This is her singing "For All We Know" on the Andy Williams Show, Feb. 13, 1971 at the age of 20:
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
30 years ago this week...
We lost one of the most achingly beautiful voices humanity ever knew with the untimely death of Karen Carpenter. Of her death, famed songwriter Burt Bacharach said, "my songs have just lost the most beautiful voice they ever had."
This is her singing "For All We Know" on the Andy Williams Show, Feb. 13, 1971 at the age of 20:
This is her singing "For All We Know" on the Andy Williams Show, Feb. 13, 1971 at the age of 20:
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
How everything is connected, and what that means...
A Facebook friend of mine, the Science Fiction Author David Gerrold, posted this on Facebook the other day. I agree with every word of it.
"Anyone who studies science, especially biology, is going to come to the very messy discovery that everything is connected to everything else.
There's no such thing as one cow. A cow exists as a member of a herd. It exists as a process for converting grass to manure which fertilizes more grass. It exists as a micro-ecology in which vast hordes of microorganisms thrive and interact. It exists as a product, a commodity, a source of milk and meat. It exists as an economic entity. And it has a thousand other existences that are as hidden from us as the other nine-tenths of the iceberg.
In the same way, no man is an island--not even a peninsula. A human being consumes food -- where does it come from? It comes from other human beings growing and harvesting and trucking and marketing. A human being wears clothes, lives in a house, drives a car, watches television. Who makes those clothes, who built that house, who delivers the electricity, who built that television, who provides the fuel for that car?
A human being exists as a member of a community, exists as a process, exists as a micro-ecology of microorganisms, exists as a unit within a macro-ecology of other human beings. A human being exists as an economic entity and an economic process. A human being exists as a member of a family and a member of a community. A human being draws sustenance from the Earth and produces waste of all kinds that either sustains or soils the Earth.
Everything is connected to everything else. We are all part of a gigantic interconnected web of processes and relationships and interactions.
If we take care of each other, we all benefit. If we cheat each other, we are pissing in the water we swim in. If we soil our relationships and make it harder for others to survive, we make it harder for ourselves.
The right wing has made a bogeyman out of "collectivism" -- arguing that government is the enemy and any attempt to use public funds for the public good is socialism.
Bullshit.
The founding fathers knew better. A simple reading of the preamble shows that: "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." The Constitution is a foundation, a definition of the mechanisms by which we will create a society that works for all of us. Not some of us. All of us.
Lincoln said it: "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Accountable to the people as well. This isn't collectivism, it's how a representative government is supposed to work.
Our government is not the enemy. Our government is us and we get the government we deserve because we get the government we create.
It is our job to be well-informed. A representative government works best when the population is well-educated and well-informed. Anyone trying to subvert either education or information is the real enemy. Because history demonstrates that when the American people are given honest information about the choices in front of them, they will choose wisely.
That we choose to take care of each other will drive the selfish minority crazy, yes. But anyone with real life experience has learned the lesson that cooperation works better than isolation.
That's not collectivism. It's common sense."
"Anyone who studies science, especially biology, is going to come to the very messy discovery that everything is connected to everything else.
There's no such thing as one cow. A cow exists as a member of a herd. It exists as a process for converting grass to manure which fertilizes more grass. It exists as a micro-ecology in which vast hordes of microorganisms thrive and interact. It exists as a product, a commodity, a source of milk and meat. It exists as an economic entity. And it has a thousand other existences that are as hidden from us as the other nine-tenths of the iceberg.
In the same way, no man is an island--not even a peninsula. A human being consumes food -- where does it come from? It comes from other human beings growing and harvesting and trucking and marketing. A human being wears clothes, lives in a house, drives a car, watches television. Who makes those clothes, who built that house, who delivers the electricity, who built that television, who provides the fuel for that car?
A human being exists as a member of a community, exists as a process, exists as a micro-ecology of microorganisms, exists as a unit within a macro-ecology of other human beings. A human being exists as an economic entity and an economic process. A human being exists as a member of a family and a member of a community. A human being draws sustenance from the Earth and produces waste of all kinds that either sustains or soils the Earth.
Everything is connected to everything else. We are all part of a gigantic interconnected web of processes and relationships and interactions.
If we take care of each other, we all benefit. If we cheat each other, we are pissing in the water we swim in. If we soil our relationships and make it harder for others to survive, we make it harder for ourselves.
The right wing has made a bogeyman out of "collectivism" -- arguing that government is the enemy and any attempt to use public funds for the public good is socialism.
Bullshit.
The founding fathers knew better. A simple reading of the preamble shows that: "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." The Constitution is a foundation, a definition of the mechanisms by which we will create a society that works for all of us. Not some of us. All of us.
Lincoln said it: "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Accountable to the people as well. This isn't collectivism, it's how a representative government is supposed to work.
Our government is not the enemy. Our government is us and we get the government we deserve because we get the government we create.
It is our job to be well-informed. A representative government works best when the population is well-educated and well-informed. Anyone trying to subvert either education or information is the real enemy. Because history demonstrates that when the American people are given honest information about the choices in front of them, they will choose wisely.
That we choose to take care of each other will drive the selfish minority crazy, yes. But anyone with real life experience has learned the lesson that cooperation works better than isolation.
That's not collectivism. It's common sense."
Monday, September 3, 2012
What Henry Ford knew that today's business "leaders" have forgotten:
By Hedrick Smith in Today's New York Times:
"In the rancorous debate over how to get the sluggish economy moving, we have forgotten the wisdom of Henry Ford. In 1914, not long after the Ford Motor Company came out with the Model T, Ford made the startling announcement that he would pay his workers the unheard-of wage of $5 a day.
