Convictions of Convenience

I just finished reading an article in the Dec. 5, 2011 issue of Newsweek regarding the amazing concept of Newt Gingrich winning the evangelical vote.

All I can think is !!!  WTF!!!

Conservative radio host Steve Deace said - "I see a lot of parallels between King David and Newt Gingrich"and from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council  - "Under normal circumstances, Gingrich would have some real problems with the social-conservative community. But these aren't normal circumstances".  With sentiments like this it is painfully obvious that the right is desperately trying to justify the total loss of morals and ethics in their quest to unseat President Obama. 

This willingness to ignore and, even worse, accept Gingrich's well documented personal failings is shameless. The same voices that condemn the misbehavior of former President Clinton are now happy to give the Newt a free pass because they feel that he has somehow sought and received forgiveness from some invisible entity that has a mystical power of forgiveness.  Tamara Scott, director of Concerned Women for America said,  "Here is the difference: Bill Clinton denied what he did. He didn't repent." The part of reality that this woman seems to bypass is the fact that Mr. Clinton is still married to Mrs. Clinton. That's Mrs. Clinton #1 as opposed to Mrs. Gingrich #3. Apparently Mr. Clinton asked for and received forgiveness from the only person who can actually give forgiveness, Mrs. Clinton. Newt asked  for and  received forgiveness from who, himself? Good trick and an even better trick to get so many to believe him.  Ralph Reed, leader of the Faith and Freedom Coalition says "These voters believe in redemption." leaving out the truth that, to the right, redemption goes only to those with parallel political beliefs.

There is a group in Iowa that calls itself the Iowa FAMiLY Leader led by Bob Vander Plaats that claims to be the protector of family values in Iowa that has made Gingrich one of their chosen. This group also asks its chosen to sign a pledge called "The Marriage Vow" that says  "We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and anemic condition of marriage in their own community".  And with that as their mission statement they still endorse Mr. Gingrich? Really? I mean shit REALLY? So defective is the moral compass of those driving this obsession to end the Obama presidency they will say anything, even contradicting themselves to the point of making any and all utterances meaningless.


It's fine, even healthy for the country, to have honest policy disagreements with any administration. But when the conversation veers off into a fantasy land of twisted logic, undulating values and convenient convictions there is no longer an exchange of ideas with mature thinking people but a living, contemporary example of what happened at the Tower Of Babel.

Many voices saying nothing .

Backward, Into the Future

Three contemporary definitions of the term "Political Conservative":
1. Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
3. In politics, the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order.

As indicated, it appears that the current Republican party adheres to this concept with unwavering certainty. Regression is their definition of progress. So let's venture back to the days of old, shall we? It might be good to return to the past. It might be, but it won't be because the right has decided to rewrite the past to fit their present.

The Republican party holds the name REAGAN as the banner of everything good. The torch that lights the way forward. The only problem with that is they don't hold his ideas, his understanding of the complexities of the economy of this country, in the same light. During one of his speeches in Georgia in 1985, he asked,  "Do you think millionaires ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver?"  He also said "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share."  Sound familiar? Were he to say that today the present day Republicans would call him a socialist that wants to bring down the republic.

Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, calls the present day philosophy "an anti-tax jihad".  Forget the real numbers from those days.  During Reagan's 8 years in office, for 7 of those the top rate was higher than the current 35% and for 6 of those years it was above 50%.  Since 1997, the the average income of the top 400 richest has more than tripled while their tax obligations have decreased by 40%. Today, any one of these select 400 pay about 17% in federal income taxes (after deductions) while a person making $25,000.00 pays about 24%.  Are the Republicans yattering to return to the days of yore willing to go back to the tax rates of the past? Back to the real days of old? Oh God no.


Three contemporary definitions of "Political Liberal".
1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
2. A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3. A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)


There are people out there (in more ways than one) that are saying by their support of certain presidential candidates that the way forward for this country is to turn back the clock to the days of old.  Just not the real days.  A business in trouble will not correct itself by not buying new inventory.  A successful business adapts to the reality of today.  As all societies change over time, so too should our government. To think that this country can excel with the policies of the past, while ignoring the truth of the past, is to ignore the advances made from the inception of this country to today.

