Senate shows us they represent lobbyists and not citizens

The American Dream is over folks. This shows that the Liberal Democrats are just as paid off by corporations as Conservative Republicans, and have just as little desire to represent the people. Maybe now more of you will join me in voting third party (independent, green, libertarian, etc) in the mid-term congressional elections in 2010 and the presidential election in 2012.

I love that this was caught on film. It’s an excellent example of the attitude of our lawmakers. Having been paid off by the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and then making sure that only they are represented in the discussion of health care reform, citizens stand up and demand “their” representatives to represent their needs, and the response is that “we need more police” to shut them up. It’s Animal Farm. “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.”

See also: Single Payer Action

Bailout Bonuses for Executives, Lower Limits, Higher Interest, & Closed Accounts for Customers

The government bailed out these big financial companies with American taxpayer’s money, and now, instead of extending loans to customers, they are instead cutting people’s credit limits down to their balances, doubling and tripling their interest, and closing their accounts, even when they are in good standing and have never been late on a payment. They probably can’t afford to provide service to their customers in part due to massive executive bonuses. The bailout should have been more specific about how the money was to be spent. The reason it wasn’t, I’m sure, is that the right people got paid off. It’s not a problem caused by just Democrats or just Republicans; it’s symptomatic of corporate influence over our elected officials through lobbying and other means.

Happy Tax Day / Tea Party Day: An MSNBC Video Tribute to Fox News and the TeaBaggers

TEA BAGGERS are SWALLOWING WHOLE the Fox News STAFF's SCHTICK

MSNBC’s David Schuster: If You’re Planning Tea Bagging Across The Country, ‘You’re Going To Need A Dick Armey’

This is pretty damned funny! He uses most, if not all, of the innuendo I’ve already heard floating around…

I took the liberty of transcribing it:

“For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15th will be Tax Day, but in our fourth story tonight it’s going to be TEA-BAGGING day for the right wing and they are going NUTS for it! Thousands of the WHIPPED OUT the festivities early this weekend and though the parties are officially TOOTHLESS, the protesters are FULL-THROATED about their goals. They wanna give President Obama strong TONGUE-LASHING and LICK government spending. Spending they did not oppose when they were under Presidents Bush and Reagan. They oppose Mr. Obama’s tax rates which will be lower for most of them, and they oppose the tax increases Mr. Obama is imposing on the rich, whose taxes will skyrocket to a rate that’s about 10% less than it was under Reagan. That’s TEA-BAGGING, in a NUTSHELL. Taking it’s inspiration from the Boston Tea Party when colonists tossed British tea into the sea because the tax on it had not been voted on by their duly elected representatives. That’s exactly the opposite, of course, of todays’ taxes, which is known in some quarters as ‘Taxation With Representation’. But as New York Times coumnist Paul Crudeman points out today, this time the TEA-BAGGING is not a SPONTANEOUS UPRISING, the people who came up with it are a familiar circle of Republicans, including former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, and former house majority leader Dick Armey, both of whom have FIRM support from right wing financiers and lobbyists, as well as Washington prostitute patron, Senator David Vitter who has issued statements in support of TEA-BAGGING, but is publicly type-left. Then, there was the media, specifically the Fox ‘News’ Channel, including Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Both are looking forward to an UP CLOSE and PERSONAL TASTE of TEA-BAGGING, themselves at events this Wednesday. But most amusing of all is Neil Cavuto, a member of the network’s executive committee. Neil’s online bio says he joined the network in July 1996, three months before the Fox News channel went on the air. Cavuto, defending his network’s promotion of TEA-BAGGING, said, quote ‘We are going to be right in the middle of these [TEA-BAGGERS], because at Fox we do not pick and choose these rallies and protests. We were there for the Million Man March.’ Can we roll that footage, the footage of Fox News at the Million Man March, back in October of ’95? Of course the Million Man March occurred, as NewsHounds.org points out, almost a year before Fox News was on the air. We can only speculate why widespread TEA-BAGGING made Cavuto think of the Million Man March… Unless, he got them confused with DICK ARM[E]Y. And in Cavuto’s defense, if you are planning SIMULTANEOUS TEA-BAGGING around the country, you’re going to need a DICK ARMY!”

