The BP Party

2010-06-18T15:19:00.002-04:00

Yesterday the top House Republican on the Energy Committee apologized TO BP. Yes, that's right, a Congressman said he was sorry to BP, the company that has, through it's criminal acts, killed 11 men and ruined the environment by causing the worst environmental disaster in history. This Texas Republican, one of big oil's best friends, criticized the President of the US for demanding, and getting, an escrow fund from BP to clean up the mess it made. Was this just one insane Republican, kissing the tuchus (rear end) of his benefactor? Not in the least. Tom Price, Republican (surprise?) Congressman from GA, and the GOP House Study Committee, made up of 100 Republicans, issued a statement likewise apologizing to BP for what they called the President's "Chicago style shakedown" (?) of BP. HUH! Do they want the taxpayers to pay for the cleanup??? Shouldn't the perpetrators of this tragedy be financially responsible? Personally I think it wasn't enough. I would be in favor of seizing all of the US assets of BP as a forfeiture of the instruments of it criminality. What BP did was clearly a crime. They knew they were in violation of safety laws. They knew the battery for the alarm that could have warned of the explosion, was dead. It's in their reports. They had a bogus emergency plan, naming a Professor of Marine Biology in Florida as the emergency contact, who has been dead for 5 years. At the very least, they are guilty of criminally negligent homicide, possibly even depraved indifference murder. Yet the Republican party has, almost universally, come to the defense of these criminals. I understand that the GOP will try to criticize the President for anything and everything. But, come on. This is just absurd. Or is it simply standard operating procedure for the Republicans?

The Kagan Appointment

2010-05-10T18:35:00.002-04:00

I have been hearing alot from the Right Wing about how the new Supreme Court nominee, Elana Kagan, has no Judicial experience and therefore is unqualified for the Court. Since 1969 four appointments (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Powell and Burger, all Republican appointments) had NO judicial experience. All were political insiders in the Republican party. Thomas had one year of judicial experience, Souter 5 months (although he was on the New Hampshire Supreme Court for 7 years), and our current Chief Justice, only two years. Every one of those mentioned were Republican appointees. There have been 12 Republican appointees to the US Supreme Court since 1969. The person with the most Judicial experience on the current court is Sotomayor (17 years). The other two Democrats, Breyer (14 years) and Ginsburg (13 years) each had more experience then any Republicans except Alito (16). Also note that the last three Chief Justices, Roberts, Rehnquist and Burger had a combined 2 years judicial experience (all Roberts), before coming on the Court. And the job Rehnquist had before he was nominated to the Court was as an Assistant Attorney General.

Benedict Levy or Just Par for the Course

2010-03-18T19:05:00.004-04:00

Actually I shouldn't be so surprised that Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy switched to the Republican party to run for Governor. Levy has been a closeted Republican for decades. His anti-hispanic views are well known, going beyond the law to round up suspected illegals (ie any hispanics he can find). He has frequently endorsed Republicans and criticized the Democratic Party. He has a long time reputation for being anti-union. He was cross endorsed by the Republicans for his last election. This allowed him to pocket his campaign contributions and build a war chest of over $4 million. But he has no chance against Cuomo. If he gets the Republican nomination he will lose big time. But he probably won't get the nomination. He has no name recognition outside of Long Island. Upstate Republicans won't vote for him. But hopefully this should crush his chances of remaining on the Democratic line for County Exec next time around. I know I won't be carrying an petitions for him again.

The Triumph of the Corporate Media

2010-02-28T12:29:00.001-05:00

I keep hearing, not just from Republicans, but from the media themselves, that the American people oppose health care reform. Is this true? Or is this just the hype generated by the media that have created the story, instead of just reporting it. A recent poll, taken February 17 – 18, by Princeton Survey Research and Newsweek, shows that the media has created a situation where people oppose something without knowing the details, and when they know the details they support it. Just to point out that this is not some pro-liberal skewed survey, they interviewed over a thousand people, 39% considered themselves either conservative or very conservative, 20% liberal or very liberal, and 36% moderate. If anything this indicates it was skewed to the right. So what are the results? When asked if you support President Obama’s health care reform only 40% support it, 49% oppose. But the question doesn’t explain what is in it. Then the survey asks questions on individual parts of the plan. When the person is asked if the support “Requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with tax incentives for small business owners to do so” Which is part of the Obama plan 75% approve and only 20% oppose. When asked “Requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, even if they have a pre-existing medical condition” 76% approve, 19% oppose. On the question “Creating a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without health insurance to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive rates” a whopping 81% support and only 13% oppose. The only parts that are opposed by the majority are “If health coverage is required for everyone, imposing fines on individuals who don’t obtain coverage and on larger businesses that don’t offer it” (62% oppose), and “Imposing a tax on insurers who offer the most expensive health plans, the so-called Cadillac plans, to help pay for health care reform” (55% oppose) both of which where put in because of Republican concerns that the bill would not pay for itself and which many Democrats oppose. Every other detail of the plan was supported by the public. So why are the poll numbers showing that the public opposes the Obama plan, yet support the details of the plan? Because the media has given the story that the public opposes it and so people feel they must agree. In the effort to be “balanced” the mainstream media feels the need to show both sides of the debate regardless of the merits of the respective sides. That’s like needing to present someone from the flat earth society everytime they mention that the earth is round. Rather than educating society, the media has actually uneducated the public. Do we always need one Democrat and one Republican, or one liberal and one conservative on every issue regardless of the merits? The media should investigate the merits, present the positions but they do not need to give equal time to politicians to lie about the facts. When Republicans said that there would be death panels in the health care plan, even though that was a lie, it was presented equally with the statement, that it was untrue. Did the media investigate the facts and make a conclusion? No. So this left the public unsure and with the uneducated masses fearing government, many believed the lie, and still do. The job of journalists is to enlighten, not to equally present sane, rational facts and outrageous lies and not tell the public which is which. I sit hear listening as I hear Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) say, again, the American people oppose the health care plan. Candy Crowley of CNN does not even challenge this. Does she tell him that the people support just about every individual proposal of the plan? No. This is irresponsible journalism. Americans would overwhelmingly approve of this plan if they knew what it was. It’s time the mainstream media grow a pair a do their job of informing the public.
For the poll itself, see the link http://www.newsweek.com/media/84/1001_ftop_v2.pdf

