There's a lot of talk from gun advocates these days to arm teachers and administrators in schools. Some say that if the Principal at Sandy Hook Elementary had had a gun in her office, she could have shot the man shooting her students.
Unless you have been in an active shooter environment, or you have been trained in an active shooter environment, you have absolutely no idea how you would react when faced with this type of situation.
Let's look at the shooting in Tucson when Rep. Giffords was shot. There was an armed citizen on the scene who could have taken the shooter out. Why didn't he? He could not ascertain who was doing the shooting. When you have people running around and children in the line of fire, the last thing you want to do is introduce another weapon and possibly shoot a child with friendly fire.
Unless you are a trained marksman, no, check that, even if you are a trained marksman, in that scenario in those close quarters, you run the risk of killing innocent people when you fire at the one who is doing the shooting. Unless you know what your field of fire is, and can be sure that field is clear of innocent lives, you do not take the shot. Period.
Those who want to arm teachers are talking with false bravado and are the worst kind of gun owner: those who shoot first and think later.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
My head hurts...update
The GOP-lies for the media; the Dems inability to fight back against the crazies; and all the while the middle class is slowly being drained of all semblance of life. The Tea Party and their co-opted Corporation money, have lost whatever true relevance they may have held for the working people of the country, when they are willing to take the economy down, for a principle that is entirely wrong-headed. All the while the working people's economy is in dire straits.
Those in Washington have become arrogant, elitists. They think we all belong to country clubs and that all we need to do to tighten our belts is to discontinue our country club memberships or that because we can Rent-To-Own a microwave to cook the crap that we can afford at the corner bodega we aren't living below the poverty line! The reality for many of us is the decision to pay for medication, because the healthcare coverage we have has such a high deductible, or to pay our electric bill after having gone through one of the hottest summers on record and having to run the A/C more days than usual, or buy groceries. Forget about attempting to buy healthy food, that's completely out of the price range for most struggling families.
No, our decisions are much more base than just leaving the cushy country club behind. When many of us have been out of work for more than a year and the numbers of us that are older (>50) workers and companies are less than thrilled at the idea of hiring us because A) We have more experience and expect to be paid for that experience, B) We know how the system works and the employer cannot push us to work insane hours, because we know better and they would be sued, C) The employer can hire 3 younger workers for what they would have to pay one of us. Yes, they will probably leave after 12-18 months, but that is ok with the employer, it's a cost of doing business...We are the 99%.
What the GOP says and what the GOP does are two entirely different things as we have seen over the past decade. They can talk a great game, yep, fantastic used car salesmen all. If that is what you expect from your representatives, then by all means, vote for that party. If, on the other hand, you desire representatives who will represent the interests of the majority of Americans rather than those with the majority of the wealth, vote for the Democratic party. It will take time for this recovery. We have become such a country of petulant children that we have come to expect results instantaneously. Here's a newsflash for you -the deep mess we are coming out of is not something that can be turned around in 2,4, or even 6 years. It will take, most likely, 10-12 years to fully recover. Think of this as an investment in your country - the GOP wants you to sell high. The Democrats want you to hold on to the gains and let them grow into the future -just as the stock market has done under this administration in the past 4 years, it's a good investment.
Those in Washington have become arrogant, elitists. They think we all belong to country clubs and that all we need to do to tighten our belts is to discontinue our country club memberships or that because we can Rent-To-Own a microwave to cook the crap that we can afford at the corner bodega we aren't living below the poverty line! The reality for many of us is the decision to pay for medication, because the healthcare coverage we have has such a high deductible, or to pay our electric bill after having gone through one of the hottest summers on record and having to run the A/C more days than usual, or buy groceries. Forget about attempting to buy healthy food, that's completely out of the price range for most struggling families.
No, our decisions are much more base than just leaving the cushy country club behind. When many of us have been out of work for more than a year and the numbers of us that are older (>50) workers and companies are less than thrilled at the idea of hiring us because A) We have more experience and expect to be paid for that experience, B) We know how the system works and the employer cannot push us to work insane hours, because we know better and they would be sued, C) The employer can hire 3 younger workers for what they would have to pay one of us. Yes, they will probably leave after 12-18 months, but that is ok with the employer, it's a cost of doing business...We are the 99%.