What David Schuster failed to include in his brilliant report, and what makes me fear for my country, much as Glenn Beck does (or pretends to), is that many of the NUT-JOBS that host and attend these NUT-FESTS to express their opinions in a (hopefully) peaceful manner, and to have a BALL (or two) with some good friends or like-minded strangers are the same people that believe, as many TEA-PARTY websites and flyer’s propose, in a “revolution”, and the same people who are buying conservative t-shirts that say “vote from the rooftops” (with pictures of sniper rifles), inferring that they wish to assassinate President Obama. I saw one conservative t-shirt for sale online that said “R.I.P. The American Dream, 1776-2008″. I thought a black man becoming the president was a pretty clear indicator that the American dream is alive and well. Perhaps these revolutionary TEA-BAGGERS who believe in “voting from the rooftops” (with sniper rifles) are racially motivated? I guess their American dream doesn’t include people who aren’t white. Or maybe it’s just jealousy? They are openly into TEA-BAGGING, so perhaps they are jealous, as black men are popularly known for having larger TEA-SPOUTS than they do…

I’m afraid that many of the TEA-BAGGERS attending the TEA-PARTIES today are lost souls, searching for a new direction, possibly a violent one. As Anderson Cooper said on CNN when describing why it’ been HARD for the Republicans to find their voice after the election, “it’s hard to talk when you’re TEA-BAGGING“

I’ve got to say, whoever created and has promoted this movement really made quite a snafu by not researching the social connotations of their terminology, but, I guess there’s no such thing as bad press. I just hope for the Republicans sake that they don’t, as I saw one guy comment on Glenn Beck’s 9-12 Project website “make up places to protest flag burning and call the Old GLORY HOLES“.

Keith Olbermann also did a funny segment about TEA-BAGGING, including some more good innuendo, including:

“SPILLING into the streets, CHOKING off traffic … pushed their own vision of TEA-BAGGING DOWN THE THROATS of the TEA-BAGGERS … SEMINAL moment … ONE LUMP OR TWO?”

And, for the enjoyment of those who are just becoming familiar with the sexual slang used for decades, and for the enlightenment of those who still don’t get it, I’ve included the following links to some definitions on Urban Dictionary:

TEA-BAGGER TEA-BAG TEA-BAGGING TEA PARTY

There are roaches in the walls of America; let’s clean them out!

When I contemplate the sad state of America today, the first thing that comes to mind is our political system.

We call ourselves a democracy, but are far from democratic. In a democracy, citizens vote on issues, taking an active role in decision making.

We are supposedly a republic, which is a representative democracy where citizens elect officials based on their platforms and promises, according to which candidates best represent their beliefs, and thus are most likely to vote the way that the constituents who elect them would vote.

We are actually more of an oligarchy, where  the majority of power is held by a small group of people from certain families, communities, universities, and secret societies, and the monopoly of power is kept from the common people, with the rich and powerful controlling the military and law enforcement to protect them from retribution, all the while making decisions which are beneficial to the business interests that pay for their campaigns and support their opulent lifestyles with bribes once in office, rather than enacting legislation to protect and serve the workers of the lower and middle classes.

We are obviously not a meritocracy, wherein persons are elected or appointed and given power and responsibility based on talent and ability! If this were the case, we would see a lot less corruption and ineptitude in the daily news stories of our politicans’ exploits…

I think the main problem with our political process is that it’s designed so that being corrupt and getting paid off are too easy, and there are many rich and powerful interests lobbying the politicians to ensure that it remains that way.

If we reformed the nature of political positions to make them more transparent and accountable, then mostly only people who wanted to represent the people would bother getting into politics, with the exception of a few who are willing to work harder at being sneaky and underhanded.

I doubt that this will ever happen without a violent revolution, as the people responsible for reform are the same people who profit from corruption. However, for the sake of argument, I offer the following suggestions:

I suggest that politicians be held legally accountable for their platforms and the promises they make when campaigning, and that they be immediately terminated if they do not fulfill the duties specified in their contracts, JUST AS ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE WOULD! After all, the elected officials in our government are not supposed to be our bosses, but rather our servants.

