Month: February 2008

Nader—Again?

I have posted about this very thing before he announced his candidacy.   I got lots of response when I poster it on Daily Kos.

 

NO!  NO!  NO!  He announced on NBC’s Meet the Press, but why?  Yes I covered this in a previous post,  but this whole thing deserves much, much scrutiny.  I called him a media whore and nothing has changed my opinion.  What will be his draw?  Will he pull progressives from the Democratic Party?  Questions, questions, nothing but questions.

 

Ok first question to ask is:  How many times does this loser want to lose?  He is a proven loser.  He was a loser when he represented the Green Party and a loser when he was an independent.  He says that the major candidates are not addressing the needs and desires of the American people.  He wants to be the protest candidate, in case your candidate does not get the nomination.  Silly man!  But those things that he says he represents are valid, only he spends little time during the lull between elections trying to bring these to the forefront.

 

Nader says that the major candidates are not really addressing health care or the impeachment thing or taxation on the speculation profits.  Just to mention a few, very few.  Once again, where was he between 2004 and now?  A media whore!  He would not have gotten much press during the lull, so he waits for the chance to become the spotlight.

 

Next question:  Who is he speaking for?  Who does he think will support his bid?  These are good questions.  If for some reason Obama is not the nominee, then there could possibly be a base for him with these disenfranchised voters.  If these voters feel that the Dems have stolen Obama’s nomination there could be room for revenge on the party.

 

In reality, I question his sanity. And an Einstein quote comes to mind.  Nader says that neither party is addressing the needs of the people, but until now where has Nader been?  He says that he decided to run because no one is really speaking for the American people.  I guess his thinking is, better late than never.  He did, however, have a completely forgettable quote, “Dissent is the mother of ascent”. 

 

My assessment of Nader being a media whore stands!

Professor’s Classroom

It is Monday and the quiz is inevitable. This is about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl. But what the hell–I like it and that is pretty much the only f*cking thing that matters.

We all know the Federalist and the Federalist Papers. we know that Jefferson and Jay wrote most of the papers, but were there those who did not agree with them on the direction for government? If so, name two. And what was the movement called?

This is a google moment–so knock yourself out–

Peace–Out!

Scorecard For The Next President

This is from an article in the Seattle times–I like it and gives people a good perspective on the candidates.

Here is the scorecard so far:

MANAGE: Obama raised the most money, spent it wisely and had a plan in place for a long fight after the Feb. 5 national primary. Clinton burned through her cash, underestimated her rival’s appeal, valued loyalty over competence in her staff and had no Plan B after failing to seal the nomination on Super Tuesday. If McCain is destined to run the country the way he managed his campaign as the early front-runner, let’s start drafting impeachment papers now. Advantage goes to Obama.

INSPIRE: Obama’s eloquence and timely message of hope is breaking turnout records. McCain’s war-hero biography and passion for causes greater than self-interest could tap the nation’s service-hungry spirit. Clinton is at her best in those rare moments when she shows vulnerability; many women see themselves in her fight to shatter a glass ceiling. Big advantage to Obama.

CRISIS CONTROL: Faced with financial and political difficulties of his own making, McCain overhauled his staff, his message and his political strategy to mount an improbable comeback. Clinton recovered quickly from a thumping in Iowa, but loses marks for putting the brakes on necessary changes after a surprise victory in New Hampshire. How he responds to crises is one of the many things we don’t know about Obama, a charmed politician whose rise was met with little resistance. We know that McCain (a former prisoner of war) and Clinton (a former first lady with a wayward spouse) faced hard times in their lives and careers, but what is Obama’s greatest moment of crisis? “The rocky periods during my youth … ,” says Obama, who has acknowledged using drugs as a youth. Advantage: McCain in an easy call.

