Are we a country whose democracy is active, or are we at a point where our democracy is approaching a state of inaction?

Democracyinaction Politics and Policies free discussions

31Mar/110

Posted by Horse

Military intervention

Daily Wisdom

It would be a better world if the first born child or grandchild of every Congressman voting in favor of a military intervention would have to serve in the intervention

28Mar/110

Posted by Horse

Nuclear reactors

Daily Wisdom

My fortune cookie says why do people who believe devastating nuclear accident is impossible, a 1 in million chance, buy lottery tickets?

27Mar/110

Not From the Mainstream Media

Posted by Nate

Jewish family massacred by Palestinian Terrorists

Unfortunately Glenn Beck is the only one talking .

Massacre of the Jewish family

Not on TV

Some of my thoughts:

Alone.

We all know the feeling.  We all had it at least once.

The heavy and desperate feeling.

We are alone.

Nobody cares.  Nobody looks at you.

Nobody cares.

Except your mortal enemy.

He knows what you feel.

He knows you are alone.

He knows that nobody cares.

He hates you with a passion.

He thinks about you all the time.

And sometimes I think that it is better than total indifference from the rest of the world.

The indifference is the worst.

The indifferent world is responsible for the Holocaust.

Hitler was just a tool.

It is a heavy feeling of loneliness and hopelessness.

But we are used to it.

And then comes anger and defiance.

We know that nobody cares.

But we are the Chosen Ones.

And we are smart and we are strong.

And alone in this hostile world.

We may be defeated physically.

But we, the Jews, were never defeated as a people.

Our old enemies perished.

New enemies come along with a new hope to vanquish us.

And they will perish like the ones before them.

And we know that.

And we are proud to be alone.

And life goes on.

 

26Mar/110

Charging the Barricades…From the Wrong Side

Posted by Nate

The Republican Party

Sweet old times

 

A Key Issue to Tea Partiers

Republicans in the house are expected to hold a largely symbolic vote this week to cut congressional office spending by 5%.  But it will set the tone for a leadership which has pledged to cut back on government, reducing taxes, spending and the regulation of businesses.

Budget cutting by GOP

Republicans are sworn to block environmental legislation, including limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power-plants and factories which are portrayed as bad for the economy as well as unconstitutional.  The incoming chairman of the house energy committee, Fred Upton, has said that he will "not allow" the White House to use its powers to set restrictions on emissions on the grounds that the technology does not exist for businesses to curb them.  It overturns the EPA's greenhouse gas endangerment finding.  It prohibits the EPA from regulating or otherwise taking action regarding greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change.  In other words we have politicians attempting to overturn a scientific finding whose purpose is to protect public health and welfare for purely political reasons.  This is a rather disturbing turn of events from a scientific standpoint.  We cannot disregard a scientific finding, particularly one which has major consequences for public health and welfare, just because we don't want to believe it or because doing so would be politically advantageous.

The Republican-led US House wants to cut block grant funding by 66 percent

Roughly 1,200 communities in the U.S. receive grants which fund everything from affordable housing to job-creation programs.  Last year alone the government gave out nearly $4 billion in block grants.  Most of that money went directly to cities and counties; the rest flowed through states and on to local governments.

Republicans in Congress want to strip funds from public broadcasting.

Obama is now proposing a 7.5 percent cut to the program — $300 million worth of funding.  But the cuts could go even further if congressional Republicans have their way.  Republicans in Congress want to strip funds from public broadcasting.  All of the programming that is a staple on both PBS and NPR is in jeopardy in the name of saving money.  The federal budget deficit is $1.6 trillion.  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's annual slice is less then $500 million.  Destroying public television and radio would amount to trimming .03% of the budget deficit. Surely there are better options for cuts that would save more money.

Oil companies profits

GOP help for the needy.

Low-end reductions in the proposal include the chopping of $2 million for the Minority Business Development Agency and $6 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.  Higher-end cuts focus on slicing $1.6 billion for the EPA and $1.7 billion for the General Services Administration Federal Buildings Fund.  Money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and AmeriCorps is eliminated entirely in Rogers' blueprint which he bills as the first round of proposed cuts.  At the same time that Republicans are threatening to undermine Social Security, they are defending $20 billion in government giveaways to oil companies that are raking in record profits, arguing that these handouts should be off the table when it comes to spending cuts.  Democrats believe Republicans have their priorities "backwards".

republican hypocrisy

Trickle-down

The stench of hypocrisy, of course, comes because the GOP began crying about the deficit only after it forced a temporary extension of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, all of which are financed by deficit spending.  Why, for instance, do they want to slice environmental protection to the bone and eliminate spending on PBS and NPR, for instance, but leave the bloated Pentagon budget pretty much as is?