Welcome back

2010-01-15T15:38:00.002-05:00

It's been awhile since I posted. Been really busy and I haven't had the time. People have asked for more so I will try to post on a regular basis. I almost feel like after Jon Stewart comes back from vacation and he has to go over all the stuff that would have made good material when he was gone. My next post will do just that. Gotta run.

Columbus Day?

2009-10-12T20:08:00.002-04:00

It's been awhile since I blogged. Was on vacation in Puerto Rico, but I'm back now and trying to back into the swing of things. While we were in PR we visited Old San Juan. Just as you enter the old cobblestone streets there is a park. In the park is a statue on a tall pedestal. It is a statue of Columbus. Very similar to the statue of Columbus in New York. What is odd is that New York erected the statue of Columbus in 1892. San Juan erected theirs in 1998, more than 100 years later. That may not seem odd on it's face, but consider that Columbus landed in Puerto Rico in 1493. He landed in New York in , uh, oh that's right. He never landed in New York, or any part of what is now the US. Yet we Americans celebrate Columbus' "discovery" of America. So today is Columbus Day. Funny, Italians celebrate this as their holiday. But Columbus was a Genoan by birth. You see there was no Italy then. So Romans, Florencians, Venetians and others need not be so proud. But even Genoans should not. His family heritage is Spanish. And after all, he travelled under the flag of Spain. Any "discoveries" would be claimed only by Spain. Additionally in 1528 Genoa became a satellite state of Spain. It later came under the rule of Austria and the France. Only in the late 19th century did Genoa become part of the unified Italy. So why do Italian Americans celebrate Columbus Day as an Italian American holiday? Beats me. But what is more troubling than that is that we celebrate Columbus at all. Let's see. He set out to find a quick new route to Asia. On his way he stumbles into an island. Actually a group of islands. Thousands of miles from Asia. The funny thing is Columbus never realized he was not in India. He called the natives Indios. So swift he was not. When ruled over the inhabitants he treated them cruelly, eventually leading to the extinction of many of the native tribes. He was even put in prison in Spain for his cruelty. This from a regime that tortured hundreds of thousands in the Inquisition. And besides, what did he discover? There were already people there. Anyway, so Columbus sailed to India and fell short by thousands of miles. He never "discovered" anything. He destroyed a culture and stole their gold. So Happy Columbus Day everybody.

Fox News: We create the news so you don't have to decide

2009-09-22T18:22:00.002-04:00

Fox News uses the tag line: We report, you decide. Well my definition of reporting is, seeing something happen and telling others about it. when you actually make something happen, you do not report the news, you are making the news. However, Fox (or Faux) News seems to have different journalistic standards. See the attached video where a Producer from Fox, along with a "reporter" stirs up the crowd so it will look louder and larger on TV.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html

Republican Traitors

2009-09-10T18:19:00.003-04:00

Anti-American Congressman Joe Wilson, (Hate-SC) who heckled the President of the United States during a joint session of Congress, yesterday, made a lame attempt at an apology. "I'm sorry" doesn't cut it. During eight years of a lying President, who lied about war, terrorism, the economy, and just about everything else, never did a Democrat shout out in a joint session of Congress, while the President of the United States was speaking, calling the President a liar. They should have, but didn't. This disgraceful piece of crap that the 2nd District of SC calls a Congressman should be tossed out of Congress. Better yet, toss him out of the US.

