|
Written by Lee
Anderson
|
|
Monday, 25 July 2011 18:59 |
|
In the line at the store, I overheard the cashier telling an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day." The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."
He was right - my parent's generation didn't have the green thing in its day. When they grew up, and myself in my childhood years, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. We didn't need a country recycling program. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the corner grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower SUV every time we had to go two blocks. But we didn't have the green thing in our day.
Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling 220 volts dryer - wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. Today communities ban clothes line drying and jeans with holes cost $200. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.
Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a smaller screen - not not a screen the size of an elephant. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam p-nuts or plastic bubble wrap. Nor did we fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. Every family had a garden. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor (or sharpened a straight razor) instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We played sports on the nearest lot, and came home when it was dark. Today you pay to play and kid's games run to 10 PM, lighted by megawatt field lights. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen mobile appliances. But we didn't have the green thing back then. Going green doesn't require the UN, international treaties, or federal laws or government assistance. It just requires simple common sense and personal choice. {Comment on this article HERE.} |
|
|
Written by Lee
Anderson
|
|
Monday, 18 July 2011 14:12 |
In a 2003 Psychology Today article titled "Understanding Compulsive Liars", Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology, says compulsive lying has no official diagnosis. Instead, intentional dissimulation -- not the kind associated with dementia or brain injury -- is associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. When it comes to compulsive liars, says Charles Ford, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Alabama Birmingham, "words seem to flow out of their mouths without them thinking about it." To understand the mind of a fake, Reich suggests considering what lying does for the liar. Deceit as a means to an end -- like lying to get a job -- is easy to comprehend. Much harder to spot, he says, is lying "for primary gains": deceptions that create a different sense of self without any immediate benefit. "It has to do with self-esteem," Reich says. "You want to be like someone else because you aren't very happy with yourself."
CBS news has reported that President Obama stated that, "Americans back me on debt deal.... My Republican friends have said that they're not willing to do revenues, and they have repeated that on several occasions," he told reporters at a news conference in Washington. "My hope, though, is that they're listening not just to lobbyists or special interests here in Washington, but they're also listening to the American people. Because it turns out, poll after poll, many done by your organizations, show that it's not just Democrats who think we need to take a balanced approach, it's Republicans as well."
So what do the polls really show?
A Gallup poll released Wednesday concluded that 50% of Americans want the majority of deficit reduction to come through spending cuts; only 32% favor some combination of reduced expenditures coupled with higher revenues. Even a smaller 11% favored mostly or only tax increases.
The Ipsos/Reuters poll found that 71% of those surveyed oppose increasing the debt limit. This was true even of the half sample who were told that "not raising the debt limit would damage the US' sovereign debt rating, which is like our credit rating: it would seriously damage our credibility abroad, would make it much more difficult for us to borrow in the future, and would likely push up interest rates."
In a June 9 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University poll, paints a bleaker picture:
- 60% disapproved of the way Barack Obama is handling the budget deficit
- 90% rated the nation's economy these days as not so good or poor
- 75% said the nation's economy is getting getting worse or staying about the same
- 71% think the United States economy is in a recession
- 53% think President Obama's proposals to raise revenues are are tax hikes or do not believe they are closing loopholes
- 55% said they trust someone other than the President in handling the economy
- 52% said they would not blame the Republicans if the debt ceiling is not raised
(For more detail on the Quinnipiac poll refer to the data and questions asked here:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07142011.doc)
So what are we to conclude? Our President is unhappy. He is a fake. He is a compulsive liar. Of course, CBS news is happy to accommodate the lie and enable the compulsion. The trouble with lying is that it catches up with you sooner or later. {Comment on this article HERE.} |
|
Written by Butch
Porter
|
|
Monday, 18 July 2011 14:03 |
|
{Written by LogiPundit}  Pat Caddell asked a rather interesting question on Fox News the other day: “Does this guy have any idea what he is doing?” Referring to the President, of course, he expresses frustration (much as he did with Jimmy Carter) with wondering why “his guy” was not willing to take a leadership role and get something accomplished. Watch the entire video.