Not only was it a matter of social justice, Ford wrote, but paying high wages was also smart business. When wages are low, uncertainty dogs the marketplace and growth is weak. But when pay is high and steady, Ford asserted, business is more secure because workers earn enough to become good customers. They can afford to buy Model Ts.
This is not to suggest that Ford single-handedly created the American middle class. But he was one of the first business leaders to articulate what economists call “the virtuous circle of growth”: well-paid workers generating consumer demand that in turn promotes business expansion and hiring. Other executives bought his logic, and just as important, strong unions fought for rising pay and good benefits in contracts like the 1950 “Treaty of Detroit” between General Motors and the United Auto Workers.
Riding the dynamics of the virtuous circle, America enjoyed its best period of sustained growth in the decades after World War II, from 1945 to 1973, even though income tax rates were far higher than today. It created not only unprecedented middle-class prosperity but also far greater economic equality than today.
The chief executives of the long postwar boom believed that business success and workers’ well-being ran in tandem.
Frank W. Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, voiced the corporate mantra of “stakeholder capitalism”: the need to balance the interests of all the stakeholders in the corporate family. “The job of management,” he wrote, “is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly affected interest groups,” which he defined as “stockholders, employees, customers and the public at large.”
Earl S. Willis, a manager of employee benefits at General Electric, declared that “the employee who can plan his economic future with reasonable certainty is an employer’s most productive asset.”
From 1948 to 1973, the productivity of all nonfarm workers nearly doubled, as did average hourly compensation. But things changed dramatically starting in the late 1970s. Although productivity increased by 80.1 percent from 1973 to 2011, average wages rose only 4.2 percent and hourly compensation (wages plus benefits) rose only 10 percent over that time, according to government data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute.
At the same time, corporate profits were booming. In 2006, the year before the Great Recession began, corporate profits garnered the largest share of national income since 1942, while the share going to wages and salaries sank to the lowest level since 1929. In the recession’s aftermath, corporate profits have bounced back while middle-class incomes have stagnated.
Today the prevailing cut-to-the-bone business ethos means that a company like Caterpillar demands a wage freeze and lower health benefits from its workers, while posting record profits.
Globalization, including the rise of Asia, and technological innovation can’t explain all or even most of today’s gaping inequality; if they did, we would see in other advanced economies the same hyperconcentration of wealth and the same stagnation of middle-class wages as in the United States. But we don’t.
In Germany, still a manufacturing and export powerhouse, average hourly pay has risen five times faster since 1985 than in the United States. The secret of Germany’s success, says Klaus Kleinfeld, who ran the German electrical giant Siemens before taking over the American aluminum company Alcoa in 2008, is “the social contract: the willingness of business, labor and political leaders to put aside some of their differences and make agreements in the national interests.”
In short, German leaders have practiced stakeholder capitalism and followed the century-old wisdom of Henry Ford, while American business and political leaders have dismantled the dynamics of the “virtuous circle” in pursuit of downsizing, offshoring and short-term profit and big dividends for their investors.
Today, we are all paying the price for this shift. As Ford recognized, if average Americans do not have secure jobs with steady and rising pay, the economy will be sluggish. Since the early 1990s, we have been mired three times in “jobless recoveries.” It’s time for America’s business elites to step beyond political rhetoric about protecting wealthy “job creators” and grasp Ford’s insight: Give the middle class a better share of the nation’s economic gains, and the economy will grow faster. Our history shows that."
"In the rancorous debate over how to get the sluggish economy moving, we have forgotten the wisdom of Henry Ford. In 1914, not long after the Ford Motor Company came out with the Model T, Ford made the startling announcement that he would pay his workers the unheard-of wage of $5 a day.
Not only was it a matter of social justice, Ford wrote, but paying high wages was also smart business. When wages are low, uncertainty dogs the marketplace and growth is weak. But when pay is high and steady, Ford asserted, business is more secure because workers earn enough to become good customers. They can afford to buy Model Ts.
This is not to suggest that Ford single-handedly created the American middle class. But he was one of the first business leaders to articulate what economists call “the virtuous circle of growth”: well-paid workers generating consumer demand that in turn promotes business expansion and hiring. Other executives bought his logic, and just as important, strong unions fought for rising pay and good benefits in contracts like the 1950 “Treaty of Detroit” between General Motors and the United Auto Workers.
Riding the dynamics of the virtuous circle, America enjoyed its best period of sustained growth in the decades after World War II, from 1945 to 1973, even though income tax rates were far higher than today. It created not only unprecedented middle-class prosperity but also far greater economic equality than today.
The chief executives of the long postwar boom believed that business success and workers’ well-being ran in tandem.
Frank W. Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, voiced the corporate mantra of “stakeholder capitalism”: the need to balance the interests of all the stakeholders in the corporate family. “The job of management,” he wrote, “is to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly affected interest groups,” which he defined as “stockholders, employees, customers and the public at large.”
Earl S. Willis, a manager of employee benefits at General Electric, declared that “the employee who can plan his economic future with reasonable certainty is an employer’s most productive asset.”
From 1948 to 1973, the productivity of all nonfarm workers nearly doubled, as did average hourly compensation. But things changed dramatically starting in the late 1970s. Although productivity increased by 80.1 percent from 1973 to 2011, average wages rose only 4.2 percent and hourly compensation (wages plus benefits) rose only 10 percent over that time, according to government data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute.
At the same time, corporate profits were booming. In 2006, the year before the Great Recession began, corporate profits garnered the largest share of national income since 1942, while the share going to wages and salaries sank to the lowest level since 1929. In the recession’s aftermath, corporate profits have bounced back while middle-class incomes have stagnated.
Today the prevailing cut-to-the-bone business ethos means that a company like Caterpillar demands a wage freeze and lower health benefits from its workers, while posting record profits.
