Redistribution of wealth is not a new idea. The US Govt currently uses a progressive tax code. The problem with this argument is that there is always a form of redistribution, whether from top to bottom or bottom to top. So what you call redistribution of wealth I consider to be justice for poorer Americans. Of course, people who make more are gonna complain but lets have them trade places with us (on the bottom) to avoid paying that extra 5 to 15 percent. And see if they are willing to do that.
A major portion of your argument was spent attacking socialism for being a burden on the American economy. But in light of recent events I would hope that you would acknowledge that unregulated capitalism i.e ( free market) is a bigger burden on our economy than any of our socialist programs have ever been. In your article you mention corporations moving overseas to avoid paying taxes. Unfortunately for your argument this is strictly a capitalist problem. Our current tax system favors companies moving over seas. Socialist nations do not have this problem. Also, in your article you ask if ordinary people understand the consequences of socialism. I would argue that the "average" American doesn't understand what Socialism really is. I would also like to invite you to explore your claim "have you ever seen a socialist nation succeed" a little further. Sweden doesn't seem to be doing too badly. Lastly, I would like to point out that the Govt isn't buying companies, they (we) are loaning money. Now this does mean that they have a temporary stake in companies they invest in, but they don't own them.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Blame The Workers!
Lately we have been bombarded with politicians discussing the "Big 3" bailout. Almost all have been pushing Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Why? Not for restructuring the companies to increase efficiency or force them to "go green" but because of the union workers who "have been taking advantage of this system for many years." (Gov. Mitt Romney) That's right! Lets punish those unions for taking care of their workers. No sales. No increase in mpg. Damn unions! We continually alleviate these major companies of any responsibility and now politicians are blaming the workers! Mind you these are the main politicians (right-wingers) pushing for fewer restrictions on the so called "free market". So when we remove restrictions and oversight and the companies continue to make poor financial decisions we blame the workers? Am I against a bailout? With my money Hell Yea! Why don't we let the Big Oil bail them out. All of the oil companies have the "Big 3" in their back-pocket. I refuse to believe that the oil companies aren't directly responsible for the fuel efficiency standards of the American auto industry. Think about it! Who stands to gain if we force car companies to increase their fuel efficiency on their cars ? Or dare we say go electric? The Consumer, The Environment, The Earth! But the real question is who stands to lose? "Big Oil" that's who. No person benefits from gas guzzling cars and high fuel prices, least of all the economy. No one, that is, but the oil companies. But lets face it, the oil companies ain't bailing out sh*t. Why would they. We continue to give them the major contracts (Iraq) and billion dollar tax breaks! For what? Now they can rape us at the dealership and then again at the gas pump. Americans better watch out because after the unions and workers, the only ones left for politicians and major corporations to blame for their mistakes is us, the consumers.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Critique of "Why do we think we have the right to kill the unborn"
Kill the Unborn?
A very interesting title to defend the pro-life position. Even using the word "unborn" seems to deny the baby its individual rights to life for which you advocate. I enjoyed reading your blog even though I disagree with it; it demonstrates the type of fear mongering and scare tactics that the pro-life movement has come to rely heavily on in order to control the minds (and bodies) of women. Instead of facts, your blog seems to rely on sensationalism and innuendo. In your article there were some factual errors to your "Baby Rowan" story, which I thought to be a very strong part of your argument. Certain aspects of the story were cited correctly, however the Dade County Medical Examiner determined that Baby Rowan's death was "[n]atural, due to extreme prematurity"(CBS 4 NEWS). Also I would like to point out that all of your citations are from either pro-life authors or articles. I understand that when someone is making an argument they look only for information sources and statistics that help prove their point, but on a topic so controversial one must explore both sides equally in order to distinguish fact from fiction. I would also highlight the point that not all abortions are a choice. In some cases an abortion saves the mother's life. So should those women forfeit their right to live so that the fetus might have a chance to live? Or what about when an 11 yo girl (or any woman for that matter) is raped and becomes pregnant? In closing, I wanted to answer the question you asked, "what's the difference between a grown man dismembering his wife's body and an abortion doctor dismembering a baby's body?" The answer is one of these is a choice (and a legal right according to a supreme court decision) between a woman and her doctor and the other is murder.
