Bill Maher On Kansas

Interesting. While delving into the past of Paul Davis, who is running against Sam Browncrack for governorship of Kansas, Republicans discovered that Davis once went to a strip club when he was in his twenties, before he got married. Once. He's never taken bribes, violated anyone's civil rights, pandered to big businesses while forgetting about everyone else, outlawed medical care for women, or compromised education in public schools; but a night on the town sixteen years ago would simply be too much. Quite a bit of Kansas is rather permissive about such things as clubs and drinking: when parents complain about the behaviors of predominantly christian high school boys in public schools that function as if they were private, predominantly christian school, (lots of drinking and sexaul exploitation-not much reading, writing, and 'rithmetic) the "unified" school boards look the other way, saying "boys will be boys". But now we have the same religious Republicans who give their own sons the latitude to drive drunk and take advantage of our underage daughters crying the blues because a contender for the office of governor went out one night and drank in a bar. The only reason Republicans in Kansas wouldn't be comfortable with Davis as governor is because Davis would not be in favor of bar hopping every night, or of driving home drunk. And Davis would definitely not favor allowing children to do such things.

Davis also does not use religion in order to push anyone's buttons or gain a reaction from a voter. Brownback does. That's a big reason to vote against Brownback. Religion is personal, and Kansas routinely expresses far too much disrespect for it.

Happy Independence Day

Happy Fourth of July, everyone. This is a good video. If you have time, watch it. When you get to the part about Obama not needing new permissions from Congress concerning Iraq, ponder this: Obama has tried to work with Congress since he was elected. He has had more patience with them than most people would have had. Out of all of the presidents this country has elected, Obama is probably the most gifted statesman. But the question about what is actually going on deserves an answer: who is actually pulling his strings, and ours? Happy Fourth, everyone.

Republicans And The Violence Against Women Act

It's interesting to note who, in congress, voted against the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. It passed, but not with the help of Republican representatives from the Midwest. Apparently, any protections and assistantance afforded domestic violence victims bothers these people in some way. Pat Roberts, of Kansas, did not want to see any legal protection granted to domestic violence victims. For an all inclusive list of representatives who weighed in against the Violence Against Women Act, click here.  Pat Roberts has also been yammering, without really saying anything meaningful, about the President's State of the Union address last night. He wants the President to do something about the economy, specifically, unemployment, but then accuses the President of doing nothing but "raising taxes", when the President's republican predecessor did nothing but deregulate the banking industry and allow American jobs to disappear into other countries at the same time. It's likely that Pat Roberts is really just voicing the concerns of the Koch Brothers.

 

Facts About Obama

 

One update to this: at this point, there have been thirty-two straight months of job increases, not twenty-seven.

Employers Threaten To Fire People If Obama Wins?

I thought American elections ran on SECRET ballots, and I thought it was each citizen's prerogative to vote for whoever he or she chooses. But the owner of Westgate Resorts thinks that bullying is how elections should be won. David Siegel contacted all of his employees to let them know they need to vote republican, because if Obama wins, he will have to keep paying taxes and reduce the size of his company. Waaaaaaa! As if the former republican administration had nothing to do with the state of the economy! As if! Here's what the lying crybaby said:

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he wrote. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."....Yahoo News

Now; not only is the economy NOT the fault of the president, a NEW president is NOT a guarantee of financial smooth sailing. If David Siegel must lay off employees during a democrat presidency at this point in history, chances are quite strong that he will have to do so during a republican presidency. In addition to threatening his employees, he's falsely implying that everything will be fine if Obama loses. That's not true.

He also apparently feels entitled to more than one vote, via dictating the votes of his employees: "In a version of Romney's "47 percent" remarks, Siegel added that "people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for."....Yahoo News

There are too many people on this planet for the population to act as a collection of autonomous individuals at the sacrifice of acting as a community. David Siegel did not earn his empire by himself. It never would have happened for him if others had not been involved. While he prides himself with making "all the right decisions", I would bet that luck had a little to do with the fortune he has amassed, as well. And now, to protect his fortune, he is using his fortune to threaten others to vote for his candidate! His logic is a bit twisted, anyway. I made all the right decisions when I had my children. I invested everything I had in them. I also worked, and the fact that my children and family were important to me was a source of friction in the workplace. There were no rewards there for putting one's children first. I didn't get rich, but I won't be told that I made the wrong decisions, just because my income places me in a catagory of humanity that "doesn't matter" to the Romneys. Bush Jr. started a war. He did not care how many parents had invested everything they had in their children; the young people were simply Bush's for the taking, to fight his war. Do we support this war with enterprises that operate in our own country? No! In fact, that's a major difference between this war and WW2. Why isn't David Siegel upset about that?

Mitt Romney has made it clear that he has no intentions of investing in the middle class. Almost half of Americans don't matter to him. David Siegel's employees enjoy the same chances of stability or lack thereof no matter who wins the election.

 

Mitt Romney Wants Other Republicans To Lie

How interesting. Mitt Romney is worried that the governers of states where the economy is finally picking up, after the mess Bush made of our country, are going to hurt his campaign by speaking well of their situations. But; ever the efficient manager, Romney has a solution: lie about it. He has already specifically asked Governor Rick Scott, of Florida, to downplay any accomplishments and gains that have been made in Florida, because Romney wants to keep a false aura of doom and gloom, and keep blaming this Bush induced doom and gloom on Obama. What a big surprise.....not.

Why is it okay in white, Christian America to be a big, fat liar?