What the GOP says and what the GOP does are two entirely different things as we have seen over the past decade. They can talk a great game, yep, fantastic used car salesmen all. If that is what you expect from your representatives, then by all means, vote for that party. If, on the other hand, you desire representatives who will represent the interests of the majority of Americans rather than those with the majority of the wealth, vote for the Democratic party. It will take time for this recovery. We have become such a country of petulant children that we have come to expect results instantaneously. Here's a newsflash for you -the deep mess we are coming out of is not something that can be turned around in 2,4, or even 6 years. It will take, most likely, 10-12 years to fully recover. Think of this as an investment in your country - the GOP wants you to sell high. The Democrats want you to hold on to the gains and let them grow into the future -just as the stock market has done under this administration in the past 4 years, it's a good investment.
Friday, September 7, 2012
ZEE-RO...
This country, the economy, is essentially going through a managed bankruptcy. When GW took over as President, he had a projected surplus of $5.6Trillion. The problem with that is that the projections went out to 2011. Had he stayed the course with the economy and not instituted tax-cuts and rebates, begun 2(two) wars, & ignored the information about the banking industry, the economy might have taken a hit with 9/11, but surely would not have tanked the way it did.
Instead, Bush sent surplus "Rebate checks" to all tax-paying Americans. While $300 can be a great help, he didn't have the money to spend, yet spent it anyway. Started a war with Iraq to finish what his dad started, and did so while lying to the American public. Then he and Congress put into effect an even more revenue sucking policy when he instituted the across-the-board tax cuts.
So, if you understand that the Surplus was not to have taken full effect until 2011 or 3 years after he left office, the argument could be made that he ran up debt and had no intention of paying it back. Bush actually inherited a deficit of $5.7 Trillion that was on its way down because of the policies of Clinton. Bush had the debt ceiling raised 19 times during his tenure. Contrary to popular belief, the debt ceiling is like your credit card bill - you are paying for things you already bought.
Again, the problem is that Bush bought and gave away money he didn't have i.e., War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, Rebates & Tax Cuts.
The Bush Tax Cuts eliminated Revenue necessary to pay for the other things he was doing. Kind of like - Going out to buy a Mercedes the day you get fired and having no other job lined up. Unless you are part of the Wealthy and dare I say, ruling class, there is a problem here. When Bush left office, the National Debt was $10.6Trillion.
When Obama came into office, he inherited these tax cuts, the two wars and the added burden of bank failures and subsequent job losses. Yes, a lot of the job losses happened after Obama came in. Think about it, if you are trying to maintain your business and you see your revenue going down, does it happen over night? Not really. It happens over time and in that time, you are doing everything you possible can to regain the revenue you see dropping off. It takes a while for you to realize you are going to have to cut some of your employees to maintain your business or if you are one of the unlucky ones, you may have to shutter your business altogether. Is that the fault of the guy who just came into office? I don't think so. This was a slow decline. The guy who just came into office, just happened to be on watch when it hit bottom.
At every level, Government requires revenue to maintain the services that every one of us depend upon. If that revenue is cut off at the knees, well, you can extrapolate from there.
What President Obama has done in the span of essentially 3.5 years is place a tourniquet on the bleeding artery and stabilize the patient. Even Bill Clinton believes that no other President could have completely turned the economy around in such a short timeframe.
So here's my question: If you have staved off the bleeding, added thousands of jobs for the last 30 months and ended 1 war while ending the other, would you want to stop that progress and start over with someone who doesn't see it that way? Wouldn't that be like being in the middle of a project at work and having it partially completed when your boss leaves, a new one comes in and trashes everything you've done, and all the hours you have put into it and all the research and progress you have made is thrown by the wayside in favor of a totally direction? Only problem is, your new boss doesn't share with you what that new direction is.
Why would we want to start back at ZEE-RO when we have already come this far and it's working? I know I don't.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Feeling Lucky?
The recent announcement of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate has got me thinking about exactly what privatization is and how best to relate that to what it means for the average person. The best analogy I can come up with that most everyone can relate to is, a casino.
Basically when you privatize a system, you put it into the hands of for-profit companies and hope that those for-profit companies will balance profit and services to benefit both their shareholders and the public these programs are designed to serve. The idea that a for-profit company will be so altruistic as to balance the profit margin and the services to the public is laughable. Were they to do that, the shareholders would run the CEO off in favor of someone whom they believe would maximize their dividends and the profits of the company.
What happens when you give large sums of money to the "Market" to manage? Will the market then be manipulated as long as one party is in office? In other words - "We'll (Republicans) continue to make money and keep the market artificially inflated as long as we hold the power within government. But once we lose power well, we'll throw it back down where it should have been and blame it on the Democrats. Sounds like a form of blackmail doesn't it?
Isn't that what the Republican did with the last Budget negotiation? Remember the Sequester? remember who gets the blame?
If you think this form of managing the money you earned and have paid into the government in the form of Income Tax, and Social Security tax on your personal income is a good idea, then by all means vote for Romney & Ryan. I, personally, do not want my tax dollars any more in the hands of for-profit companies than they already are.