A very interesting title to defend the pro-life position. Even using the word "unborn" seems to deny the baby its individual rights to life for which you advocate. I enjoyed reading your blog even though I disagree with it; it demonstrates the type of fear mongering and scare tactics that the pro-life movement has come to rely heavily on in order to control the minds (and bodies) of women. Instead of facts, your blog seems to rely on sensationalism and innuendo. In your article there were some factual errors to your "Baby Rowan" story, which I thought to be a very strong part of your argument. Certain aspects of the story were cited correctly, however the Dade County Medical Examiner determined that Baby Rowan's death was "[n]atural, due to extreme prematurity"(CBS 4 NEWS). Also I would like to point out that all of your citations are from either pro-life authors or articles. I understand that when someone is making an argument they look only for information sources and statistics that help prove their point, but on a topic so controversial one must explore both sides equally in order to distinguish fact from fiction. I would also highlight the point that not all abortions are a choice. In some cases an abortion saves the mother's life. So should those women forfeit their right to live so that the fetus might have a chance to live? Or what about when an 11 yo girl (or any woman for that matter) is raped and becomes pregnant? In closing, I wanted to answer the question you asked, "what's the difference between a grown man dismembering his wife's body and an abortion doctor dismembering a baby's body?" The answer is one of these is a choice (and a legal right according to a supreme court decision) between a woman and her doctor and the other is murder.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The American Dream
Is it still possible? Behind all of the rhetoric, discussions and plans for the future is the reality of the state of our country. A 6.1 % unemployment rate (expected to reach 9% by mid 2009) and this figure only includes workers collecting unemployment benefits. A national debt of 10.2 trillion and counting. A trillion dollar bailout for banks, insurance companies and rich CEOs, while millions of Americans are losing their homes and their jobs. A stock market on the brink of collapse, taking with it our retirement. A nation that has spent the last 8 years in gridlock. Divided between left and right terrorist and patriot, pro-life pro-choice and gay rights. Our civil rights being stripped away one Patriot Act at a time. An average of 3.5 million homeless each year (39% are children and 33% are veterans ). An extremely high poverty rate 12.5% of the population .2 deadly wars, although we have yet to issue declaration of war, resulting in the death of thousands of American soldiers and civilians (which we are somehow "winning" even though we can't define victory.) 100's of thousands of physically and mentally wounded veterans, from many wars with insufficient benefits. A broken health care system run by HMOs and drug companies leaving over 50 million uninsured (again many of these are children). A education system only concerned with test performance not shaping minds for the future. An astronomical dropout rate ( 1 in 3 )! And an Energy independence problem (Drill baby Drill?) With so many problems ingrained in our system its hard to see how we will ever navigate a path out.
And we won't! So don't bother looking for a solution, be happy with what you got. Here's the reason why. The owners of this country don't want that. That's right! And by owners I mean the big wealthy business interests who really make the decisions for this country. Politicians are just puppets put here to make us feel like we have a voice. We don't! And it's quite obvious what these "owners" want. More for themselves and less for everyone else. You know what these people want ? ( I think the late George Carlin said it best)
"Obedient workers! People who are just smart enough to do the paperwork and run the machines and passively accept the increasingly shittier jobs, for less pay, vanishing benefits and disappearing pensions....But here's what they don't want, a population of well educated people capable of critical thinking."
Unfortunately, no one seems to notice or care. Americans remain (as always) "willfully ignorant". We continue to elect these rich, self serving, corrupted politicians who don't care about us. This is what the owners of this country know and have come to count on. When will this country WAKE UP and realize the TRUTH ?
"It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it!"
