While the internet is still buzzing from the hilarity that was Clint Eastwood's rambling on the RNC stage at the convention, two things stood out in my mind as I watched the coverage and replay of the poorly timed and poorly placed attempt at Republican enthusiasm. While I agree with Bill Maher that producing comedy with an empty chair is a difficult task and that Eastwood pulled that part off, I did not find the act itself to be of the quality or decency that we should expect in a campaign.
Let me explain what I mean.
Al Sharpton has already brought my first point to our attention, as have many others. The speech itself was disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States of America. Now before you get your conservative panties and secret mormon underwear in knots, let's cover one very important retort that I've seen. Yes, democrats have been known to say and do some very unkind things when talking about President Bush. This behavior, however, does not excuse you or Clint Eastwood from behaving the same way. You should strive to be a better person than your rivals, no?
Okay, then. So the fact that Clint Eastwood not only spoke in a condescending tone to an imaginary President Obama, but adding profanity to the mix made this performance especially disrespectful. Had President Obama been in that chair, Clint Eastwood would have conducted himself in a more respectful tone.
This leads to my second impression of this crap.
This is the only way conservatives like to debate President Obama. Not only have they spent the last four years (election season and post-election first term) creating a fake story line about President Obama with which they have armed their dittohead minions for the sole purpose of making him a one term president, but in this instance, they created a situation where a debate without a retort from their opposition served only to fit their hate-laden fancy. They could argue with an invisible man from the comfort of their own echo chamber. Difference of opinion? What's that? It's what Republicans refuse to acknowledge in the name of arrogance and self preservation. This was hardly a respectable way to frame the campaign, let alone a debate. In that setting, no humor exists. It's a shameful representation of what the Republican Party has become.
Conservatives do not wish to debate the President on his home turf. No. This was an act of blatant cowardice. If they can't muster up the courage to debate President Obama face to face, then that makes them cowards. That makes Clint Eastwood a coward. To pull a line from Back to the Future III, Clint Eastwood is the biggest yellow belly in the West.
When in history has either party talked this way to a sitting US president? Oh yes, this might have to do with the fact that modern conservatives question the legitimacy of this presidency, from birthers, to people who think he is Muslim, to racists, and to people who think he stole the election. This kind of disrespectful behavior is rooted in the foul mentality that is the hatred modern Republicans have for President Obama. It's disgusting. We're Americans for crying out loud. Act like it.
That is all.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Monday, September 3, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
How Voter Purging and Papers Please are Linked: Republican Delusions
One of the things about journalism in the US that gets me going is how pundits respond to anything the Republican or Democratic parties do or say. When the news covers a story, it is often framed in such a way that makes an action or phrase sound so preposterous that the party in question has done something outrageous and unheard of. The fact of the matter is, whether you're listening to Fox News or MSNBC, the facts were twisted to cater to an audience who would naturally become suckered into believing something so outrageous when it is nothing of the sort, sort of.
Let me use the recent coverage of voter purging in Florida and the Arizona Papers Please ruling to illustrate the problem. I'll first describe the pitch (the delivery) and then I'll follow through with the explanation the news completely missed.
Voter Purging
The Pitch:
First, in the voter purging situation, the "goal" at first glance was to weed out fraudulent voting. Judging by the citizens who were purged, it was clear all the wrong people were getting caught up in the mess.
The Explanation:
Behind all of that, Republicans feel justified in purging these voters who largely vote for Democrats. Why? Republicans feel that they are the victims here. They claim to be the victims of a liberal conspiracy to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in order to steal the election away from them. In their minds, illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly corrupting the voting process to the point where Republican candidates lose. They feel as though purging the voter rolls will result in a course correction. This is why a Republican audience applauds Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania for saying a voter purge will lead to a Romney victory. Liberals foolishly respond, pointing out how Turzai's comments were an admission of rigging an election.
On the contrary, the Republican delusion is such that they don't see it as rigging the election, but adjusting the situation away from an incorrect belief that the election was rigged to favor Democrats. It's wrong, but it is their delusion. Liberals are left mouths agape for the wrong reason. Liberals need to begin framing unscrupulous behavior in terms of the Republican delusion and not the reasonable assertion from outside the Republican bubble.
Papers Please
The Pitch:
The Papers Please part of the Arizona law that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court has been perceived as a form of racial profiling whereby innocent Hispanic-American citizens would be stopped and accused of being an illegal immigrant just because they are hispanic.
The Explanation:
What you need to understand is, the same sort of Republican delusion exists here, too. You see, Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere believe that illegal immigrants are Democratic strongholds threatening the American way of life and unfairly victimizing (white) American citizens by taking jobs, leeching off government programs, and committing crimes. The Papers Please part of the law, to them, was not an attempt to profile at face value, but it represents Republicans who already profile all Mexican-Americans as illegals. To them, a person of color is not a legitimate American. To them, a person of color is a pawn of the liberal conspiracy against the Republican voter and of America itself.
The Conclusion:
So if you understand the delusion, then you can report on the story better. It will sound as though you are being flagrant and mean to your opposition, but it's the truth. If you admit Republicans are delusional and see the delusion for what it is, you can correctly assess their behavior. Then, you can call them on it. Anything less is feeding into the same stalemate we have come to know.
The same sort of mentality applies to their opinions toward unions and welfare. To them, Democrats are crooked SOBs. To them, a union equates to thugs. To the, welfare equates to lazy leeches. Pick a good system and they will demonize it, claiming victimization.
It's why Romney's "Sauce for the gander" comment resonated. To the, Democrats are unsavory and conspiring against them, so it's only fair to conspire right back. It's disgusting.
Let me use the recent coverage of voter purging in Florida and the Arizona Papers Please ruling to illustrate the problem. I'll first describe the pitch (the delivery) and then I'll follow through with the explanation the news completely missed.
Voter Purging
The Pitch:
First, in the voter purging situation, the "goal" at first glance was to weed out fraudulent voting. Judging by the citizens who were purged, it was clear all the wrong people were getting caught up in the mess.
The Explanation:
Behind all of that, Republicans feel justified in purging these voters who largely vote for Democrats. Why? Republicans feel that they are the victims here. They claim to be the victims of a liberal conspiracy to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in order to steal the election away from them. In their minds, illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly corrupting the voting process to the point where Republican candidates lose. They feel as though purging the voter rolls will result in a course correction. This is why a Republican audience applauds Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania for saying a voter purge will lead to a Romney victory. Liberals foolishly respond, pointing out how Turzai's comments were an admission of rigging an election.
On the contrary, the Republican delusion is such that they don't see it as rigging the election, but adjusting the situation away from an incorrect belief that the election was rigged to favor Democrats. It's wrong, but it is their delusion. Liberals are left mouths agape for the wrong reason. Liberals need to begin framing unscrupulous behavior in terms of the Republican delusion and not the reasonable assertion from outside the Republican bubble.
