There were quite a few great lines in the movie Forrest Gump, including the one above. Our President proved the one above earlier this week, when during a press conference, when asked about the arrest of a Harvard Professor, he said the following:
" Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place. So far, so good, right? . . . They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is [presumably from only talking with the professor], at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." See transcript published at http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07/obama_july_22_2009_press_confe.html
Now, the President says that he's biased as a friend of the Professor. He also says, not once, but twice that he doesn't know the facts. And then he says one of the parties, the police (whom he notably did not call his friends) "acted stupidly". Yes, there was "stupid" [using the President's choice of words] behavior in connection with this incident, and it happened during the press conference with this response to a question about a local to Cambridge incident that the President had no business addressing.
Any person with a modicum of decent legal training would never say out loud, in a press conference no less, something along the lines of "I don't have all the facts, but I proclaim party A behaved stupidly." Especially when the person making the statement really should be an impartial party. After all, the President does not represent the professor. Instead, he should be doing his best to promote racial harmony in this country.
In fact, this President is in a unique position to work to bring the races together in this country, but he forewent the opportunity during the campaign, and he forewent the opportunity during the press conference this week. Instead, he just stirred up racial disharmony at the end of the press conference.
Notably, this sort of thing [aka foot in mouth disease] seems to show up most when the President is not reading off the teleprompter, but is answering questions off the cuff. Perhaps that's why, when a teleprompter blew over at the Air Force Academy graduation Vice President Biden quipped "what am I going to tell the President when I tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/05/27/biden_jokes_about_breaking_obamas_teleprompter_.html
While the President, first refused to apologize for his words, now he seems to be trying to back away from them (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090724/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar ), unfortunately damage has been done. An out and out public apology is required. And, a word to the wise - even if the President learns all the facts, please stay out of a local Cambridge matter.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Memo to Bill O'Reilly: MYOB
Sad news this week: Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara, who gave birth to twin boys at the age of 66 has passed away. The boys are in the care of Maria's brother, their uncle, the last I heard, and they will be doing fine.
Unfortunately, men who seem to have a need to control women, and/or misogynists, have taken this story to use to push their own agendas. Last night, Bill O'Reilly went on a tirade, saying among other things that menopause is nature's way of telling women that they can no longer have children. He also said that to have children after menopause was "unnatural", and that there should be a law that makes it illegal for a woman to have children after she has entered menopause.
There are so many things wrong with Bill's rant, it's difficult to know where to start. Let's start with the law, shall we? Thanks to Roe v. Wade, the government, if not Bill O'Reilly, acknowledges a right to privacy, and a right for a woman to have control over her own body. So, if a woman has a right to choose to kill the baby growing inside of her, why doesn't she have a right to decide to conceive a baby? One would think Bill would be all for this proposition.
Who will be in charge of enforcing Bill's law? Will there be menopause police? If so, Bill, I can tell you that if you or any of your menopause police come by my home to "certify" my uterus as menopausal, you and the boys will be leaving without two or three of your accoutrements that you hold most near and dear.
Just because a woman is young is no guarantee she will be around to raise her children. A 28 year old mom of four can get hit by a bus, be severely beaten or killed by her boyfriend or husband (just look into the headlines every year), die in a car accidents, or, as what happened to a woman I know, contract breast cancer. Just because a woman is young and is capable of giving birth does not mean that she will be around to raise her kids or that she will be a good mother either. Bill's law would also prevent those cases in close, loving families where the grandmother is able to carry her grandchild(ren) for the parents who can't.
Where was all this outrage, Bill, when Tony Randall was fathering children (he was 75 years old when he married a 25 year old) when he was 77 and 78? Tony died when his children were only about 5 and 6. Where was all this outrage, Bill, when James Doohan (Scotty of the Star Trek series) fathered a child at age 80, who, when her father died at 85, was only 4-5 years old? Where was Bill's outrage about elderly fathers leaving children fatherless? Why is it OK, in O'Reilly's book, for geriatric men to father children and die without raising them? Is it because they have much younger wives to raise the child? Women don't have the luxury of being able to marry much younger women; the woman in question, though, does have a family with whom she could and did entrust the care of her children.
Finally, Bill, if you think menopause is nature's way of telling women something, then why isn't Erectile Dysfunction nature's way of telling men to put "it" into mothballs and to retire "it"? Applying your own words to ED, isn't it unnatural for men to be taking Levit ra (purposeful misspellings - I don't want ads for these products to show up on this webpage) Vi agra and Cia lis? So, let's legislate that men going through ED cannot take any medicines to help them "stand and salute" because it's nature's way of telling them their time is done. And, think of how much money it would save the health care system - it's ironic that ED meds are covered for men, but birth control pills for women are, more often than not, not covered by insurance .
My condolences to the family of Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara. Take excellent care of those little boys. And ignore the fools who wish to make Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara's decision into political hay. What she chose to do was her choice and it was a private decision.
Women should be very concerned about men who want to try to legislate about their reproductive rights, whether you agree with the age issue or not. It's a slippery slope.
Unfortunately, men who seem to have a need to control women, and/or misogynists, have taken this story to use to push their own agendas. Last night, Bill O'Reilly went on a tirade, saying among other things that menopause is nature's way of telling women that they can no longer have children. He also said that to have children after menopause was "unnatural", and that there should be a law that makes it illegal for a woman to have children after she has entered menopause.
