This brouhaha about the President speaking to classrooms across the country tomorrow would be absurd if there weren't such scary undertones. I mean, really...what harm can the President do with a short speech to the children of our country?
Think about it. All he's going to do is to tell the students to work hard, stay in school and strive to be a success in life. What's more telling is the fact that he is black. He is an inspiration to minorities everywhere in this country. After Obama's election, I heard a black commentator emotionally express the fact that now that a black man has become President, he can truly say to his children that one can achieve anything in this country if one perseveres.
What do these parents/citizens think will happen to the children after a five to ten minute speech by the President of the United States? Are they somehow going to be irrevocably “tainted” by his message? They will instantly become dreaded “liburals” upon the completion of the speech? Good grief...they might even become “pod people” (“You're next!”)? This is not the equivalent of a re-education camp brainwashing.
Does anyone really think that after a five to ten minute speech, a child's current mindset on life is irrevocably changed from the input they've been receiving from family and friends through their entire lives? President Obama's short message will not “curve your spine...or keep the country from winning the war“(apologies to George Carlin).
Presidents in the past have spoken to the children of our nation (Reagan, Bush I to start) and not a squawk was heard. This is the ugly undercurrent. Is it that the President is black that foments the outrage making this particular presentation different from past presidential school speeches? Is it that he's a democrat? Is it the desire by the (maybe not so) extreme right to foil the President on every single gesture he makes no matter how benign?
Are we really at that point in time that we will not work together to make this a better country and only our self-interests must be addressed? A “We need to utterly destroy those who do not agree with us at every turn” mentality?
I remember as a young student that any break in the normal school routine was welcome relief. Having the President break up the routine and let the children be aware that they can realize great accomplishments through perseverance is nothing but a positive gain for the children.
It astounds me that this subject matter even needs to be addressed. It's a five to ten minute, inspirational speech, people. Get over it!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Private Health Insurance Has GOT to Go!
I have been in favor of single payer health care for decades. It appalls me that this great country of ours is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have some kind of single payer avenue for “we, the people.”
The latest polls show that the majority of Americans want some kind of single payer system. Yet, here we are at the threshold of health care “reform,” and the greatly watered-down version of single payer, the “public option,” is in danger of being flung off the table! Our government representatives are NOT speaking for the people. They’re speaking for the moneyed interests who are massively profiting from those who are sick and dying and diverting those profits into the pockets of our representatives.
I am so sick of hearing about “death panels” (whoever first coined that phrase should be hung by the yardarm), or worse yet, the absolutely stupid question of us wanting some “government bureaucrat” deciding on our health. Hello? Who is now currently deciding on our health care? Some “insurance bureaucrat” whose sole interest is generating profits for the insurance conglomerates, which leads him or her to deny benefits for the flimsiest of reasons.
The horror stories of citizens who for years dutifully paid their “premiums” suddenly needing health care are denied for “pre-existing conditions” or “incorrect filling out of the health form,” thus invalidating the claim are rampant in this country. This is ridiculous!
The best idea I’ve heard came first came from Dr. Marcia Angell, currently a lecturer at Harvard Medical School. She was on “Bill Moyers Journal” July 24, 2009 (The emphasis is mine):
Love it! I’ve heard the idea of gradually lowering the age for Medicare a few times since then, but Dr. Angell is right on with this comment. Let’s incrementally lower Medicare until all are covered, and let the private insurance companies go play with “hurricanes, earthquakes or something.”
Better yet, have them go away and come up with something better. If they crassly deny those needing health care, letting them die or remain infirm, all in the name of the almighty dollar, they most likely will do a variation of the theme with disaster victims…and who needs that?
The latest polls show that the majority of Americans want some kind of single payer system. Yet, here we are at the threshold of health care “reform,” and the greatly watered-down version of single payer, the “public option,” is in danger of being flung off the table! Our government representatives are NOT speaking for the people. They’re speaking for the moneyed interests who are massively profiting from those who are sick and dying and diverting those profits into the pockets of our representatives.
I am so sick of hearing about “death panels” (whoever first coined that phrase should be hung by the yardarm), or worse yet, the absolutely stupid question of us wanting some “government bureaucrat” deciding on our health. Hello? Who is now currently deciding on our health care? Some “insurance bureaucrat” whose sole interest is generating profits for the insurance conglomerates, which leads him or her to deny benefits for the flimsiest of reasons.
The horror stories of citizens who for years dutifully paid their “premiums” suddenly needing health care are denied for “pre-existing conditions” or “incorrect filling out of the health form,” thus invalidating the claim are rampant in this country. This is ridiculous!
