Monday, January 23, 2017

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information you’ve provided to them or they’ve collected from your use of their services. See details and here.

Why I do not “celebrate” the so-called “Women’s March”

There was a march in Washington DC and around the country on January 21, 2017.

The mission statement of the main sponsoring group read as follows:
 "We stand together in solidarity with our partners and children for the protection of our rights, our safety, our health, and our families - recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country."

Sounds good, right?  Until you come to find out that “diverse communities” does not include communities that do not agree with this one on an issue.  Namely women associated with “right to life” groups.  Although they were included when the march was being organized, complaints ended up with the right to lifers being, not just pushed to the back of the bus, but unceremoniously being tossed off the bus and prohibited from boarding the bus.

So, for all those folks celebrating, congratulating themselves, patting themselves for standing up for their rights and the rights of others, this moderate independent voter calls you out for being intolerant for not being accepting that others have a right to their opinions – and that is at best, or hypocritical at worse.

Every person has a right to their opinion.  Opinions are not facts – opinions are not right or wrong.  If you want your opinion to be respected, then extend the same courtesy to others.

As for me, I will not be handing out participation trophies to any of you or patting you on the back.  While you have a right to your opinion and a right to support such an intolerant group, and I will support your rights to do so, you have not earned my respect for, nor my participation in, your intolerant charade.  

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Hillary, It's President of the UNITED States, not the Divided States

Hillary, the statements that pop out of your mouth are just mind boggling.  I can't believe that a person running for President of the United States would say (or think it was cute or funny - you have a strange sense of humor) that Republicans are right up there with Iranians as being "enemies" of which you are most proud to have made.

You need to have something explained to you, Hillary.  If you are elected POTUS, you have to WORK with Republicans - you know, the folks you claimed to be so proud to have as your enemies.  If you are elected POTUS, then you are President of the ENTIRE country, including about a third of which who are your self-proclaimed enemies, Republicans.  Can you really be so stupid that you think that making the comment that you did to pander to the far left, would make you friends among Republicans or, more importantly, the independents whose votes you actually need to win a general election?  Let me make this clear to you:  your position that Republicans are your enemies (and you are proud of that fact) has disqualified you for my vote for POTUS.  Ever.

Now, let's turn to a couple of more worthy Democrats.  

Today, Jim Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan years, and a Democratic Senator from Virginia, announced he was no longer running for POTUS as a Democrat.  Some of what he said had to do with his discomfort with the folks running the parties and policies held by both parties, and because he was tired of political parties being put ahead of what was best for the country and the American people.  Jim Webb, I commend you.  Thank you for stating the obvious, well, at least the obvious to those of us who are not sheep who follow political parties blindly.  Please give serious thought to a run as an independent candidate.  The American people need more voices like yours speaking out.

Joe Biden - okay, Joe, it's time to announce one way or the other.  It's like a guy waiting for an answer to a marriage proposal - you just can't drag it out forever.  That said, I hope you do run for POTUS.  Please run!  You see, Joe has said not once, but twice this week, that "Republicans are not enemies; they're friends."  Yes, Joe, they are.  They are also fellow Americans, who have the same rights under the Constitution to express their opinions, even if they differ from Hillary's and other self-proclaimed "tolerant" Democrats (but in reality, those who yell the loudest proclaiming their tolerance tend to be the most intolerant through their words and actions - see Hillary - Republicans are my enemies because I disagree with them). Thank you Joe, for showing that you understand that the office is of the President of the UNITED States, and not the Divided states as some of your fellow Democrats seem to like it.  Although I may disagree with you, Joe on some things if not many things, I do believe that you have a good heart and that you will do what you believe is best for the country, and you will work across the aisle to get something done in a Biden presidency, unlike the gridlock we have experienced in the Obama administration and likely in a Hillary administration.  

So, Hillary, learn from JIm Webb and Joe Biden, or just pack up your tent.  The country does not need another 4-8 years of divisive politics like you are pushing.  

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Hillary, seriously, the American people are not as stupid as you think.

I really don't get it.  Why can't Hillary learn from her husband's mistakes?  If Bill had only said "Ooops, I did it, I am sorry", the whole Monica problem would have gone away.  The American people are pretty forgiving.  However, he stonewalled, and lied ("I did not have sex with that woman", etc.), and the whole thing blew up in his face.