Abortion cops. In testimony to a House taxation subcommittee on Wednesday, Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, confirmed that one consequence of the Republicans' "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" would be to turn IRS agents into abortion cops; that is, during an audit, they'd have to determine, from evidence provided by the taxpayer, whether any tax benefit had been inappropriately used to pay for an abortion.

My questions for the GOP:

What % of the debt will you reduce by cutting school lunches, the Peace Corp, NPR...and if you institute the Abortion Cops?

And by giving $20 billion to oil companies?

Or maybe you can just admit that you are not about the budget deficit at all?  That you had the reactionary social agenda in mind.

At least you'll be honest for a change!

 

25Mar/110

Posted by Horse

Daily wisdom

Daily Wisdom

 

 

My Fortune Cookie says, If one questions the name given to a “military action,” one should question that action

24Mar/111

Posted by Horse

Daily wisdom

Daily Wisdom

 

 

My fortune cookie says, " 'Birthers' demand proof that Newt Gingrich is not really a salamander."

24Mar/116

Mediocracy

Posted by 00tj8jh3

Dear Mr. President,

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for believing that you have been a gutless, coward who chooses pragmatism over principle; that you, as a political being, make decisions primarily on how they may affect the odds of successful reelection.

As a dedicated, contributing, avid worker and supporter of your Presidential campaign, I cannot adequately express the elation, hope, and joy I experienced on that November night in 2008 when you made your appearance at Grant Park in Chicago.  Tears rolled down my old cheeks as my friends and family hugged each other.  I recorded the events of that  glorious night, and for months, I would repeatedly hit “replay” to relive that night.  I have deleted that recording.

Leadership and pragmatism

Leadership?

I was confused the day of your inauguration when you chose homophobic Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation.  My friends said you were reaching out.   I was surprised you did not strongly support “Medicare for all” or the public option as the keystone of your national health plan.  My friends said you were being pragmatic, settling for the best you could get.  I was flabbergasted that you, a brilliant constitutional lawyer, did not encourage the prosecution of those in our government who committed torture and manufactured evidence getting us in war costing us over 4000 young lives and a trillion dollars.  My friends said you were just trying to focus on the important stuff and to heal our citizenry.   I was disappointed that you initiated a surge in Afghanistan when the odds said that this action would fill more body bags and mire us down in an unending, purposeless conflict.   My friends said you were just keeping a campaign promise.  I was saddened that you failed to issue a stop order preventing  gay military personnel from being expelled from service while  Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was being debated.   My friends said not to worry, because DADT would be eliminated so why energize the Right.   Then I watched as you violated your oft-repeated campaign promise to tax the super wealthy and restore some economic justice to our country.  My friends said that you had to compromise to help the unemployed and get a nuclear arms treaty.  When you failed to close Guantanamo, continued military tribunals, detention without end, barely uttered a word concerning the threat to collective bargaining for public service employees, and basically ignored the potential disaster awaiting this world due to nuclear power plants, my friends have started to become quiet.

Now, you have initiated a military action in Libya.  We are all confused.   My friends and I are waiting.  Is this good?  Is this terrible?  Is this necessary?  Is there a plan?  No one appears to have an answer.

However, I now think I have learned a great deal about the man I helped to elect,  a man, who I was convinced, would be a transformational figure in American history.  President Obama, you are not a coward, you are not pragmatic, (obviously, this Libya action is not a sure thing to increase your odds in 2012), and most importantly, you are not a man of principle, being a man of principle minimally implies consistency.    So what are you?

I believe you are a man who listens, listens to the loudest voice in your room.   You are a man who is led and not a leader.   Your generals told you to go to Afghanistan, your political handlers told you to stay away from the Wisconsin debate and the prosecution of war criminals.  Your Wall Street advisory staff convinced you to focus on fixing the deficit by eliminating people’s jobs and not taxing billionaires.   And now, someone has told you to go into Libya, perhaps they are right, or perhaps they are wrong.  You can’t explain because the only decision you made is to avoid confrontation and agree.

In a past interview with Diane Sawyer, you stated you would rather be a one term President than a mediocre two term President.  I fear that if you do not become a man who can make a principled decision,  a man who can lead, a man of consistency,  then you shall indeed  be a one term President,  and your will be a MEDIOCRE ONE TERM PRESIDENT.   The prefix of “mediocre” means middle.   One cannot take a "side" and  still be in the middle.  This country, this world, and my family desperately need a leader,  a leader who is dedicated to ethical principle.  We cannot afford a leader who always yields.  Perhaps you are at nature Mediocre, and for that I am not angry, just sad.

23Mar/110

Posted by Horse

Nuclear reactors

Daily Wisdom

 

 

 

My Fortune Cookie says, "Nuclear reactors not a good way to produce irradiated food."

Featuring Recent Posts WordPress Widget development by YD