A few weeks ago, I watched an interview with Mitt Romney in which I heard him say “Planned Parenthood? We want to get rid of that”. In a recent campaign appearance, he was asked about the Supreme Court hearings on the Affordable Care Act. He said “ If they find it unconstitutional and strike down the legislation, why, they would have done us all a great service”.
what eye thynk: His remark about the dissolution of Planned Parenthood was made even worse by the casualness with which he threw it out. Those women who depend on PP for common medical procedures like PAP smears and breast exams were spoken of as a minor irritant easily dismissed and forgotten. And, in regard to the Affordable Care Act, exactly who is this “us all” he is talking about?
Until recently I would have thought such callousness unimaginable; but I guess if you have a 250 million dollar nest egg and are currently in the full-time employ of the Koch brothers, there just isn’t much incentive to look down to see who you’re stepping on.
There are millions of American families without health insurance who live every day knowing they are just one serious illness or accident away from losing everything they have. There are millions of families already living with the reality of a serious illness who are denied health insurance simply because of their need. I sincerely doubt that any of these people would consider the sundering of the ACA a “great service”.
The ACA isn’t perfect, but it is the best chance we have to finally step up and join the rest of the free world in making health care available to everyone.
For now, we just have to wait and hope that the Supreme Court will rise above politics.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Republican Self-Serving Ideology Can be Unhealthy for the Rest of Us
The Republican party began focusing on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act before the ink was even dry on the law. They claim it is socialized medicine and should be deemed unconstitutional.
what eye thynk: Is their opposition really ideological? The Heritage Foundation, a conservative right wing think tank founded in 1973 to “formulate and promote conservative public policies”, not only supports a national health care policy, but has outlined a program not dissimilar to the Affordable Care Act.
No, the Republican opposition is fueled by one thing and one thing only: it was passed by a Democratic administration. Faced with this perceived humiliation, they say that the Affordable Care Act must be repealed and that they can design a much better plan. If that is true, why haven’t they done it in the past? Their own think tank has been supporting the idea for years, yet they have never made any serious attempt to offer a national health care program of their own and they offered no concrete suggestions while the ACA was debated in Congress. If the ACA is brought down by the Supreme Court, they will crow about their victory, but don’t expect to see a Republican sponsored health care plan anytime soon.
How can they explain this to their uninsured constituents? “Sorry, we couldn’t support a health care plan that we didn’t write ourselves and we have no intention of writing one, so just continue to do what you’ve been doing, except you might want to look for an alternative to Planned Parenthood because we’ll be defunding that group too. Oh, and don’t forget to vote for me in November!”?!?
Our terminology is that we elect people to “serve” in Congress. Members of Congress self-serve ample helpings of perks for themselves, (I’m still amazed they had to pass a bill to stop themselves from insider trading), perks that include generous health care plans for their membership. Republican members, however, seem to have forgotten there are less affluent people at home who deserve good service too.
It is time to show those we elect that when we are underserved, we will vote for a change of staff.
what eye thynk: Is their opposition really ideological? The Heritage Foundation, a conservative right wing think tank founded in 1973 to “formulate and promote conservative public policies”, not only supports a national health care policy, but has outlined a program not dissimilar to the Affordable Care Act.
No, the Republican opposition is fueled by one thing and one thing only: it was passed by a Democratic administration. Faced with this perceived humiliation, they say that the Affordable Care Act must be repealed and that they can design a much better plan. If that is true, why haven’t they done it in the past? Their own think tank has been supporting the idea for years, yet they have never made any serious attempt to offer a national health care program of their own and they offered no concrete suggestions while the ACA was debated in Congress. If the ACA is brought down by the Supreme Court, they will crow about their victory, but don’t expect to see a Republican sponsored health care plan anytime soon.
How can they explain this to their uninsured constituents? “Sorry, we couldn’t support a health care plan that we didn’t write ourselves and we have no intention of writing one, so just continue to do what you’ve been doing, except you might want to look for an alternative to Planned Parenthood because we’ll be defunding that group too. Oh, and don’t forget to vote for me in November!”?!?
Our terminology is that we elect people to “serve” in Congress. Members of Congress self-serve ample helpings of perks for themselves, (I’m still amazed they had to pass a bill to stop themselves from insider trading), perks that include generous health care plans for their membership. Republican members, however, seem to have forgotten there are less affluent people at home who deserve good service too.
It is time to show those we elect that when we are underserved, we will vote for a change of staff.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
As the Supreme Court Holds Its Hearings, Let's Get the Name Right...Respectfully
The Supreme Court is holding several days of hearings this week before beginning their consideration of our national health care plan.
what eye thynk: Let's call it what it is. It is not Obamacare; it is the Affordable Care Act.
“Obamacare” is a disparaging term coined by the Republicans to signal their disgust with a major bill that, in the end, they could not stop from being passed. Over the past two years, I can’t remember even one instance of a national health care opponent using its correct name. It is childish and insulting.
That attitude has been a problem with this Congress from day one of President Obama’s administration. The Republican Party has refused to respect him. They act as though theirs is the only party worthy of holding the office of President of the United States and anyone elected who does not meet their approval should be mocked as a joke, no esteem need be accorded. This good ol' boy attitude is anachronistic and should be embarrassing to anyone who has reached the office of United States Congressman or woman.
Over the past two years, the term "Obamacare" has become accepted, even by those who should know better. I read it in the newspaper and I hear it on the television and it irks me every time. It demonstrates how we as a country have come to accept the casual disrespect shown to our 44th President. I don't expect everyone to join in a President Obama love-fest, but at least respect the office and the man who holds it.
what eye thynk: Let's call it what it is. It is not Obamacare; it is the Affordable Care Act.