There are so many things wrong with Bill's rant, it's difficult to know where to start. Let's start with the law, shall we? Thanks to Roe v. Wade, the government, if not Bill O'Reilly, acknowledges a right to privacy, and a right for a woman to have control over her own body. So, if a woman has a right to choose to kill the baby growing inside of her, why doesn't she have a right to decide to conceive a baby? One would think Bill would be all for this proposition.
Who will be in charge of enforcing Bill's law? Will there be menopause police? If so, Bill, I can tell you that if you or any of your menopause police come by my home to "certify" my uterus as menopausal, you and the boys will be leaving without two or three of your accoutrements that you hold most near and dear.
Just because a woman is young is no guarantee she will be around to raise her children. A 28 year old mom of four can get hit by a bus, be severely beaten or killed by her boyfriend or husband (just look into the headlines every year), die in a car accidents, or, as what happened to a woman I know, contract breast cancer. Just because a woman is young and is capable of giving birth does not mean that she will be around to raise her kids or that she will be a good mother either. Bill's law would also prevent those cases in close, loving families where the grandmother is able to carry her grandchild(ren) for the parents who can't.
Where was all this outrage, Bill, when Tony Randall was fathering children (he was 75 years old when he married a 25 year old) when he was 77 and 78? Tony died when his children were only about 5 and 6. Where was all this outrage, Bill, when James Doohan (Scotty of the Star Trek series) fathered a child at age 80, who, when her father died at 85, was only 4-5 years old? Where was Bill's outrage about elderly fathers leaving children fatherless? Why is it OK, in O'Reilly's book, for geriatric men to father children and die without raising them? Is it because they have much younger wives to raise the child? Women don't have the luxury of being able to marry much younger women; the woman in question, though, does have a family with whom she could and did entrust the care of her children.
Finally, Bill, if you think menopause is nature's way of telling women something, then why isn't Erectile Dysfunction nature's way of telling men to put "it" into mothballs and to retire "it"? Applying your own words to ED, isn't it unnatural for men to be taking Levit ra (purposeful misspellings - I don't want ads for these products to show up on this webpage) Vi agra and Cia lis? So, let's legislate that men going through ED cannot take any medicines to help them "stand and salute" because it's nature's way of telling them their time is done. And, think of how much money it would save the health care system - it's ironic that ED meds are covered for men, but birth control pills for women are, more often than not, not covered by insurance .
My condolences to the family of Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara. Take excellent care of those little boys. And ignore the fools who wish to make Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara's decision into political hay. What she chose to do was her choice and it was a private decision.
Women should be very concerned about men who want to try to legislate about their reproductive rights, whether you agree with the age issue or not. It's a slippery slope.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Personal Responsibility
Where has this country's sense of personal responsibility gone? A recent New York Daily New opinion headline recently spoke volumes about the missing sense of personal responsibility: "Immigration laws are breaking families apart, deporting too many parents with US-born children", a piece by Albor Ruiz.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/09/2009-07-09_immigration_laws_are_breaking_families_apart
_deporting_too_many_parents_with_usb.html
In this "opinion piece" Mr. Ruiz weaves a bit of a fantasy - that evil U.S. immigration laws are the only reason his protagonist is being separated from his children. But U.S. immigration laws have nothing to do with why the father is being separated from his children (note, he has a child in Jamaica from whom he is separated while living in the United States). The reason this man is being deported has to do with a series of poor decisions he made, starting with the decision to come to the United States illegally, continuing with his decision to violate drug laws (for which he was convicted) and the decision to father four children in the U.S.without obtaining legal U.S. residency. It is these decisions that the deportee made of his own free will that is resulting in his deportation, not U.S. laws.
If we were to buy Mr. Ruiz's argument that the U.S. should not deport this man, or enforce our immigration laws because to do so would separate a father from his children, then why should we enforce other laws against parents as to do so would separate them from their U.S. children? For example, if a parent were convicted of bank robbery, extortion, theft or murder, under Mr. Ruiz's argument, if would be heartless and cruel to send those parents to prison, since to do so would separate them from their children. Such a result would not only be ridiculous, but unfair. For example, laws would then be applied more harshly against those who never had children than against those who did.
The deportee made his choices all by himself and now he must deal with the consequences. He needs to explain to his children about his wrong and foolish decisions - decisions he made to violate more than a few U.S. laws - the U.S. government and the legal citizens of the United States do not.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/07/09/2009-07-09_immigration_laws_are_breaking_families_apart
_deporting_too_many_parents_with_usb.html
In this "opinion piece" Mr. Ruiz weaves a bit of a fantasy - that evil U.S. immigration laws are the only reason his protagonist is being separated from his children. But U.S. immigration laws have nothing to do with why the father is being separated from his children (note, he has a child in Jamaica from whom he is separated while living in the United States). The reason this man is being deported has to do with a series of poor decisions he made, starting with the decision to come to the United States illegally, continuing with his decision to violate drug laws (for which he was convicted) and the decision to father four children in the U.S.without obtaining legal U.S. residency. It is these decisions that the deportee made of his own free will that is resulting in his deportation, not U.S. laws.
If we were to buy Mr. Ruiz's argument that the U.S. should not deport this man, or enforce our immigration laws because to do so would separate a father from his children, then why should we enforce other laws against parents as to do so would separate them from their U.S. children? For example, if a parent were convicted of bank robbery, extortion, theft or murder, under Mr. Ruiz's argument, if would be heartless and cruel to send those parents to prison, since to do so would separate them from their children. Such a result would not only be ridiculous, but unfair. For example, laws would then be applied more harshly against those who never had children than against those who did.
