I believe that most Muslims are not violent, murdering psychopaths. So, I would like the good Muslims to get together and declare a new Islamic edict. A kind of Islamic Canon Law, if you will. I know there are 5 Pillars of Islam. Perhaps there is room for a 6th? I nominate: "Don't kill innocent people."
This new law would state that if you kill innocent people in the name of God, or your fucked up interpretation of God's words and laws, then you forfeit all rights to Martyrdom, Paradise/Heaven and virgins. Instead, you go to a sad, miserable place, somewhere more befitting violent, murdering psychopaths. Perhaps you spend eternity in your own sick, evil, hating soul.
That's it. Keep the other stuff you've been believing, but add that bylaw. Prayers are great, dietary restrictions are fine, well-intentioned traditions and customs are cool. But: "Don't kill innocent people."
I call on ALL religious leaders, Muslim or whatever, to stand before their loyal flocks and use any and every influence they have to declare that killing innocent people is never an act of honor or faith or worship. It is, in fact, perfectly contradictory to the belief in a loving God. That truth needs to be shouted from every Mosque, Church, and Temple.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Sequester: Real Threat, or The President Who Cried Wolf
For those who are being frightened by White House gloom and doom predictions of National tragedy if Sequester "cuts" take place after March 1st, please keep in mind that they are actually referring to $85 billion in cuts to the fiscal year's budget increase. It's a sleight of hand trick used often by dishonest, self-serving politicians (which is to say, politicians). Here is some insight from a Forbes Magazine Op-Ed on 2/19/13:
"The sequester “cuts” are subtracted after increasing appropriations subject to the sequester at the rate of inflation and adding back in more than a trillion dollars (over ten years) of spending exempted from the sequester.
Look at it this way: Let's say you paid a monthly rent payment of $3000 per month in 2012. Your property manager anticipates that your rent should increase to $3200 per month in 2013. As it turns out, your rent only increases to $3100 per month. So, would you say that your monthly rent payment was cut from $3000 in 2012 to only $3100 in 2013? Would you be surprised if your property manager told you that your home maintenance was going to be reduced because of their loss in revenue due to that "cut"?
Now, please imagine that the place you're renting has a leaky roof, rats running around all over the place, and you suspect there are a few dead bodies buried under the house, judging by the smell. Oh, and for some dumb fucking reason, every four years your homeowner's association renews the contract of this completely inefficient property management company (or another one just like it). And every year they want more money to do the same shitty job. (Unless they only get a little more, which is the same as a devastating cut, right?)
Of course, President Obama and his administration offer a frighten populous the dire consequences of the Sequester cuts. From the Huffington Post (2/25/13), "Sequester Cuts Outlined By Obama White House As March 1 Deadline Looms". According to President Obama, "The uncertainty is already having an effect," Obama said. "Companies are preparing layoff notices. Families are preparing to cut back on expenses. The longer these cuts are in place, the bigger the impact will become."
In case you're not afraid enough yet, I offer these recent White House press releases, relayed very sympathetically by CBSNews.com:
* Sequestration would be devastating to the nation's already hard-hit public education system: A fact sheet released earlier this month says 70,000 kids would be kicked off Head Start, 10,000 teachers would find themselves at risk of unemployment, and funding would be eliminated for up to 7,2000 special education teachers, aides and staff.
* The White House has also warned that up to 2,100 fewer food inspections could occur under the sequestration, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) might have to furlough all its employees for up to two weeks. Not only would this pose public health risks, the administration argues, it would also potentially add costs in lost food production. Plus, a number of states would see losses in public health funding and access to funding for the treatment and prevention for substance abuse and HIV.
* The administration says about 600,000 women and children would be dropped from the Department of Agriculture's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program from March through September, resulting in 1,600 job losses. And more than 100,000 formerly homeless people would be kicked out of housing and shelter programs, according to a White House fact sheet.
Incidentally, the Sequester's $85 billion in cuts (cuts in increases, that is) is about the same amount as the $83 billion per year subsidy the U.S. provides to Big Banks alone, according to a 2/20/13 Bloomberg.com editorial, "Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?" The editorial does in fact answer the question as to why banks receive such generous subsidies: "The financial industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars ($640,655,870, 2011-2012) every election cycle on campaign donations and lobbying, much of which is aimed at maintaining the subsidy."