Hate-ism - the new Conservatism

2009-09-03T15:01:00.002-04:00

The Right Wing shows its true colors. I will no longer call the Right “Conservatives”, I will call them what they are. “Haters”. This “Hate-ism” philosophy was demonstrated by the Tea Baggers, at the anti Health Care rallies, at Town Hall meetings, and is loudly spouted by Hate Mongers like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michele Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other spewers of hate. Here’s an example from a “main stream right winger” aka Hater…

Pat Buchanan, Nazi Apologist, Needs A History Lesson
By Megan Carpentier

Pat Buchanan, reliably conservative MSNBC contributor and spittle-flecked crazy old man, is at it again with his book that argues that World War II was unnecessary because the real enemy was Communism. And, he says, the Jews weren't that important, anyway.
In his latest column, Buchanan argues that, since WWII obliged the West to form an uncomfortable alliance with Stalin's regime, the deaths, as he wrote, of "50 million Christians and Jews" was too great a sacrifice to justify this:
A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.
You notice who Buchanan is no longer concerned about: the Jews of Europe, of course. It's just the Christians that concern Buchanan.
Buchanan goes on to then argue that Adolf Hitler wasn't a megalomaniac intent on finding Lebensraum by displacing or killing millions of Europeans of different religions and-or ethnicity--and especially Jews--because he wasn't ready to invade France by 1940. In fact, Buchanan argues, Hitler never would have started WWII had the British not guaranteed the Poles military backing in the event of a German invasion--one that, notably, Hitler secretly arranged with Stalin in order to partition the country, which Buchanan ignores. Buchanan also ignores the fact that Hitler wasn't keen to invade other nations immediately after Poland because he knew full well he lacked the firepower to do so, and did not hesitate out of some supposed lack of eventual interest in doing so.
Buchanan then attempts to slough off the argument that WWII was necessary to limit, if not prevent, the worst of Hitler's atrocities.
But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet's, or Fidel Castro's, was out to conquer the world?
Mind you, in 1939, Fidel Castro was 13--and the reputed death toll attributed to his regime since 1959 is somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 people. Pinochet's regime, which came to power in a bloody coup in 1973 (and was 24 in 1939), is reputed to have directly caused the deaths of a similar number of people in his 17 years in office. Hitler, who between coming to power in 1933 and 1939 had already invaded Austria, annexed part of Czechoslovakia and invaded the rest of it before moving on to Poland, had already murdered nearly 100,000 Jews by 1939. That's "a fraction," if one considers "5/1" a fraction. By 1938, Hitler has already imprisoned 30,000 Jewish men in concentration camps, and the ghettoization of Poland's Jews began shortly after the Nazi invasion.
Buchanan argues that Hitler's annexations and invasions (let alone the murder of 100,000 Jews) didn't justify World War II, and implies--exactly as Hitler said in 1939--that the war and Holocaust that resulted from the Western powers' refusal to accept Hitler's invasionary policies that most certainly would have killed millions and preceeded the inevitable Holocaust were the fault of the West.
Why the hell does MSNBC give a Nazi apologist a national platform to spout this drivel?

More GOP Racism

2009-08-28T18:14:00.003-04:00

I was just sent a link to a video from back in July. Heard it but couldn't believe it but it checks out. Here what it was about.
Rep. Lynn Jenkins says the GOP needs a ‘great white hope’ to thwart President Obama.
At a town hall forum last week, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) offered encouragement to conservative activists by saying there were some “really sharp” young Republicans in the House. “Republicans are struggling right now to find the great white hope,” said Jenkins. “I suggest to any of you who are concerned about that, who are Republican, there are some great young Republican minds in Washington.” Jenkins proceeded to name three GOP members of Congress who are all white — Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Are Republicans really that tone deaf?

The Right Hates America

2009-08-25T16:02:00.002-04:00

Why does the right wing hate America so much? I know, your probably saying, "they do?" But they wear lapel flags and always say they support the troops (as they cut funding for veterans affairs). This brings the question, what is America? Is America it's symbol, the flag? Is America the soldiers who fight it's wars? No. America is it's Constitution. "We the People..." The Constitution is the guiding principle that makes America great. It is the rule book, the instruction sheet, the how to guide for America. Different people have different interpretations for it's provisions. Whether we believe that the Second Amendment means we have an individual right to "keep and bear arms",. or whether a "well regulated militia is a qualifier, either way we hold the standard of the Constitution up and say this is the guideline, this is the law. This is why I find disturbing what I hear from the right wing now.
A report was just released that indicates that torture was used against suspected terrorists. Don't tell me that the things described in the report are not torture. Even most on the right will agree that water boarding, holding a loaded gun to the head, holding a power drill toward a persons face, threatening to kill someones children or relatives, extreme humiliation, are all recognized torture methods, forbidden by the Geneva convention and international standards. The Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. The right does not deny these things went on by CIA and military interrogators. Yet they say there should not be any investigation into this. Why? It was justifiable because we received useful information from it. In spite of the fact that most observers say deny that, the right continues to say lives were saved by torture. They have no evidence to back this up but continue to repeat it. I say SO WHAT. I do not care if we got useful information or even if lives were saved. We are America. We do not torture. Our Constitution forbids it. Our very national soul forbids it. If we say any means justifies the ends, regardless of how tenuous those ends are, we are no longer America. Those we promote torture have no respect for America. They hate America. They hate what America stands for. It is reported today that Rep. Peter King said that those who want to investigate these incidents are on the side of the terrorists. But it is Rep. King, Dick Cheney, Fox News and all those on the right that want to close their eyes to torture that are on the side of the terrorists. The right wing is destroying America much faster than any terrorist could. And remember, we are talking about investigating these incidents. The right doesn't even want to look at what was, and maybe still is, going on. Why, because they know the answer already. And they are embarrassed by the answer. We tortured people. That is unAmerican. That is the right wing.

Has America Gone Crazy?