Papers Please
The Pitch:
The Papers Please part of the Arizona law that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court has been perceived as a form of racial profiling whereby innocent Hispanic-American citizens would be stopped and accused of being an illegal immigrant just because they are hispanic.
The Explanation:
What you need to understand is, the same sort of Republican delusion exists here, too. You see, Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere believe that illegal immigrants are Democratic strongholds threatening the American way of life and unfairly victimizing (white) American citizens by taking jobs, leeching off government programs, and committing crimes. The Papers Please part of the law, to them, was not an attempt to profile at face value, but it represents Republicans who already profile all Mexican-Americans as illegals. To them, a person of color is not a legitimate American. To them, a person of color is a pawn of the liberal conspiracy against the Republican voter and of America itself.
The Conclusion:
So if you understand the delusion, then you can report on the story better. It will sound as though you are being flagrant and mean to your opposition, but it's the truth. If you admit Republicans are delusional and see the delusion for what it is, you can correctly assess their behavior. Then, you can call them on it. Anything less is feeding into the same stalemate we have come to know.
The same sort of mentality applies to their opinions toward unions and welfare. To them, Democrats are crooked SOBs. To them, a union equates to thugs. To the, welfare equates to lazy leeches. Pick a good system and they will demonize it, claiming victimization.
It's why Romney's "Sauce for the gander" comment resonated. To the, Democrats are unsavory and conspiring against them, so it's only fair to conspire right back. It's disgusting.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Is Religion Required to Declare Something a Sin?
If you are a religious zealot, this post is not for you. However, if you are a thinker, a philosophy aficionado, or a non-religious person, dive into this thought.
Does declaring something a sin require a religious premise?
In other words, if I were non-religious, could I acknowledge something as sin?
I could most certainly acknowledge something as wrong. I could acknowledge something as immoral. Sin is not necessarily a synonym for either wrong or immoral, despite what Webster's thinks.
Morality can exist without religion or Faith.
Sin carries with it a religious connotation. Let me illustrate how easy the religious implication comes about.
If I were to ask you if homosexuality were a sin, you would be inclined to say No. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Ask a religious person the same question.
If you were to ask me if murder were a sin, what would be your response?
I'm leaving this open ended. As a non-religious man, I don't think I could accept either question as valid. If rephrased as whether homosexuality or murder were wrong, then I could answer. Are either sins? That, I cannot entertain as I am not a religious person. Sin does not exist in my world. It might as well not be a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Does declaring something a sin require a religious premise?
In other words, if I were non-religious, could I acknowledge something as sin?
I could most certainly acknowledge something as wrong. I could acknowledge something as immoral. Sin is not necessarily a synonym for either wrong or immoral, despite what Webster's thinks.
Morality can exist without religion or Faith.
Sin carries with it a religious connotation. Let me illustrate how easy the religious implication comes about.
If I were to ask you if homosexuality were a sin, you would be inclined to say No. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Ask a religious person the same question.
If you were to ask me if murder were a sin, what would be your response?
I'm leaving this open ended. As a non-religious man, I don't think I could accept either question as valid. If rephrased as whether homosexuality or murder were wrong, then I could answer. Are either sins? That, I cannot entertain as I am not a religious person. Sin does not exist in my world. It might as well not be a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Monday, June 6, 2011
Vitter vs Weiner
This is modern US politics. When a Democrat does something underhanded, a witch hunt on the Right brings him down. When a Republican does something underhanded, there is no witch hunt and he is re-elected. Of course, I am speaking about the Anthony Weiner scandal. I am also comparing it to the David Vitter scandal.
This is the problem with our current political system. If you are a Conservative in this country, your voting strategy is as simple as not voting for any Democrat. Any Republican in the mind of a Conservative is better than a Democrat, even if the Republican is the biggest hypocrite and scumbag on the planet. A Conservative will still vote for anyone who has an R next to their name over anyone with a D.
That's just sad.
Let's just remind Conservatives that what Anthony Weiner has supposedly done was not illegal. It was wrong, but not illegal. David Vitter was a patron to prostitutes. That was and still is illegal. Republican leaders don't have a strong record of asking their criminals to resign, so why should someone resign over something that isn't against the law? Republican congressmen have escaped punishment over worse circumstances.
Regarding Vitter...
Where was the Right Wing witch hunt? I never saw it. The general public never saw your outrage. If it existed, show me. Show me the pages and pages of comments at the end of news articles clamoring for Vitter to resign. Some commenters want Anthony Weiner to go to jail of all things. Show me the Republican equivalent in the Vitter scandal.
Anthony Weiner will likely resign. David Vitter ran for office again and Louisiana voters sent him back to work in DC. Weiner will not see the same fortunate outcome. Nancy Pelosi is calling for an ethics investigation and Democrats have attempted to distance themselves from Weiner. He will be urged to resign. Vitter should have been urged to resign. Pretty simple response to bad behavior, if you ask me. If it makes the party look bad, resign.
The same thing is going on right now with John Edwards, but what about John Ensign?
You can take this argument all the way to the outrage toward Obama over spending that George W. Bush never saw from the Right.
You need to understand that Republican politics is about the hatred of Liberalism. Liberal politics is about finding answers and solving problems, even if the policy may not work. Liberal policy is not about the hatred of conservative principles and ideas. It never will be. Liberals support tax cuts. Liberals support the free market. Liberals are not opposed to capitalism. Liberals are not happy Anthony Weiner did what he did, but if Vitter can get away with cheating on his wife with hookers, then Anthony Weiner can get away with some photos and correspondance with women. Small potatoes compared to prostitution. Liberals also tend to hold their elected officials accountable when they screw up. That behavior is less prominent on the Right.
This is all about Weiner being a Democrat. That's all it boils down to. If you're a Democrat, you've expressed your disgust accordingly with consistency. You likely wanted Vitter to resign. You're not proud of John Edwards. You're not proud of Bill Clinton's blowjob scandal either. So in turn, you're most certainly not happy about Anthony Weiner's problems. If you're not a Democrat, your response to this story is firmly rooted not in fairness and right and wrong, but rather, the cookie cutter hatred for those on the Left.
Conservatives are proud to be assholes. Democrats frequently seek out compromise and give in. For Republicans, it isn't about right and wrong. It's about winning. If you're going to be the kind of voter who defends your own kind, and in doing so, you choose to be an antagonistic hypocrite about it, you deserve to be called an asshole. It's time to give Democratic politicians the same leeway Conservatives give their douchebags. It may not be right, but what do we have to lose? Our souls? US politics is already in the crapper. Who cares? It's time for Democrats to be assholes too. It's time to get our hands dirty. In politics, the moral high ground is frankly a road to nowhere.
Let me show you something else.
Links to Breitbart.com David Vitter Stories:
Despite scandals, Vitter the La. primary favorite
Sen. Vitter easily wins GOP nomination in La.
