When a thug points a gun at you, abuses you or burglarizes your home you do not ask if he or she is a Democrat, Republican or Independent. You feel violated.
Why then does it matter if the illegal or unethical behavior of an elected official is caused by a Democrat, Republican or Independent?
Too many times our officials are judged by their fellow officials and the media before all the facts are in. But too often they are also judged merely on the basis of their party affiliation. It shouldn't matter.
If the party is guilty of bad behavior a reprimand is not sufficient. In some cases even a censure is not sufficient. Sometimes jail is the only remedy. He or she should be relieved of their post and put on their pension, and only their share of the pension that they put money into.
If you voted for a candidate who behaved improperly in office you should be angry for his/her betraying your trust. To vote for the culprit again is utter foolishness. We should not be so forgiving. We will not get better representation until we demand it. Both parties have been shameful.
We need better Republicans AND better Democrats.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Immigration and Tea Partiers
I know this is not a solution, but I think it is a starting point:
Any illegal immigrant who commits a felony or a worse crime, or is convicted of an ethnic, racial, or gender hate crime shall be deported regardless of what country they came from. I see no reason to support them in our jails.
Tea Partiers are todays' radicals. To be a radical does not necessarily mean you are a liberal. It means you have departed from the usual or traditional. The main difference between today's radicals and the radicals of the older generation are that many of today's radicals are NRA supporters and carry guns while the radicals of the past protested for peace and were shot at.
Any illegal immigrant who commits a felony or a worse crime, or is convicted of an ethnic, racial, or gender hate crime shall be deported regardless of what country they came from. I see no reason to support them in our jails.
Tea Partiers are todays' radicals. To be a radical does not necessarily mean you are a liberal. It means you have departed from the usual or traditional. The main difference between today's radicals and the radicals of the older generation are that many of today's radicals are NRA supporters and carry guns while the radicals of the past protested for peace and were shot at.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
A sensible gun policy
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court's extending of gun rights across the nation has shown that it will never seek a middle ground. Some of the Justices could care little about fairness or public safety. They are puppets of the National Rifle Association and lock-step proponents of a Constitutional amendment written before there were urban areas, before there were police departments, long before there were automatic weapons and at a time when the British enemy lived among us.
Times have changed, but the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge it.
Being practical and pragmatic, I have come to the conclusion that to fight for gun control is a losing proposition. I suggest we take a different approach.
I think we have to get the point across to the NRA that we do not want to take their guns away. They can have them. All we want to do is make it safer.
One way to do that is to make sure that all guns are insured. We make people insure their cars. That way in an accident the injured have redress. The insurance industry welcomed that initiative.
Why are they not fighting for guns to be insured? They are afraid of their friends in the NRA. But if we make gun owners carry gun insurance they will be more careful with their guns.
I do not understand why Mayor Bloomberg has not attempted to pass a law requiring guns to be insured. I think he could get it through the state legislature.
Times have changed, but the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge it.
Being practical and pragmatic, I have come to the conclusion that to fight for gun control is a losing proposition. I suggest we take a different approach.
I think we have to get the point across to the NRA that we do not want to take their guns away. They can have them. All we want to do is make it safer.
One way to do that is to make sure that all guns are insured. We make people insure their cars. That way in an accident the injured have redress. The insurance industry welcomed that initiative.
Why are they not fighting for guns to be insured? They are afraid of their friends in the NRA. But if we make gun owners carry gun insurance they will be more careful with their guns.
I do not understand why Mayor Bloomberg has not attempted to pass a law requiring guns to be insured. I think he could get it through the state legislature.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Obama Report Card
Am I happy with President Obama's Health Care reform stand? I give him a C+.
Am I happy with his stand on the BP oil spill? I give him a C.
Am I happy with his reform work on the banking industry? C+.
Am I happy with his work on Wall Street Reform? Another C.
What seems to be the problem?
Obama miscalculated the damage that Reagan's trickle down economics and Bush and Cheney's tax cut had done to our economic system, and promised more than he could achieve. He also underestimated the Blue Dog Democrats - they're really Dixiecrats - and the Republican ideology of "Yes we Can" destroy Obama's plans.
Overall, I give his work up until now a B-. I give him points for achieving whatever he has done. The political climate is ridiculous.