2009-08-17T15:06:00.002-04:00

Sunday's Washington Post reports...

In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition
Birthers, Town Hall Hecklers and the Return of Right-Wing Rage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401495.html
By Rick Perlstein Sunday, August 16, 2009
In Pennsylvania last week, a citizen, burly, crew-cut and trembling with rage, went nose to nose with his baffled senator: "One day God's going to stand before you, and he's going to judge you and the rest of your damned cronies up on the Hill. And then you will get your just deserts." He was accusing Arlen Specter of being too kind to President Obama's proposals to make it easier for people to get health insurance.
In Michigan, meanwhile, the indelible image was of the father who wheeled his handicapped adult son up to Rep. John Dingell and bellowed that "under the Obama health-care plan, which you support, this man would be given no care whatsoever." He pressed his case further on Fox News.
In New Hampshire, outside a building where Obama spoke, cameras trained on the pistol strapped to the leg of libertarian William Kostric. He then explained on CNN why the "tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of tyrants and patriots."
It was interesting to hear a BBC reporter on the radio trying to make sense of it all. He quoted a spokesman for the conservative Americans for Tax Reform: "Either this is a genuine grass-roots response, or there's some secret evil conspirator living in a mountain somewhere orchestrating all this that I've never met." The spokesman was arguing, of course, that it was spontaneous, yet he also proudly owned up to how his group has helped the orchestration, through sample letters to the editor and "a little bit of an ability to put one-pagers together."
The BBC also quoted liberal Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin's explanation: "They want to get a little clip on YouTube of an effort to disrupt a town meeting and to send the congressman running for his car. This is an organized effort . . . you can trace it back to the health insurance industry."
So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers -- these are "either" the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president -- too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters' signs -- too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don't understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can't understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.
(see the full article click the link above)

Success in Iraq?

2009-08-17T14:52:00.003-04:00

The AP reports today ...

"Militiamen are torturing and killing gay Iraqi men with impunity in a systematic campaign that has spread from Baghdad to several other cities, a prominent human rights group said in a report.
Human Rights Watch called on the Iraqi government to act urgently to stop the abuses, warning that so-called social cleansing poses a new threat to security even as other violence recedes.
The bodies of several gay men were found in Baghdad's main Shiite district of Sadr City earlier this year with the Arabic words for "pervert" and "puppy" — considered derogatory terms for homosexuals in Iraq — written on their chests"

So is this the pro western pro human rights democracy Bush promised us? Is this what our trillion dollars bought us. So many on the right say the country is better off without Saddam, tell that to those being killed now. I'm not saying Saddam was good, but is this any better? And we have thousands of dead Americans and a trillion dollar expense to show for it.

The Health Care Debate Turns Ugly

2009-08-11T17:33:00.003-04:00

I've been busy so I haven't blogged anything recently. However, something came to my attention that I must report and ask for your assistance. My daughter is doing an internship with Congressman Israel this summer. Mostly she answers constituent calls. As you can guess, if you've watched any news program lately, the Conservatives, stoked by Fox News (Faux News) and asses like Limbaugh are spreading outright lies. They are telling people that there will be rationing of health care. NOT TRUE. Under every Democratic proposal there will actually be more health care treatment available to all, then is currently available to most. They are saying that older people will be refused care and allowed to die (I have even heard that some have spread the rumor that seniors will be advised to commit suicide). Again this is NOT TRUE. There is no provision anywhere that refused care to seniors or counsels suicide. Over and over again these lies are being spread by the right. They have organized people to invade meetings to disrupt proceedings, and to make phone calls to Congressmen shouting these ridiculous rumors. My daughter hears these calls buy the dozens. People shouting and screaming on the phone, calling Congressman Israel a socialist, a communist and even a Nazi. This is where you come in. Call your Congressman, whether he is a Democrat or Republican. Voice your support for health care reform, with a public option. Let them know there are people on our side who are equally passionate about this debate. The hooligans stopped the vote count in Florida in 2000. Don't let them shout down and bully this issue. Stand up.

More Racist Cops

2009-07-29T21:59:00.001-04:00

From The Boston Globe 7/29/09

Officer suspended for Gates slur in e-mail
July 29, 2009 07:35 PM
By Matt Collette, Globe Correspondent
An officer in the Boston Police Department was suspended yesterday for allegedly writing a racially charged e-mail about Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. to colleagues at the National Guard, a law enforcement official said. Mayor Thomas M. Menino compared the officer to a cancer and said he is "gone, g-o-n-e'' from the force.
Justin Barrett The law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Officer Justin Barrett referred to the black scholar as a " jungle monkey" in the letter, written in reaction to media coverage of Gates's arrest July 16.
Barrett, a 36-year-old who has been on the job for two years, was stripped of his gun and badge yesterday and faces a termination hearing in the next week, said police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll. He has no previous disciplinary record, she said.
"Yesterday afternoon, Commissioner Davis was made aware that Officer Barrett was the author of correspondence which included racially charged language," she said. "At that time, Commissioner Davis immediately stripped Officer Barrett of his gun and badge, and at this time we will be moving forward with the hearing process."