Take the titles away from the definitions and choose. Which concept you would rather live with? Which world do you want your children left with? Where do you want to be next year?

What's the punchline?

I have been watching, with great interest and occasional amusement, the Republican reality show disguised as the run up to the primaries. As one after the other  prospective candidates have come to the front of the pack they have been exposed as, at best, entertainment, but more often than not absolutely uninformed, morally bankrupt, issue vacant, empty suits. Or in Michele's case, empty pantsuit. Those eyes, so creepy.

This clown parade presented by the Republicans comes at a time when very serious problem are hammering this country daily. It's almost like the right is playing a dangerous prank on the country. A practical joke that doesn't appear to have a punchline. It's just a pointless display of partisan blathering which, when exposed to the light of day, show these buffoons for what they are. I always thought that front runner status came after the public heard what the candidates positions were, not before. Not this time though. The Republicans are so grasping at straws this cycle they will declare their newest leader before they know where they are being lead. It's like all of the candidates are driven to the "debates" in a tiny car, to be dumped off at the front door of the house of mirrors at a carnival.

First it was Mitt. Mitt, the whirling dervish of position politics. How does he feel about a particular issue? Depends on what time it is. It's surprising he hasn't tossed his lunch like a kid on a tilt-a-whirl. Michele Bachmann was the next to ride into the fray, with what could have only been a religious fever caused call for an investigation of the House of Representatives and their Un-American thoughts. Thanks a lot Chris Mathews. Next up The Donald, nuff said. Seriously folks. The Donald?!!! Then came the call to Rick Perry to ride to the rescue of right wing conservative ideology. Rick Perry, the guy who came to the attention of those on the right by suggesting that Texas should consider seceding from the country he now wants to lead. Brilliant!!! Now it's Herman Cain. I'd like to take this time to point out his flaws but so many are surfacing on a daily, or has it become hourly, basis it's impossible to keep up. And somewhere in this mess we had T. Paw, the disappearing puff of policy smoke. In between we were subjected to a lineup of personalities that represent the who's who of far right nut jobs that don't really think they can win. Newt (serial divorcer of terminal wives), Santorum (google it for fun), Ron Paul ("bless his heart" as they say in the South), "the invisible man" Jon Huntsman, Buddy (really Buddy?) Rommer, and Mr. "Smoke it if you got it" Gary Johnson. Their only purpose for being here is self-promotion. Books to sell, speeches to be paid for, dinners to be invited to.  A tag team of disparate, desperate publicity whores. 

The cream of the crop. The best they have to offer. The solution to our national dilemma.
Is it a cure if the treatment kills the patient?

If this isn't just one big joke on this country I don't know what it could be. I just wish they would step out from behind the curtain and scream "You've been PUNKED".

Imbalance of Power

Enough is enough. Day after day there are some on the far left whining that the President is not doing what they want the way they want it done. Last week there was an article in Newsweek saying that President Obama is our countries Neville Chamberlain. Then this "journalist" suggested that the best thing our President could do was resign. And why does this person feel this way? Because in his words President Obama is an appeaser.  A compromiser.  Never mind the reality that there were never the votes to do anything else. Never mind the fact that you cannot win by losing. This writer would rather see a great but pointless fight. 

Talking heads on the left are saying that this President is not showing the kind of leadership they want. Since when did President Obama give any indication that he would do anything other than what he has tried to do from his first day in office? He said in his campaign speeches that he wanted to have business done differently in Washington. And he worked hard to accomplish things that everyone in this country, both left and right, would in the end support. How is it his fault that the Republicans had decided from the outset of this administration, or more accurately when the original Contract on America was foisted on this country, that the best way to regain power was to sacrifice the welfare of the country? Block, lie and create fear of everything he proposed.  This country has a very complex system of governance and he is required by law to work within that process. You know, democracy. He is not in the position to change the process of government to allow him to dictate the terms of running the country. And if a person would take the time to research the truth, that person would find that President Obama has accomplished a great deal against all of the efforts of the Republicans to stop it.