The deportee made his choices all by himself and now he must deal with the consequences. He needs to explain to his children about his wrong and foolish decisions - decisions he made to violate more than a few U.S. laws - the U.S. government and the legal citizens of the United States do not.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Truth or a shell game?
Well, I couldn't believe my eyes and ears the other night when I saw a press conference given by NY Senator Charles Schumer during which he used the following words: "People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens, and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who entered the United States legally." http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=314990 Wow! Someone is finally grasping the concept that the United States of America is a country of laws.
Personally, I always, as the granddaughter of legal emigrants to the United States, have been offended by the tendency of our elected officials and the media to refer to people here illegally as "undocumented workers" or "immigrants". Immigrants come to this country legally, learn our customs, follow our laws and wish to add value to our nation. Illegal aliens do none of the above, and, in fact, show the quality of their character by making their first act in our country one that is in violation of our laws.
After reading Senator Schumer's press release and comments (link above), I applaud what he had to say, for the most part. I do however, take umbrage at one of his seven principals: " All illegal aliens present in the United States on the date of enactment of our bill must quickly register their presence with the United States Government—and submit to a rigorous process of converting to legal status and earning a path to citizenship—or face imminent deportation." I have no problem with the requirement that illegal aliens register; I do however, have a problem with any attempt to "reward" illegals by allowing them to "buy" their way to citizenship with taxes and fines or to jump ahead of those who are trying to come to the United States legally.
I urge everyone to read what the Senator said, but to take it with a grain of salt. The cynic in me questions whether the Senator is saying what he thinks Americans want to hear so that we will be less vigilant at Congress' next attempt at "comprehensive immigration reform". We need to remain vigilant and to watch Congress' every step on this matter, or we will have a repeat of 1986's mass amnesty (aka the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) , regardless of press releases that say what we would like to hear.
Personally, I always, as the granddaughter of legal emigrants to the United States, have been offended by the tendency of our elected officials and the media to refer to people here illegally as "undocumented workers" or "immigrants". Immigrants come to this country legally, learn our customs, follow our laws and wish to add value to our nation. Illegal aliens do none of the above, and, in fact, show the quality of their character by making their first act in our country one that is in violation of our laws.
After reading Senator Schumer's press release and comments (link above), I applaud what he had to say, for the most part. I do however, take umbrage at one of his seven principals: " All illegal aliens present in the United States on the date of enactment of our bill must quickly register their presence with the United States Government—and submit to a rigorous process of converting to legal status and earning a path to citizenship—or face imminent deportation." I have no problem with the requirement that illegal aliens register; I do however, have a problem with any attempt to "reward" illegals by allowing them to "buy" their way to citizenship with taxes and fines or to jump ahead of those who are trying to come to the United States legally.
I urge everyone to read what the Senator said, but to take it with a grain of salt. The cynic in me questions whether the Senator is saying what he thinks Americans want to hear so that we will be less vigilant at Congress' next attempt at "comprehensive immigration reform". We need to remain vigilant and to watch Congress' every step on this matter, or we will have a repeat of 1986's mass amnesty (aka the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) , regardless of press releases that say what we would like to hear.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy July 4!
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Thank you to all those brave souls who made and continue to make this day possible for us.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Thank you to all those brave souls who made and continue to make this day possible for us.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
To paraphrase Ricky Ricardo. . .
South Carolina, you got some 'splaining to do!
I am generally considered a fairly bright person, however, I am just not understanding this whole scenario. S.C. Governor Mark Sanford goes to South America last year as part of a tax-payer funded trip (why? What possible business does a Governor have globe trotting on the taxpayer's dime? But, I digress. For the purposes of this post, we'll presume the trip itself was valid.). Governor Sanford, once he is caught with his hand in the proverbial Argentinian cookie jar, confesses to an affair, and pays back $3,330 to the state treasurer to pay for the cost previously charged to taxpayers for his rendezvous. http://www.thesunnews.com/news/breaking_news/story/962319.html
The State Law Enforcement Division "(SLED") then claims to conduct an investigation into the improper use of taxpayer money by Governor Sanford, when he used the money to visit his mistress. Today, SLED states there were no improprieties. http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/politics/article/south_carolina_investigators_say_governor_did_not_break_law_to_visit_mistre/40425/
I just don't get it. Either it's alright for Governors to use taxpayer dollars to visit their mistresses, in which case Governor Sanford didn't have to pay back the $3,300 to the state; or there was an impropriety. Somebody from SLED really needs to explain to me how this scenario is any different from a bank robber who is caught and who promises to pay back the money stolen. Why do we prosecute the bank robber, but we say an elected official did nothing wrong in using a taxpayer funded trip to see his mistress?
As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property. " And, I would add, act accordingly.