Sotomayor Passes Committee

2009-07-28T18:11:00.002-04:00

By a 13-6 almost entirely party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice to replace Justice Souter. The Repugnants, led by Sen. Racist Sessions, with the exception of Sen Graham, voted against Sotomayor. Maybe Sen. Sessions feared his pals in the KKK would not look upon him too kindly if he said anything positive about Judge Sotomayor. The NRA said that they would hold it against any Senator supporting Judge Sotomayor, in their annual ratings. This makes me like her even more. But at least the GOP doesn't have to worry about having to sit next to any Hispanics at their next convention.

Police Lies

2009-07-27T14:45:00.003-04:00

We finally got the 911 call from the Gates Cambridge incident. If you recall Sgt Crowley the arresting officer from the Cambridge Police, said that Prof. Gates refused to identify himself. LIE. The police recording shows Sgt Crowley specifically stating "He has an ID of Henry Louis Gates". All he needed to do was check the records to see that he is the owner of the property. But of course he didn't. I have heard many, over the past few days, say that Sgt. Crowley isn't a racist, and he is a good cop. I'm sorry. I disagree. He is a racist. He arrested Prof. Gates solely because he is a black man. He did not believe Prof. Gates lived there. Additionally he did not like this uppity black man not showing him the proper respect. We live in America. The right wing, who so often proclaim to love America, hate everything it stands for. Or is it the freedom they say they love, is only for the white upper class. God forbid a black man, or poor white, or even worse, a (gasp) Hispanic, try to exercise that precious freedom, then they are out of place. After 911 you could never say anything against the police. Whether a Suffolk county cop, making an average of about $110,000 a year to write traffic tickets, or answer domestic disturbance calls, or a NYC cop on the take with the mob, cops were perfect and could do no wrong. Now, don't mistake me here. I think there are many cops who put their life on the line on a daily basis. Whether they are responding to a shoot out in the Bronx or going after drug dealers in Hempstead, they have a tough job. But that is what they signed up for. But that does not mean they can be arrogant, deceitful, and untruthful. I have dealt with cops many times in court and I know for a fact that they frequently lie. They are no different than anyone else.

Gates v Crowley

2009-07-24T14:36:00.003-04:00

I was reluctant to weigh in on the Henry Louis Gates, Cambridge police, incident until today. This morning, while waiting for a contractor at home, I was watching CNN. I heard an interview with Cambridge Police Sargent Crowley, the man who arrested Professor Gates, and I also heard that police unions around the country had condemned President Obama for calling the arrest "stupid". Now I must examine the issues. First lets settle on some facts. It is undisputed that Professor Gates was unable to open the door of his home in Cambridge and required the assistance of the cab driver to pry the door open. It is undisputed that Professor Gates owns the home to which we are referring. It is undisputed that Prof. Gates had a right to be in the home to which we are referring. It is undisputed that someone called the police and reported that two black men were breaking into a home. It is undisputed that the police arrived at the referred to home and found Prof. Gates inside. It is undisputed that Prof. Gates was arrested while on his property. I believe all of the aforesaid is undisputed regardless of whose version you decide to find credible. Now we go into the disputed "facts". The person who called the police was presumably a neighbor. Prof. Gates states that he identified himself as the owner and produced evidence of such. Prof. Gates states that the police officer was not satisfied and continued to question Prof. Gates to which Prof. Gates refused to answer further questions. Sgt. Crowley states that he asked Prof. Gates who else was in the home to which Prof. Gates said "none of your business". Sgt Crowley then states that Prof. Gates became "indignant" at which time Sgt. Crowley states he asked Prof. Gates to step outside and when Prof. Gates continued to argue he was arrested for disturbing the peace. So, it is clear that Professor Gates was arrested for arguing with a police officer who continued to question him, even after it was abundantly clear the police were responding to a false alarm. I have dealt with police quite often as a defense attorney. I can tell you that they generally get very defensive when challenged. The worse thing you can do is argue with a cop. You WILL get arrested. Regardless, if a person is legally on their property, they are not hurting anyone and doing nothing illegal, the cops should have apologized and left. The police had no reason, nor no right to further question Prof. Gates. Sgt Crowley said he wanted to know whether there was anybody else in the house and Prof. Gates said it none of his business. Unless the officer had probable cause that a crime was being committed, Prof. Gates was well within his rights to say it is none of their business. I say this as a white person. I can not possibly imagine what it is like to be black in the US and for people to always assume you are guilty of something, even if you are a well respected Harvard professor, author, lecturer and commentator. The fact that a neighbor called the police because he/she saw two older black men entering a house shows the inherent racism in society. I know this would not have happened had Prof. Gates been white. The neighbor would not have called the police, the police would not have argued with Prof. Gates and they would not have arrested him. But, despite what some say, racism is not over in America. The continued insanity over President Obama's birth certificate is clearly racist. Another story on CNN had a woman in Texas who put a big sign in front of her house that says "Hispanics Keep Out", or the town in Tennessee where it's city council debated legislation to ban Hispanics from public parks (note that in both of the previous stories, it was not addressed against illegals but against Hispanics). We may have a black man as President, and may soon have a Hispanic woman in the Supreme Court but much of America still has a long waty to go in regards to racism.

