Who's to Blame for the Debt Ceiling Crisis?

Who do I blame?

The most blame goes to the Tea Party Traitors who are holding our government hostage in an attempt to force an Amendment to the Constitution and sway public opinion against Obama.

Second, I blame the rest of the REDS because while they don't necessarily want to force a Constitutional Amendment, they're complicit in the TPT's shenanigans. Particularly John Boehner. And let's not forget that they still want all those drastic budget cuts that hurt the poor, the elderly and the disabled, while protecting tax breaks and shelters for millionaires and billionaires. They apparently don't care if these people do their civic and patriotic duty by paying their fair share, as outlined by our founding fathers.

Third, I blame the Democrats for having no backbone and no moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable Americans. And for appearing all too willing to kowtow to a radical faction of Congress who, in effect, are holding our government hostage and throwing the poor, the elderly, and the disabled, under the bus.

Fourth, I blame our President for being weak and too much of a mediator, rather than a leader. He, as head of the Democratic Party, sets a poor example because he's running the country like a business rather than the government of a country. He's too willing to negotiate with the domestic terrorists in Congress, rather than stand up to them. Every time he gives an inch, the REDS and now the Tea Party Traitors, take a mile.

President Obama has never outlined a plan, which would be simple enough to do except that in order to do that, he has to commit to something. And for some reason, Obama is loathe to do that. He prefers to have a list of preferences and druthers, but commits to nothing except to sign off on the final product of whatever Congress comes up with. He's acting like more of a project manager than the President of the United States. He's NOT a project manager. He's the g*dd*m CEO!

Finally, I blame all the ignorant, uneducated, misguided and outright stupid people of the U.S.A. who voted these Obstructionists, these Tea Party Traitors, into office. Their right to vote should be rescinded if they can't muster any better critical thinking skills than these domestic terrorists. Or perhaps they fit into that category yourselves.

What a freakin' mess. I'm almost at the point to say "Let them default." Then let the chips fall where they may and let people find out what their Tea Party Traitors did for them - and the country. Perhaps then we could arrest them all for treason and insurrection, which is constitutionally viable, and get rid of the REDS influence once and for all... and get rid of the monied interests in our government at the same time.

Meanwhile, I'll just pray for divine intervention, because I don't know what else will save us now.

Raising Pell Grants Is Not Enough

President Obama says that the U.S. needs to invest in education.  I agree.  If one wishes to be financially successful and live a stable lifestyle of personal independence and responsibility, a college degree is a must.  However, for millions of underclass would-be students, raising the amount of Pell Grants just isn't enough.

For those of you who are in college or who have kids in college, the realization that Pell Grants no longer cover basic tuition, let alone books, comes as no shock.  Pell Grants, even with the recent raise, haven't kept up with rising tuition costs.  This is true at even the more modest universities with tuition rates much lower than Ivy League or more prestigious schools.  Kids who haven't kept up their grades in high school (and don't qualify for scholarships) pay the price when they eventually decide to turn the tables and seriously hit the books.


Most middle class and lower class families today are in a real financial bind.  More and more families find themselves having to rely on public assistance, such as food stamps, to survive.  And if there are college students in that family, that becomes a real problem.


Why?  Because college students bear the solitary burden of work requirements in order to be eligible for food stamps.  In order for a college student to receive food stamps, he or she must either: 1) be a parent of a child under six years old and responsible for their support; 2) be enrolled in a Employment & Training Program; 3) participate in a college work study program for at least 20 hours per week; or 4) be employed or self-employed for at least 20 hours at minimum wage.


Now, most of you readers are probably saying, "What's wrong with that?"  And on the face of it, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with these requirements.  However, upon closer inspection, there's alot wrong with them.  


The original Food Stamp Act of 1964 made no such requirements.  However, within a few years it was observed that more and more students were applying for and receiving food stamps.  One gets an image of the poor, starving student living in a one room hovel and cooking on a hot plate.  Unfortunately, that was not often the case.  Many of the students receiving food stamps came from not only middle class, but the upper class where parents could well afford to feed their children while they were attending college!  In fact, this practice became so rampant that the Food Stamp Act was soon amended and these specific requirements for college students were put in place, all so the rich and wealthy couldn't get a free ride.  


On the fact of it, that seems like a practical solution.  However, there were no guidelines put in place for poverty level or any other exclusions such that college students now occupy a special class of individuals when it comes to food stamps.  And that is what needs fixing.


Today, we have rising unemployment rates, rising tuition & college fees, sky high rents and utilities.  More and more students are choosing to go to college close to home - and continue to live with their parents while attending classes.  However, while other food stamp applicants find relaxed requirements - such as waivers for working due to high unemployment rates and lack of training programs - these waivers do NOT apply to college students, regardless of their parents' financial status.  In other words, if a family falls below the poverty level and are eligible for food stamps, in many states they are waived from these work requirements in order to meet eligibility.  However, their children who are in college are still required to meet them.