Globalization, including the rise of Asia, and technological innovation can’t explain all or even most of today’s gaping inequality; if they did, we would see in other advanced economies the same hyperconcentration of wealth and the same stagnation of middle-class wages as in the United States. But we don’t.
In Germany, still a manufacturing and export powerhouse, average hourly pay has risen five times faster since 1985 than in the United States. The secret of Germany’s success, says Klaus Kleinfeld, who ran the German electrical giant Siemens before taking over the American aluminum company Alcoa in 2008, is “the social contract: the willingness of business, labor and political leaders to put aside some of their differences and make agreements in the national interests.”
In short, German leaders have practiced stakeholder capitalism and followed the century-old wisdom of Henry Ford, while American business and political leaders have dismantled the dynamics of the “virtuous circle” in pursuit of downsizing, offshoring and short-term profit and big dividends for their investors.
Today, we are all paying the price for this shift. As Ford recognized, if average Americans do not have secure jobs with steady and rising pay, the economy will be sluggish. Since the early 1990s, we have been mired three times in “jobless recoveries.” It’s time for America’s business elites to step beyond political rhetoric about protecting wealthy “job creators” and grasp Ford’s insight: Give the middle class a better share of the nation’s economic gains, and the economy will grow faster. Our history shows that."
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Remember that Carnegie Hall thing?
I DID IT!!!
On the 19th of February, I and 269 other singers took the stage at world-famous Carnegie Hall in New York to perform spirituals under the direction of the INSANELY talented Jacqueline Hairston.
We performed 8 songs, 7 of which appear on this video, and we got 5, count 'em 5 STANDING ovations. I'm STILL levitating.
cathleen @ carnegia hall (just a few photos & very imperfect audio - cough cough!!) from susan graves on Vimeo.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Robert Reich says: "Stop starving public universities and shrinking the middle class".
"Last week Rick Santorum called the President “a snob” for wanting everyone to get a college education (in fact, Obama never actually called for universal college education but only for a year or more of training after high school). Santorum needn’t worry. America is already making it harder for young people of modest means to attend college. Public higher education is being starved, and the middle class will shrink even more as a result. Over just the last year 41 states have cut spending for public higher education. That’s on top of deep cuts in 2009 and 2010. Some public universities, such as the University of New Hampshire, have lost over 40 percent of their state funding; the University of Washington, 26 percent; Florida’s public university system, 25 percent. Rising tuition and fees are making up the shortfall. This year, the average hike is 8.3 percent. New York’s state university system is increasing tuition 14 percent; Arizona, 17 percent; Washington state, 16 percent. Students in California’s public universities and colleges are facing an average increase of 21 percent, the highest in the nation. The children of middle and lower-income families are hardest hit. Remember: The median wage has been dropping since 2000, adjusted for inflation. Pell Grants for students from poor families are falling further behind; they now cover only about a third of tuition and fees. (In the 1980s, they covered about half; in the 1970s, more than 70 percent.) Student debt is skyrocketing – the New York Federal Reserve Bank estimates it at $550 billion. Punitive laws enforce repayment, and it’s almost impossible to shed student loans in bankruptcy. There is no statue of limitations for non-repayment. And yet, Santorum’s rant notwithstanding, good-paying jobs in America are coming to require a college degree. Globalization and rapid technological change are putting a premium on the ability to identify and solve new problems. A college degree is also a signal to prospective employers that a young person has what it takes to succeed. That’s why the median annual pay of people with a bachelor’s degree was 70 percent higher than those with a high school diploma in 2009 (the latest Census data available). But public higher education isn’t just a private investment. It’s a public good. Our young people — their capacities to think, understand, investigate, and innovate — are America’s future. We used to understand this. During the great expansion of public higher education from the 1950s to the 1970s, tuition at public universities averaged about 4 percent of median family income (compared to around 20 percent at private universities). Young Americans received college degrees in record numbers – creating a cohort of scientists, engineers, managers, and professionals that propelled the economy forward and dramatically expanded the middle class. But starting in the 1980s, as in so many other areas of American life, we took a U-turn. Tuition at public universities began climbing. By 2005, it was more than 10 percent of median annual family income. Now it’s approaching 25 percent – still a good deal relative to private universities (where it’s nearly 70 percent), but high enough to discourage many qualified young people from attending. Public higher education has been the gateway to the middle class but that gate is shutting – just when income and wealth are more concentrated at the top than they’ve been since the 1920s, and when America needs the brainpower of its young people more than ever. This is nuts. What’s the answer? Partly to make public universities more efficient. Every bureaucracy I’ve ever been associated with (and I’ve been in some very big ones) has some fat to be trimmed. Yet universities are necessarily labor-intensive enterprises; research and teaching can’t be outsourced abroad or turned over to computerized machine tools. Another part of the answer is to raise tuition and fees for students from higher-income families and use the extra money to subsidize medium and lower-income kids. Even now relatively few pay the official sticker price; many receive some discount proportional to family income. But this won’t solve the underlying problem, ether. A big part of the answer has to be more government support for public education at all levels. This requires more tax revenues – especially from Americans who are best able to pay. Most Americans still believe in the ideal of equal opportunity. And most harbor the patriotic notion that we have responsibilities to one another as members of the same society. The two principles lead to an obvious conclusion: America’s richest citizens have a duty to pay more taxes so kids from middle and lower-income families have chance to make it in America. A pending initiative in California would raise taxes on millionaires and use the proceeds to fund public education at all levels. It’s a good idea, and it comes at the right time. Other states should follow."Full article Here.
Monday, February 27, 2012
The GOP, then and now.