If a person interviews for a job and is hired, but fails to perform the duties that they have accepted, in a timely and reasonable fashion agreed upon with the employer, the person is fired.

For example, let’s say that an employee is hired on at a convenience store. In the job interview, the candidate agrees to perform transactions, stock products, and clean. Once hired, the person talks to friends on the phone, steals money from the cash register, and deals drugs from the establishment, while neglecting their job. In almost every case, the person would be promptly fired, even if it leaves the team short-handed.

Why is it then that when a candidate for office makes campaign promises and then doesn’t keep them that they get to keep getting paid for 2 to 4 years, even if they are not doing the job they were hired to do, and that they then might even keep the job longer unless another interviewee can convince the employer (the American people) that they would be a better employee?

I think that any politicians that are not doing exactly what they said they would should be immediately fired, every time, PERIOD.

Then we can interview some new candidates, and have them sign legally-binding contracts that they will have to abide by, or they too will be terminated.

The contracts for publicly held offices should be specific, stating how the candidates will vote on key issues (yes or no), and how much money they will spend on various projects and expenses.

Then, each president, senator, house representative, governor, secretary, committee member, etc. would be required to keep a publicly viewable log on their website showing when they were in session, when they were not in attendance for important decisions, how they voted on each topic, and how much of our money they agreed to spend on what.

To take this accountability and transparency one step further, holders of public offices should be required to take input from their constituents on each issue, perhaps with voters logging in with distinct ID numbers and casting their voted directly. In that way, corruption by lobbyists and other bribery would be blatantly obvious, assuming that it made them vote differently than a majority of the people that they supposedly represent asked them to, which is usually the case.

Until this kind of reform is carried out, I am certain that corruption will continue to proliferate in the American political system.

2 medical conditions found responsible for common unpleasant political symptoms

Medical science has narrowed down the two most probable causes for horrible symptoms such as Republicanis Elephantitis (Republicanism) and Conservatosis (Conservativism) to two well known contagious diseases: Arrogantoma Self-arhea  (Arrogant Self-Interest) and Ignoramus Stupidifius (Ignorant Stupidity).

Arrogant Self-Interest appears to be the primary contagion among afluent, land-owning, business-controlling, politically active sufferers of Republicanism, who reside primarily in the Northeast U.S., especially in Washington D.C. & The Hamptons, with cases appearing as far away as Wasilla, Alaska.

Ignorant Stupidity is more often the diagnosis for the less wealthy, less educated Republicans in the heartland, where farmers and rednecks are so afraid of anyone different than them that they enthusiastically send their children to die fighting for the oil rights of the more wealthy Republicans, thinking for various reasons that it is the will of Jesus, who preached peace. One of the best documented cases, who will not be named here out of respect for the mentally-disabled, has been known to roam a large range of habitats from Crawford, TX to Washington D.C., although in that case, the stupid ignoramus is also one of the arrogant self-interested types.

While slightly less numerous, in many cases Senioritis Dementosis (Senile Dementia) is also responsible for Conservative Republican views, and, in a few drastic cases, the culpret for this horrible affliction is actually just plain old Insanity.

No cure is currently known, as once these sicknesses set in, they root themselves so deep in the patients’ psyche’s that any treatment involving doses of logic and/or empathy are immediately rejected by the host body. The best treatment for these sad souls is isolation from other, more reasonable and sympathetic people, to prevent needless suffering on the part of the uninfected.

An American Carol – An Immature Slap In The Face To Those Who Speak Out Against Corruption

This film was disappointing. I am definitely more of a liberal than a conservative, but was looking forward to seeing what I thought was going to be an insightful parody of Michael Moore, whose films I enjoy, but whom I admit has a definite slant and probably leaves out details damaging to his arguments. What I saw instead was a rude, immature slap-in-the-face to liberals and independents, and a blind-faith ass-kissing of the United States government.

The movie does make a good point about the damage caused to our country caused by a lack of morale and a lot of self-hating. However, instead of wisely acknowledging that we should try and remember how important it is to stand up for freedom and to protect ourselves from aggressors, even if out patriotism is lacking while the present administration and other forces in our government are lying, cheating, stealing, and killing to further their own wealth, power, and political agendas, An American Carol white-washes the entire situation to make it seem as if those who are discontent are angry about nothing, and that everything is just fine, and that we should quit thinking and questioning and instead just shut up and blindly pledge our allegiance to whatever war that those in power are currently profiting from.