Seventeen years later, and Hillary is doing the same thing with her email server and her emails and all her comments about what she did, what she sent, what she read , what she didn't send, etc.  Once again, an "Ooops, I made a mistake, I am sorry and let me give my server to the FBI so they and the State Department can have it", would have made the whole problem go away.  But, no.  She's got to stonewall and lie.

See, here are the problems I have with her and what she has said.

First, Hillary is an attorney.  As an attorney, she knows what documents comprise Attorney Work Product and what documents are Attorney Client Privileged.  The documents don't have to say those words - it's the content that makes them eligible for the marking and the protection.  In the same way, as Hillary was reading incoming emails and writing emails, from the content of the same, she would know, by the content, that the messages were classified or top secret.  It's as simple as that.  If Hillary didn't know by the content what was important enough to merit being marked classified or top secret, she was not qualified to serve as Secretary of State.

Second, Hillary is not new to this whole governmental thing.  She is well aware of the Freedom of Information Act, which requires the government to maintain and control (in order to be able to make the documents available to the public, even those classified or top secret, when their classifications are changed) all writings made by public officials because such are PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.  As Secretary of State, Hillary was a public official and ALL her writings having to do with official government business were and are the property of the government of the United States which holds these documents on behalf of the American people.  By using a private server, Hillary was trying to do an end run around the Freedom of Information Act, which is simply not allowed.  Hillary, like Lois Lerner, appears to have been trying to hide what she did.

Third, she is the fox guarding the hen house.  Telling the American people that "I will release what I believe to be relevant" or something very close thereto, does not instill trustworthiness.  Hillary made the initial error in judgement to use a private server instead of using the State Department server.  If she can make that error in judgment, how do we know she did not make an error in judgment in deciding what emails to provide to the State Department?  Why did she not just turn the server over to the State Department whole, and ask them to take and release the public documents only and leave the "private" yoga and wedding planning emails for her to deal with later?  Who reviewed her emails and did they have security clearance to review classified and top secret documents?  If they did not have clearance, how is Hillary giving that person access to classified documents any different than what Petraeus did by turning over similar information to his mistress/biographer?

Fourth, why did she try (unsuccessfully, it seems) try to "wipe" the server?  And why did she turn the unsecured and apparently unerased server over to an organization which was unable to secure classified or top secret information, and which did not have security clearance to hold such documentation?  Same questions go for her attorney - again, no security clearance to hold such documents and his office was not equipped to safely hold such documents.  Once again we have to ask, why and how is this not similar to what Petraeus did and why isn't Hillary facing charges?

I'd love to hear her respond to such questions in an honest truthful manner.  Unfortunately, If a journalist ever had the backbone to ask her such questions, I'm sure Hillary would try to respond with her very lacking sense of humor like she did when she was asked if she wiped the server.  Her response?  A lame attempt at a joke "What, like with a cloth?!"

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  It's clear that Hillary is unable to learn from her husband's mistakes.  Hopefully, the American people will learn from history and not elect a person to whom the truth is such a foreign concept.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

The problem with constantly lying

is that you can't keep your stories straight.  Come on, Secretary Clinton.  Your excuses regarding your email are pathetic.

Seriously - you didn't want to carry multiple devices around with you.  Well, there are several problems with that.  First of all, a month or so ago, you admitted to carrying multiple devices while you were Secretary of State, so there goes the convenience excuse.  Second, it is possible to have more than one email account loaded to a single smart phone.  I don't have the money (taxpayer money was it as the server was set up for your husband Former President Clinton and therefore was likely paid by we the people?) for IT personnel, and yet I managed to load more than a single email account to my smartphone (and I am sure my smartphone doesn't have all the bells and whistles yours have had).  Why were you incapable of putting both the State Department official email and your private email on the same device?

You claim you removed personal emails from what you gave the State Department, such as those from your husband.  Your husband said last month that he has only sent 2 emails in his life - and they weren't to you.  Seriously, if you are going to involve others in your lie, at least get them to play along, or check what they said last month.

Why, given this propensity to lie, should we trust you and your minions to sort through your emails and determine what is public and what is private?  That alone is reason enough to question what you have turned over.  Add that to the fact that we the American taxpayer may have paid for that server you claim is private, makes all the emails public in my opinion (not that I care to hear about what yoga moves you can or cannot do).  If you didn't pay for the server it's not yours.