(RIP- George Carlin)
And we won't! So don't bother looking for a solution, be happy with what you got. Here's the reason why. The owners of this country don't want that. That's right! And by owners I mean the big wealthy business interests who really make the decisions for this country. Politicians are just puppets put here to make us feel like we have a voice. We don't! And it's quite obvious what these "owners" want. More for themselves and less for everyone else. You know what these people want ? ( I think the late George Carlin said it best)
"Obedient workers! People who are just smart enough to do the paperwork and run the machines and passively accept the increasingly shittier jobs, for less pay, vanishing benefits and disappearing pensions....But here's what they don't want, a population of well educated people capable of critical thinking."
Unfortunately, no one seems to notice or care. Americans remain (as always) "willfully ignorant". We continue to elect these rich, self serving, corrupted politicians who don't care about us. This is what the owners of this country know and have come to count on. When will this country WAKE UP and realize the TRUTH ?
"It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it!"
(RIP- George Carlin)
Friday, October 10, 2008
Ideas Have Consequences
In her blog "The Obama Witch Project: RAAAAAAAACISM!" Michelle Malkin defends the racially charged attacks on Sen. Barack Obama by the McCain/Palin Camp. Malkin, occasional co-host of the O'Reilly Factor and the author of "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in WWII and the War on Terror" and other right wing books, tries to make the case that the McCain/Palin Camp isn't being racist, they are just painting Obama as the "outsider" he really is. And the democrats are "a parade of... witch hunters " who see racism where really there is nothing more than a logical argument and/or question. Malkin's argument is especially troubling because none of her information can be challenged factually, but her refusal to acknowledge the serious violent consequences of mentioning Hussein (Obama's middle name) and "terrorist" in the same sentence, has no doubt contributed to the fervored pitch of hatred directed towards Obama. Not to mention countless other statements made by or on behalf of McCain campaign with racial undertones.
Instead of empathizing with certain feelings critical of this approach and maybe even making an effort to understand them, Malkin explains why John McCain should be able to address Sen. Obama as "that one." She even cracked a joke saying "[n]ext time just call [Obama] 'the one'." I must say in John McCain's defense he is really old, he probably just forgot that slavery was abolished and all human beings (yes John including a black man who is beating you in the race for the presidency) deserve respect. This of course is a joke but it should never be acceptable in the political arena to address your opponents as "that one." Even if it wasn't his intent to make a racially charged comment, as a senator of 26 years, he should understand how this could be perceived by others. McCain is already under scrutiny for his many votes against making MLK day a national holiday, therefore one would think he would be cautious about how he adresses an African American man.
Malkin also mentioned that members of the liberal media hinted that Sara Palin was eerily reminiscent of a klansman in her all white suit during a speech. Now, although I have found no proof that this statement was made I don't know who Malkin considers the liberal media. It might be some blogger like you or me. There are plenty of radicals on the left who might compare Sara Palin, a gun toting, moose hunting, tongues speaking, anti-abortion supporting woman dressed in all white to a klansman.
My main problem with Malkin's argument which is obviously aimed at the conservative base of the Republican Party is this: I believe that it is the oppressed (not the oppressors) who get to name the oppression. What I mean is this. Yes, maybe the McCain/Palin tactics aren't intended to be racially charged but the refusal to acknowledge how others, especially those who have been oppressed and singled out in the past, will respond to these types of attacks is not only irresponsible but it can have far reaching effects (hopefully the losing of the election for them). The fact that John McCain is now defending Barack Obama against attacks from his own (McCain's) supporters invalidates Malkin's entire argument and shows that ideas
(especially bad ones) have consequences.
Instead of empathizing with certain feelings critical of this approach and maybe even making an effort to understand them, Malkin explains why John McCain should be able to address Sen. Obama as "that one." She even cracked a joke saying "[n]ext time just call [Obama] 'the one'." I must say in John McCain's defense he is really old, he probably just forgot that slavery was abolished and all human beings (yes John including a black man who is beating you in the race for the presidency) deserve respect. This of course is a joke but it should never be acceptable in the political arena to address your opponents as "that one." Even if it wasn't his intent to make a racially charged comment, as a senator of 26 years, he should understand how this could be perceived by others. McCain is already under scrutiny for his many votes against making MLK day a national holiday, therefore one would think he would be cautious about how he adresses an African American man.