I am generally considered a fairly bright person, however, I am just not understanding this whole scenario. S.C. Governor Mark Sanford goes to South America last year as part of a tax-payer funded trip (why? What possible business does a Governor have globe trotting on the taxpayer's dime? But, I digress. For the purposes of this post, we'll presume the trip itself was valid.). Governor Sanford, once he is caught with his hand in the proverbial Argentinian cookie jar, confesses to an affair, and pays back $3,330 to the state treasurer to pay for the cost previously charged to taxpayers for his rendezvous. http://www.thesunnews.com/news/breaking_news/story/962319.html
The State Law Enforcement Division "(SLED") then claims to conduct an investigation into the improper use of taxpayer money by Governor Sanford, when he used the money to visit his mistress. Today, SLED states there were no improprieties. http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/politics/article/south_carolina_investigators_say_governor_did_not_break_law_to_visit_mistre/40425/
I just don't get it. Either it's alright for Governors to use taxpayer dollars to visit their mistresses, in which case Governor Sanford didn't have to pay back the $3,300 to the state; or there was an impropriety. Somebody from SLED really needs to explain to me how this scenario is any different from a bank robber who is caught and who promises to pay back the money stolen. Why do we prosecute the bank robber, but we say an elected official did nothing wrong in using a taxpayer funded trip to see his mistress?
As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property. " And, I would add, act accordingly.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Memo to the Press: Bug Off!
The press has just gone over the edge. It continues to show just how crazily enamored with the President it is. Normally, I'd provide a link for you to check out the story, but, I am sorry, I just cannot bring myself to give these news outlets any more hits. I will tell you that both the Today Show this morning, and my local NBC station last night "reported" this inane so-called"story".
Apparently, it is breaking news that, during a taped interview, the President, actually, on his own, managed to ------ prepare yourself for this ----- swat a fly. Not only that, but, he also picked it up and threw it away when the interview was over. Are you not overly impressed with our President's amazing capabilities? It seems the press cannot get over the fact that the President performed this normal, everyday feat, as, well, a normal, everyday person would.
It's as if the press has consumed some sort of potion (think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) and needs to be poked and made to wake up out of its Obama worship. Fly swatting is neither news, nor is it "human interest". Now, if they can play me video of the President swatting Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that would be news, especially since the President has, unsurprisingly, been channeling Neville Chamberlain for so long (and we all know where Neville brought us).
To the press (and you know who you are): it's really time to get over this insane infatuation and start doing your job.
Apparently, it is breaking news that, during a taped interview, the President, actually, on his own, managed to ------ prepare yourself for this ----- swat a fly. Not only that, but, he also picked it up and threw it away when the interview was over. Are you not overly impressed with our President's amazing capabilities? It seems the press cannot get over the fact that the President performed this normal, everyday feat, as, well, a normal, everyday person would.
It's as if the press has consumed some sort of potion (think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) and needs to be poked and made to wake up out of its Obama worship. Fly swatting is neither news, nor is it "human interest". Now, if they can play me video of the President swatting Kim Jong-il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that would be news, especially since the President has, unsurprisingly, been channeling Neville Chamberlain for so long (and we all know where Neville brought us).
To the press (and you know who you are): it's really time to get over this insane infatuation and start doing your job.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Interesting Quote
I came across a quote today that I liked and I thought I would share it. It's just as meaningful today (if not more so), than it was in William Penn's time.
"Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."
- William Penn
"Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."
- William Penn
Monday, June 8, 2009
No better conclusion
By now, we have all heard the infamous quote from President Obama's choice for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor: ""I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/05/sotomayors_deliberate_choice_o.html And by now, we have all heard the comments that if you switched "latina woman" with "white male" no one would argue that such a comment wasn't racist. But, today, we get to move beyond all this.
After all, today Judge Sotomayor showed us that she really didn't reach a better conclusion. Apparently, today, she "chose poorly" when she concluded to zig rather than zag as she raced through LaGuardia Airport. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171316/
And we taxpayers "footed" the bill for the necessary medical care she received due to her poor choices. If she is confirmed to the Supreme Court, how much more will American taxpayers have to pay for her future poor choices?
After all, today Judge Sotomayor showed us that she really didn't reach a better conclusion. Apparently, today, she "chose poorly" when she concluded to zig rather than zag as she raced through LaGuardia Airport. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171316/
And we taxpayers "footed" the bill for the necessary medical care she received due to her poor choices. If she is confirmed to the Supreme Court, how much more will American taxpayers have to pay for her future poor choices?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Laugh of the week plus an observation.
Busy times, but, I just cannot resist reporting on this one. Apparently, when asked as to why he declined to have dinner with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, President Obama responded: ""I would love nothing more than to have a leisurely week in Paris, stroll down the Seine, take my wife out to a nice meal, have a picnic in Luxembourg Gardens. Those days are over, for the moment." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-sarkozy7-2009jun07,0,6511298.story?track=rss Hmm, when I lived in France as an exchange student, the Seine was a river, not an avenue or road, like the Champs d'Elysee, down which one could stroll. One cannot stroll down the Seine River, although one can stroll along the river on the left and right banks of the Seine and can stroll down the Champs d'Elysee. I truly hope the President does not believe his own press and now thinks that he can, indeed, walk on water.
And, given that President Obama had yet another "date night" with his wife in Paris on Saturday night, it does seem to me he easily could have fit in dinner with President Sarkozy. When I asked my husband why we don't go on as many "date nights" as the Obamas do (New York City, Paris, France, and who knows where else), he responded "Because I don't receive taxpayer dollars with which to take you out." Perhaps a little more diplomacy and a little less familial extravagance is more appropriate at this time when so many American families can't afford to pay their mortgages or obtain health care.
So far, I am not seeing much "change", but I am seeing an awful lot of "Yes we can - spend billions of taxpayer dollars."