And those are just bank subsidies! According to Citizens for Tax Justice, many Fortune 500 companies receive many billions of dollars worth of tax reduction through questionable executive pay and stock option deductions. (http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2013/02/facebooks_multi-billion_dollar_tax_break_executive-pay_tax_break_slashes_income_taxes_on_facebook--.php). Quoting their report, "Facebook’s current and future tax reductions from the stock options exercised in connection with its 2012 IPO will total $3.2 billion."
Ask yourselves this: Why is the White House threatening taxpayers with draconian cuts to necessary programs? We are talking about $85 billion out of a $3.7+ trillion budget. And please don't forget, we are talking about a $85 billion cut to the increase (not actually a cut).
I believe the President and his administration are crying wolf and playing politics with regards to the effects of the Sequester. I don't like it, and I don't like the way Democrats and Republicans in Congress make back-room corporate tax deals in return for campaign donations, and at the same time claim that the government doesn't have enough money to fund necessary social programs.
"The sequester “cuts” are subtracted after increasing appropriations subject to the sequester at the rate of inflation and adding back in more than a trillion dollars (over ten years) of spending exempted from the sequester.
The sequester has been advertised as “cutting” discretionary spending over a ten year period by $995 billion. After inflation adjustments and exempting more than a trillion dollars of defense and non defense discretionary spending from the sequester, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) projects discretionary spending to increase by $110 billion over the decade. There is no actual $995 billion cut. Rather there is a $110 billion increase."
Look at it this way: Let's say you paid a monthly rent payment of $3000 per month in 2012. Your property manager anticipates that your rent should increase to $3200 per month in 2013. As it turns out, your rent only increases to $3100 per month. So, would you say that your monthly rent payment was cut from $3000 in 2012 to only $3100 in 2013? Would you be surprised if your property manager told you that your home maintenance was going to be reduced because of their loss in revenue due to that "cut"?
Now, please imagine that the place you're renting has a leaky roof, rats running around all over the place, and you suspect there are a few dead bodies buried under the house, judging by the smell. Oh, and for some dumb fucking reason, every four years your homeowner's association renews the contract of this completely inefficient property management company (or another one just like it). And every year they want more money to do the same shitty job. (Unless they only get a little more, which is the same as a devastating cut, right?)
Of course, President Obama and his administration offer a frighten populous the dire consequences of the Sequester cuts. From the Huffington Post (2/25/13), "Sequester Cuts Outlined By Obama White House As March 1 Deadline Looms". According to President Obama, "The uncertainty is already having an effect," Obama said. "Companies are preparing layoff notices. Families are preparing to cut back on expenses. The longer these cuts are in place, the bigger the impact will become."
In case you're not afraid enough yet, I offer these recent White House press releases, relayed very sympathetically by CBSNews.com:
* Sequestration would be devastating to the nation's already hard-hit public education system: A fact sheet released earlier this month says 70,000 kids would be kicked off Head Start, 10,000 teachers would find themselves at risk of unemployment, and funding would be eliminated for up to 7,2000 special education teachers, aides and staff.
* The White House has also warned that up to 2,100 fewer food inspections could occur under the sequestration, and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) might have to furlough all its employees for up to two weeks. Not only would this pose public health risks, the administration argues, it would also potentially add costs in lost food production. Plus, a number of states would see losses in public health funding and access to funding for the treatment and prevention for substance abuse and HIV.
* The administration says about 600,000 women and children would be dropped from the Department of Agriculture's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program from March through September, resulting in 1,600 job losses. And more than 100,000 formerly homeless people would be kicked out of housing and shelter programs, according to a White House fact sheet.
Incidentally, the Sequester's $85 billion in cuts (cuts in increases, that is) is about the same amount as the $83 billion per year subsidy the U.S. provides to Big Banks alone, according to a 2/20/13 Bloomberg.com editorial, "Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?" The editorial does in fact answer the question as to why banks receive such generous subsidies: "The financial industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars ($640,655,870, 2011-2012) every election cycle on campaign donations and lobbying, much of which is aimed at maintaining the subsidy."
And those are just bank subsidies! According to Citizens for Tax Justice, many Fortune 500 companies receive many billions of dollars worth of tax reduction through questionable executive pay and stock option deductions. (http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2013/02/facebooks_multi-billion_dollar_tax_break_executive-pay_tax_break_slashes_income_taxes_on_facebook--.php). Quoting their report, "Facebook’s current and future tax reductions from the stock options exercised in connection with its 2012 IPO will total $3.2 billion."