That hardly seems fair.  In Kentucky, for example, there has been a waiver for enrollment in the Employment & Training Program for about a decade for most food stamp applicants - and a good thing, because there are NO such programs!  The unemployment rate is about 10.5% in Kentucky.  At the same time, universities have cut back on their federal work study programs because there are just too many students applying for them.  So only a small percentage of students who apply for work study actually get a position.  In addition, most work study positions are now limited to 10 hours per week - half of what fulfills the requirement for food stamps.   Consequently, many would-be students are putting off attending college or are forced to drop out.


But is this fair?  Is it fair to force a student to choose between eating and attending college?  Is it fair to make the requirements for food stamp eligibility impossible to meet?  Is that even constitutional?


Requiring a student or potential student to enroll in an Employment & Training Program when there are NONE offered; or to be employed for 20 hours in a state with such a high unemployment rate that students are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to hiring; or to participate in federal work study program for 20 hours a week when there are too few positions and many are only for half the amount of hours needed - is very unfair, especially in light of the fact that non-students are NOT subject to these same requirements!


All of this is bad enough, but I've saved the best for last.  My family is well over the federal poverty line.  I am in poor health, but have no access to health insurance.  In fact, although I've worked all my life, I haven't had a job that offered health insurance since the early 80s.  When my health became so bad that I couldn't work anymore, I found I didn't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare.  Nor did I have enough work credits for Disability.  So I have NO income and have no prospects of any as my health worsens.  My 23 yr old son has been looking for work for over a year.  NO one is hiring - we live in a state with a 10.5 % unemployment rate.  He's also inquired about the Employment & Training program, but, as mentioned earlier, Kentucky doesn't have any.  (Although, as an aside, in inquiring after this program, we did find that the program in other states have mostly daytime hours, conflicting with most college class schedules!)  The university has no work study positions available, and they said fall positions don't look promising, either.  Oh, and most of them are for 10 hours, not 20, in an effort to accommodate more students.


Consequently, now that my son has registered for classes, he no longer qualifies for food stamps.  Since we have no income, we depend on food stamps for all our nutrition.  Two people receive $367 a month.  If one tries to eat a healthy diet, this isn't even adequate.  I am already malnourished.  The last 10 days or so of the month we basically starve.  But now that my son is ineligible, our food stamps are cut to $200.  I don't know that I can even live on that if it were just me.  I doubt it.  When my worker told me this, my response was that my son will not be able to go to college.  My worker said this was "ridiculous."  Really?  I understand the concept, but who is he to tell me that it's ridiculous to choose starvation or college?  I'm already in poor health and malnourished.  My son is already close to being skin and bones.


My next call was to the USDA.  There, I was told that college was a "choice" and it's my son's choice if he chooses to go to college or to eat!  When I said that, as a mother, I can't deny my son food, I was told to PUT A LOCK ON THE REFRIGERATOR so that he couldn't get to my food!!!!!  What mother would do this????  What kind of a country do we live in that someone would even suggest such a thing????

My next call was to the officials in my state, where one woman told me that Pell Grants covered tuition, books & still had enough left over for living expenses!  That is blatantly untrue.  Maybe 20 years ago that was the case, but no longer.  When I asked her what the tuition was compared to the Pell Grant received, she then told me that schools had their own grant programs to "fill in."  Really?  NO, THEY DON'T.   I called the university and was told that this woman didn't know what she was talking about.  In fact, the university said they don't even offer Perkins Loans anymore.  This was one bureaucrat who just made up what she wanted to be true, and in my opinion, represents the type that we need to get OUT of these positions.  Pretending something is true doesn't make it so and there should be no one in a government job - local, state or federal - that would outright lie or make something up to tell the public.


These laws need to be changed.  I've called my congressman, but he's only one person.  If you think this is unfair, too, or if your family is in the same position, then please call your U.S. Congressman/woman and demand this law be changed, as well.  There's strength in numbers, but if we give up and just take the abuse, then we remain victims of a society that keeps pushing the underclass under the bus.  And what really boggles my mind is that it's not even practical!  It seems to me that if the government gives out food stamps, it should be tickled that recipients are trying to better themselves so they can get off the public dole.  But these archaic requirements for students only keep them OUT OF COLLEGE, and ultimately, keep them on food stamps.  How does that even make sense?

It angers me that we are in this position because of the greed of those who take, take, and take some more - in this case, the upper classes who thought it was ok to take what belonged to the poor (food stamps) just so they could have more disposable income.   Sadly, it doesn't surprise me.  The rich have been exploiting the poor and taking advantage of handouts for as long as we've been squatting in North America.  (Subsidies to the oil companies, for example, or corporate welfare.)

And again, I agree with the basic premise that students from families who CAN afford to feed their kids while attending college should be prohibited from receiving food stamps.  That's fair.  But, for those students who live in families with little or no income, who cannot get employment, work study, or participate in an E&T Program due to no fault of their own, this is an obstacle that is not only unfair, but tragic.  