Monday, January 16, 2012
The reason for this holiday...(edited to correct the link)
Thank you forever, Dr. King.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
Friday, January 6, 2012
From http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2012/01/republicans-dont-care-about-voter-fraud
Iowa Republicans are trying to dismiss claims that the vote count in Tuesday’s Iowa Caucus was wrong. An Iowa voter told a local TV station yesterday that he noticed a 20-vote discrepancy in the count – and that Rick Santorum was the real winner of the Caucuses. Republican Party officials, though, are sticking to their first count – showing Mitt Romney as the winner by 8-votes - and there will be no recount. The Republican Party has launched a war on voters around the nation this year with strict new laws that will disenfranchise over 5 million Americans. They claim these laws are necessary to combat so-called voter fraud. Yet in Iowa – where there are no such laws – and where a very, very close and questionable election was just held – Republicans don’t seem to care at all about getting it right. Clearly – the war on voters isn’t about making sure the people’s voices are represented accurately – it’s about making sure poor people, young people, and minorities who tend to vote for Democrats – can’t vote at all.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
A worthy cause - Help me get to Carnegie Hall!
Friday, December 9, 2011
Prayer in School?
Big thanks to my friend Steve Woodward for this.
Dear John,
As you know, We've been working real hard in our town to get prayer back in our schools. Finally, the school board approved a plan of teacher-led prayer with the children participating at their own option. Children not wishing to participate were to be allowed to stand out in the hallway during prayer time. We hoped someone would sue us so we could go all the way to the Supreme Court and get the old devil-inspired ruling reversed.
Naturally, we were all excited by the school board action. As you know, our own little Billy (not so little, any more though) is now in the second grade. Of course, Margaret and I explained to him no matter what the other kids did, he was going to stay in the classroom and participate.
After the first day of school, I asked him "How did the prayer time go?"
"Fine."
"Did many kids go out into the hallway?"
"Two".
"Excellent. How did you like your teacher's prayer?"
"It was different, Dad. Real different from the way you pray."
"Oh? Like how?"
"She said, 'Hail Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners...'"
The next day I talked with the principal. I politely explained I wasn't prejudiced against Catholics but I would appreciate Billy being transferred to a non-Catholic teacher. The principal said it would be done right away.
At supper that evening I asked Billy to say the blessings. He slipped out of his chair, sat cross- legged, closed his eyes, raised his hand palms up in the air and began to hum.
You'd better believe I was at the principal's office at eight o'clock the next morning. "Look," I said. 'I don't really know much about these Transcendental Meditationists, but I would feel a lot more comfortable If you could move Billy to a room where the teacher practices an older, more established religion."
That afternoon I met Billy as soon as he walked in the door after school.
"I don't think you're going to like Mrs. Nakasone's prayer either, Dad."
"Out with it."
"She kept chanting Namu Amida Butsu..."
The following morning I was waiting for the principal in the school parking lot. "Look, I don't want my son praying to the Eternal Spirit of whatever to Buddha. I want him to have a teacher who prays in Jesus' name!"
"What about Bertha Smith?"
"Excellent."
I could hardly wait to hear about Mrs. Smith's prayer. I was standing on the front steps of the school when the final bell rang.
"Well?" I asked Billy as we walked towards the car.
"Okay."
"Okay what?"
"Mrs. Smith asked God to bless us and ended her prayer in Jesus' name, amen just like you."
I breathed a sigh of relief. "Now we're getting some place."
"She even taught us a verse of scripture about prayer," said Billy.
I beamed. "Wonderful. What was the verse?"
"Lets see..." he mused for a moment. "And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God."
We had reached the car. "Fantastic," I said reaching for the door handle. Then paused. I couldn't place the scripture. "Billy, did Mrs. Smith say what book that verse was from?"
"Third Nephi, chapter 19, verse 18."
"Nephi what?"
"Nephi," he said. "It's in the Book of Mormon.
The school board doesn't meet for a month. I've given Billy very definite instructions that at prayer time each day he's to go out into the hallway. I plan to be at that board meeting. If they don't do something about this situation, I'll sue. I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to. I don't need schools or anybody else teaching my son about religion. We can take care of that ourselves at home and at church, thank you very much.
Best Wishes Always,
Dan
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Capitalism, Socialism, "Job Creators", and what Conservatives miss about ALL of them
Conservatives have shown their off-kilter view of the world by refashioning definitions of words and terms in order to create entirely new connotations. Socialism is now defined as a "government take over"; Capitalism is now completely and utterly patriotic, and the wealthy are now defined as "job creators". But you can redefine all you want - it's not going to change the true meaning of these terms one whit.
CONSERVATIVE-ESE:Socialism = Government takeover of all industries.
ACTUAL FACT: Socialism does not mean the abolition of a free market society, nor does Socialism call for a government takeover of all industry. That would atcually be Communism, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the former Soviet Union for clearly demonstrating how monstrously unworkable it is.
The Socialist acknowledges that the free market is good, but limited, and believes that some industries should not be run for profit. Police protection, fire protection, prisons, education, health care, parks, electricity, water supplies, waste and sewage removal, and roadways are just a few examples of industries which should not be run for profit. Why? When these industries are operating for profit, not only will prices rise, but corresponding services would then be reserved only for those who can afford them. Or more succinctly, no one person should be able to profit over running services from which everyone benefits.
One excellent example of how Socialism can at times beat the free market can be found in our banking industry. While most banks operate for the profits of their stockholders (most of whom are not customers of the bank) and CEOs (paying said CEOs GINORMOUS amounts of money), credit unions are owned and operated by their members. The money that ISN'T paid to CEOs are reflected back to the customer in higher interest rates for investments, lower interest rates on loans, and a nominal dividend to the member/customer, which usually gets reinvested right back into the credit union as a deposit.
It's worth pointing out that credit unions did not run the same risks as banks when our financial bubble burst, and thus did not request nor receive any TARP bailout money. Nor have the credit unions contributed to the morass of fraudulent foreclosures that the banks have.