We deserve so much better than this.

Monday, March 9, 2015

Seriously, how stupid does he think we are?

Yes, I know, it;s been a long time since I have blogged here.  I have been trying to reduce my blood pressure, but the stupidity of our government and the people who supposedly govern us permeates every aspect of our lives, so it is impossible to ignore.

First we had to hear about how Jonathan Gruber thought the American populace was so stupid.  How's that going for you, Jon, being fired from so many appointed positions you once held?  How many taped speeches of yours have you recanted now?  Your credibility is shot - were you lying when you spoke originally on tape, or are you lying now when you say you misspoke?  Noneof us can tell.

Now we have the POTUS indicating he only knew that Hillary was using private email when the rest of us learned it on the news.  Come on Mr. President.  Do you really think we will believe you didn't have any email communication with Hillary?  Really?  And we are supposed to believe that since the addressee read Hillary Clinton, you (and none of your staff) didn't check the email address to ensure the correspondence really was from her and not someone trying to spoof her address?  Either POTUS thinks we, the American people, are really dumb (we know the media is since no one seems to question this statement of his), or he has no concept of "national security" never mind email security.  Of course, he won't divulge exactly how smart he himself is because he never has released his college and grad school transcripts.  Just what exactly is there to hide?  Is it possible his grades were worse than GWB's?!

Sad all around.  Sadder still that a potential candidate for president used unsecured private email to discuss matters of state and then failed to properly archive the information and now is directing her minions regarding what is to be released to the National Archives and what is not to be released.  Simple solution here - private email for private messages - state department email for public messages.  Since you chose to use your private email for state correspondence, everything gets turned over to the National Archives for it to determine what is public material and what is private.  You made the choice - now live with the consequence.

Monday, September 30, 2013

Poor Chris Murphy - has to work late and doesn't like it

Don't you just feel sorry for newbie Senator Chris Murphy?  As a newbie, his party (yes Chris, it was your party elders who did this to you) assigned him the 11 pm to 1 am shift last week to preside over the Senate during Senator Cruz's filibuster.  See Chris' comments here:

*sigh*.  It must be so tough to get paid $174,000 a year, plus benefits that we his employers will likely never see in our lifetimes, all to work a scheduled (this means that the days are on the schedule - it doesn't mean he has to show up to work) 108 days, as of September 27 (they'll be in session a few more days before the end of the year. For more information see ).  Now, contrast that with us poor taxpaying shlubs who work an average of 50 weeks a year, five days a week - that's 250 work days a year for what we make.  He works half as many days as we do, and yet he makes a six figure salary and has incredible benefits.  And he whines about working late.

Man up Chris!  We know you tout your retired, but hard-working school teacher mother all the time in your election campaigns (pandering to the unions much?).  But I never hear you mention your father.  You know, the managing partner of a ritzy Hartford law firm.  Back in the day I worked for that law firm and there were days when I would work from 6 am to 2 am the next day, and be back in the office at 6 am again that same morning, when there were trials. No thanks, no extra pay, no Senate level benefits.   That's the real world bub.  So seriously, quitchyabitchin' and do some real work.

We the taxpayers are tired of you career politicians putting your political party over what is good for the country.  Remember, Chris, you work for us - the taxpayers do not work for you and your cronies or to support the lifestyles of you and your cronies.

And for further interesting reads on Senator Murphy, check this out:  With people like this running our government, no wonder the federal government is constantly in debt.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Not politically related, but a deal, none the less!

Check out Zazzle today and tomorrow for 65% off wrapped canvases.  Create your own with your own digital artwork or photographs, or check out the work of a multitude of artists on Zazzle.

Follow the instructions in the tweet below and you'll be all set to start checking out Zazzle and what you can do.  And remember the coupon code.  And, help out the person tweeting the great discount code by retweeting if you are on twitter.  Thanks and enjoy the spring!

Best deal on wrapped canvas prints - 65% off at Zazzle use link & code CANVASDEAL13  Please share/retweet thanks.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

American insanity

‎"Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" - Rita Mae Brown. Sudden Death, (c) 1983.