Vitter won't say whether 'serious sin' broke law
New Orleans Madam Names Sen. Vitter
What do all of these articles have in common? Aside from all of them apparently being AP News articles reposted on Breitbart.com, the other thing all of these articles have in common is a lack of outrage. Where are the comments? There are none. NONE. Not one. Not even one from a Democrat.
I'm not holding Breitbart's feet to the fire. I'm holding Republican voters accountable. They have plenty of time to write foul comments on these articles. Starting from the top, there are 134, 103, 97, 158, 120, 229, 143, and 208 comments, respectively, at the time of posting this photo which shows recent Anthony Weiner articles on Breitbart.com.
This is the problem with our current political system. If you are a Conservative in this country, your voting strategy is as simple as not voting for any Democrat. Any Republican in the mind of a Conservative is better than a Democrat, even if the Republican is the biggest hypocrite and scumbag on the planet. A Conservative will still vote for anyone who has an R next to their name over anyone with a D.
That's just sad.
Let's just remind Conservatives that what Anthony Weiner has supposedly done was not illegal. It was wrong, but not illegal. David Vitter was a patron to prostitutes. That was and still is illegal. Republican leaders don't have a strong record of asking their criminals to resign, so why should someone resign over something that isn't against the law? Republican congressmen have escaped punishment over worse circumstances.
Regarding Vitter...
Where was the Right Wing witch hunt? I never saw it. The general public never saw your outrage. If it existed, show me. Show me the pages and pages of comments at the end of news articles clamoring for Vitter to resign. Some commenters want Anthony Weiner to go to jail of all things. Show me the Republican equivalent in the Vitter scandal.
Anthony Weiner will likely resign. David Vitter ran for office again and Louisiana voters sent him back to work in DC. Weiner will not see the same fortunate outcome. Nancy Pelosi is calling for an ethics investigation and Democrats have attempted to distance themselves from Weiner. He will be urged to resign. Vitter should have been urged to resign. Pretty simple response to bad behavior, if you ask me. If it makes the party look bad, resign.
The same thing is going on right now with John Edwards, but what about John Ensign?
You can take this argument all the way to the outrage toward Obama over spending that George W. Bush never saw from the Right.
You need to understand that Republican politics is about the hatred of Liberalism. Liberal politics is about finding answers and solving problems, even if the policy may not work. Liberal policy is not about the hatred of conservative principles and ideas. It never will be. Liberals support tax cuts. Liberals support the free market. Liberals are not opposed to capitalism. Liberals are not happy Anthony Weiner did what he did, but if Vitter can get away with cheating on his wife with hookers, then Anthony Weiner can get away with some photos and correspondance with women. Small potatoes compared to prostitution. Liberals also tend to hold their elected officials accountable when they screw up. That behavior is less prominent on the Right.
This is all about Weiner being a Democrat. That's all it boils down to. If you're a Democrat, you've expressed your disgust accordingly with consistency. You likely wanted Vitter to resign. You're not proud of John Edwards. You're not proud of Bill Clinton's blowjob scandal either. So in turn, you're most certainly not happy about Anthony Weiner's problems. If you're not a Democrat, your response to this story is firmly rooted not in fairness and right and wrong, but rather, the cookie cutter hatred for those on the Left.
Conservatives are proud to be assholes. Democrats frequently seek out compromise and give in. For Republicans, it isn't about right and wrong. It's about winning. If you're going to be the kind of voter who defends your own kind, and in doing so, you choose to be an antagonistic hypocrite about it, you deserve to be called an asshole. It's time to give Democratic politicians the same leeway Conservatives give their douchebags. It may not be right, but what do we have to lose? Our souls? US politics is already in the crapper. Who cares? It's time for Democrats to be assholes too. It's time to get our hands dirty. In politics, the moral high ground is frankly a road to nowhere.
Let me show you something else.
Links to Breitbart.com David Vitter Stories:
Despite scandals, Vitter the La. primary favorite
Sen. Vitter easily wins GOP nomination in La.
Vitter won't say whether 'serious sin' broke law
New Orleans Madam Names Sen. Vitter
What do all of these articles have in common? Aside from all of them apparently being AP News articles reposted on Breitbart.com, the other thing all of these articles have in common is a lack of outrage. Where are the comments? There are none. NONE. Not one. Not even one from a Democrat.
I'm not holding Breitbart's feet to the fire. I'm holding Republican voters accountable. They have plenty of time to write foul comments on these articles. Starting from the top, there are 134, 103, 97, 158, 120, 229, 143, and 208 comments, respectively, at the time of posting this photo which shows recent Anthony Weiner articles on Breitbart.com.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
My Atheism validated by recent storms
In the many discussions I've taken part in with believers from various flavors of Christianity, a very sad revelation comes to light when they are confronted with the notion that there is no God. They told me that if there is no God, then we are hurtling through space without any rhyme or reason. They then told me that they cannot live a life where that is the case. For them, there has to be something beyond our comprehension. There has to be a reason for all we have endured.
The obvious gap such an absence leaves has to do with morality, but as someone who can appreciate philosophy, morality can exist without God or the influence of religion. While religious people derive moral practices by way of Faith and the individual teachings of their religion, fans of elaborate philosophical debate realize the absurdity of such an assertion.
The connection between morality and God, I feel, is what keeps people latched on to this notion that we cannot simply be hurtling through space without any hand guiding us.
To me, the recent disastrous storms which hit Missouri and Alabama represent the randomness that is hurtling through space. Many people survived. Some died. If you were left asking why it was you survived a tornado, don't turn to God. Others died around you. That's randomness. That's chance. The reason you survived was complex and should take into account the structural integrity of your house, the location of that house, your physical stature, the tornado itself, and many other things that should seem obvious. The hand that protected you did not protect others and the notion that God took lives because it was their time is ludicrous, but it will be the answer your pastor tells you if asked. The dead, while living in their final moments, were likely huddled together, praying for safety, praying to make it out of the storm alive. Their prayers were not answered.
It takes a lot of nerve to explain a random event in that way, suggesting that people were taken by a god. It takes even more gall to suggest that these tornadoes are somehow representative of God's wrath. That's comforting, isn't it? I'd say the spite is in the human tongue, not in the hand of any god. Religion makes people think very strange things and as a man of science, I simply cannot believe my ears lately.
There is no hand protecting us. We are on our own. I think we'd be a better people if we realized no higher power is out there to be our crutch. We only have each other.
The obvious gap such an absence leaves has to do with morality, but as someone who can appreciate philosophy, morality can exist without God or the influence of religion. While religious people derive moral practices by way of Faith and the individual teachings of their religion, fans of elaborate philosophical debate realize the absurdity of such an assertion.
The connection between morality and God, I feel, is what keeps people latched on to this notion that we cannot simply be hurtling through space without any hand guiding us.