Tragic because there are so many kids who won't get a chance to go to school because their families cannot afford to feed them if they lose the food stamps.  Tragic in so many other ways, as well.  If President Obama is serious about education, then he's going to have to do much more than merely raise the Pell Grant - which still doesn't even cover basic  tuition, anyway.  He's going to have to remove these obstacles and allow students the same waivers as non-students.  I might mention that my son has been receiving food stamps until now, because his work requirements were waived.  Only his status as a student changes everything.  


SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.  If you're as outraged as I am, then please do something about it!  Call you U.S. Congressmen/women and demand a change in these punitive requirements aimed at keeping poor students from attending college.

Wikileaks Iraq/Afghan War Diaries & State Dept. Cables

Where do these cables come from? WHO is leaking them?

Cynical and jaded as I have become in my doddering old age, my first thought goes to "Who is the last infamous person to leak classified information?"

The answer to that, I believe, is Dick Cheney when he outed Valerie Plame as retaliation against her husband Joe Miller's statements regarding the falsehood of Iraq's gathering of plutonium.

Oh, I know, Cheney has never been outed as the source of the leak, but anyone with critical thinking skills knows that the guy who answered for that treasonous crime, which by Constitutional law is punishable by death, didn't get there on his own.

The fact that he got a mere slap on the wrist for a crime punishable by death speaks to the fact that he agreed to take the fall for someone much higher up than himself.

That fact, which any reasonable person with functioning analytic skills can deduce (particularly in light of these new documents!) that much goes on in government than the average person will ever, ever know - or hear about. (It helps, of course, that the national big media outlets are now owned by a handful of conservatives who make huge contributions to the GOP).

Then I connect the dots further by remembering that Dick Cheney and George Herbert Walker Bush worked together for years. They're very buddy buddy - in fact, it was W's father who suggested Cheney as his son's running mate.

Then, connecting further, I remember that George Herbert Walker Bush once directed the CIA.

George W. Bush was, at the time of Valerie Plame's outing, then President of the United States.

It is not lost on me that George H.W. Bush not only had privileged knowledge as a former CIA director, but also as a former President.

So, given that I believe it to be a very logical conclusion that the leak regarding Valerie Plame came from Dick Cheney himself, and at his directive, I have to wonder if some of these current leaks aren't also coming from Dick Cheney.

After being very outspoken about Obama's job performance for the first couple of years, he has long been silent.

When people like Dick Cheney are silent, it means they're up to something.

Given Cheney's access to both CIA and top governmental information; and given that the facts suggest that it is a quite logical conclusion that Cheney has done this before - I think it therefore equally logical that Cheney is involved in these leaks, as well.

Cheney has shown that he cares more about his own revenge and showing people how much power he has (which makes him a very dangerous man, indeed - he very well could be a sociopath).

It's quite logical that he's behind these leaks, yes.

His motive would of course be to denigrate President Obama by showing the country that Obama is far too weak on national defense and national security.

I think that is what the leaking of the Iraq War Diaries was about, and I think that's what the leaking of these State Department cables are about, as well.

The only difference is that Cheney takes out two for the price of one, in that in this instance, he exposes Hillary Clinton as somehow culpable, as well, since she is Secretary of State.

If Hillary was thinking of running in 2012 - and I think she should run as Obama's VP because it sets her up for a Presidential run in 2016 - this leak is meant to imply that she wouldn't be tough enough on foreign policy or national security, either.

Dick Cheney is a traitor. I believe that from the bottom of my heart.

Any American citizen who would out a CIA agent, leak national security documents, and leak documents of a diplomatic nature is doing so out of a desire to hurt the present administration - the President and Secretary of State, in particular.

Now you have to ask - WHO HAS A MOTIVE TO DO THIS?

And then, WHO IS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO DO THIS?

And then, WHY WOULD THAT SOMEONE DO THIS? WHAT'S THE DESIRED RESULT?

Using critical thinking skills to connect the dots, analyze the information, and come to a logical conclusion, I deduce that Dick Cheney, with accomplices, of course, is the most likely individual that has the motive, the power, and access to the highest intelligence documents in the land in order to do so.

If someone can think of a better positioned person who is capable of having this access and power, then please tell me who that would be and I'll consider him/her.

I believe Dick Cheney is behind both of these leaks. He might not have done the physical work - I think he's the type who has private conversations with people who can make these things happen - but I believe that he orchestrated it and made it happen.

He just has others do his dirty work and promises to make sure they get out of it if they do get caught. He can say that because he knows he has the power to do it.

Like I said, a very dangerous man.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/28/AR2010112802395.html
http://wikileaks.org/

Government Holidays

I was thinking, just a short while ago, whether today was considered a holiday and if the mail would run or not.  I remember when I was very young and first started working, that most companies would have considered today, Monday, July 5, 2010, a holiday.  It used to be that if a holiday fell on a Sunday, then Monday was your holiday.  Likewise, if a holiday fell on a Saturday, then the Friday before was your holiday.  But, in the business community at least, getting the Friday before a holiday off slowly became a thing of the past.  I don't think there are many businesses today that give the Monday after a holiday off, either.  I regret that.

