rabid1st: (Default)
Move to amend the constitution to clarify that elections should be free of big money and corporate control.


Put the power back in the hands of individual Americans. If you wonder why laws keep being passed that you hate and you never have a voice. This is why! Big money controls the media and who runs for elections and who is elected and what laws are passed. We need this ammendment.

rabid1st: (Default)
Of course, all of the Romney crew believe they shouldn't conceded because they poured so much effort into winning this thing. They hammered us with negative ads. They tampered with voters. They lied in a way that is so far out there it didn't even touch reality with a wingtip.

And here, I must say, Obama lied, too. And there are general beliefs, like the one about the President controlling gas prices, that are nationally institutionalized lies. Or the other one about Social Security being bankrupt. As if, we couldn't just raise the minimums and fund that sucker. But the histrionics about Obama were so outlandish, they defied credulity. He is not a socialist or a communist or taking away our guns or raising anyone's taxes. Nor is he responsible in any way for the 2008 financial collapse. It happened before Obama took office and was caused by deregulation, not too much regulation. These are not opinions that can be spun, they are objective facts. And facts do exist, beyond political party affiliation.

Romney gave a very graceful concession speech. I think he's glad it is over, as am I. Had the Republicans focused on real issues instead of manufacturing nonsense, they might have won this one. It was that close. I, for one, was so ambivalent about Obama's first term that a moderately cordial and truthful campaign from Romney might have kept me home. But instead his team went for outrageous blaming and flip-flopping. It drove me out to vote early. Most of all it was the voter tampering, the ID laws, the changing of polling times and the open threats to women that motivated me. And the Republican Party refusing to take any responsibility for the blocking of so many laws that would have helped our economy. One of the things I know, as a librarian, is how to find the actual laws and read them. Again, they are not something that you need to debate. They are published and say what they say and we know who voted for and against those laws. My advice to everyone is to stop listening to ads and pundits and start looking up the actual voting records of people running for office.
rabid1st: (Default)
I wish I had more accurate information on the actual wording of the Bill, but it appears that the Committee has improved the Bill so that American Born and Naturalized Citizens are protected by due process.


The changes to the bill forged in conference between the chambers fortify the president's right to prosecute accused terrorists captured on U.S. soil in civilian courts, although the legislation maintains military custody as the default.

Thursday's debate, prior to the 86-13 passage, mirrored floor action that occurred late last month, with opponents largely split along partisan lines. Republicans argued that accused terrorists should be denied their Miranda rights and be subject to indefinite military detentions while Democrats argued that American citizens possess a birthright to civilian proceedings.

Senior member of the committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), took the argument even further calling members of al Qaeda "crazy peopleā€ and saying it would be "the dumbest thing in the history of the world for a nation" to treat our enemies better on our own land than on the battlefield.

But Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) both argued that the civilian system has been a more effective agency for dispersing justice to terrorists and said they worried about the encroachment on Americans' constitutional rights.

The House approved the bill 283-136 earlier in the week.

I still want to see how much power this Bill gives to the office of the President. And with all do respect to Sen. Graham, fear is no reason to strip away the rights of Americans. I honestly can't believe any court would let a terrorist walk free. I am waiting for the Bill to be posted to Thomas in the Library of Congress.
rabid1st: (Default)
I don't think most people are aware of the fact that Congress and the White House are conspiring to destroy an American's right to due process.

The right to due process is a keystone of our democracy, established in the Bill of Rights. You have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers. No one has a right to imprison an American indefinitely without the benefit of having his case impartially tried.

Our President is not a dictator or king. He cannot have us killed or imprisoned indefinitely without at trial, no matter the cause. Laws allowing such things are what led to every single Fascist state in existence. If you wonder how other countries ended up with people slaughtered in camps...well...here you go. We turned a blind eye and let our country set up the first encampment at Guantanamo and this is where it leads, even more violations of everyone's rights. We, also, let them set up this "conference committee" approach which keeps us from being properly represented.

Please act on this immediately, call the White House, no matter what your political affiliation. http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call#call

I would, also, urge you to remove from office any Congressperson who voted for this Bill. That would be almost EVERY Congressperson, by the way.

This letter I've copied explains all about the Bill...(or you can watch The Daily Show piece on it*).

Just in time for Bill of Rights Day, Congress has included in a massive war and weapons funding bill an authorization of presidents and the military to imprison you or anyone else without a trial or charge. . . forever.

Tell President Obama to veto the bill as soon as it reaches his desk.