To me, the recent disastrous storms which hit Missouri and Alabama represent the randomness that is hurtling through space. Many people survived. Some died. If you were left asking why it was you survived a tornado, don't turn to God. Others died around you. That's randomness. That's chance. The reason you survived was complex and should take into account the structural integrity of your house, the location of that house, your physical stature, the tornado itself, and many other things that should seem obvious. The hand that protected you did not protect others and the notion that God took lives because it was their time is ludicrous, but it will be the answer your pastor tells you if asked. The dead, while living in their final moments, were likely huddled together, praying for safety, praying to make it out of the storm alive. Their prayers were not answered.
It takes a lot of nerve to explain a random event in that way, suggesting that people were taken by a god. It takes even more gall to suggest that these tornadoes are somehow representative of God's wrath. That's comforting, isn't it? I'd say the spite is in the human tongue, not in the hand of any god. Religion makes people think very strange things and as a man of science, I simply cannot believe my ears lately.
There is no hand protecting us. We are on our own. I think we'd be a better people if we realized no higher power is out there to be our crutch. We only have each other.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Republicans position themselves to deny me the right to vote for Barack Obama
At this very moment, two Representatives in Louisiana are proposing a bill similar to what has been passed in Arizona pertaining to birth certificates and elections. In doing this, they create a situation where, if the officials cannot accept the documentation submitted to them by President Barack Obama, there is a good chance Louisiana will not let him on the ballot....And I will be unable to vote. Barack Obama has already shown a valid birth certificate, yet the crazy people aren't at all satisfied.
This is the new America envisioned by the Conservative gestapo. Birthers have taken over the Right Wing. Their paranoid delusions stretch so far that even Governor Bobby Jindal has said he will sign this bill should it make its way through Louisiana's legislative branch. Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill today. I hope Jindal realizes this will kill any national hopes he has for running for anything.
Where will this end? Who on the Conservative side will stand up to these nuts? When will Birthers lose their grip on the Republican Party?
Do we live in an era where my right to vote for the candidate I choose is denied because crazy people coerce our local elected officials?
Is this the new way to steal an election?
This is another sad day for America. Racism has reared its ugly head and none of us are doing anything about it. None of our leaders condemn it.
Louisiana residents should be ashamed. Republicans should be ashamed. Donald Trump should especially be ashamed for fanning the flame of hate.
Damn you for attempting to take away my ability to vote in the State of Louisiana. Damn you all.
This is the new America envisioned by the Conservative gestapo. Birthers have taken over the Right Wing. Their paranoid delusions stretch so far that even Governor Bobby Jindal has said he will sign this bill should it make its way through Louisiana's legislative branch. Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill today. I hope Jindal realizes this will kill any national hopes he has for running for anything.
Where will this end? Who on the Conservative side will stand up to these nuts? When will Birthers lose their grip on the Republican Party?
Do we live in an era where my right to vote for the candidate I choose is denied because crazy people coerce our local elected officials?
Is this the new way to steal an election?
This is another sad day for America. Racism has reared its ugly head and none of us are doing anything about it. None of our leaders condemn it.
Louisiana residents should be ashamed. Republicans should be ashamed. Donald Trump should especially be ashamed for fanning the flame of hate.
Damn you for attempting to take away my ability to vote in the State of Louisiana. Damn you all.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Cash is King - The Paladino Trend
I don't know a whole hell of a lot about New York politics, but I probably know just as much as you do about the race for governor in New York thanks to very basic news coverage. What has me perplexed is how anger has supported a character which represents the same corrupt structure they are angry with. Voters are specifically angry with lobbying special interests, greedy politicians, and money grubbing dirtbags.
Well, Paladino is a rich dirtbag.
Why support him? I know you're angry, but why pick that guy? Pick someone better.
I am seeing this across the country at all levels of government. People are angry with the elected officials who presently hold office, but the challengers are all spread out among wackjobs, well financed campaigns, and less than kosher souls even Bernie Madoff could win against in a popularity poll. That isn't going to result in change. I don't see how it could. Replace one dirtbag with another dirtbag? You've got to be kidding.
People demand common sense politicians. Where is our common sense? Where is the real outrage? What I am seeing is a bandwagon that rides on anger, but is fed by money. You're a Tea Party candidate, yet you're not an every day man or woman. You aren't an every day American. You're either someone who upholds fringe beliefs, works the system, or makes a hell of a lot of money in the process.
So where are the noble challengers? If you're tired of spending and corruption, don't replace one asshole for another. That doesn't make any sense. People are still voting with a lesser than two evils mentality when what we need are more good men and women running for office.
At the local level, there are small time campaigns with individuals scrapping at each other in the name of revenge, not for building up a community. Local residents know these candidates have dirty pasts, yet they fully support them. I can cite the election going on in Camden, Arkansas as an example. Everyone in that town should know that Stan Kendall has a questionable past as a dirty cop and even more unsavory pastimes prior to his career. Dirty. Chris Claybaker is also no angel and critics throw many of the same unsatisfied remarks in his direction. Only recently has a slightly more noble candidate appeared on the ballot, a local reporter by the name of Ed Parham. While Parham might have a reputation as a gossip reporter in some instances, he certainly has more of a reputable history and could definitely turn a crap town around. This is but one example, but I'm sure there are towns all across American where voters are picking sides and playing favorites, not voting for the betterment of their community. The dangerous alternative is to pick a candidate who holds crazy ideals simply because you don't like the other two main stream candidates (And Parham did hold some wacko beliefs).
David Vitter is still a viable candidate here in Louisiana. Why is that? Faith. Sure, he loves himself a good hooker, but he's a Republican Christian, so he's the lesser of two evils...and he's the only one running with an R on his sleeve. His challengers didn't survive.
I stand by my belief that government is not the root of the problem. We are. Our elected officials really do represent us. They mirror the dirty people who put them in office. We don't demand more from them, so they only put in the least amount of effort so we don't complain. You want change? Start with yourselves and work your way to the top. Otherwise, you'll just keep getting more of the same. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only in this to say their side won.
Fuck sides, man. What we need here is a little solidarity against big money.
Well, Paladino is a rich dirtbag.
Why support him? I know you're angry, but why pick that guy? Pick someone better.
I am seeing this across the country at all levels of government. People are angry with the elected officials who presently hold office, but the challengers are all spread out among wackjobs, well financed campaigns, and less than kosher souls even Bernie Madoff could win against in a popularity poll. That isn't going to result in change. I don't see how it could. Replace one dirtbag with another dirtbag? You've got to be kidding.
People demand common sense politicians. Where is our common sense? Where is the real outrage? What I am seeing is a bandwagon that rides on anger, but is fed by money. You're a Tea Party candidate, yet you're not an every day man or woman. You aren't an every day American. You're either someone who upholds fringe beliefs, works the system, or makes a hell of a lot of money in the process.
So where are the noble challengers? If you're tired of spending and corruption, don't replace one asshole for another. That doesn't make any sense. People are still voting with a lesser than two evils mentality when what we need are more good men and women running for office.
At the local level, there are small time campaigns with individuals scrapping at each other in the name of revenge, not for building up a community. Local residents know these candidates have dirty pasts, yet they fully support them. I can cite the election going on in Camden, Arkansas as an example. Everyone in that town should know that Stan Kendall has a questionable past as a dirty cop and even more unsavory pastimes prior to his career. Dirty. Chris Claybaker is also no angel and critics throw many of the same unsatisfied remarks in his direction. Only recently has a slightly more noble candidate appeared on the ballot, a local reporter by the name of Ed Parham. While Parham might have a reputation as a gossip reporter in some instances, he certainly has more of a reputable history and could definitely turn a crap town around. This is but one example, but I'm sure there are towns all across American where voters are picking sides and playing favorites, not voting for the betterment of their community. The dangerous alternative is to pick a candidate who holds crazy ideals simply because you don't like the other two main stream candidates (And Parham did hold some wacko beliefs).
David Vitter is still a viable candidate here in Louisiana. Why is that? Faith. Sure, he loves himself a good hooker, but he's a Republican Christian, so he's the lesser of two evils...and he's the only one running with an R on his sleeve. His challengers didn't survive.
I stand by my belief that government is not the root of the problem. We are. Our elected officials really do represent us. They mirror the dirty people who put them in office. We don't demand more from them, so they only put in the least amount of effort so we don't complain. You want change? Start with yourselves and work your way to the top. Otherwise, you'll just keep getting more of the same. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only in this to say their side won.
Fuck sides, man. What we need here is a little solidarity against big money.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
• Thought of the day: It's easy...
It's easy to call someone lazy from the comfort of an armchair.
It's easy for someone who had opportunities to call someone else lazy who works two jobs, has a couple of kids, and struggles to make ends meet when they cry out for help and health care coverage. It's easy to call someone lazy and demand someone gets off their butt to work when you, a small business owner, has not hired anyone lately. It's easy to call someone lazy, when you, a white person, 30 years ago, were able to go to a decent school and receive a quality education while they, a minority, experienced the exact opposite. It's easy to call someone lazy when you're not the one being screwed over. It's easy to call someone lazy when the company refuses to provide health insurance, so you accuse this person of asking for a government handout instead of placing the blame on the company in question.
It's easy to call someone lazy from the comfort of an armchair.
It's easy for someone who had opportunities to call someone else lazy who works two jobs, has a couple of kids, and struggles to make ends meet when they cry out for help and health care coverage. It's easy to call someone lazy and demand someone gets off their butt to work when you, a small business owner, has not hired anyone lately. It's easy to call someone lazy, when you, a white person, 30 years ago, were able to go to a decent school and receive a quality education while they, a minority, experienced the exact opposite. It's easy to call someone lazy when you're not the one being screwed over. It's easy to call someone lazy when the company refuses to provide health insurance, so you accuse this person of asking for a government handout instead of placing the blame on the company in question.
It's easy to call someone lazy from the comfort of an armchair.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Will Vitter Win Re-election?
David Vitter is a US Senator from Louisiana. As someone from the state, I have a vested interest in how elections down here turn out. Given the current "mood" down here, I'm wondering if Vitter will get re-elected. He has stated he will run this year to keep his seat.
He's a Republican, so obviously I don't want him in the Senate, but what do Republicans in Louisiana think about him?
Let me shed some light on why I'm so curious.
In 2007, Vitter was named as a client of the infamous DC Madam, suggesting that he was into hookers. Vitter ran on the classic "Family Values" platform, yet he proved to be one of the Republicans who can't seem to keep his dick loyal to the woman he married. This is not his first run-in with a prostitution allegation. In 2002, Louisiana Weekly also ran a story on the subject. In 2004, Vitter continued to deny his links to hookers. His hooker fetish has been traced back to at least the 1990s.
In polls, Vitter maintains a substantial lead against Democratic competition. What about against his own kind? (Assuming he deserves such a compliment)
Has he been forgiven by the electorate? Do Republicans just think a hooker-fiend is still better than a Democrat? Any up and coming Republican in Louisiana who wants to move up in the world would have a slam dunk case for running against this lowlife. Shouldn't we, as voters, send the guy packing and put someone honest in?
What about the push from the Right to eject incumbents? He's had his term. Oust him and put somebody new in. Grow a pair, voters. He obviously lied when confronted with prostitution allegations. You would re-elect a liar like this? Interesting.
Louisiana must like the taste of hooker spit. I thought they preferred hot sauce.
It just goes to show that once again, Republicans will refuse to cast a protest vote against their own kind.
Vitter's Voting Record
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=4615
He's a Republican, so obviously I don't want him in the Senate, but what do Republicans in Louisiana think about him?
Let me shed some light on why I'm so curious.
In 2007, Vitter was named as a client of the infamous DC Madam, suggesting that he was into hookers. Vitter ran on the classic "Family Values" platform, yet he proved to be one of the Republicans who can't seem to keep his dick loyal to the woman he married. This is not his first run-in with a prostitution allegation. In 2002, Louisiana Weekly also ran a story on the subject. In 2004, Vitter continued to deny his links to hookers. His hooker fetish has been traced back to at least the 1990s.
In polls, Vitter maintains a substantial lead against Democratic competition. What about against his own kind? (Assuming he deserves such a compliment)
Has he been forgiven by the electorate? Do Republicans just think a hooker-fiend is still better than a Democrat? Any up and coming Republican in Louisiana who wants to move up in the world would have a slam dunk case for running against this lowlife. Shouldn't we, as voters, send the guy packing and put someone honest in?
What about the push from the Right to eject incumbents? He's had his term. Oust him and put somebody new in. Grow a pair, voters. He obviously lied when confronted with prostitution allegations. You would re-elect a liar like this? Interesting.
Louisiana must like the taste of hooker spit. I thought they preferred hot sauce.
It just goes to show that once again, Republicans will refuse to cast a protest vote against their own kind.
Vitter's Voting Record
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=4615
Friday, August 1, 2008
McCain's New Obama Commercial
This damn commercial displays classic Republican behavior in this country. It's why I hate rednecks and it's why we ended up with Bush for eight years. I am definitely not going to hold back and I'm going to throw some hard punches on this one. I know how Republicans are going to play this out online, so there's no need to tippy toe around it.
You can look at the commercial in one of two ways or both of the following ways in context of each other.
The first is straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. Remember when Cheney said that if Kerry would be elected we would be attacked again? Evoke a sense of fear or uneasiness/doubt in the public and then apologize for it once the damage has been done. Make Obama out to be a 15 minutes of fame sensation and downplay his importance. See if somehow the McCain campaign doesn't come out and say something to put out the flames. I guarantee it'll resemble someone putting out a fire with their own urine. For some reason, I have images of McCain straining to get out even a dribble of urine with an old man's enlarged prostate.
The second way to look at the commercial is to realize it's just another way to mobilize their base. Every redneck asshole Republican on every political forum to the right of center is going to be full of idiots making jokes amongst each other to make their hurt feelings go away. It's a commercial that makes their base feel good about themselves. Play a little dirty and make yourself feel better even if it was uncalled for. The types of Republicans I just mentioned will be on forums using nicknames like Barack Obama Spears. They'll call Obama supporters Britney or Paris in a condescending tone to offset actually responding to a question asked by an Obama supporter on a message board. Shaved head jokes and paparazzi outburst gags will run rampant. I wouldn't be surprised of some Republican dolt used a green filter over Obama footage to make it look like a Paris Hilton sex tape. The possibilities are endless and redneck Republicans will just think they're being humorous. Kind of like laughing at fart jokes, you know? They feed off of these sorts of nicknames. Just look at how they talked about Kerry, Hillary, and Bill. You had Lurch, Hellary, and Slick Willie among others. The redneck Republican crowd eats this crap up like they do grits.
On top of all this, you'll have an outcry by Liberals saying exactly the same thing the Obama campaign came out with. It's politics as usual and they are right on the mark. It's dirty politics. The Republican party is willing to say or do anything as long as they can be assholes about it. I'll say it again. Redneck Republicans can relate to that sort of mentality and at the same time take pleasure in it. The RNC will go as far as using the likenesses of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton without permission. I hope some sort of legal response is taken on behalf of both of them. Let's completely disregard the legal way to set up commercial footage and run with it, right? Should be an open and shut lawsuit and quite possibly defamation.
(As I'm typing this, that damn commercial about Family Dinners with Bush is on again. Who believes that shit? The man became an alcoholic.)
If you're a Conservative and not a redneck, I'm not sure how all of this looks to you. I suspect you're taking a Bill O'Reilly or Rush Fatass Pain Killer Limbaugh stance on this. If not, I'm sure those two will be telling you what to think about it in the near future. If you are in fact an undecided white voter, do not condone campaign moves like this. Are you taking a ride on the Low Road Express? We're Americans and we are better than that. Are you that eager to be a snake in the grass? I don't think you would want to set that kind of an example for your kids.
I'll leave you with these celebrity comparisons for John McCain.
Wilford Brimley, an angry old cuss pissed off about his "diabetis"
From the movie "The Rock"
FBI Agent played by Philip Baker Hall
He is my age now, for Christ's sake. I have to get up three times a night to take a piss!
Grumpy Old Men (Walter Matthau & Jack Lemmon)
Frank Costanza (Jerry Stiller)
Maybe McCain will make Festivus a government holiday
Talk about qualified to lead...David Letterman, keep telling those TV dinner jokes.
You can look at the commercial in one of two ways or both of the following ways in context of each other.
The first is straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. Remember when Cheney said that if Kerry would be elected we would be attacked again? Evoke a sense of fear or uneasiness/doubt in the public and then apologize for it once the damage has been done. Make Obama out to be a 15 minutes of fame sensation and downplay his importance. See if somehow the McCain campaign doesn't come out and say something to put out the flames. I guarantee it'll resemble someone putting out a fire with their own urine. For some reason, I have images of McCain straining to get out even a dribble of urine with an old man's enlarged prostate.
The second way to look at the commercial is to realize it's just another way to mobilize their base. Every redneck asshole Republican on every political forum to the right of center is going to be full of idiots making jokes amongst each other to make their hurt feelings go away. It's a commercial that makes their base feel good about themselves. Play a little dirty and make yourself feel better even if it was uncalled for. The types of Republicans I just mentioned will be on forums using nicknames like Barack Obama Spears. They'll call Obama supporters Britney or Paris in a condescending tone to offset actually responding to a question asked by an Obama supporter on a message board. Shaved head jokes and paparazzi outburst gags will run rampant. I wouldn't be surprised of some Republican dolt used a green filter over Obama footage to make it look like a Paris Hilton sex tape. The possibilities are endless and redneck Republicans will just think they're being humorous. Kind of like laughing at fart jokes, you know? They feed off of these sorts of nicknames. Just look at how they talked about Kerry, Hillary, and Bill. You had Lurch, Hellary, and Slick Willie among others. The redneck Republican crowd eats this crap up like they do grits.
On top of all this, you'll have an outcry by Liberals saying exactly the same thing the Obama campaign came out with. It's politics as usual and they are right on the mark. It's dirty politics. The Republican party is willing to say or do anything as long as they can be assholes about it. I'll say it again. Redneck Republicans can relate to that sort of mentality and at the same time take pleasure in it. The RNC will go as far as using the likenesses of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton without permission. I hope some sort of legal response is taken on behalf of both of them. Let's completely disregard the legal way to set up commercial footage and run with it, right? Should be an open and shut lawsuit and quite possibly defamation.
(As I'm typing this, that damn commercial about Family Dinners with Bush is on again. Who believes that shit? The man became an alcoholic.)
If you're a Conservative and not a redneck, I'm not sure how all of this looks to you. I suspect you're taking a Bill O'Reilly or Rush Fatass Pain Killer Limbaugh stance on this. If not, I'm sure those two will be telling you what to think about it in the near future. If you are in fact an undecided white voter, do not condone campaign moves like this. Are you taking a ride on the Low Road Express? We're Americans and we are better than that. Are you that eager to be a snake in the grass? I don't think you would want to set that kind of an example for your kids.
I'll leave you with these celebrity comparisons for John McCain.
Wilford Brimley, an angry old cuss pissed off about his "diabetis"
From the movie "The Rock"
FBI Agent played by Philip Baker Hall
He is my age now, for Christ's sake. I have to get up three times a night to take a piss!
Grumpy Old Men (Walter Matthau & Jack Lemmon)
Frank Costanza (Jerry Stiller)
Maybe McCain will make Festivus a government holiday
Talk about qualified to lead...David Letterman, keep telling those TV dinner jokes.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Natural Gas Leases, Shreveport
Companies are looking to lease from landowners in Northwest Louisiana for natural gas rights. When the subject of mineral rights enters my mind, stories of lost homes, stripped ground, and ruined lives soon follow. Why? Part of my family comes from Southern Indiana where coal companies have thrived. Some of my family members have actually worked in the coal mines. One lesson they learned was to buy the mineral rights when buying a new home and never to sell their mineral rights. My grandfather told stories of how the coal company would come in and people would lose their homes. The coal companies did not care for the little man, which is also largely why the UMWA exists. Those were indeed, sad stories. I am afraid the people of Northwest Louisiana might be in for something they aren't fully ready for.
While various contracts exist and lawyers specialized in mineral rights laws should be consulted, I see no guarantee that companies will treat landowners with the respect they deserve. The way I see it, selling your mineral rights or even natural gas rights is like selling your soul. The promise of extravagant amounts of money has lured many Louisiana citizens into signing leases. I would never sell my mineral rights for any amount of money. If any of our nearby neighbors sign a lease, we will likely put our home up for sale and leave Shreveport. We don't want a situation where a neighbor has signed away natural gas rights and the company requests legal right of way through our property to access the natural gas. Yes, that happens. Like it or not, these companies are quite skilled at manipulating the public. More people are asking questions about money than about what they are risking with regard to their property. It might even end up lowering property values in your area. It's a dirty business. To give you another perspective on just how dirty they can play, if you don't sell and everyone else around you did, they'll just drill horizontally underneath and take what they want regardless. In addition, the promise of money makes neighbors do and say very bad things to each other. If enough people sign leases in any given neighborhood, it forces everyone else to sign in too. Not very neighborly.
We will also see an increase in work related injuries. Those who work for the companies setting up rigs and drilling will undoubtedly expose themselves to dangerous situations. While field employees understand the risk, what you must understand as a member of the community is that safety is not all that important to a gas company or a mining company. Coal miners are all too familiar with this way of life. The world of natural gas is no different. Expect to hear about safety violations, environmental contamination, explosions, fires, injuries, and unfortunately, deaths.
I am ashamed to have voted for Cedric Glover who has brought these companies into our communities and hope that the people of Shreveport and the surrounding area are smart enough to resist the dangling carrot on a stick. I am ashamed that a Democrat of all people would succumb to the will of a company over the well being of their constituents. These realities will become more apparent as more individuals sign into lease agreements. With the struggling economy, the promise of money is awfully tempting. Times are tough. Imagine how tough it will be when your property is at stake. Heed my warning and think of your future. Remember what I've said here when the company is ruining the way of life in your community. I highly doubt you like the notion of contaminated water flowing from your tap. I can only say I told you so.
I hope this post is not too late and that people in this area are doing their research.
While various contracts exist and lawyers specialized in mineral rights laws should be consulted, I see no guarantee that companies will treat landowners with the respect they deserve. The way I see it, selling your mineral rights or even natural gas rights is like selling your soul. The promise of extravagant amounts of money has lured many Louisiana citizens into signing leases. I would never sell my mineral rights for any amount of money. If any of our nearby neighbors sign a lease, we will likely put our home up for sale and leave Shreveport. We don't want a situation where a neighbor has signed away natural gas rights and the company requests legal right of way through our property to access the natural gas. Yes, that happens. Like it or not, these companies are quite skilled at manipulating the public. More people are asking questions about money than about what they are risking with regard to their property. It might even end up lowering property values in your area. It's a dirty business. To give you another perspective on just how dirty they can play, if you don't sell and everyone else around you did, they'll just drill horizontally underneath and take what they want regardless. In addition, the promise of money makes neighbors do and say very bad things to each other. If enough people sign leases in any given neighborhood, it forces everyone else to sign in too. Not very neighborly.
We will also see an increase in work related injuries. Those who work for the companies setting up rigs and drilling will undoubtedly expose themselves to dangerous situations. While field employees understand the risk, what you must understand as a member of the community is that safety is not all that important to a gas company or a mining company. Coal miners are all too familiar with this way of life. The world of natural gas is no different. Expect to hear about safety violations, environmental contamination, explosions, fires, injuries, and unfortunately, deaths.
I am ashamed to have voted for Cedric Glover who has brought these companies into our communities and hope that the people of Shreveport and the surrounding area are smart enough to resist the dangling carrot on a stick. I am ashamed that a Democrat of all people would succumb to the will of a company over the well being of their constituents. These realities will become more apparent as more individuals sign into lease agreements. With the struggling economy, the promise of money is awfully tempting. Times are tough. Imagine how tough it will be when your property is at stake. Heed my warning and think of your future. Remember what I've said here when the company is ruining the way of life in your community. I highly doubt you like the notion of contaminated water flowing from your tap. I can only say I told you so.
I hope this post is not too late and that people in this area are doing their research.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The "One Of Us" Military
I'm writing this in light of the recent story about the atheist coming under fire in the Army for being an atheist.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/26/atheist.soldier.ap/index.html
I'm going to piss off a few service members on this one, but I don't care. The idea that we should respect you just because of your service is really getting out of hand in our country. Yes it is a volunteer military, but if you're going to behave without discipline and respect for your fellow comrades in arms, you've got no place being there and you'll get no respect from me. I've got absolutely no patience or respect for that kind of military man. Marines seem to be the worst. I don't think they really understand semper fidelis. They really don't like it when you rock their boat, so they piss and moan at the slightest tremor. They might even threaten to beat your ass. Yes, I've had that happen to me online many times. Oh that's a reassuring quality for our soldiers to have. You take pride in fighting for the rights that we have, yet when it comes to the laws in this country, you don't even hesitate to go outside the law and beat somebody up. Grow up kids. I always have to remind myself that these guys aren't paid to think.
In the US military, unless you are okay with the "you're one of us" frame of mind, the others who signed up are going to give you grief. You've got to be a yes man. I can't even imagine what it's like to be different than the standard issue army brat. Well, actually I can in a small way as I am a liberally minded individual living in the South among religious bigots in a city where there's an airforce base. If you're different than their norm, they don't particularly like you, nor do they care what you think. They've also taught their kids to keep their beliefs confined to those same stipulations.
Unfortunately, that's what I see now when I read your "Support the Troops" magnet. I don't see a respectful soldier fighting for our freedom. I see an arrogant and angry dick who although might be fighting for the guy next to him, still chooses to treat anyone lacking the if you will, "traditional" rank and file disposition, with outright malice. That is not worthy of any respect and gives our military a bad name. Shameful.
You may be too chicken shit to speak ill of our troops, but I won't hesitate when I see this kind of crap going on.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/26/atheist.soldier.ap/index.html
I'm going to piss off a few service members on this one, but I don't care. The idea that we should respect you just because of your service is really getting out of hand in our country. Yes it is a volunteer military, but if you're going to behave without discipline and respect for your fellow comrades in arms, you've got no place being there and you'll get no respect from me. I've got absolutely no patience or respect for that kind of military man. Marines seem to be the worst. I don't think they really understand semper fidelis. They really don't like it when you rock their boat, so they piss and moan at the slightest tremor. They might even threaten to beat your ass. Yes, I've had that happen to me online many times. Oh that's a reassuring quality for our soldiers to have. You take pride in fighting for the rights that we have, yet when it comes to the laws in this country, you don't even hesitate to go outside the law and beat somebody up. Grow up kids. I always have to remind myself that these guys aren't paid to think.
