Adventures in My Mind
 |
 |
 |
 |
Aug 7, 2007
Pick Your Candidate
Dennis "Cubby" Kucinich and Mike "The Hammer" Gravel seem to be my best fits. Fortunately, the guy I've thrown my support to, Barack "Barry" Obama came in third.
Duncan "Himmler" Hunter seems to be my antithesis. I wonder if has goatee in his evil alterverse?
Take the test and see where your candidate is.Labels: Politics
0 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 10:46 AM
Jul 9, 2007
State furloughs 25,000
Of course they did. I'm headed to a Cook Forest State Park this weekend. I can only hope that this latest unpleasantness in Harrisburg will be settled by the weekend and that there are no lingering effects of the government shutdown. You know, like lost reservations or all the people who wanted to be there this week trying to get in next weekend.
It's a battle were the only real losers will be the citizens of PA. We are the ones going without state services for the duration. No pol will lose anything of course.Who whose side am I on you ask? In PA one should always be on the governor's side, regardless of political affiliation. We have the most corrupt, head-in-the-sand party hacks you could imagine in our state assembly.
Anyway, I'll send my very angry and disappointed kids to Harrisburg on Friday if park workers aren't back on the job. That'll learn 'em.Labels: Politics
0 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 1:05 PM
May 24, 2007
Senate: 80-14, House: 280-142
And with that this fraudulent administration can continue its criminal conduct in Iraq.
Thanks for nothing.
Here are the senators who voted against this charade:
- Boxer (D-CA)
- Burr (R-NC)
- Clinton (D-NY)
- Coburn (R-OK)
- Dodd (D-CT)
- Enzi (R-WY)
- Feingold (D-WI)
- Kennedy (D-MA)
- Kerry (D-MA)
- Leahy (D-VT)
- Obama (D-IL)
- Sanders (I-VT)
- Whitehouse (D-RI)
- Wyden (D-OR)
The Democratic presidential candidates are in bold. (The House list is too long to list so please see the House roll call to find your rep.)
Which begs the question: If these 3, who have the biggest stake in keeping with the anti-war sentiment that gave the Dems the majority in Congress, voted against this bill, despite the tired threats from Republicans that they don't support the troops; then where are all the rest of the Democrats? Are they not campaigns for re-election in 08?
I don't know how many senators are up in '08, but every single member of the House is up. And I bet that more than a few of them still have some contentious primaries to get through. And now 360 members of Congress have shown utter disregard for the will of the people.
As Olbermann says in my previous post:...[Y]ou, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats don’t give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands.
How transcendentally, how historically, pathetic.
Any other president from any other moment in the panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken, declared that no matter what the other political side did, he would insure personally—first, last and always—that the troops would not suffer.In the end, it is not whether or not you support the troops by caving in to the petulant demands of a monomanical horses ass president. It is what you force that man-child playing at world domination to do when you finally and resolutely say "Enough is enough."
0 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 10:52 PM
The entire government has failed us on Iraq
We have no deadlines. Not benchmarks. No troop reductions. We have nothing. The Democratic majority has left nearly 7 in 10 Americans without any hope that the Iraqi occupation will end any time soon.
If there was ever a mandate for the majority party, it was for the Democrats in November 2006; and that mandated message was clearly "Get us the hell out of Iraq."
It was created by lies. It has been perpetuated by lies. And it is through lies that the Democratic so-called leadership has betrayed us.
Please watch this special comment from Keith Olbermann on MSNBC last night:At this point I don't know what Barrack Obama's vote will be on this issue, but I can guarn-f*****g-tee you that I will completely withdraw my support for his candidacy if he votes for the tripe that Democrats have cooked up.
I have phone calls and emails into Obama's senate office, but as of this posting I have no idea where he stands on this issue.
I am sick to my heart over this debacle. We have thieves, liars, and profligate wastrels in the White House and those in Congress who enable them by lacking both courage and conviction. What good is the opposition party when they fail to oppose. We could've had the exact same bill last year before Democrats assumed the majority.4 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 3:20 PM
May 15, 2007
BarackObama.com | 16 Votes to End This War
The Iraq war should never have been started, and it's long past time to end it.
We were one signature away from ending this war, but President Bush
defied the majority of Americans and vetoed the legislation. He has
shown, again and again, since the invasion began, that he will not
listen.
But the will of the American people must be followed. If President
Bush won't end the war, it's up to Congress -- the representatives of
the people -- to end it instead. We need 16 Republican Senators to
override a veto -- any 16 of the 49 Republicans can choose the people
over their party and decide to end this war.