The best idea I’ve heard came first came from Dr. Marcia Angell, currently a lecturer at Harvard Medical School. She was on “Bill Moyers Journal” July 24, 2009 (The emphasis is mine):
“I think we have to start all over on this. I really do. I think we have to go for a single payer system. You could institute that gradually. You could do it state by state. You could do it decade by decade. You could improve Medicare. That is, make it nonprofit. But extend it down to age 55 and age 45 and age 35. It would give the private insurance industry a chance to go into hurricanes, earthquakes or something. To get out of the health business. It could be done gradually. I think that has to be done. And it's the only thing that can be done.”
Love it! I’ve heard the idea of gradually lowering the age for Medicare a few times since then, but Dr. Angell is right on with this comment. Let’s incrementally lower Medicare until all are covered, and let the private insurance companies go play with “hurricanes, earthquakes or something.”
Better yet, have them go away and come up with something better. If they crassly deny those needing health care, letting them die or remain infirm, all in the name of the almighty dollar, they most likely will do a variation of the theme with disaster victims…and who needs that?
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Doing the Right Thing
On July 23rd, Amy Goodman had anti-corporate pranksters “The Yes Men” on her show, “Democracy, Now!”. They have a new film called “The Yes Men Fix the World.” It’s a very interesting interview if you’re of a mind, but I want to point out something during the interview that profoundly struck me.
One of the hoaxes they pulled was “Yes Man” Andy Bichlbaum posing as Dow Chemical spokesperson "Jude Finnesterra" for an international BBC interview back in 2004. Under that guise, he proceeded to “do the right thing” and have Dow admit that Union Carbide was responsible for the infamous 1984 Bhopal industrial accident. Here is some of what he said:
Keep in mind that this was a total fabrication. Here is the part that really, really gets me. After word got out that Dow was “accepting full responsibility,” according to Juan Gonzalez, co-host of “Democracy Now!,” it cost Dow Chemical over $2 billion in market value within a half-hour.
Think about it. The World was under the impression that a giant, multi-national corporation was going to do the right thing and help those that Union Carbide caused great suffering, and the value of the corporation goes down by $2 billion! How pathetic is that?
I know it’s very naïve of me, but I would hope that a giant corporation who causes grief among the world’s population would reap benefits from its generosity in admitting and rectifying the disaster that it caused. The fact that Dow dropped $2 billion just reinforces other multinational corporations to deny, deny and deny again any responsibility for disasters they cause.
The ultimate questions are: What does it say to us as a world community that corporations suffer if they do the right thing? Is the world really a two-tiered system in which the moneyed power players don’t want the multinationals to “do the right thing” under threat of major devaluation and the rest of us folk have no say or influence in the matter? Really sad.
One of the hoaxes they pulled was “Yes Man” Andy Bichlbaum posing as Dow Chemical spokesperson "Jude Finnesterra" for an international BBC interview back in 2004. Under that guise, he proceeded to “do the right thing” and have Dow admit that Union Carbide was responsible for the infamous 1984 Bhopal industrial accident. Here is some of what he said:
Today is a great day for all of us at Dow and, I think, for millions of people around the world, as well. It's twenty years since the disaster. And today I’m very, very happy to announce that for the first time Dow is accepting full responsibility for the Bhopal catastrophe.
We have a $12 billion plan to finally, at long last, fully compensate the victims, including the 120,000 who may need medical care for their entire lives, and to fully and swiftly remediate the Bhopal plant site.
Keep in mind that this was a total fabrication. Here is the part that really, really gets me. After word got out that Dow was “accepting full responsibility,” according to Juan Gonzalez, co-host of “Democracy Now!,” it cost Dow Chemical over $2 billion in market value within a half-hour.
Think about it. The World was under the impression that a giant, multi-national corporation was going to do the right thing and help those that Union Carbide caused great suffering, and the value of the corporation goes down by $2 billion! How pathetic is that?
I know it’s very naïve of me, but I would hope that a giant corporation who causes grief among the world’s population would reap benefits from its generosity in admitting and rectifying the disaster that it caused. The fact that Dow dropped $2 billion just reinforces other multinational corporations to deny, deny and deny again any responsibility for disasters they cause.
The ultimate questions are: What does it say to us as a world community that corporations suffer if they do the right thing? Is the world really a two-tiered system in which the moneyed power players don’t want the multinationals to “do the right thing” under threat of major devaluation and the rest of us folk have no say or influence in the matter? Really sad.