Well, Americans have done it again.  Voted for political party instead of for country.  They have succeeded in re-electing a failed president who failed in his first term, and in his re-election campaign only divided the country further than he already had.  Barack Obama, the Great Divider.


economy:  unemployment rate is higher than he promised it would be.

national debt:  He promised to cut the debt in half and instead he has almost doubled it.  Each American needs to pay in excess of $50,000 to pay it off, and taxing the very rich doesn't even put a dent in the debt.

social issues:  Too many to list and too divisive for the country (democratic scare tactics on "women's issues" to name one).

foreign issues:  the POTUS has no problem with drone attacks on unsuspecting people, with "collateral damage" to innocents, but watches in real time as Americans, on foreign soil, are murdered, even after hearing their repeated pleas for help.  And then lies about the whole incident.

Hurricane Sandy:  He and the federal government have left approximately 30-40000 people homeless and fending for themselves in sub-zero temperatures.

Violations of the US Constitution:  1)  governing by Executive fiat - every time he doesn't get his way, he issues an Executive Order, usually infringing on the power of another branch, usually Congress, and does what he wants, Congress and the American people be damned.  2) creating a "hit list" upon which have been the names of American citizens.  Without trial by jury, a Constitutional right, he decides whether they live and die, and after killing at least four American citizens this way, we the American people will pay the price as the ACLU has brought wrongful death actions against the government.  see also
Once again, the President has no problem with killing American citizens without trial, but rescuing those under attack?  He can't enter a foreign country's air space.  Really?  Does he think all Americans are that stupid?

Divider in Chief:  Telling Americans to seek "revenge" upon other Americans is just appalling; slip of the tongue or not, it shows Obama's true feelings towards others.  Instead of running on the accomplishments of his first term, he chose to tear apart and demonized Mitt Romney and his supporters, the truth be damned.

And for Americans to fall for this and vote for him again leaves me speechless.  An America where the Constitution is violated in such ways, where Americans are left to die on foreign soil and on American soil after Hurricane Sandy, this is not my America.  This is not my President.

To those that voted for Obama:  You wish to destroy a country, go found your own and enjoy turning it into whatever you want.  Don't destroy the United States of America.

Now, more than ever, God, please, help the United States of America.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Misleading Hurricane Sandy approval rate

Recently, there have been references to polls of likely voters showing a positive Hurricane Sandy approval rating for the President and the federal government.  Of course, the main street media have published these polls.

Don't be fooled - the polls and the results are inherently biased.  You see, those of us who were actually impacted by Hurricane Sandy could not be contacted to respond to the polls, because we had no power, no heat, no water and NO PHONES!  We could not comment on the President's and the federal government's response because we were totally cut off.  So these polls just represent the main stream media asking people no where near the impacted areas to opine on the response based solely on the reporting they saw on the very same main stream media.  How self-serving can one get?

Speaking as one who was impacted and freezing, I can tell you that there was neither hide nor hair of the President or FEMA visible in my neck of the woods.  Had Connecticut been a swing state, I'm sure he would have been here parading around for photo ops like he did in NJ.  However, instead of staging supplies like water, ice, food and gasoline in the areas forecasted to be impacted on Sunday afternoon, before Sandy hit, the government sat on its collective asses to watch the devastation (hmmmm, remind anyone of another deadly situation a few months ago?).  I think the death toll is up to 29 now, from the storm.  It's sure to rise with freezing temps and people living in uninhabitable homes BECAUSE THE POTUS AND FEMA HAVE DONE VIRTUALLY NOTHING.

Don't believe the politicians you see on TV congratulating themselves and other politicians for their hard work.  They've done little to nothing.  Local communities have done the bulk of the work looking after their neighbors.  So many places have so much to do, and so little time as a second Nor'easter is forecast for this week.  People can't stay warm because they can't get gas for their generators.  They can't go to work because they can't get gas for their cars.

Pollsters, please go to Staten Island, New York, the south shores of Long Island and Connecticut, and the Jersey Shore, walk the debris filled areas that were once communities and ask the people shivering there what they think of the President and FEMA.  Open your eyes and get the REAL answer from the people who matter most - the people who are not being served by the government.

Sunday, November 4, 2012

The meaning of the word "Presidential"

The past few days, we had the meaning of the word "Presidential" presented to us.