In case you haven't read, some of the Gulf residents who are looking for his help on the BP oil spill and blame the administration for not doing more, are also saying he should not have a moratorium on deep drilling oil rigs, as they need the jobs. What about the Gulf fisherman? Don't they also need jobs?
If Obama he had more Democrats helping or more Republicans cooperating and achieved the same things I would give him an F. But he needs some help and his own party needs to get a backbone. If he gets help I'd like to see what he can accomplish. I believe he can work up to a B+.
Am I happy with his stand on the BP oil spill? I give him a C.
Am I happy with his reform work on the banking industry? C+.
Am I happy with his work on Wall Street Reform? Another C.
What seems to be the problem?
Obama miscalculated the damage that Reagan's trickle down economics and Bush and Cheney's tax cut had done to our economic system, and promised more than he could achieve. He also underestimated the Blue Dog Democrats - they're really Dixiecrats - and the Republican ideology of "Yes we Can" destroy Obama's plans.
Overall, I give his work up until now a B-. I give him points for achieving whatever he has done. The political climate is ridiculous.
In case you haven't read, some of the Gulf residents who are looking for his help on the BP oil spill and blame the administration for not doing more, are also saying he should not have a moratorium on deep drilling oil rigs, as they need the jobs. What about the Gulf fisherman? Don't they also need jobs?
If Obama he had more Democrats helping or more Republicans cooperating and achieved the same things I would give him an F. But he needs some help and his own party needs to get a backbone. If he gets help I'd like to see what he can accomplish. I believe he can work up to a B+.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The trouble with polls
If you watch talk shows or listen to talk radio you hear some strange and confusing things.
The Democrats have a poll that shows that 67% of the people want a public option in the Health Care plan. The Republicans and the Tea Partiers have a poll that shows that 52 % of the people don't want any Health Care plan at all. How is it possible that both of them are right?
Simple. It depends on who is polled and how they are polled.
Take Jack Cafferty's poll. He editorializes before he asks the question which automatically skews the answers he gets. Take Ed Schultz's poll. His audience will come up with answers that he expects. The same goes for most of CNN's polls and the O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaughs polls. The same goes for Miringoff, Quinipiac, Roper, Gallop or anyone else.
They all have a list of whom to poll. After a few polls they have a pretty good idea of how a person will answer. They know who is Conservative, who is Liberal, and who is independent. So if they are being paid by someone who wants to show a Conservative or Liberal leaning, all they have to do is call those people who will give them the answers they are seeking.
They will argue that having that list shows trends, which is somewhat true. If 10% of the people they call show that they are changing their position it is what some organizations want to know.
Unfortunately it also allows them to skew the polls.
You pay me enough to poll and I will get a poll that shows some people believe that Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are the same guy. I will also get you a poll that says that most people do not believe any polls, because they have never been polled.
If you want to judge a poll, find out who paid for it. Think of what they are looking for, and how they benefit from the poll.
The problem with some polls is that we elect our officials sometimes because of poll numbers and they vote on legislation based on polling. Polls can be beneficial, but remember to question why they're done.
No poll can show what the American electorate really thinks. They are just samples and should be treated as samples.
That is why they are sometimes dead wrong.
The Democrats have a poll that shows that 67% of the people want a public option in the Health Care plan. The Republicans and the Tea Partiers have a poll that shows that 52 % of the people don't want any Health Care plan at all. How is it possible that both of them are right?
Simple. It depends on who is polled and how they are polled.
Take Jack Cafferty's poll. He editorializes before he asks the question which automatically skews the answers he gets. Take Ed Schultz's poll. His audience will come up with answers that he expects. The same goes for most of CNN's polls and the O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaughs polls. The same goes for Miringoff, Quinipiac, Roper, Gallop or anyone else.
They all have a list of whom to poll. After a few polls they have a pretty good idea of how a person will answer. They know who is Conservative, who is Liberal, and who is independent. So if they are being paid by someone who wants to show a Conservative or Liberal leaning, all they have to do is call those people who will give them the answers they are seeking.
They will argue that having that list shows trends, which is somewhat true. If 10% of the people they call show that they are changing their position it is what some organizations want to know.
Unfortunately it also allows them to skew the polls.
You pay me enough to poll and I will get a poll that shows some people believe that Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are the same guy. I will also get you a poll that says that most people do not believe any polls, because they have never been polled.