“Obamacare” is a disparaging term coined by the Republicans to signal their disgust with a major bill that, in the end, they could not stop from being passed. Over the past two years, I can’t remember even one instance of a national health care opponent using its correct name. It is childish and insulting.
That attitude has been a problem with this Congress from day one of President Obama’s administration. The Republican Party has refused to respect him. They act as though theirs is the only party worthy of holding the office of President of the United States and anyone elected who does not meet their approval should be mocked as a joke, no esteem need be accorded. This good ol' boy attitude is anachronistic and should be embarrassing to anyone who has reached the office of United States Congressman or woman.
Over the past two years, the term "Obamacare" has become accepted, even by those who should know better. I read it in the newspaper and I hear it on the television and it irks me every time. It demonstrates how we as a country have come to accept the casual disrespect shown to our 44th President. I don't expect everyone to join in a President Obama love-fest, but at least respect the office and the man who holds it.
Monday, March 26, 2012
It's Monday...
...and everyone needs a day off and, as an actor, traditionally Mondays are mine, so I'm going to curl up with a giant sugar free cinnamon vanilla latte and my Kindle and relax. Before I begin my weekly Day-of-Indulgence, I'll be sharing quotes from people who are a lot smarter and more clever than I am. Enjoy and talk amongst yourselves. See you tomorrow.
Monday Quote: Lead us not into temptation; just tell us where it is and we'll find it. (Sam Levenson, author and humorist, 1911-1980)
Monday Quote: Lead us not into temptation; just tell us where it is and we'll find it. (Sam Levenson, author and humorist, 1911-1980)
Sunday, March 25, 2012
I Will Never Understand
In February the burning of Korans by US military sparked nationwide rioting in Afghanistan during which over three dozen people were killed. On March 11, a US soldier walked into a sleeping Afghan village and murdered 16 people in their homes before setting fire to the bodies. Many of the victims were women and children. The US braced for more rioting, but nothing happened.
what eye thynk: The burning of the Korans was an incredibly stupid, costly and completely avoidable mistake; but, in the end, it was only paper that was burned. Outrage over our lack of respect I could understand, but not the killing of some thirty of their own over books that could be easily duplicated and replaced. We didn’t destroy God, we destroyed pressed wood pulp decorated with ink.
Yet, when sixteen lives were taken, there was no rioting, no call for reprisals. There was sadness and outrage but even that seemed muted. Abdul Rahim Shah Ghaa, a religious leader in Afghanistan, explained it this way: “But it was only sixteen people. Even if it were one thousand people, it wouldn’t compare to harming one word of the Koran”.
I will never understand a culture that values paper over human life. I find it hard to even respect it.
what eye thynk: The burning of the Korans was an incredibly stupid, costly and completely avoidable mistake; but, in the end, it was only paper that was burned. Outrage over our lack of respect I could understand, but not the killing of some thirty of their own over books that could be easily duplicated and replaced. We didn’t destroy God, we destroyed pressed wood pulp decorated with ink.
Yet, when sixteen lives were taken, there was no rioting, no call for reprisals. There was sadness and outrage but even that seemed muted. Abdul Rahim Shah Ghaa, a religious leader in Afghanistan, explained it this way: “But it was only sixteen people. Even if it were one thousand people, it wouldn’t compare to harming one word of the Koran”.
I will never understand a culture that values paper over human life. I find it hard to even respect it.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Violence Against Women Act - Another Partisan Football?
The Violence Against Women Act was originally drafted by then Senator Biden. When it was passed in 1994, it did so not only with bi-partisan support, but with unanimous bi-partisan support. The VAWA was reauthorized in 2000 and again in 2005, both times with overwhelming bi-partisan support. It is up for reauthorization again this month, but this time, it is in trouble.
what eye thynk: The sticking points are gays, illegal aliens and Native Americans. Really, Native Americans.
The Democrats want to add three new provisions. The first would provide protection to same sex victims of abuse. Some Republicans are saying that Democrats added this provision in order to make it harder for them to back it. To those close-minded members of Congress, I would say: No, the Democrats added this provision because they recognize that abuse is wrong, period. Abusers who share the same “plumbing” with those they abuse should not get a free pass.
The second provision would provide temporary visas to illegal immigrants who are victims of abuse. This is supposed to give the abused an opportunity to find employment, thus removing the abused from the influence of the abuser. I have to admit I have a problem with this. If you’re illegal and you’re abused, instead of a visa, I propose we send you home, which will put you even further away from your abuser. Problem solved. I know many will see my stance as cold, but my opinion on illegal immigration definitely puts me on the conservative side of the scale. I don’t propose hunting you down, but I would remove you if you pop up in my face. One caveat--if you were brought to this country illegally by your parents when you were four and you’ve grown up here, you’re one of us. Welcome, now go apply for citizenship.
The third provision would give Native American tribal courts the right to deal with non-Native Americans who abuse Native American women. I can think of no reason why any member of Congress would oppose this. We give Native Americans the right to their own courts and they should be permitted to judge anyone who breaks their laws…not just those whose skin matches their own.
In fairness, there are a few Republicans who view this as an issue of fairness for every human being, no matter their sexual orientation or their national status. Republicans joining the side of decency are Senator Dean Heller (Nevada), Senator Mike Crapo (Idaho), Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (Maine), Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)--take that Sarah Palin!--Senator Mark Kirk (Illinois) and Senator Dean Brown (Massachusetts) who, when asked about the partisan posturing over the reauthorization of the VAWA said “There is no reason for it. There is no excuse for it”.
‘nuff said.
what eye thynk: The sticking points are gays, illegal aliens and Native Americans. Really, Native Americans.