And, given that President Obama had yet another "date night" with his wife in Paris on Saturday night, it does seem to me he easily could have fit in dinner with President Sarkozy. When I asked my husband why we don't go on as many "date nights" as the Obamas do (New York City, Paris, France, and who knows where else), he responded "Because I don't receive taxpayer dollars with which to take you out." Perhaps a little more diplomacy and a little less familial extravagance is more appropriate at this time when so many American families can't afford to pay their mortgages or obtain health care.
So far, I am not seeing much "change", but I am seeing an awful lot of "Yes we can - spend billions of taxpayer dollars."
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Clarification
As you may have noticed, there are ads on this website. I do not choose them,and I have no idea how they are chosen and placed. However, upon occasion, I see ads for Chris Dodd's re-election campaign. Let me make this perfectly clear: I do not endorse Chris Dodd for Senate. I do call and hope for the people of Connecticut to retire Chris Dodd in November, 2010.
I do not choose nor do I endorse any candidate at this time.
I do not choose nor do I endorse any candidate at this time.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Laugh of the Day
During today's Meet the Press, there was, at least to me, a very amusing moment. The panel was discussing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference earlier this past week (Wednesday, May 13, I believe) in which she gave a less than admirable and rather rambling performance. Peggy Noonan made the following comment regarding that press conference: "Dazed and confused is a bad way for a speaker of the House to look." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30755466/page/6/ To me, it was not only an appropriate comment, given the behavior during the press conference, but it was so amusing as, to me, it was so reminiscent of a famous line from a well-known movie: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son." So said Dean Wormer in Animal House.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Where have the public servants gone?
A long time ago, in a land comprised of colonies that had just thrown off the tyranny of an oppressive government that provided the colonies with no representation, a group of very intelligent people came together and put together a new form of government. These men were not career politicians - they were public servants in the true sense of the word.
Flash forward 220 plus years, and you have to ask: "Where have all the public servants gone?" At some point, this country started electing politicians who served only two masters - themselves and their political party. The voters, the people, were forgotten, except at election time. Apparently, many elected officials have come to conclusion that public service is not about serving the public, but, rather, is "all about me".
Today, in an appalling but enlightening interview on Meet the Press, Senator Arlen Specter acknowledged that he switched his party affiliation based on his re-election concerns for 2010. Apparently polling and other information (not detailed) told him that he stood a better chance at re-election if he ran as a Democrat and not as a Republican. "Well, well, since that time [early April, 2009] I undertook a very thorough survey of Republicans in Pennsylvania with polling and a lot of personal contacts, and it became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket were, were bleak. And I'm simply not going to subject my 29-year record in the United States Senate to that Republican primary electorate." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30535930/
To me, this is wrong on so many levels. First, when he last ran for office as a Republican, the Senator formed a contract with the voters, in essence saying "this is who I am, a Republican, and this is what I stand for, so vote for me. If you vote for me, this is what you will get." The people voted for him, and before his term is through, he decides to change his mind about who he is, what he stands for and how he will represent the people who elected him. I believe that people can and should change their minds as situations may warrant; however, I believe they should also do the honorable thing. If you change your party affiliation mid-term, step down and cause a special election to be called. Then, if you wish to remain in office, run as a member of your new party, and let the people decide if they wish to make a new contract with you and vote for you. Otherwise, you retain your office wrongfully, having broken your contract with the people who elected you.
Second, when David Gregory asked him whether he would be retaining his seniority and other Senate perks after switching affiliations, the Senator imperiously declared that he "earned" such "entitlements" with his seniority. "Entitlements" and "entitled" are two words that define some of the biggest problems with our elected officials. We the people need to remind our elected officials that they serve at the will of the people and are "entitled" to nothing, other than an acknowledgment of a job well done, if applicable, after their term is finished.
This sense of entitlement is why our elected officials have health care when a large number of Americans do not; why they have the best health care in the world, while Americans lack access to the same; why they vote themselves automatic raises without requesting such raises from the taxpayers who much pay for such raises. The claim of entitlement asserted by the Senator only strengthens the image Americans have of our Congress as the fox guarding the chicken coop.
The Senator also claimed to have fought to strengthen the Republican Party and yet, without completing such battle, he abandons it for the Democratic Party in order to better his re-election chances. It's difficult for me to respect decisions like that.
At 79 years old, it is time for the Senator to retire. I would hope that the people of Pennsylvania will see this and will retire him, no matter which party they vote for in 2010. Please, do not send Senator Specter back - he admitted today that he bases decisions on approval ratings and whether he can be re-elected and on the apparently all-important entitlements he can get. I didn't hear much, if anything, about his concern for his constituents. Please retire him and send a true public servant to the Senate - someone who puts the people of the United States of America above all else, including him/herself and the party.
Flash forward 220 plus years, and you have to ask: "Where have all the public servants gone?" At some point, this country started electing politicians who served only two masters - themselves and their political party. The voters, the people, were forgotten, except at election time. Apparently, many elected officials have come to conclusion that public service is not about serving the public, but, rather, is "all about me".