I regret it because it signifies a passing in the evolution of the life of our society.  It signifies another ending to practices that recognize the value of a worker, of another human being.  I remember Christmas vacations, Easter holidays, including Good Friday, and Lincoln's Birthday.  (I can't remember if there was a holiday for Thomas Jefferson or not, but I think there should be.)  Holidays have more impact if nothing's open and no one goes to work.  Of course, that's changed, too.

It's been so long now that it's hard to remember when things started to change.  I remember these things from the Kennedy years and the Johnson years, certainly.  Nixon  started changing things by replacing Lincoln, Washington, and any other President's holiday birthday with the generic "President's Day", as well as instituting the 3-day weekend by simply replacing weekday holidays, which were thought to be too disruptive by big business owners, with a Monday.  Many Americans liked the idea of having a full three days off work, but others, like myself, liked the idea of having a day off during the work week, to break it up every now and then.

People who owned the bigger businesses, like factories, department stores, etc., didn't like their workforce off in the middle of the week because it disrupted productivity and sales.  And so, year by year, big business bargained with the workforce.  If the wanted something, they had to give up something.  I guess their reasoning was that in order to insure profit growth, if they had to pay more for one thing, then they were going to have to cut back on something else.  If the workers wanted a raise, then they were going to have to give up something - like a holiday.  

Aided and abetted by the Congress, particularly during the 80s, 90s, and our present decade, big business has slowly stopped granting those little extras that have been so much a part of our country's tradition.  Hardly anyone works 9-5 anymore.  Overtime and earlytime is not only encouraged, but expected by most firms.  As companies have been granted more and more leeway by the Congress and the courts, they have in turn demanded more from their employees.  It is no longer the gratuitousness of an employer toward his/her employee - it is more of an attitude that the employee is lucky the employer granted the position; therefore the employer is owed.  Basically, it's the attitude of servitude.  Back to the days of Lords and Serfs.

As a human being, I have to say that this attitude rather offends me.  It is so medieval, so arrogant, so...sociopathic, that it is repugnant.  As a society, I used to think we had evolved further than this.  

Allowing people who own huge corporations, particularly multinational corporations, to dictate how they will run their business and treat their employees, regardless of the harm it does to the environment, society, and their employees, is unconscionable and weak.

Yet, that's basically what our Congress, our Presidents, and even our Supreme Court, have done.  Woe to us! when businesses are given the same, ascribed rights of "personhood."  Because, what that basically says is that the person or persons who own these huge businesses that are now considered "people" - at least, for the purpose of political contributions - now basically own...well, people.  Yet, it is illegal in our country for one person to "own" or claim to own, another person.  (They called it slavery, remember?)  However, I've yet to hear a legal argument on this point.  Perhaps they think it's useless - after all, it would most likely go to the Supreme Court.....


It's sad, and downright scary, that the seemingly last bastion of non-partisanship (or, at least we hoped they were non-partisan), the Supreme Court, has at last succumbed to the pressures of party ideology.   If they were meant to be the level-headed, fair-minded, all-knowing parents of an immature Congress, they have now failed in that role.  Now we come to the beginning of what millions of people have called totalitarianism - the rule of one political party and total control over the government, and therefore, the citizenry.  


I don't know about you, but that just scares the heebeejeebies right out of me.  The Tea Party people are all fighting for the wrong thing; it's like the blind leading the blind.  And meanwhile, the rich get richer and the rest of the country goes to hell in a handbasket.  But, I digress and that's another story for another day.


We were talking about holidays, and how I wanted to know if the mail was going to run today.  Well, being the red-blooded American gal that I am, I turned on the computer and googled it.  Sure enough, up came the U.S. Federal Government website, right to the page where all its federal holidays are listed.  It's a federal holiday today, which means not only does the mail not run, but all other government offices are closed, as well.  I guess that means that my recycling and garbage will also be picked up a day late this week.


But, are the banks open? Not my credit union, anyway.  I think from the fireworks still going off around me, that there must be people home from work, as well.  Then again, there's quite a few unemployed people in my area, so maybe they'd be home, anyway.  And of course, school's out.  Still, there are cars in driveways that are usually not there at this time of day, so maybe some businesses, or even most, have decreed today a holiday, in keeping with tradition.


And speaking of tradition, here's what puzzles me:  There are people in Congress that spout patriotism, tradition, and values virtually every time they get up to speak.  You might know some of the politicians I'm talking about, if you follow politics.  But here's my question:  Why are these people lobbying for the wealthy big business owners, instead of the traditions and values that they claim to honor?  And why aren't they doing more to give us back Easter vacation?  Christmas vacation?  How about Christmas carols in the public schools?  Or public prayer in the schools?  I'm a fairly observant person, and I observe mostly talk and far too little action in any area that gives back our traditions and values, ESPECIALLY when it comes to sacrifices by the wealthy big business owners.