The Democrats want to add three new provisions. The first would provide protection to same sex victims of abuse. Some Republicans are saying that Democrats added this provision in order to make it harder for them to back it. To those close-minded members of Congress, I would say: No, the Democrats added this provision because they recognize that abuse is wrong, period. Abusers who share the same “plumbing” with those they abuse should not get a free pass.
The second provision would provide temporary visas to illegal immigrants who are victims of abuse. This is supposed to give the abused an opportunity to find employment, thus removing the abused from the influence of the abuser. I have to admit I have a problem with this. If you’re illegal and you’re abused, instead of a visa, I propose we send you home, which will put you even further away from your abuser. Problem solved. I know many will see my stance as cold, but my opinion on illegal immigration definitely puts me on the conservative side of the scale. I don’t propose hunting you down, but I would remove you if you pop up in my face. One caveat--if you were brought to this country illegally by your parents when you were four and you’ve grown up here, you’re one of us. Welcome, now go apply for citizenship.
The third provision would give Native American tribal courts the right to deal with non-Native Americans who abuse Native American women. I can think of no reason why any member of Congress would oppose this. We give Native Americans the right to their own courts and they should be permitted to judge anyone who breaks their laws…not just those whose skin matches their own.
In fairness, there are a few Republicans who view this as an issue of fairness for every human being, no matter their sexual orientation or their national status. Republicans joining the side of decency are Senator Dean Heller (Nevada), Senator Mike Crapo (Idaho), Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (Maine), Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)--take that Sarah Palin!--Senator Mark Kirk (Illinois) and Senator Dean Brown (Massachusetts) who, when asked about the partisan posturing over the reauthorization of the VAWA said “There is no reason for it. There is no excuse for it”.
‘nuff said.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Revisionist History Can Be Sketchy
Campaigning in Maryland this week, Mr. Romney said, "I keep hearing the President say that he's responsible for keeping America from going into a Great Depression. No, no, no. That was President George W. Bush".
what eye thynk: What? I'm having trouble with the chronology here. For months we've been hearing Romney blame the recession on President Obama. So the economy that Romney has been telling us Obama broke was fixed by George W. before Obama broke it? Just trying to follow the logic in that makes my brain bleed.
Earlier this week, when asked how Mr. Romney's campaign might change were he to win the nomination, Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom compared the two campaigns this way: "Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again".
Looking at Mr. Romney's comments in Maryland, it appears that he is already mastering the art of history by Etch A Sketch.
Our country's arrival at the brink of economic collapse happened on George W's watch and was caused by his administration's policies of deregulation and tax cutting while paying for a war started under false pretenses. No amount of shake-erase-rewrite action can change those facts.
The Republican ego has become so engorged that there is no longer room for the truth. They would have us believe that if only they had been left in charge unemployment would be zero, gasoline would be $2.50 a gallon and the entire Middle East would be embracing Western style democracy.
And now Mr. Romney wants us to believe that George W. didn't really ravage our economy, he saved it. This is revisionist history at the hands of an Etch A Sketch master.
what eye thynk: What? I'm having trouble with the chronology here. For months we've been hearing Romney blame the recession on President Obama. So the economy that Romney has been telling us Obama broke was fixed by George W. before Obama broke it? Just trying to follow the logic in that makes my brain bleed.
Earlier this week, when asked how Mr. Romney's campaign might change were he to win the nomination, Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom compared the two campaigns this way: "Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again".
Looking at Mr. Romney's comments in Maryland, it appears that he is already mastering the art of history by Etch A Sketch.
Our country's arrival at the brink of economic collapse happened on George W's watch and was caused by his administration's policies of deregulation and tax cutting while paying for a war started under false pretenses. No amount of shake-erase-rewrite action can change those facts.
The Republican ego has become so engorged that there is no longer room for the truth. They would have us believe that if only they had been left in charge unemployment would be zero, gasoline would be $2.50 a gallon and the entire Middle East would be embracing Western style democracy.
And now Mr. Romney wants us to believe that George W. didn't really ravage our economy, he saved it. This is revisionist history at the hands of an Etch A Sketch master.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Republicans and Gas Prices. Don't Let the Facts Get in the Way.
Gasoline prices are going up and the Republican party can’t stop talking about it.
what eye thynk: The Republicans, led by Mr. Boehner who has instructed his minions to “hit hard on the gas issue”, want you to believe that President Obama and the EPA are stifling domestic oil production and the rising price of gasoline is all their fault. Bull!
Here are some facts that the Republican party refuses to acknowledge: In 2005 we were importing 60% of our oil. In 2010 our import needs dropped to 45% due to INCREASED DOMESTIC PRODUCTION. In 2011 we produced 10.3 million barrels of domestic oil each and every day--the highest domestic production since the 1980s. Currently there are more working oil rigs in the US than there are in the rest of the world combined. At the same time, our use of gasoline has actually declined 5% since 2008.
So, we are using less, importing less and increasing domestic production but gasoline prices continue to rise. Why? Two reasons--first, oil is a world commodity. Global issues like the Mid East conflict and the rising use of oil in countries like China and India impact the price of the oil we import.
The second reason may have an even bigger impact: oil speculators. Major blame can be laid at the feet of speculators who see rising oil prices as a cash hog just waiting to be exploited. I read a study on oil speculation published by the Futures Trading Commission showing that those who actually use oil account for only about 20% of oil trading. That means that 80% of the buying and selling of oil is done by speculators whose only purpose is to sell it at a profit. If they purchase 80% of the available oil at $100/barrel on Tuesday, those who need oil are forced to purchase it at $101/barrel on Wednesday. And the beat goes on.