Lobbyists Continue to Control Congress

2009-07-23T14:49:00.004-04:00

Just received a link to a Washington Post article of interest. It was published Tuesday 7/21/09. It explains alot about those so called Blue Dog Dems and their opposition to meaningful health care reform. Especially the chief Dem opposed to single payor or even public option plans, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont). This is an excerpt, then a link to the full article:

Industry Cash Flowed To Drafters of Reform
Key Senator Baucus Is a Leading Recipient

By Dan EggenWashington Post Staff Writer

(Excerpted)
As his committee has taken center stage in the battle over health-care reform, Chairman Baucus (D-Mont.) has emerged as a leading recipient of Senate campaign contributions from the hospitals, insurers and other medical interest groups hoping to shape the legislation to their advantage. Health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus's political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, when he began holding hearings and making preparations for this year's reform debate.
Top health executives and lobbyists have continued to flock to the senator's often extravagant fundraising events in recent months. During a Senate break in late June, for example, Baucus held his 10th annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in Big Sky, Mont., for a minimum donation of $2,500. Later this month comes "Camp Baucus," a "trip for the whole family" that adds horseback riding and hiking to the list of activities.
To avoid any appearance of favoritism, his aides say, Baucus quietly began refusing contributions from health-care political action committees after June 1. But the policy does not apply to lobbyists or corporate executives, who continued to make donations, disclosure records show.

Read the entire article on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072003363.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

2009-07-20T18:00:00.002-04:00

Just read in the American Spectator, the publication of the loony right wing nuts, in an article that tries to say that the Republican/Hypocrite party is on a resurgence and that the country is turning against Obama because the Rasmussen Poll indicated that "A large majority, 61%, believes America is on the wrong track." However, the Ipsos poll, taken a few days later said that 54% believe America is on the wrong track, and the R2000 poll, taken at the same time as the Rasmussen poll, shows only 50% believe America is on the wrong track. But the key question is - what is the track? The Real Clear Politics website, which averages all major polls, says currently 55.6% believe America is on the wrong track. How does that compare with the past? On January 20, the inauguration day for President Obama, 70.6% thought America was on the wrong track. On November 3, 2008, the day before Election Day, 84.2%, On October 19,. 87.3%. Based on those numbers, we're doing great. With the exception of a few days last month, when everything seemed it was going right and the numbers of wrong direction and right direction were about even, the wrong direction numbers have not been lower than 67.3% in the past year. So lets put things in perspective. Democrats still lead Republicans in just about every generic poll. More people are registering Dem in traditional Republican strong holds. Republicans have always been a bit delusional. In 2006, My wife's Republican cousin, who works in DC, bet me that the Republicans would pick up two additional seats in the Senate. As we know, the Dems pickup up 6 Republican seats and lost none to the Republicans (he still owes me $100). Let's see what the next election will bring.

Republican's Don't Even Try To Hide Their Racism

2009-07-16T17:56:00.004-04:00

Sen. Jefferson Beauregard "Proud to be a Racist" Sessions III, the face of the Republican Party, tried to slam Judge Sotomayor. He asked her if her "prejudices" will influence her decision making. That's right, because she is Hispanic she automatically has prejudices. But white people are normal. They don't have prejudices. He even castigated Sotomayor for not ruling with her fellow Puerto Rican colleague, conservative Judge José A. Cabranes. Don't you know. All Puerto Ricans think alike, right? Sen. Graham said that some of her comments "bugged the hell" out of him. Senator - YOU bug the hell out of me. And Sen. Tom Coburn "joked", "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do" repeating a line used regularly by Desi Arnaz in "I Love Lucy." This was clearly a racist jibe. Do Republicans really just lump all Latinos together. Desi Arnaz was Cuban, Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. And Sen. Hatch had the gall to refer to Miguel Estrada, the Conservative who was nominated to the Appeals Court but voted down in the Senate because he refused to answer any questions or even provide samples of his writings. He never held any judgeship anywhere. But he was Hispanic so he's just like Stotomayor (although he was born in Honduras).

The Voice of the Hypocrite Party

2009-07-15T14:23:00.002-04:00

So, who is the apparent new leader of the Hypocrite Party sitting on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate? Why its Jeff Sessions. Full name: Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. A son of the old south. Sessions was once nominated for a Federal Judgeship himself. But that was killed when he made a variety of comments that many found upsetting, such as when he jokingly said that the Ku Klux Klan was not so bad until he found out that some of them smoked pot, or when Sessions also allegedly referred to the NAACP and the ACLU as "un-American" and "Communist inspired" because they "forced civil rights down the throats of people." At his confirmation hearings, Sessions said that the groups could be un-American when "they involve themselves in un-American positions" in foreign policy. One of those voting against him was Senator Heflin of his home state of Alabama. As Senator, on October 5, 2005, he was one of only nine Senators who voted against a Senate amendment to a House bill that prohibited cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment of individuals in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government. In 2005 and 2006, he received a 0 percent on the Republicans for Environmental Protection's environmental scorecard (that must be a small group).
When he was a prosecutor Sessions had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers (including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King, Jr., on a case of election fraud for the 1984 election. Sessions spent hours interrogating African American voters in predominantly black counties, finding 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of approximately 1.7 million ballots cast. The three civil rights workers were acquitted after four hours of jury deliberation. Sessions has been opposed to parts of the Voting Rights Act, which he described as a "piece of intrusive legislation." In 2006, he was in favor of letting it expire, and also said that Congress should consider if it was needed in some Northern cities and states.
This is the new Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. The Republican's leader on the committee. This is the face of the party. This is the man with the cajones to question Judge Sonia Sotomayor. He doesn't deserve to be in the same room as her. Unfortunately the people of Alabama that elected and re-elected him are too stupid, or too racist to care.