TEMPERMENT: Clinton is a cool customer, rarely caught off guard or out of sorts. With one exception (her response to a question about drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants), the New York senator handled the pressure-cooker debates with aplomb _ displaying both a knowledge of policy and an unbridled enthusiasm about the prospect of implementing them. Obama’s self confidence crossed the line to arrogance more than once and his teeth-gritting response to criticism belied a dangerously thin skin. McCain has a notable temper, but has kept it under wraps and seems to love mixing it up with pesky voters. Advantage Clinton.

POST-PARTISAN: Obama has a solid record in Illinois of crossing party lines to get things done, and he talks about post-partisan politics in a way that convinces voters that problem-solving is possible. Clinton is one of the most divisive politicians of her generation, a fact that can’t be mitigated by a few bills co-sponsored by GOP senators. McCain is a steady conservative who is willing to work with Democrats toward meaningful compromise. Advantage McCain, with credit for longevity.

AUTHENTICITY: Obama and McCain are relatively straight-shooters, but the key word is “relatively.” Each has damaged their reputations. For all his talk about bold change, Obama’s record has traces of politics as usual: He backtracked on a pledge to abide by spending caps, borrowed lines from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick without attribution and accepted donations from Illinois lobbyists. McCain pandered to conservatives, flip-flopped on President Bush’s tax cuts and is now faces accusations that his own advisers feared he was too cozy with a lobbyist in 2000. They are both comfortable in their own skins. Exit polls suggest that voters see Clinton as almost anything other than authentic. Advantage: McCain and Obama, with the possibility of a tiebreaker in November.

INTANGIBLES: The records, the biographies, the policies, the qualities _ all of these are important, but we don’t select presidents based on checklists and scorecards. Is Obama ready to be president? Will Clinton’s husband, Bill, stay out of trouble? Will McCain’s age catch up to him? Will terrorists strike U.S. soil again?

For all we think and hope a campaign reveals, it’s the things we don’t know _ and can’t predict _ that will ultimately determine the fate of the next president. So you might as well go with your gut.

How About A Carbon Tax

One of the most pressing issues facing the candidates is global warming or climate change, whichever you prefer.  I want to talk about ways to stop or at least slow down the effects of said issue, at least from the Dem perspective.  I have listened to the candidates and their positions on helping the planet.  So far I am not too impressed with many of their views.  To me they are given too much time for the elimination of the harmful emissions.  IMO, the popular cap and trade that is being proposed by most candidates will not do the trick.

The leading candidates have the same plan, only with slightly different end goals.  That is a cap and trade system.  That is efforts to curtail emissions through fuel economy standards, biofuel mandates, or appliance standards may be well-meaning, but in my opinion, this is not the answer.  Clinton wants to cut oil consumption in half by 2025; Obama wants to a two-thirds reduction by 2050 and then there is Edwards who wants an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050.  All these are cap and trade approaches.

The program that I feel would be better in the control of the situation is an emissions tax.  But it is a TAX!  Yes it is and taxation seems to be an ugly word these days, but if taxation discourages consumption; for example, taxing carbon emissions discourages carbon consumption, why would this be a bad idea?  The less carbon emissions released into the atmosphere the better and more healthy the planet will be. 

There are five reasons why the emissions fee or carbon tax is better than the popular cap and trade.  These are the reasons put foward by carbontax.org

    * Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will do little to mitigate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.

    * Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.

    * Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.

    * Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.

    * Carbon tax revenues can be rebated to the public through dividends or tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.

The costs passed on to each consumer might be noticeable, but need not excessive. An emission fee of $15/ton or a permit price of $15/ton would increase gasoline prices about 15 cents per gallon and residential electricity prices about ¾ of a cent per kilowatt-hour, according to Joe Aldy of the Progressive Policy Institute.   

The proposals of the “Big 3” take too long to achieve the goal of cutting emissions and saving the planet for future generations.  Personally, since we all are contributors to the problem then we all should be part of the solution and the best solution is the emissions fee.