Want to be really incensed? Follow this link to Energy Investments Inc., where you can learn that oil speculation can be 100% tax free! http://www.energyinvestmentsinc.net/index.php?&page=why&keyword=oilgas&gclid=COD1-oT8-q4CFcbc4AodGn2W0g
Goldman-Sachs does some oil speculating and admitted recently that the price of gasoline would drop by about 56 cents/gallon if oil speculation was regulated.
So why isn’t oil speculation regulated? Good question. Maybe we should ask Mr. Boehner.
what eye thynk: The Republicans, led by Mr. Boehner who has instructed his minions to “hit hard on the gas issue”, want you to believe that President Obama and the EPA are stifling domestic oil production and the rising price of gasoline is all their fault. Bull!
Here are some facts that the Republican party refuses to acknowledge: In 2005 we were importing 60% of our oil. In 2010 our import needs dropped to 45% due to INCREASED DOMESTIC PRODUCTION. In 2011 we produced 10.3 million barrels of domestic oil each and every day--the highest domestic production since the 1980s. Currently there are more working oil rigs in the US than there are in the rest of the world combined. At the same time, our use of gasoline has actually declined 5% since 2008.
So, we are using less, importing less and increasing domestic production but gasoline prices continue to rise. Why? Two reasons--first, oil is a world commodity. Global issues like the Mid East conflict and the rising use of oil in countries like China and India impact the price of the oil we import.
The second reason may have an even bigger impact: oil speculators. Major blame can be laid at the feet of speculators who see rising oil prices as a cash hog just waiting to be exploited. I read a study on oil speculation published by the Futures Trading Commission showing that those who actually use oil account for only about 20% of oil trading. That means that 80% of the buying and selling of oil is done by speculators whose only purpose is to sell it at a profit. If they purchase 80% of the available oil at $100/barrel on Tuesday, those who need oil are forced to purchase it at $101/barrel on Wednesday. And the beat goes on.
Want to be really incensed? Follow this link to Energy Investments Inc., where you can learn that oil speculation can be 100% tax free! http://www.energyinvestmentsinc.net/index.php?&page=why&keyword=oilgas&gclid=COD1-oT8-q4CFcbc4AodGn2W0g
Goldman-Sachs does some oil speculating and admitted recently that the price of gasoline would drop by about 56 cents/gallon if oil speculation was regulated.
So why isn’t oil speculation regulated? Good question. Maybe we should ask Mr. Boehner.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Is Unemployment a Joke? Who Cares!?
The two front running candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have both been credited with memorable and telling quotes regarding unemployment. Mitt Romney -- "I'm unemployed too. Hahaha". Rick Santorum -- "I don't care about unemployment".
what eye thynk: This is the best the Republicans can do?
Mr. Romney, unemployment is not funny. A family struggling to survive on a couple hundred dollars a week in unemployment does not get the joke, especially coming from a man so wealthy he can buy a third world country and get change back.
We need answers, and "I know how to run a business" is not an answer. You can't run a country like you run a corporation. When part of your citizenry asks for decent health care, you can't fire them because you don't like their attitude. When the budget doesn't balance, you can't sell off a couple of states to raise capital. Think about it.
Oh, and Mitt, you're running for President, not BFF. Wear a suit and tie. The $300 designer jeans and the $200 hand tailored shirts aren't fooling anyone.
As for you, Mr. Santorum, you may not care about unemployment, but millions of unemployed Americans do. To put it in terms you may understand: Leviticus 19:18 ...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Rick, many of your neighbors are unemployed and a big part of the job of President of the United States is to care for the welfare of the citizens of this country--not just the faithful, not just the well to do, but ALL the citizens, even the uninsured, even the unemployed.
If you want the job, you're going to have to do more for me than pray. You're going to have to care.
what eye thynk: This is the best the Republicans can do?
Mr. Romney, unemployment is not funny. A family struggling to survive on a couple hundred dollars a week in unemployment does not get the joke, especially coming from a man so wealthy he can buy a third world country and get change back.
We need answers, and "I know how to run a business" is not an answer. You can't run a country like you run a corporation. When part of your citizenry asks for decent health care, you can't fire them because you don't like their attitude. When the budget doesn't balance, you can't sell off a couple of states to raise capital. Think about it.
Oh, and Mitt, you're running for President, not BFF. Wear a suit and tie. The $300 designer jeans and the $200 hand tailored shirts aren't fooling anyone.
As for you, Mr. Santorum, you may not care about unemployment, but millions of unemployed Americans do. To put it in terms you may understand: Leviticus 19:18 ...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Rick, many of your neighbors are unemployed and a big part of the job of President of the United States is to care for the welfare of the citizens of this country--not just the faithful, not just the well to do, but ALL the citizens, even the uninsured, even the unemployed.
If you want the job, you're going to have to do more for me than pray. You're going to have to care.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Rick Santorum re: Pedophile Priests. The Liberals Did It!
In a book written by Mr. Santorum in which he discusses the Catholic priest child abuse scandal as it broke in Boston in 2002, he says "It is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies in the center of the storm".
what eye thynk: So it is all the fault of liberalism; pedophile priests bear no blame at all? No Hail Marys or Our Fathers needed; just blame it on the liberals and keep on walking?
I was raised to think that men (and women) of God, no matter the sect, were people to look up to; people who were morally stronger than myself, people I could trust to sort through life's detritus and point me in the right direction.
If exposure to liberal thought can send a priest so far off the rail of human decency that he can abuse a child, then maybe we need to rethink who we teach our children to emulate.