If You Missed Church This Sunday

Here's an idea that might help the economy at this point in American history:

The Fair Sentencing Act Goes Into Effect Today

Happy New Year, Everyone! Today is the day that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 will go into effect. This means that many people, nationwide, who have been incarcerated since 1986 for small amounts of crack will, or should, be released, because they were sentenced as if they had been caught with about ten times as much cocaine. In many cases, the time already served would more than equal the length of a sentence for the same drug not turned into crack. This is fair, as we never should have incarcerated people for drug possession in the first place. Especially with this drug. I really think that imposing harsher sentences for crack was racially motivated, since more African Americans have been arrested over the years for crimes involving crack than any other ethnic group. It was a way Republican politicians could reduce that particular voting bloc. Now, if they want votes, I guess they will have to try harder to appeal to everyone.

If you have read other entries on my blog, you can probably guess my thoughts about incarcerating people for violation of prohibition laws. While I am one of the most anti-drug people you will find, I simply think that making laws prohibiting drugs only creates and strengthens organized crime, and turns individuals into criminals when they otherwise would not have been. An example of this, in this country, is alcohol prohibition. We did not have a probelm with the Mafia until we created a market for bootlegging. Even the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1929 did not eradicate the monster of organized crime that got a home here in this country because of prohibition. So.......any attention to this matter by any politician is appreciated. Thankyou for signing the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, President Obama!

As a collective population, this could be an opportunity for Americans to save a lot of money and resources. Sending people to prison is expensive, in many ways. "Three hots and a cot" are obvious, but what about medical care, the salary of every corrections employee, and the costs of court proceedings? It adds up.....and don't forget the costs of foster care for any children whose parents are caught in the legal machine. That's not exactly cheap, either, while it still seems to accomplish the "divide and conquer" goal so dear to today's Republicans.

Lots of people will be getting out of prison today, tommorrow, and in the upcoming weeks. Some of them have been in prison since the late 1980's, when the economy was in much better shape than it is today. How easy will it be for them to find gainful employment in a climate where a person with no criminal history may have problems finding gainful employment? Will those who went into prison with addiction and substance abuse issues be able to find a way to stay sober and embrace the opportunity they have just been given? Last night, the traditional Halloween, or Ancestor Night, and today, "Day of the Dead", marks the beginning of a New Year. I sincerely hope that those affected directly by the the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 will find positive ways to take advantage of their new opportunities and learn to enjoy their lives in a grateful and productive way. Congratulations and good luck!

Mitt Romney Uses Wife To Project Image

In yet another great example of a smoke and mirrors ruse, Mitt Romney got his wife, to whom he refers as "sweetheart" all dressed up in a white apron to serve breakfast and play "June Cleaver". She's supposed to "humanize" him a little, and make him appear to have stuff in common with other Americans. Somehow, I just don't see it.

First of all, in this picture, taken at a GOP gathering in Michigan, she appears nervous and her smile looks fake. This makes her husband look even more fake. Then, she talks about serving pancakes to her five sons every morning before school. That's nice........but before unemployment became the problem that it is now, both parents in most American families normally worked. This, more often than not, meant that no one would have time to make pancakes in the morning before school. A parent's time was, and is, often spent sitting in traffic in the morning, before school. Is Mrs. Mitt coherant with that reality? Is Mrs. Mitt coherant with the reality that a lot of families do not have two parents at this point, and a lot of families with school aged children have at least one parent deployed? Pancakes or not, if she and her husband move into the White House and inherit Bush's mess from Obama, she'd better learn something about it, or risk being perceived as another Nancy Reagan.

Second, speaking of national unemployment, the only reason anyone supporting a family, and that's usually BOTH parents, would have time to make pancakes before school is unemployment. Even if Americans wanted the clock turned back forty years, to the days when moms usually stayed home, I don't think Mitt Romney could do that. The world's economy no longer supports the nuclear family of the 1950's and 1960's in America, and never truly did. Even if it did, quite a few women were not happy with that lifestyle, and we really don't want to go back. Mitt, I am not impressed with your marital theatrics. Why don't you spare your wife the stressors of public life, and let her stay home? That's another reason why I don't believe you.......your wife really isn't living the "ideal", is she? You're actually USING her, and you could hire a model to fill her shoes if she didn't want to play follow-the-leader with you.

Third, Mitt Romney will never be coherant and fluent in Reality enough to truly relate to mainstream America. His assumption that every woman wants the same thing in life, and that every family wants to be a replica of "Leave It To Beaver" is almost an insult. He is not only overlooking and ignoring Reality himself, but he is asking me to do the same! Sorry, Mitt; I can't do that for you. If I truly wanted all the things you want, I would try writing letters to Santa Claus before I'd vote for you. I also don't wear high heels to clean the house or work in the garden.

Looking At The Big Picture

I saw this on Yahoo this morning. Bill Clinton, on the economy, and the "American Dream", or lifestyle. When I explain American ecomonic issues to my children, I usually start with the 1920's, and work my way to now, explaining the effects of everything from the "Roaring Twenties" and alcohol prohibition, two world wars within twenty years of each other, to the Reagan and Bush years, with Americans just grazing like sheep during every era. Clinton; however, sticks to a thirty year period and offers a very relevant explanation. Here's the clip: http://d.yimg.com/nl/cbe/newsmakers/player.html#startScreenCarouselUI=hide&vid=26664353&browseCarouselUI=hide"></iframe></div>