Basically when you privatize a system, you put it into the hands of for-profit companies and hope that those for-profit companies will balance profit and services to benefit both their shareholders and the public these programs are designed to serve. The idea that a for-profit company will be so altruistic as to balance the profit margin and the services to the public is laughable. Were they to do that, the shareholders would run the CEO off in favor of someone whom they believe would maximize their dividends and the profits of the company.
What happens when you give large sums of money to the "Market" to manage? Will the market then be manipulated as long as one party is in office? In other words - "We'll (Republicans) continue to make money and keep the market artificially inflated as long as we hold the power within government. But once we lose power well, we'll throw it back down where it should have been and blame it on the Democrats. Sounds like a form of blackmail doesn't it?
Isn't that what the Republican did with the last Budget negotiation? Remember the Sequester? remember who gets the blame?
If you think this form of managing the money you earned and have paid into the government in the form of Income Tax, and Social Security tax on your personal income is a good idea, then by all means vote for Romney & Ryan. I, personally, do not want my tax dollars any more in the hands of for-profit companies than they already are.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Both ways?
With the most recent brouhaha over comments about stay-at-home mom Ann D. Romney, it's curious how the GOP can rationalize this thinking with a straight face and expect the American public to accept it.
On the one hand - Stay-at-home moms are to be respected and admired for the work they have chosen to perform in the home raising their children.
On the other hand - Women who cannot sustain themselves, by themselves, are expected to turn their children over to someone else to raise and go off and find out what it feels like to work.
Anyone else see the irony of these two statements?
All the while neither faction of these women is allowed access to birth control or termination of unwanted pregnancy for the purposes of family planning.
What am I missing?
If you take away access to birth control, you have more unwanted babies. The statistics showing the percentage of young girls without a high school education who have children before they are 18 is staggering. Education is essential for young women to keep them from being put in this situation.
At the same time there is no mention in any of this dialogue of the responsibility of the boy/man who took part in the pregnancy. When will our society finally rise up and make the male of the population accountable?
Sure, it's easy to find the mother! Let's make it just as easy to find the father.
Currently, there is a national database of DNA for felons. Let's extend that. Let's create a national database of DNA of every male currently residing in the US and every newborn male. This will allow for the identification of the father of every child born, and consequently the male responsible for that child.
Sounds pretty outrageous, huh? Why? Is it any more outrageous than requiring a woman who has been raped to carry the rapists child to term? Really? This is what happens when pregnancy termination is taken away from women by states even though Federal Law says it is legal!
So, you ask what happens if the male responsible for the child is a minor? Simple - the minor's parents then become the responsible party until the minor comes of age and takes responsibility. The beauty of this is that financial responsibility is shared by both parties just as the creation of that life was shared by both parties.
I believe there would be huge backlash by the GOP for this as I can only guess that the "Right to Privacy" argument would be thrown out as the primary concern and legal challenges would abound. It would be an interesting fight to say the least and perhaps would cause a re-think of the current legislation. Then again, probably not.
On the one hand - Stay-at-home moms are to be respected and admired for the work they have chosen to perform in the home raising their children.
On the other hand - Women who cannot sustain themselves, by themselves, are expected to turn their children over to someone else to raise and go off and find out what it feels like to work.
Anyone else see the irony of these two statements?
All the while neither faction of these women is allowed access to birth control or termination of unwanted pregnancy for the purposes of family planning.
What am I missing?
If you take away access to birth control, you have more unwanted babies. The statistics showing the percentage of young girls without a high school education who have children before they are 18 is staggering. Education is essential for young women to keep them from being put in this situation.
At the same time there is no mention in any of this dialogue of the responsibility of the boy/man who took part in the pregnancy. When will our society finally rise up and make the male of the population accountable?
Sure, it's easy to find the mother! Let's make it just as easy to find the father.
Currently, there is a national database of DNA for felons. Let's extend that. Let's create a national database of DNA of every male currently residing in the US and every newborn male. This will allow for the identification of the father of every child born, and consequently the male responsible for that child.
Sounds pretty outrageous, huh? Why? Is it any more outrageous than requiring a woman who has been raped to carry the rapists child to term? Really? This is what happens when pregnancy termination is taken away from women by states even though Federal Law says it is legal!
So, you ask what happens if the male responsible for the child is a minor? Simple - the minor's parents then become the responsible party until the minor comes of age and takes responsibility. The beauty of this is that financial responsibility is shared by both parties just as the creation of that life was shared by both parties.