I notice that the U.S. Government website no longer grants a holiday for Good Friday or Easter.  When I was young, all the schools and all the businesses, including government offices, closed on noon on Good Friday.  Monday was also a holiday, so for us kids, it was "Easter vacation."  3 and a half days off school, yay!  We'd walk past the Cathedral and people would be pouring in for noon mass.  I'm not Catholic, but I liked to see the public respect and display of a people recognizing a higher power.  One no longer sees that today, because the respect and tradition are both gone.  I think that's quite sad,too.


If these so-called patriotic, traditional/conservative politicians want to restore respect and values in our society, then why don't they start by giving us back those social mores?  Decree Good Friday and Easter Monday holidays once again.  Restore each individual President's holidays, and let the people take off work on the day it falls, rather than a generic Monday.  

We, as a country and a society, start losing our traditions and values when we allow others to take them away from us.  When we don't stand up and speak out, when we don't fight for what we believe in, the bullies will come and take it away.  It's as simple as that.  Plus, most of the bullies today have money...and money talks.  And the politicians are listening.  Those same politicians that are telling us how much they want a return to traditional "morals and values" are telling us one thing to our face and screwing us behind our backs.  And most of us are too stupid, I guess, to realize it.  I personally think it's time for some good old-fashioned "put up or shut up".  Instead of feeding us focus-group approved lines, DO SOMETHING.  Stop squawking and write bills that mean something.  Without the pork, please.

Palin's Response

Well, yesterday I said I wanted to hear from Sarah Palin, and regrettably, I got my wish.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594753,00.html

While I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly, I think even he was having a hard time keeping up - or more specifically, trying to understand - Ms. Palin.

Part of the problem I have with her is that she's freaking illiterate.  She has trouble stringing words together to make a coherent, let alone grammatically correct, sentence.  So, trying to translate what she says into intelligible English is the first thing I have to do.  And that's just tiresome.  It's also pathetic when I have to do this for someone who was once a governor.  (Although, after listening to a recent speech from the governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, I'm now advocating IQ tests as a prerequisite for holding public office.)

I choose to believe that the average American is more like me than her.  At least, I pray I'm right about that.  So, what's her appeal?  I can see what her appeal is to men - T & A.  In a nutshell.  She's not bad to look at.  

But what's her appeal to women?  I don't think John McCain's wife liked her much, but there sure seems to be alot of other women who do.  Sigh.  It's such a discredit and embarrassment to my gender to have to admit that.  I'm really hoping that there aren't that many loopy women out there, but from what I've seen lately, I may be wrong about that, too.

Well, back to the Gulf Oil Leak.  Much to my expectation, Palin STILL defends the oil companies and their right to make money.  Her 'interpretation' of President Obama's speech is, of course, biased and to me, nonsensical.  But, I guess in all fairness, someone who can't string a coherent thought together probably can't understand one, either.

First, Palin accuses Obama of being wrong on his energy policy.  What Obama said was that we need to invest in alternative energy research and become less dependent on fossil fuels.  He also said that we still needed fossil fuels, but nonetheless, was putting a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling.  While he didn't specifically address that perhaps it's time for the American people to conserve their use of energy, he did talk about environmental conservation of resources.

What Sarah Palin says she heard was that Obama ONLY talked about alternative energy resources.  Huh?  I guess she wasn't listening to the same speech I was, or else, she just plain wasn't listening and decided for herself what he said -without actually, well, listening to him.  That's not only deceptive, it's disrespectful and downright dumb.

Maybe Palin figures that most of the people that listen to her won't listen to Obama's speech, either, so she can get away with saying whatever she wants.  Geez, I sure hope not.  I don't want to believe that there would be that many people who just blindly and naively believe anything someone tells them, without checking out the source for themselves.  But, as Forrest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Second, the ditzy broad then talks about how Obama doesn't realize how dependent people are upon energy in this country, and how that's tied to the economy....Huh?  She really doesn't think Obama realizes how deeply addicted to massive amounts of energy the average American is?  Or how many people are employed by the energy industry?  How many air pockets does she have in that brain of hers?

Of course Obama knows all this.  And because he knows all this, he wants to make sure that Americans will have access to all the energy we need for a long time to come.  He knows that we cannot continue to depend on fossil fuels, for many reasons - most of these which either seems to escape Palin, or which she just can't seem to comprehend.  It's scary enough to think that she's just one person that just doesn't "get it" - but to think that she might actually be representative of thousands of people, maybe tens of thousands of people, is pretty horrific.

Because if that's the case, America's in deep doo-doo.

What Obama points out - and what Palin fails to understand - is that fossil fuel is not renewable.  There isn't an endless supply of it, either.  And if we dont' want to become dependent on Middle Eastern oil (which we don't), then we need to look to the future, not just tomorrow. Renewable energy sources make great sense, because they're generally cheaper to produce and there's an endless supply of it.  When energy is cheaper to produce and there is an endless supply, that means our utility costs go DOWN.  WE PAY LESS.  THAT LEAVES US WITH MORE MONEY FOR OTHER THINGS.  

Now, the question I have to ask myself is, "Why would Sarah Palin object to that?"