An American Carol tries to include humor in it’s message, but relies, primarily, on making fun of Michael Moore’s weight by suggesting that he is constantly pigging out, making fun of his smell, saying that he needs a bath, and having characters slap him. This makes me think that the film was made with the intention of pleasing hateful conservatives, but not concerned with changing the minds of their opposition. It’s kind of like a loud, rude parent who tries to “slap sense” into their children; not much teaching happens, as the one who is supposed to learn a lesson instead just learns resentment. There is a lack of clever dialogue; most of the conversations are just predictable insults towards liberals, and little kids using “vulgar” words. To be fair, many favorite lampoons by liberals and for liberals can be a little juvenile in their parodies of conservative symbols like George W Bush, making fun of his reading difficulties, speach impediments, memory problems, and choking on pretzels. However, these are well known aspects of the man’s public character and help to make any depiction of him believable, whereas, in Michael Moore’s public appearances, be they interviews or on in his films, we don’t see him snacking incessantly, farting, being slapped, or being asked to bathe, so I don’t feel that these behaviors were necessary to establish that it was Moore who was being made fun of in this film.

So, in terms of entertainment and realism, this movie is a failure.

However, the film is educational, in that it is an excellent summary of the current beliefs and attitudes of most conservative thinkers. It makes use of the same fallacies of logic that conservatives love to use when attempting to argue with liberals. Conservatives try to imply that if you don’t agree with your president, your government, or them, that you are not patriotic about your country. This is very convenient, as it allows the ass-kissing, brainwashed fools among us to quickly and easily convert the easily brainwashable to their side, and this is, after all, their target demographic, as individuals who are possessed of free thought or the ability to question authority end up being liberal in their philosophies. For example, in the film, Michael Malone is explaining key issues like the need for healthcare to General Patton, and Patton blows him off, suggesting that by making a fuss about such things, he is actually helping terrorists! This is absurd, and hearkens back to the conservative notion of ”America: love it, or leave it!”, which doesn’t allow for the popular position of loving what it should be and trying to fix it.

It is frustrating to me to think of all the conservatives out there, who, after watching this very immature, though perhaps well intentioned movie, are sitting around, smiling, laughing, patting each other on their backs, and agreeing that their point has been made. If only they could realize that their point can only be made to themselves, and never to those they are disagreeing with. Sadly, our points can’t be made to them either.

And thus, the American Civil War, which began when this land was colonized by poor peasants and rich merchants, and reached it’s height in the late 1800s with battles between the north and south, continues onward into a fifth century.

Ben Stein – Expelled

This film is very thought-provoking. There are a lot of reviews online, mainly by Scientific American, Time, and famous atheist Richard Dawkins, all supporters of Darwinism, that paint the picture that Ben Stein is pushing Creationism. The driving argument of the film is that scientists should have the right to discuss and even teach Intelligent Design / Creationism along side Evolution, not in place of it. It is obvious that Ben Stein believes in God, and dislikes Nazis as both a Jew and a reasonable human being, I didn’t get the feeling that he is trying to push religion on anybody, just freedom, and I am somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to religion. The film is DEFINITELY worth watching. It makes good arguments, or at least draws interesting connections. What I took away from it is this: fanaticism is dangerous to individuals, be it religious, scientific, or patriotic. Any time a person or group of people ostracizes, punishes, hates, or in some way hurts another person, or group of persons, just because they think, act, or even look different, it’s hate, and it’s evil. I agree with that. And it seems as if the scientific community is now doing to religious or spiritual scientists what the religious community used to do to scientific people: discriminating against them.

The Politics of Dancing @ MiniMovie

These are funny videos with great special effects:

Dancing With The Political Stars

McCain vs Obama – Dance Off!

Conservative, Moderate, Liberal

I don’t understand how most people can label themselves conservative, moderate, or liberal.

It’s highly unlikely that there are many people who are conservative, moderate, or liberal about everything.