Ask yourselves this: Why is the White House threatening taxpayers with draconian cuts to necessary programs? We are talking about $85 billion out of a $3.7+ trillion budget. And please don't forget, we are talking about a $85 billion cut to the increase (not actually a cut).
I believe the President and his administration are crying wolf and playing politics with regards to the effects of the Sequester. I don't like it, and I don't like the way Democrats and Republicans in Congress make back-room corporate tax deals in return for campaign donations, and at the same time claim that the government doesn't have enough money to fund necessary social programs.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Blaming Matches for Arson
San Diego Police Chief: We Can Disarm Americans Within a Generation
The crazy thing is, the more these politicians (Obama, Biden, Feinstein, etc.) talk about gun control, the more gun sales increase, and the more NRA membership increases (several hundred thousand new members in the past 8 weeks). Seriously, gun distributors are selling out of firearms and ammunition. Most semi-automatic rifles, with the exception of .22's, have literally sold out in the United States.
There is absolutely no way that the NRA could have done more to promote record-breaking gun sales in America than these myopic politicians have unwittingly done. I wish they would stop focusing all their attention on the guns, and deal with the causes of gun crime (like gangs, drug addiction, domestic violence, mental illness).
Can you imagine how ridiculous it would seem if Mothers Against Drunk Driver (MADD) spent most of their energy protesting against cars? Yet these politicians arrange press conferences and photo ops to hold up scary looking rifles that have seemingly been possessed by some evil entity that makes them kill people.
According to the Center for Disease Control, "In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States." 10,228 people! Yet vehicles are not considered the cause, and only the drink drivers' cars are (sometimes) impounded.
(http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)
According to the FBI 2010 crime statistics, by comparison, in the same year, 358 people were killed by rifles. That number includes rifles of all types, not just the semi-automatic "assault rifles" being vilified by President Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et al. That means "assault rifles" were used to kill less than 358 of the 13,000 people murdered in 2010. Handguns were used to kill 6000 people, knives were used in 1700 homicides, and blunt objects in 540 homicides. (bat, hammers, etc.).
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl11.xls
In spite of these statistics, it's just not as exciting for a Senator to stand in front of the fawning press holding a baseball bat, or a knife. Politicians take the easy route. They pin an American flag to their lapel, hold up a Colt AR-15, and proudly announce that they are tough on crime, and they're going to take on the NRA. I guess dealing with gang members and perpetrators of domestic violence is too scary, even when you have a permit to carry your own concealed firearm (cough, cough, Mrs. Feinstein), or have your own armed security detail.
Until these misguided, myopic, self-promoting politicians venture out of their Ivory Tower and deal with the actual causes of deadly violence, none of their fact finding, blue ribbon advisory board, committee meeting over coffee and warm butter crescents is going to do much good. It's become a cliche, but "assault rifles" are simply not violent. Gang members, drug dealers, wife beaters, muggers and thieves, rapists, and sick fucking psychos are violent. Throw them, and keep them, in prison. Take away their guns, knives, bats, and everything else that could hurt somebody. Add 10 years mandatory prison time to any criminal who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. Put any parolee found in possession of a firearm back in prison for 10 years.
Law abiding citizens who do not share the criminals' violent traits are not the issue, and they're not the problem! By all means, make people submit to a background check before they acquire a firearm, initiate a database for seriously mental ill individuals, continue to teach citizens how to safely use and store their firearms. But declaring war against semi-automatic rifles is like blaming matches for arson. It misses the point almost completely.
San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is fully supportive of the Obama/Feinstein gun grab, and says if lawmakers play it right Americans can be completely disarmed within "a generation."
The crazy thing is, the more these politicians (Obama, Biden, Feinstein, etc.) talk about gun control, the more gun sales increase, and the more NRA membership increases (several hundred thousand new members in the past 8 weeks). Seriously, gun distributors are selling out of firearms and ammunition. Most semi-automatic rifles, with the exception of .22's, have literally sold out in the United States.
There is absolutely no way that the NRA could have done more to promote record-breaking gun sales in America than these myopic politicians have unwittingly done. I wish they would stop focusing all their attention on the guns, and deal with the causes of gun crime (like gangs, drug addiction, domestic violence, mental illness).
