A Quick Note

The idea that you can keep the same old message but spruce it up to disguise how it works is becoming popular again with Republicans.

New ways to say the same old thing.

No doubt this will fix everything... or not.

Name Calling

Borrowed from Being Liberal

A Huffington Post article pointed out (once again) just how far off the beaten path the Republican shell is:

Republicans Shocked, Shocked I tell you...


"That is just fall down funny!!! If Right Wing is name calling then "Rethuglican" must really get to them. If Right Wing is a problem then "CONservative" must set them back a bit more. If Right Wing is really, truly too harsh then "Idiots" must be over the top!! Give me a break, Sleaze-balls, for the names you call the Left Wingers and the insults hurled at the Center and the obstruction to progress that you inflict on the rest of us you should reconsider you language of choice. Let's reset the meter to the middle and see where "insults" land. The old saying, "Eff-you and the horse you rode in on..." comes to mind."

 Not to mention "TeaBagger", and other such terms.  If you are so sensitive that this bothers you then I would suggest that you stop calling the rest of the country names.  Derisively lying about the opposition would be a great start to fixing the real problems of the country.  Relying on the Republican echo chamber to reinforce bad ideas and poor logic would also help but then you have to be able to recognize good and positive logic in the first place.

Mass Hysteria

From Occupy Tucson

If you think that there is no class warfare you have been asleep for the last thirty years.

Favorite Radio Shows

One of my favorite radio (Liberal) Talkers is Randi Rhodes.  Often she has a unique way of bringing things down to a common sense notion of what a controversy is really about.  When you visit her web site you get a homework assignment or two get you thinking.  The following link is one of those... about guns:

Gun Lies & Truths

It's About the Money

 From The Hippies Were Right:

"It's irritating when people pick and choose how to interpret or use the Constitution to justify their wants. I've done some research, here is what I've found.

In 2001 it was ruled that the 2nd Amendment (when referring to automatic assault weapons) only refers to "collective rights" of the state to arm it's citizens in a case challenging the Assault Weapons Ban, then (funded by a Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute) came a 2nd case; in this case, the court ruled in favor of "individual rights" to bear arms due to an extreme 1975 weapons ban in DC. It stated that people have a right to handguns, shotguns or rifles, and it interpreted that "regulated militia" referred to proper training and education.

Automatic weapons, semi automatic weapons, large clips etc are not currently your constitutional right to "individually own". The states you live in are simply allowing you to own them.

The gun industry is a very profitable industry. Don't think for a second the gun debate going on right now has anything to with your rights, this is all about money."

As friend Jeff pointed out it's NOT rocket science!

NRA Promotes Idiocy

 NRA President David Keene continues stupid.

     David Keene is trying to line up so he can submarine the proposed changes. He is not reasonable, he is not particularly sane and he is a corrupter of the democracy. Claiming that 2nd Amendment "rights" somehow trump our 1st Amendment rights and the right to be (and feel) safe is just wrong headed nonsense. Keene's members are only 3 to 4 million against 300+ million of us demanding anti-gun violence measures. Sportsmen and others who appreciate guns in a variety of ways agree very strongly in the polls that controls are a good idea. In swimming up stream the NRA is showing us who their masters are... the gun manufacturers. Profit is not more important than our right to safety.

      Ignoring the call to control the parts of violence is the short path to political obscurity in this case.  The NRA is making claims that are not backed up by fact.  They ran a truly sleazy ad claiming that the President is elitist because his kids are protected by the Secret Service.  That sort of attack is unprecedented and extremely dangerous.  The Obamas are targets for the crazies.  It is good that they are protected from the likes of the insane.  Stupid ad.

     Going down the to the level of insanity of the worst of us is not a way to conduct our policy on any subject.  On the issue of gun violence it is wrong to ignore the idea that we can do something about it right now, today.  No solution is, by itself, the perfect end all solution.  Every step you take is closer to good than not doing anything.

Ruthless

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

That's where the NRA is on the current debate over gun violence.  That's where they try to focus attention away from the real issues.  Sure, mental illness is a part of the problem; okay, the video game industry might well be part of the desensitization of youth to killing; alright, the 2nd amendment to the constitution exists and you might misinterpret it to say that the right own a gun may not be limited, AND, Holy Crap, we can completely ignore the rights of a free people to live free from violence.

Spinning the Constitution is probably the worst of these claims but the rest have been used as distractions over the core issue in all of the debate.  Guns are a part of killing people.  No, the gun, in and of itself, does not kill people.  Without it the violence against innocents would be far more difficult however.  Sensible limitations on the types of equipment that are allowed legally in the hands of citizens is reasonable.

We HAVE a well regulated militia.  It is called the National Guard.  You do not hunt with an AR-15 toting a 30 to 100 round clip.  A military style gun belongs in the hands of the military.  If you claim you may need protection against the government (YOU, btw, ARE the government) then you are talking about being treasonous.  Remind me again what the penalty for treason is.

The Constitution explains that one of the primary functions of government is to provide for the general welfare.  Since when does gun ownership trump the general welfare?  My RIGHT to not risk being shot by a gun nut is not less, somehow, than a limited right of gun ownership.  If you are not a registered member of a well regulated militia what right should you have?  We may well need a Second and a half amendment to clarify what the framers of the Constitution intended when they included the amendment in the first place.