claim

2009-07-13T16:43:00.001-04:00

p67eyuz4g8

Hypocrisy strikes again

2009-07-13T13:05:00.004-04:00

In the confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor, Senator Kyl of the Hypocrite Party, stated "From what she has said, she appears to believe that her role is not constrained to objectively decide who wins based on the weight of the law but who, in her opinion, should win." "The factors that will influence her decisions apparently include her gender and Latina heritage and foreign legal concepts that get her creative juices going." he added. Lets go back a few years.
Remember Alito, the imbecile sitting on the very same US Supreme Court now. At his confirmation hearings he said "I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up. And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame. But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives. And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country. When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them. So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.
And Scalia repeatedly refers to his ethnicity and religion that shape his judicial philosophy. But because they are conservative, it must be ok. And those Senators who have been most critical of Sotomayor on this point, Kyl, Coburn, Cornyn, Hatch, Sessions and others, all voted in favor of Mr. empathy, Alito. But why should we expect anything less than the usual hypocrisy from these jokers.

The Hypocrite Party

2009-06-30T18:18:00.003-04:00

It's official. The Republican Party has become the Hypocrite Party. The party of holier than thou righteousness, again gets caught with it's pants down. Gov. Sanford of South Carolina (what a bastion of free thought that is), a member of the Promise Keepers, left town, no, left the state, no, left the country, the freaken hemisphere, to have a tryst with a woman, not his wife, in Argentina. Now it comes out this is not his first go round. He has had other extra-marital dalliances. This "man" who believes in the "sanctity of marriage" doesn't seem to believe in the sanctity of his own. That's the Republican/Hypocrite party. Do what I say, not what I do. Sen. Larry Craig fought against homosexuals yet caught playing footsie in the airport men's room. And remember Gingrich. Here was the leader of the Republicans in the House, railing against Clinton because he had an affair. Yet Gingrich cheated on his wife while she was dying of cancer. He actually served her divorce papers while she was in the hospital receiving cancer treatments. And then there is Sen. Ensign of Nevada, Cong. Foley down in Florida, and the list can go on. Now, of course Dems cheat. Look at Clinton, Edwards and Spitzer. The difference is the hypocrisy (well, except for Spitzer, he was a hypocrite). Oh, and by the way. What Sanford did was a crime in South Carolina. Adultery is a criminal offense (Title 16, Ch 15, Art. 1 Sec. 15-16-60 of the S.C Code of Laws). Clinton was impeached, Edwards was out of office and Spitzer resigned. What has Sanford done. Snubbed his knows at all of us.

The Health Care Debate

2009-06-23T16:16:00.005-04:00

I'm tired of hearing how expensive universal, or single payor, health care would be. I'm also tired of hearing that the government can't run health care. First, according to several studies the average cost for employer sponsored family health insurance was $12,700 annually. That does not include insurance for self employed and cobra costs, both of which are much higher. Total spending in the US for health care in 2007 was $2.4 Trillion, not million, not billion, trillion. I am covered by my wife's employer plan. It's a good plan because she is in a union and works for the government. We still pay almost $4000 a year. What does that buy us. When I needed surgery in 1994 I was limited to three surgeons I could choose from. I was limited to two hospitals it could be performed in. The surgeon I eventually chose had privileges in two hospitals, Beth Israel and St. Vincents, both in NYC. While Beth Israel is one of the top hospitals in the country my insurance said no. I had to have it in St Vincents. Is this the freedom of choice the Republicans say we will be giving up if we get single payor health care? Good riddance. I get a list of the doctors I'm allowed to choose from. I am told that I can not get certain meds because they are "non-formulary", meaning the insurance company won't pay because they are too expensive, regardless of what my doctor says. When the Republicans say that you should not have some bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor, what do they call the insurance company. That's some bureaucrat looking to save their shareholders money, not looking out for my best interests. And I pay $4000 a year for that, plus co-pays and deductibles.

Give me a government sponsored plan. Even if I pay extra taxes, I'm sure it won't be an extra $4000, and I will save on premiums, co-pays and deductibles. If a two hundred million tax payors, pay $2000 a year (1/2 of what I pay now, less than 1/6 what the average pays) that would be $400,000,000,000, that's 400 billion dollars a year. Enough to cover every man woman and child. No co-pays, no deductibles, any service, any med. It would reduce prices. The doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies would be restricted in what they charge, but they would still make a mint.

To those who say the government can not run health care, first, the government runs one of the best health care systems right now, Medicare. It's efficient and inexpensive. Second, the government is capable of running a military, a post office and many other agencies. Third, every other industrialized society has government run health care. The US is 37th in health care according to the World Health Organization. 37th. There are 36 countries, all of which have government health care that are better than the US. Call it Socialized Medicine, Government run health care, Single payor, Universal Health care. I don't care. Just don't give me that crap that the government will ruin health care in America. It's already ruined. It's time to fix it.