Isn’t this an adjective that describes a person’s view on a specific issue?

For example, Republicans who say that they are fiscally conservative should be more specific; they believe in conservative spending (if any) to help the less fortunate in their own country, while supporting liberal spending to bomb and shoot and otherwise destroy and dominate the poor people of other countries.

Likewise, Democrats who say that they are fiscally liberal believe in liberal spending to help the less fortunate in their country and conservative spending (if any) for the military.

I think the majority of people, when their different opinions and views are added together, are moderate.

I think that the liberal use of the terms conservative and liberal in the media should be moderated with this logic. We don’t need yet another reason to split into factions against each other.

The Wealthy and Christianity

I find it impossible, as a logical thinker, to reconcile the fact that many wealthy Americans, primarily Republicans, overwhelmingly claim to be Christians, and also overwhelmingly, no matter how massive their accumulated fortune, take such issue with spreading their wealth around, when it comes to ensuring the well-being of the working class who has made them rich by working for them for low wages and little or no benefits, while paying ever increasing amounts for their products and services.

The GOP, while professing Christianity almost to the total exclusion of other faiths, flying it as a banner like it is our national religion, do not represent many, if any at all, of the characteristics of the man that their supposed faith is allegedly based upon.

Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible was not greedy or stingy. He did not even believe in accumulating wealth beyond what one needed to survive and live in harmony with others and with God. He did not try to have more than he needed, nor would he have, especially at the expense of others. Jesus shared with his disciples, as well as the public at large. He wasn’t stingy with the loaves and fishes his father blessed him with. He never said “this is mine, I earned it, get your own you lazy bums!”.

Jesus Christ would be more accurately described as a Socialist Democrat than as a Capitalist Republican.

I am sure that this statement angers many people, but if any of them read on, perhaps some of them will be able to wrap their indoctrinated minds around the simple truth of what I am saying here…

I listen to John McCain and Sarah Palin and FoxNews and other Republicans in the media complain about how Barack Obama and the Democrats want to raise taxes on the stable, comfortable, wealthy instead of on the already struggling poor and middle classes. I hear them complain about how Obama wants to “spread the wealth” or “share the wealth” or “raise my taxes”, and how he is a “socialist”.

It’s more than a little hypocritical that I didn’t hear any of them complaining when the rich Republicans in charge of the government and the corporations decided that taxpayers should bail them out (SOCIALISM) with a trillion dollars.

I guess, to them, that the Christian way is socialism for the rich but capitalism for the poor?

This is not only very obvious revisionist history, which is unethical, and makes them seem very irrational, not standing up to literary investigation of their proclaimed beliefs, but is morally shameful according to their own bible, which states at the end that it is the word of God and should be altered by no man, which I would assume also means that Jesus and other characters from the books should not be misrepresented.

If Republicans want to be taken seriously when calling themselves Christians, then they should act more as Jesus Christ would.

A popular slogan of modern Christians is W.W.J.D.?, meaning “What Would Jesus Do?”

If Jesus, were a small business owner, or even a corporate executive or share-holder, what would he do?

Would Jesus keep lowering his workers wages and benefits until many of them couldn’t afford their rents and mortgages, their cars, the gas to get to work, food for their families, and health care, while he enjoyed the luxuries of multiple mansions, sports/luxury cars, the finest cuisine, and practically any health care he could possibly ever need?

Would Jesus want the poor to pay the majority of taxes, while his tax attorneys and bank manager buddies figured out loopholes in the law so that he could make millions and billions but only pay tiny percentages while his workers paid 15, 25, 30% of their income to support an infrastructure that they themselves are too impoverished to fully benefit from?

Jesus would not do any of the things listed above. Most Republicans who claim to be Christian would. This means that they either don’t understand what it means to be a Christian, or they do and don’t care and are lying when they say that they are Christians.

Jesus was a brown skinned man with curly brown hair who lived in the middle east, and spread a message of peace, love, understanding, humility, and simple living.

Would Jesus be happy to learn that rich white men with blonde hair and blue eyes had redesigned him as the poster child of rich white people who view poor people and brown people as problems, illegal immigrants, and terrorists?

What Would Jesus Not Do?

Jesus would not vote for a Republican.