And I would not want them to emulate a man like Mr. Santorum who is unable to look beyond blind loyalty to recognize true evil when it exists--even in the most conservative places.
what eye thynk: So it is all the fault of liberalism; pedophile priests bear no blame at all? No Hail Marys or Our Fathers needed; just blame it on the liberals and keep on walking?
I was raised to think that men (and women) of God, no matter the sect, were people to look up to; people who were morally stronger than myself, people I could trust to sort through life's detritus and point me in the right direction.
If exposure to liberal thought can send a priest so far off the rail of human decency that he can abuse a child, then maybe we need to rethink who we teach our children to emulate.
And I would not want them to emulate a man like Mr. Santorum who is unable to look beyond blind loyalty to recognize true evil when it exists--even in the most conservative places.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Congressional Hypocrites
Republicans in the US House of Representatives are introducing a new Medicare program this week. The program replaces the pay per use plan we have now with a plan where all senior citizens will be required to purchase their own private health insurance. A stipend will be issued to the elderly to help with the cost.
what eye thynk: Yes, Medicare needs fixing, but how is this different from the Affordable Care Act that these same Republicans insist must be repealed?
When asked to explain the difference, the committee demurred until Rep. DeMint took the microphone to say that "beginning to privatize an existing government program is very different from increasing government reach into the private health care market"; an explanation that really doesn't explain anything.
HOW is it different? If it is okay for government to "reach into the private health care market" for people over 65, why is it wrong to reach into the same "private health care market" for people in their 40s?
Do they really not see their own blatant hypocrisy or do they just hope we won't notice?
what eye thynk: Yes, Medicare needs fixing, but how is this different from the Affordable Care Act that these same Republicans insist must be repealed?
When asked to explain the difference, the committee demurred until Rep. DeMint took the microphone to say that "beginning to privatize an existing government program is very different from increasing government reach into the private health care market"; an explanation that really doesn't explain anything.
HOW is it different? If it is okay for government to "reach into the private health care market" for people over 65, why is it wrong to reach into the same "private health care market" for people in their 40s?
Do they really not see their own blatant hypocrisy or do they just hope we won't notice?
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The US Congress, Where Political Blackmail is Business as Usual
A federal highway trust fund will expire at the end of this month. Last week, the US Senate passed a transportation bill that would provide millions of long term jobs while rebuilding our ailing infrastructure and which will guarantee that the money in the highway trust fund is not lost. The House of Representatives has their own stalled version of the bill. The House wants to add riders; among them two that would open the Arctic Wildlife Preserve and the entire continental shelf to drilling for oil and a third rider that would fast track the Keystone XL Pipeline.
what eye thynk: In any given circumstance, either party can be caught playing this blackmail game. "Add my riders to your bill or I won't vote for it and you'll be sorry!" They all sound like small, petulant children threatening to take their ball and go home if the rules aren't changed to satisfy them.
When you look at your congressman's record, are you sure he supported the health care law or did he really vote for it because they added his tax-cuts-for-pig-farmers-who-raise-only-speckled-pigs-in-dry-counties rider? Yes, that is ludicrous, but it makes a point. Remember last year when Tea Party leadership threatened to vote no on any attempt to raise the debt limit unless a rider was added forcing gay service men and women back into the closet? Really, how was that, in any way, going to improve our debt situation?
Political blackmail is a waste of time and resources. Without all the adding and subtracting one-upmanship maybe Congress could actually accomplish something. Eliminate what has become essentially a pay for my vote mentality.
If you think sober speckled pig farmers deserve a tax cut, then present it as a single issue bill; because, frankly, if your rider isn't strong enough to be passed on its own, then it shouldn't be passed.
what eye thynk: In any given circumstance, either party can be caught playing this blackmail game. "Add my riders to your bill or I won't vote for it and you'll be sorry!" They all sound like small, petulant children threatening to take their ball and go home if the rules aren't changed to satisfy them.
When you look at your congressman's record, are you sure he supported the health care law or did he really vote for it because they added his tax-cuts-for-pig-farmers-who-raise-only-speckled-pigs-in-dry-counties rider? Yes, that is ludicrous, but it makes a point. Remember last year when Tea Party leadership threatened to vote no on any attempt to raise the debt limit unless a rider was added forcing gay service men and women back into the closet? Really, how was that, in any way, going to improve our debt situation?
Political blackmail is a waste of time and resources. Without all the adding and subtracting one-upmanship maybe Congress could actually accomplish something. Eliminate what has become essentially a pay for my vote mentality.
If you think sober speckled pig farmers deserve a tax cut, then present it as a single issue bill; because, frankly, if your rider isn't strong enough to be passed on its own, then it shouldn't be passed.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
A Day to Be Green
Today is March 17, Saint Patrick's Day.
what eye thynk: I'm taking my sister and my Irish Setter to the St. Paddy's Day Parade. I'm going to drink green beer and feed corned beef to my dog and enjoy myself. Hope your day is green too.
what eye thynk: I'm taking my sister and my Irish Setter to the St. Paddy's Day Parade. I'm going to drink green beer and feed corned beef to my dog and enjoy myself. Hope your day is green too.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Republicans Must Have a Different Bible
The Arizona State Judiciary Committee has endorsed a Republican backed "show me your prescription" bill which now moves on to the state Senate. This bill would require a woman to show her contraception prescription to her employer...any employer. If the employer determines that the female employee is using contraception in order to prevent a pregnancy, the employer would have the right to fire that female employee.
what eye thynk: Republicans are so far off the rail on this issue it is truly becoming frightening. Birth control is a religious issue? My Bible doesn't mention birth control. Is there a special Republicans Only Bible that the rest of us are not allowed to see?