Another example: health care. The free market creates for-profit businesses ranging from medications, medical testing, medical treatments, medical research, to hospitals. None of these have lowered the cost of health care through innovation or through competition. This is because the demand for health care is a basic necessity; it's non-negotiable. Like clean water & air, humans cannot survive without such products or services. The demand for these is a constant, therefore they are not subjected to the law of supply and demand. When prices go up, demand does not lessen beyond a certain threshold. Where the free market brings economic ups and downs which effects everyone, Socialism believes that there is a limit on the protections a free market provides for everyday citizens. And quite simply, some things should not be run for profit, especially at the expense of everyone else.
CONSERVATIVE-ESE: Capitalism is pure good, and if you oppose it in any way, you are Un-American.
FACT:Capitalism is an economic term for the free market system which is structured upon the accumulation of money, where the means of production are privately owned and operates for profit. Capitalism is neither right nor wrong, it is simply an economic term. Nor is Capitalism patriotic! A system which encourages the accumulation of wealth does not salute a flag, nor is it loyal to a native country. This market system crosses state and national borders in order to provide larger profits for business owners. If labor costs are cheaper overseas, then it is capitalism which will drive businesses out of our country. If a company finds it cheaper to produce a dangerous product than it is to produce a safe one, it is capitalism which will produce the most profitable option without consideration of customer safety. Capitalism only seeks profits and will by nature migrate operations towards areas which promotes greater profits. Capitalism has no allegiance to any one country as it operates in a global economy. Again, capitalism has no allegiance with patriotism. Where would a business find themselves most profitable? Would they find a country with extremely lower labor costs to be more profitable for manufacturing than a country with higher labor costs? Would they find a lower taxed area more profitable than an area with high demand for their products? But most of all, wouldn’t it be more patriotic for an American business to spark demand in order to operate, manufacture and sell their goods or services inside America, as opposed to overseas?
CONSERVATIVE-ESE:The wealthiest among us are the Job Creators.
FACT:
The wealthy are not necessarily the job creators. Poor and desperate innovators have sparked many new business ventures despite their lack of wealth. Many small businesses began out of practically nothing, but only an idea executed inside of their garages. (Anybody ever hear of Apple? Hewlett-Packard?)
The fact of the matter is that neither wealth nor lower taxes create jobs; only demand creates jobs, as I have stated elsewhere.
This little tidbit of truth is lost in translation when the wealthy are deemed as “Job Creators”. All this is is a ploy designed to promote additional tax breaks for those who have more than enough while at the same time promoting cuts in public services for those who do not have enough.
Another tidbit of truth which is diluted in this argument is the inequality of income between the workers and the owners. A CEO today typically earns 343 times more than an average employee - up from 30 times more in the 1950s - when top tax rates were around 90%! Did CEOs become THAT much more valuable? And while 88% of domestic profits go to corporate bank accounts and CEO bonuses, only 1% of these profits gets applied towards labor. The business owner shoulders no responsibility for producing any product or service. Rather the business owner invested their money (and in most cases time) into a business which is productive. Productivity is a result of the balance between the investors, the managers, and the workers. It is a symbiotic relationship, which many Americans cannot conceive of. For where would any business be without any one of these three elements? Despite conservative talking points, even the lowest of employees is an invaluable asset to a business. In a restaurant, an effective business owner knows that the dishwasher and busboys are just as important to their operation as their managers and customers. If you remove the dishwasher and/or busboys from the equation, the business suffers. Yet an effective manager can be absent from their responsibilities and the operation may not not suffer. So which employee should be valued more than the other, the laborer, the manager, or the investor? The answer is neither of the three. For without one, the other two would not have a business operate or a job to tend to. Yet the argument goes that only the wealthy create jobs. Without enough demand, even these jobs won’t last very long.
Conservatives are actually correct that we should not tax our job creators in a time of economic recession. But they've BADLY misidentified exactly who these job creators are. When our recession is being prolonged out of a lack of demand, it is not the business owner who can create jobs; rather it is consumers who create jobs by spurring demand. So let’s not overburden our true job creator, the consumer. In order to spark higher demand, we must effect the largest target market we have at our disposal. It’s not the wealthy who can spark this demand; they only constitute up to 2% of our populace. Rather, we should focus our attention on the other 98% of our populace, our struggling middle class and poor.
Henry Ford understood this well - he believed that his product meant nothing unless he had customers who could afford to purchase it. In order to ensure his company’s success, he paid his laborers more than other businesses, so they could buy his cars. This enabled his employees to comfortably afford to buy Ford products. This sparked higher demand, which in turn produced higher job growth, which led to Ford’s success story. Henry Ford did not believe in paying the least amount possible for labor, eliminating the minimum wage, or acquiring higher profits at the expense of his workforce. Instead he realized the symbiosis between business and labor and between business and customer.
And not only did Ford boost his OWN business - by paying his own workers more, he forced other businesses to boost worker pay lest they lose their employees. This increase in salaries boosted consumer demand across the board, beginning the economic boom that culminated in the Roaring '20s.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
A VERY worthy cause (NOT political for once!)
Hey, guys. Something VERY worthwhile that my friend Randy Blair is doing up in Michigan, raising money to help fight ALS - Lou Gehrig's disease. Check it out here, and donate if you can - spread the word if you can't.
http://bit.ly/alsdesmond
http://bit.ly/alsdesmond
Sunday, August 7, 2011
"Fiscal Responsibility", my FOOT!
Shamelessly stolen from Steve Benen:
"1980: Ronald Reagan runs for president, promising a balanced budget
1981 - 1989: With support from congressional Republicans, Reagan runs enormous deficits, adds $2 trillion to the debt.
1993: Bill Clinton passes economic plan that lowers deficit, gets zero votes from congressional Republicans.
1998: U.S. deficit disappears for the first time in three decades. Debt clock is unplugged.
