What a scumbag

On 9-11-12, Mitt & Obama promised to stop the negative campaigning for one day. In the evening the US embassy in Libya was attacked killing the ambassador. Mitt, hastily condemned the attacks stating further, it was because Obama had apologized for America. Mitt, someone just died, and the first thing you think to do it score a political point. What a scumbag trick. No one, apologized for the people that killed the ambassador. No one apologized for America. What happened is that a film was released, on youtube, that insulted the Muslim prophet and was circulated by radical clerics. They wiped up followers into a frenzy, first attacking the embassy in Egypt. The embassy, in a small effort to try an quell the growing outrage, distanced themselves from the film. They also pointed out America stood for the rights of all faiths. Which MITT ROMNEY said himself, he said exactly what he had condemned. In the same goddamn sentence. Fucking ridiculous. what a scumbag. He should not have politicized this, not the very next day, not as a mother had to explain to their young children that their father is dead.

Watch Mitt's douche bag press conference: http://www.c-span.org/Events/US-Ambassador-to-Libya-Killed-in-Attack-in-Benghazi/10737434045-3/

Watch Hillary's comments:http://www.c-span.org/Events/US-Ambassador-to-Libya-Killed-in-Attack-in-Benghazi/10737434045-2/

Watch Obama's comments: http://www.c-span.org/Events/US-Ambassador-to-Libya-Killed-in-Attack-in-Benghazi/10737434045-1/

The Ayes have it?

In case you missed the excitement of the Democratice party passing their 2012 platform, here's a wrap up. The Democrats came together, in their large tent, and hammered out a position paper. What was the instant and immediate response from the Republican media wing (Fox News)? No, it wasn't that for the first time in history homosexual marriage was supported, it was that letters G-O-D didn't come together and spell god. Whoa, heavy stuff, never mind that they had this whole section about faith and churches. You have to say God. What a bunch of garbage, time wasting, red herring, argument. It makes me sick that grown adults could think that this has any validity in a discussion about the future of our country. Faith and chuches makes my brain bone think to much, do they mean god? ugh.

Well, I don't want to say the discussion was a total waste of time. The other stick in the mud for Fox & Friends, was the lack of the Democrats declaring that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Well, is it? There is a slight problem with Jerusalem being the capital. When you say and do that, you are saying that Jerusalem is part of Israel. Jerusalem happens to be the declared capital of the future state of Palestine. Hmmm, a city can't really be the capital of two countries. The truth is, Jerusalem is merely a symbolic capital of Israel. Tel Avi is the financial power house, the true capital of any nation. Jerusalem is not recognised as the capital by many nations because of all the Palestinians that live there. Not only do Palestinians live there, they have continuously lived there, they lived there far before Israel was a nation. To dismiss this is to totally deny that there has been a population living, breathing and working there for generation after generation, that is not part nor has ever been a part of the Jewish state. Jerusalem is and should remain a split city. Like all major world cities, it is diverse, but its a city split in two. Not one state can have a monopoly of power there. Now, when the Democrats forgot to declare their support for a denial of land rights we haven't seen since the trail of tears, I was relieved. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats had given up the Andrew Jackson like policies of the past.

Sadly, the Democrats, under pressure, amended their platform to include, this futile, naive plank. Although it was humours to watch the chairman try to get a vocal vote. In a vocal vote a 2/3rds majority is needed to pass. Basically the delegates yell as loud as they can "AYE!" or "NAY!". Hopefully, the chairperson thought, the scripted night would go as planned. But many delegated shouted "NAY!" the vocal vote needed to redone three times. While there was clearly no 2/3rds majority voting "AYE", the gavel was banged and the chairman spoke: "The ayes have it." The Democrats (or should I say their leadership) was quaking in their boots when Romney said Obama threw Israel under the bus. Now that's something I agree on with Romney. Constant, unmeasured and overwhelming U.S. money, and support and military aid to Israel, has poisoned their nation. Israel, has become less independent and more militaristic and more isolated in the world. Obama's unquestioned loyalty to Israel has thrown Israel under the bus. Romney wants the keys to that bus, so he can back up and hit Israel again. What is needed in D.C. isn't more support for Israel. What is needed is less. Just in case you think Obama has been "bad" on supporting they sent out Robert Wexler to the DNC, to tell us all how much support Obama has given Israel. They said the ayes have it, but I'm convinced, nay would have been the better thing to say.