Malkin also mentioned that members of the liberal media hinted that Sara Palin was eerily reminiscent of a klansman in her all white suit during a speech. Now, although I have found no proof that this statement was made I don't know who Malkin considers the liberal media. It might be some blogger like you or me. There are plenty of radicals on the left who might compare Sara Palin, a gun toting, moose hunting, tongues speaking, anti-abortion supporting woman dressed in all white to a klansman.
My main problem with Malkin's argument which is obviously aimed at the conservative base of the Republican Party is this: I believe that it is the oppressed (not the oppressors) who get to name the oppression. What I mean is this. Yes, maybe the McCain/Palin tactics aren't intended to be racially charged but the refusal to acknowledge how others, especially those who have been oppressed and singled out in the past, will respond to these types of attacks is not only irresponsible but it can have far reaching effects (hopefully the losing of the election for them). The fact that John McCain is now defending Barack Obama against attacks from his own (McCain's) supporters invalidates Malkin's entire argument and shows that ideas
(especially bad ones) have consequences.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Out Of Her League
In the article "Palin is Ready? Please" Fareed Zakaria PhD in political science, editor of Newsweek International, discusses Sarah Palin's lack of national political knowledge and inability to answer questions. Zakaria, like many Americans, myself included, do not believe Palin is qualified to become VP. He points to the Katie Couric interview as a good example. When Palin was asked how living near Russia gave her foreign policy experience, she responded "[i]t's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into [Alaskan] Airspace...we send those out to make sure an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, because they are right there.
Zakaria points out, along with John Stewart, that maybe flying over the North Pole makes him an "expert on Santa Clause". Although this is a completely ridiculous statement Zakaria is making, I believe the logic is very similar to the statement that Gov. Palin made. I do wish he would have explored this topic a little more because such a statement without qualifying material following it, becomes easily dismissible. However this is a very important argument because it shows not only a lack of intelligence but a very flawed thought process in terms of understanding foreign policy. How can we be expected to vote for a person as VP who "wants someone to tell her what the vice president does" and claims to know about foreign policy just because she lives near Russia.
Zakaria also points to the question Couric asked Gov. Palin about the 700 billion dollar bailout.
Palin made claims like "ultimately this bailout helps those who are concerned with healthcare reform...its got to be all about job creation too...we've got to see trade as an opportunity, not a competitive scary thing...[t]his bailout is part of that."
Zakaria called her response "nonsense-a vapid emptying out of every catchprase about economics that came into her head." Which some might argue harsh, but with such a response Palin demonstrated how little she knows about this bailout plan. However she is not alone on this issue, 33 percent of Americans polled have admitted that they are not well enough informed to decide whether or not to support or oppose this bailout (MSNBC Poll Sept 25th). We don't expect our citizens to be informed on the intricacies of our financial markets, that is one of the reasons we elect politicians. Zakaria also states "Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president...she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue."
This article is meant to target undecided voters. Zakaria is geared towards steering voters away from Sarah Palin and ultimately towards Obama. Unfortunately this argument has no effect on the Republican base; it is quite apparent that people who support John McCain and Sarah Palin do so no matter what they say or do.
It is incredible to me that John McCain has the balls to look the American People in the eye and say he is a man of the people and Barack Obama is an elitist. This is a man who has 150 million dollars, owns 7 houses and 13 cars and has lived a privileged life. Obama needs to put a monocle and a top hat on this guy and expose him as the "Monopoly Guy" he really is. (Tip of the Hat to Bill Maher)
Zakaria points out, along with John Stewart, that maybe flying over the North Pole makes him an "expert on Santa Clause". Although this is a completely ridiculous statement Zakaria is making, I believe the logic is very similar to the statement that Gov. Palin made. I do wish he would have explored this topic a little more because such a statement without qualifying material following it, becomes easily dismissible. However this is a very important argument because it shows not only a lack of intelligence but a very flawed thought process in terms of understanding foreign policy. How can we be expected to vote for a person as VP who "wants someone to tell her what the vice president does" and claims to know about foreign policy just because she lives near Russia.