Monday, June 29, 2009
"Waste" Used in the Wrong Context
I was just over at ThinkProgress, and I ran across this quote from the “Dick” himself (Cheney) regarding the deadline approaching for us to remove troops from Iraq:
“I hope Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own. But I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point.“
Sorry, but the “waste” of 4,316 American lives (as of this writing) prior to this moment rests fully on him and Bush. They wanted to get us into a war and, by God, by hook or crook, they did it. Never mind the lives permanently lost because of their desire to overthrow Hussein. These chicken hawks should be held accountable for every one of those lives.
I’ve written about this a couple of times in the past. We need to get out and stay out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. No ifs, ands, or buts. Period.
How dare Cheney use this excuse for staying put? We’ve acted like bullying conquerors, invading a nation with no good reason. I repeat…no GOOD reason. This pre-emptive bulls**t doctrine that Bush fomented years ago is totally outrageous on its face. I realize this has been gone over and over, again and again, but what right do we have to decide some country will attack us in the future; therefore, we must attack them first? To play the tape to its conclusion, that means we can attack ANY country, because, who knows, fifty or a hundred years from now it could be our enemy. Might as well attack them now, just to be safe!
We are now a permanent war state, ladies and gentlemen. Obama has picked up the ball and is running with it in Afghanistan. And if you think that we will be completely out of Iraq any time within the next century, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Florida.
“Tremendous sacrifice,” my ass. Better to cut our losses (and not "waste" any more lives) and become the country we should be. One that leads the world in freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, we have to clean our house big time before we can get to that level of respect from the rest of the world. And we should start by punishing those responsible for murdering over 4,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. Bush and Cheney shall be first.
I want us working on our own problems (and we have many, to be sure), and when another nation asks us for help, we will lend an altruistic hand in friendship. Every country has the right to its own sovereignty. We should NOT impose our will nor force ourselves upon it. Hegemony should not be our mantra.
“I hope Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own. But I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point.“
Sorry, but the “waste” of 4,316 American lives (as of this writing) prior to this moment rests fully on him and Bush. They wanted to get us into a war and, by God, by hook or crook, they did it. Never mind the lives permanently lost because of their desire to overthrow Hussein. These chicken hawks should be held accountable for every one of those lives.
I’ve written about this a couple of times in the past. We need to get out and stay out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. No ifs, ands, or buts. Period.
How dare Cheney use this excuse for staying put? We’ve acted like bullying conquerors, invading a nation with no good reason. I repeat…no GOOD reason. This pre-emptive bulls**t doctrine that Bush fomented years ago is totally outrageous on its face. I realize this has been gone over and over, again and again, but what right do we have to decide some country will attack us in the future; therefore, we must attack them first? To play the tape to its conclusion, that means we can attack ANY country, because, who knows, fifty or a hundred years from now it could be our enemy. Might as well attack them now, just to be safe!
We are now a permanent war state, ladies and gentlemen. Obama has picked up the ball and is running with it in Afghanistan. And if you think that we will be completely out of Iraq any time within the next century, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Florida.
“Tremendous sacrifice,” my ass. Better to cut our losses (and not "waste" any more lives) and become the country we should be. One that leads the world in freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, we have to clean our house big time before we can get to that level of respect from the rest of the world. And we should start by punishing those responsible for murdering over 4,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. Bush and Cheney shall be first.
I want us working on our own problems (and we have many, to be sure), and when another nation asks us for help, we will lend an altruistic hand in friendship. Every country has the right to its own sovereignty. We should NOT impose our will nor force ourselves upon it. Hegemony should not be our mantra.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Celebrity Ratings Bonanzas
I just knew this was coming:
From Howard Kurtz, Media Correspondent (CNN & Washington Post) -
"Michael Jackson TV ratings in U.S.: ...Cable ratings thru the roof. CNN up 973% at one point, MSNBC 330%, Fox 243%"
We are definitely a celebrity driven society. Of course, the government loves this...they can now do unnoticed major profitable business with the multinational corporations (conglomerates) at the expense of the common person. They’ve been able to do this for decades (think O.J. Simpson in the 90’s), and look where it’s gotten us.
The masses stay focused on this "tragedy" and other perpetual celebrity "major events," ad nauseum. Ergo, this leads to their not paying attention to what's really going on that's affecting their lives. It gives "The Powers That Be" opportunities to create policy and pass laws that will slip past a deliberately uninformed public.