Healthcare: Romney V. Obama

Living in Massachusetts has granted me the prevledge to come under two of of the two hottly debated healthcare laws this election season. Obama-care V. Romney-care. Romney care which, has been in effect for several years now, I can safely say it has not me feel any better. I remember the debates when Romney was Governor of my fair state. One measure that seemed fair, to me, was a tax (or fine) on businesses that did not offer healthcare to employees (now the fine only applies to business of 10 fulltime employees). I mean, if indivuals were to be fined for not having healthcare it seemed fair to fine companies. I was all excited by this prospect, given that I work full time for a company that refuses to give their full time staff any benefits. I thought maybe this would motivate my employer to actually look around for some healthcare plans. Alas, that provision was thrown out, because Romney saw it as anti-business. Now I'm stuck in the donut hole, too rich to get state assisted healthcare, too poor to afford private healthcare. Thankfully, I don't have to pay the fine because I'm technically too poor to be expected to buy private health insurance. Oh, did I say fine, I meant tax (sorry Supreme Court). I'm likely to continue to sit in the donut hole under President Obama's legislation as well. Although, I'm unclear on that, namely because I'm not living under Obama care. Obama's plan has not even gone into effect, the only plan I know first hand is Romney care. Funny thing: Obama's plan is largely modeled after Romney's plan, a lot of similarities between the two. The GOP is screaming socialism and tryanny over Obama care and just don't discuss Romney care. Romney's plan was the center piece of his time as Governor of Massachusetts, it is litterally his biggest acchoplisment. Romney's offical portrait as Governor has the healthcare plan on his desk (see above photo), he himself thought it was the most important thing he had done. Given that Mitt has only held one elected position in government, and this was the biggest thing he did, wouldn't you expect him to be touting his accomplishments?
Of course Obama-care is unpopular, although we haven't even had to deal with it yet. Everything is speculation at this point. Not to mention there is a large and very well funded opposition to this legislation, who are giving it their all to smear and dismiss this law. Here is a big difference between the two: Romney-care covers abortions, unlike Obama-care. Romney has some numbers to boast about. 98% of all Mass. redsidents now have healthcare, and our spending on emergency care has dropped 40%. Imagine these numbers on a national scale. Obama-care might eliminate 2/3 of the budget crisis social security is facing. That's better then Paul Ryan's voucher system, which fails to recognise the natural inflation over time of healthcare costs.
Oddly enough, Romney-care is more popular than Obama-care. Although these plans are extremely similar, and only one is actually in effect. People complain about the short comings of the Massachusetts healthcare legislation, but they are not taking to the streets demanding its repeal; why? Because now that it is law we can ammend it, change aspects that are not working, advocate for inclusion that were first thrown out, we can work on it. This is my feeling of Obama-care. Although, I'd be the first one to give to a laundry list of what Obama care doesn't do,  I also regonise that this legislation can be change and updated. Overall, both Obama and Romney are correct in thinking that universal healthcare coverage should be a right. I feel as Obama-care proved a greater point, a need has been regonized. Now, the GOP can try to tear down this law, but many people like the kind of reforms Obama-care should bring (most people are just unaware of some of the more practical healthcare reforms in the bill). The law set a new president in this country when it was ruled constitutionally valid. This was the biggest hurdle to any national health care law. The GOP can try to widdle down or repeal the current law, but they know if similar legislation is proposed it is not unconstitutional. Political currents change and a need for decent healthcare will continue to exist. Obama-care may or may not survive the 2012 election, but universal coverage will come. After all it was Ronald Regan who signed into law the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986 which required hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. As long as we are a nation that still thinks people have a moral obligation to save a dying man, we will continue to pay that price.

Mitt & Paul's big party.