Zakaria also points to the question Couric asked Gov. Palin about the 700 billion dollar bailout.
Palin made claims like "ultimately this bailout helps those who are concerned with healthcare reform...its got to be all about job creation too...we've got to see trade as an opportunity, not a competitive scary thing...[t]his bailout is part of that."
Zakaria called her response "nonsense-a vapid emptying out of every catchprase about economics that came into her head." Which some might argue harsh, but with such a response Palin demonstrated how little she knows about this bailout plan. However she is not alone on this issue, 33 percent of Americans polled have admitted that they are not well enough informed to decide whether or not to support or oppose this bailout (MSNBC Poll Sept 25th). We don't expect our citizens to be informed on the intricacies of our financial markets, that is one of the reasons we elect politicians. Zakaria also states "Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president...she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue."
This article is meant to target undecided voters. Zakaria is geared towards steering voters away from Sarah Palin and ultimately towards Obama. Unfortunately this argument has no effect on the Republican base; it is quite apparent that people who support John McCain and Sarah Palin do so no matter what they say or do.
It is incredible to me that John McCain has the balls to look the American People in the eye and say he is a man of the people and Barack Obama is an elitist. This is a man who has 150 million dollars, owns 7 houses and 13 cars and has lived a privileged life. Obama needs to put a monocle and a top hat on this guy and expose him as the "Monopoly Guy" he really is. (Tip of the Hat to Bill Maher)
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
McCain attacks Obama because Obama belives in protecting children from pedophiles
Sept 9th, 2008:
Today, Fixed News (Fox) published an article stating that the McCain/Palin campaign released a new attack ad accusing Presidential Nominee Barack Obama of supporting legislation that would teach children in kindergarten sex education. The ad states, "Obama hasn't made a significant mark on education" referring to him as "elusive." It also accuses Obama of supporting "[l]earning about sex before learning to read." The McCain campaign closes the ad with the following statement "Barack Obama. Wrong on education, Wrong for your family."
The truth about this ad is the legislation is it was not written by Obama, it never became a law and "it would have required age-appropriate information in schools." The bill also allowed parents to opt out of sex education for their children. For the kindergarten children it would teach them concepts like "good touch and bad touch."
This article deserves our attention because it shows us how the political process in America is working today. The American public today accepts lies and distortions from our political leaders and have even come to expect it. The major problem with this add (aside from the complete distortion of the facts) is that Americans now vote for candidates not based on policy, but on his/her ability to trash and degrade the opposition. John McCain fails to mention a single aspect of his own education plan in an ad that attacks his opponent on education!
Today, Fixed News (Fox) published an article stating that the McCain/Palin campaign released a new attack ad accusing Presidential Nominee Barack Obama of supporting legislation that would teach children in kindergarten sex education. The ad states, "Obama hasn't made a significant mark on education" referring to him as "elusive." It also accuses Obama of supporting "[l]earning about sex before learning to read." The McCain campaign closes the ad with the following statement "Barack Obama. Wrong on education, Wrong for your family."
The truth about this ad is the legislation is it was not written by Obama, it never became a law and "it would have required age-appropriate information in schools." The bill also allowed parents to opt out of sex education for their children. For the kindergarten children it would teach them concepts like "good touch and bad touch."
This article deserves our attention because it shows us how the political process in America is working today. The American public today accepts lies and distortions from our political leaders and have even come to expect it. The major problem with this add (aside from the complete distortion of the facts) is that Americans now vote for candidates not based on policy, but on his/her ability to trash and degrade the opposition. John McCain fails to mention a single aspect of his own education plan in an ad that attacks his opponent on education!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