And there are now many of those best described as ground troops that feel these people might be right. They appear to be longing for the days when a president walks on stage in an Air Force jumpsuit complete with a waaaaay oversized codpiece as a show of leadership. Until then they are more inclined sit back and let someone else do the heavy lifting. "I'll vote for him but I can't do any work for him. He hasn't done enough for me".   Well, la de da. What have YOU done lately? How much have YOU done to promote the agenda you support? How hard did YOU work to keep the new freshman class (term used loosely) of Republican mouth breathers out of office? What... not that much? Well thanks a lot.

 We, Democrats, have allowed the present imbalance of power to come about by not working harder, talking louder, asking questions and fighting the spread of misinformation. And if the whining doesn't stop, if we sit back and say all is lost, if we again allow the hardcore right to lie and bully its way into an  even more powerful position then we will get what we deserve. Instead of complaining maybe we should spend more time and energy pointing out what has been accomplished, what has become better and what we stand to lose. We should work hard to get this President reelected and work even harder to get those that are willing to sacrifice this great country for the ideologically twisted goal of an America that only the privileged would want thrown from their positions of destruction. Then and only then will we be able to act on the ideas that will make this country again the place that the rest of the world can only wish it could be.

It's not just this President's job to fight for what we want, it's a job for all of us.

Taxed Enough Already? (Just my patience)

1952    First successful cardiac pacemaker

Paul M. Zoll of Boston’s Beth Israel Hospital, in conjunction with the Electrodyne Company, develops the first successful cardiac pacemaker.  Around the same time a battery-powered external machine is developed by Earl Bakken and C. Walton Lillehei.

1953    First successful open-heart bypass surgery

Philadelphia physician John H. Gibbon performs the first successful open-heart bypass surgery on 18-year-old Cecelia Bavolek. The device is the culmination of two decades of research and experimentation and heralds a new era in surgery and medicine. Today coronary bypass surgery is one of the most common operations performed.

1982    First permanent artificial heart implant

Seattle dentist Barney Clark receives the first permanent artificial heart, a silicone and rubber device designed by many collaborators, including Robert Jarvik, Don Olsen, and Willem Kolff. William DeVries of the University of Utah heads the surgical transplant team.

1944    Federal Aid Highway Act

The Federal Aid Highway Act authorizes the designation of 40,000 miles of interstate highways to connect principal cities and industrial centers.

1956    New Federal Aid Highway Act

President Dwight D. Eisenhower signs a new Federal Aid Highway Act, committing $25 billion in federal funding. Missouri is the first state to award a highway construction contract with the new funding.

1960s    Reflective paint for highway markings developed

Paint chemist and professor Elbert Dysart Botts develops a reflective paint for marking highway lanes. When rainwater obscures the paint’s reflective quality, Botts develops a raised marker that protrudes above water level. Widely known as Botts’ Dots, the raised markers were first installed in Solano County, California, along a section of I-80. They have the added benefit of making a drumming sound when driven over, warning drivers who veer from their lanes.

  1958    United States launches its first satellite

The United States launches its first satellite, the 30.8-pound Explorer 1. During this mission, Explorer 1 carries an experiment designed by James A.Van Allen, a physicist at the University of Iowa, which documents the existence of radiation zones encircling Earth within the planet’s magnetic field, The Van Allen Radiation Belt.

  1969    Neil Armstrong becomes the first person to walk on the Moon

Neil Armstrong becomes the first person to walk on the Moon. The first lunar landing mission, Apollo 11 lifts off on July 16 to begin the 3-day trip. At 4:18 p.m. EST on July 20, the lunar module—with astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin E. (Buzz) Aldrin—lands on the Moon’s surface while Michael Collins orbits overhead in the command module.

1951    First computer designed for U.S. business

Eckert and Mauchly, now with their own company (later sold to Remington Rand), design UNIVAC (UNIVersal Automatic Computer)—the first computer for U.S. business. Its breakthrough feature: magnetic tape storage to replace punched cards. First developed for the Bureau of the Census to aid in census data collection, UNIVAC passes a highly public test by correctly predicting Dwight Eisenhower’s victory over Adlai Stevenson in the 1952 presidential race.