I believe there would be huge backlash by the GOP for this as I can only guess that the "Right to Privacy" argument would be thrown out as the primary concern and legal challenges would abound. It would be an interesting fight to say the least and perhaps would cause a re-think of the current legislation. Then again, probably not.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
War or Assault...
The fever pitch of the 2012 elections has gotten beyond ridiculous. Rational people understand that there is no war on religion. In fact, there is just the opposite. The federal government is designed to protect the rights of all religions and religious beliefs and even the non-believers. It is the purpose of the Constitution to provide for religious freedom, freedom of religion and freedom from religious persecution.
It is not a war, it is an assault.
The current conversation, if you can call it that, over contraceptives, and the availability of abortion to women, is not about religious conscience or the right to life. Those arguments fall apart when you look at the facts that Catholic families in overwhelming majority in the U.S. (where we are talking about) use some form of contraceptive and the most ardent right to lifers have no compunction in taking the life of another human being if they feel that human being is doing something they believe is wrong.
The truth is that this is about and has been about power. If I can tell you how and when you will procreate, and with whom, regardless of the situation, I hold power over you and you become, once again, my property. Ask yourself, who is it that is influencing these ideologies and do they have my best interests in mind when doing so?
Women are becoming better educated and more are stepping into leadership roles to counteract the influence of the old-line thinking, and the fever pitch has been raised because of this.
Truth goes through three stages: Ridicule, Opposition, and finally Acceptance. We are currently experiencing stage two in epic proportions.
Yep, this is an assault and it is all out on all women of all colors, all religions/non-religions and all social strata. Oh, except if you have money, you can afford to pay for those birth control pills and maybe even that abortion when your teenage daughter gets knocked-up by her teenage football star boyfriend. The doctor will just call it something else when he/she files the paperwork. Because, of course, your daughter is in no way ready to bear the responsibility of raising a child!
So, why should it be any different for any other teen or any other woman, for that matter, who is in no financial, emotional or mental shape prepared to raise a child? If contraceptives and education about contraceptive use are readily available, abortions become less necessary. This has been proven to be so - at least in the white communities where contraceptives are readily available. Unwanted births and abortions are down. In the hispanic and black communities where contraceptives are still harder to acquire, this is not the case.
The assault on women is insidious. When you step back from the religious dogma and look at the effects on the society as a whole, what is being attempted makes no sense. Eliminate abortions and contraceptives but provide no support for those who cannot afford to raise their children once they are born. Where is the logic? War has logic to some degree, assault has no logic - it is borne of rage.
It is not a war, it is an assault.
The current conversation, if you can call it that, over contraceptives, and the availability of abortion to women, is not about religious conscience or the right to life. Those arguments fall apart when you look at the facts that Catholic families in overwhelming majority in the U.S. (where we are talking about) use some form of contraceptive and the most ardent right to lifers have no compunction in taking the life of another human being if they feel that human being is doing something they believe is wrong.
The truth is that this is about and has been about power. If I can tell you how and when you will procreate, and with whom, regardless of the situation, I hold power over you and you become, once again, my property. Ask yourself, who is it that is influencing these ideologies and do they have my best interests in mind when doing so?
Women are becoming better educated and more are stepping into leadership roles to counteract the influence of the old-line thinking, and the fever pitch has been raised because of this.
Truth goes through three stages: Ridicule, Opposition, and finally Acceptance. We are currently experiencing stage two in epic proportions.
Yep, this is an assault and it is all out on all women of all colors, all religions/non-religions and all social strata. Oh, except if you have money, you can afford to pay for those birth control pills and maybe even that abortion when your teenage daughter gets knocked-up by her teenage football star boyfriend. The doctor will just call it something else when he/she files the paperwork. Because, of course, your daughter is in no way ready to bear the responsibility of raising a child!
So, why should it be any different for any other teen or any other woman, for that matter, who is in no financial, emotional or mental shape prepared to raise a child? If contraceptives and education about contraceptive use are readily available, abortions become less necessary. This has been proven to be so - at least in the white communities where contraceptives are readily available. Unwanted births and abortions are down. In the hispanic and black communities where contraceptives are still harder to acquire, this is not the case.
The assault on women is insidious. When you step back from the religious dogma and look at the effects on the society as a whole, what is being attempted makes no sense. Eliminate abortions and contraceptives but provide no support for those who cannot afford to raise their children once they are born. Where is the logic? War has logic to some degree, assault has no logic - it is borne of rage.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Is there ever a time when Corruption is not Corruption?