Mr. small government Paul Ryan didn't mention the nearly 70 million dollars of tax payer money he and Mitt got to host their week-long self congratulatory party (read more). Is that what our tax dollars should pay for? That's about $140 million for both conventions, which happens to be the same amount it takes to buy 528,916 poor children in America breakfast before starting the school day. This was a week long tribute to fiscal policies, and why Obama and Co. have spent this country into near ruin. Meanwhile, Mitt and Paul held this completely unnecessary, week long advertisement. Why not lead your economic restraint message by stopping these conventions? There has not been a need for these conventions in quite sometime. One day, one of these major parties will wake up and cancel theirs. Whoever cancels first will win the gratitude of a lot of Americans, and be able to belittle their opponent for such wasteful spending. At one point these conventions were necessary to actually nominate the candidate, but those days are long gone; it's time to come back to Earth.

Well let us talk about the GOP's war plan. This year they are betting it all on the Mormon leader ( a Bishop & stake president) Mitt Romney. I have to say a Mormon for the GOP ticket seems like the best fit, not only do you have a conservative faith, you also have one of the wealthiest churches behind you. The church rakes in about $7 billion a year from their parishioners tithe. The church has been known to throw this money into a political fire in the past ( $17.67 million  to keep gays from marrying in California).  Oh, and the Mormon faith holds America as a holy place, one day Jesus Christ will return to Independence Missouri . America, Religion and Big Money, this is the holy trinity to the GOP, all wrapped up in a single candidate. It's amazing that the base of the party is so unexcited by Romney. 

The convention largely focused on the grammatical error of Obama, "You didn't build that!" Every other speaker chanted the mantra "we did build it!" I don't know if its more shameful to hold up this out of context quote as a central issue, or to accept this out context quote as the actual quote. Whatever, let them run that into the ground ad nauseum. Never mind the fact Romney's running mate Paul Ryan voted for the $700 billion bailout in 2008 (something I blogged about at the time). What was missing, and very unusually so, was foreign policy. Imagine a GOP convention with no mention of foreign policy (aside from Condoleezza Rice's speech). Seems as though the Democrats have actually out flanked the GOP on the war front. Or another way to look it, Romney and Obama are pretty identical on foreign policy, which isn't too far off George W. Bush's foreign policy.  The economy is the issue, plain and simple, all else is a side note, that's the GOP's message.

The problem with this message, is that it ignored another plank on the GOP platform, the tried and true focus on the family plank.  The right of doctors to refuse women birth control. The right of parents to force their child, against their will, to carry a child to term. The exclusion of people to tax and legal benefits based on their sexual orientation. Enhancing and expanding the "stand your ground" law of self defense. The outright and full ban on abortion, whether you've been raped by your father, or have a life threatening medical condition.  This isn't freedom, this the will of a religious people to force their morality on the non-believers. Whatever jobs Mitt & Paul are going to magically pull out of their top hats is hardly worth the sacrifice of these personal freedoms.

Mitt doesn't want to talk about the tenants of his faith. He's made that clear for a long time, questions about his faith are off limits. But we see some of his, and other religions beliefs on the GOP's platform. This is what they are running on, this platform matters. They aren't going to talk about it though because they know that every minute spent talking about these issues is a minute Obama is winning. Americans don't want a full ban on abortion, Americans want to buy birth control from their local pharmacy. America should stand up for the rights of homosexuals to enjoy the same tax and legal benefits has heterosexuals, chide any move to discriminate against gays. Mitt's faith and personal beliefs are off the table of discussion, but they are on the legislative table. Why are we allowing this? If his morality is part of the platform, his morality has every right to be discussed. A public discussion about the tenants of Mitt's faith is legitimate. If he can say that a 13 year old girl who has been molested and raped by her father as no right to abort that child, we can ask him about the Mormon church. 

Only one person spoke to us like adults: Condoleeza Rice. In case you missed it:

Podcast on the state of politics within the occupied territories

http://listen.googlelabs.com/listen?id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oxfordjournals.org%2Fpodcasts%2Fparlij.xml%231541549279483909913

Enjoy about 30 minutes long