Can you imagine how ridiculous it would seem if Mothers Against Drunk Driver (MADD) spent most of their energy protesting against cars? Yet these politicians arrange press conferences and photo ops to hold up scary looking rifles that have seemingly been possessed by some evil entity that makes them kill people.
According to the Center for Disease Control, "In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States." 10,228 people! Yet vehicles are not considered the cause, and only the drink drivers' cars are (sometimes) impounded.
(http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)
According to the FBI 2010 crime statistics, by comparison, in the same year, 358 people were killed by rifles. That number includes rifles of all types, not just the semi-automatic "assault rifles" being vilified by President Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et al. That means "assault rifles" were used to kill less than 358 of the 13,000 people murdered in 2010. Handguns were used to kill 6000 people, knives were used in 1700 homicides, and blunt objects in 540 homicides. (bat, hammers, etc.).
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl11.xls
In spite of these statistics, it's just not as exciting for a Senator to stand in front of the fawning press holding a baseball bat, or a knife. Politicians take the easy route. They pin an American flag to their lapel, hold up a Colt AR-15, and proudly announce that they are tough on crime, and they're going to take on the NRA. I guess dealing with gang members and perpetrators of domestic violence is too scary, even when you have a permit to carry your own concealed firearm (cough, cough, Mrs. Feinstein), or have your own armed security detail.
Until these misguided, myopic, self-promoting politicians venture out of their Ivory Tower and deal with the actual causes of deadly violence, none of their fact finding, blue ribbon advisory board, committee meeting over coffee and warm butter crescents is going to do much good. It's become a cliche, but "assault rifles" are simply not violent. Gang members, drug dealers, wife beaters, muggers and thieves, rapists, and sick fucking psychos are violent. Throw them, and keep them, in prison. Take away their guns, knives, bats, and everything else that could hurt somebody. Add 10 years mandatory prison time to any criminal who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. Put any parolee found in possession of a firearm back in prison for 10 years.
Law abiding citizens who do not share the criminals' violent traits are not the issue, and they're not the problem! By all means, make people submit to a background check before they acquire a firearm, initiate a database for seriously mental ill individuals, continue to teach citizens how to safely use and store their firearms. But declaring war against semi-automatic rifles is like blaming matches for arson. It misses the point almost completely.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Perspectives
Reasonable, intelligent people can disagree with each other in regards to important social, religious, political, and economic issues. Or even important issues like the best brewery or BBQ. Generally speaking, personal preferences and perceptions are quite tolerable, and even interesting. Human beings aren't like that big school of sardines at the Monterey Bay Aquarium that swim around in a circle all day, every day, with nary an incline of divergent thought or behavior.
Unfortunately, there is an all too common downside to human perceptual diversity. Individuals often embrace the notion that they are most certainly right, and those with whom they disagree are wrong.
In some cases, such an unwavering loyalty to one's own perception is quite harmless. For example, if several friends and I go out for evening libations, my companions will not take exception to my choice of beer. I will likewise honor the selections of my friends who have not acquired an affinity for Lagunitas IPA, or beer in general. That's one of the reasons wine was invented, along with a multitude of other refreshments. Diversity and tolerance compliment each other very well.
But tolerance does not fair as well when confronted by issues of greater consequence. Not surprisingly, people become considerably less cordial when the discussion turns from the best flavor of ice cream to the superiority of their deeply ingrained religious or political beliefs. Friends quickly become divided into groups of Fox News versus MSNBC. "Fair and Balanced" is a myth, as allusive as unbiased reporting from any major news source. Friends quickly don the competitive colors of their allegiance, ready to compete on the battleground of divisive discourse. Civil debate is replaced by rigid, uncompromising perspective, and compromise becomes as appealing as complete moral forfeiture.
How did we as human beings, and friends, get to this point of ideological animosity? Does this competitive trait go back as far as the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons? Have the cooperation and compromise genes been bred out of the Earth's current human inhabitants, considered an inherent weakness in the never-ending competition for resources?
We collectively elect political representatives, and reward them handsomely, who are more comfortable pointing fingers than shaking hands. We eagerly point our internet browsers towards either the Drudge Report or MoveOn.org. As physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson wrote to the New York Times on Aug. 21, 2011, "One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters."