2000: George W. Bush runs for president, promising to maintain a balanced budget.
2001: CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade.
2001 - 2009: With support from congressional Republicans, Bush runs enormous deficits, adds nearly $5 trillion to the debt.
2002: Dick Cheney declares, “Deficits don’t matter.” Congressional Republicans agree, approving tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare expansion without even trying to pay for them.
2009: Barack Obama inherits $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush; Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
2009: Congressional Democrats unveil several domestic policy initiatives — including health care reform, cap and trade, DREAM Act — which would lower the deficit. GOP opposes all of them, while continuing to push for deficit reduction.
September 2010: In Obama’s first fiscal year, the deficit shrinks by $122 billion. Republicans again condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing. GOP continues to accuse Obama of fiscal irresponsibility.
March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage — a move without precedent in American history — until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.
August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues. Republicans rejoice and blame Obama for fiscal irresponsibility.
There have been several instances since the mid 1990s in which I genuinely believed Republican politics couldn’t possibly get more blisteringly ridiculous. I was wrong; they just keep getting worse."
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Is there ONE adult left in the GOP?!?
You certainly wouldn't know it from the way the debt ceiling business has gone on...
A simple procedure that was little more than a rubber stamp while Ronald Reagan was tripling the National Debt - and George W. Bush was doubling it - has suddenly become THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD.
To understand what it's all about, read this.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the debt ceiling has been increased by Congress 74 times since 1962. On average, that's about 3 times every couple of years. Under George W. Bush, it was raised 10 times in 8 years. We never heard about it. But now a Black guy is President. Makes you wonder...
But once again, the Republican Party is REALLY hoping you have a short memory. When Americans blamed Republicans for the government shut down in 1995, one would think the GOP learned their lesson. But the eternally short memories of Republicans and their apparent inability to deal in historical fact once again compels them to try something that failed. What is it about the GOP that makes them believe that they can hold America hostage?
As the debt ceiling deadline approaches, Republicans are once again sticking to their guns, refusing any and all deals that include tax increases on the wealthiest Americans.
BIG surprise (rolls eyes).
I have continually said for over a decade that, unless you make over $250K/year,Republicans do not give a damn about you - they seem hell-bent on proving me right.
Their recklessness and general irresponsibility over that span of time has put us in the economic situation we are currently in and once again they are willing to dig us deeper into economic calamity. It’s as if they think that a recession isn’t enough, that what they really want is a second Great Depression.
If Americans weren't clear about Republican intent before, they damn well better have clarity now. The Republicans have thrown hissy fit after hissy fit over the insistence of Democrats (and over 2/3 of the American people) that raising taxes on the wealthy and closing tax loopholes on large corporations be part of any debt ceiling deal. Their refusal to agree to revenue increases of ANY KIND means that they are negotiating in bad faith. President Obama, despite taking heat from his own party, put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table and that still wasn’t good enough for the GOP. As the President stated earlier, Can Republicans say yes to anything? Republicans expect Democrats to cave in and givhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gife Republicans everything they want, and at the same time refuse to give Democrats anything in return. It’s a dishonest and dangerous game. It reminds me much of Yasser Arafat in 2000 - the Israelis made him an offer that gave the Palestinians over 90% of what he said he wanted, and he walked away, throwing Middle East peace away with both hands. That is precisely what Speaker Boehner is doing to the US Economy.
Republicans are already trying desperately to lay the blame at the feet of the Democratic Party in an attempt to spin away from the fact that they have been intentionally sabotaging the economy for political and personal gain. Eric Cantor is set to gain financially if the economy crashes and it is likely that many other Republicans have something to gain as well. They have made bets that the United States will fail, and they are doing everything they can to bring it to ruin. The Republican Party is using fear over the economy to advance their agenda and gain power. Their main goal is to make President Obama fail and has been since the day he won in 2008.
That’s why they won’t say yes.
But their plan is beginning to backfire.
As things get worse, the American citizenry is waking up to realize that the Democrats are the adults in Washington and that Republicans are acting like children that can’t have everything their way. Speaker John Boehner rejected a grand bargain that would have required compromise from both sides. He has also claimed that Democrats haven’t offered anything, which is a flat-out lie. Eric Cantor stormed out of the debt talks simply because taxes were brought up. Mitch McConnell continues to accuse Democrats of not negotiating in good faith. But all Democrats have asked for is that the wealthy pay only a bit more in taxes and that the tax subsidies for Big Oil and other corporate tax loopholes come to an end.
Republicans have continually sided with corporations and the wealthiest 2% of Americans. They have spent all of their time in Congress tearing down programs that benefit the other 98% of the American people. They have managed to spend every single moment in the House of Representatives focusing on their social agenda and have not spent any time on jobs and the economy. In fact, they have contributed to the unemployment rate by slashing government jobs and have destroyed jobs that depend on government funding such as Planned Parenthood. Their biggest campaign issue in 2010 was job creation, and now they don’t want to take it seriously.
When August 2nd arrives and America defaults, it will absolutely, no doubt about it, be the fault of the Republican Party. When Social Security checks fail to go out, senior citizens WILL notice. When our men and women in uniform go unpaid for their sacrifices, they WILL notice. And when businesses come to a standstill because the government shuts down, small business owners and even greedy CEOs WILL notice. And who will they all blame you ask? Surveys are showing that most Americans will blame the GOP for a government shut down. 71% of Americans disapprove of Congressional Republicans. And even if Congress kicks the can down the road, Republicans will still be blamed for not negotiating in good faith and for their irresponsible political posturing on behalf of the wealthy and corporations that results in no real solution to the big issue. Republicans are ignoring the vast majority of the American people at their own peril and may even take heat from their own masters since their profits ultimately depend upon a stable economy. Default is not good for anyone in these troubled times and Republicans are only making things worse (as usual).