While I think Sarah Palin is not the brightest bulb in the pack, I don't think that she purposely wants to harm the environment.  I think she'd probably agree that we have an environmental catastrophe on our hands and probably doesn't want to see another one anymore than you or I do.  At least, I want to give her the benefit of the doubt on this.

Palin also shouldn't object to cheaper electricity that's easier to produce.  Or does she? 

Because if it's not the environment, then it has to be the industry, because these are the only two variables here. So, why would Sarah Palin choose the oil industry, over say, a solar energy industry, or a windmill industry?  All these industries would presumably employ workers, have research and development departments, etc.  The latter two would arguably produce greener energy and be kinder to the environment; the former is a multi-billion industry with long-arm lobbyists in Washington, D.C. - and probably anywhere else there are oil wells.  Like Alaska.

I'm just guessing here, but I don't think I'd be too far off if I was to say that Sarah Palin is "in bed" with the oil industry, because the oil industry gave millions of dollars to her political campaign/s.  In fact, it was sort of funny that she should have accused "the government" of being in bed with the oil companies, when she WAS the government in Alaska, where there are LOTS of oil companies!

Like I said, not the brightest bulb in the pack.

Her responses and criticisms made even Bill O'Reilly defend the President!  She showed herself for the idiot she truly is; she is an embarrassment to the Republican Party, I think, and that's why she's attached herself to the "Tea Partiers".  A bunch of radical, right-wing, rogue rednecks.

Which, of course, is why she fits right in.  (I couldn't resist that.)

In my opinion, Sarah Palin is just a flash-in-the-pan that exposes the extent of the American ignorance that plagues our country today.  It's plain for all to see that we, as a society, need to invest more money and effort into our educational system. We need to make sure that American minds are not closed due to lack of interest or critical thinking skills.  At the very  least, we need to make sure people know their basic reading, writing, and arithmetic - not to mention, grammar.  Miscommunication is perhaps one of the biggest problems in our society.  We all need to know how to communicate with others so that misunderstandings don't occur.  And perhaps, most of all, we need to learn how to listen so that we understand what's really being said.

It's very easy to manipulate speech.  It's also easy to play upon people's emotions, especially fear.  Those who manipulate speech and play upon people's emotions also take advantage of the ignorance and naivete that exists.  I think Sarah Palin is one of those people.  

Read the full article. If you're a conservative, it's a source I'm sure you trust.  If you're a progressive, you might be pleasantly surprised at Bill O'Reilly's reaction.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594753,00.html

And that's all I've got to say about that, for now.

The Gulf Oil Leak

Here's what I have to say about the Gulf Oil Fiasco:

First of all, I want to know why BP was allowed to drill without having safeguards in place.  Didn't they have to have a permit?  Who was responsible for making sure that all the safeguards BP claimed to have were actually being used?

Second, I want to know what Dick "Darth" Cheney agreed to in those "secret" talks with the oil industry execs back in 2001-2003.  I've read that Cheney agreed to give the oil companies a "pass" on safety regulations...because they were too expensive and dipped into profits.

Third, I want to know why President Obama hasn't yet declared a national emergency!  I understand that there might be legal implications in doing so, and perhaps Obama is constrained by legalities of agreements made by President Bush with the oil companies, during the previous administration.  If that's the case, I'd like to know and I'm sure most Americans want to know, too.  It's time for Obama to give up the dream of non-partisanship and let the chips - and blame - fall where they may.

Fourth, I want to know why the media - which conservatives call liberal, even though the mainstream stations are now owned by a handful of conservatives/Republicans - hasn't tried to interview Sarah "Drill, Baby, Drill" Palin, or Darth Cheney, or John McCain.  While I usually don't care to hear what any of these individuals have to say, NOW I DO.  What response do these individuals have to the Gulf leak?  I want to know!  Don't you?

These are my questions, and I'd like to have them answered.  I find it very curious that Cheney, who has been so outspoken and critical of President Obama since Day 1 of his presidency, has been so markedly silent about the Gulf leak.  Could it be that his company, Halliburton, is somehow involved?  Cheney played quite a prominent role in deregulating the oil industry, which I believe contributed to this environmental and financial fiasco, so why isn't that being reported?  It's as though the media (or the government?) has declared "hands off" season on Cheney.  Why is he being given a free pass if he helped orchestrate this debacle?

I'm usually sick to death of seeing and hearing about Sarah Palin's escapades, or political backings, and especially her ignorant speeches.  Why isn't she being asked what she thinks of this mess?  Instead, even the more liberal news shows, like MSNBC's Hardball, Ed Shultz Show, Keith Olbermann, and even Rachel Maddow continue to show Palin stumping for her Tea Party candidates - but NEVER question her publicly about her continued support for offshore and inland drilling!  Why not?  Why is she so off-limits?  I want to know how she can still support the deregulation of the oil companies, when we have such a grave consequence because of it.  I want to know if she still supports deregulation and drilling.  Don't you?