Here is our collective challenge: Endeavor to believe that those with whom you disagree have the same right to their perspectives as you have to yours. That doesn't make them right, or wrong. Anyone who believes that he or she has a monopoly on the "truth" is sadly and arrogantly mistaken. I am not inferring that it is wrong to passionately embrace an ideal; I am suggesting that it is reasonable to expect and to accept different perspectives. When we tolerate each others' opinions in the spirit of respect and collaboration, we are able to overcome the restrictive biases that make progressive understanding and compromise impossible.
If you disagree with me, you might be right.
Unfortunately, there is an all too common downside to human perceptual diversity. Individuals often embrace the notion that they are most certainly right, and those with whom they disagree are wrong.
In some cases, such an unwavering loyalty to one's own perception is quite harmless. For example, if several friends and I go out for evening libations, my companions will not take exception to my choice of beer. I will likewise honor the selections of my friends who have not acquired an affinity for Lagunitas IPA, or beer in general. That's one of the reasons wine was invented, along with a multitude of other refreshments. Diversity and tolerance compliment each other very well.
But tolerance does not fair as well when confronted by issues of greater consequence. Not surprisingly, people become considerably less cordial when the discussion turns from the best flavor of ice cream to the superiority of their deeply ingrained religious or political beliefs. Friends quickly become divided into groups of Fox News versus MSNBC. "Fair and Balanced" is a myth, as allusive as unbiased reporting from any major news source. Friends quickly don the competitive colors of their allegiance, ready to compete on the battleground of divisive discourse. Civil debate is replaced by rigid, uncompromising perspective, and compromise becomes as appealing as complete moral forfeiture.
How did we as human beings, and friends, get to this point of ideological animosity? Does this competitive trait go back as far as the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons? Have the cooperation and compromise genes been bred out of the Earth's current human inhabitants, considered an inherent weakness in the never-ending competition for resources?
We collectively elect political representatives, and reward them handsomely, who are more comfortable pointing fingers than shaking hands. We eagerly point our internet browsers towards either the Drudge Report or MoveOn.org. As physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson wrote to the New York Times on Aug. 21, 2011, "One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters."
Here is our collective challenge: Endeavor to believe that those with whom you disagree have the same right to their perspectives as you have to yours. That doesn't make them right, or wrong. Anyone who believes that he or she has a monopoly on the "truth" is sadly and arrogantly mistaken. I am not inferring that it is wrong to passionately embrace an ideal; I am suggesting that it is reasonable to expect and to accept different perspectives. When we tolerate each others' opinions in the spirit of respect and collaboration, we are able to overcome the restrictive biases that make progressive understanding and compromise impossible.
If you disagree with me, you might be right.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Campaign Finance Deform
I wish everyone realized how badly we're being screwed by our
politico-economic system of government. The government/corporate alliance has
pulled the "divide and conquer" trick on us. While the people fight over the
virtues of Red and Blue States, "They" are more concerned with their
own financial status.
In public, Democrat and Republican politicians bicker like
rabid cats and dogs. But if you could see them in their real element, in the
private clubs and lounges where lobbyists buy them the finest meals and
$50-a-glass scotch, you would witness the collective camaraderie that
develops from the pursuit of mutual interests. On the fairways of
exclusive golf resorts, and in the leather seats of private jets, they
are kin.
It works like this: When politicians are selling themselves to voters
and campaign contributors, they wear the masks of the left or the
right, red or blue, conservative or liberal. When they are spending,
it is all about the green. They are less worried about fixing the
economy than they are about meeting 3rd-quarter fundraising goals. And
the input of their constituents always takes a back seat to the
suggestions of lobbyists. Make no mistake about it, politicians are for
sale. When you see a politician speak passionately about one issue or
another, you can bet that his hat will be held out soon after.
The sad fact is, when it comes to fundraising, partisanship
pays way better than cooperation. The more you hate the other side, the
deeper you will dig into your pocket. When a politician is selling his
influence, he can put a higher price tag on competitive partisanship
than he can on cooperative compromise. Fear is used to fertilize their
fundraising crops. Here is a common tactical refrain: "We need you to
stand tall with us as we fight tirelessly for the well-being of the
fine, hard-working citizens of this Country. Never have the stakes been
higher. Without your urgently needed financial support, *This* will
happen, ___________." (Fill in the blank, but it is something evil and
ruinous that the "other side" is trying to do that will detrimentally
effect you, your family, your health, your safety, your future, your
taxes, your bank account, the economy, and yes, even the weather.)