President Obama said "vote for revenge".  Revenge against whom?  What fellow Americans are you seeking revenge against, Mr. President?  Why are you encouraging Americans to seek "revenge" on fellow Americans?  Do you really think such language unifies the country?  I thought, in 2008, you ran claiming you would unify the country?  Yet another promise broken.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney:  "vote for love of country".  So simple, so elegant, and so right.  This is unifying, not divisive language.  This is language of which Abraham Lincoln would be proud.

Seriously, how can anyone think there is an actual decision to be made?  You have the emperor, who doesn't have old clothes, never mind new clothes, who couldn't accomplish anything in the past four years, who has run a campaign of negativity, and who refused to work in a bipartisan fashion, versus a man with a proven track record in business and government, who has a history of many charitable acts, and who is ready to work, not waste countless precious years blaming his predecessor, and who has a record of actually working in a bipartisan fashion.

Vote for Romney.  We can't afford another four years of the "constitutional scholar" so fixed upon divisiveness and revenge, that he has ordered the execution of American citizens without trial.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

"It's the Economy, Stupid" - James Carville

Yup, after all the interruptions and non sequiturs of the debate last night (and, for that matter, the prior debates), it still comes down to James Carville's pithy quote "It's the economy, stupid."

Personally, I don't like the use of name calling, but, the quote does fit the times once again.  As does the quote "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"  I know the answer for me is a resounding NO.

So, why would anyone consider giving President Obama another 4 years in office when he has failed so abysmally over the past 4 years?

 He said he would cut the deficit in half - instead he almost doubled it.

He said unemployment would be in the 5% range.  Not even close (and don't get me started on the folks not counted by the BLS - those who are underemployed and those who have stopped looking for work).

Almost 50 million Americans are on some form of public assistance.

Trials of detainees have barely begun.

No resolution to the illegal immigration problem.

Take home pay is steadily falling for middle class Americans.

 Wake up America - this emperor (presidential fiats, anyone?) has no new clothes and never did.  He certainly has no new clothes now.

And don't buy into the constant whining about what he inherited.  He knew what he was going to get when he ran in 2008 and he told us he could fix it in four years.  He hasn't.  When a CEO doesn't turn a company around, it's time to put in place a new CEO and save the company, in this case, the country, before it is too late.

Vote out Obama.

Don't vote for Obama.

Vote for Romney and let's fix the country.

And just to clear up a few of the President's mistakes last night:
The Marines and the Army still use bayonets.
While horses still serve in the Army, I could find no mention of Naval horses or even sea horses.
The US had submarines during WWI.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

"We have so much more to do."

"We have so much more to do."  A line from Michelle Obama's DNC speech this week.  And, believe me, this critic isn't wowed, just astounded at the audacity of the Obamas.

Well, of course there is so much more to do.  The present administration has failed to pass a budget for any year of the administration.  The president has played over 104 rounds of golf during the past 3.5 years and has attended over 207 fundraisers since he decided to run for re-election.  The First Lady has had excessive vacations, all costing taxpayers for the use of Air Force One and Secret Service (perhaps a bit of parsimony might make we normal people - e.g. the 99%/ the middle class believe the administration is actually on our side, but with stats like the above and $35,800 per plate fundraisers in tony Westport CT - for which the President and the DNC have refused to pay the local police costs and have instead placed the cost for security for *fundraisers* (e.g. campaign expenses) on the backs of the taxpayers of Connecticut - it's clear that the President and his wife are clearly in the 1% and paying lip service to the 99%).

We the middle class have so much more to do - like trying to pay down the 6 trillion dollars in debt Mr. Obama has racked up during the course of his administration.  Like trying to find jobs.  Like trying to regain the median income lost while the President has held office.  Like trying to get unemployment under 8%.

In February, 2009, Obama, in an interview on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, said the following "“A year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress,” said Obama. ”But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”  The economy has not turned around in the following three years, so why is he running?  Yet another Obama promise broken?  Or does he never believe/intend what he says?

Michelle, we the middle class, have been the only ones working - you and your husband have been playing at the expense of the American taxpayer.  Go back to eating your 1700 calorie lunches while telling the rest of us to starve, Michelle "Marie Antoinette" Obama.  All she is is a lot of noise saying "do as I say, not as I do."  Hypocrites, all.