John McCain, that wolf in sheep's clothing, is another politician that I'd like to hear give his take on the whole situation.  He's also been strangely silent.  Why isn't the media commenting about that?  I just don't understand why these ultra-critical conservatives are being given a FREE PASS by the media!

Yesterday, I heard a couple of things that give me pause to ponder.  The first thing I heard was that BP may not be able to stop the leak EVER, and the second was that while the oil companies have invested millions in technology research as far as drilling in greater depths, etc., they have NOT invested monies in safety or clean-up technology!  Basically, that means they've been investing money in those technologies that would enable them to drill for more oil and ensure greater profits, but they have NOT invested any money in technology that would enable them to clean up their messes or better yet, prevent them from happening in the first place - because it's not profit-driven.

Norway, for example, has a policy that if any company does off-shore drilling, they must FIRST have a "relief" well in place - "just in case".  That makes good sense to me.  Yet, yesterday, Trent Lott (remember him?), who is now an attorney FOR THE OIL COMPANIES (no surprise there), said that that was a WASTE OF MONEY.  So...Norway is SMARTER than the U.S.?  Apparently so.

I was thinking yesterday, "Why don't they just have big tubes that suction the oil off the water, much like a big vacuum cleaner?"  I got my answer.  The oil companies haven't developed that technology.  Yet, if a layperson like me can think of that possibility, surely there must have been other people out there, particularly within the oil industry itself, that could have developed such a technology.  Was the money just not there?  No one wanted to spend money on it?

I think the time is right, now, for President Obama to declare a national emergency.  I think it's time to call on the scientists of the world for solutions.  I think it's time to send out a global SOS.  It's been almost two months, now, with oil spewing into the Gulf at a rate of thousands of barrels a day.  The environmental and financial damage is destroying ecosystems, industries, and livelihoods - and what's really scary is that it might be forever....

Plus, the toxins from the chemical dispersents that BP has been using is now taking their toll on the people who are doing clean-up.  Respiratory problems, skin rashes, and other symptoms have grown so severe that a team of doctors have now been brought in to treat them.  

Another alarming development is that BP, or agents hired by them, have been "removing" dead carcasses from the Gulf in an effort to downplay the damage to marine life.  They've been caught literally "raking" dead carcasses out of the ocean and in some cases, beheading them.  As if that isn't gory enough, the reason for the beheading is so complete autopsies can't be done.  Can't see what's being done to the "brain" if there isn't one....

And so, on it goes.  When will it end?  We may never see an end to it.  If, as it was discussed yesterday on the cable news channels, BP doesn't have the ability to stop this leak, then the damage will be ongoing and catastrophic.  The ocean currents will carry the oil around the Florida peninsula and up the East Coast and out into the Atlantic Ocean.  What will that do to marine life?  The fishing industry?  Our ecosystem?  

And my final thought - is this the beginning of what Revelations meant by saying that one-third of our marine life on this planet will die in the end days?  Are we so full of greed that we are willing to destroy our planet in the process? Aren't we supposed to be stewards of this planet?  The earth?  Aren't we supposed to protect it?  How can these ultra-conservatives that are for deregulation and pooh-pooh the environmentalists, claim to be Christians, when as such, they have been given the responsibility of stewardship of the earth?  I'd like an explanation, please.

Do Negative Campaign Ads Work?

Do negative campaign ads actually work? Every election cycle we hear the pollsters and pundits ask this same question over and over again. One would think that there is a clear, definitive answer, but perhaps it's not such a simple question.

Speaking for myself, negative campaign ads turn me off. Although, I have to admit that it depends somewhat on whether it's my candidate that's doing the negative campaigning - and if the allegations are true, at least, in my perception.

This election cycle is proving to be one of the worst for negative campaigning. In my state there are several campaigns currently underway, including a senatorial race in which the Republican incumbent of 20+ years actually endorsed an ad accusing his opponent of murder.

Then there's the presidential campaign ads. I will have to say that while both Republican and Democratic candidates have endorsed negative campaign ads, there is a difference in their substance and style. The Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, has endorsed ads attacking the policies of his Republican opponent, John McCain. I tend to regard that as fair game, even though I dislike negative ads. I'd much rather watch an ad that tells me what a candidate's platform is, although I think that's become an archaic campaign tool that doesn't get nearly enough play in modern politics.

The Republican candidate, John McCain, on the other hand, has resorted to more personal attacks ads against his opponent. These are the sort of negative ads that really turn me off. They turn me off because I regard them as "smoke and mirrors" - they are meant to confuse and even instill fear and loathing in voters for the "other." McCain's ads are rife with suggestions and outright accusations that Obama is a terrorist, a Muslim, antiamerican, unpatriotic, naive, against the middle class, and more.

Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, has hurled many of these accusations unabashedly. In fact, in one interview, she accused Obama of befriending domestic terrorists, loosely defined as those who commit illegal and harmful acts against innocent human beings. However, when pressed to further specify her definition of "domestic terrorist", she was quick to point out that in her view, individuals who bomb abortion clinics and harm or even kill workers or clients are not included in her definition of "domestic terrorist." I find that not only curious, but dangerous, because that means that to Sarah Palin, anyone who works or makes an appointment at an abortion clinic are not "innocent human beings." According to Palin's definition, injuring or killing these people is merely "unacceptable." But it's not domestic terrorism. I must disagree.