Today, in an appalling but enlightening interview on Meet the Press, Senator Arlen Specter acknowledged that he switched his party affiliation based on his re-election concerns for 2010. Apparently polling and other information (not detailed) told him that he stood a better chance at re-election if he ran as a Democrat and not as a Republican. "Well, well, since that time [early April, 2009] I undertook a very thorough survey of Republicans in Pennsylvania with polling and a lot of personal contacts, and it became apparent to me that my chances to be elected on the Republican ticket were, were bleak. And I'm simply not going to subject my 29-year record in the United States Senate to that Republican primary electorate." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30535930/
To me, this is wrong on so many levels. First, when he last ran for office as a Republican, the Senator formed a contract with the voters, in essence saying "this is who I am, a Republican, and this is what I stand for, so vote for me. If you vote for me, this is what you will get." The people voted for him, and before his term is through, he decides to change his mind about who he is, what he stands for and how he will represent the people who elected him. I believe that people can and should change their minds as situations may warrant; however, I believe they should also do the honorable thing. If you change your party affiliation mid-term, step down and cause a special election to be called. Then, if you wish to remain in office, run as a member of your new party, and let the people decide if they wish to make a new contract with you and vote for you. Otherwise, you retain your office wrongfully, having broken your contract with the people who elected you.
Second, when David Gregory asked him whether he would be retaining his seniority and other Senate perks after switching affiliations, the Senator imperiously declared that he "earned" such "entitlements" with his seniority. "Entitlements" and "entitled" are two words that define some of the biggest problems with our elected officials. We the people need to remind our elected officials that they serve at the will of the people and are "entitled" to nothing, other than an acknowledgment of a job well done, if applicable, after their term is finished.
This sense of entitlement is why our elected officials have health care when a large number of Americans do not; why they have the best health care in the world, while Americans lack access to the same; why they vote themselves automatic raises without requesting such raises from the taxpayers who much pay for such raises. The claim of entitlement asserted by the Senator only strengthens the image Americans have of our Congress as the fox guarding the chicken coop.
The Senator also claimed to have fought to strengthen the Republican Party and yet, without completing such battle, he abandons it for the Democratic Party in order to better his re-election chances. It's difficult for me to respect decisions like that.
At 79 years old, it is time for the Senator to retire. I would hope that the people of Pennsylvania will see this and will retire him, no matter which party they vote for in 2010. Please, do not send Senator Specter back - he admitted today that he bases decisions on approval ratings and whether he can be re-elected and on the apparently all-important entitlements he can get. I didn't hear much, if anything, about his concern for his constituents. Please retire him and send a true public servant to the Senate - someone who puts the people of the United States of America above all else, including him/herself and the party.
Monday, April 27, 2009
So long Pontiac.
As a long-time Pontiac owner (almost 20 years), this morning I sadly awoke to see the news - General Motors, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to kill off the Pontiac brand of cars. After the past year(s) of destroying the value of its shares, and the lives of its stockholders, employees and retirees (I know some would argue that the employees/unions contributed to the problem, but I am not going to address that for two reasons - I won't "kick 'em when they are down", and I believe overpaid management/executives to be a bigger problem), I can't say that I am surprised. I am disappointed, however.
And puzzled as well. Why Pontiac? Why not Buick (it just seems incredulous that it is more profitable to stay with Buick). Why not GMC - it's made on the same platform as Chevy trucks, or so I am told, and larger vehicles are so passe these days (e.g. too expensive to purchase, to operate, to maintain, and bad for the environment).
CEO Fritz Henderson reportedly said at a news conference today, supposedly in reference to discontinuing Pontiac: "We only want to do this once." If that's the case, Fritz, you can't kill Pontiac - because GM already did "this" once - when GM killed off Oldsmobile in 2004.
My spouse has been a long, long-time Ford fan. And, from the past year or so, I have come to agree that it's time for me to check out Fords again. Bill Ford, Executive Chairman of the Ford Motor Company, has impressed me with his television appearances. I've also been impressed by the fact that, although Ford Motor Company did not need or ask for Federal funds, the company traveled to Washington in support of its beleagured competitors. FMC has managed to more than stay afloat, and to avoid asking for government bailouts, and to keep its customers loyal and happy, all with minimal layoffs (compared to GM).
So, General Motors, as you unceremoniously kill off Pontiac and force me to say good-bye to my favorite cars, I will tell you this: Say good-bye to me as a customer. I've put up with a lot from GM over the years, but, killing off Pontiac is the last straw. When I go shopping for my next new car, GM will not be on my list. Ford Motor Company, however, if it continues on its path through this economic slump with as much integrity and grace as it already has shown, will be on the top of my list.
And puzzled as well. Why Pontiac? Why not Buick (it just seems incredulous that it is more profitable to stay with Buick). Why not GMC - it's made on the same platform as Chevy trucks, or so I am told, and larger vehicles are so passe these days (e.g. too expensive to purchase, to operate, to maintain, and bad for the environment).
CEO Fritz Henderson reportedly said at a news conference today, supposedly in reference to discontinuing Pontiac: "We only want to do this once." If that's the case, Fritz, you can't kill Pontiac - because GM already did "this" once - when GM killed off Oldsmobile in 2004.
My spouse has been a long, long-time Ford fan. And, from the past year or so, I have come to agree that it's time for me to check out Fords again. Bill Ford, Executive Chairman of the Ford Motor Company, has impressed me with his television appearances. I've also been impressed by the fact that, although Ford Motor Company did not need or ask for Federal funds, the company traveled to Washington in support of its beleagured competitors. FMC has managed to more than stay afloat, and to avoid asking for government bailouts, and to keep its customers loyal and happy, all with minimal layoffs (compared to GM).
So, General Motors, as you unceremoniously kill off Pontiac and force me to say good-bye to my favorite cars, I will tell you this: Say good-bye to me as a customer. I've put up with a lot from GM over the years, but, killing off Pontiac is the last straw. When I go shopping for my next new car, GM will not be on my list. Ford Motor Company, however, if it continues on its path through this economic slump with as much integrity and grace as it already has shown, will be on the top of my list.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Support for term limits.