"Please send what you can today."
It is obvious that money buys political access. And buying that access is big business.
Nearly 5,400 congressional staffers have left the Hill for lobbyist firms
over the past decade, according to a new study by LegiStorm, a non-partisan organization
that tracks Congress. The organization also found that of about 14,000 current congressional
staffers, 605 have lobbied in the past decade. The study analyzed the records of
130,000 people who have worked for lobbyist firms or on the Hill. Here are some
other highlights from the LegiStorm study:
--So far this year, 155 lobbyists have been hired as staffers. Not surprisingly,
having taken back he House last year, Republican lobbyists-turned-staffers outnumbered
their Democratic brethren 8 to 1. But in 2007, when Democrats won the House and Senate,
206 lobbyists switched from serving clients to aiding lawmakers.
--393 current and former members of Congress have been paid lobbyists
or foreign agents in the past 10 years.
--383 congressional aides have taken their first spin through the revolving
door from the Hill to K Street lobbyist firms this year.
The thing I find most annoying and troubling about the marriage of politics and money in all facets of representative government in the United States today is the fact that so many citizens buy into (literally) the current government system of paying for political access. People give money abundantly to their “Team” and their team’s “Players”, and that insures a continuation of the influence of money on policy. During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama and Senator McCain, between just the two of them, raised and spent $1 Billion in campaign contributions. I believe that if you offer money to any Republican or Democratic party political candidate or political action committee, you sacrifice any moral right to complain about the dysfunction of politics in America. Because the individuals, corporations, unions, special interest groups, lobbyists, and everyone else with an open checkbook are the enablers of the bitterly partisan, diseased body of politics we are suffering with today.
politico-economic system of government. The government/corporate alliance has
pulled the "divide and conquer" trick on us. While the people fight over the
virtues of Red and Blue States, "They" are more concerned with their
own financial status.
In public, Democrat and Republican politicians bicker like
rabid cats and dogs. But if you could see them in their real element, in the
private clubs and lounges where lobbyists buy them the finest meals and
$50-a-glass scotch, you would witness the collective camaraderie that
develops from the pursuit of mutual interests. On the fairways of
exclusive golf resorts, and in the leather seats of private jets, they
are kin.
It works like this: When politicians are selling themselves to voters
and campaign contributors, they wear the masks of the left or the
right, red or blue, conservative or liberal. When they are spending,
it is all about the green. They are less worried about fixing the
economy than they are about meeting 3rd-quarter fundraising goals. And
the input of their constituents always takes a back seat to the
suggestions of lobbyists. Make no mistake about it, politicians are for
sale. When you see a politician speak passionately about one issue or
another, you can bet that his hat will be held out soon after.
The sad fact is, when it comes to fundraising, partisanship
pays way better than cooperation. The more you hate the other side, the
deeper you will dig into your pocket. When a politician is selling his
influence, he can put a higher price tag on competitive partisanship
than he can on cooperative compromise. Fear is used to fertilize their
fundraising crops. Here is a common tactical refrain: "We need you to
stand tall with us as we fight tirelessly for the well-being of the
fine, hard-working citizens of this Country. Never have the stakes been
higher. Without your urgently needed financial support, *This* will
happen, ___________." (Fill in the blank, but it is something evil and
ruinous that the "other side" is trying to do that will detrimentally
effect you, your family, your health, your safety, your future, your
taxes, your bank account, the economy, and yes, even the weather.)
"Please send what you can today."
It is obvious that money buys political access. And buying that access is big business.
Nearly 5,400 congressional staffers have left the Hill for lobbyist firms
over the past decade, according to a new study by LegiStorm, a non-partisan organization
that tracks Congress. The organization also found that of about 14,000 current congressional
staffers, 605 have lobbied in the past decade. The study analyzed the records of
130,000 people who have worked for lobbyist firms or on the Hill. Here are some
other highlights from the LegiStorm study:
--So far this year, 155 lobbyists have been hired as staffers. Not surprisingly,
having taken back he House last year, Republican lobbyists-turned-staffers outnumbered
their Democratic brethren 8 to 1. But in 2007, when Democrats won the House and Senate,
206 lobbyists switched from serving clients to aiding lawmakers.