The conference committee made changes to the bill to answer President Obama's concerns, not ours. The bill now leaves the president free to imprison or kill individuals without handing them over even to a military tribunal.

The White House calls this "flexibility." The authors of the Bill of Rights called it tyranny.

Demand that the President veto this outrageous bill, even though, unfortunately, Congress may have appeased the White House by making this provision even worse than it was.

rabid1st: (Default)
Check out this good idea for one thing...community conscious corporations...


America is no longer a capitalist country. Capitalists invest capital to better society, to add jobs and to grow smaller companies with good ideas into bigger, better companies. We do none of those things. Our wealthy use their wealth to build more wealth. They do not invest in America. They invest overseas and they ask for more and more handouts and free rides from the people they hold under their thumb. Those of you who have, over the course of the last decade, listened to me rant, already know about Corporate Feudalism and the coming (now here) economic collapse. But you may have asked yourself the same question my sister asked me, "What can we do about any of this?"

And I have to admit I've been stumped about how to change the face and aims of corporate America given that most people seem to believe, much as the serfs in any feudal system of old did, that giving corporations everything they demand from us is the only way to survive. Yes, those people say, we may all be tightening our belts again while facing another round of state budget cuts and lower wages, but we must give the corporations more money to keep us employed at all. We don't want them to go to other countries, right? Uhm...maybe we do. Maybe someone else can make shoes or lightbulbs for us.

For years, we have heard that corporations give us jobs and so we dare not challenge their right to pollute the air we breath or pirate our retirement funds away from us after 30 years of loyal servitude. We must suffer shoddy products and lower wages and layoffs, because "What can we do? They own us and our representative in government. So, we will just have to tighten our belts and make a few more concessions, right?"


Because we the people still have some power in America. Not political power, don't fool yourself into thinking that a Democratic or Republican or Tea Party politician doesn't work for the people who fund his campaign. If you still believe THAT, go watch "Gasland." But we can create a new model for corporations, a model that demands responsible behavior BEFORE any tax breaks are forthcoming. Why should we have to choose between jobs and clean water? Between housing our grandmother and paying our mortgage? It is time to say, "Show us your good work for this community, for your employees and for the environment" and then we will talk about supporting your company by buying your goods and giving you tax breaks.

Lately, I've been approached by people telling me they have severed ties with Bank of America since those robber barons lawyered out of paying any taxes last year. Check out tax.com for more companies who are pillaging our already bare cupboards and giving very little back, companies like GE, for example. They made $14 billion in profits last year and didn't pay any taxes either. Beyond that, both of these companies outsourced American jobs. So why are WE suffering real life hardships, with less money for teachers, police, mental health workers, the elderly and the disabled? Why are we footing the bill while our feudal overlords get a free ride and screw us royally as workers?

Because nobody...NOBODY advocates for us (again, watch GASLAND)...for the most part, we literally have taxation without representation in this country. And so companies can lie to us via advertising and offer us limited choices for how to escape their all encompassing control...buying political ads to sway the gullible into voting themselves out of civil rights, for example...but now...there is B Corp. B Corp is an independent watchdog group that checks up on companies and certifies that they are community friendly and treat their workers with the same respect they offer their shareholders. You can buy your electricity, your cellphone service and your light bulbs from a certified B Corp. You can help us turn this boat around before we hit another economic, environmental and social iceberg.

rabid1st: (Default)
I know there are one or two of you out there. This isn't a rant, just something I want you to contemplate: media manipulation. Check this out...


I, as you know, have a problem with the idea of "Fair and Balanced" associated with FOX. Just think about what this article is saying about your choices and the future of free choice in this country. Who is really controlling the conversation and the vote? Is it the people? Or is it a media conglomerate with its own, self-serving, agenda?

Of course, ideally, other candidates will arise and this group will be left behind as people make a choice. But it is the definite lack of Democratic candidates that I want you to consider, as well. How fair and balanced could this supposed news channel be if they offer only one point of view? And should there be a media contract with the candidates so that point of view is prohibited from confronting any opposition? What are the chances that the people are getting a complete picture of these candidates? I know we hear about liberal media attacks...but come on...shouldn't a candidate for president be able to withstand some cross examination by someone that doesn't agree with them?
rabid1st: (Default)
I was looking up some John Cleese information and learned that he had done some political spots for his party of choice. His party isn't what interests me. We may or may not agree on stuff. What I found lovely is the humorous description of party behavior that really is very much like OUR parties over here in America.