The Republicans had the spending cuts they wanted on the table and they rejected them solely on the grounds that their corporate masters would see an increase in taxes. The way I see it, if the Republicans got the spending cuts they demanded, Democrats should get to close some tax loopholes for the rich like they’ve demanded. Of course in a perfect world, Democrats would take Social Security and Medicare off the table, and replace them with cuts to defense instead. The silver lining in all of this is that Republicans will get the blame. They actually believed that history wouldn’t repeat itself and that they could turn the tables on the Democrats this time. But just like they were in 1995, Republicans are being stubborn, uncompromising, and insensitive to the majority of Americans that demand a raise in taxes. As long as Republicans continue to demand spending cuts and reject revenue increases, they are finished politically and THAT is without a doubt something to look forward to, as this version of the GOP needs to go down HARD and be replaced by adults.
A simple procedure that was little more than a rubber stamp while Ronald Reagan was tripling the National Debt - and George W. Bush was doubling it - has suddenly become THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD.
To understand what it's all about, read this.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the debt ceiling has been increased by Congress 74 times since 1962. On average, that's about 3 times every couple of years. Under George W. Bush, it was raised 10 times in 8 years. We never heard about it. But now a Black guy is President. Makes you wonder...
But once again, the Republican Party is REALLY hoping you have a short memory. When Americans blamed Republicans for the government shut down in 1995, one would think the GOP learned their lesson. But the eternally short memories of Republicans and their apparent inability to deal in historical fact once again compels them to try something that failed. What is it about the GOP that makes them believe that they can hold America hostage?
As the debt ceiling deadline approaches, Republicans are once again sticking to their guns, refusing any and all deals that include tax increases on the wealthiest Americans.
BIG surprise (rolls eyes).
I have continually said for over a decade that, unless you make over $250K/year,Republicans do not give a damn about you - they seem hell-bent on proving me right.
Their recklessness and general irresponsibility over that span of time has put us in the economic situation we are currently in and once again they are willing to dig us deeper into economic calamity. It’s as if they think that a recession isn’t enough, that what they really want is a second Great Depression.
If Americans weren't clear about Republican intent before, they damn well better have clarity now. The Republicans have thrown hissy fit after hissy fit over the insistence of Democrats (and over 2/3 of the American people) that raising taxes on the wealthy and closing tax loopholes on large corporations be part of any debt ceiling deal. Their refusal to agree to revenue increases of ANY KIND means that they are negotiating in bad faith. President Obama, despite taking heat from his own party, put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table and that still wasn’t good enough for the GOP. As the President stated earlier, Can Republicans say yes to anything? Republicans expect Democrats to cave in and givhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gife Republicans everything they want, and at the same time refuse to give Democrats anything in return. It’s a dishonest and dangerous game. It reminds me much of Yasser Arafat in 2000 - the Israelis made him an offer that gave the Palestinians over 90% of what he said he wanted, and he walked away, throwing Middle East peace away with both hands. That is precisely what Speaker Boehner is doing to the US Economy.
Republicans are already trying desperately to lay the blame at the feet of the Democratic Party in an attempt to spin away from the fact that they have been intentionally sabotaging the economy for political and personal gain. Eric Cantor is set to gain financially if the economy crashes and it is likely that many other Republicans have something to gain as well. They have made bets that the United States will fail, and they are doing everything they can to bring it to ruin. The Republican Party is using fear over the economy to advance their agenda and gain power. Their main goal is to make President Obama fail and has been since the day he won in 2008.
That’s why they won’t say yes.
But their plan is beginning to backfire.
As things get worse, the American citizenry is waking up to realize that the Democrats are the adults in Washington and that Republicans are acting like children that can’t have everything their way. Speaker John Boehner rejected a grand bargain that would have required compromise from both sides. He has also claimed that Democrats haven’t offered anything, which is a flat-out lie. Eric Cantor stormed out of the debt talks simply because taxes were brought up. Mitch McConnell continues to accuse Democrats of not negotiating in good faith. But all Democrats have asked for is that the wealthy pay only a bit more in taxes and that the tax subsidies for Big Oil and other corporate tax loopholes come to an end.
Republicans have continually sided with corporations and the wealthiest 2% of Americans. They have spent all of their time in Congress tearing down programs that benefit the other 98% of the American people. They have managed to spend every single moment in the House of Representatives focusing on their social agenda and have not spent any time on jobs and the economy. In fact, they have contributed to the unemployment rate by slashing government jobs and have destroyed jobs that depend on government funding such as Planned Parenthood. Their biggest campaign issue in 2010 was job creation, and now they don’t want to take it seriously.
When August 2nd arrives and America defaults, it will absolutely, no doubt about it, be the fault of the Republican Party. When Social Security checks fail to go out, senior citizens WILL notice. When our men and women in uniform go unpaid for their sacrifices, they WILL notice. And when businesses come to a standstill because the government shuts down, small business owners and even greedy CEOs WILL notice. And who will they all blame you ask? Surveys are showing that most Americans will blame the GOP for a government shut down. 71% of Americans disapprove of Congressional Republicans. And even if Congress kicks the can down the road, Republicans will still be blamed for not negotiating in good faith and for their irresponsible political posturing on behalf of the wealthy and corporations that results in no real solution to the big issue. Republicans are ignoring the vast majority of the American people at their own peril and may even take heat from their own masters since their profits ultimately depend upon a stable economy. Default is not good for anyone in these troubled times and Republicans are only making things worse (as usual).