Pat Caddell On Obama: “Does This Guy Have Any Idea What He Is Doing?”. Another issue he mentions is that the two parties–as a whole–are showing how little they really know what they are doing. Now other than the fact that this a subject that is popular with your humble author, it bears exploration. In what way are the Democrats…AND the Republicans illustrating exactly how little they know about what they’re doing when it comes to budget? I’ll offer ten points on why I don’t believe that either Party, nor any of its leaders, are taking budget talks seriously: - They are talking about reforming the tax code as a part of a comprehensive debt reduction plan.–moronic. Unnecessary. Cut spending.
- They are not serious about finding efficiencies and cuts in military spending–they are there. Everyone knows they are there. Republicans should put them on the table.
- They are talking too much about entitlements, and not enough about current spending.–long term deficits: entitlements. Short-term deficits: other stuff. It’s pretty simple. Cut spending.
- Republicans brought abortion into the mix (not the current talks, but the previous ones on the 2011 budget).–not a fan of abortion…certainly not a fan of Planned Parenthood…but when you’re talking budget issues, you should focus on the things that can actually affect the budget.
- No serious talk of cost of Federal Employees. Salaries, benefits, pensions, etc.–NEVER discussed as an important point in budget discussions. Local Governments, State Governments, and school systems across the country HAVE to look at their employees pay and total compensation packages, and when they do, they receive a huge amount of hell from both sides of the budget issue…but if they have to make cuts they have to make cuts. Our Federal Government has to do the same. That goes for employees and contractors.
- The President hasn’t even mentioned or alluded to his debt commission–why bother with the debt commission if you’re going to ignore all of it?
- And lastly, why not bring up the fact that the United States Federal Government is involved in things domestically that it shouldn’t be involved with…like entire Departments of the Federal Government that shouldn’t exist as Departments at all because they are not core functions of the Federal Government (Education, Energy, Labor, etc), and the States can handle them.
- And speaking of, why not bring up the approximately $550B dollars in State aid…that’s right…$550B dollars in transfer payments to states…EVERY YEAR.
- And while we’re speaking of Federal Aid, what about the $45 Billion in Foreign Military and Economic assistance that we give away every year. That should at least warrant a glance, shouldn’t it?
- Yachts and corporate jets? REALLY? That’s your position. That the evil rich folk aren’t paying enough.
I’ve said it before: AUSTERITY. It’s required. These are times that require a serious look at the budget, and NONE of these guys are taking it seriously. Contrast this with British cuts last year: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/20/AR2... The New York Times asked whether Armageddon would ensue if similar cuts were enacted here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/weekinreview/24herzenhorn.html In case you missed it: The British plan includes a few increases, notably for the government-run health care system. Almost all other departments would face a freeze or cuts, resulting in an average reduction of 19 percent; 490,000 public jobs would be eliminated. Even the military and support for the royal family would face reductions. The austerity program is the most drastic in Britain in 60 years, and it is difficult to envision something at the same scale in the United States. Some economists say it would also be ill-advised, because such a quick contraction of government spending by the United States would reverberate forcefully across the world economy and risk another recession.
Average deduction of 19%. 490,000 jobs. And this 19% is WITH INCREASES to their health care system. Personally, I’m not a fan of a NHS (or tax hikes), but I’m not British, so I don’t get to call that shot. They prioritized and they cut DRASTICALLY, because they looked at what was happening in Greece and other parts of Europe. The difference between the British approach to the budget (similar-sized deficit from a percentage of GDP standpoint, and over a similar amount of time)? They took this stuff seriously. They cut support for the ROYAL FAMILY. Wonder if Congress is entertaining cuts to itself? They seem to THINK they’re royalty; maybe they’d take Her Majesty’s example to heart. All that to say: these guys (the U.S. Congress and White House) are NOT really serious about cutting the budget. EVERYTHING they do is politics now. The only reason that Republicans in Congress are holding the lines on taxes is because they believe that their political futures depend on it. And it does. And, for the same reason, Obama is picking on yacth owners and corporate jet users, because he’s pandering to the “working class” (because as everyone knows, people who fly corporate jets don’t really WORK). It’s all pandering. They’re not even close to serious…none of them are. It’s a joke, and everyone knows it. Well, we’re done joking. Both parties and their leaderships have already been deemed useless by me, and many like me. As Caddell says, that sentiment is going to continue to grow, and grow, and grow, if they don’t look around and take their jobs seriously. {Comment on this article HERE} |
|
Written by Lee
Anderson
|
|
Friday, 08 July 2011 17:33 |
|
Veterans in Houston say the Department of Veterans Affairs is consistently censoring their prayers by banning them from saying the words "God" and "Jesus" during funeral services at Houston National Cemetery.