In 20 states, an incumbent Republican Senator faces re-election in
2008. They will have to make clear very soon whether they will
continue to defy the will of the American people.
Now is the time to hold them accountable for their choices on the war.
Barack Obama is doing just that, and you can, too. Make sure they hear
your voice too.
Vist the link below to send a personal message to those 20 senators.0 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 9:51 AM
May 11, 2007
Nuns May Protest President's Speech At St. Vincent College
I hope they do. I hope that all of the "good catholics" at St. Vincent's get a burr in their saddles and undertand that this administrator of the unjust occupation of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and secret CIA prisons has no business speaking at a school that is chartered on the belief in peace and the sanctity of human life.
3 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 10:49 AM
Apr 19, 2007
The Virginia Tech tragedy and the issue of gun control
These editorials and letters to the editor from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette speak frankly on the issue. Not surprisingly most writers from this area are strong advocates for 2nd Amendment rights. While a supporter of the entirety of The Bill of Rights, I have no issues with severely limiting the 2nd.
I wrote my own response, which may or may not be published by the paper. If not, here is what I wrote:Many who have responded on this page have talked about logic and the insensitive timing of the debate over gun control in the aftermath of the tragedy at Virginia Tech; I see none of the former and only self-serving platitudes coming from the latter.
Logic does not, as has been amply pointed out, blame a gun for the deaths of innocents. This deduction takes no kean mental insight or reasoning. It is simply a knee jerk response to the issue. Obviously, shooters kill people. Mr. Cho killed 32 and himself. The guns were simply his instrument of choice.
Logic does, however, question the ease in which he and common street criminals obtain guns. Legally or illegally, it doesn't matter. There are simply too many guns out there. And it is far to easy for a person with ill intent to get their hands on one.
Logic also states that if Mr. Cho couldn't have used hand guns in his attack that the number of victims would have been significantly reduced. One simply cannot kill 32 people at once with a knife or other deadly weapon. That fact alone cries for more restrictions on hand gun ownership.
Consider these facts published by the Open Society Institute:
- In Texas and five other states, there is no minimum legal age requirement for gun possession.
- In 48 states citizens can legally buy an assault weapon. In 43 states the purchase requires no license or registration.
- In 46 states there is no limit on the number of guns a person can buy at any one time.
- Only four states impose a limit of one handgun per month as a precaution against illegal gun trafficking.
Despite all of the regulations and restrictions that others have written about, these laws do little to protect us in events like this or the thousands of individual gun homocides that take place every year in this country. They just do not work well enough to be relied upon as the safety blanket that the gun lobby wishes them to be.
Logic suggests that, yes, we do need to do more to 1) restrict access to gun ownership, particulary hand guns and automatic weapons and 2) reduce the total amount of guns that are out there. The United States has the largest citizen owned armory in the world, somewhere around 235 millions guns. We also have the highest amounts of gun-related deaths of any developed nation. The correlation between those facts is not coincidental.
And as for showing sensitivity to the victims and their families by tabling the gun control debate until some predetermined period of grief is over, that sentiment is both disingenuous and absurd. What greater sensitivity can we show toward these victims than addressing one of the primary causes for their losses in the first place? That and addressing issues of mental health and our culture's dangerous obsession with celebrity and violence show more compassion and sensitivity than a million candle light vigils or crimson and orange ribbons.
Saying that we should talk about these issues later is nothing more than a way to stifle the debate. Yes, we are all grief stricken over this horrendous act of violence. But are we going to do about it? Will we sit in stunned silence with our heads bowed, only to raise them and hope that our shared grief will be a shield against the next attack? Or will we have the strength for discussions and debates that go beyond partisan sound bites and address the underlying issues?
Logic and sensitivity suggest that we act.
2 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 2:53 PM
Apr 3, 2007
Let's Make an End Run Around the Electoral College
E.J. Dionne Jr.: Power to the people
Actually, I would like to see the complete demise of the Electoral College, but barring a massive Constitutional movement that is not going to happen. And certainly not anytime while the illegitimate King George III sits in the White House.
Originally, the electoral college was about balancing power between populous and non populous states. Think of the power battle between Massachusetts and Virginia as an example. Massachusetts was an industrial/merchant-based state with heavy population concentrated around Boston. Virginia was an agricultural state with power concentrated in the hands of a few powerful land holders.
Not surprisingly, James Madison, one of the primary architects of the Constitution and a proud Virginian, wanted to make sure that large population centers in Boston, Philadelphia, and New York could not dominate presidential elections; hence the electoral college.