The ratings bonanza further feeds the Main Stream Media sharks to keep paying close attention to celebrities, waiting for the next ratings boom (read: profits) and continually keeps the focus away from the really important issues in our lives.
Another method of making us look the other way is to make celebrities out of missing women. Of course, the women must be white, middle class and very attractive (usually blond). A child will also do. Once one turns up missing we then get weeks and weeks of hammering all the same “what if” or “who could have” scenarios as the hunt goes on. And the ratings escalate with the drama.
One last point: The Main Stream Media outlets are completely owned by the multinationals. As an example, GE (major war equipment supplier) owns NBC and MSNBC. They (GE, et. al.) are extremely interested in sleight-of-hand manipulation in order to garner more profits.
During the hysterical drumbeat to war with Iran, Phil Donahue, an anti-war activist, had a show on MSNBC that was one of the highest rated shows on that network. MSNBC (remember, owned by war-profiteering GE) demanded he match his anti-war guests with pro-war advocates. By the way, the pro-war were to be two to one (they felt Phil counted as an anti-war advocate). MSNBC canceled his show just before we attacked that sovereign nation because they were afraid to look like the anti-war network. At least, that was the spin.
I do recommend a documentary entitled: “War Made Easy: How the Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” The film talks about how we, the people, are manipulated into a war fever. Great film.
If you're old enough, remember the days when network news (Huntley/Brinkley, Cronkite) delivered news, nothing but the news and there was no concern whether there were profits to be made in the network news business? I did hear on a show that the death of Elvis was the second lead story of a major news network (I forget which one) after an actual "news" event. My...how things have changed.
Now? The "news" is basically "infotainment." 'Tis a pity...
From Howard Kurtz, Media Correspondent (CNN & Washington Post) -
"Michael Jackson TV ratings in U.S.: ...Cable ratings thru the roof. CNN up 973% at one point, MSNBC 330%, Fox 243%"
We are definitely a celebrity driven society. Of course, the government loves this...they can now do unnoticed major profitable business with the multinational corporations (conglomerates) at the expense of the common person. They’ve been able to do this for decades (think O.J. Simpson in the 90’s), and look where it’s gotten us.
The masses stay focused on this "tragedy" and other perpetual celebrity "major events," ad nauseum. Ergo, this leads to their not paying attention to what's really going on that's affecting their lives. It gives "The Powers That Be" opportunities to create policy and pass laws that will slip past a deliberately uninformed public.
The ratings bonanza further feeds the Main Stream Media sharks to keep paying close attention to celebrities, waiting for the next ratings boom (read: profits) and continually keeps the focus away from the really important issues in our lives.
Another method of making us look the other way is to make celebrities out of missing women. Of course, the women must be white, middle class and very attractive (usually blond). A child will also do. Once one turns up missing we then get weeks and weeks of hammering all the same “what if” or “who could have” scenarios as the hunt goes on. And the ratings escalate with the drama.
One last point: The Main Stream Media outlets are completely owned by the multinationals. As an example, GE (major war equipment supplier) owns NBC and MSNBC. They (GE, et. al.) are extremely interested in sleight-of-hand manipulation in order to garner more profits.
During the hysterical drumbeat to war with Iran, Phil Donahue, an anti-war activist, had a show on MSNBC that was one of the highest rated shows on that network. MSNBC (remember, owned by war-profiteering GE) demanded he match his anti-war guests with pro-war advocates. By the way, the pro-war were to be two to one (they felt Phil counted as an anti-war advocate). MSNBC canceled his show just before we attacked that sovereign nation because they were afraid to look like the anti-war network. At least, that was the spin.
I do recommend a documentary entitled: “War Made Easy: How the Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” The film talks about how we, the people, are manipulated into a war fever. Great film.
If you're old enough, remember the days when network news (Huntley/Brinkley, Cronkite) delivered news, nothing but the news and there was no concern whether there were profits to be made in the network news business? I did hear on a show that the death of Elvis was the second lead story of a major news network (I forget which one) after an actual "news" event. My...how things have changed.
Now? The "news" is basically "infotainment." 'Tis a pity...
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Single-Payer "Non-Issue"
Last Tuesday (05/04/09) in addition to what I wrote about yesterday, Amy Goodman also interviewed Sen. Russ Feingold at last week’s gathering for the 100th anniversary of the magazine called “The Progressive.” I’ve never really read it; however, what with all the hoopla about it, and the positive feedback I’ve witnessed over the Internet, I’m going to give it a look.