The thing I love about this clip is the humorous take on having two dominant political parties that bicker constantly and point fingers at one another, but manage to get nothing much done to help the country. The telling bit starts at about...1:11 in as he returns to sit on the desktop.

rabid1st: (Default)
I recently heard back from my congressperson about a petition I signed to change our attitude toward big business. I really want us to take governing decisions back into our own hands. So, I have something in common with the Tea Party. Where we part ways is over the issues at hand. I don't feel that immigrants or constitutional rights are the problem in this country today. I feel the problem is that we are not focusing our wealth and power on the common good. And the Tea Party would have us believe that if we only gave more money to the rich...we would be happier and well cared for. This idea breaks down for me, when I consider how much money we have already given the wealthy. It's not like we are suggesting we START tax breaks...it is CONTINUING tax breaks for them. So, they've had these tax breaks all along...and we still ended up in the economic basement. How would continuing to spare them a tax burden make things better?

Anyway...I am also pretty much fed to the back teeth with Glenn Beck and his crazy ranting and hate-mongering. That rally on the anniversary of MLK's speech, wouldn't have been so offensive if he hadn't been the sort of man who calls President Obama a racist, in hopes of stirring up racial division. So, I've decided to join the boycott of Fox. Actually, I had already decided to boycott Fox shows in the new season. Very hard for me as I love House MD. But I think I've had enough of Rupert Murdoch and company.

Here is the link if you want to join me in squeaking...


You don't have to be a Democrat to join the boycott, just be sick of the propaganda journalism. Also, most of Glenn Beck's sponsors are not going to care if I boycott them, as I never used their services. But Eggland's Best eggs are going to feel the pain of losing my 3 dollars a week...by God! :grin:
rabid1st: (Default)
Here is a link to an article about the cost of health care today.


In case anyone is wondering, the government, meaning you and I, the taxpayers, pick up the cost of the uninsured even now. We just do so inefficiently and inhumanly. For example, my friend is taking her internship in psychology at a local mental hospital. The hospital built a new ward last year, costing millions, which they got in government grants and loans. They even asked their STAFF to pitch in with donations. Now, they cannot afford to repay their loans...so they will be doing a number of corporate things to get by...1) cutting salaries and laying people off [we taxpayers will pick up the unemployment tab] and yes, those are the same people who donated to build the wing 2) writing the loans off as a tax break for corporations, so we taxpayers [even those who've lost their jobs] pay for their error 3) letting the less dangerous [or uninsured] patients go so they are wandering the streets, asking you for loose change. Some of them will insist that you learn about the aliens that have taken over the Qwiki-Mart. Those poor people are not only going to be cold and hungry and frightened, they will also be frightening you...and causing the police, whom we taxpayers pay, to have extra patrols.

Jails, which we pay for, too, will be full of people who should be getting proper mental care, sociopaths who as of their 18th birthday are no longer covered by child care laws. They will cause costly fights and we will need more room, officers and medical personnel. We also pick up more costs than that, though. Because sick people don't just wander out into the streets and get arrested or die, not right away. So property values decline and people are forced to give more to church kitchens and shelters to compensate for their "tax cuts." Would you stand by and watch a sick person die or would you try to help? Shall we begin to take our elderly, childless neighbors in? Well, even if everyone refuses to help and the sick and the homeless do die...we taxpayers would pay for the Hazardous Waste pick up and disposal. Funerals, even pauper funerals, are not free.

So, this isn't REALLY about government spending. It is about priorities in spending. And there is no excuse for all of this clutch-fisted inhumanity. One of my LJ-friends said she met a lady during a health care town hall who was uninsured and told her "We don't want government insurance. We take care of our own." Yes, but really, she will apply for food stamps, medicaid, social security and church charity when she's sick or homeless. Even if she doesn't we will bankrupt our hospitals taking care of her when she comes in to Emergency, and we will pay higher and higher insurance premiums to compensate. Hospitals and doctors and dentists and drug companies will keep raising their rates to cover costs as more and more people have to get stealth care. Or maybe we will carry on being callous and pass laws that let "take care of our own" woman and her 4 children huddle on a trash heap somewhere until she dies. After all, what is she to you and I...but a tax burden, right? The way things have been going in this debate, maybe we should just admit that our fellow Americans are not "our own." Japan takes care of its own...so does Cuba. Little countries, poor countries and somehow they manage to care for their sick. It's not that we can't afford to; it's that we REFUSE to do so. If we don't manage to pound out a bypartisan bill, then maybe America really is motivated by nothing but self-serving, short-sighted greed. Maybe we are a lost cause when it comes to humane behavior toward our fellow Americans.

being bitter and stuff.


rabid1st: (Default)

May 2017

 123 456


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags