Herman Cain’s suggestion that the occupy Wall Street protests that have now spread across the country are just playing the “victim card” is dead wrong. It is no truer than the Tea Party playing the victim card because they didn’t get their way about health care.
Mr. Cain, in every crime there are victims and unpleasant consequences. The rip off by the Wall Street bankers and brokers and the resulting down turn in the economy is a crime and those that have lost their jobs and are losing their homes are victims. To suggest in one sweeping statement that all of them are playing off on what has happen to them is to be insensitive to the real issues. If you can’t understand the real issues, you can’t present solutions that are based in reality. Mr. Cain, you are not fit to be president.
Just as in a robbery, a traffic accident or the result of Wall Street Bankers playing with real people’s lives like it was monopoly money; there are those that must suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, because Bush helped those that were taking the risks and because Obama just passed through the same policy, the bankers got off. They made millions, if not billions, off of their risk taking. This despite the bailouts they received from the taxes the people who are occupying Wall Street right now. Do you think the Wall Street bankers and others didn’t play the “victims card” in their board room meetings with the Federal Reserve Chair and the Secretary of the Treasury? The only difference is they still had one more hand to play… the economy would have collapsed if the Federal Government hadn’t helped out.
So now, the Wall Street protesters are asking the system to help them out. They don’t want a bailout like the bankers received, they want jobs. They don’t want their fate left up to boardroom meetings of large multi-national corporations whose only purpose is to make a profit, and whose loyalties are not to any community. They want decisions that affect their lives and jobs made in public so they can have a say in those decisions. They are asking that the community to help them just like the community helped the big Wall Street guys.
We the people didn’t create a community so that when times are tough the community can ignore our pleas and say we are just playing the victim card. If the community doesn’t support us, why do we need one? Why did we create them? We created communities and continue to support them because a shared responsibility between ourselves and the community will get us a lot farther.
It is time the community supports Main Street now.
Editor's note: Recent health worries and problems prevented me from making posts over the last 6 weeks. It appears that these problems are now in the past. I hope to increase my pace back to where it was before the issue arose. Thank you for your patience.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
A candidate for all the people
If the Republican presidential candidates continue to hold such a hard line on many of the issues facing the United States, it is a reasonable question to ask if they are a candidate for all the people.
Bachmann, being the staunchest, said that she has a titanium spine when it comes to the issues that the Republican Tea Party feel the strongest about. Bachmann says that she, more than Romney or Perry, would hold the line in support of the Tea Party issues.
Bachmann is saying, without reservation at this point in the election cycle, that she is the candidate for Tea Party people and not all Americans. But, not all people align themselves with the Tea Party, nor the Republicans or even the Democrats. But taking a stand that is so harsh, Bachmann is saying she would not consider the needs and concerns for people outside of the demographic profile that is her base.
As a presidential candidate, it is important to make very clear what your opinions are on the issues. In most situations we all know that the candidate, if elected, would work with the congress to come to a compromise on the issues, find a workable solution and get something done. This is the way that all citizens of the country can feel like their interests are being taken into consideration. But, for a candidate to take the stance from the beginning that there will be no compromise is to say that the rest of the country doesn’t count.
The country needs a President that everyone can feel right about. Not someone that discounts the concerns of a large part of the population from the beginning.
-----
Bachmann, being the staunchest, said that she has a titanium spine when it comes to the issues that the Republican Tea Party feel the strongest about. Bachmann says that she, more than Romney or Perry, would hold the line in support of the Tea Party issues.
Bachmann is saying, without reservation at this point in the election cycle, that she is the candidate for Tea Party people and not all Americans. But, not all people align themselves with the Tea Party, nor the Republicans or even the Democrats. But taking a stand that is so harsh, Bachmann is saying she would not consider the needs and concerns for people outside of the demographic profile that is her base.
As a presidential candidate, it is important to make very clear what your opinions are on the issues. In most situations we all know that the candidate, if elected, would work with the congress to come to a compromise on the issues, find a workable solution and get something done. This is the way that all citizens of the country can feel like their interests are being taken into consideration. But, for a candidate to take the stance from the beginning that there will be no compromise is to say that the rest of the country doesn’t count.
The country needs a President that everyone can feel right about. Not someone that discounts the concerns of a large part of the population from the beginning.
-----
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Regulations protect people and environments
The regulations that business operates under is going to be an issue in the upcoming presidential election. Those candidates that are running on the right are saying that we have too many regulations on business and that the result is a loss of jobs.
If jobs are lost who could be against dumping the regulations?
Yes, perhaps, there are too many regulations. But, most regulations are in place for a reason. They protect people and the environment. Without these regulations, we would have to rely on corporations, whose sole legal goal is to create profit, to do the right thing. Many corporations say that their best practices meet or exceed the regulations.
As an example of corporations following their own best practices, there is Shell Oil that has operations in the Niger Delta, Africa. The corporation has established best practices between itself and NNPC, the national oil company of Nigeria. Those practices are to protect the environment, workers and the people living in the delta.
But, there is a serious problem in Africa, where Shell said they followed their best practices and said that the area was “clean”. As reported in The Economist, August 13th-19th, 2011, a United Nations report states that there is a “thick, black carpet of crude” in the Ogoniland. This spill has been estimated to be larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska and covers about 10 square miles. This is the result of an oil spill that Shell first claimed was caused by theft and sabotage, but now has admitted was caused by equipment failure. It appears that their best practices didn’t anticipate the equipment failure and that Shell could blame it on other causes.
Residents of the area are drinking water with 900 times as much benzene, a carcinogen, then is deemed safe by the World Health Organization. The report goes on to say that it could take 30 years and a billion dollars for Shell to clean up an area. This report is published 20 years after Shell left Ogoniland.
Every time a corporation or an industry is threatened with regulations they claim that their best practices will be better and that there will be loss of jobs. But, in thousands of case in our own country and around the world, it isn’t the case.
So, should we skip the regulations so that Shell can hire a few more people? It is the lack of regulations and reliance on corporation’s best practices that have polluted the Ogoniland, a faraway place that is rarely seen by the eyes of American voters.
Let’s keep the regulations that protect people and environments.
-----
If jobs are lost who could be against dumping the regulations?
Yes, perhaps, there are too many regulations. But, most regulations are in place for a reason. They protect people and the environment. Without these regulations, we would have to rely on corporations, whose sole legal goal is to create profit, to do the right thing. Many corporations say that their best practices meet or exceed the regulations.
As an example of corporations following their own best practices, there is Shell Oil that has operations in the Niger Delta, Africa. The corporation has established best practices between itself and NNPC, the national oil company of Nigeria. Those practices are to protect the environment, workers and the people living in the delta.
But, there is a serious problem in Africa, where Shell said they followed their best practices and said that the area was “clean”. As reported in The Economist, August 13th-19th, 2011, a United Nations report states that there is a “thick, black carpet of crude” in the Ogoniland. This spill has been estimated to be larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska and covers about 10 square miles. This is the result of an oil spill that Shell first claimed was caused by theft and sabotage, but now has admitted was caused by equipment failure. It appears that their best practices didn’t anticipate the equipment failure and that Shell could blame it on other causes.
Residents of the area are drinking water with 900 times as much benzene, a carcinogen, then is deemed safe by the World Health Organization. The report goes on to say that it could take 30 years and a billion dollars for Shell to clean up an area. This report is published 20 years after Shell left Ogoniland.
Every time a corporation or an industry is threatened with regulations they claim that their best practices will be better and that there will be loss of jobs. But, in thousands of case in our own country and around the world, it isn’t the case.
So, should we skip the regulations so that Shell can hire a few more people? It is the lack of regulations and reliance on corporation’s best practices that have polluted the Ogoniland, a faraway place that is rarely seen by the eyes of American voters.
Let’s keep the regulations that protect people and environments.
-----
Monday, August 29, 2011
Medical marijuana law in Michigan is confusing at best
There is few things clear in politics. But, in the case of the use of marijuana for medical purposes in Michigan, the intent of the voters was very clear. In a decisive vote, the people of Michigan said they wanted people to have access to marijuana if a doctor prescribed it as medication.
So why has it been such trouble to get them the medicine?
Politicians, police agencies and other authoritarian types don’t want them to. They believe that the drug is a great evil. They would ignore the intent of the voters and keep it from those that need it for fear that the state will become the, “drug capital of the world,” as one politician put it.
Two years ago, a citizens initiative passed in Michigan. The initiative said that marijuana should be made available to those that could benefit from the drug. As called for in the initiative, the state legislature acted. But, they created a confusing and vague law. The result has been nothing but confusion about a very clear decision by the voters.
Now a court has ruled, that marijuana dispensaries are illegal according to their interpretation of the confusing law passed by the state. This has forced perhaps hundreds of clinics around the state out of business, leaving those that are in need of the drug searching for another source for their medicine.
Where are these people to go? Shall we send them out on the street to drug dealers?
Most drugs do need to be controlled. The ill effects that the drugs bring on user, their families and communities would be destructive. But, that doesn’t mean that drugs that clearly are needed to ease the pain of an illness, and in some cases, improve the health of people should just be banned and only provided by the local illegal street vendor.
The legislature of the state should act quickly to write a clear law about something the voters clearly want.
-----
So why has it been such trouble to get them the medicine?
Politicians, police agencies and other authoritarian types don’t want them to. They believe that the drug is a great evil. They would ignore the intent of the voters and keep it from those that need it for fear that the state will become the, “drug capital of the world,” as one politician put it.
Two years ago, a citizens initiative passed in Michigan. The initiative said that marijuana should be made available to those that could benefit from the drug. As called for in the initiative, the state legislature acted. But, they created a confusing and vague law. The result has been nothing but confusion about a very clear decision by the voters.
Now a court has ruled, that marijuana dispensaries are illegal according to their interpretation of the confusing law passed by the state. This has forced perhaps hundreds of clinics around the state out of business, leaving those that are in need of the drug searching for another source for their medicine.
Where are these people to go? Shall we send them out on the street to drug dealers?
Most drugs do need to be controlled. The ill effects that the drugs bring on user, their families and communities would be destructive. But, that doesn’t mean that drugs that clearly are needed to ease the pain of an illness, and in some cases, improve the health of people should just be banned and only provided by the local illegal street vendor.
The legislature of the state should act quickly to write a clear law about something the voters clearly want.
-----
Friday, August 19, 2011
No tax increase doesn't make sense
There is a hidden agenda in the no tax pledge that the anti-tax crowd is talking about. It isn’t to keep from raising taxes because it hurts the economy. It is the killing of all government in the end.
Many conservative politicians that are running in the next election have signed a no tax increase pledge from groups like Americans for Tax Reform. The pledges states that they will not vote for a tax increase of any kind, even if it is just a move to increase revenue. Americans for Tax Reform don’t care if it is legislations that increases taxes or removes a deduction that will increase revenue. Americans for Tax reform will provide significant support for those politicians that keep their pledge. If someone slips up and votes for an increase in revenue, the organization will find another politician to support in the next election.
Sometimes revenues need to be increased. Even the most conservatively run business find that they need to increase prices occasionally. Costs just have a way of always going up. Those that operate a business can search for new suppliers, can cut cost and do many other things that will enable them to keep costs in line. But, at some point, the price of their goods or services are going to increase. If they don’t, they will lose money and go out of business.
Government, just like business, should run as lean as possible. All the things that businesses do to keep costs in line, government should also do. But, sometimes costs are going to increase. In order to keep a balance budget, taxes will need to increase at some point in order to cover the deficient or the government will be running in the red.
Of all the things that we ask government to do, police, fire and other essential services like that should be maintained and control by the community. When inflation pushes up the costs of maintaining the essential services, if the elected officials have signed a no tax increase pledge they plan on keeping, it means that officers or fire personal will need to be laid off. Reducing the amount of people that protect the community, one of the primary things a government should be doing.
There are ways that we can cut the cost of government. We should be working on them all the time. But, pledging to not raise taxes, no matter what the reason, will place the basic services that we all need in jeopardy.
-----
Many conservative politicians that are running in the next election have signed a no tax increase pledge from groups like Americans for Tax Reform. The pledges states that they will not vote for a tax increase of any kind, even if it is just a move to increase revenue. Americans for Tax Reform don’t care if it is legislations that increases taxes or removes a deduction that will increase revenue. Americans for Tax reform will provide significant support for those politicians that keep their pledge. If someone slips up and votes for an increase in revenue, the organization will find another politician to support in the next election.
Sometimes revenues need to be increased. Even the most conservatively run business find that they need to increase prices occasionally. Costs just have a way of always going up. Those that operate a business can search for new suppliers, can cut cost and do many other things that will enable them to keep costs in line. But, at some point, the price of their goods or services are going to increase. If they don’t, they will lose money and go out of business.
Government, just like business, should run as lean as possible. All the things that businesses do to keep costs in line, government should also do. But, sometimes costs are going to increase. In order to keep a balance budget, taxes will need to increase at some point in order to cover the deficient or the government will be running in the red.
Of all the things that we ask government to do, police, fire and other essential services like that should be maintained and control by the community. When inflation pushes up the costs of maintaining the essential services, if the elected officials have signed a no tax increase pledge they plan on keeping, it means that officers or fire personal will need to be laid off. Reducing the amount of people that protect the community, one of the primary things a government should be doing.
There are ways that we can cut the cost of government. We should be working on them all the time. But, pledging to not raise taxes, no matter what the reason, will place the basic services that we all need in jeopardy.
-----
Saturday, August 13, 2011
BART shuts down cell phone use in subway stations
Cell phone use in San Francisco subway stations was halted Thursday. BART, the authority that operates the subways, “learned” that protests were planned in some of the stations. People wanted to express their anger over the shooting death of a man by BART police. So, electricity was cut off to cell phone towers in the stations from 4 to 7 pm on Thursday in response.
Communities are given the responsibility to protect its citizens. Collective self defense was one of the first reasons people gathered in communities. But, the defense of the community must be kept in balance with the rights of individuals.
According to news reports, it is illegal for people to assemble in subway stations in San Francisco to protest. The law to prevent these assemblies is a reasonable act. The dangers that would exist if many angry people were protesting on subway platforms would go beyond a mere inconvenience of commuters. It is reasonable to think that people would be injured or killed. Also, the law most likely doesn’t choose sides, it just simple states no protests of any kind. There are plenty of other places in the city for people to assemble to express their grievances without endangering the lives of people.
When BART authorities “learned” that something was planned, it sounds like they did develop a plan to protect commuters and prevent a violation of the law. But, sense the plan they developed involved the violation of everyone’s rights, not just those involved in the protests, they should have sought judicial review. This review would have allowed a public examination of the evidence and a evaluation of the dangers that would be presented if the protest were not preempted. (Courts would have responded quickly to a request from BART due to the nature of the issues.)
I used the word preempted about the plan to negate the protests. The plan that was developed by the BART authorities was based on what might happen, as opposed to what is happening. It is dangerous to image a community that would preempt political activity without judicial review. If political activity was allowed to be preempted communities would walk right in to the issues that were explored in “Minority Report”. It was a movie from a few years ago that arrested people based on what they might do, with convictions and confinement based on action they hadn’t taken.
This action by BART authorities is similar to laws that are being considered on a national level, the so called “internet kill switch.” This law would allow the president or some other authority to kill the internet in part or whole to prevent illegal or dangerous action by individuals or groups. In that law, I supported the law as long as there was a review of the intelligence that suggested great harm was going to happen if the internet was not shut down. Even then, the action should only take place temporarily.
If intelligence provides evidence that an illegal activity was going to happen, present the evidence to a court. If approved by the court, then stand ready to take action when the activity happens, as opposed to cutting everyone’s rights short.
-----
Communities are given the responsibility to protect its citizens. Collective self defense was one of the first reasons people gathered in communities. But, the defense of the community must be kept in balance with the rights of individuals.
According to news reports, it is illegal for people to assemble in subway stations in San Francisco to protest. The law to prevent these assemblies is a reasonable act. The dangers that would exist if many angry people were protesting on subway platforms would go beyond a mere inconvenience of commuters. It is reasonable to think that people would be injured or killed. Also, the law most likely doesn’t choose sides, it just simple states no protests of any kind. There are plenty of other places in the city for people to assemble to express their grievances without endangering the lives of people.
When BART authorities “learned” that something was planned, it sounds like they did develop a plan to protect commuters and prevent a violation of the law. But, sense the plan they developed involved the violation of everyone’s rights, not just those involved in the protests, they should have sought judicial review. This review would have allowed a public examination of the evidence and a evaluation of the dangers that would be presented if the protest were not preempted. (Courts would have responded quickly to a request from BART due to the nature of the issues.)
I used the word preempted about the plan to negate the protests. The plan that was developed by the BART authorities was based on what might happen, as opposed to what is happening. It is dangerous to image a community that would preempt political activity without judicial review. If political activity was allowed to be preempted communities would walk right in to the issues that were explored in “Minority Report”. It was a movie from a few years ago that arrested people based on what they might do, with convictions and confinement based on action they hadn’t taken.
This action by BART authorities is similar to laws that are being considered on a national level, the so called “internet kill switch.” This law would allow the president or some other authority to kill the internet in part or whole to prevent illegal or dangerous action by individuals or groups. In that law, I supported the law as long as there was a review of the intelligence that suggested great harm was going to happen if the internet was not shut down. Even then, the action should only take place temporarily.
If intelligence provides evidence that an illegal activity was going to happen, present the evidence to a court. If approved by the court, then stand ready to take action when the activity happens, as opposed to cutting everyone’s rights short.
-----
Monday, August 8, 2011
Rick Perry and his call to prayer
Rick Perry may be the most politically dangerous man in America right now.
The Texas Governor’s call to prayer at Reliant stadium over this past weekend in Houston isn’t the reason. On his free time he can practice his religion with abandon. His deep faith in his religion isn’t the reason either. There have many religious people that have been public officials, including Presidents, in the past and present.
Rick Perry is a politically dangerous man because of many other reasons.
One is my concern that Perry’s beliefs will direct his decision making process. He would like government to a religious and spiritual guide. He, like strong and vocal groups of Americans, believe that this is a Christian nation. This, despite the fact that John Adams, one of three people that are credited with being the primary authors of the Constitution, and many others that helped create the Constitution, have said it is not. They have said this in writing many times. This government’s primary purpose, and what should be the primary purpose of any government, is to protect the rights of people regardless of their belief. The only time government should take action is when harm will or can happen to an individual. Perry, it seems from all of his campaigning up to this point, thinks that laws should be in place that protects morality. A morality in this case that is based on Perry’s own religious beliefs.
Another is my concern that Perry will attempt to excluded people that do not share his religious beliefs from the public forum. It’s hard to image that the governor will allow freedom of religion in American that isn’t Christian. This will mean more intense pressure will be applied to groups like the Muslims that are already having a difficult time building their own religious houses.
Another is that Rick Perry, if he becomes President, will be a divider. Those that don’t believe that Christian morality should be the guide for government’s action will be side lined. This will cause incredible strife between other religious groups and those that have no faith in a spiritual being. They will be forced to live under the religious mandates of a religion they don’t believe in. This is the very thing our nation finds so abhorrent in religious countries around the world. We call them terrorists when they take over a country and enforce a strict adherence to a religious doctrine.
Rick Perry is dangerous because those that support his campaign with money and infrastructure will demand and expect that their beliefs will become policy. Just one of the groups, The American Family Association, with over 200 radio stations under their control, provided a million dollars to the Houston rally. Another group, the Cornerstone Church lead by John Hagee, sent 700 members to help in the organizing for the Houston Rally. (Another blog will be posted on the Cornerstone Church’s leader John Hagee in the near future as soon as the research is completed.) With that kind of investment and the infrastructure of 200 radio stations and staff, they will expect a return. If you think that they won’t have a say in policy decisions, think again please.
Finally, because Rick Perry believes that the Christian God will deliver us from all the social ills that may befall us. Problems that we face as a nation will not be solved by deep faith but by critical action. To fall to our knees and pray may help us understand our inner selves better but will not provide the solutions. Hard work and cooperation between all individuals will solve our problems.
This blog post may sound anti-religious. It is not. Spiritually is a strong influence in the personal lives of every human. To allow our own spiritually to guide us as individuals is important for personal peace. But, to allow a single spiritually to be forced on all American citizens through government action will only cause dissension and conflict.
-----
The Texas Governor’s call to prayer at Reliant stadium over this past weekend in Houston isn’t the reason. On his free time he can practice his religion with abandon. His deep faith in his religion isn’t the reason either. There have many religious people that have been public officials, including Presidents, in the past and present.
Rick Perry is a politically dangerous man because of many other reasons.
One is my concern that Perry’s beliefs will direct his decision making process. He would like government to a religious and spiritual guide. He, like strong and vocal groups of Americans, believe that this is a Christian nation. This, despite the fact that John Adams, one of three people that are credited with being the primary authors of the Constitution, and many others that helped create the Constitution, have said it is not. They have said this in writing many times. This government’s primary purpose, and what should be the primary purpose of any government, is to protect the rights of people regardless of their belief. The only time government should take action is when harm will or can happen to an individual. Perry, it seems from all of his campaigning up to this point, thinks that laws should be in place that protects morality. A morality in this case that is based on Perry’s own religious beliefs.
Another is my concern that Perry will attempt to excluded people that do not share his religious beliefs from the public forum. It’s hard to image that the governor will allow freedom of religion in American that isn’t Christian. This will mean more intense pressure will be applied to groups like the Muslims that are already having a difficult time building their own religious houses.
Another is that Rick Perry, if he becomes President, will be a divider. Those that don’t believe that Christian morality should be the guide for government’s action will be side lined. This will cause incredible strife between other religious groups and those that have no faith in a spiritual being. They will be forced to live under the religious mandates of a religion they don’t believe in. This is the very thing our nation finds so abhorrent in religious countries around the world. We call them terrorists when they take over a country and enforce a strict adherence to a religious doctrine.
Rick Perry is dangerous because those that support his campaign with money and infrastructure will demand and expect that their beliefs will become policy. Just one of the groups, The American Family Association, with over 200 radio stations under their control, provided a million dollars to the Houston rally. Another group, the Cornerstone Church lead by John Hagee, sent 700 members to help in the organizing for the Houston Rally. (Another blog will be posted on the Cornerstone Church’s leader John Hagee in the near future as soon as the research is completed.) With that kind of investment and the infrastructure of 200 radio stations and staff, they will expect a return. If you think that they won’t have a say in policy decisions, think again please.
Finally, because Rick Perry believes that the Christian God will deliver us from all the social ills that may befall us. Problems that we face as a nation will not be solved by deep faith but by critical action. To fall to our knees and pray may help us understand our inner selves better but will not provide the solutions. Hard work and cooperation between all individuals will solve our problems.
This blog post may sound anti-religious. It is not. Spiritually is a strong influence in the personal lives of every human. To allow our own spiritually to guide us as individuals is important for personal peace. But, to allow a single spiritually to be forced on all American citizens through government action will only cause dissension and conflict.
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)