Anyway, at the conclusion of the interview, Amy brought up the subject of “single-payer healthcare” (emphasis mine):
Loosely described, the single-payer health issue means public funding for private treatment.
Think about it. Most people are for this, yet Sen. Feingold says it “can’t happen now.” And why? He knows “the members of Congress…” and they resist because it won’t pass. His reason is absolutely bogus however. Look at his nebulous response to Amy’s question about the resistance. Concern of “criticisms that it’s a great bureaucracy program.” Wrong! That’s the spin. However, I did notice a very sly grin from the Senator. I’m really tired of the wink, wink, nod, nod excuses.
The real reason, in my opinion, is the Health Insurance Corporations (read HMO’s) would lose the massive profits they are raking in with the current system. This, in turn, allows the seriously ill to prematurely or even needlessly die because these HMO’s reject treatment in order to maintain their profit margins. And the congressional “resistance” is due to the fact the lobbyists for the Insurance Corporations are pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of Congresspersons and the elected officials of the Executive Branch. I’m disappointed that Sen. Feingold didn’t have the courage to say that.
The good news is that there are those out there who continue to hammer our Congress about the single-payer issues. From today’s Democracy Now! headline news:
Can you believe that the majority of Americans want single-payer health care and yet the “august” Senator Baucus from Montana has the brass to publicly say that it is ”off-the-table.” Not even to be discussed! That is truly pathetic.
Here is another sad example of the majority of the population thinking one way, the moneyed fat cats with vested interests (the bottom line) thinking the opposite, and the fat cats getting their way. I really wonder when will this country “get it” and throw those currently in power out and elect those that work FOR the people not AGAINST them. I say start with Senator Baucus, then Senator Sessions (see yesterday’s post).
Anyway, at the conclusion of the interview, Amy brought up the subject of “single-payer healthcare” (emphasis mine):
AMY GOODMAN: I know that you have to go give the speech. One last question around the issue of healthcare. Do you support single-payer healthcare?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: I do. I always have. I don’t think there’s any possibility that that will come out of this Congress. And so, for people to simply say, “That’s—it’s this way or nothing,” are looking at something that can’t happen now. But I would love to see it. And I believe the goal here is to create whatever legislation we have in a way that could be developed into something like a single-payer system.
AMY GOODMAN: Why can’t it happen, since polls show most people are for it?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: I guarantee you. I know the members of Congress, and it’s not going to pass in this Congress. So, there are certain things that can’t happen right away, and this is one of them. But I do support a single-payer idea.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do they resist it?
SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, I think they’re afraid of the criticisms that it’s a big government bureaucracy program. You know, Paul Wellstone, before he died, started talking about having a guaranteed healthcare for all Americans, but having—giving the states flexibility to do it their own way. That’s not a single-payer system, but it achieves many of its same goals. I think that’s another way to get at this, and Paul Wellstone was even talking about it.
Loosely described, the single-payer health issue means public funding for private treatment.
Think about it. Most people are for this, yet Sen. Feingold says it “can’t happen now.” And why? He knows “the members of Congress…” and they resist because it won’t pass. His reason is absolutely bogus however. Look at his nebulous response to Amy’s question about the resistance. Concern of “criticisms that it’s a great bureaucracy program.” Wrong! That’s the spin. However, I did notice a very sly grin from the Senator. I’m really tired of the wink, wink, nod, nod excuses.
The real reason, in my opinion, is the Health Insurance Corporations (read HMO’s) would lose the massive profits they are raking in with the current system. This, in turn, allows the seriously ill to prematurely or even needlessly die because these HMO’s reject treatment in order to maintain their profit margins. And the congressional “resistance” is due to the fact the lobbyists for the Insurance Corporations are pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of Congresspersons and the elected officials of the Executive Branch. I’m disappointed that Sen. Feingold didn’t have the courage to say that.
The good news is that there are those out there who continue to hammer our Congress about the single-payer issues. From today’s Democracy Now! headline news:
On Capitol Hill, a group of doctors and activists directly challenged Democratic senators Tuesday for their refusal to discuss single-payer healthcare. The action came at a Senate Finance Committee meeting on healthcare reform. None of the fifteen witnesses called to testify support single payer, and the committee’s chair, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, has dismissed single payer as “off the table.” One by one, eight single-payer advocates stood up to challenge Baucus and call for single payer.
Mark Dudzic: “Unions that have endorsed single payer, why are their voices not being heard? Every healthcare lobbyist in America is at the table. When are the American people going to be heard? We need healthcare now! Put single payer on the table now!”
