When I set out to start this blog, I didn't know what direction it would go in but I knew that it would be a place where I could express my political views without all the partisan rants from either direction that I read in many other blogs and forums. As it turns out, with the exception of a few posts about my "consulting" gigs, it's been pretty much a platform for me to express my liberal/progressive leanings.
However, out of my surely vast and loyal crowd of readers, I'd say at least 50% are afraid they might hurt my feelings, 25% could care less LOL and up to 25% are too busy with life to tend to their own blog let alone read mine.
So I've decided to go in a different direction... and a different blog. I'm still going to keep this one and make commentary when the mood strikes me. I don't want to publish yet another open diary for the masses... but I do think a more light-hearted approach might draw some interaction.
I'm thinking that the theme will be two of my biggest passions in life: travel and music. In particular, I think I will chronicle some tales from the Summer of Love Tour that Cathy and I ventured out for. I have a lot of (mostly illegible) notes from the trip and it would be nice to share them in print. Who knows... it may become a semi-professional marketing device for my future ambitions as a travel agent.
I'll probably need some help designing the cover page as you can obviously see I did not have any imagination - or skill - in designing this one. Anyone... can ya help a brotha out??? :)
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Why Is It?
Why is it that the "typical" liberal would like government to be involved as much as possible... except when it comes to social/personal issues?
Why is it that the "typical" conservative would like to government to be involved as little as possible... except when it comes to social/personal issues?
Why is it that the "typical" conservative would like to government to be involved as little as possible... except when it comes to social/personal issues?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Now That's What I Call "Fair and Balanced"!
Despite the fact he always reminds me of Kermit the Frog, I have to commend Fox News Channel anchor Shepard Smith for channeling his inner Alan Colmes when interviewing GOP Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming regarding the inclusion of a public option in health care reform:
SMITH: Over the last ten years health care costs in America have skyrocketed. Regular folks cannot afford it. So, they tax the system by not getting preventative medicine. They go to the emergency room in the last case and we all wind up paying for it. As the costs have gone up, the insurance industry's profits, on average, have gone up more than 350%. And it is the insurance companies which have paid, and who have contributed to Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle to the point where now we cannot get what all concerned on Capitol Hill seem to believe and more 60% of Americans say they would support, which is a public option. This has been an enormous win for the health-care industry, that is an unquestioned fact. But I wonder, what happens to the American people when we come out with legislation now which requires everyone to have health care insurance -- or many more people -- but does not give a public option? Therefore millions more people will have to buy insurance from the very corporations that are overcharging us, and whose profits have gone up 350 percent in the last ten years. It seems like we the people are the ones getting the shaft here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/fox-newss-shepard-smith-g_n_311627.html
SMITH: Over the last ten years health care costs in America have skyrocketed. Regular folks cannot afford it. So, they tax the system by not getting preventative medicine. They go to the emergency room in the last case and we all wind up paying for it. As the costs have gone up, the insurance industry's profits, on average, have gone up more than 350%. And it is the insurance companies which have paid, and who have contributed to Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle to the point where now we cannot get what all concerned on Capitol Hill seem to believe and more 60% of Americans say they would support, which is a public option. This has been an enormous win for the health-care industry, that is an unquestioned fact. But I wonder, what happens to the American people when we come out with legislation now which requires everyone to have health care insurance -- or many more people -- but does not give a public option? Therefore millions more people will have to buy insurance from the very corporations that are overcharging us, and whose profits have gone up 350 percent in the last ten years. It seems like we the people are the ones getting the shaft here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/fox-newss-shepard-smith-g_n_311627.html
Nazism + Communism = Socialism?
It appears that the doomsday wing of the conservative movement has succeeded in getting a lot of press by equating Obama's would-be "socialist" policies with the repressive regimes of Communist-era Russia and Nazi-era Germany. I'm sure that there are more informed people out there (including some well-intentioned Republicans) who realize that a better comparison would be to the many countries in Western Europe that adhere to various degrees of socialist policy, not to mention our neighbor to the North.
Instead of drawing a fake Hitler mustache onto Obama, they could have attached fake muscles a la Hanz and Franz from the old Saturday Night Live skits. Or instead of referencing Russia's hammer and siecle, the protestors could have drawn inspiration from the flags of Norway, the Netherlands, France and other countries who coincidentally draw from the same red, white and blue palate.
Perhaps when it comes down to it, it's the common theme of one-party rule that Germany once represented - and that Russia is apparently backsliding into - and fear of the long-term effects of such an arrangement here in the USA. I could certainly respect that as I endured the same concerns for six years. I would hope that's something conservatives would think about if <shudder
By the way, here's a list of the best countries to live per the United Nations. By my count, it appears that at least seven of the top ten countries have universal health care and/or other socialist policies. An easier-to-read summary can also be found here.
Instead of drawing a fake Hitler mustache onto Obama, they could have attached fake muscles a la Hanz and Franz from the old Saturday Night Live skits. Or instead of referencing Russia's hammer and siecle, the protestors could have drawn inspiration from the flags of Norway, the Netherlands, France and other countries who coincidentally draw from the same red, white and blue palate.
Perhaps when it comes down to it, it's the common theme of one-party rule that Germany once represented - and that Russia is apparently backsliding into - and fear of the long-term effects of such an arrangement here in the USA. I could certainly respect that as I endured the same concerns for six years. I would hope that's something conservatives would think about if <shudder
By the way, here's a list of the best countries to live per the United Nations. By my count, it appears that at least seven of the top ten countries have universal health care and/or other socialist policies. An easier-to-read summary can also be found here.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
I Like Ike!
Quote:
It's great to know that during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the wealth of the 400 richest Americans, according to Forbes, actually increased by $30 billion. Well golly, that's only a 2 percent increase, much less than the double digit returns the wealthy had grown accustomed to. But a 2 percent increase is a whole lot more than losing 40 percent of your 401k. And $30 billion is enough to provide 500,000 school teacher jobs at $60k per year.
Collectively, those 400 have $1.57 trillion in wealth. It's hard to get your mind around a number like that. The way I do it is to imagine that we were still living during the great radical Eisenhower era of the 1950s when marginal income tax rates hit 91 percent. Taxes were high back in the 1950s because people understood that constraining wild extremes of wealth would make our country stronger and prevent another depression. (Well, what did those old fogies know?)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/the-forbes-400-shows-why_b_306228.html
It's great to know that during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the wealth of the 400 richest Americans, according to Forbes, actually increased by $30 billion. Well golly, that's only a 2 percent increase, much less than the double digit returns the wealthy had grown accustomed to. But a 2 percent increase is a whole lot more than losing 40 percent of your 401k. And $30 billion is enough to provide 500,000 school teacher jobs at $60k per year.
Collectively, those 400 have $1.57 trillion in wealth. It's hard to get your mind around a number like that. The way I do it is to imagine that we were still living during the great radical Eisenhower era of the 1950s when marginal income tax rates hit 91 percent. Taxes were high back in the 1950s because people understood that constraining wild extremes of wealth would make our country stronger and prevent another depression. (Well, what did those old fogies know?)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/the-forbes-400-shows-why_b_306228.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