Here in Connecticut we have the quintessential evidence for term limits. Christopher Dodd was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1981. His latest term expires in 2010. While I am sure much can be said about his prior terms, it's this last term that truly make the point for term limits.
Some of the major faux pas committed by the Senator who is supposed to be representing the people of Connecticut include the following:
1) Changing his residency from Connecticut to Iowa during the course of, in my opinion, his incredibly narcissistic and pointless run for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. Changing his residency to another state should have required his resignation as Senator from Connecticut. Connecticut needs to change its laws in this respect (and also grant its citizens the right of recall, but that is a topic for another day) so that another Senator does not pull such a disrespectful stunt.
2) The "sweetheart" mortgage rate he obtained from Countrywide at a time when others were getting no such "deals".
3) Dodd's re-election campaign accepting $162,100 from AIG employees and their spouses after he sent out an email in November, 2006 requesting support for his re-election campaign. Ultimately, Dodd accepted $238,418 from AIG employees and their spouses. "http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/dodd_aig_contributions/2009/03/30/197552.html
4) Dodd adding a provision into legislation in February, 2009, which ultimately resulted in the allowance of $218 million in bonuses to be paid to AIG executives, after AIG had already received billions of dollars of taxpayer money from TARP. Note: AIG received another 29.8 Billion dollars of taxpayer money yesterday, April 21, 2009. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D97N4P580.htm
As head of the Senate Banking Committee, I have to ask, where was Senator Dodd while the financial and insurance industries were heading into a, and actually beginning to, melt-down? I know he wasn't asnwering my questions during that time.
I certainly don't understand why it consistently takes his office nine months to respond to my written concerns with a form letter that makes so little effort to address the issues raised, it's clear no one in the office truly reads what a constituent writes. By the time the nine months go by, usually no action can be taken on the issue. Perhaps that's the Senator's plan. I can say, however, that Senator Lieberman's office is very quick to respond with it's own vague and generally unresponsive form letters - usually within a matter of days.
On April 17, 2009, the News Times published a story indicating that for the first quarter of 2009, Dodd raised, $4,250 from just FIVE Connecticut residents. Dodd also accepted $604,745 from almost 400 individuals not living in Connecticut. http://www.newstimes.com/ci_12159339?IADID=Search-www.newstimes.com-www.newstimes.com To me, this simple story speaks volumes. It tells me that the people of Connecticut have withdrawn their support from the Senator; that the Senator is making little effort with the people of Connecticut; and that the Senator continues to prefer to deal with people and interests outside the state.
Needless to say, Senator Dodd has done nothing this past term to earn my vote, nor will he get it. I respectfully suggest that, if he wishes to return to the Senate, he return to Iowa and run there. Perhaps he can garner more than 60 votes there this time. http://content.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/results.aspx?sp=ia@oi=p&rti=e
As far as I am concerned, it's time to impose term limits on Senator Dodd.
Some of the major faux pas committed by the Senator who is supposed to be representing the people of Connecticut include the following:
1) Changing his residency from Connecticut to Iowa during the course of, in my opinion, his incredibly narcissistic and pointless run for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. Changing his residency to another state should have required his resignation as Senator from Connecticut. Connecticut needs to change its laws in this respect (and also grant its citizens the right of recall, but that is a topic for another day) so that another Senator does not pull such a disrespectful stunt.
2) The "sweetheart" mortgage rate he obtained from Countrywide at a time when others were getting no such "deals".
3) Dodd's re-election campaign accepting $162,100 from AIG employees and their spouses after he sent out an email in November, 2006 requesting support for his re-election campaign. Ultimately, Dodd accepted $238,418 from AIG employees and their spouses. "http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/dodd_aig_contributions/2009/03/30/197552.html
4) Dodd adding a provision into legislation in February, 2009, which ultimately resulted in the allowance of $218 million in bonuses to be paid to AIG executives, after AIG had already received billions of dollars of taxpayer money from TARP. Note: AIG received another 29.8 Billion dollars of taxpayer money yesterday, April 21, 2009. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D97N4P580.htm
As head of the Senate Banking Committee, I have to ask, where was Senator Dodd while the financial and insurance industries were heading into a, and actually beginning to, melt-down? I know he wasn't asnwering my questions during that time.
I certainly don't understand why it consistently takes his office nine months to respond to my written concerns with a form letter that makes so little effort to address the issues raised, it's clear no one in the office truly reads what a constituent writes. By the time the nine months go by, usually no action can be taken on the issue. Perhaps that's the Senator's plan. I can say, however, that Senator Lieberman's office is very quick to respond with it's own vague and generally unresponsive form letters - usually within a matter of days.
On April 17, 2009, the News Times published a story indicating that for the first quarter of 2009, Dodd raised, $4,250 from just FIVE Connecticut residents. Dodd also accepted $604,745 from almost 400 individuals not living in Connecticut. http://www.newstimes.com/ci_12159339?IADID=Search-www.newstimes.com-www.newstimes.com To me, this simple story speaks volumes. It tells me that the people of Connecticut have withdrawn their support from the Senator; that the Senator is making little effort with the people of Connecticut; and that the Senator continues to prefer to deal with people and interests outside the state.
