Afghanistan and the lack of truth

This presentation by Andrew Napolitano sums it up for me. Shame on the Obama Administration, for carrying on (and furthering) the policies of the Bush Administration. At the minimum, our government should level with us instead of giving us a constant stream of lies and squandering massive amounts of tax dollars that we could be using for energy independence. If the occupation of Afghanistan is such a great idea, let those who support the aggression pay for it. Let them go door to door and beg for the money. Even if every American citizen paid an equal share of this year's $30 Billion funding for the "war" in Afghanistan, every one of America's 300,000,000 citizens would pay $100. Let them go door to door and try to convince Americans to each fork over $100 for this years' Afghanistan war effort. Maybe then the citizens would demand to see progress and to be informed of the alleged objectives of this "war." Actually, if the citizens were told the truth, they'd be told that this war only benefits America's military-industrial complex, and that it's driven by the cognitive fallacy of sunk costs.

Continue ReadingAfghanistan and the lack of truth

Do You C What I C?

The Tea Party apparently did well in Missouri during the mid-term primaries this week. They (or someone) managed to stage contests for most Republican candidates, while most Democrats ran unopposed in our state. Why might anyone do this? Proposition C. This piece of "legislation" is an arguably unconstitutional attempt to stop Health Care Reform by claiming States Rights against an unpopular provision in the Obama plan: Mandatory Health Insurance. Universal insurance is an attempt to pay for the impending regulation doing away with preexisting condition coverage denials. If everyone is covered, then there will be no preexisting conditions. But if everyone can sign up only when they need it and insurers cannot deny coverage, then insurers will go bankrupt and the Federal Government will have to completely take over. This is what they want? But Missourians voted overwhelmingly in favor of denying the Federal Government the right to enforce this provision necessary to interstate commerce. But if you look at detailed election results, you'll see that the vote on Proposition C is proportional to the ratio of Republicans to others who bothered to vote. In a state that was razor-close in November 2008, three Republicans showed up for each Democrat to vote in this primary. Here is another view of this Proposition: What the passage of Proposition C in Missouri means, and what it does not mean. In brief, it is grandstanding. Given the likely turnout at the polls, and given the correct wording, it was an unsinkable piece of "voter mandate" with no actual significance. But it looks good as a jab-in-the-eye to an embattled administration. Unless you actually read about the issue. But the point was to pick one unpopular clause of the 2,500 page law, and publicly display how "the people" are against the whole thing. I'm curious to see how the Tea Party will stack the November election. Will other states be so dumb?

Continue ReadingDo You C What I C?

Democracy means Rule by the People

In this video of his March 4, 2010 lecture, David Cobb, a "pissed off American," presents important historical background regarding the relationship between the United States government and corporations. "Corporation" never appears in the U.S. Constitution, while "people" appears 34 times. It was traditionally a privilege to form a corporation, not a right, and corporations failing to act in the public interest could have their charters revoked. The United States is, technically speaking, a constitutional representative democracy. "Democracy" means "rule by the people." After offering this definition (that exactly matches the etymology), Cobb asked how many people in his audience believed that we currently have a functioning democracy in the United States, and the answer was overwhelmingly no. He argues that Citizens United eliminates our ability to have a functioning democracy. Unelected and unaccountable corporate CEO's are deciding how much toxic waste will be dumping into the environment and what choices we will have regarding transportation and health care. They are even deciding whether the U.S. goes to war. Thus he (along with Riki Ott, seen in the latter half of the video) are working with the Ultimate Civics and Campaign to Legalize Democracy, an effort to establish that corporations are not "persons." This group seeks systemic changes. He reminds us that many organizations that are now well-recognized as having effected important changes were disparaged and harassed when they were making those changes. It's time for the people to make dramatic change in how we run our society instead of begging "for a few less parts per billion." He argues that the abolitionists didn't tinker at the margins. They demanded substantial and immediate change. They exhibited courage. As Ott asks, "Do we care enough to make a difference?" Are we willing to take real steps to make sure that "human values count?" Here's the bottom line: Abolish corporate personhood. "Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to Constitutional rights." Further, we need to establish that "Money is not speech, so that we can have appropriate and proper campaign finance laws" that won't allow corporations, or any other party to control the electoral process. Local communities need to be able to regain control. It is a movement from the grassroots. Cobb argues that he doesn't expect any visionary leadership to come from NGOs, because they are too wrapped up in the corporate culture. To sum up, here are the goals:

  • Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
  • Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
  • Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

Continue ReadingDemocracy means Rule by the People

Do you think that sunscreen really protects you from skin cancer?

If you think that sunscreens really protect you from cancer, think again. Read this detailed information from the Environmental Working Group and you'll be astounded. How can so much false and unsupported information can be freely plastered on bottles of sunscreen? Why isn't the federal government clamping down on sunscreens? Who do our img_3219representatives represent? Apparently, their greatest loyalty is to companies that make money by misrepresenting their products. Can you believe that sunscreens are not regulated to make sure that they do what they claim to do? The best approaches to protecting your family: Wear clothes and stay in the shade. Any product that claims protection greater than SPF 50 is misleading. Note that most people put on only a 1/4 to 2/3rds enough sunscreen to actually reach the product’s SPF rating. Check out the oftentimes toxic ingredients at EWG. Check out EWG's Hall of Shame.

Continue ReadingDo you think that sunscreen really protects you from skin cancer?

Matt Taibbi on Congressional corruption

Once again, Matt Taibbi says it like it is.

This is a classic example of how the Senate works . . . Bernie Sanders had put forth a proposal in the Senate to put a 15 percent cap on credit-card interest. Who isn't in favor of this kind of legislation? The only difference between credit card companies and loan sharks at this point is that you can choose to not patronize a loan shark. As an adult professional in this country one has to have a credit card - it's impossible to rent a car, buy a hotel room, shop online or do countless other things without one. But all the credit card companies use the same insane formulae based on FICO scores to charge exorbitant interest rates for anyone who slips up - and they don't exactly make it easy to not slip up . . . Almost everyone has horror stories about consumer credit and my guess is that if put to a national referendum, something like the Sanders 15% cap would pass pretty easily. In Washington, of course, it's another story.
If we had a national referendum, the 15% cap would pass 90-10 if we had an honest debate. Of course, if there were really a national vote on the issue, the airwaves would be filled with bank-financed fraudulent ads telling us how the entire country will go bankrupt if we don't charge a minimum of 30% interest rates on credit cards, or some similar bullshit.

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi on Congressional corruption