If you want to judge a poll, find out who paid for it. Think of what they are looking for, and how they benefit from the poll.
The problem with some polls is that we elect our officials sometimes because of poll numbers and they vote on legislation based on polling. Polls can be beneficial, but remember to question why they're done.
No poll can show what the American electorate really thinks. They are just samples and should be treated as samples.
That is why they are sometimes dead wrong.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Hypocrisy and the Hippocratic Oath
One last try to change at least one person's opinion an abortion and health care.
Abortion comes under health care in incidents of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. It does not come under health care when it is elective - if the mother just decides she does not want the baby. If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs had only fought to have elective abortions uncovered, they would not have been hypocrites, that's their standard view. But to include rape, incest and health issues made their objections not about health, but about religion.
Religion should not be a basis for government decisions on health care.
Health issues are a basis for a sound economy. We cannot allow people who are sick to go without care because they cannot afford it, because ultimately the people who can afford it pay for it anyway.
Republicans and Tea Partiers denounce the so-called "Obamacare" as Socialism, but with the elimination of the public option, it's strikingly similar to the Massachusetts plan for which Mitt Romney takes credit. Why do they so vehemently stick to this cry of Socialism, when, ironically, the demographics of the aging Tea Partiers show a large percentage of them to be recipients of Social Security and Medicare, government programs much more closely related to the Socialism they claim to despise.
And what about the Republican congressmen and senators who receive government health care at the same time they lambaste the concept of government health care. If the government can administer their care why not the citizens who pay for it.
Abortion comes under health care in incidents of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. It does not come under health care when it is elective - if the mother just decides she does not want the baby. If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs had only fought to have elective abortions uncovered, they would not have been hypocrites, that's their standard view. But to include rape, incest and health issues made their objections not about health, but about religion.
Religion should not be a basis for government decisions on health care.
Health issues are a basis for a sound economy. We cannot allow people who are sick to go without care because they cannot afford it, because ultimately the people who can afford it pay for it anyway.
Republicans and Tea Partiers denounce the so-called "Obamacare" as Socialism, but with the elimination of the public option, it's strikingly similar to the Massachusetts plan for which Mitt Romney takes credit. Why do they so vehemently stick to this cry of Socialism, when, ironically, the demographics of the aging Tea Partiers show a large percentage of them to be recipients of Social Security and Medicare, government programs much more closely related to the Socialism they claim to despise.
And what about the Republican congressmen and senators who receive government health care at the same time they lambaste the concept of government health care. If the government can administer their care why not the citizens who pay for it.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Two mad dogs are loose
Dick Cheney should be the last one to criticize anyone on how to handle terrorists.
The same goes for former Mayor Giuliani.
When you have a catastrophe most of the intelligence is to move people out of harm's way as quickly as possible.
That was done with the Tsunami. Done, though poorly, with Hurricane Katrina. Done when we have a tornado and almost any other catastrophe.
But in the 9/11 debacle Giuliani took the opposite approach. If you were stuck in the area during 9/11, Giuliani made sure you were stuck there. Buses and subways avoided the area. Traumatized New Yorkers had to go to Canal Street, which was quite a walk, to get a subway. if you were in a wheelchair or walked with a cane that became virtually impossible. You just had to stay and breathe the stale and suffocating air.
I am sure they thought there was a good reason for that approach, but it did not work out. Giuliani's plan may have been done with good intentions, but it wasn't good and he should not pretend now that it was. He should not take pride in saying he did a great job under those circumstances.
The same goes for former Mayor Giuliani.
When you have a catastrophe most of the intelligence is to move people out of harm's way as quickly as possible.
That was done with the Tsunami. Done, though poorly, with Hurricane Katrina. Done when we have a tornado and almost any other catastrophe.
But in the 9/11 debacle Giuliani took the opposite approach. If you were stuck in the area during 9/11, Giuliani made sure you were stuck there. Buses and subways avoided the area. Traumatized New Yorkers had to go to Canal Street, which was quite a walk, to get a subway. if you were in a wheelchair or walked with a cane that became virtually impossible. You just had to stay and breathe the stale and suffocating air.
I am sure they thought there was a good reason for that approach, but it did not work out. Giuliani's plan may have been done with good intentions, but it wasn't good and he should not pretend now that it was. He should not take pride in saying he did a great job under those circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