What bothers me most, I think, is that there are so many willing Americans who actually believe negative ads. For the most part, I think these are people who aren't able to think for themselves, first and foremost. These are individuals who would rather be told what to think because it's easier than having to sort fact from fiction themselves. It's just too much trouble. So they look to the person or persons that they most identify with, usually those that look or talk like them, and just go with what they're told. Second, I think that people who respond to negative attack ads are people who react to their emotions rather than act upon their thoughts. Third, ignorant and uneducated people seem to respond to ads that appeal to their emotions more so than those who are more knowledgeable and educated. I believe there is a critical thinking element that is missing in the ignorant and uneducated, and it is to these people that negative attack ads are primarily directed.

But this election cycle has seen the most egregious negative ads in modern history. Fact checkers have found that McCain's ads and Palin's accusations are unfounded. They are either outright lies or they are distortions of the truth. But will most people take the trouble to check out whether this dishonorable duo are telling voters the truth or lying to them? I have my doubts.

I have to say that I have seen John McCain reduced to a new low. His pathetic, whining attempts to belittle and denigrate Barack Obama have only induced me to delve deeper into Obama's proposed policies and I have lost all respect for McCain. I am also troubled by his ultimate lack of judgment in his pick of a running mate. While McCain insists that Obama is not ready to lead, McCain himself is living proof that he is not capable of picking a qualified running mate, one who presumably might become president should something happen to McCain, which, given his age and cancerous medical history, is a distinct possibility.

Palin reminds me of a member of some high school clique. I'm sure everyone know the kind of gal I'm talking about - the ones who were the "popular" girls in high school, and usually the ones that made fun of and were often downright cruel to the "ugly, fat, and unpopular" girls. That seems to be Palin's mentality, and that's fine, I guess, but it's not becoming or befitting a Vice President. (Of course, Cheney's "fuck you" remark on the senate floor was also unbecoming, so maybe this is just a Republican thing....) What is troubling about Palin is that she actually believes that vp's "control" the senate. Then again, given the last eight years, she might be more right than wrong. Republicans no longer seem to consider our country's Constitution, but rather seem to be wont to make their own laws.

But back to the negative ads - I haven't seen any negative personal attacks on McCain from the Obama campaign. And there could be, if they wanted to take the same low road as their Republican opponents. For example, how about the fact that McCain never went to college? Not having the benefit of a college education, how qualified is he to be President? Does he have the intellectual capacity for the job? The fact that McCain is a military man who advocates the same kind of "force mentality" as G.W. Bush reminds me of a warning by Repubican Dwight D. Eisenhower about the "military industrial complex." That might make a good ad, but I don't see Obama stooping to that, or to the fact that McCain was an adulteror who abandoned his first wife, who remained faithful during the 5+ years that McCain was a POW, only to have him return home to run around on her with his rich mistress, Cindy - now his wife. Or how about the fact that Cindy McCain has a problem with drug addiction? Even better, an ad touting McCain's problem with "anger management." What about the fact that McCain's cancer might come back, making him an irresponsible, undependable choice for President? All of these I would consider to be negative personal attack ads - but Obama chooses the high road and refuses to consider running them.

Because Obama chooses to attack McCain on his policies, which is fair game, I have more respect for Obama. Obama has shown himself to be intelligent (he did go to college), thoughtful, calm, and confident. These are all qualities which I believe are needed for the position of President of the United States. The last thing we need at this point in our history is someone who is unprincipled, rash, emotional, angry, and unstable - all those things which I now believe McCain to be.

I believe that most people who can think for themselves, those people for whom rational thought, moral values, common decency, and diplomacy are valued ideals, will conclude, as have I, that Obama is the better choice - and I daresay, the better man. For these people, I believe McCain's negative ads will have diminished his stature on the political stage forevermore.

But for the ignorant, the uneducated, the over-emotional, and the downright stupid, I'm afraid McCain and Palin's "dog and pony show" will prevail. Perhaps these people are incapable of rational thought. It is inconceivable to me that McCain and Palin's disrepectful, dishonorable, and often disgusting behavior actually appeals to what should be mature, decent individuals.

But here's a thought. Since Palin's husband is one of the leaders of a group that wants Alaska to secede from the Union (aka the United States - yes, this is true) - perhaps all those misguided individuals who believe the vile vomit coming out of McCain and Palin's mouths could move to Alaska. Then, perhaps we could let Alaska secede, with McCain and Palin as President and Vice President. Unfortunately, Alaska deserves better.

So, don't be fooled. Negative campaign ads will probably never go away altogether; but I sincerely hope that one day soon legislation will be passed that prohibits, or at least greatly curtails, the type of negative campaign ads that can be produced. Personal attack ads should be prohibited altogether, because the American people deserve better.