Weekly News UpDate

First of all, I have been doing worthless news for about a year now. Sometimes it gets results and sometimes it is ignored. But recently, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe they have a segment daily called, “The news you cannot use”. I would like to believe that I somehow influenced this decision. Makes me feel like I have more readers than there really is.

Worthless News
That one cannot use.

1-Largest beef recall in history. This meat was going to schools for our children to eat. Godd job FDA.

2–Another tornadic activity in the South–how many trailers this time?

3–oil closed over $100 a barrel for the first time–but will it last?

4–Some dumbass has found the likeness of the Virgin Mary and baby in a pretzel–maybe I am jus a skeptic, but why?

5–Pres. Bush dances in Africa–may I suggest that a requirement to be president be that you actually have some sort of rhythm.

6–Ted Kennedy sings in Spanish–please do not let him do that again–it was horrendous!

7–more car chases, more shootings, more horrible weather, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Yet another week of totally worthless crap being fed to a gullible group by the media. and may I say a job well done.

Peace–Out!



Whining On The Campaign Trail

OMG! Just how pathetic are these attacks? Clinton is trying to look like the victim here. I worked in New Hampshire and now the mean old black guy is attacking the helpless little woman. Please people!

These fliers that she is pouting about are nothing. The one on health care is a joke. Both of these candidates have similar health care plans. And if Clinton’s is anything like her home organization, the DLC, then the penalty for not signing in on the program is the possible loss of one’s personal tax exemptions. Obama’s is similar, but I have found a penalty yet, but that is not saying there is none. Both candidates call their plans “universal” health care, but they are not totally.

Ok the next flier that Clinton is being “abused” over is the one that the Obama people have on her support for NAFTA. Obama has said about the situation, “You can’t be for something and take credit for an administration . . . and then when you run for president say that you didn’t really mean what you said way back then,”. But the reality is that both candidates want to reform NAFTA, not eliminate it.

So when Clinton says, “shame on you, Barack Obama”, it is just a political tactic for sympathy. My grand father had a saying for those looking for sympathy. He said, “grab a dictionary and look between sh*t and syphilis and you will find your sympathy”.

The only “shame on you” that should be sounded , should be directed at the media for putting the voter through this bovine fecal matter.

Thoughts On Immigration

Much has been said, written and debated about “illegal” immigration.  The most opposition seems to from those people who say that the immigrants are a drain on the domestic programs.  They think they get too much in food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc, etc.  this could be true, but how do you stop the loss of funds and services?

First, the whole thing is just a disguised racist thing.  After that, we will have a hard time as a country in eliminating all illegal immigration.  Oh, I know, everybody from lou Dobbs to the pizza delivery guy has an answer.  Psst!  None will work!

How about stop worrying and put into place a national sales tax.  The “illegals” will always buy food, use services, buy gas, etc.  The funds that they are accused of sucking up can be replaced and funded by a national sales tax.

How to do this?  I am not an economist, so that would be for a higher pay grade than mine.  But this is an idea that should be considered.   The whole thing is these people are abusing the system, so let they pay along with everybody else.

Peace–out!

Senators In Afghanistan

For my first post I would like to talk about the visit to Afghanistan by Sens. Biden, Hagel and Kerry.  They were in a chopper heading to a meeting in Kabul when they were forced to make an emergency landing because of the weather.  They were picked up by a miliatry convey and escorted into Kabul.

One comment, I would bet that they needed to change their drawers after that.

Next comment, Sen Biden is still in the US Senate, but Kerry and Hagel are not, so who paid for their visit to Afghanistan?  Did the taxpayers pay for  this visit by two civilians?  Biden I can understand, but the other two, why were they there?

Just a thought .

Anal-Ocity

As I have said, this is gonna be an excellent year for asinine statements. From the mouths of a/holes flow the crap of nightmares.

This one is from a now defunct repub presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. You remember him? The rich guy that pissed away a lot of his personal fortune trying to be the next Reagan. HA!

“Liberals are opponents of American culture”. Mitt Romney

These guys are just f*cking amazing.