When the revolution was over after our declaration of independence the debate was how America could defend itself from foreign invaders without having to maintain a standing army.  The idea was to have registered members of state based militias capable of responding to an external threat.  It was about war and defense of the country.  These were also much simpler times.  Knives and single shot muskets were the technology of the day.  No one argued for the private ownership of cannons.  The framers did not envision the advent of mass killing machines that took another half century to begin to develop... as weapons of war.

This was not about hunting.  Much of the rural population of those days hunted... as is the case today.  There are rifles made for hunting.  They generally have a few shots before reloading but not more than ten.  Pistols are not hunting weapons.  Although I was glad when a friend had a pistol as a water moccasin tried to steal a fish from my catch, it was not a matter of hunting.  Target practice is a recreational use of a weapon.  There are even Olympic events using target weapons.  But, you have to take note that these contests are not carried out with mega-clip weapons.

Put your thinking cap on and try to concentrate... the debate is about the unforeseen changes in weapon technology as much as it is about how to define the problems we, law abiding citizens, face as a result of the upgrade in technology.  We need a discussion that includes all of the side issues but the central problem is the lack of limitations on guns has, de facto, taken away my liberties.  My rights are threatened by the unthinking adherence to antiquated gun laws.  The second amendment does not, repeat, NOT defend my right to free speech any more or any longer.  It threatens my right to free speech.  The inflexible attitude shown by the gun lobby says volumes about how little they think of my right to free speech.

Spending or Paying?

Whooping Crane looking for lunch

 
A commenter on Huffington Post, msgirlintn, wrote:

"The President needs to hold a prime time address to the nation and explain to them what the debt ceiling is, how we got here and why the Republican game is so risky for this country and the world's global economy.

The debt ceiling has nothing to do with spending.  It has everything to do with paying the bills that Congress has already spent the money for.


Bush campaigned against PayGo and when he took office, he and the Republicans repealed PayGo.  He went on to put two wars, two tax cuts and a Medicare Part D insurance plan on the national credit card.  Orrin Hatch admitted that it was "standard practice not to pay for anything".  Bush's VP said "deficits don't matter" so Bush spent more than any President in recent history, followed closely by Reagan.


The last government shutdown stunt that the Republicans pulled in 2011 cost the taxpayers over 18 Billion.  It also resulted in the nation's first downgraded credit rating, which the S&P blamed on the Republicans and the Tea Party.


If government shuts down, there will be no SS checks for the elderly and the disabled.  There will be no Medicare for them when we are in the middle of a flu epidemic.  There will be no pay for active duty military.  There will be no Veterans benefits or VA hospital

Reagan warned about this in the 1980's.  It seems today's Teapublicans want to talk about Reagan a lot, but they don't want to govern like Reagan did."

 

Here is where the ultimate Low Information Republicans/Rush Limbaugh devotees go bouncing off the walls.  They want to dumb down the universe by saying this is all about spending.  Seriously?  It is about money that they already spent.  That should be clear to even the least informed but, of course, people disseminating stupid are attempting to twist it so that you are up in arms about the President spending.  The debt was  racked up by the Congress spending more than they took in.  Period.

 

It has so far just cracked  me up that Limbaugh, the chief of the Low Information ditto heads, has co-opted the term Low Information!!  Once again, pay the bills you created and let's get on with life.  If you don't like how YOU spent that pile of cash create a different future path.  The blame is still on Congress and prior Presidents accepting that spending.  Thus far President Obama has made a solid mark on spending less than prior administrations.  An improvement of massive proportions. 

Violence & Guns

It is all the NRA rage to be in our face about not regulating guns... in any way.  They endlessly cite the Second Amendment as the justification for not limiting guns in the hands of citizens.

This is completely wrong and wrong headed.  The founding fathers wrote the second amendment to put in a place a way to defend the country that would not require that we have a standing army.  To this day all Army appropriations are for no more than two years.  The Navy, and Air Force can be open ended but the Army; two years maximum.  What the writers of the Constitution were talking about was a WELL REGULATED MILITIA being something that was good... not gun ownership.  That is a twist that gun crazies have passed off on the public and it is time to stop their lying nonsense. 

My reply on line to a post by a friend who was getting static from a gun believer was: 

"??The Constitution does NOT allow for the ownership of assault weapons. It allows for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA... what part of that is vague?? The U.S. founders did not want a standing army and having a militia was the way to accomplish that. IF one follows the intent of words we can regulate the bejeeeesus out of all guns."

In addition what part of "well regulated" is problematic?  It is not about keeping guns at one's home... the regulation could be that the guns in question need to be kept at a barracks or depot.  It could be said that only guns of a certain sort can be kept at all.  It was not the intent that guns should be kept in order to keep our government in line... that is insurrection and there are lots of laws and legal precedent to say that is treasonous to take up arms against our government.  

"Well regulated militia" also implies regular training from core military personnel.  

The pass that congress has given the gun companies to dodge legal responsibilities for their product is another of the misunderstandings that the NRA has allowed.  This too is wrong headed.  More on that another time.