Friday, August 31, 2012

98% of Republicans are not funny

Okay, let's face it - most Republicans are not funny, a few are "awkwardly" funny, and a very small percentage are funny.  Clint Eastwood falls into the not funny, awkwardly funny category.  Who thought it was a good idea to do what he did last night?  A 5 minute Dirty Harry riff or The Good The Bad and The Ugly riff, may have been OK, but I felt bad for him what with all the stammering and stuttering.  All I could think was "get the man a script, please" and "Line!".

Let's face it - very few have come out of the Hollywood Conservative Closet.  The few comedians who have outed themselves - Drew Carey, Dennis Miller and Patricia Heaton come to mind - would have done better (I would have  called on Drew myself, for whatever that's worth).

If they wanted an actor with gravitas, Tom Selleck would have been a good pick.

Sadly, I think at Clint's age, the cross country flight, the pressure of a "surprise speaker" and speaking extemporaneously was just a bad combination.  It left me feeling sad.

Keep your day jobs, Republicans, and let comedians handle comedy.  Comedy is difficult.

If it wasn't meant to be comedy, then I am not sure what Clint's segment was supposed to be (what with the take on Harvey the rabbit with the empty chair for the President).

Thursday, August 30, 2012

The real war on women

Okay, too much Kool-Aid has been consumed in this country.  I am so tired of the ignorant, including Jay Leno, claiming the Republicans are waging war on women.  Taking a position on freedom of religion, and the fact that a woman can easily afford a $4.00 a month prescription from WalMart for birth control is not waging a war on women.  Requiring an organization that performs abortions to seek private funding again is not waging a war on women.

What is a REAL war on women is as follows, and has been perpetrated by this administration and its party.

1)  In November, 2009, a Government health panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose positions influence what is paid under Medicare, and thus trickles down to insurance companies, says women should not get mammogram screenings in their 40s, should only get mammograms once every other year between 50 and 75  ( ), then after that, well, who the hell cares - when you are a woman over 75 you are only a drain on the system, right?  The same government panel also claims breast self-exams are worthless.  I personally know several women who saved their own lives with breast self-exams and finding lumps, but hey, that just can't be true, can it?  After all, the government panel says breast self-exams are worthless, and the government must be right.  This task force's guidelines, released under the Obama administration (and in conjunction or as a prelude to Obamacare, it seems), will result in higher death rates down the road, if followed.  Fortunately, not many doctors are following it.  And, if women have to pay out of pocket for regular mammograms (far more expensive than $48.00 a year for BCP), many will forego the needed exams.  To me, this equals a war on women.

2)  In March 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, again, that pesky government task force, under the Obama administration, released new cervical cancer screening guidelines, again reducing the amount of screening women will ultimately get.  You can read the guidelines here but in a nutshell, screening is to take place every 3-5 years for women between 21 and 65 (women are sexually active outside that age range) , and, more importantly, in the "throw grandma under the bus" theme, "The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than age 65 years . . . ."  Because, once again, older women are only a drain on the country, so let 'em die of cervical cancer for lack of adequate screening.  Again, PAP and HPV tests cost way more than $48.00 a year prescriptions for birth control pills at WalMart, so let's pay for the BCPs and not the screening that can save women's lives, right Mr. President and the Democratic Party?  More war on women thanks to those who claim the Republicans are waging a war on women because, they don't want to pay for BCPs for recreational sex or pay for abortions.

People, open your eyes and educate yourself.  Don't listen to party rhetoric.  I know that people like Jay Leno (who claimed the Republican party was waging a war on women earlier this week when he was interviewing Dennis Miller) won't read this, but I hope a few people will and learn what a real war on women entails.  A war on women allows women to die from lack of adequate screening - it does not result from asking women to take responsibility for their own recreation and pay less than $50.00 a year for birth control, or if they decide to take the life of the child they conceived, to pay for that choice as well.  Women can choose, but choices have consequences and costs, and those costs should not be borne by American taxpayers who had no hand in the woman's choice to have sex, become pregnant and terminate the pregnancy.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Chris Matthews is appalling

The verdict is in.  There can be no denial at this point.  After Mr. Matthews' appalling behaior on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning (see here ) not only has he confirmed that he is a failure as a journalist (who is supposed to be unbiased, and have integrity), but he is a failure as a human being as well.