Adam Schneider: “We need to have to have single payer at the table. I have friends who have died, who don’t have healthcare, whose healthcare did not withstand their personal health emergencies. It’s only when the people that are living in the park and the people that are living on Park Avenue have the same healthcare that everybody will have high-quality healthcare. Single payer now!”
All eight single-payer advocates were arrested. The action was organized by the groups Single Payer Action and Healthcare-NOW!
Can you believe that the majority of Americans want single-payer health care and yet the “august” Senator Baucus from Montana has the brass to publicly say that it is ”off-the-table.” Not even to be discussed! That is truly pathetic.
Here is another sad example of the majority of the population thinking one way, the moneyed fat cats with vested interests (the bottom line) thinking the opposite, and the fat cats getting their way. I really wonder when will this country “get it” and throw those currently in power out and elect those that work FOR the people not AGAINST them. I say start with Senator Baucus, then Senator Sessions (see yesterday’s post).
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
An Enemy of Civil Rights
There were a couple of items on the “Democracy Now!” telecast today that really piqued my interest. I’ll write about one today and the other tomorrow.
During Amy Goodman’s headline news at the top of the show she talked about Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) becoming the head Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
What really got me was her reporting that Senator Sessions once “described the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union as Un-American and Communist-inspired because…” (now here’s the amazing part) “…they forced civil rights down the throats of people.” WTF???? I hadn’t heard that one before. Whoa!
I looked this up on Wikipedia (I know this can be an iffy endeavor re finding the truth), and not only were those two organizations besmirched but he included the NAACP as “Un-American” and “Communist-inspired” as well. According to the “Wik” (footnoted) he claims that it was in jest, but as far as I’m concerned that was his way of maintaining damage control.
I am astounded that Alabamans keep somebody like this in office. How on earth can someone with that take on our country possibly be elected? Are there really enough citizens of the United States out there that would allow a person with such a horrible outlook on those fine organizations, let alone his despicably callous attitude to our basic rights, be their representative?
Yet this guy has won three elections! I just don’t get it. Here is a man who believes “forcing civil rights down the throats of people” (I just HAD to rewrite that - it’s so off the chart) helping make decisions that will affect all of our rights in the future. And now he’s the top GOP in the Judiciary Committee. That is very scary indeed!
My question is, does a Senator rise in power just because of longevity and damned be his/her views or can his/her views pre-empt them from such a rise to power? If the former, change the promotion criteria immediately. If the latter, then the Senate is showing just how out of touch they are with the population by allowing this egregious individual any scintilla of power.
Do you really think the majority of Americans believe our civil rights shouldn’t be constantly monitored to prevent their being slyly abridged or even abrogated by those in power? These and other organizations are watchdogs on the rights of every American.
Of course, what the majority of the people in this country want is totally ignored by the Senate, which I’ll get into tomorrow.
During Amy Goodman’s headline news at the top of the show she talked about Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) becoming the head Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
What really got me was her reporting that Senator Sessions once “described the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union as Un-American and Communist-inspired because…” (now here’s the amazing part) “…they forced civil rights down the throats of people.” WTF???? I hadn’t heard that one before. Whoa!
I looked this up on Wikipedia (I know this can be an iffy endeavor re finding the truth), and not only were those two organizations besmirched but he included the NAACP as “Un-American” and “Communist-inspired” as well. According to the “Wik” (footnoted) he claims that it was in jest, but as far as I’m concerned that was his way of maintaining damage control.
I am astounded that Alabamans keep somebody like this in office. How on earth can someone with that take on our country possibly be elected? Are there really enough citizens of the United States out there that would allow a person with such a horrible outlook on those fine organizations, let alone his despicably callous attitude to our basic rights, be their representative?
Yet this guy has won three elections! I just don’t get it. Here is a man who believes “forcing civil rights down the throats of people” (I just HAD to rewrite that - it’s so off the chart) helping make decisions that will affect all of our rights in the future. And now he’s the top GOP in the Judiciary Committee. That is very scary indeed!
My question is, does a Senator rise in power just because of longevity and damned be his/her views or can his/her views pre-empt them from such a rise to power? If the former, change the promotion criteria immediately. If the latter, then the Senate is showing just how out of touch they are with the population by allowing this egregious individual any scintilla of power.
Do you really think the majority of Americans believe our civil rights shouldn’t be constantly monitored to prevent their being slyly abridged or even abrogated by those in power? These and other organizations are watchdogs on the rights of every American.
Of course, what the majority of the people in this country want is totally ignored by the Senate, which I’ll get into tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)