A prescription is part of a woman's medical records. If a law officer is denied access to patient records because of doctor/patient confidentiality; how can they justify giving Joe Blob, who hires a woman to run a cash register three nights a week at the local Stop 'n' Rob, access to part of those same medical records? Where is the logic in this?
Let's follow this to the absurd: Joe Blob's church prohibits the use of birth control and he is permitted to fire any female employee who does not follow the tenets of HIS church. What if this female employee belongs to some obscure religious sect that requires all women over a certain age to use birth control? If he fires her for following her church's tenets, wouldn't that be a violation of HER religious freedom? Whose religious freedom trumps whose?
And imagine if the employer is Mary Blob who belongs to a church that requires all males to be circumcised. Employee evaluation day would be interesting.
what eye thynk: Republicans are so far off the rail on this issue it is truly becoming frightening. Birth control is a religious issue? My Bible doesn't mention birth control. Is there a special Republicans Only Bible that the rest of us are not allowed to see?
A prescription is part of a woman's medical records. If a law officer is denied access to patient records because of doctor/patient confidentiality; how can they justify giving Joe Blob, who hires a woman to run a cash register three nights a week at the local Stop 'n' Rob, access to part of those same medical records? Where is the logic in this?
Let's follow this to the absurd: Joe Blob's church prohibits the use of birth control and he is permitted to fire any female employee who does not follow the tenets of HIS church. What if this female employee belongs to some obscure religious sect that requires all women over a certain age to use birth control? If he fires her for following her church's tenets, wouldn't that be a violation of HER religious freedom? Whose religious freedom trumps whose?
And imagine if the employer is Mary Blob who belongs to a church that requires all males to be circumcised. Employee evaluation day would be interesting.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Because Life is More than Politics...
Do it yourself checkouts are quickly becoming ubiquitous. Have you noticed?
what eye thynk: This past Summer I was at a Home Depot near our house during the middle of the week and found 0nly do it yourself checkout lines. When I asked, I was told they only "peopled" some lines on weekends. I left my cart and drove a few blocks to Lowe's where week day people-ing didn't seem to be a problem.
At the grocery store recently I realized that, where there had been three or four do it yourself lines, there were now fourteen. As I pulled my cart up to one of only three traditional, cashier staffed checkouts, an employee invited me to the diy line next to me which was empty. I declined.
Really, if I'm going to perform the duties of a paid employee, i.e. scanning my own groceries, weighing my own produce, bagging my groceries, processing coupons and store card savings, then I want a discount. I came to shop, not perform unpaid labor. Since there is no price advantage for do it yourselfers, I'll continue to wait in line to be taken care of by an "actual live person!".
And while I wait in line, I'll enjoy a few minutes reading on my Kindle. When it's my turn, maybe the cashier will even smile at me; after all, my stubbornness could be saving her job.
what eye thynk: This past Summer I was at a Home Depot near our house during the middle of the week and found 0nly do it yourself checkout lines. When I asked, I was told they only "peopled" some lines on weekends. I left my cart and drove a few blocks to Lowe's where week day people-ing didn't seem to be a problem.
At the grocery store recently I realized that, where there had been three or four do it yourself lines, there were now fourteen. As I pulled my cart up to one of only three traditional, cashier staffed checkouts, an employee invited me to the diy line next to me which was empty. I declined.
Really, if I'm going to perform the duties of a paid employee, i.e. scanning my own groceries, weighing my own produce, bagging my groceries, processing coupons and store card savings, then I want a discount. I came to shop, not perform unpaid labor. Since there is no price advantage for do it yourselfers, I'll continue to wait in line to be taken care of by an "actual live person!".
And while I wait in line, I'll enjoy a few minutes reading on my Kindle. When it's my turn, maybe the cashier will even smile at me; after all, my stubbornness could be saving her job.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
The Art of Governing in Reverse - Redux
Some members of Congress, including Republican Representative Nan Hayworth of New York and Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, want to back out of the deal reached on raising the deficit--a deal agreed to after lengthy and painful negotiations that nearly closed down our government late last year. House Budget Committee Republicans have met with majority leader Eric Cantor to discuss further reductions to programs that are under Congress' control, (like Medicare), thus re-opening the whole spending debate.
what eye thynk: This is deja vu all over again. (See my post of March 8 "The Art of Governing in Reverse".)
Senate leadership has already said that any measure attempting to alter last year's agreement will not be put up for a vote in the Senate, effectively making the whole argument moot; but House Republicans still seem determined to waste time on what is essentially just an opportunity for some members to out-conservative each other.
Their focus on Medicare once again shows that, when it comes to spending parity, it will be those most fragile who will be exploited while the very wealthy continue to purchase government in their own image.
what eye thynk: This is deja vu all over again. (See my post of March 8 "The Art of Governing in Reverse".)
Senate leadership has already said that any measure attempting to alter last year's agreement will not be put up for a vote in the Senate, effectively making the whole argument moot; but House Republicans still seem determined to waste time on what is essentially just an opportunity for some members to out-conservative each other.
Their focus on Medicare once again shows that, when it comes to spending parity, it will be those most fragile who will be exploited while the very wealthy continue to purchase government in their own image.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Is Santorum Running for President or Pope?
On Monday, March 12, the New York Times quoted Khairat el-Shater, a leader in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, as saying that religion "regulates in its entirety, politically, economically and socially; we don't have this separation between religion and government The Muslim Brotherhood is a value-based organization that expresses itself using different politcal, economic, sportive, health-related and social means. You can't take one part from another in this. It isn't how it's done."
what eye thynk: Rick Santorum said recently that reading JFK's speech on the separation of church and state made him want to "throw up". Not the most elegant way of making a point, but it does bring Mr. el-Shater's quote down to the lowest common denominator. Really, substitute Rick Santorum and his Christian faith for Khairat el-Shater and the Muslim Brotherhood in the above paragraph and who could tell the difference?