--393 current and former members of Congress have been paid lobbyists
or foreign agents in the past 10 years.
--383 congressional aides have taken their first spin through the revolving
door from the Hill to K Street lobbyist firms this year.
The thing I find most annoying and troubling about the marriage of politics and money in all facets of representative government in the United States today is the fact that so many citizens buy into (literally) the current government system of paying for political access. People give money abundantly to their “Team” and their team’s “Players”, and that insures a continuation of the influence of money on policy. During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama and Senator McCain, between just the two of them, raised and spent $1 Billion in campaign contributions. I believe that if you offer money to any Republican or Democratic party political candidate or political action committee, you sacrifice any moral right to complain about the dysfunction of politics in America. Because the individuals, corporations, unions, special interest groups, lobbyists, and everyone else with an open checkbook are the enablers of the bitterly partisan, diseased body of politics we are suffering with today.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Double Dipping in Sacramento
"Numerous Brown appointees double-dipping with salary, public pension"
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_19013199?nclick_check=1I read the above article in the San Jose Mercury News, and I must tell you, I get so upset when ordinary citizens complain about the lavish salaries, pensions, and benefits political appointees receive. We must remember that these Board members make up the brain trust that helps our state government run so very efficiently. And commoners are going to begrudge them their pitiful six-figure pittance?
According to the CA Department of Corrections website, "The Commissioners (12 Parole Board members) convene once a month to conduct a public business meeting." Yes, they have to meet every single month! And what are they paid for that? Barely more than the salary an Army General with only 30-40 years of duty under his belt.
Yes, I do realize that the Board member salary is in addition to the $100,000 to $200,000 state pensions most of these "semi-retired" intellectually gifted leaders already receive. But they deserve that, too! Hello! Have you peasants noticed how beautifully and efficiently our California State Government is run? That ain't no accident.
No, I'm not going to pretend to understand state budget deficits, deteriorating infrastructure, tuition hikes, declining school test scores, and all that other government minutia. Most of us don't need to understand that stuff. That's the smart peoples' job up there in Sacramento. Normal folks ought to just pay their damn taxes and shut up, that's what I think! What do you think would happen if these special Board appointees on all these special Boards suddenly stop showing up to their monthly meetings? I don't know, but the very thought of it keeps me awake at night. Maybe we all just better think about that before we complain about our ever increasing taxes.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Judge Jeff Almquist
Santa Cruz County Judge Jeff Almquist frequently demonstrates the judicial fortitude one can expect from liberal judges elected or appointed to the bench.
Steven Jay Sande, 61, of Santa Cruz, pleaded guilty April 14th to 12 felony sex abuse charges involving one of his former students at Aptos Junior High, the District Attorney's Office announced today. Steven Sande pleaded guilty to repeatedly having sex with a 13 year old student and taking pictures of the naked girl. However, Judge Almquist decided that Steven Sande, the statutory rapist, should remain free until his sentencing hearing on July 22! Almquist denied the prosecutors request to have Sande jailed immediately. Why? Judge Almquist said Sande could remain free because he, "Has strong ties to the community and has not violated the law since that arrest."
Thank you, Judge Almquist, for letting us know what a pillar of society Steven Sande is. I guess such wisdom is why you wear the robe and get paid the big bucks. I've always had a different opinion of child molesters, child pornographers, and rapists.
To read Sentinel article, use link: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_17857385?IADID
Steven Jay Sande, 61, of Santa Cruz, pleaded guilty April 14th to 12 felony sex abuse charges involving one of his former students at Aptos Junior High, the District Attorney's Office announced today. Steven Sande pleaded guilty to repeatedly having sex with a 13 year old student and taking pictures of the naked girl. However, Judge Almquist decided that Steven Sande, the statutory rapist, should remain free until his sentencing hearing on July 22! Almquist denied the prosecutors request to have Sande jailed immediately. Why? Judge Almquist said Sande could remain free because he, "Has strong ties to the community and has not violated the law since that arrest."
Thank you, Judge Almquist, for letting us know what a pillar of society Steven Sande is. I guess such wisdom is why you wear the robe and get paid the big bucks. I've always had a different opinion of child molesters, child pornographers, and rapists.
To read Sentinel article, use link: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_17857385?IADID
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)