Needless to say, Senator Dodd has done nothing this past term to earn my vote, nor will he get it. I respectfully suggest that, if he wishes to return to the Senate, he return to Iowa and run there. Perhaps he can garner more than 60 votes there this time. http://content.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/results.aspx?sp=ia@oi=p&rti=e
As far as I am concerned, it's time to impose term limits on Senator Dodd.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Parties
As an Independent voter, I am quite baffled and bemused by the media’s attempt to label the Tax Day Tea Parties as a Republican or conservative event. I attended an event held in at the Dutchess Stadium (seats approximately 4,300 people) in Fishkill, NY. According to MidHudson News, almost 4,000 people attended. The Poughkeepsie Journal indicated that the stadium was “almost full”. http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20090415/NEWS01/90415036 We were backed up on Interstate 84 for a couple of miles just trying to get to the event, and we had planned to arrive early. There were definitely independent voters attending, as well as Republicans, and, I believe, quite a few democrats. It was an interesting evening and program marked by a refreshing absence of name-calling and vicious personal attacks.
My purpose in attending was to protest the totally out of control spending going on right now, including the never-ending so-called “stimulus” and bailouts. These spending programs totaling trillions of dollars must be paid for. Although the President has promised a tax cut for those earning $250,000 or less per year, I believe that this is a temporary promise. These stimulus and bailout “chickens” will be coming home to roost, and all taxpayers will ultimately be called upon to pay for them with higher taxes.
Remember, politicians make promises and have no problem breaking them. In Connecticut, in 1990, as I recall, Lowell Weicker, Jr. ran for Governor and was elected, in my opinion, partially on his promise to solve the fiscal crisis in Connecticut without implementing a state income tax. However, shortly after taking office, Weicker became a staunch advocate of a state income tax, and even vetoed the General Assembly’s measure repealing the tax. Thus, today, Connecticut residents are subject to a state income tax thanks to a political candidate who, during his campaign, promised no state income tax.
The point is, at best, politicians change their minds; at worst, they tell the electorate what it wants to hear just to get into office.
My purpose in attending was to protest the totally out of control spending going on right now, including the never-ending so-called “stimulus” and bailouts. These spending programs totaling trillions of dollars must be paid for. Although the President has promised a tax cut for those earning $250,000 or less per year, I believe that this is a temporary promise. These stimulus and bailout “chickens” will be coming home to roost, and all taxpayers will ultimately be called upon to pay for them with higher taxes.
Remember, politicians make promises and have no problem breaking them. In Connecticut, in 1990, as I recall, Lowell Weicker, Jr. ran for Governor and was elected, in my opinion, partially on his promise to solve the fiscal crisis in Connecticut without implementing a state income tax. However, shortly after taking office, Weicker became a staunch advocate of a state income tax, and even vetoed the General Assembly’s measure repealing the tax. Thus, today, Connecticut residents are subject to a state income tax thanks to a political candidate who, during his campaign, promised no state income tax.
The point is, at best, politicians change their minds; at worst, they tell the electorate what it wants to hear just to get into office.
Eventually, each one of us will be paying for these bailouts, stimulus and other out of control spending plans (including studies regarding pig odors) with our own hard-earned tax dollars.
My favorite photo from the Fishkill event is above. As a graduate of the same college from which Mr. Geithner graduated, I was appalled and ashamed that Mr. Geithner would appear to place the blame for his failure to properly report and pay his taxes for four years on money he earned as a consultant on Turbo Tax. I’ve used Turbo Tax for years to do my taxes, and I have had no problem reporting the income I earned as a consultant/independent contractor. Not only has Turbo Tax prompted me for such income, I had the personal responsibility to keep track of my income in order to report it and pay taxes on it.
I am not a fan of “the dog ate my homework” type of excuse for personal failure. Ultimately, it is the taxpayer's personal responsibility to keep track of his or her income, to report it accurately, and to pay taxes on it.
My favorite photo from the Fishkill event is above. As a graduate of the same college from which Mr. Geithner graduated, I was appalled and ashamed that Mr. Geithner would appear to place the blame for his failure to properly report and pay his taxes for four years on money he earned as a consultant on Turbo Tax. I’ve used Turbo Tax for years to do my taxes, and I have had no problem reporting the income I earned as a consultant/independent contractor. Not only has Turbo Tax prompted me for such income, I had the personal responsibility to keep track of my income in order to report it and pay taxes on it.
I am not a fan of “the dog ate my homework” type of excuse for personal failure. Ultimately, it is the taxpayer's personal responsibility to keep track of his or her income, to report it accurately, and to pay taxes on it.
Welcome!
Thanks for checking out my page. I've decided, after sending numerous letters to my elected representatives only to receive back form letters that, at best, only tangentially discuss my concerns, and, at worst, indicate that the elected official and/or his (all my elected federal officials are male) staff fail to even comprehend the topic at hand, that it was time to voice my opinions a bit more publicly.
Remember, everything I write is an expression of my opinion.
I welcome comments and responses, but there will be simple rules. We will agree to disagree respectfully, and any posts that frame a personal attack or use vulgarity will not be posted. I thank you for your consideration in this regard. I look forward to a civil and intelligent discussion.
Remember, everything I write is an expression of my opinion.
I welcome comments and responses, but there will be simple rules. We will agree to disagree respectfully, and any posts that frame a personal attack or use vulgarity will not be posted. I thank you for your consideration in this regard. I look forward to a civil and intelligent discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)