What seems to be overlooked here is that you can't legislate faith. No law, no matter how well intentioned, is going to turn everyone into a believer. We either believe or we don't. Mr. Santorum's apparent wish to force every US citizen to believe as he does is anethema to everything that makes this country great. And what makes this country great is what gives Mr. Santorum the right to believe as he does.
what eye thynk: Rick Santorum said recently that reading JFK's speech on the separation of church and state made him want to "throw up". Not the most elegant way of making a point, but it does bring Mr. el-Shater's quote down to the lowest common denominator. Really, substitute Rick Santorum and his Christian faith for Khairat el-Shater and the Muslim Brotherhood in the above paragraph and who could tell the difference?
What seems to be overlooked here is that you can't legislate faith. No law, no matter how well intentioned, is going to turn everyone into a believer. We either believe or we don't. Mr. Santorum's apparent wish to force every US citizen to believe as he does is anethema to everything that makes this country great. And what makes this country great is what gives Mr. Santorum the right to believe as he does.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Wealthy Really Are Special...Chase Says So
On Sunday the New York Times reported that Chase is opening special wealthy only branches in Manhattan where the uber-rich can do their banking in marble halls while sipping wine and munching on cheese and specially made cookies.
what eye thynk: What, the rich can't afford their own snacks? And how incredibly insulting. Does Chase think the wealthy will be harmed in some way by laying eyes on the rest of us? Note to Chase: We, the great unwashed, like wine and cookies too.
what eye thynk: What, the rich can't afford their own snacks? And how incredibly insulting. Does Chase think the wealthy will be harmed in some way by laying eyes on the rest of us? Note to Chase: We, the great unwashed, like wine and cookies too.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Romney, Santorum, Gingrich - Bailout Experts?
Romney would have left the auto industry go through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Santorum doesn't think the government should be involved in bailouts of any kind. Gingrich refers to the auto industry bailout as "a violation of 200 years of bankruptcy law".
what eye thynk: The one who really gets me is Romney. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy needs private capital to keep the business running while it re-organizes. Essentially, a private company or bank purchases a failing company's assets, (in this case GM and Chrysler), allowing the failing company to use that capital to run their business while they reorganize. He seems to have conveniently forgotten that there wasn't anyone interested in buying GM or Chrysler's assets--and that included Bain, the company Romney started in 1984.
Santorum would have left GM and Chrysler go it alone. I doubt there would be very many customers willing to buy a car being made by a business in bankruptcy and no sales equals no possible return to profitability. (Remember Braniff Airways? No one would fly on their planes after they filed an independent bankruptcy, their cash flow fell to zero and they threw in the towel after six weeks.)
Gingrich loves to promote himself as this great historian, but I have to think that the panel of Federal District Court judges who determined that no private capital was available, thus paving the way for a government bailout, and who also oversaw GM's bankruptcy process and oversaw their emergence from bankruptcy knows more about bankruptcy law than he does.
And just in general, all three of you need to stop "blaming" President Obama for the auto industry bailout. That happened under President Bush's watch...just like the housing collapse, the banking collapse and our head first dive into economic recession. However, you might want to think about giving President Obama a little credit for our slow but steady rise from the depths. That would be nice.
what eye thynk: The one who really gets me is Romney. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy needs private capital to keep the business running while it re-organizes. Essentially, a private company or bank purchases a failing company's assets, (in this case GM and Chrysler), allowing the failing company to use that capital to run their business while they reorganize. He seems to have conveniently forgotten that there wasn't anyone interested in buying GM or Chrysler's assets--and that included Bain, the company Romney started in 1984.
Santorum would have left GM and Chrysler go it alone. I doubt there would be very many customers willing to buy a car being made by a business in bankruptcy and no sales equals no possible return to profitability. (Remember Braniff Airways? No one would fly on their planes after they filed an independent bankruptcy, their cash flow fell to zero and they threw in the towel after six weeks.)
Gingrich loves to promote himself as this great historian, but I have to think that the panel of Federal District Court judges who determined that no private capital was available, thus paving the way for a government bailout, and who also oversaw GM's bankruptcy process and oversaw their emergence from bankruptcy knows more about bankruptcy law than he does.
And just in general, all three of you need to stop "blaming" President Obama for the auto industry bailout. That happened under President Bush's watch...just like the housing collapse, the banking collapse and our head first dive into economic recession. However, you might want to think about giving President Obama a little credit for our slow but steady rise from the depths. That would be nice.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Needed: Warmongers Anonymous
Mitch McConnell and Senator McCain want Congress to authorize force against Syria. Romney and Santorum talk to Aipac, (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), apparently ready to start a war with Iran.
what eye thynk: Yeah, we see how well that worked in Iraq.
For the most part, the Middle East countries are ruled by a tribal mentality, ie. tribal loyalty trumps national unity every time. Our Western style rules don't work there. Witness the deterioration of the phony democracy we set up in Iraq. Witness the increased violence in Afghanistan as our withdrawal approaches. Witness how anti-US sentiment multiplies in the entire region every time we attempt to stick our nose into their business.
I'm not saying we should ignore social atrocities and allow nuclear weapons to proliferate; but we are not the boss of the world.
President Obama's measured approach of coalition building, encouraging other nations to take the lead and the pursuit of economic sanctions seems destined to reap better results with less loss of American lives and less stress on our fragile economy.
what eye thynk: Yeah, we see how well that worked in Iraq.