1946    Tupperware

As a chemist at DuPont in the 1930s, Earl Tupper develops a sturdy but pliable synthetic polymer he calls Poly T. By 1947 Tupper forms his own corporation and makes nesting Tupperware bowls along with companion airtight lids. Virtually breakproof, Tupperware begins replacing ceramics in kitchens nationwide. What do these 10 accomplishments have in common? Major accomplishments in health, transportation, communication and easy living? Accomplishments that cost the US government and private entities time and money? All of these and many more came during a time of incredible technological advancement and  economic growth while the country was being taxed at an average of 49.5% for corporate tax rates and 72.5% top rate for private citizens. Our periods of greatest growth in American economic prosperity came first during the Eisenhower (R) administration (1953- 1961) with a top corporate rate of 52% and individual rates between 22% to 91%. The next jump came during Bill Clintons term while the country was saddled with individual rates between 15% and 39.6% and corporate rates at 37% with fewer "loopholes" than are written in our tax codes today. Even during saint Ronnies reign the top rate for corporations was 46%. Do the newly elected "members" of the freshman congressmen feel that we as a country are as good as we will ever be? Or do they just feel that they have theirs so let the future "eat cake"? Why else would they be so against changing the tax rates back to the levels that allowed this country to be the country the rest of the world could only wish they could be? To be the place they wanted to live in, be part of?  Less government, lower taxes, fewer programs. No protection, no advancement, no hope for those in need. What kind of country do they envision for the future, or do they really care?

McConnell revokes US citizenships

"The American people have spoken and we did what they said they wanted" crowed Mitch McConnell following the debt ceiling extortion measures passed on Tuesday. (Can a person with a waddle that big crow or would he just gobble? I may need to follow up on that at a later date. I digress.) With that statement, he apparently has revoked the citizenship of 67% of the people who populate this country. As late as July 29, polls showed that a majority  of Americans wanted a balanced approach to solving our debt crisis that included revenue increases along with compassionate and carefully determined spending cuts.

Speaker Boehner has proclaimed that he got 98% of what he wanted in this deal. And the Dow dropped like a rock on that 98%. So the question must be asked, will the Republicans, and especially the Tea Party component of that party, take responsibility for what is to come? Will they take credit for an increase in unemployment? Will they proudly prance around in front of the House and declare success when the economy reenters a recession? When the next bridge falls and kills a US citizen will they scream MISSION ACCOMPLISHED? Oh wait, McConnell just shaded his odds that a person killed isn't really an American since 67% of us are just visiting. They may even be undocumented so that wouldn't make it merely ok, it would make it a "job creator".

With elected officials on the right saying things like Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)  "Today, I introduced a unique bill that goes in a completely different direction than everything else we’ve been hearing out of Washington. It would force politicians to start practicing what they’ve been preaching by lowering the debt ceiling from $14.3 trillion back down to $13 trillion."  Or Michele Bachmann with ""I will not vote to increase the debt ceiling. It goes completely contrary to common sense and how I grew up in Iowa. So here I am in Congress watching these people borrow more money that we don't have so that my children can be further indebted. We have to deal with the economic reality and I have the will and I have the courage to see this through. I'm Michele Bachmann and I approve this message." Combined with so many saying that not increasing the debt limit would somehow be beneficial to this economy, it shows that they are either incredibly stupid or so ideologically twisted that they would rather blow us all up and try to clean it up afterward than actually listen to the people and do the right thing.

who pays taxes

With the debate around raising the debt limit or any other conversation involving the nations economy, the rabid on the right exclaim "TAX THOSE 47% FREELOADERS THAT DON'T PAY TAXES" to get us out of our troubles. Of course they are screaming without knowledge of who these people are and the circumstances that they live under that puts them in that 47%.

TRUTH
There are at least 45 million people in this country living at or below the poverty level and there are many who think they should pay more.

There are over 2 million people in this country that are paid the federal minimum wage of $7.25 or less. There are 9 states that have set minimum wages at levels lower than the federal standard or have no minimum wages at all. For a full time employee that $7.25 comes to $11,600.00 a year. That's PRE TAX income. $223.08 a week. That's roughly the income considered to be at the poverty level for a 1 person household. Many of those minimum wage earners are trying to support more than just themselves. A great number of those minimum wage earners are only part time employees so their income is even less. Those are some of the people that are NOT REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to pay federal income taxes. But out of that $223.08 a week they do pay Social Security payments, they do pay Medicare taxes. They do pay state income taxes where required, and they do pay sales taxes on what they purchase, like food for instance. They do pay taxes. And there are some who think that they should pay more from what they have left after they pay those taxes. That somehow there is enough there to solve this countries fiscal problems. Many of these people are just trying to survive.