This of course is an elitist attitude. James Madison was no John Adams, but as a wealthy, powdered-wig white man, elitism was not beyond him. It suggests that the will of the people is not good enough to elect a president. That a group of appointed electors knows better in deciding who should sit in the White House.
It is also an idea that has been totally turned on its head. The more populous states in the U.S. are now being held hostage by the rural ones. Here is an example from Dionne's article:No matter how small, every state gets at least three electoral votes. The three electors from Wyoming, with a 2006 population estimated at 515,004, represent 171,668 people each. California, with a population of 36,457,549, gets 55 electors, each representing 662,865 people. Every vote cast in Wyoming thus has nearly four times the value of every vote in California.Put another way, the few hundred votes for Bush in Florida in 2000 counted more than the 500,000+ votes cast nation wide for Gore.
This is not democracy. One person one vote is the standard for all other elections in this country - federal, state, and local. The Constitution provides numerous other opportunities for states to exercise their will without needing to bow to the majority. The presidency should not be one of them.
P.S. I am looking for more information on the state initiatives that Dionne mentions in his article that will make the electoral college confirm to the popular vote. I will post more on this topic once I get it.Labels: Politics
0 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 11:16 AM
Mar 21, 2007
Blind Loyalty
The president demands loyalty to him, but what about loyalty to us?
The Miami Herald's Leornard Pitts Jr. asks the question that begs to be answered: Where is the loyalty to the American people?
Much the same way it was a fool's game to say that the Clinton White House was the first to peddle influence, it would be even more ridiculous to say that the White House of King George III is the first to award loyalty among its friends. In both cases, however, I think it's fair to say that each took their pillars of political vice quite a bit further than anyone did before them.
With Clinton we saw the renting out of the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder. At the time, it was a political scandal. Pols from both side of the aisle were appalled by such behavior.
"How could the august halls of the White House be sold for monetary favors?" they howled. "How have we sunk so low that anyone with enough lucre could sleep within the same walls as the Man Who Saved the Union?" they decried. "How do we gain control of the White House and rent out the Eisenhower bowling alley to the pharma lobbyists bowling league?" they schemed. You see, shame doesn't last long in D.C., especially when donations are involved.
Now we see the same type of never-seen-on-this-scale thing with loyalty in the Bush White House. Clearly every politician from local school board member to the POTUS uses loyalty as a reward for supporters, friends, and contributors. But one must ask if that loyalty has ever come at such a cost to the greater good, i.e., the common people.
Anyone remember good old Brownie, Mike Brown? His name is still, and will forever be, cursed along the Gulf Coast. That single reward of loyal support most certainly cost scores of lives and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, when his little guerdon, FEMA, failed miserably in its attempts to react to, first, warnings of impending doom at the hands of Hurricane Katrina and ultimately actual doom as the storms impact on Louisiana and Mississippi became evident.
In his article Pitts speaks of Rajiv Chandrasekaran's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" in talking about how loyalty above all else determined fitness for serving in beaurocratic Iraq:"People who applied to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority -- the agency governing Iraq -- told Mr. Chandrasekaran, former Baghdad bureau chief for The Washington Post, that they were asked in job interviews about their political party, their opinion of Roe v. Wade, their religious affiliation and whether or not they voted for Bush in 2000."So the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops and tens of millions of "free" Iraqis were, and still are, charged to a small cabal of right-leaning elitists who scoff at checks and balances and look to recreate the U.S. as a theocratic oligarchy?
And now we see the same thing playing out in the latest loyalty flap regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys for what can only be described as a political reason: to protect Republican interests by padding the Justice Department with Bush lackies and FORs (Friends of Rove). Thanks to a little known and late-added provision in the PATRIOT Act, all eight posts have since been filled without approval of the U.S. Senate.
But here's the best part of this brewing Constitutional powerplay between the Congress and the White House: District of Columbia U.S. Attorney, Jeffrey Taylor, will be the one to determine if the Bush administration is in criminal contempt of congress when they, in all likliehood, ignore upcoming congressional subpeonas for Carl Rove's and former presidential attorney Harriet Miers's sworn testimony.
"And what's the big deal about that?," you ask. Well, Taylor holds his position as a direct result of the PATRIOT Act provision mentioned above. He was appointed by the White House, without Senate approval, after his predecessor was promoted to another job within the DOJ. Sounds like this was the exact event that such a provision was created for.
I may be cynical, but even my active imagination has a difficult time envisioning Mr. Taylor recommending criminal charges in the matter. How about you?Labels: Politics
0 Comments | Link to this post posted by Teddy 2:06 PM