No one one that show could stomach what Mr. Tingly Leg was doing in ranting and screaming at Reince Priebus - Just listen to Mika, Joe and Tom.  At one point Tom Brokaw even shakes his head in disbelief.  Chris so loves the sound of his own voice he wouldn't let it subside for anyone - not the hosts of the show, not the guest he was berating, not even for Tom Brokaw.

So, my question for NBC is, in light of the need for parity in political exposure, will NBC be giving airtime to Mr. Matthews to rant insanely against a Democrat as well?  After all, shouldn't Mr. Matthews be an equal opportunity political abuser?  Or is his bias just accepted by the network?

If NBC and MSNBC have any desire to be taken seriously as journalistic sources, kindly fire this man for his unbalanced and biased behavior immediately.

Chris Murphy's shameful Congressional attendance record

Well, Linda McMahon's campaign ads have been pounding him for it, and while he originally pooh-poohed it, now Chris Murphy cannot deny his shameful attendance record.  Hearst's Connecticut newspapers analyzed Murphy's attendance and found that he missed 185 of 237 hearings overall in the 2007-2008 legislative session. 

Now, Murphy's people make the following contentions:
1) Murphy made 129 of the 132 votes during the 110 Congress.  My reply to that, is, if he didn't attend the hearings to educate himself on the issues on which he had to vote, how did he know how to vote?  Oh, that's right, you don't have to educate yourself when you vote in lockstep with your political party.  I vote for people who are smart, who educate themselves, who show up for work; not mindless sheep who do what a political party tells them.

2) Murphy (through a spokesperson) then complains that during the time Murphy missed those meetings, McMahon was off running her business and not saving the country.  What would Murphy have had McMahon do in 2007-2008, when she was a private citizen running a company?  Would Murphy have had her serve as an unpaid surrogate for him and do his job for him (if so, he should have told her, and informed voters that he was incapable of fulfilling his duties)?  The specific (idiotic to my mind) quote is "'While Chris was fighting for consumers in Congress, McMahon was fiddling while our economy burned, orchestrating pay-per-view events featuring inferno matches and necrophilia,' Marter said."  It should have read "While Chris missed over 75% of meetings/hearings, McMahon was busy running a business that employed many people.  As she was not an elected official, she had no duty to perform Murphy's job functions which he was neglecting."

I'm not a fan of WWE, but at least it appears Linda showed up for work; the same can't be said for Murphy.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Go Anderson!

For too long I have been listening to the inane ramblings of D. Wasserman-Schultz.  She is, in my eyes, someone who can not be believed.  Anderson Cooper went after her misquoting of the L.A. Times in a campaign fundraising email (fear mongering once again), and didn't back off.  Despite his reading to her (over her constant interruptions - she seems to love the sound of her own voice) the exact quote from the LA Times, she doubled down on her misrepresentation and it is all here:

It's so rare to see the media so doggedly try to get the truth out of a politician/campaign spokesperson, that I applaud Anderson for being so determined to get the truth out there.  Great job Anderson!  And Debbie, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of intelligent Americans, no matter how hard you lie.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Idiots abound

The political season is in full swing, and apparently it causes foot in mouth disease at a minimum, and idiocy to show itself.

While VP Joe Biden and the White House have doubled down on the "put y'all back in chains" comment (and, did you catch the inflection and tone used?  There is no question when you hear how old Joe said it, the race baiting meaning was clear.  Former VA Governor Wilder noted it and called Biden on it ), Todd Akin, who won Missouri's GOP Senate primary earlier this month and will square off against incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill November's Senate race at least apologized and "took back" his comments referring to "legitimate rape".  Seriously, what type of person would put those two words together as a phrase?  Why do men always say incredibly bone-headed things when it comes to women and our bodies (although, kudos to Sandra Fluke for showing that not only men are boneheads - women can be equally boneheaded - no, I don't want to pay for your partying costs, Ms. Fluke, since you won't pay for my recreational travel costs. . . .)?

Words to the wise, Mr. Akin:  until you grow a uterus or are raped yourself, kindly do not speak of rape and its effect on the female body.  Thank you.