Obama payback
With the Occupy Wall Street Movement and Occupy Movement(s) around the country and the world still raging; the Republican hopefuls for the 2012 election doing their very best not to implode; and the rest of us just trying to keep our heads above water both literally and figuratively, to have the above information brought to my attention was both disheartening and a confirmation of what the We Are the 99% movement is all about.
Our political system broken. Cronyism is alive and well in both major parties and Obama is no different than George W. Bush when it comes to payback for getting him elected.
It makes me very angry to see that we, the 99%, have again been duped into believing that our participation in getting someone elected (by voting) is changing the system. Obama had no intention when he arrived in Washington of doing things differently. In fact, he did things exactly the same as his predecessor only on an accelerated time frame.
It wasn't the $25 or $50 that you and I donated to the campaign that made the difference, it was the hundreds of thousands the "bundlers" pulled together and were handsomely rewarded for after the election. It may not have been illegal but it certainly has the smell of impropriety and at the very least unethical behavior given how this President campaigned.
The Whitehouse can spin it any way they like, and I have been a strong supporter of Obama up to this point, yet the actions speak so much louder than the words. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't fly here.
I don't know if there is enough time for the OCCUPY movement to create a People's Congress in time to mount a credible Third-Party Candidate for this next election, so what are the alternatives? The lesser of the two evils seems to be Obama and electing a Democratic House and Senate to try and get this Country moving rather than focusing on ideological wars with the GLBT community and the Poor and Middle-Class as well as attempting to send women to clandestine back-alley abortionists again all in the name of being good "Christians".
When will the American people demand - require - that their elected officials are held directly accountable for the platform that they run and are elected on? It seems as though once elected, all bets are off and the platform is completely rewritten. This could be done in a myriad of ways: financially by removing the possibility of receiving lobbying dollars by the candidate and their family and by prohibiting lobbying after holding office for at least 5 years; limiting the number of terms they can serve in the House to 6 terms and the number of terms they can serve in the Senate to two. This makes both the House and the Senate available to serve a total 12 years and once you serve in one legislative branch you may not serve in the other but you are not precluded from running for President. We term limit the President, why do we not term limit our elected representatives? This would at the very least limit the effect the lobbyists would have on the legislative process. Alas, as long as these two houses have the ability to police themselves and make the rules to guide their behavior, no such sensible legislation will be forthcoming. It is up to the 99% to make it happen and we are on the move.
With the Occupy Wall Street Movement and Occupy Movement(s) around the country and the world still raging; the Republican hopefuls for the 2012 election doing their very best not to implode; and the rest of us just trying to keep our heads above water both literally and figuratively, to have the above information brought to my attention was both disheartening and a confirmation of what the We Are the 99% movement is all about.
Our political system broken. Cronyism is alive and well in both major parties and Obama is no different than George W. Bush when it comes to payback for getting him elected.
It makes me very angry to see that we, the 99%, have again been duped into believing that our participation in getting someone elected (by voting) is changing the system. Obama had no intention when he arrived in Washington of doing things differently. In fact, he did things exactly the same as his predecessor only on an accelerated time frame.
It wasn't the $25 or $50 that you and I donated to the campaign that made the difference, it was the hundreds of thousands the "bundlers" pulled together and were handsomely rewarded for after the election. It may not have been illegal but it certainly has the smell of impropriety and at the very least unethical behavior given how this President campaigned.
The Whitehouse can spin it any way they like, and I have been a strong supporter of Obama up to this point, yet the actions speak so much louder than the words. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't fly here.
I don't know if there is enough time for the OCCUPY movement to create a People's Congress in time to mount a credible Third-Party Candidate for this next election, so what are the alternatives? The lesser of the two evils seems to be Obama and electing a Democratic House and Senate to try and get this Country moving rather than focusing on ideological wars with the GLBT community and the Poor and Middle-Class as well as attempting to send women to clandestine back-alley abortionists again all in the name of being good "Christians".
When will the American people demand - require - that their elected officials are held directly accountable for the platform that they run and are elected on? It seems as though once elected, all bets are off and the platform is completely rewritten. This could be done in a myriad of ways: financially by removing the possibility of receiving lobbying dollars by the candidate and their family and by prohibiting lobbying after holding office for at least 5 years; limiting the number of terms they can serve in the House to 6 terms and the number of terms they can serve in the Senate to two. This makes both the House and the Senate available to serve a total 12 years and once you serve in one legislative branch you may not serve in the other but you are not precluded from running for President. We term limit the President, why do we not term limit our elected representatives? This would at the very least limit the effect the lobbyists would have on the legislative process. Alas, as long as these two houses have the ability to police themselves and make the rules to guide their behavior, no such sensible legislation will be forthcoming. It is up to the 99% to make it happen and we are on the move.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)