Why is Obama such a Wimp?

2009-06-17T21:31:00.002-04:00

Anybody who knows me knows I am a liberal. Unashamed, unabashed liberal. Some were surprised last year when I didn't immediately jump on the Obama bandwagon. I supported John Edwards, then Hillary Clinton. I never thought of Obama as a liberal. Anyone who looked at his voting record in the Senate could see he was a moderate. But some assumed, maybe because of his color, his background, or something else, that he must be a liberal. I told people that if he gets elected he just doesn't have the cojones to push through the liberal agenda. I predicted, he wasn't going to end the war in Iraq so quickly, he wasn't going to close Guantanamo so quickly, he wasn't going to investigate the illegal doings during the Bush years (ie. wiretaps, torture, the rationale for the Iraq war, firing of the US Attorneys, and so much more), he wasn't going to go for universal healthcare, he wasn't going to take on the credit card companies or the banks, etc., etc., etc. Well guess what. We will be in Iraq for the next two years. Guantanamo is still open. There are no investigations of illegal activities over the last 8 years. No single payor health care system (like the rest of the world has), the credit card companies get a 9 month reprieve to raise everyone's rates before they have to change, only slightly, their methods, and the banks are getting more free money without the required regulations. Some change. I don't think that Obama doesn't truly believe in change, but he just doesn't have any spine. He doesn't want to piss anybody off so he is always looking for compromise. Do you think the Republicans care about compromise? When they stole the White House and had the slightest of margins in Congress they rammed their agenda down our throats. When the Dems talked about filibustering their far rightwing nut jobs they wanted in the judiciary, they threatened to take away the right to filibuster. The Dems, who have at least 59 (should be 60) votes in the Senate, do not even mention it, as the Repubs talk about filibustering every day. When will Democrats grow a pair?

What? Sammy Sosa Took Steroids? Your Kidding.

2009-06-17T17:24:00.003-04:00

Just read that it was revealed Sammy Sosa tested positive for Steroids in 2003. Really? The article credited Sosa with reviving baseball in 1998 after the strike. Reviving drug use maybe. Baseball from 1998 - 2007 will forever be known as the Steroid era. Anybody who played during that time will forever be tainted. And did we really need to get the test results to know that Sosa, as well as McGuire, Bonds and many others used performance enhancing drugs? Look at the picture above. That's Sosa as a skinny kid in 1990 and him in 2006. Freaky. What's sad is that players who legitimately played the game were pushed aside. And what about Baseball history. Roger Maris' 61 homers in 1961 was surpassed by Sosa, Bonds and McGuire. Hank Aaron surpassed by Bonds. Young kids will forget the names of Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Gehrig, etc, and replace them with cheaters like Bonds, McGuire and Sosa. And what about others? What about A-Rod and Clemens and others?

rants and raves

2009-06-16T17:59:00.000-04:00

It's been awhile, but I'm trying to get this thing up and running again. Alot's gone on in the past year. Bush, McCain, Obama, the economy, the depression (yes, that's what it is), gas prices, health care, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran etc. Then we have New York State politics looking like a circus. First the Spitzer fiasco, Paterson being a complete incompetent, now the State Senate going from Rep to Dem to Rep then split in half, with no Lt. Gov to break a tie. Ringling Brothers must be missing a few clowns who went the wrong way on the Thruway. But we should all be used to the State Legislature doing nothing. That's the way it been for decades. Why do you think NY still has Fault divorce (the only state in the US), child support to 21 (the highest in the US), Rockefeller Drug laws that do not work and labor laws that were created in the 30s. It seems state legislators that meet only once in two years (like Texas) seem to get more done (although not always for the better). NY state government reminds me of when I was in Student government in College. We didn't get anything done then either. I saw the Daily Show last night and there was a skit about Long island becoming the 51st State. There was old lettuce head Ed Romaine, talking about how great it would be, all we half to do is name as capitol, a state bird, etc., and everything would be fine. Really? Creating a new State would be very expensive. we would have to create a new bureaucracy. We would have to purchase all the State land currently owned by NY but located on Long Island. What about State roads and highways? We would have to have State troopers, state Environmental offices, Transportation, etc. And what about an airport? Can you imagine MacArthur/Islip being the only commercial airport in the State? What a joke. When NYC tried to become the 51st State 40 years ago, that got nowhere and they had, and still have, a stronger argument. If Long Island wants to lower taxes and save money, consolidation is the thing. Why do we need so many school districts, fire districts, library districts etc. Each one with it's own bureaucracy. There should be one county fire department, library system, school system for each county. Imagine what would be saved if we got rid of unnecessary and superfluous superintendents, secretaries, office workers and supplies not to mention duplicative fire headquarters, school administration buildings and unnecessary land, buildings and other valuable real estate. I live in Smithtown but I live in the Hauppauge school district and fire district, the Commack ambulance district, the Smithtown Library district (although the closest libraries are controlled by Huntington and Islip). Why? The waste is enormous. Didn't anybody ever hear simpler is better.

2008-03-26T17:37:00.000-04:00