In the US military, unless you are okay with the "you're one of us" frame of mind, the others who signed up are going to give you grief. You've got to be a yes man. I can't even imagine what it's like to be different than the standard issue army brat. Well, actually I can in a small way as I am a liberally minded individual living in the South among religious bigots in a city where there's an airforce base. If you're different than their norm, they don't particularly like you, nor do they care what you think. They've also taught their kids to keep their beliefs confined to those same stipulations.
Unfortunately, that's what I see now when I read your "Support the Troops" magnet. I don't see a respectful soldier fighting for our freedom. I see an arrogant and angry dick who although might be fighting for the guy next to him, still chooses to treat anyone lacking the if you will, "traditional" rank and file disposition, with outright malice. That is not worthy of any respect and gives our military a bad name. Shameful.
You may be too chicken shit to speak ill of our troops, but I won't hesitate when I see this kind of crap going on.
Friday, February 1, 2008
• CBS Blood Clot BS Story
I was just up watching CBS news around 4am and they were saying doctors aren't giving clot prophylaxis as often as they should. To put things in perspective, studies at individual hospitals, including a major hospital in Indianapolis, have found heparin prophylaxis for blood clots was not warranted for every patient and have adjusted their ER practices accordingly. Many hospitals automatically start patients on heparin for clot prophylaxis and a PPI for GI prophylaxis. Go in and look at a medication list in a chart. Everybody is on a heparin injection and pantoprazole.
Then they interviewed a woman who when in the hospital for knee surgery said she was not informed that she was at risk for a blood clot. Immobility after surgery means stasis after surgery. Surgeons know this. I guarantee that the forms she signed giving consent for the procedure listed blood clots as a risk somewhere. She just wasn't paying attention to the crap she was signing. Saying that nobody pays attention when they sign papers is a pretty piss poor excuse. I say bullshit to her. Hospitals these days are very anal about informed consent.
Then they interviewed a woman who when in the hospital for knee surgery said she was not informed that she was at risk for a blood clot. Immobility after surgery means stasis after surgery. Surgeons know this. I guarantee that the forms she signed giving consent for the procedure listed blood clots as a risk somewhere. She just wasn't paying attention to the crap she was signing. Saying that nobody pays attention when they sign papers is a pretty piss poor excuse. I say bullshit to her. Hospitals these days are very anal about informed consent.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Bobby Jindal Ethics Scandal
A cornerstone of Bobby Jindal's campaign for Governor of Louisiana in 2007 was a push for tougher ethics rules in Louisiana's government. Yeah. He wants to set the "gold standard" (his words) for ethics on his watch. Well wouldn't ya know it. Not long after getting elected, the guy gets fined $2500 on charges by the Board of Ethics. Apparently his campaign failed to disclose third party funding on time and that violates Louisiana campaign finance laws. Ironically, campaign finance will not be a focus of Jindal's ethics reform. Maybe it should be, eh?
Several Republican sheep and henchmen are letting this slip by as a simple oversight. Well then why even bother standing up for ethics at all? Come on now. The second you start down playing a violation as a simple oversight, we'll fall back into letting business as usual continue. State Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere is saying this was just a misinterpretation of an accounting rule. If you're not at least skeptical about how unconcerned officials are over this, shame on you. Any politician chasing after the moral high ground has no excuse when he or she steps in it. Voters are not happy when politicians behave unethically, regardless of party affiliation. An ethics violation is still an ethics violation.
The story, as I understand it, was that someone who works for Jindal was supposed to disclose the amount of money raised which might lead people to let him off the hook. However, the responsibility in any campaign goes right to the top. You're responsible for your campaign. Period. To make it look like they're not trying to hide anything, they filed the party expenditures after the due date. He's really trying to put this one behind him. By paying the $2500 slap on the wrist fine, he admits to wrongdoing and avoids a hearing on the violation.
If you want to go after ethics violations, you have to include campaign finance reform. If you want to clean up politics, you have to follow the money. You must stand up for ethical behavior.
- EDIT -
Were you hoping to find something about the ties Jindal has to Jack Abramoff? You can do a Google search on that one.
With regard to ethics reform, Jindal has made steps toward handling ethics issues related to local government, but he has also made it much more difficult to convict those brought up on ethics violation charges. Little thing called burden of proof. The "reform" creates a situation where the statistics become misleading. Ethics convictions will decrease because convictions will be more difficult to win, giving Jindal a positive talking point, yet in reality, ethically questionable activity can continue under the radar without punishment. Louisiana is still going to have corrupt politicians as a result. Throw in Jindal's legislation to remove his office from public records and he's made a straight shoot for getting away with whatever he wants. Good guy you've got there, Louisiana.
Related Links:
There's a Gaping Hole in Governor Jindal's Ethics Agenda
Jindal Campaigns for Ethics Reform with Campaign Finance Law-Breaker
Bobby Jindal Ethics Shell Game
Several Republican sheep and henchmen are letting this slip by as a simple oversight. Well then why even bother standing up for ethics at all? Come on now. The second you start down playing a violation as a simple oversight, we'll fall back into letting business as usual continue. State Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere is saying this was just a misinterpretation of an accounting rule. If you're not at least skeptical about how unconcerned officials are over this, shame on you. Any politician chasing after the moral high ground has no excuse when he or she steps in it. Voters are not happy when politicians behave unethically, regardless of party affiliation. An ethics violation is still an ethics violation.
The story, as I understand it, was that someone who works for Jindal was supposed to disclose the amount of money raised which might lead people to let him off the hook. However, the responsibility in any campaign goes right to the top. You're responsible for your campaign. Period. To make it look like they're not trying to hide anything, they filed the party expenditures after the due date. He's really trying to put this one behind him. By paying the $2500 slap on the wrist fine, he admits to wrongdoing and avoids a hearing on the violation.
If you want to go after ethics violations, you have to include campaign finance reform. If you want to clean up politics, you have to follow the money. You must stand up for ethical behavior.
- EDIT -
Were you hoping to find something about the ties Jindal has to Jack Abramoff? You can do a Google search on that one.
With regard to ethics reform, Jindal has made steps toward handling ethics issues related to local government, but he has also made it much more difficult to convict those brought up on ethics violation charges. Little thing called burden of proof. The "reform" creates a situation where the statistics become misleading. Ethics convictions will decrease because convictions will be more difficult to win, giving Jindal a positive talking point, yet in reality, ethically questionable activity can continue under the radar without punishment. Louisiana is still going to have corrupt politicians as a result. Throw in Jindal's legislation to remove his office from public records and he's made a straight shoot for getting away with whatever he wants. Good guy you've got there, Louisiana.
Related Links:
There's a Gaping Hole in Governor Jindal's Ethics Agenda
Jindal Campaigns for Ethics Reform with Campaign Finance Law-Breaker
Bobby Jindal Ethics Shell Game
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)