For the most part, the Middle East countries are ruled by a tribal mentality, ie. tribal loyalty trumps national unity every time. Our Western style rules don't work there. Witness the deterioration of the phony democracy we set up in Iraq. Witness the increased violence in Afghanistan as our withdrawal approaches. Witness how anti-US sentiment multiplies in the entire region every time we attempt to stick our nose into their business.
I'm not saying we should ignore social atrocities and allow nuclear weapons to proliferate; but we are not the boss of the world.
President Obama's measured approach of coalition building, encouraging other nations to take the lead and the pursuit of economic sanctions seems destined to reap better results with less loss of American lives and less stress on our fragile economy.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Conservative Republican Small Government and My (V - word)
A tenet of the Republican party and its conservative base is smaller government with fewer regulations.
what eye thynk: Then why are they continuing to introduce so much legislation and sign so many new laws all aimed at my right to control what happens to my body?
Apparently small government and fewer regulations applies only to businesses, banks, environmental issues, unstaffed government agencies and open judgeships.
Think how much smaller government could get if the conservatives would stay out of my vagina.
what eye thynk: Then why are they continuing to introduce so much legislation and sign so many new laws all aimed at my right to control what happens to my body?
Apparently small government and fewer regulations applies only to businesses, banks, environmental issues, unstaffed government agencies and open judgeships.
Think how much smaller government could get if the conservatives would stay out of my vagina.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
I'm Sure This Must Make Sense to Someone
Yesterday I stopped at Staples to purchase a pack of copy paper. I always try to purchase 100% recycled paper. Looking over the display I noticed that, while "regular" Staples brand paper was displayed in a paper wrapper, the recycled paper was wrapped in plastic!
what eye thynk: Why?
The Art of Governing in Reverse
I keep hearing the Republican Party candidates talk about the need to win the next election so that they can repeal health care, repeal environmental regulations, repeal the new banking laws, repeal abortion rights.
what eye thynk: Whatever happened to moving forward? This isn't about Democrat/Republican government gridlock; this is about an apparent total lack of Republican forward thinking...an inability to do anything but obsess about changing what exists into something that used to be.
I'm not so naive as to think that in the past the losing party on any issue walked away smiling broadly and congratulating the victors; but it seems that the recent Republican response to losing any vote has been "we've got to begin the process to reverse this immediately!". How can we expect to move forward as a country when so many of the people we have elected to lead are facing the wrong way?
what eye thynk: Whatever happened to moving forward? This isn't about Democrat/Republican government gridlock; this is about an apparent total lack of Republican forward thinking...an inability to do anything but obsess about changing what exists into something that used to be.
I'm not so naive as to think that in the past the losing party on any issue walked away smiling broadly and congratulating the victors; but it seems that the recent Republican response to losing any vote has been "we've got to begin the process to reverse this immediately!". How can we expect to move forward as a country when so many of the people we have elected to lead are facing the wrong way?
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The Romneys' Out-of-Touch-itis and Me
I saw an interview with Mrs. Romney on TV last night. I think it was recorded over the previous week-end. In it, she states that she doesn't "feel rich" because it could all be gone some day.
what eye thynk: Let's see, the Romneys are supposed to be worth 250 million dollars. If Mitt lost one of his $10,000 bets today and continued to lose a $10,000 bet every day going forward, it would take him until 2080, (68 1/2 years!) to lose it all.
If I lost $10,000 a day, I'd be bankrupt by next week. Maybe we have more in common than I thought. I don't "feel rich" either.
what eye thynk: Let's see, the Romneys are supposed to be worth 250 million dollars. If Mitt lost one of his $10,000 bets today and continued to lose a $10,000 bet every day going forward, it would take him until 2080, (68 1/2 years!) to lose it all.
If I lost $10,000 a day, I'd be bankrupt by next week. Maybe we have more in common than I thought. I don't "feel rich" either.
Viagra vs. The Pill
Political noise: news article after news article and conservative pundit after conservative politician ranting about the evils of birth control.
what eye thynk: Why is it that it's okay for health insurers to pay for Viagra but not okay for those same health insurers to pay for birth control pills? What makes "their" pill a medical necessity and "my" pill evil? Beyond stopping pregnancy, birth control pills are used to treat other female problems. What else does Viagra do?
Unfair as the whole issue is, sometimes you just gotta laugh. Can't you just see a Monty Python world where women live in abstinence and Viagra amped men run around looking for relief? It would serve them right!
what eye thynk: Why is it that it's okay for health insurers to pay for Viagra but not okay for those same health insurers to pay for birth control pills? What makes "their" pill a medical necessity and "my" pill evil? Beyond stopping pregnancy, birth control pills are used to treat other female problems. What else does Viagra do?
Unfair as the whole issue is, sometimes you just gotta laugh. Can't you just see a Monty Python world where women live in abstinence and Viagra amped men run around looking for relief? It would serve them right!
Mormon Church Posthumous Baptisms
Mormons have been caught, again, baptising Jews who have died. They have said that they discourage the practice, but some "full" church members continue to submerse themselves in other's names. Anne Frank seems to be a popular target. On March 3, 2012, the New York Times quoted Mormon church spokesman Michael Otterson: "The sentiment is one of inclusiveness and reaching out, that God loves all his children".
what eye thynk: Yes, God loves all his children--and that includes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and all "brands" of Christians. A Mormon baptism, no matter when it occurs, does not put you at the head of the Receive-Love-Here line. They may call it "reaching out"; I call it insulting and arrogant.
what eye thynk: Yes, God loves all his children--and that includes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans and all "brands" of Christians. A Mormon baptism, no matter when it occurs, does not put you at the head of the Receive-Love-Here line. They may call it "reaching out"; I call it insulting and arrogant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)