The Republicans had the spending cuts they wanted on the table and they rejected them solely on the grounds that their corporate masters would see an increase in taxes. The way I see it, if the Republicans got the spending cuts they demanded, Democrats should get to close some tax loopholes for the rich like they’ve demanded. Of course in a perfect world, Democrats would take Social Security and Medicare off the table, and replace them with cuts to defense instead. The silver lining in all of this is that Republicans will get the blame. They actually believed that history wouldn’t repeat itself and that they could turn the tables on the Democrats this time. But just like they were in 1995, Republicans are being stubborn, uncompromising, and insensitive to the majority of Americans that demand a raise in taxes. As long as Republicans continue to demand spending cuts and reject revenue increases, they are finished politically and THAT is without a doubt something to look forward to, as this version of the GOP needs to go down HARD and be replaced by adults.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Happy 4th of July!
Here's why we celebrate:
The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Happy 4th of July Weekend!
A pretty amazing video on America - how far we've come and how far we have yet to go to "form a more perfect Union":
http://youtu.be/j9apMRjugSA
I especially like REPUBLICAN Presidents Reagan and Bush43 speaking on religious freedom.
http://youtu.be/j9apMRjugSA
I especially like REPUBLICAN Presidents Reagan and Bush43 speaking on religious freedom.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Wow - a Republican talking SENSE...
...too bad she'll be labeled a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and run out of the party on a rail.
Her name is Nancy Argenziano, and she served as a Republican state representative and state senator in Florida whose districts included Citrus County. After serving in the Legislature, she served on the Florida Public Service Commission.
Here's some of what she had to say:
See the rest of Ms. Argenziano's impressive rant here.
Her name is Nancy Argenziano, and she served as a Republican state representative and state senator in Florida whose districts included Citrus County. After serving in the Legislature, she served on the Florida Public Service Commission.
Here's some of what she had to say:
"Make no mistake: This is not about liberals vs. conservatives — or Republicans vs. Democrats; it’s about what is right and what is wrong. The legislation and policies of the governor and legislative leadership are wrong.
It’s about shouting a warning to Floridians that their elected leaders are selling them down the river, saying one thing, but doing another.
In my 16 years in the Florida House, state Senate and Public Service Commission, I have tried to inform people about what was going on in their government and provided the inside scoop that political leaders did not want you to know about. I have been warning for years, and providing examples of our representative government/democracy being sold to the highest contributors, the slush funds, the corruption — that it really is about money.
I have been a Republican, and believe in the Republican principles of long ago: Less government in my private life; don’t tax us to death; personal freedom; personal responsibility; the right to protect myself and family; and for allowing business to do what it does best — do business, without excessive or unnecessary regulations.
But, contrary to the current crop of Republican leaders, I do not want Halliburton in charge of the Pentagon, BP heading up the Department of Environmental Protection, or Enron making energy policy.
In recent years I have seen much corruption; so much so that a grand jury ranked Florida No. 1 in corruption.
I have a problem with those who have hijacked the Republican Party to use it for their own self gain; those who wouldn’t have a clue what a Republican platform is and who have mutated the “R” philosophy beyond recognition.
I take offense that they use the hard-working grassroots level Republicans to help promote a philosophy that they do not practice. Many good Republicans who worked hard for this party have written books telling us what was happening, apparently to no avail. It cannot be that all that matters is that our side wins at any cost. I refuse to believe anyone could not see the harm in doing that."
See the rest of Ms. Argenziano's impressive rant here.
Friday, May 13, 2011
John McCain to Bush apologists: Stop lying about Bin Laden and torture
From yesterday's Washigton Post:
Senator John McCain has become - again - the John McCain of 2000, whom I could easily have voted for. THIS John McCain calls it like he sees it, and yesterday in an Op-Ed, McCain slammed the claim that the killing of Osama Bin Laden somehow vindicates the "enhanced interrogation" methods of the Bush administration. But he went even further. As the Post's Greg Sargent writes:
Here is video of McCain's entire speech: pretty lengthy, but the part Sargent quotes is about 5:40 in.
Senator John McCain has become - again - the John McCain of 2000, whom I could easily have voted for. THIS John McCain calls it like he sees it, and yesterday in an Op-Ed, McCain slammed the claim that the killing of Osama Bin Laden somehow vindicates the "enhanced interrogation" methods of the Bush administration. But he went even further. As the Post's Greg Sargent writes:
...on the Senate floor, he uncorked a new broadside that is quite remarkable, taking direct aim at Bush apologists who are reviving this debate in order to claim Bin Laden’s death as part of the Bush legacy.
McCain amplified his case, and called on former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey — whose recent op ed claiming torture led to Bin Laden has been widely cited by the right — to retract his claims. McCain’s speech is worth quoting at length:
“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:
“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.
“In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.
“I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’
“In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. (emphasis mine - DM) I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts (emphasis again mine -DM).
This is taking on the makings of an old-fashioned, barn-burning senatorial crusade, and it’s unclear if anyone of McCain’s stature is going to step up and make the pro-torture case. For all his flaws, McCain carries great authority on this issue because of his own past experiences.
It’s becoming clearer that despite the Obama administration’s desire to avoid relitigating the torture debate, this is precisely the time to do it. The emerging evidence is on the side of torture opponents: A careful and extensive New York Times investigation concluded that torture “played a small role at most” in tracking down Bin Laden. Beyond this, the larger dynamic is perfect: The president that has been widely derided by the right as weak for ending torture tracked down and killed the world’s most wanted terrorist. That’s a pretty strong starting point for this argument.
Republican Senators are apparently set to grill David Petraeus and Leon Panetta at their confirmation hearings over torture’s role in getting Bin Laden. So in addition to McCain’s increasingly high profile on the issue, we may soon see the popular Petraeus reiterating his opposition to torture in a high-visibility setting — after the Obama administration killed America’s number one terrorist foe. Gettin’ mighty interesting.
Here is video of McCain's entire speech: pretty lengthy, but the part Sargent quotes is about 5:40 in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