And the question must be asked of those yattering heads "Do you take advantage of the allowable tax deductions when you file your federal income tax returns?" resulting in you paying less than you actually owe. If you do, would that not make you too a freeloader? If not, why is it ok for you and not for someone else?

While going after those least fortunate in this country Republicans are protecting these folks.-

"Bruce Bartlett talks about who does and does not pay federal taxes, and notes that "the growth of the non-income-taxpaying population is largely the result of Republican tax policies."
He also notes that:
There are 78,00 tax filers with incomes of $211,000.00 to $533,000.00 who pay no federal income taxes this year. Even more amazingly, there are 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million with zero income tax liability, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes over $2.2 million with the same federal income tax liability as most of those with incomes barely above the poverty level."

For those who don't know who Mr. Bartlett is-
Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President G.H.W. Bush, both known to be avid socialist communist wealth redistributionists.

These are who must be addressed first as they are the ones who hold the nations wealth hostage while the tru middle class keeps paying and paying. This must stop.

He said what?

If there was any doubt that there is something seriously wrong with the Republican party, and by extension, the portion of the American public that elects them, you don't need to look back any further than earlier this week.
With the debt limit deadline approaching quickly, Rep. Rubio (R. Fl.) has come out with the statement " We don't have a debt limit crisis, we have a debt crisis". If that's really how he feels, why has he and the others like him made it one in the same? Does this genius think that by letting this convoluted crisis created by the far right turn into a disaster, with our national credit rating falling internationally, we will somehow be better off as a country paying higher interest rates on every dollar everyone borrows? Really? Not just the government, but EVERYONE. Small businesses, already having trouble getting loans from banks with plenty of money to loan, will have to pay more for money needed to grow their businesses and hire more employees. How do you spell "JOB KILLING"? You want to buy a new American made car? Well, you better have all the money in hand or that car will end up costing a whole lot more. Forget buying a new house, unless you're one of those in the top 2% and feel you can settle for a house that a member of the "small people" demographic, you know the middle class, would live in.
And probably the worst thing about this is the fact that raising the debt limit allows us to pay the bills we already owe. Bills that the Republicans have some responsibility for too. We owe money to our lenders whether the right likes it or not. We need to make paying these bills possible first, then we can have a true discussion about our spending habits. Instead they are using this as a means of blackmail to further their political goals.  To insinuate that the raising of the debt limit is somehow connected to future spending is an indication that this guy is either stupid or is lying to support his ideology. And he is willing to let this country enter into default, destroy our admittedly fragile economy and create a worldwide financial crisis just to try to take control of the political landscape of this country. And that's just one of these anti American People that live under the banner of "Republican".
Truth, it's not part of their platform, it's not part of their plan.

In the beginning

   Today I launch my first blog posting. I am new to this whole thing but I feel the need to put in writing the stance I have on given subjects, primarily my views on politics and the use of lies and fear to maintain a grip on power and money. The spread of misinformation from the conservative right has become so pervasive that there is no longer the exchange of ideas that have fueled the evolution of this country, it's intellectual curiosity and the true nature of it's people. Now the conversation has been lowered to the point of being just bumper sticker slogans that have no real resemblance to a rational exchange of ideas. There is now a large group that believes as long as something is said often enough and loud enough that it will eventually become true, and to the fearful or the simple that is the case, it will become their truth. Simple minds will migrate to a place where the cackling voices they hear are mimicking the voices they hear in their own heads. It's so much easier than doing the research required to learn the truth, whether it's what you want to hear or not. The truth can be a little disappointing to some who only seek conformation of there baseless ideology rather than the needed information to form a legitimate ideology.
   So in this space I will try to present information, including cross referenced validation of that information, in a way that shows the lies for what they are. I hope this comes in handy for those who read it that may be trying persuade just one person that has been misdirected by the purveyors of those lies. Conversation that are taking place in homes, schools, bars and churches or anywhere else people get together to exchange ideas are the only way this battle for truth can be fought and won. It's the way this country was originally conceived. It's how this country can combat those that seek to dominate through fear and lies.