Three organizations -- the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion and the National Memorial Ladies -- allege that the cemetery's director and other government officials have created "religious hostility" at the cemetery. This isn't the first time the Department of Veterans Affairs has attempted to censor a burial service.Read more. |
|
Written by Butch
Porter
|
|
Friday, 08 July 2011 16:49 |
I wanted to call attention to an article I caught on “RollCall” the other day. And it’s about McCain’s recent comments about the evil “isolationists” (in this case…a pretty decent portion of the American electorate apparently) daring to question military intervention in Libya: “I wonder what Ronald Reagan would be saying today?” asked McCain, challenging what he termed the “isolationism” of leading members of the GOP for daring to question Obama’s Libya engagement. McCain then went on to answer his own question: “He would be saying that’s not the Republican Party of the 20th century and now the 21st century. That is not the Republican Party that has been willing to stand up for freedom for people all over the world, whether it be in Grenada, that Ronald Reagan had a quick operation about, or whether it be in our enduring commitment to countering the Soviet Union.”
Pascoe then goes on to explain that McCain’s assertion has little no connection to reality, at least the reality that Ronald Reagan considered thoughtful military policy. To illustrate this, he pulls a quote from Reagan’s book, “An American Life”:  What would Reagan do? Our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future Presidents,” Reagan wrote. “The policy we adopted included these principles: 1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest. 2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives. 3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. 4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
It’s clear to me that the mission in Libya fails in virtually every way on ALL of these counts: - We have heard no argument–from anyone, least of all the administration–on why it is in our national interest to be in Libya.
- It’s apparent the Obama administration has absolutely no clue the importance of point number two, which is one point where McCain is always pretty good on–regardless of who is President–and it’s probably the thing that gets him the most riled up on news shows on the topic (“why won’t these Libertarians let us WIN?!?”).
- Congress? Who’s that? Really? He’s supposed to ask Congress. Don’t think the Obama Administration got that memo. Say what you want about Bush and Iraq; he at least got a resolution from Congress on the topic.
- Well…the funny thing about this one is that it’s inexorably intertwined with number one. In order for something to be the “last resort” it must mean that one is “resorting” to accomplish something or solve something that desperately needs to be solved, in the resorter’s best interest. Saying that military intervention in Libya was our “last resort” is almost like saying that as a “last resort”, I had to go twenty miles deep in the woods and shoot someone in the head who was beating their wife. Maybe if it was someone I knew and loved (an “ally”), that would be possible, or someone that I knew was plotting to beat MY wife…or my friend’s wife. But what were the other “resorts” that the Obama Administration went through?
The long and short of it is, everyone knows that I consider it one of my favorite past-times to beat up on Paulistinians who say we should “bring them all home” and take care of ourselves…that we should use “friendship and democracy” as the signature feature of American foreign policy, not military strength. There are a myriad of responses to this. Responses like, “OK, which countries should we remove our bases from? The ones who DO want us to stay…or the ones that don’t? What about the ones that DO that are RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the ones that DON’T?” “If the whole globe goes to H.E.DoubleHockeySticks in a breadbasket, who are we going to trade with? If that doesn’t matter, then how is that not isolationist?” ETC ETC. I think the above criteria from Reagan is a good starting point for the conversation on the topic, and leaves us with the overarching question: What is our “National Interest”? That’s a whole conversation for another day, but I think it’s clear that “standing up for freedom” is just not enough all by itself. It wasn’t for Reagan, and it’s not for us. |
|
|
